Labor Relations Cases Reviewer

Art. A-9 217 Case Title / Issue Dayag vs. Canizares (1998) (WON the case should be tried in Manila) (or WON NCR court has jurisdiction) Facts Complaint: illegal dismissal, non-payment of wages, overtime pay, premium pay, holiday pay, service incentive leave, 13th month pay, and actual, moral and exemplary damages Petitioners are tower crane operators of respondent Youngs building contractor company. They were hired in San Juan, MM, later transferred to Cebu for the SM Cebu project Petitioners left the company due to harassment. They all went back to Manila Filed the case in Manila Young moved to transfer the venue to Cebu, he was granted Petitioners: they were residents of Manila; company has office in Corinthian, QC Young: Corinthian is his residence, Company is based in Cebu, they worked in Cebu, 2 of petitioners have been booked for theft in Cebu Ruling/Ratio Ratio: The question of venue essentially pertains to the trial and relates more to the convenience of the parties rather than upon the substance and merits of the case (Sulpicio Lines vs. NLRC). GR: All cases which Labor Arbiters have authority to hear and decide may be filed in The Regional Arbitration Branch having jurisdiction over the workplace of the complainant or petitioner. - Xn: Venue may be changed or transferred by written agreement of the parties, or when the Commission or LA so orders, upon motion by proper party in meritorious cases. - Case Facts: Young did not waive his right, consistently moved for change of venue; Sulpicio Lines ruling came out (i.e., The worker, being the economicallydisadvantaged partywhether as complainant/petitioner or as respondent, as the case may be, 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.) - Conclusion: The case should be tried in Manila for a