Case Digest (G.R. No. 51289)
Facts:
- The case "Encarnacion v. Dynasty Amusement Center Corp." (G.R. No. 51289) was decided by the Supreme Court of the Philippines on September 2, 1992.
- Petitioner Rodolfo Encarnacion was employed as a projectionist by Dynasty Amusement Center Corporation, whose officers included Lorenzo Co and Lucisno Tan.
- In 1975, Encarnacion filed a complaint for damages against his employer, alleging suspension, harassment, and slanderous accusations.
- The complaint was filed with the Court of First Instance of Manila on September 29, 1978.
- The respondents moved to dismiss the complaint, claiming the court lacked jurisdiction over labor disputes, which they argued fell under the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC).
- On October 24, 1978, the trial court dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction and denied Encarnacion’s motion for reconsideration on November 20, 1978.
- Encarnacion contended that his case was a civil dispute focused on damages and claimed the respondents waived their right to challenge jurisdiction by filing an answer.
Issue:
- (Unlock)
Ruling:
- The Supreme Court ruled that Encarnacion's petition was unmeritorious and affirmed the lower court's dismissal.
- The Court determined that the complaint arose from an employer-employee relationship, thus falling under the jurisdiction of labor arbiters, not regular courts.
- The Court confirmed that Presidential Decree ...(Unlock)
Ratio:
- The Court emphasized that Encarnacion's complaint was intrinsically linked to his employment, stemming from actions taken by his employer.
- Previous rulings established that claims for damages related to labor disput...continue reading
Case Digest (G.R. No. 51289)
Facts:
The case "Encarnacion v. Dynasty Amusement Center Corp." (G.R. No. 51289) was decided by the Supreme Court of the Philippines on September 2, 1992. The petitioner, Rodolfo Encarnacion, was employed as a projectionist by the respondent, Dynasty Amusement Center Corporation, whose officers included Lorenzo Co and Lucisno Tan. In 1975, Encarnacion filed a complaint for damages against his employer, alleging that he had been suspended from work and subjected to harassment and slanderous accusations. The complaint was lodged with the Court of First Instance of Manila on September 29, 1978. In response, the respondents moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the court lacked jurisdiction over labor disputes, which they claimed fell under the exclusive jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). On October 24, 1978, the trial court dismissed the case due to lack of jurisdiction and subsequently denied Encarnacion’s motion for reconsideration on November 20, 1978. Encarnacion contended that his case was a civil dispute focused on damages and asserted that the respondents had waived their right to challenge the court's jurisdiction by filing an answer.
Issue:
- ...