G.R. No. 153886 - MEL V. VELARDE, VS. LOPEZ, INC..D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

accordingly dismissed. [13] The Court of Appeals having denied petitioners motion for reconsideration, the instant Petition for Review was filed which assigns the following errors: I. THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN RULING THAT THE RTC BRANCH 155 ALLEGEDLY ACTED WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN ISSUING THE ORDERS DATED JANUARY 3, 2000 AND OCTOBER 9, 2000 CONSIDERING THAT THE GROUNDS RAISED BY RESPONDENT LOPEZ, INC. IN ITS PETITION FOR CERTIORARI INVOLVED MERE ERRORS OF JUDGMENT AND NOT ERRORS OF JURISDICTION. II. THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN RULING THAT RESPONDENT LOPEZ, INC. IS NOT THE REAL PARTY-IN-INTEREST AS PARTY-DEFENDANT ON THE COUNTERCLAIMS OF PETITIONER VELARDE CONSIDERING THAT THE FILING OF RESPONDENT LOPEZ, INC.S MANIFESTATION AND MOTION TO DISMISS COUNTERCLAIM HAD THE EFFECT OF HYPOTHETICALLY ADMITTING THE TRUTH OF THE MATERIAL AVERMENTS OF THE ANSWER, WHICH MATERIAL AVERMENTS SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED THAT RESPONDENT LOPEZ, INC. COMMITTED ACTS WHICH SHOW THAT ITS SUBSIDIARY, SKY VISION, WAS A MERE BUSINESS CONDUIT OR ALTER EGO OF THE FORMER, THUS, JUSTIFYING THE PIERCING OF THE VEIL OF CORPORATE FICTION. III. THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN RULING THAT THE COUNTERCLAIMS OF PETITIONER VELARDE ARE NOT COMPULSORY. [14] While petitioner correctly invokes the ruling in Atienza v. Court of Appeals [15] to postulate that not every denial of a motion to dismiss can be corrected by certiorari under Rule 65 and that, as a general rule, the remedy from such denial is to appeal in due course after a decision has been rendered on the merits, there are exceptions thereto, as when the court in denying the motion to dismiss acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with patent grave abuse of discretion, [16] or when the assailed interlocutory order is patently erroneous and the remedy of appeal would not afford adequate and expeditious relief, [17] or when the ground for the motion to dismiss is improper venue, [18] res judicata, [19] or lack of jurisdiction [20] as in the case at bar. Early on, it bears noting, when the case was still with the trial court, respondent filed a motion to dismiss the counterclaims to assail its jurisdiction , respondent asserting that the counterclaims, being money claims arising from a labor relationship, are within the exclusive competence of the National Labor Relations Commission. [21] On the other hand, petitioner alleged that due to the tortuous manner he was coerced into retirement, it is the Regional Trial Courts (RTCs) and not the National Labor Relations Commission which has exclusive jurisdiction over his counterclaims. In determining which has jurisdiction over a case, the averments of the complaint/counterclaim, taken as a whole, are considered. [22] In his counterclaim, petitioner alleged that: x x x It was only on July 15, 1998 that Lopez, Inc. submitted a computation of the retirement benefit due to the Defendant. (Copy attached as ANNEX 4). Immediately after receiving this comput