Because the Law is for Juan and All!
Full-service law firm. Notary Public.Unit D, Legacy Building, 44 Shorthorn St.,Project 8, Quezon City.454-6881, 0905-240-4019,0922-420-5569, email@example.com,firstname.lastname@example.org.
Please be patient if it takes a while for your calls or emails to get answered, someone might have come in before you.
Use the search bar with keywords for topics you have questions on to navigate the site, e.g. holder in due course, bail, etc.
Thursday, May 22, 2014
Jurisdiction is determined by the allegations of the Complaint.
Determination of jurisdiction over a dispute sometimes
gets dicey when by relationship of the parties a proposition in favor of one is
conveniently apparent. Consider, for example, a case brought by employees
against an employer questioning the validity of a provision in their Collective
Bargaining Agreement (CBA). Without saying where the case is filed and without
more, one reading this would be swayed to think that it is a labor dispute. But
In the case below, a group of employees belonging to a
union filed a case questioning the validity of a provision in their CBA. Does
this, without more, make out a labor dispute, consequently giving the labor
Here’s what the Court has to say:
“Jurisdiction of the court is determined on
the basis of the material allegations of the complaint and the character of the
relief prayed for irrespective of whether plaintiff is entitled to such relief.14”
“Thus, where the principal relief sought is to be resolved not by
reference to the Labor Code or other labor relations statute or a collective
bargaining agreement but by the general civil law, the jurisdiction over the
dispute belongs to the regular courts of justice and not to the labor arbiter
and the NLRC. In such situations, resolution of the dispute requires expertise,
not in labor management relations nor in wage structures and other terms and
conditions of employment, but rather in the application of the general civil
law. Clearly, such claims fall outside the area of competence or expertise
ordinarily ascribed to labor arbiters and the NLRC and the rationale for
granting jurisdiction over such claims to these agencies disappears.19”
On July 11, 2001,
respondent and FASAP entered into a Collective Bargaining Agreement3 incorporating the terms and conditions of
their agreement for the years 2000 to 2005, hereinafter referred to as
Section 144, Part A of
the PAL-FASAP CBA, provides that:
A. For the Cabin
Attendants hired before 22 November 1996:
x x x x
3. Compulsory Retirement
Subject to the grooming
standards provisions of this Agreement, compulsory retirement shall be
fifty-five (55) for females and sixty (60) for males. x x x.
On July 29, 2004,
petitioners filed a Special Civil Action for Declaratory Relief with Prayer for
the Issuance of Temporary Restraining Order and Writ of Preliminary Injunction7 with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati
City, Branch 147, docketed as Civil Case No. 04-886, against respondent for the
invalidity of Section 144, Part A of the PAL-FASAP CBA. The RTC set a hearing
on petitioners' application for a TRO and, thereafter, required the parties to
submit their respective memoranda.
On August 9, 2004, the
RTC issued an Order8 upholding its jurisdiction over the present
The RTC issued a TRO on
August 10, 2004,9 enjoining the respondent for implementing
Section 144, Part A of the PAL-FASAP CBA.
on October 8, 2004, filed a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition with Prayer
for a Temporary Restraining Order and Writ of Preliminary Injunction12 with the Court of Appeals (CA) praying that
the order of the RTC, which denied its objection to its jurisdiction, be
annuled and set aside for having been issued without and/or with grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction.
The CA rendered a
Decision, dated August 31, 2005, granting the respondent's petition, and ruled
respondent court is by us declared to have NO JURISDICTION OVER THE CASE BELOW
and, consequently, all the proceedings, orders and processes it has so far
issued therein are ANNULED and SET ASIDE. Respondent court is ordered to
DISMISS its Civil Case No. 04-886.
Petitioner filed a
motion for reconsideration,13 which was denied by the CA in its Resolution
dated March 7, 2006.
