Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

METROMEDIA TIMES CORPORATION v. JOHNNY PASTORIN

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 182403 2010-03-09	ATTY. RESTITUTO G. CUDIAMAT v. BATANGAS SAVINGS CARPIO MORALES, J.
The ruling was echoed in Metromedia Times Corporation v. Pastorin.[8]
	GR No. 147406 2008-07-14	VENANCIO FIGUEROA Y CERVANTES v. PEOPLE NACHURA, J.
Noteworthy, however, is that, in the 2005 case of Metromedia Times Corporation v. Pastorin,[27] where the issue of lack of jurisdiction was raised only in the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) on appeal, we stated, after examining the doctrines of jurisdiction vis-à-vis estoppel, that the ruling in Sibonghanoy stands as an exception, rather than the general rule. Metromedia, thus, was not estopped from assailing the jurisdiction of the labor arbiter before the NLRC on appeal.[28]
	GR No. 137869 2008-06-12	SPS. MARCIAL VARGAS and ELIZABETH VARGAS v. SPS. VISITACION and JOSE CAMINAS CARPIO, J.
In Metromedia Times Corporation v. Pastorin,[23]the Court expounded on the issue of estoppel on the question of jurisdiction: The rulings in Lozon v. NLRC addresses the issue at hand. This Court came up with a clear rule as to when jurisdiction by estoppel applies and when it does not:
	GR No. 169370 2008-04-14	EUSTACIO ATWEL v. CONCEPCION PROGRESSIVE ASSOCIATION CORONA, J.
The ruling was reiterated in Metromedia Times Corporation [(Metromedia)] v. Pastorin,[19] where we reversed the CA ruling that Metromedia was already estopped from questioning the jurisdiction of the labor arbiter (LA) after it participated in the proceedings before him. There, an illegal dismissal case was filed by an employee against Metromedia alleging that his transfer to another department[20] was tantamount to constructive dismissal. Realizing the issue was properly cognizable by a voluntary arbitrator, Metromedia assailed the LA's jurisdiction in the NLRC and the CA. The CA, also citing Tijam,[21] ruled erroneously that Metromedia was already barred from questioning the LA's jurisdiction.
	GR NO. 146979 2006-07-27	HIKOI SUZUKI v. DIANA DE GUZMAN AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
All the foregoing considered, the CA should have noted that R.A. No. 8799 was already in force and effect, for more than five months, and therefore applicable at the time of the promulgation of the herein assailed Resolution on February 2, 2001. Although the petition filed with the CA was procedurally deficient for non-compliance with the rules on material date and certification of non-forum shopping, the CA should have reconsidered its Decision on the question of jurisdiction in view of the advent of R.A. No. 8799 transferring cases originally cognizable by the SEC to the Regional Trial Courts. Technicalities must give way to the realities of the situation. It is elementary that jurisdiction over the subject matter, or the jurisdiction to hear and decide a case, is conferred by law[44] and it is not within the courts, let alone the parties, to themselves determine and conveniently set aside.[45]