Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Grotjahn Vs Judge Isnani - Sebastian

    Uploaded by

    Enrryson Sebastian
    41 views2 pages
    The multinational company Georg Grotjahn & Co. filed a collection case against their former employee Romana Lanchinebre who had taken out cash advances and loans but failed to pay back a total of P12,170.37. The regional trial court dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction. However, the Supreme Court ruled that the regional trial court did have jurisdiction over the simple collection case as it involved the application of general civil law regarding obligations and contracts, not labor law. While the money was contracted during an employer-employee relationship, the current dispute can be resolved through civil law and does not fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of labor arbitration bodies.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    Grotjahn vs Judge Isnani _ Sebastian

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The multinational company Georg Grotjahn & Co. filed a collection case against their former employee Romana Lanchinebre who had taken out cash advances and loans but failed to pay back a total of P12,170.37. The regional trial court dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction. However, the Supreme Court ruled that the regional trial court did have jurisdiction over the simple collection case as it involved the application of general civil law regarding obligations and contracts, not labor law. While the money was contracted during an employer-employee relationship, the current dispute can be resolved through civil law and does not fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of labor arbitration bodies.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    41 views2 pages

    Grotjahn Vs Judge Isnani - Sebastian

    Uploaded by

    Enrryson Sebastian
    The multinational company Georg Grotjahn & Co. filed a collection case against their former employee Romana Lanchinebre who had taken out cash advances and loans but failed to pay back a total of P12,170.37. The regional trial court dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction. However, the Supreme Court ruled that the regional trial court did have jurisdiction over the simple collection case as it involved the application of general civil law regarding obligations and contracts, not labor law. While the money was contracted during an employer-employee relationship, the current dispute can be resolved through civil law and does not fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of labor arbitration bodies.

    Copyright:

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

    GROTJAHN & CO. VS HON.

    ISNANI, ET AL
    FACTS:

    Georg Grotjahn & Co. (multinational company organized and existing under the laws of
    the Federal Republic of Germany) impugns the dismissal of its Complaint for a sum of
    money by Hon. Isnani (Presiding Judge of RTC, Makati) for lack of jurisdiction and lack
    of capacity to sue.

    It was registered on September 1983; the Company was issued a COR by SEC and a
    License by BOI for the establishment of a regional or area headquarters in the
    Philippines.

    Romana R. Lanchinebre was a sales representative in the company from 1983 to 1992.
    1. On March 1992, secured a loan P25,000
    2. On June 1992, additional cash advances P10,000

    A total of P12,170.37 remained unpaid and failed to settle obligation despite demand by
    the company.

    On July 1992, Romana filed a complaint for illegal suspension, dismissal and non-
    payment of commissions against petitioner with the NLRC in Manila.

    On September 1992, the Company complaint for collection of money.

    Judge Isnani granted a motion to dismiss with the case stating that:

    Jurisdiction over the subject matter or nature of the action is conferred by law and not
    subject to the whims and caprices of the parties.

    Under Article 217 of the Labor Code, the Labor Arbiters shall have original and
    exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide, within thirty (30) calendar days after the
    submission of the case by the parties for decision, to:

    (4) claims for actual, moral, exemplary and other forms of damages arising from an
    employer-employee relation.

    In this case, the company seeks to recover Cash Advances made by Romana while still
    employed and hence made pursuant to a EE Relationship between them. As such
    NLRC has original and exclusive jurisdiction.

    Motion for Reconsideration was denied.

    ISSUE:
    Whether or not RTC erred in holding that regular courts have no jurisdiction over this
    case with purely issues with General Civil Law.
    RULING:
    YES. RTC has jurisdiction over this case.

    It is true that the collection of money sough to be recovered by the Company were
    contracted by Romana while still in the employ of the later. Still does not follow that
    Labor Code covers their relationship and the issue at hand.

    Not all dispute between an EE involves matters that LA and NLRC can resolve in the
    exercise of their adjudicatory or quasi-judicial powers.

    It was held further that it is limited to disputes arising from an EE Relationship which can
    only be resolve by reference of the LC, Labor Statutes or CBAs.

    Medina v Castro-Bartolome >> LC not CIV


    Negate jurisdiction of LA, the test if LA has jurisdiction over a case is whether or
    not the LC has any relevance to the reliefs sought.

    Singapore Airlines Limited v Paño [Discussed] CIV not LC


    If relief sought are consequences flowing from breach of an obligation it is
    intrinsically a civil dispute.

    San Miguel Corp v NLRC


    Bolstered the ideas in the cases mentioned that:
    If principal relief sough is to be resolved not by reference with LC, labor statutes, and
    CBAs, but by general civil law. The jurisdiction belongs to regular courts and not with
    LA or NLRC.

    CONCLUSION:

    In this case, the Civil Case filed with the RTC is a simple collection of sums of money
    brought by the Company as the creditor, against Romana as debtor.

    The relationship is immaterial and does not negate the jurisdiction of the RTC.

    Hence, the case can be resolve with our civil laws on obligation and contract and not by
    our LC.

    You might also like