|
INCON INDUSTRIAL
CORPORATION, Petitioner, |
G.R. No. 161871
Present: |
|
-
versus - |
QUISUMBING, J., Chairperson, CARPIO, CARPIO MORALES, TINGA, and VELASCO,
JR., JJ. |
|
HON. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. DIONISIO C. SISON in his capacity as
Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Valenzuela City, Branch 75,
FERMIN ABARRIENTOS, and DELFINA V. ABARRIENTOS, Respondents. |
Promulgated: July 24, 2007 |
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
QUISUMBING, J.:
For review on certiorari are the Resolutions dated March 27, 2003[1] and January 23, 2004[2] of the Court of Appeals, in CA-G.R. SP No. 71145, which had dismissed the petition for certiorari filed by herein petitioner assailing the Orders dated March 5, 2001[3] and May 22, 2002[4] of the Regional Trial Court of Valenzuela City, Branch 75.
The antecedent facts are as follows.
Precila V. Abarrientos worked for petitioner Incon
Industrial Corporation as operator of a plastic-molding machine. However, petitioner assigned her to fill in as
operator of a blowing machine on days when the operator assigned for the blowing
machine was absent. Precila allegedly
did so without any prior training. Precila, later, was fatally injured while operating the
blowing machine.
On
Petitioner filed a motion to dismiss[6] on the grounds that (1) the trial court had no jurisdiction over the subject and nature of the action; (2) the Abarrientos spouses had already waived their claim; and (3) the spouses are guilty of forum shopping. The trial court denied the motion for lack of merit.[7] The parties were thus required to file their respective answers.
Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration[8] instead. Petitioner stressed that the spouses’ claims involved benefits under the Labor Code accruing to their daughter Precila. Hence, the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) had jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case. Again, the trial court denied the motion.[9]
Undeterred, petitioner filed with the Court of Appeals a petition for certiorari alleging that the trial court’s dismissal of its aforesaid motion to dismiss and motion for reconsideration constituted grave abuse of discretion. The appellate court, however, found that the petition failed to: (1) include the trial court judge as respondent; and (2) state the material dates showing the timeliness of its filing. Thus, the petition for certiorari was dismissed. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration of said dismissal was also denied.
Hence, the instant petition for review, raising the following as issues:
WHETHER OR NOT THE LOWER COURT
(REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF VALENZUELA CITY BRANCH 75) ERRED IN NOT DISMISSING THE
COMPLAINT, AS THE COMPLAINT REFERS MAINLY TO CLAIM FOR MINIMUM WAGE, COST OF
LIVING ALLOWANCE, EMERGENCY ALLOWANCE, 13TH MONTH PAY, PRODUCTION
SHARE BENEFITS, OVERTIME PAY, REST DAY HOLIDAY PAY (ART. 94) NIGHT SHIFT
DIFFERENTIAL PAY, HENCE THE LOWER COURT (RTC) ERRED IN DISMISSING PETITIONER’S
MOTION TO DISMISS;
WHETHER OR NOT THE LOWER COURT (HONORABLE COURT OF
APPEALS) ERRED IN DISMISSING PETITIONER’S PETITION FOR CERTIORARI ON MINOR
TECHNICALITIES.[10]
Petitioner contends that the cause of action in this case
arises from an employer-employee relationship and hinges on alleged violation
of the Labor Code. Thus, the complaint
falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the DOLE. Petitioner also alleges that the spouses’
claim has already been settled as evidenced by an Order[11]
issued by the DOLE Regional Director decreeing the closure of the case upon receipt
by Precila’s parents of financial assistance amounting to P105,000. Petitioner
maintains the trial court thus erred in denying its motion to dismiss and
assuming jurisdiction over the complaint. Petitioner also faults the Court of Appeals
for dismissing its petition for certiorari on purely technical grounds.
The Abarrientos spouses, on the other hand, counter that the petition for certiorari filed with the Court of Appeals deserved outright dismissal for failure to comply with mandatory jurisdictional requirements. The spouses also stress that their claim for damages is based not on the employer-employee relationship between petitioner and their daughter, but on petitioner’s imprudence or negligence leading to the death of their daughter.
We shall now discuss the issues seriatim.
Who has
jurisdiction over this case, the trial court or the Labor Arbiter?
