Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 222 views

    Dayag Vs Cnizares

    Uploaded by

    Julian Duba
    This case involves a dispute over venue between workers and their former employer. The workers filed a complaint in Manila, where they resided, but the employer requested the case be transferred to Cebu, where the work was located. The labor arbiter initially granted the transfer but the NLRC remanded it back to Manila. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled that venue should prioritize the convenience of workers as the economically disadvantaged party, so the case remained in Manila.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Dayag Vs Cnizares

    Uploaded by

    Julian Duba
    222 views2 pages
    This case involves a dispute over venue between workers and their former employer. The workers filed a complaint in Manila, where they resided, but the employer requested the case be transferred to Cebu, where the work was located. The labor arbiter initially granted the transfer but the NLRC remanded it back to Manila. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled that venue should prioritize the convenience of workers as the economically disadvantaged party, so the case remained in Manila.

    Original Description:

    Dayag vs Cnizares

    Original Title

    Dayag vs Cnizares

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involves a dispute over venue between workers and their former employer. The workers filed a complaint in Manila, where they resided, but the employer requested the case be transferred to Cebu, where the work was located. The labor arbiter initially granted the transfer but the NLRC remanded it back to Manila. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled that venue should prioritize the convenience of workers as the economically disadvantaged party, so the case remained in Manila.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    222 views2 pages

    Dayag Vs Cnizares

    Uploaded by

    Julian Duba
    This case involves a dispute over venue between workers and their former employer. The workers filed a complaint in Manila, where they resided, but the employer requested the case be transferred to Cebu, where the work was located. The labor arbiter initially granted the transfer but the NLRC remanded it back to Manila. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled that venue should prioritize the convenience of workers as the economically disadvantaged party, so the case remained in Manila.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Venue; Worker’s Option: Waiver

    DAYAG, et al v CANIZARES, NLRC, G.R. NO. 124193, March 6, 1998

    FACTS:
    Petitioners were hired to work as tower crane operators by one Alfredo Young, a building
    contractor doing business in the name of Young’s construction. In 1991, they were transferred to
    Cebu City to work for Young’s Shoemart Cebu Project. Petitioner William Dayag asked
    permission to go to Manila to attend family matters and was allowed to do so but was not paid
    for January 23-30 due to his accountability for the loss of certain construction tools. The other
    petitioners left due to harassment by young. Thereafter, petitioner banded together and filed a
    complaint against Young before the NCR Arbitration Branch NLRC which was assigned to
    Labor Arbiter Cenizares.
    Further, Young filed a “Motion to transfer the case” to the Reginal Arbitration Brach,
    Region VII of the NLRC. He contended that the case should be filed in Cebu City because it is
    the location of the workplace of the petitioner. However, it was opposed by the petitioner on the
    ground that they are both form Metro Manila and that they could not afford trips to Cebu, in
    addition, they claimed that respondent’s main office is in Corinthian Garden in Quezon City.
    Labor Arbiter Cenozares granted Young’s motion to transfer the case in Cebu. Petitioner
    appealed to NLRC but such was dismissed. Hence, they filed a MFR and this time the
    commission set aside its previous decision and remanded the case to the original arbitration
    branch of the NCR for further proceedings. On the other hand, Young filed his own MFR and the
    NLRC reinstated its first decision directing the transfer of the case to Cebu City.

    ISSUE:
    Whether the Labor Arbiter acted with grave abuse of discretion when it entertained
    Young’s motion to transfer.

    HELD:
    No.
    The SC ruled that litigations should, as much as possible, be decided on the merits and
    not on technicalities. Petitioners were able to file an opposition on the “motion to transfer case”
    which was considered by Labor Arbiter Cenizares. Hence, there is no showing that they have
    been unduly prejudiced by the motion’s failure to give notice and hearing.
    However, Young cannot derive comfort from this petition. The SC held that the question
    of venue relates more to the convenience of the parties rather than upon the substance and merits
    of the case. This is to assure convenience for the plaintiff and his witness and to promote the
    ends of justice under the principle that the state shall afford protection to labor. The reason for
    this is that the worker, being the economically-disadvantaged party, the nearest governmental
    machinery to settle the dispute must be placed at his immediate disposal, and the other party is
    not to be given the choice of another competent agency sitting in another place as this will
    unduly burden the former.
    WHEREFORE, petition is granted.

    You might also like