1.

PEPSI COLA vs GAL-LANG

*involves dismissal of an employee due to his disposition of empty bottles. Employer
even filed case for theft. Employee then filed for damages for malicious prosecution to
which opposed by the ER. ER Contention: LA jurisdiction
Not every controversy involving workers and their employers can be resolved only by
labor arbiters. There must be causal connection between the claim asserted and ER-E
relations to put the case under the provisions of Art. 217.
- Look into the character of the principal relief sought. Where such relief is to be
granted under labor legislation or a collective bargaining agreement, the case
should fall withn the jurisdiction of LA and NLRC, even though a claim for
damages might be asserted as an incident to that claim. In vice versa, where such
relief can be resolved by general civil law, the dispute belongs to the regular
courts of justice.
2. PEPSI COLA vs MARTINEZ
*involves case filed by an employee who won in a competition for salesman (Sumakwel
event) for the claiming of his prize
When the claim for prize arose from employer employee relationship, it falls within the
jurisdiction of LA which speaks of all claims arising from employer employee relations,
unless expressly excluded by this Code.
- The NLRC (not the regular courts) has jurisdiction over actions for recovery of
unpaid salaries, benefits and damage
3. PRIMERO vs IAC
* Primero was dismissed by DM Transit. He filed before LA for illegal dismissal and
recovery of backwages; then he filed claims for damages before Trial Court.
Apart from the reliefs expressly set out by the Labor Code flowing form illegal dismissal
from employment, no other damages may be awarded to an illegally dismissed employee
other than those specified by Civil Code. Hence, the fact that the issue of whether or
not moral or other damages were suffered by an employee and in the affirmative, the
amount that should properly be awarded to him in the circumstances is determined
under the Civil Code and not the Labor Code, WAS NOT MEANT to create a cause of
action independent of that for illegal dismissal and thus place the matter beyond the
Labor Arbiters Jurisdiction.
-

Thus, an employee may claim all reliefs before LA and not be allowed to
prosecute his claims in peacemeal. HE cannot institute proceedings separately in a
court of justice upon the same cause of action. This is what in procedural law is
known as splitting causes of action, engendering multiplicity of actions.

4. ABEJARON vs CA
*

5. ASSOCIATION OF BAPTISTS vs FIRST BAPTIST

*contract of sale wherein petitioner sell a parcel of land with respondent
RTC acting as land registration courts now no longer have limited jurisdiction, but have
EXCLUSIVE JURISDICITION not only over applications for original registration of
title to lands but also over petitions filed after original registration of title with power to
hear and determine all questions arising upon such applications or petitions.
6. AVERIA vs CAGUIOA
*
RTC nows with the authority to act 1) not only on applications for original registration
but also 2) over all petitions filed after the originsl registration of title
- Distinction between the general jurisdiction of the RTC and the limited
jurisdiction of said court conferred by the old law when acting merely as cadastral
court is eliminated by Sec 2 of PD 1529.
- Consequently, the court is now authorized to hear and decide not only such
controversial issues but even the contentious and substantial issues.
7. PILAR DEVT vs VILLAR
Nopayment by the spouses Villar as subdivision lot buyers of the monthly amortization
was not caused by any breach on the part of Pilar Devt Corporation as subdivision
owner. Consequently, jurisdiction on the legal issue involving the right of possession over
the subject lot rightfully belongs to the regular courts.
8. CADIMAS vs CARRION
An action for the cancellation of contract and the recovery of possession and ownership
of town house without alleging that plaintiff is a subdivision lot buyer is well within the
jurisdiction of REGIONAL TRIAL COURT.
Not every controversy involving a subdivision or condominium falls under the
competence of HLURB. For an action to fall with HLURBs jurisdiction, the decisive
element is the nature of action as enumerated in Sec 1 of PD 1344.
- The NHA or HLURB has jurisdiction over complaints arising from contracts
between subdivision developer and lot buyer or those aimed at compelling the
subdivision developer to comply with its contractual and statutory obligations to
make the subdivision a better place to live in. However in this case, the complaint
does not allege that petitioner is a subdivision lot buyer,
- From the face of the complaint and contract to sell, petitioner is an ordinary seller
of an interest in the subject property who is seeking redress for the alleged
violation of the terms of the contract, who sought the cancellation of such
and the recovery of possession and ownership of town house, RTC
- Even, assuming arguendo, that there was assertion that defendant is a subdivision
developer, it doesnt automatically vest jurisdiction on HLURB. On its face, the
complaint must sufficiently describe 1) the lot as a subdivision lot 2) sold by the

