Camaso
vs. TMS Shipping
Camaso signed a contract
of employment in 2014 with TSM Shipping for a period of 6 months. Prior to said
contract, he claimed to have been working for respondents for almost 5 years
and boarded 8 of their vessels
In 2014, Camaso was diagnosed with tonsillar cancer. He underwent chemotherapy sessions and radiation which were all paid for by TMS. He likewise received sickwage allowances.Thereafter, TMS refused to shoulder Camaso's medical expenses, thus, forcing the latter to pay for his treatment. Believing that his sickness was work-related and that respondents remained silent on their obligation, Camaso filed the instant complaint for disability benefits, sickwage allowance, reimbursement of medical and hospital expenses, and other consequential damages before the NLRC.
In 2014, Camaso was diagnosed with tonsillar cancer. He underwent chemotherapy sessions and radiation which were all paid for by TMS. He likewise received sickwage allowances.Thereafter, TMS refused to shoulder Camaso's medical expenses, thus, forcing the latter to pay for his treatment. Believing that his sickness was work-related and that respondents remained silent on their obligation, Camaso filed the instant complaint for disability benefits, sickwage allowance, reimbursement of medical and hospital expenses, and other consequential damages before the NLRC.
LA ruled in Camaso's
favor. NLRC dismissed Camaso's complaint. CA dismissed "for non-payment of
the required docketing fees.
Issue: WON the CA correctly dismissed Camaso's petition for certiorari before it for nonpayment of docket fees
Issue: WON the CA correctly dismissed Camaso's petition for certiorari before it for nonpayment of docket fees
Held: Yes. Rules of Court provides that in original actions filed before the CA, payment of the corresponding docket fees is required, and that the failure to comply with the same shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal of such action,
The failure to pay the
required docket fees per se should not necessarily lead to the
dismissal of a case. It has long been settled that while the court acquires
jurisdiction over any case only upon the payment of the prescribed docket fees,
its non-payment at the time of filing of the initiatory pleading does not
automatically cause its dismissal provided that: (a) the fees are paid
within a reasonable period; and (b) there was no intention on the part
of the claimant to defraud the government.cralawred
Here, it appears that when Camaso filed his petition, a check was attached thereto to serve as payment of docket fees. Although this was not an authorized mode of payment, the attachment of such personal check shows that Camaso exerted earnest efforts to pay the required docket fees. Clearly, this exhibits good faith and evinces his intention not to defraud the government.
Here, it appears that when Camaso filed his petition, a check was attached thereto to serve as payment of docket fees. Although this was not an authorized mode of payment, the attachment of such personal check shows that Camaso exerted earnest efforts to pay the required docket fees. Clearly, this exhibits good faith and evinces his intention not to defraud the government.
No comments:
Post a Comment