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

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 23 views

    10 Consteel vs. IAC

    Uploaded by

    Tia Ricafort
    This document is a Supreme Court case summary. [1] Private respondents filed a case against petitioner construction company for breach of an overseas employment contract in Saudi Arabia. [2] The petitioner claimed the case should be dismissed because the Bureau of Employment Services has jurisdiction over damages arising from overseas work contracts. [3] The Court ruled that the claims were money claims for employment benefits so the Bureau of Employment Services, not the court, had proper jurisdiction as special laws govern overseas employment contracts.

    Copyright:

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

    10 Consteel vs. IAC

    Uploaded by

    Tia Ricafort
    23 views2 pages
    This document is a Supreme Court case summary. [1] Private respondents filed a case against petitioner construction company for breach of an overseas employment contract in Saudi Arabia. [2] The petitioner claimed the case should be dismissed because the Bureau of Employment Services has jurisdiction over damages arising from overseas work contracts. [3] The Court ruled that the claims were money claims for employment benefits so the Bureau of Employment Services, not the court, had proper jurisdiction as special laws govern overseas employment contracts.

    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 document is a Supreme Court case summary. [1] Private respondents filed a case against petitioner construction company for breach of an overseas employment contract in Saudi Arabia. [2] The petitioner claimed the case should be dismissed because the Bureau of Employment Services has jurisdiction over damages arising from overseas work contracts. [3] The Court ruled that the claims were money claims for employment benefits so the Bureau of Employment Services, not the court, had proper jurisdiction as special laws govern overseas employment contracts.

    Copyright:

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

    10 Consteel vs. IAC

    Uploaded by

    Tia Ricafort
    This document is a Supreme Court case summary. [1] Private respondents filed a case against petitioner construction company for breach of an overseas employment contract in Saudi Arabia. [2] The petitioner claimed the case should be dismissed because the Bureau of Employment Services has jurisdiction over damages arising from overseas work contracts. [3] The Court ruled that the claims were money claims for employment benefits so the Bureau of Employment Services, not the court, had proper jurisdiction as special laws govern overseas employment contracts.

    Copyright:

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

    G.R. No.

    L-64673 October 21, 1988

    A. CONSTEEL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INCORPORATION


    RATED, Petitioner, vs. THE INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT,
    DANILO C. REYES, for himself and as Attorney-in-fact of
    FELIXBERTO MACASPAC, JAIME C. PAULE, ROGELIO DE
    JESUS, DELFIN NUQUI, VICENTE FLORES, GODOFREDO D.
    BANAL, MANUEL GUEVARRA and ENRIQUE
    MANANSALA, Respondents.

    N.O. Ramoso & Associates for petitioner. chanrobles virtual law library

    Citizens Legal Assistance Office for respondents.

    PARAS, J.:

    The issue posed for decision is whether or not the court a quo has
    jurisdiction over claims for damages arising out of an overseas
    employment contract.   chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

    The antecedent facts of the case are as follows:  chanrobles virtual law library

    On October 23, 1980, private respondents filed a complaint for


    alleged Breach of Contract with Damages against the petitioner
    before the Court of First Instance of Pampanga, Fifth Judicial
    District, docketed as Civil Case No. 5913. Among others, the
    complaint alleges that in 1978, the petitioner hired private
    respondents to work in the construction projects undertaken by the
    petitioner in Saudi Arabia; that prior to their departure from the
    Philippines, the private respondents and the petitioner signed
    employment contracts which contained the terms and conditions of
    their employment; but that while private respondents were working
    in Saudi Arabia, they were not given adequate compensation or
    overtime/holiday pay. Neither were they given medical benefits nor
    adequate meals. Thus, private respondents pray that the petitioner
    be ordered to pay to them such amount representing the difference
    between the compensation agreed upon and the compensation
    actually paid to them, aside from moral and exemplary
    damages.   chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

    The petitioner moved to dismiss the case on the ground that


    jurisdiction over the nature of the suit pertained to the Bureau of
    Employment Services pursuant to Section 1 of Presidential Decree
    No. 1412, which amended Article 15 paragraph (b) of the Labor
    Code.  
    chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

    Private respondents opposed dismissal, alleging that jurisdiction


    over the case belonged to the Court of First Instance since not all of
    their causes of action are capable of pecuniary estimation. Section
    44 of the Judiciary Act of 1948 clearly states that the Courts of First
    Instance shall have exclusive jurisdiction over all civil actions in
    which the subject of the litigation is not capable of pecuniary
    estimation.  
    chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

    The judge denied petitioner's motion to dismiss and its motion for
    reconsideration thereof. On appeal, the Court of Appeals * ruled
    that the court a quo has jurisdiction over the subject matter
    because reinstatement is not sought and private respondents seek
    unpaid salaries and damages resulting from alleged breach of
    contract (pp. 66, Rollo). Hence, the present petition. We find for the
    petitioner. Private respondents' claims indubitably arose out of
    employer-employee relations involving overseas employment. All
    their claims, while couched in different forms of damages, are
    nonetheless money claims for employment benefits. The Judiciary
    Act of 1948 relied upon by the private respondents which governs
    matters which are not capable of pecuniary estimation is a general
    law. Cases arising out of employer-employee relations involving
    overseas employment, however, are governed by special laws. **

    WHEREFORE, the Petition is GRANTED. Respondent judge is directed


    to dismiss Civil Case No. 5913.   chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

    SO ORDERED.

    You might also like