defendant in his capacity as subdivision developer to fall within jurisidiciton

of HLURB.
KATARUNGANG PAMBARANGAY
9. MORATA vs GO
Except in the instances enumerated in sec2 2 and 6 of PD 1508 (See Katarungang
PAmparangay Law) , the LUPON has authority to settle amicably all types of disputes
involving parties who actually reside in the same city or municipality. The law makes no
distinction whatsoever with the classes of civil disputes that should be compromised at
the barangay level.
10. VDA DE BORROMEO vs POGOY
The word individual in Sec 4a of PD 1508 applies only to cases involving natural
persons and not where any of the parties us a juridical person such as
corporation,partnership, corporation sole, testate or intestate, etc.
- Failure of complaint to allege compliance with requirement of referral of case first
to barangay courts is fatal. However in this case, the real party interest involved is
the intestate estate of Vito Borromeo.
11. GEGARE vs CA
*involves reversion case, splitted among the aprties but Gegare wants the whole lot.
When the government is only one of the contending parties, a confrontation before the
Barangay should still be undertaken among the other parties. If the other only
contending party is the government oe=r its instrumentality or subdivision the case falls
within the exception.
12. AGABAYANI vs BELEN
*the rule on property/ies located in same municipality is only for venue.
Where real property is subject of dispute and ti is located in the same barangay, but the
parties reside in different municipalities in barangays that are not adjacent to each other,
there is no need for prior recourse to Katarungang Pambarangay before action may be
filed in court or other government office.
13. GALUBA vs LAURETA
*repudiation for amicable settlement vs petition for nullification of arbitration award
Once parties have signed an amicable settlement, any pary who finds reasons to reject it
must do so by filing a sworn statement of repudiation before the barangay captain
(pursuant to Sec 13 of PD 1508)

(REPUDIATION *within 10 day period FILE before court *failure to repudiate w/n
such period effect: final judgment of a court Hence, he must face the consequences of the
amicable settlement as he can no longer file an action in court to redress his grievances.)
14. LEDESMA vs CA
(* As reviewed by the CA, the certification by Lupon showed that it was the Petitioners
son who went before the Barangay as complainant)
PD 1508 requires actual, personal appearance of the aprties, not their children. Without
the mandatory personal confrontation, no complaitn could be filed with the court.
Effect: Legal action is barred when there is no recourse to barangay court.
15. RAMOS vs CA
*involves case between brothers wherein Domingo authorized Manuel(his brother) to sell
his share of certain lands (co-owned) He filed complaint before the Barangay however
what he did is merely authorize his wife arguing that he wanted to avoid confrontation.
Appearance through representative is not permitted by law. It requires appearance in
person. Effect of failure to appear by the complainant: barred from seeking judicial
recourse from the same cause of action.
(See Sec 4 of PF 1508 Re Procedure for Amicable Settlement)
16. SAN MIGUEL vs PUNDOGAR
(*involves case bet a teacher and school; breach of contract)
The conciliation procedure required under PD 1508 is not a jurisdictional requirement
in the sense that failure to have prior recourse to such procedure would not deprive a
court of its jurisdiction either over the subject matter or over the person of the defendant.
- Failure affects the sufficiency or the maturity or ripeness of the plaintiffs cause
of action and the complaint becomes vulnerable to a motion to dismiss, not on the
ground of lack of jurisdiction but rather for want of cause of action or for
prematurity.
17. ROYALES vs IAC
Although there was no referral before the Barangay, such failure is not fatal and
would not prevent a court from exercising its power of adjudication before it,
where the defendants, as in this case, failed to object to such exercise of
jurisdiction in their answer and even during the entire proceedings a quo.
GR: Non-compliance with the barangay conciliation process for disputes cover by PF
1508 could affect sufficiency of plaintiffs cause of action and make complaint vulnerable
to dismissal on ground of lack of cause of action or prematurity

XPN: where defendants failed to object to exercise jurisdiction by the court over the case
1)in their answer and 2)even during the entire proceedings
18. FERNANDEZ vs MILITANTE
Failure of a party to raise non-compliance of barangay conciliation as a defense in the
answer or in a timely motion to dismiss is deemed a waiver of such precondition;
A party cannot likewise repudiate the jurisdiction of a court to which he has submitted
himself voluntarily.
19. ABALOS vs CA
(*sps abalos filed complaint for recovery of property against respondent. Upon appeal to
CA, respondents raise the issue of non compliance w/ barangay conciliation. Note:
Abalos change his address from Q.C Caloocan Such change was not objected at first
by the respondent = waiver )
Once a party to a case submits to the jurisdiction of the court and participate in the trial
on the merits of the case, he cannot thereafter, upon judgment unfavorable to his cause,
take a total turn about and say that the condition precedent of compliance with PD 1508
has not been met. One cannot have the cake and eat it too.
20. MONTOYA vs ESCAYO
Katarungang PAmbaranga Law is not applicable to labor cases. The law applies only to
courts of justice and not to NLRC nor LA.
21. BEJER vs CA
(*issue in this case: plaintiffs here are permanent residents of another province but at the
time of institution of the action, are temporarily residing for a transient purpose in the
same city where defendants reside)
For purposes of venue, the residence is his personal, actual or physical habitation or his
actual residence or place of abode, such residence being more than temporary.
Residence alone without membership is a barangay is not an accurate criterion, but
membership alone without actual residence will not likewise suffice.