This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2005-10-14 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| We agree with petitioners that the appeal of respondents to the Court of Appeals raises only questions of law. It must be stressed at this point that the appeal of respondents to the appellate court stemmed from the Order of the Nueva Vizcaya RTC dated 28 January 1994 dismissing the complaint "for lack of jurisdiction to hear and decide the case." Whether or not such dismissal is correct is neither a question of fact nor of fact and law; it involves a pure question of law because what is to be resolved is whether, admitting the facts alleged in the complaint to be true, the trial court has jurisdiction over it in the light of the laws governing jurisdiction.[9] | |||||
|
2004-10-18 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| This principle was reiterated in Victorias Milling Co., Inc. vs. Intermediate Appellate Court[10] where PD 1691 was given retroactive application as the amendment to the law was crafted precisely to settle once and for all the conflict of jurisdiction between regular courts and labor agencies. | |||||