Title
Jorge vs. Marcelo
Case
G.R. No. 232989
Decision Date
Mar 18, 2019
Labor case involving illegal dismissal claims led to property dispute; SC ruled procedural defects insufficient to dismiss Rufina’s claim, remanded to determine if property was conjugal or paraphernal.
Font Size:

Case Digest (G.R. No. 232989)

Facts:

  1. Labor Case Background:
    Private respondents filed cases against R. Jorgensons Swine Multiplier Corporation and Romeo J. Jorge for illegal dismissal, non-payment of service incentive leave pay, 13th month pay, and claims for separation pay, damages, and attorney's fees.

    • On August 31, 2010, Labor Arbiter Generoso V. Santos ruled in favor of private respondents, ordering the payment of separation pay, nominal damages, and attorney's fees.
    • A Writ of Execution and an Alias Writ of Execution were issued to collect the monetary award of P2,513,820.77 and P251,382.07 in attorney's fees.
  2. Third Party Claim:

    • Rufina S. Jorge, the wife of Romeo J. Jorge, filed a Third Party Claim on June 29, 2015, asserting that she was the sole owner of a property covered by TCT No. N-45328, which had been levied by the sheriff.
    • Rufina argued that the levy was improper because the property was registered solely in her name, and the phrase "married to Romeo J. Jorge" was merely descriptive of her civil status.
    • She also pointed out procedural irregularities, such as the lack of a proper notice of execution sale and the failure to indicate the date of the sale or the newspaper where the notice was published.
  3. Labor Arbiter’s Ruling:

    • On June 16, 2016, Labor Arbiter Santos dismissed Rufina’s Third Party Claim, ruling that the property was presumed to be conjugal since it was acquired during her marriage to Romeo J. Jorge.
  4. NLRC and Court of Appeals Decisions:

    • The NLRC denied Rufina’s Petition for Extraordinary Remedies, citing procedural defects, including her failure to post a cash or surety bond.
    • The CA dismissed Rufina’s petition for certiorari due to procedural flaws, such as incomplete addresses of respondents, a defective jurat, and an outdated PTR number of her counsel.

Issue:

  1. Whether the CA erred in dismissing Rufina’s petition for certiorari based on procedural defects.
  2. Whether the NLRC gravely abused its discretion in dismissing Rufina’s Third Party Claim for failure to post a cash or surety bond.
  3. Whether the property covered by TCT No. N-45328 is conjugal or paraphernal (exclusively owned by Rufina).

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)


Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.