Case Digest (G.R. UDK-7927)
Facts:
Louie L. Vargas v. Akai Philippines, Inc., G.R. No. UDK-7927, December 14, 1987, First Division, Gancayco, J., writing for the Court. Louie L. Vargas (plaintiff-appellant) sued Akai Philippines, Inc. (defendant-appellee) for recovery of unpaid salary and benefits and for moral and exemplary damages allegedly resulting from an imputatory claim that he failed to return company equipment after his resignation.Vargas alleged he was employed from 29 August 1979 to 15 March 1981 as Marketing Assistant for Advertising and that he voluntarily resigned on 16 March 1981. He claimed unpaid salary from 15 March 1981 in the amount of P824.65, vacation leave conversion of P429.82, and proportionate 13th month pay of P426.04 (total P1,680.51), plus moral damages of P250,000 and other reliefs, alleging his nonpayment claim arose from the employer–employee relationship because the company falsely imputed non‑return of equipment.
Akai answered, traversing the complaint and counterclaiming for the value of the allegedly unreturned equipment, plus attorney’s fees and costs. At trial Vargas presented his evidence; after his case the original counsel for Akai withdrew, new counsel entered, and moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, contending jurisdiction belonged to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) under the Labor Code as amended by P.D. No. 1691.
The Regional Trial Court granted the motion in an Order dated June 5, 1985, dismissing the complaint for lack of jurisdiction. Vargas appealed to the then Intermediate Appellate Court, docketed CA‑G.R. No. CV‑07815. After briefs were submitted, the 5th Division of the Intermediate Appellate Court is...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Regional Trial Court have jurisdiction over Vargas’s action, or did original and exclusive jurisdiction belong to the labor arbiter/NLRC under the Labor Code as amended by P.D. No. 1691?
- May the defendant, having participated in proceedings before the trial court, later challenge the court’s jurisdiction (i.e., did Akai waive the right to contest jurisdiction...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)