Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 178 views

    Kawachi Vs Del Quero

    Uploaded by

    Camille Grande
    This case involves a complaint filed by a former employee, Kawachi, against her former employers, Del Quero, for illegal dismissal and damages. Kawachi alleged that she was scolded in front of customers and then terminated for how she treated customers at the pawnshop. She filed a complaint with the NLRC for illegal dismissal and damages. Del Quero argued the regular courts did not have jurisdiction. The court found that the injury Kawachi alleged stemmed directly from her employment relationship and actions of her supervisors. Since the complaint related to her alleged illegal dismissal, the regular courts did not have jurisdiction and the case should be heard by the NLRC instead.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Kawachi Vs Del Quero

    Uploaded by

    Camille Grande
    178 views2 pages
    This case involves a complaint filed by a former employee, Kawachi, against her former employers, Del Quero, for illegal dismissal and damages. Kawachi alleged that she was scolded in front of customers and then terminated for how she treated customers at the pawnshop. She filed a complaint with the NLRC for illegal dismissal and damages. Del Quero argued the regular courts did not have jurisdiction. The court found that the injury Kawachi alleged stemmed directly from her employment relationship and actions of her supervisors. Since the complaint related to her alleged illegal dismissal, the regular courts did not have jurisdiction and the case should be heard by the NLRC instead.

    Original Description:

    labor relation

    Original Title

    Kawachi-vs-Del-Quero (1)

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involves a complaint filed by a former employee, Kawachi, against her former employers, Del Quero, for illegal dismissal and damages. Kawachi alleged that she was scolded in front of customers and then terminated for how she treated customers at the pawnshop. She filed a complaint with the NLRC for illegal dismissal and damages. Del Quero argued the regular courts did not have jurisdiction. The court found that the injury Kawachi alleged stemmed directly from her employment relationship and actions of her supervisors. Since the complaint related to her alleged illegal dismissal, the regular courts did not have jurisdiction and the case should be heard by the NLRC instead.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    178 views2 pages

    Kawachi Vs Del Quero

    Uploaded by

    Camille Grande
    This case involves a complaint filed by a former employee, Kawachi, against her former employers, Del Quero, for illegal dismissal and damages. Kawachi alleged that she was scolded in front of customers and then terminated for how she treated customers at the pawnshop. She filed a complaint with the NLRC for illegal dismissal and damages. Del Quero argued the regular courts did not have jurisdiction. The court found that the injury Kawachi alleged stemmed directly from her employment relationship and actions of her supervisors. Since the complaint related to her alleged illegal dismissal, the regular courts did not have jurisdiction and the case should be heard by the NLRC instead.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Kawachi v.

    Del Quero
    GR No. 163768

    Facts:

    On August 10, 2002, petitioners scolded private respondent in front of many people about the way she
    treated the customers of the pawnshop and afterwards terminated private respondent’s employment as
    a pawnshop clerk. Thereafter, private respondent, in an affidavit-complaint,charged the petitioner with
    illegal dismissal, non-execution of a contract of employment, violation of the minimum wage law, and
    non-payment of overtime pay. The complaint was filed before the NLRC. The private respondent also
    filed an action for damages against the petitioners before the MeTC.

    Petitioners moved for the dismissal of the complaint on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction and forum-
    shopping or splitting causes of action. At first, the MeTC granted petitioners’ motion and ordered the
    dismissal of the complaint for lack of jurisdiction. Upon private respondent’s motion, the MeTC
    reconsidered and set aside the order of dismissal. It ruled that no causal connection appeared between
    private respondent’s cause of action and the employer-employee relations between the parties.

    The RTC held that private respondent’s action for damages was based on the alleged tortuous acts
    committed by her employers and did not seek any relief under the Labor Code.

    Issue:

    Whether the regular courts lack jurisdiction in the case at bar

    Held:

    Yes. The regular courts lack jurisdiction in the case at bar.

    In the instant case, the allegations in private respondent’s complaint for damages show that her injury
    was the offshoot of petitioners’ immediate harsh reaction as her administrative superiors to the
    supposedly sloppy manner by which she had discharged her duties. Petitioners’ reaction culminated in
    private respondent’s dismissal from work in the very same incident. The incident on 10 August 2002
    alleged in the complaint for damages was similarly narrated in private respondent’s Affidavit-Complaint
    supporting her action for illegal dismissal before the NLRC. Clearly, the alleged injury is directly related
    to the employer-employee relations of the parties.

    Where the employer-employee relationship is merely incidental and the cause of action proceeds from a
    different source of obligation, the Court has not hesitated to uphold the jurisdiction of the regular
    courts. Where the damages claimed for were based on tort, malicious prosecution, or breach of
    contract, as when the claimant seeks to recover a debt from a former employee or seeks liquidated
    damages in the enforcement of a prior employment contract, the jurisdiction of regular courts was
    upheld. The scenario that obtains in this case is obviously different. The allegations in private
    respondent’s complaint unmistakably relate to the manner of her alleged illegal dismissal.

    You might also like