8/10/2019 Metromedia vs. Pastorin

1/2

FACTS:

Johnny Pastorin was employed by Metromedia Times Corporation on 10 December

1990 as a Field Representative/Collector !is tas" entailed the periodic collection o#

receivables #rom dealers o# petitioner$s newspapersRespondent% beca&se o# tardiness

was s&pposedly terminated by the petitioner company% b&t beca&se o# the timely

intervention o# the &nion% the dismissal was not e##ected !owever% he inc&rred another

in#raction when he obtained a loan #rom a ma'a(ine dealer and when he was not able to

pay the loan% he stopped collectin' the o&tstandin' d&es o# the dealer/creditor )#ter

re*&irin' him to e+plain% respondent admitted his #ail&re to pay the loan b&t 'ave no

de#initive e+planation #or the same Therea#ter% he was penali(ed with s&spension !e

was also not allowed to do #ield wor"% and was trans#erred to a new position Despite the

completion o# his s&spension% respondent stopped reportin' #or wor" and sent a letter

comm&nicatin' his re#&sal to accept the trans#er !e then #iled a complaint #or

constr&ctive dismissal% non,payment o# bac"wa'es and other money claims with thelabor arbiter The complaint was resolved in #avor o# respondent Petitioner lod'ed an

appeal with the -.RC% raisin' as a 'ro&nd the lac" o# &risdiction o# the labor arbiter over

respondents complaint i'ni#ically% this iss&e was not raised by petitioner in the

proceedin's be#ore the .abor )rbiter The -.RC reversed the decision o# the .) and

r&led that the .) has no &risdiction over the case% it bein' a 'rievance iss&e properly

co'ni(able by the vol&ntary arbitrator !owever% th C) reinstated the r&lin' o# the C)

The C) held that the active participation o# the party a'ainst whom the action was

bro&'ht% co&pled with his #ail&re to obect to the &risdiction o# the co&rt or *&asi,&dicial

body where the action is pendin'% is tantamo&nt to an invocation o# that &risdiction and

a willin'ness to abide by the resol&tion o# the case and will bar said party #rom later on

imp&'nin' the co&rt or bodys &risdiction

ISSUE:

2hether or not petitioner is estopped #rom *&estionin' the &risdiction o# the .) d&rin'

appeal

HELD:

NEGATIVE.The C held that petitioner is not estopped #rom *&estionin' the &risdictiono# the .) d&rin' appeal 3n this case% &risdiction o# the labor arbiter was *&estioned asearly as d&rin' appeal be#ore the -.RC% whereas in Marquez% the *&estion o#

&risdiction was raised #or the #irst time only be#ore this Co&rt The viability o# Marquez ascontrollin' doctrine in this case is diminished owin' to the radically di##erentcirc&mstances in these two cases ) similar observation can be made as to the Bayocaand Jimenez cases 4stoppel does not apply to con#er &risdiction to a trib&nal that hasnone over a ca&se o# action 2here it appears that the co&rt or trib&nal has no

&risdiction% then the de#ense may be interposed at any time% even on appeal or evena#ter #inal &d'ment Moreover% the principle o# estoppel cannot be invo"ed to preventthis co&rt #rom ta"in' &p the *&estion o# &risdiction55

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/jul2005/gr_154295_2005.html#fnt44http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/jul2005/gr_154295_2005.html#fnt44

8/10/2019 Metromedia vs. Pastorin

2/2

The operation o# the principle o# estoppel on the *&estion o# &risdiction seemin'lydepends &pon whether the lower co&rt act&ally had &risdiction or not If it had no

jurisdiction, ut th! cas! "as tri!d and d!cid!d u#on th! th!or$ that it hadjurisdiction, th! #arti!s ar! not arr!d, on a##!a%, fro& assai%in' such jurisdiction,for th! sa&! (&ust !)ist as a &att!r of %a", and &a$ not ! conf!rr!d $ cons!ntof th! #arti!s or $ !sto##!%$ 67 CJ% 81,8:; Ho"!*!r, if th! %o"!r court had

jurisdiction, and th! cas! "as h!ard and d!cid!d u#on a 'i*!n th!or$, such, forinstanc!, as that th! court had no jurisdiction, th! #art$ "ho induc!d it to ado#tsuch th!or$ "i%% not ! #!r&itt!d, on a##!a%, to assu&! an inconsist!nt #osition+that th! %o"!r court had jurisdiction !ere% the principle o# estoppel applies The r&lethat &risdiction is con#erred by law% and does not depend &pon the will o# the parties% hasno bearin' thereon5

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/jul2005/gr_154295_2005.html#fnt46http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/jul2005/gr_154295_2005.html#fnt46