[go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd
Upload
48 views2 pages

Paquito V. Ando vs. Andresito Y. Campo Et. Al. G.R. No. 184007, February 16, 2011 PONTENTE: J. Nachura

Uploaded by

Earl Andre Perez

The RTC correctly ruled that it had no jurisdiction over a case filed by Paquito Ando seeking to stop the execution of a writ against his property to satisfy a monetary award from an NLRC case. The regular courts have no authority over questions relating to the enforcement of NLRC decisions. Jurisdiction over the execution of its judgments lies with the NLRC, governed by its Manual on Execution, not the rules of civil procedure. The Supreme Court affirmed the RTC's decision, noting jurisdiction remains with the body that rendered a decision throughout its implementation.

Copyright:

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

Paquito V. Ando vs. Andresito Y. Campo Et. Al. G.R. No. 184007, February 16, 2011 PONTENTE: J. Nachura

Uploaded by

Earl Andre Perez
48 views2 pages
The RTC correctly ruled that it had no jurisdiction over a case filed by Paquito Ando seeking to stop the execution of a writ against his property to satisfy a monetary award from an NLRC case. The regular courts have no authority over questions relating to the enforcement of NLRC decisions. Jurisdiction over the execution of its judgments lies with the NLRC, governed by its Manual on Execution, not the rules of civil procedure. The Supreme Court affirmed the RTC's decision, noting jurisdiction remains with the body that rendered a decision throughout its implementation.

Original Title

G.R. No. 184007

Copyright

© © All Rights Reserved

Available Formats

DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

The RTC correctly ruled that it had no jurisdiction over a case filed by Paquito Ando seeking to stop the execution of a writ against his property to satisfy a monetary award from an NLRC case. The regular courts have no authority over questions relating to the enforcement of NLRC decisions. Jurisdiction over the execution of its judgments lies with the NLRC, governed by its Manual on Execution, not the rules of civil procedure. The Supreme Court affirmed the RTC's decision, noting jurisdiction remains with the body that rendered a decision throughout its implementation.

Copyright:

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

Paquito V. Ando vs. Andresito Y. Campo Et. Al. G.R. No. 184007, February 16, 2011 PONTENTE: J. Nachura

Uploaded by

Earl Andre Perez
The RTC correctly ruled that it had no jurisdiction over a case filed by Paquito Ando seeking to stop the execution of a writ against his property to satisfy a monetary award from an NLRC case. The regular courts have no authority over questions relating to the enforcement of NLRC decisions. Jurisdiction over the execution of its judgments lies with the NLRC, governed by its Manual on Execution, not the rules of civil procedure. The Supreme Court affirmed the RTC's decision, noting jurisdiction remains with the body that rendered a decision throughout its implementation.

Copyright:

© All Rights Reserved
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1/ 2

PAQUITO V. ANDO VS. ANDRESITO Y.

 CAMPO ET. AL.
G.R. No. 184007, February 16, 2011
PONTENTE: J. Nachura

FACTS:

  Campo and co-respondents were hired by Premier Allied


Contracting Services, Inc. (PACSI), an independent labor
contractor headed by Ando as its president. They filed an illegal
dismissal case and some money claims with the NLRC against
PACSI. The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of Campo and his co-
respondents. A writ of execution of personal property was issued to
answer for the monetary award.Ando filed an action for prohibition
and damages with TRO before the RTC claiming that the
property belong to him and his wife and not to the corporation. RTC
denied the petition holding that it has no jurisdiction to try and
decide the case and ruled that the petitioner’s remedy is to file a
third party complaint with the NLRC Sheriff.

ISSUE:

Did RTC correctly rule that it has no jurisdiction over the


case?

LAW:

  NLRC Manual in Execution of Judgment (in relation to Scope


of Jurisdiction of Labor Tribunals under the Labor Code)

RULING:

Yes, RTC correctly ruled that it has no jurisdiction over the


case. The regular courts have no jurisdiction to hear and decide
questions which arise from and are incidental to the enforcement
of decisions, orders and awards rendered in labor cases by
appropriate officers and tribunals of DOLE. To hold otherwise is to
sanction splitting jurisdiction which is obnoxious to the orderly
administration of  justice. It is the NLRC Manual on the Execution
of Judgment that governs any question on the execution of
judgment of that body. The Rules of Court apply only by analogy of
in a suppletory character.
OPINION:

I concur with the decision of the Supreme Court that the RTC
has no jurisdiction over the case as the subject matter of the
petition is the execution of judgment of the NLRC’s decision. We
must take note that, jurisdiction once acquired, continues until the
case is finally terminated and there can be no end to a case
without the implementation of the decision which decision must be
exercised by the body who rendered it and not the courts.
Especially in this case, the NLRC Manual specifically provides for
the procedures to be followed in the execution of judgment
promulgated by NLRC.

You might also like