Case Digest (G.R. No. L-48494)
Facts:
Singapore Airlines Limited v. Hon. Ernani Cruz Pano, G.R. No. L-47739, June 22, 1983, First Division, Melencio-Herrera, J., writing for the Court. The petition challenges two orders of the respondent judge of Branch XVIII, Court of First Instance of Rizal dated October 28, 1977 (dismissing the complaint for damages) and January 24, 1978 (denying reconsideration).On August 21, 1974, Carlos E. Cruz was offered employment by Singapore Airlines Limited as an Engineer Officer with conversion training; the offer contained a bonding clause requiring a five-year service obligation. On October 26, 1974 Cruz executed an “Agreement for a Course of Conversion Training at the Expense of Singapore Airlines Limited,” which (inter alia) required a five-year service commitment if so required, fixed graduated liquidated damages for early termination, and listed exceptions (e.g., training terminated for reasons other than misconduct, loss of license for medical reasons, withdrawal of employment pass for reasons not attributable to the employee, replacement by a national Flight Engineer, or accepted compassionate leave).
Cruz signed the agreement with B. E. Villanueva as his co-signer/surety. Singapore Airlines later alleged that Cruz applied for leave without pay, left duty without approval during the second year, and thus breached the agreement; it sued Cruz and Villanueva in the Court of First Instance for liquidated damages (US$53,968, claimed as P161,904), various reimbursements (salary overpayment, uniform and manual costs), vacation leave adjustments, exemplary damages, attorney’s fees and costs. Cruz answered denying breach, asserting he left on compassionate grounds accepted by the company, and counterclaimed for attorney’s fees. Villanueva pleaded that his undertaking was that of a guarantor (not surety), invoked the benefit of excussion, filed a cross-claim against Cruz, and counterclaimed against the plaintiff.
At pre-trial the issue of jurisdiction was raised and the parties filed memoranda. On October 28, 1977, the trial judge dismissed the complaint, counterclaim and cross-claim for lack of jurisdiction, holding the d...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Is the present dispute one that falls within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiters under Article 217 of the Labor Code, or is it properly cognizable by the civil Courts of justice?
- Is the question whether B. E. Villanueva is liable as surety or merely as guarantor a matter within the compe...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)