We agree with petitioner. The Labor Arbiter has jurisdiction.
Well-settled is the rule that the allegations in the complaint determine the nature of the action and, consequently, the jurisdiction of the proper court. The complaint filed by the Abarrientos spouses demanded the payment of night shift differential, overtime pay, rest day compensation, holiday pay, and service incentive leave pay, that their daughter allegedly failed to receive from petitioner. In addition, they prayed for actual, moral, and exemplary damages for the death of their daughter.
After
carefully examining the aforesaid complaint, we are convinced that the
allegations therein are in the nature of an action based on the
employer-employee relationship between petitioner and their daughter. It is evident that the
spouses sued petitioner for claims provided under the Labor Code.
We have
repeatedly stated that what is essential in this regard is the character of the
principal relief sought.
Where such principal relief can be granted under the Labor Code,
the case should fall within the jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter, even though a claim for damages might be asserted as an
incident to such claim.[12]
The
Labor Code states in no uncertain terms:
ART. 217. Jurisdiction of Labor
Arbiters and the Commission.—(a) Except as
otherwise provided under this Code, the Labor Arbiters shall have original and
exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide…the following cases involving all
workers …:
x x x x
4. Claims for actual, moral, exemplary
and other forms of damages arising from the employer-employee relations;
x x x x
6. …[A]ll other claims, arising from
employer-employee relations … regardless of whether accompanied with a claim
for reinstatement.
Clearly,
the action brought by the spouses comes within the exclusive jurisdiction of
the Labor Arbiter. The trial court
committed grave abuse of discretion in denying petitioner’s motion to dismiss
on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. The
Court of Appeals likewise erred in dismissing the petition for certiorari for
noncompliance with the rules.
Entrenched in jurisprudence is the principle that rules of
procedure are mere tools designed to aid the courts in the speedy, just and
inexpensive determination of cases. Liberal construction of the rules is the controlling principle for the attainment of
substantial justice. Therefore, cases
should be decided on their merits and not on mere technicalities.[13]
Aside from matters of life, liberty, honor or property
which would warrant the suspension of the rules of the most mandatory
character, the other factors for such suspension to be considered are: (1) the
existence of compelling circumstances; (2) the merits of the case; (3) a cause
not entirely attributable to the fault or negligence of the party favored by
the suspension of the rules; (4) a lack of any showing that the review sought is
merely frivolous and dilatory; and (5) the other party will not be unjustly
prejudiced thereby.[14]
In this
case, the utter lack of jurisdiction of the trial court to decide the complaint
brought before it is a compelling circumstance that warrants liberal
construction of the rules by the Court of Appeals. Further, since the trial court definitely committed
grave abuse of discretion in denying petitioner’s motion to dismiss on the
ground of lack of jurisdiction, the petition for certiorari filed with the
Court of Appeals is clearly meritorious.
WHEREFORE, the
petition is GRANTED. The
Resolutions dated March 27, 2003 and January 23, 2004 of the Court of Appeals
in CA-G.R. SP No. 71145, as well as the Orders dated March 5, 2001 and May 22,
2002 of the Regional Trial Court of Valenzuela City, Branch 75 in Civil Case
No. 231-V-00, are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. In lieu thereof, an Order is hereby issued
dismissing private respondents’ complaint below against herein petitioner for
lack of jurisdiction by the trial court in a matter involving claims for
benefits under the Labor Code.
No
pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.
|
|
LEONARDO
A. QUISUMBING Associate Justice |
WE CONCUR:
|
ANTONIO T.
CARPIO Associate Justice |
|
|
CONCHITA
CARPIO MORALES Associate Justice |
DANTE
O. TINGA Associate Justice |
|
PRESBITERO
J. VELASCO, JR. Associate Justice |
|
A T T E S T A T I O N
I attest that the conclusions in the above Resolution had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
|
|
LEONARDO A.
QUISUMBING Associate Justice Chairperson |
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, and the Division Chairperson’s Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the above Resolution had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
|
|
REYNATO S. PUNO Chief Justice |
[1] Rollo, pp. 25-28.
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5] Records, pp. 1-6.
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10] Rollo, p. 95.
[11] Records, p. 25.
[12] Tolosa v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 149578,
[13] Sanchez v. Court of
Appeals, G.R. No. 152766,
[14]