G.R. No. 82135 August 20, 1990
BANCO FILIPINO SAVINGS AND MORTGAGE BANK (Represented by its liquidator, MS. CARLOTA P. VALENZUELA), petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, Labor Arbiter EVANGELINE LUBATON and FORTUNATO DIZON, JR., respondents.

FACTS

Banco Filipino was placed under receivership and later ordered liquidated by the Monetary Board. Fortunato Dizon, Jr., its Executive Vice President, received a termination letter from the Central Bank-appointed liquidator, Carlota Valenzuela. Dizon filed a request for payment of his accrued leave credits and allowances. The liquidator denied his claim, advising that it must be processed as a creditor’s claim under the approved liquidation plan. Consequently, Dizon filed a complaint with the Labor Arbiter for unpaid salary, cash equivalent of leaves, termination pay, and damages.
The liquidator moved to dismiss, arguing that jurisdiction over all claims against a bank under liquidation lies exclusively with the liquidation court pursuant to Section 29 of the Central Bank Act, not with labor tribunals under Article 217 of the Labor Code. The Labor Arbiter upheld jurisdiction and decided in favor of Dizon. The NLRC affirmed and increased the award. The liquidator petitioned the Supreme Court, contending that the labor tribunals lacked jurisdiction and that the award constituted an undue preference outside the liquidation process.

ISSUE

Whether the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC have jurisdiction over the money claims of an employee against a bank ordered liquidated by the Monetary Board.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled that the NLRC has jurisdiction over Dizon’s money claims. The Court distinguished the applicable legal framework. While Section 29 of the Central Bank Act vests the liquidation court with jurisdiction to adjudicate disputed claims, this presupposes an active and proper liquidation proceeding. In this case, a temporary restraining order issued by the Court in a related case ( G.R. No. 70054 ) had enjoined further acts of liquidation, save for normal operations like paying creditor claims. The bank was not, at the time, under active liquidation, and the possibility existed that its closure might be deemed illegal. Therefore, there was effectively no functioning liquidation court to which Dizon’s claim could be presented.
The Court clarified that its ruling on jurisdiction is without prejudice to the final outcome of the bank’s liquidation proceedings. If it is later determined that the bank’s liquidation is proper and proceeds, Dizon’s adjudicated claims must be submitted to the liquidators for processing in accordance with the liquidation plan. In such an event, his claims would be treated as an ordinary preferred credit under Article 2244 of the Civil Code. The Court also affirmed the merits of the NLRC’s award, holding Dizon entitled to separation pay under Article 283 of the Labor Code and to the cash commutation of his leave credits as per the existing Collective Bargaining Agreement. The decision was affirmed with the modification that the monetary award should be presented to the liquidators for processing.