Hence, the instant
petition assigning the following error:
THE COURT OF APPEALS'
CONCLUSION THAT THE SUBJECT MATTER IS A LABOR DISPUTE OR GRIEVANCE IS CONTRARY
TO LAW AND JURISPRUDENCE.
The Court’s Ruling
The petition is
Jurisdiction of the
court is determined on the basis of the material allegations of the complaint
and the character of the relief prayed for irrespective of whether plaintiff is
entitled to such relief.14
In the case at bar, the
allegations in the petition for declaratory relief plainly show that
petitioners' cause of action is the annulment of Section 144, Part A of the
PAL-FASAP CBA. The pertinent portion of the petition recites:
CAUSE OF ACTION
24. Petitioners have the
constitutional right to fundamental equality with men under Section 14, Article
II, 1987 of the Constitution and, within the specific context of this case,
with the male cabin attendants of Philippine Airlines.
26. Petitioners have the
statutory right to equal work and employment opportunities with men under
Article 3, Presidential Decree No. 442, The Labor Code and, within the specific
context of this case, with the male cabin attendants of Philippine Airlines.
27. It is unlawful, even
criminal, for an employer to discriminate against women employees with respect
to terms and conditions of employment solely on account of their sex under
Article 135 of the Labor Code as amended by Republic Act No. 6725 or the Act
Strengthening Prohibition on Discrimination Against Women.
28. This discrimination
against Petitioners is likewise against the Convention on the Elimination of
All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (hereafter, "CEDAW"), a
multilateral convention that the Philippines ratified in 1981. The Government
and its agents, including our courts, not only must condemn all forms of
discrimination against women, but must also implement measures towards its
29. This case is a
matter of public interest not only because of Philippine Airlines' violation of
the Constitution and existing laws, but also because it highlights the fact
that twenty-three years after the Philippine Senate ratified the CEDAW,
discrimination against women continues.
31. Section 114, Part A
of the PAL-FASAP 2000-20005 CBA on compulsory retirement from service is
invidiously discriminatory against and manifestly prejudicial to Petitioners
because, they are compelled to retire at a lower age (fifty-five (55) relative
to their male counterparts (sixty (60).
33. There is no
reasonable, much less lawful, basis for Philippine Airlines to distinguish,
differentiate or classify cabin attendants on the basis of sex and thereby
arbitrarily set a lower compulsory retirement age of 55 for Petitioners for the
sole reason that they are women.
37. For being patently
unconstitutional and unlawful, Section 114, Part A of the PAL-FASAP 2000-2005
CBA must be declared invalid and stricken down to the extent that it
discriminates against petitioner.
consistent with the constitutional and statutory guarantee of equality between
men and women, Petitioners should be adjudged and declared entitled, like their
male counterparts, to work until they are sixty (60) years old.
WHEREFORE, it is most
respectfully prayed that the Honorable Court:
c. after trial on the
(I) declare Section 114,
Part A of the PAL-FASAP 2000-2005 CBA INVALID, NULL and VOID to the extent that
it discriminates against Petitioners; x x x x
From the petitioners'
allegations and relief prayed for in its petition, it is clear that the issue
raised is whether Section 144, Part A of the PAL-FASAP CBA is unlawful and
unconstitutional. Here, the petitioners' primary relief in Civil Case No.
04-886 is the annulment of Section 144, Part A of the PAL-FASAP CBA, which allegedly
discriminates against them for being female flight attendants. The subject of
litigation is incapable of pecuniary estimation, exclusively cognizable by the
RTC, pursuant to Section 19 (1) of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as amended.15 Being an ordinary civil action, the same is
beyond the jurisdiction of labor tribunals.
The said issue cannot be
resolved solely by applying the Labor Code. Rather, it requires the application
of the Constitution, labor statutes, law on contracts and the Convention on the
Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women,16 and the power to apply and interpret the
constitution and CEDAW is within the jurisdiction of trial courts, a court of
Patricia Halagueña, et al. vs. Philippine Airlines Incorporated, G.R. No. 172013
October 2, 2009