The Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System (MWSS) appealed a decision by a labor arbiter regarding a case filed by 2,500 of its contractual employees for failure to pay wage differentials and benefits. The Supreme Court ruled that as a government-owned corporation, MWSS and its employees are governed by civil service law, not labor law. The labor arbiter therefore did not have jurisdiction over the case. The Court rejected distinguishing between regular and contractual employees, noting both are considered civil servants. The decision of the labor arbiter was declared void.
The Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System (MWSS) appealed a decision by a labor arbiter regarding a case filed by 2,500 of its contractual employees for failure to pay wage differentials and benefits. The Supreme Court ruled that as a government-owned corporation, MWSS and its employees are governed by civil service law, not labor law. The labor arbiter therefore did not have jurisdiction over the case. The Court rejected distinguishing between regular and contractual employees, noting both are considered civil servants. The decision of the labor arbiter was declared void.
The Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System (MWSS) appealed a decision by a labor arbiter regarding a case filed by 2,500 of its contractual employees for failure to pay wage differentials and benefits. The Supreme Court ruled that as a government-owned corporation, MWSS and its employees are governed by civil service law, not labor law. The labor arbiter therefore did not have jurisdiction over the case. The Court rejected distinguishing between regular and contractual employees, noting both are considered civil servants. The decision of the labor arbiter was declared void.
The Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System (MWSS) appealed a decision by a labor arbiter regarding a case filed by 2,500 of its contractual employees for failure to pay wage differentials and benefits. The Supreme Court ruled that as a government-owned corporation, MWSS and its employees are governed by civil service law, not labor law. The labor arbiter therefore did not have jurisdiction over the case. The Court rejected distinguishing between regular and contractual employees, noting both are considered civil servants. The decision of the labor arbiter was declared void.
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1/ 1
Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System vs.
Hernandez, 143 SCRA 602
Facts: A case was filed against the MWSS before an arbitration branch of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) on charges of failure to pay wage differentials, allowances and other monetary benefits to its contractual employees numbering 2,500 or so. MWSS asserted: 1. it is a government-owned and controlled corporation (GOCC), and therefore the NLRC has no jurisdiction over the case 2. assuming the contrary arguendo, the terms and conditions of the complainants who are all contractual employees are governed by their respective contracts Hernandez, the Labor Arbiter, ruled against MWSS, observing that: 1. If the complainants were regular employees, the NLRC would have no jurisdiction; but since the complainants were non-regular or contractual employees, the NLRC has jurisdiction. 2. The Civil Service Decree applies to employees in government corporations in all matters except monetary claims, which is governed by the Labor Code. MWSS filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition at the Supreme Court to invalidate the decision of the Labor Arbiter. Issue: Are contractual employees of the MWSS covered by the Labor Code or by laws and regulations governing the civil service? Decision: The decision and order of the Labor Arbiter, having been rendered without jurisdiction, are declared void and set aside. Citing: National Housing Corporation vs. Juco: employees of the GOCCs are governed by civil service law, rules and regulations; the Labor Arbiter has no jurisdiction over them. It is uncontested that MWSS is a GOCC; therefore, employment in the MWSS is governed by the civil service law, rules and regulations; and controversies arising from or connected with that employment are not cognizable by the NLRC. There is no legal or logical justification for the distinction made by the Labor Arbiter between regular and non-regular employees of the MWSS in order to justify its jurisdiction. Positions in the civil service are classified into career and non-career service, the latter of which includes contractual personnel. Secondary notes: arguments rejected by the Supreme Court 1. The Labor Arbiters claim that the Civil Service Law governs employment in the MWSS in all aspects, except monetary claims, which is governed by the Labor Code is even more patently illogical and deserves no confutation. 2. The claim of the private respondents that they are not employees of the MWSS, so the case is within the jurisdiction of NLRC through Arbiter Hernandez does not merit refutation. 3. The claim of arbiter that Existence of employer-employee relationship (between the MWSS and an individual) is not per se equivalent to being a government employee is absurd and undeserving of response.
