This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2014-04-07 |
ABAD, J. |
||||
| In awarding damages for loss of earning capacity, the Labor Arbiter relies on the rulings in Villa Rey Transit v. Court of Appeals[6] and Baliwag Transit, Inc. v. Court of Appeals.[7] But these cases involve essentially claims for damages arising from quasi-delict. The present case, on the other hand, involves a claim for disability benefits under Chin's contract of employment and the governing POEA set standards of recovery. The long-standing rule is that loss of earning is recoverable if the action is based on the quasi-delict provision of Article 2206 of the Civil Code.[8] | |||||
|
2008-02-18 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Well-settled is the rule that the jurisdiction of a court over the subject matter of an action is determined by the allegations of the complaint at the time of its filing, irrespective of whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to recover upon all or some of the claims asserted therein.[13] Time and again, this Court has held that the allegations in the complaint determine the nature of the action and, consequently, the jurisdiction of the courts.[14] | |||||
|
2007-07-24 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| We have repeatedly stated that what is essential in this regard is the character of the principal relief sought. Where such principal relief can be granted under the Labor Code, the case should fall within the jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter, even though a claim for damages might be asserted as an incident to such claim.[12] | |||||