Case Digest (G.R. No. 109053)
Facts:
Gerson R. Meneses v. Court of Appeals and Procter and Gamble Phils., Inc., G.R. No. 109053, October 07, 1994, the Supreme Court First Division, Davide, Jr., J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Gerson R. Meneses filed a complaint for damages on 29 May 1991 with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, docketed as Civil Case No. 91-57339 (Branch 31), against private respondent Procter and Gamble Phils., Inc. He alleged that, after twelve years as an operator at respondent’s plant, a fiberglass cover of a soap-kettle exploded on June 1, 1987 while he was operating a caustic switch, causing third-degree burns over about 80% of his body, loss of toes, prolonged confinement and therapy, psychiatric treatment, and other injuries; he prayed for actual, moral, exemplary damages and attorney’s fees.
Respondent moved to dismiss on grounds of laches and lack of jurisdiction, contending the subject was within the exclusive and original jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiters/NLRC. The RTC initially deferred resolution but, on 5 June 1992, issued an order dismissing the complaint for lack of jurisdiction, citing precedents holding that claims arising from employer-employee relationships and disputes over occupational safety fall within the NLRC’s ambit. The RTC denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration on 13 October 1992.
Within the period to appeal, petitioner did not file a notice of appeal; instead he filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 45 with the Court of Appeals (docketed CA-G.R. SP No. 29328). The Court of Appeals dismissed that petition on 22 December 1992, holding the petition raised a final order and that the proper remedy was appeal — either a petition for review on certiorari directly to the Supreme Court (if only questions of law) or an ordinary appeal to the Court of Appeals (if questions of fact and law); it relied on this Court’s ruling in Murillo v. Consul and Circular No. 2-90 and therefore declined jurisdiction. Petitioner’s motion for reconsiderat...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err in refusing to certify the case to the Supreme Court under Section 3, Rule 50 (as urged by petitioner based on Victorias Milling) instead of dismissing the petition for being the wrong court and/or mode?
- Did the RTC err in dismissing Civil Case No. 91-57339 for lack of jurisdiction such that the Court of Appeals should...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)