Saturday, November 12, 2005
Excess or lack of jurisdiction
By Dominador A. Almirante
Labor case digest
Petitioner, Tomas Claudio Memorial College, averred that the Court of Appeals (CA) acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction when it ordered the school to pay backwages to private respondent, Pedro Natividad, from June 13, 1996 until its judgment shall have become final and executory.
The petitioner alleged that Natividad was detained from June 10 to July 5, 1996 and from Nov. 21, 1996 to Feb. 17, 1997 for violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act. It claimed that Natividad would thereby be enriching himself at its expense. Did this claim find merit?
Ruling: No.
The public respondent acts without jurisdiction if it does not have the legal power to determine the case. There is excess of jurisdiction when the public respondent, being clothed with the power to determine the case, oversteps its authority as determined by law. There is grave abuse of discretion where the public respondent acts in a capricious, whimsical, arbitrary or despotic manner in the exercise of its judgment as to be equivalent to lack of jurisdiction.
The normal consequences of a finding that an employee had been illegally dismissed are: firstly, that the employee becomes entitled to reinstatement to his former position without loss of seniority rights and, secondly, the payment of backwages corresponding to the period from his illegal dismissal up to actual reinstatement. (Tomas Claudio Memorial College Inc. versus Court of Appeals, G.R. 152568, Feb. 16, 2004 quoting Condo Suite Club Travel Inc. versus NLRC, 323 SCRA 629 (2000) and Santos versus NLRC, 154 SCRA 166 (1987).
(November 12, 2005 issue)
Write letter to the editor. Click here.
Join the Sun.Star message board. Click here. |
