Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 95 views

    First Batch - Dayag Vs Canizares

    Uploaded by

    AngelRea
    1) Dayag et al filed a labor claim against Youngs Construction Corporation in the National Capital Region instead of Cebu where the workplace was located. Youngs filed a motion to transfer the case to Cebu. 2) The labor arbiter agreed to transfer the case to Cebu, but the NLRC dismissed the appeal of this decision. 3) The Supreme Court held that while venue can be changed based on agreement or if in the interest of justice, keeping it in NCR would not be oppressive to Youngs since his residence and office are there as well. Transferring it to Cebu would inconvenience the petitioners more.

    Copyright:

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

    First Batch - Dayag Vs Canizares

    Uploaded by

    AngelRea
    95 views2 pages
    1) Dayag et al filed a labor claim against Youngs Construction Corporation in the National Capital Region instead of Cebu where the workplace was located. Youngs filed a motion to transfer the case to Cebu. 2) The labor arbiter agreed to transfer the case to Cebu, but the NLRC dismissed the appeal of this decision. 3) The Supreme Court held that while venue can be changed based on agreement or if in the interest of justice, keeping it in NCR would not be oppressive to Youngs since his residence and office are there as well. Transferring it to Cebu would inconvenience the petitioners more.

    Original Description:

    Labor Law II

    Original Title

    First Batch - Dayag vs Canizares

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) Dayag et al filed a labor claim against Youngs Construction Corporation in the National Capital Region instead of Cebu where the workplace was located. Youngs filed a motion to transfer the case to Cebu. 2) The labor arbiter agreed to transfer the case to Cebu, but the NLRC dismissed the appeal of this decision. 3) The Supreme Court held that while venue can be changed based on agreement or if in the interest of justice, keeping it in NCR would not be oppressive to Youngs since his residence and office are there as well. Transferring it to Cebu would inconvenience the petitioners more.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    95 views2 pages

    First Batch - Dayag Vs Canizares

    Uploaded by

    AngelRea
    1) Dayag et al filed a labor claim against Youngs Construction Corporation in the National Capital Region instead of Cebu where the workplace was located. Youngs filed a motion to transfer the case to Cebu. 2) The labor arbiter agreed to transfer the case to Cebu, but the NLRC dismissed the appeal of this decision. 3) The Supreme Court held that while venue can be changed based on agreement or if in the interest of justice, keeping it in NCR would not be oppressive to Youngs since his residence and office are there as well. Transferring it to Cebu would inconvenience the petitioners more.

    Copyright:

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

    Dayag vs. Canizares GR.

    124193
    Facts:
    Dayag et al filed a labor claim against Youngs Construction Corporation. Instead of
    attending the initial hearings set by the labor arbiter, Young filed, on July 6, 1993, a
    motion to transfer the case to the Regional Arbitration Branch, Region VII of the NLRC.
    He claimed that the workplace where petitioners were regularly assigned was in Cebu
    City and that, in consonance with Section 1(a) of Rule IV of the New Rules of Procedure
    of the NLRC, the case should have been filed in Cebu City. Petitioners opposed the same,
    arguing that all of them, except for Punay, were, by that time, residents of Metro Manila
    and that they could not afford trips to Cebu City. Besides, they claimed that respondent
    had its main office at Corinthian Gardens in Quezon City. Young, in reply, declared that
    the Corinthian Gardens address was not his principal place of business, but actually his
    residence, which he also used as a correspondent office for his construction firm.
    Agreeing that petitioners workplace when the cause of action accrued was Cebu City,
    the labor arbiter, on September 8, 1993, granted Youngs motion and ordered the
    transmittal of the case to the regional arbitration branch of Region VII. Petitioners
    promptly appealed said order to the NLRC, which, however, dismissed the same on
    January 31, 1995, for lack of merit.
    Issue:
    WON the case should be tried in Cebu or at NCR.
    Held:
    The venue of an action may be changed or transferred to a different Regional
    Arbitration Branch other than where the complaint was filed by written agreement of the
    parties or when the Commission or Labor Arbiter before whom the case is pending so
    orders, upon motion by the proper party in meritorious cases.
    Young cannot, however, derive comfort from the foregoing, this petition having been
    overtaken by events.
    In the recent case of Sulpicio Lines, Inc. vs. NLRC, this Court held that, the question
    of venue essentially pertains to the trial and relates more to the convenience of the parties
    rather than upon the substance and merits of the case. It underscored the fact that the
    permissive rules underlying provisions on venue are intended to assure convenience for
    the plaintiff and his witnesses and to promote the ends of justice. This provision is
    obviously permissive, for the said section uses the word may, allowing a different venue
    when the interests of substantial justice demand a different one. In any case, as stated
    earlier, the Constitutional protection accorded to labor is a paramount and compelling
    factor, provided the venue chosen is not altogether oppressive to the employer.

    The rationale for the rule is that the worker, being the economically-disadvantaged
    party, as the case may be, the nearest governmental machinery to settle the dispute must
    be placed at his immediate disposal. In fact, even in cases where venue has been
    stipulated by the parties, the Court has not hesitated to set aside the same if it would lead
    to a situation so grossly inconvenient to one party as to virtually negate his claim.
    In the case at hand, the ruling specifying the National Capital Region Arbitration
    Branch as the venue of the present action cannot be considered oppressive to Young. His
    residence in Corinthian Gardens also serves as his correspondent office. Certainly, the
    filing of the suit in the National Capital Region Arbitration Branch in Manila will not
    cause him as much inconvenience as it would the petitioners, who are now residents of
    Metro Manila, if the same was heard in Cebu. Hearing the case in Manila would clearly
    expedite proceedings and bring about the speedy resolution of instant case.

    You might also like