Case 24 Montoya v.

Escayo WON the NLRC committed a grave abuse of discretion in reversing the
Labor Arbiter’s order to dismiss the complaints against the petitioner for
failure of the private respondents to refer the dispute to the Lupong
Tagapayapa prior to the filing of their cases.

Case 25 Basaya Jr. v. Militante Whether the Branch XII Regional Trial Court (Cebu City) erred in
assuming jurisdiction over the case and in declaring that private
respondent TUNA have a better right of possession of the Vessel and
ordering the petitioners to immediately deliver the possession of the
same to private respondent.

Case 26 Hawaiian Phil. Company v Gulmatico

1) Whether the Labor Arbiter has jurisdiction to hear and decide the
case against the petitioner
2) Whether respondent union and/or the farm workers represented by
it have a cause of action against the petitioner.

Case 27 Agusan Del Norte Electric Coop v. Vailoces

WON Hon. Fortunato Vailoces, in his capacity as Judge of the Court of

First Instance, erred in denying the motion to dismiss the petition for
prohibition and mandamus against ANECO and its officers on the
ground that the Court of First Instance had no jurisdiction over the
subject matter.

Case 28 Goodrich Employees Association v Flores

WON Hon. Delfin B. Flores, Judge of the Court of First Instance, erred in
assuming jurisdiction over a suit for damages filed by private
respondent B.F. Goodrich Philippines, Inc. because of a strike by its
employees’ union.

Case 29 National Federation of Labor v. EISMA

WON Hon. Carlito Eisma, Judge of the Court of First Instance, acted
beyond the scope of the authority conferred on him by law when he
assumed jurisdiction over the suit for damages, arising from picketing
that accompanied a strike.

Case 30 Primero v. IAC WON the Intermediate Appellate Court erred in affirming the decision
of the Court of First Instance in dismissing the complaint filed by the
petitioner on the ground that jurisdiction for claims for moral and
exemplary damages sought to be recovered from an employer by an
 employee upon the theory of illegal dismissal belong to the Labor
Arbiter.

Case 31 Servando’s Inc. v. Sec. of Labor

WON the Secretary of Labor and Employment erred in ordering the

referral to the appropriate Labor Arbiter of the case involving money
claims exceeding the amount of P5,000.00 on the ground that the same
fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter.

Case 32 Pepsi Cola Bottling Co. v. Martinez

WON the Court of First Instance have jurisdiction over the case filed by
an employee against his employer for recovery of unpaid salaries,
separation benefits and damages.

Case 33 SMC v. NLRC WON the money claim of private respondent Vega arising from his
employment relation with the petitioner is enough to bring the same
within the original and exclusive jurisdiction of Labor Arbiters.

Case 34 Phil. Assn. of Free Labor Unions v. Salas

WON the Court of First Instance has the jurisdiction to issue the
injunctive relief sought by the private respondent.

Case 35 Singapore Airlines v. Hon. Cruz-Pano

WON RESPONDENT Judge Ernani Cruz Paño erred in dismissing the

petitioner’s complaint for lack of jurisdiction.