Dayag vs Hon. Cenizares, Jr. (1998)

Download Dayag vs Hon. Cenizares, Jr. (1998)

Post on 04-Jun-2018

218 views

Category:

Documents

0 download

Embed Size (px)

TRANSCRIPT

<ul><li><p>8/13/2019 Dayag vs Hon. Cenizares, Jr. (1998)</p><p> 1/1</p><p>DAYAG vs HON. CENIZARES, JR. (1998)</p><p>FACTS:</p><p> Petitioners were hired to work as tower crane operators by one Alfredo Young, a buildingcontractor doing business in the name of Youngs construction. In 1991, they were transferred toCebu City to work for Youngs hoemart Cebu Pro!ect. Petitioner "illiam #ayag asked $ermissionto go to %anila to attend family matters and was allowed to do so but was not $aid for &amp;anuary'()(* due to his accountability for the loss of certain construction tools. +he other $etitioners leftdue to harassment by Young. +hereafter, $etitioners banded together and filed a com$laint againstYoungbefore the C- Arbitration ranch /-C which was assigned to /abor Arbiter Ceni0ares.</p><p> Young filed a%otion to transfer the case2to the -egional Arbitration ranch, -egion 3II ofthe /-C. 4e contended that the case should be filed in Cebu City because there is where thework$lace of the $etitioners.</p><p> Petitioners o$$osed the same, arguing that all of them are from %etro %anila and that theycould not afford tri$s to Cebu. esides, they claimed that res$ondents main office is in Corinthian5arden in 6C.</p><p> /abor Arbiter Ceni0ares 5-A+7# Youngs motion to transfer the case in Cebu.2</p><p> Petitioners a$$ealed to /-C but it was dismissed. 4ence, they filed a %8- and this time theCommission 7+ AI#7 its $reious decision and rema!e!the case to the original arbitration</p><p>branch of the C- for further $roceedings. Young filed his own %8- and the /-C reinstated its first decision directing the transfer of thecase to Cebu City.</p><p>Iss"e: Whether the Labor Arbiter acted with grave abuse of discretion when it entertained Youngsmotion to transfer</p><p>HE#D: NO+he C ruled that litigations should, as much as $ossible, be decided on the merits and nottechnicalities. Petitioners were able to file an o$$osition on the motion to transfer case2 which wasconsidered by /abor Arbiter Ceni0ares. 4ence, there is no showing that they hae been unduly$re!udiced by the motions failure to gie notice and hearing.</p><p>4oweer, Young cannot derie comfort from this $etition. +he C held that the :uestion of enue</p><p>relates more to the conenience of the $arties rather than u$on the substance and merits of the case.+his is to assure conenience for the $laintiff and his witness and to $romote the ends of !ustice underthe $rinci$le that $%&amp;e S%a%e s&amp;a'' ar! *r%e+% % 'a-r.+he reason for this is that theworker, being the economically)disadantaged $arty, the nearest goernmental machinery to settle thedis$ute must be $laced at his immediate dis$osal, and the other $arty is not to be gien the choice ofanother com$etent agency sitting in another $lace as this will unduly burden the former</p><p>In the instant case, the ruling s$ecifying the C- Arbitration ranch as the enue of the $resent action</p><p>cannot be considered o$$ressie to Young because his residence in Corinthian 5ardens also seres ashis corres$ondent office. 4earing the case in %anila would clearly e;$edite the $roceedings and brings$eedy resolution to the instant case.</p><p>/HEREFORE, 0ETITION IS GRANTED.</p></li></ul>

Recommended

View more >