Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

BAY HAVEN v. FLORENTINO ABUAN

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 178184 2014-01-29	GRAND ASIAN SHIPPING LINES v. WILFREDO GALVEZ DEL CASTILLO, J.
Petitioners' contention is untenable. First, there is no provision in RA 6727 or RA 8188 which precludes the Labor Arbiter from imposing the penalty of double indemnity against employers. Second, Article 217 of the Labor Code gives the Labor Arbiter jurisdiction over cases of termination disputes and those cases accompanied with a claim for reinstatement. Thus, in Bay Haven, Inc. v. Abuan[71] the Court held that an allegation of illegal dismissal deprives the Secretary of Labor of jurisdiction over claims to enforce compliance with labor standards law. This was also pronounced in People's Broadcasting Service (Bombo Radyo Phils., Inc.) v. Secretary of the Department of Labor and Employment,[72] wherein we stated that the Secretary of Labor has no jurisdiction in cases where employer-employee relationship has been terminated. We thus sustain the Labor Arbiter's award of double indemnity.
	GR No. 161794 2009-06-16	NESTOR J. BALLADARES v. VS.PEAK VENTURES CORPORATION/EL TIGRE SECURITY NACHURA, J.
This Court has held in a plethora of cases[19] that reliance on the Servando ruling is no longer tenable in view of the enactment of R.A. No. 7730, amending Article 128 (b) of the Labor Code. The Secretary of Labor or his duly authorized representatives is now empowered to hear and decide, in a summary proceeding, any matter involving the recovery of any amount of wages and other monetary claims arising out of employer-employee relations at the time of the inspection, even if the amount of the money claim exceeds P5,000.00. In Ex-Bataan Veterans Security Agency, Inc. v. Laguesma,[20] the Court elucidated:In Allied Investigation Bureau, Inc. v. Sec. of Labor, we ruled that:
	GR No. 179652 2009-05-08	PEOPLE'S BROADCASTING v. SECRETARY OF DEPARTMENT OF LABOR TINGA, J.
Sec. 3. Complaints where no employer-employee relationship actually exists. Where employer-employee relationship no longer exists by reason of the fact that it has already been severed, claims for payment of monetary benefits fall within the exclusive and original jurisdiction of the labor arbiters. Accordingly, if on the face of the complaint, it can be ascertained that employer-employee relationship no longer exists, the case, whether accompanied by an allegation of illegal dismissal, shall immediately be endorsed by the Regional Director to the appropriate branch of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). In the recent case of Bay Haven, Inc. v. Abuan,[16] this Court recognized the first situation and accordingly ruled that a complainant's allegation of his illegal dismissal had deprived the DOLE of jurisdiction as per Article 217 of the Labor Code.[17]
	GR No. 179652 2009-05-08	PEOPLE'S BROADCASTING v. SECRETARY OF DEPARTMENT OF LABOR TINGA, J.
Sec. 3. Complaints where no employer-employee relationship actually exists. Where employer-employee relationship no longer exists by reason of the fact that it has already been severed, claims for payment of monetary benefits fall within the exclusive and original jurisdiction of the labor arbiters. Accordingly, if on the face of the complaint, it can be ascertained that employer-employee relationship no longer exists, the case, whether accompanied by an allegation of illegal dismissal, shall immediately be endorsed by the Regional Director to the appropriate branch of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). In the recent case of Bay Haven, Inc. v. Abuan,[16] this Court recognized the first situation and accordingly ruled that a complainant's allegation of his illegal dismissal had deprived the DOLE of jurisdiction as per Article 217 of the Labor Code.[17]