ADHERENCE OF JURISDICTION - Once Attached, not ousted by
However, in this case, the judge did not proceed in
subsequent statute unless so provided
08 SOUTHERN FOOD v. SALAS
February 18, 1992 | Medialdea, J. |
Doctrine: The Rule is that when a court has already obtained jurisdiction
and is exercising jurisdiction over a controversy, its jurisdiction to proceed
is not affected by new legislation placing jurisdiction in another tribunal.
Facts:
● Respondent Raul Laurente was employed in Southern Food Sales
Corporation. On July 5, 1979, Laurente was terminated for gross
neglect of duty andor dishonesty due to the ff: the dismissal of 4
salesmen whose anomalies were tolerated by Laurente despite
knowledge thereof, the falsifying of his meal receipts, the failure to
submit his income tax receipt for 1978, and for the
misrepresentation of his travel itinerary.
● Laurente first filed a civil action for damages against Southern
Food Sales. He then filed a complaint with the Ministry of Labor
(now DOLE) for illegal dismissal.
● Southern Food filed a motion to dismiss on the civil case claiming
that the NLRC had jurisdiction. In the meantime, LA Ildefonso
Agbuya rendered a decision finding Laurente’s termination was for
a valid and just cause to which Laurente filed an appeal.
● On Feb 28, 1980, the court in the civil case deferred the
determination of the motion to dismiss until after the trial
● Because of this, Southern Food filed a MR but respondent Judge
Bernardo Salas denied the MR. Hence, Southern Food filed a
petition with prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary
injunction.
Issue:
W/N Judge Salas committed grave abuse of discretion in deferring
the determination of the motion to dismiss questioning the
jurisdiction of the court over the claims for damages.
Held:
NO. The court had jurisdiction over the case for claims for damages.
● A court order deferring action on a motion to dismiss until trial is
interlocutory and cannot be challenged until final judgment except
when the judge is proceeding in excess or outside of its
jurisdiction.
excess of jurisdiction.
● Article 217 (a) (4) of the Labor Code as amended by Section 9 of
Republic Act No. 6715 clearly provides that the labor arbiter shall
have original and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide claims
for actual, moral, exemplary and other forms of damages arising
from an employer-employee relationship.
● However, when the civil case for damages was instituted in 1979,
the applicable law then was Article 217 (a) (3) of the Labor Code as
amended by Presidential Decree No. 1367.
● The Rule is that when a court has already obtained jurisdiction and
is exercising jurisdiction over a controversy, its jurisdiction to
proceed is not affected by new legislation placing jurisdiction in
another tribunal.
● Except where the statute expressly provides or it is intended to
operate as to actions pending before its enactment.
● But where a statute changing the jurisdiction of a court has
retroactive effect, it cannot be applied to a case that was pending
prior to the enactment of the statute.
● Republic Act No. 6715 which took effect on march 21, 1989, where
the same law does not expressly so provide, or does not intend to
operate as to actions pending before its enactment, hence
prejudicial to the orderly administration of justice
Dispositive
WHEREFORE, the writs of prohibition and injunction applied for are denied,
and the petition is ordered dismissed.
No costs.
Notes
Art. 217. Jurisdiction of Labor Arbiters and the Commission. — (a) The
Labor Arbiters shall have exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide the
following cases involving all workers, whether agricultural or non-
agricultural:
(3) All other cases arising from employer-employee relations duly endorsed
by the Regional Directors in accordance with the provisions of this Code;
Provided, that the Regional Directors shall not endorse and Labor Arbiters
shall not entertain claims for moral or other forms of damages.
RA 6715
Section 9. Article 217 of the same code, as amended, is hereby further
amended to read as follows:
"Article 217. Jurisdiction of Labor Arbiters and the Commission. - (a) Except
as otherwise provided under this Code, the Labor Arbiters shall have the
original and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide, within thirty (30)
calendar days after the submission of the case by the parties for decision
without extension, even in the absence of stenographic notes, the following
cases involving all workers, whether agricultural or non-agricultural:

4) Claims for actual, moral, exemplary and other forms of damages arising
from the employer-employee relations