This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2011-02-16 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| The Court has long recognized that regular courts have no jurisdiction to hear and decide questions which arise from and are incidental to the enforcement of decisions, orders, or awards rendered in labor cases by appropriate officers and tribunals of the Department of Labor and Employment. To hold otherwise is to sanction splitting of jurisdiction which is obnoxious to the orderly administration of justice.[22] | |||||
|
2010-10-20 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| Pursuant to this Article, we held in Metro Drug (citing Air Services Cooperative, et al. v. Court of Appeals[35]) that the NLRC is clothed with sufficient authority to correct any claimed "erroneous assumption of jurisdiction" by labor arbiters: In Air Services Cooperative, et al. v. The Court of Appeals, et al., a case where the jurisdiction of the labor arbiter was put in issue and was assailed through a petition for certiorari, prohibition and annulment of judgment before a regional trial court, this Court had the opportunity to expound on the nature of appeal as embodied in Article 223 of the Labor Code, thus: | |||||
|
2005-09-26 |
|||||
| (a) If there is prima facie evidence of abuse of discretion on the part of the Labor Arbiter; ... In Air Services Cooperative, et al. v. The Court of Appeals, et al.,[19] a case where the jurisdiction of the labor arbiter was put in issue and was assailed through a petition for certiorari, prohibition and annulment of judgment before a regional trial court, this Court had the opportunity to expound on the nature of appeal as embodied in Article 223 of the Labor Code, thus:. . . Also, while the title of the Article 223 seems to provide only for the remedy of appeal as that term is understood in procedural law and as distinguished from the office of certiorari, nonetheless, a closer reading thereof reveals that it is not as limited as understood by the petitioners. . . | |||||