This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2014-08-20 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| The delineation between the jurisdiction of regular courts and labor courts over cases involving workers and their employers has always been a matter of dispute.[31] It is up to the Courts to lay the line after careful scrutiny of the factual milieu of each case. Here, we find that jurisdiction rests on the regular courts. | |||||
|
2014-08-20 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| It also bears stressing that respondent is not praying for any relief under the Labor Code of the Philippines. He neither claims for reinstatement nor backwages or separation pay resulting from an illegal termination. The cause of action herein pertains to the consequence of petitioner's omission which led to a work-related disease suffered by respondent, causing harm or damage to his person. Such cause of action is within the realm of Civil Law, and jurisdiction over the controversy belongs to the regular courts.[56] | |||||