Luis Enguerra v. Antonio Dolosa
Facts:
·
Petitioner
is a baker at De Lux Bakery and Grocery owned by respondent;
·
Petitioner
filed a case against respondent before the MTC of Sorsogon to recover P4,056.00
of unpaid overtime services;
·
The
MTC dismissed the complaint, to which petitioner appealed to the CFI of
Sorsogon
·
Soon,
petitioner filed with the same CFI another complaint against respondent for:
(a)
termination
pay;
(b)
underpayment
of wages;
(c)
compensatory
damages, unearned income from unjustified dismissal;
(d)
Compensatory
damages, unpaid overtime;
(e)
Moral
damages, exemplary and attorney’s fees;
·
On
motion, respondent was allowed 30 days within which to submit his answer, but
instead of filing one, he moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that it
violates the rule against splitting of action;
Lower court rulings:
CFI:
granted the motion to dismiss; dismissed petitioner’s motion for
reconsideration
Issue: WON there is splitting of causes of action
Ruling: Yes, there is splitting of cause of action.
The
statutory provisions regarding termination pay, minimum wage, overtime and
damages are as much a part of said contract of employment as the pertinent
provisions of the civil code on obligations and contracts, in general, and on
lease of services, in particular.
It is
obvious that petitioner cannot file a complaint for some effects of such breach
and another complaint for its other effects. Similarly, if underpayment of
minimum wage for a given day or month were coupled with failure or refusal to
pay overtime, for the same day or month, a complaint filed thereafter should
include both, underpayment of wages and overtime pay.
Courts
should not sanction a complaint for one, and another action for the other.
Hence, in his own complaint herein, petitioner has, in fact, included his
claims for alleged underpayment of wages, overtime, compensatory, moral and
exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees, under one cause of action.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment