FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 65377. May 28, 1984.]
MOLAVE MOTOR SALES, INC. , petitioner, vs. HON. CRISPIN C. LARON,
Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Pangasinan, Branch
XLIV and PEDRO GEMENIANO , respondents.
Nuelino B. Ranchez for petitioner.
Santos Areola for private respondents.
SYLLABUS
1. LABOR AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION; LABOR CODE; JURISDICTION OF
LABOR ARBITERS BEFORE ENACTMENT OF BATAS PAMBANSA BILANG 227; CASE AT
BAR. — Before the enactment of BP Blg. 227 on June 1, 1982, Labor Arbiters, under
paragraph 5 of Article 217 of the Labor Code had jurisdiction over "all other cases
arising from employer-employee relation, unless expressly excluded by this Code." Even
then, the principle followed by this Court was that, although a controversy, is between
an employer and an employee, the Labor Arbiters have no jurisdiction if the Labor Code
is not involved. In the case below, plaintiff had sued for monies loaned to defendant, the
cost of repair jobs made on his personal cars, and for the purchase price of vehicles
and parts sold to him. Those accounts have no relevance to the Labor Code. The cause
of action was one under the civil laws, and it does not breach any provision of the Labor
Code or the contract of employment of defendant. Hence, the civil courts, not the Labor
Arbiters and the NLRC, should have jurisdiction.
2. ID.; ID.; JURISDICTION OF LABOR ARBITERS REGARDING CLAIMS ARISING
FROM EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP LIMITED BY BATAS PAMBANSA 227. —
The dismissal of the case below on the ground that the sum of money and damages
sued upon arose from employer-employee relationship was erroneous. Claims arising
from employer-employee relations are now limited by Batas Pambansa 227 to those
mentioned in paragraphs 2 and 3 of Article 217.
3. REMEDIAL LAW; JURISDICTION; EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP
DOES NOT AFFECT THE JURISDICTION OF CIVIL COURTS. — The claim of defendant
that he should still be considered an employee of plaintiff, because the latter has not
sought clearance for his separation from the service, will not affect the jurisdiction of
respondent Regional Trial Judge to resolve the complaint of plaintiff. Defendant could
still be liable to the plaintiff for payment of the accounts sued for even if he remains an
employee of plaintiff.
DECISION
MELENCIO-HERRERA , J : p
Respondent Judge, presiding Branch XLIV of the Regional Trial Court in Dagupan
City, had dismissed the case below for lack of jurisdiction and had denied
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2019 cdasiaonline.com
reconsideration for lack of merit. LLpr
Petitioner, PLAINTIFF in the case below, is a corporation engaged in the sale and
repair of motor vehicles in Dagupan City. Private respondent, the DEFENDANT in the
case below, was, or is, the sales manager of PLAINTIFF. Whether or not there was still a
relationship of employer and employee between the parties when the complaint was
filed is an unsettled question which need not be resolved in this instance.
Alleging that DEFENDANT was a former employee, PLAINTIFF had sued him, on
March 22, 1983, for payment of accounts pleaded as follows:
"That during his incumbency as such the defendant caused and without
authority from the plaintiff incurred accounts with the remaining balances in the
total sum of P33,890.38 excluding interest, arising from
the purchases of vehicles and parts,
repair jobs of his personal cars and
cash advances,
faithful reproductions of the Vehicle Invoice, Debit Memos, Deed of Absolute
Sale, Repair Orders, Charge Invoices, Vouchers, Promissory Notes,
Acknowledgment Letter and Statement of Account, hereto attached and
marked as Annexes 'A', 'B', 'C', 'D', 'E', 'F', 'G' 'H', 'I', 'J', 'K', 'L', 'M', and 'N'
respectively and the contents of which being herein additionally pleaded and
made integral parts hereof;" (paragraphing supplied).
In his Answer, DEFENDANT denied.
". . . that he incurred any unpaid unauthorized accounts with the plaintiff in
the total sum of P33,890.38 excluding interest therefor, and,
speci cally denies under oath that the annexed Vehicle Invoice, Debits
Memos, Deed of Absolute Sale, Repair Orders, Charge Invoices, Vouchers,
Promissory Notes, Acknowledgment Letter and Statement of Account.
have remained unpaid as in fact the truth of the matter is as follows, to
wit:" (paragraphing supplied)
DEFENDANT further alleged in a counterclaim that he should still be considered
an employee of PLAINTIFF in as much as there has been no application for clearance in
regards to his separation.
At the pre-trial conference, the DEFENDANT raised the question of jurisdiction of
the Court stating that PLAINTIFF's complaint arose out of employer-employee
relationship, and he subsequently moved for dismissal. It was then when respondent
Judge dismissed the case nding that the sum of money and damages sued upon
arose from employer employee relationship and that jurisdiction belonged to the Labor
Arbiter and the NLRC.
Before the enactment of BP Blg. 227 on June 1, 1982, Labor Arbiters, under
paragraph 5 of Article 217 of the Labor Code had jurisdiction over "all other cases
arising from employer-employee relation, unless expressly excluded by this Code." Even
then, the principle followed by this Court was that, although a controversy is between an
employer and an employee, the Labor Arbiters have no jurisdiction if the Labor Code is
not involved. In Medina vs. Castro-Bartolome, 116 SCRA 597, 604, in negating
jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter, although the parties were an employer and two
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2019 cdasiaonline.com
employees, Mr. Justice Abad Santos stated:
"The pivotal question to Our mind is whether or not the Labor Code has any
relevance to the reliefs sought by the plaintiffs. For if the Labor Code has no
relevance, any discussion concerning the statutes amending it and whether or not
they have retroactive effect is unnecessary.
It is obvious from the complaint that the plaintiffs have not alleged any
unfair labor practice. Theirs is a simple action for damages for tortious acts
allegedly committed by the defendants. Such being the case, the governing
statute is the Civil Code and not the Labor Code. It results that the orders under
review are based on a wrong premise."
And in Singapore Airlines Limited vs. Paño, 122 SCRA 671, 677, the following was
said:
"Stated differently, petitioner seeks protection under the civil laws and
claims no bene ts under the Labor Code. The primary relief sought is for
liquidated damages for breach of a contractual obligation. The other items
demanded are not labor bene ts demanded by workers generally taken
cognizance of in labor disputes, such as payment of wages, overtime
compensation or separation pay. The items claimed are the natural
consequences flowing from breach of an obligation, intrinsically a civil dispute."
In the case below, PLAINTIFF had sued for monies loaned to DEFENDANT, the
cost of repair jobs made on his personal cars, and for the purchase price of vehicles
and parts sold to him. Those accounts have no relevance to the Labor Code. The cause
of action was one under the civil laws, and it does not breach any provision of the Labor
Code or the contract of employment of DEFENDANT. Hence, the civil courts, not the
Labor Arbiters and the NLRC, should have jurisdiction. LLphil
BP Blg. 227 has amended Article 217 of the Labor Code to read as follows:
"ART. 217. Jurisdiction of Labor Arbiters and the Commission. — (a)
The Labor Arbiters shall have the original and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and
decide within thirty (30) working days after submission of the case by the parties
for decision, the following cases involving all workers, whether agricultural or non
agricultural:
1. Unfair labor practice cases;
2. Those that (involve) WORKERS MAY FILE INVOLVING wages, hours
of work and other terms and conditions of employment;
3. All money claims of workers, including those based on non-payment
or underpayment of wages, overtime compensation, separation pay and other
bene ts provided by law or appropriate agreement, except claims for employees
compensation social security, and maternity benefits;
4. Cases involving household services; and
5. CASES ARISING FROM ANY VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 265 OF THIS
CODE, INCLUDING QUESTIONS INVOLVING THE LEGALITY OF STRIKES AND
LOCKOUTS.
[ 6 . All other claims arising from employer-employee relations, unless
expressly excluded by this Code]." (Italics and bracketed portions indicate the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2019 cdasiaonline.com
deletions, while the amendments introduced are capitalized).
The dismissal of the case below on the ground that the sum of money and
damages sued upon arose from employer-employee relationship was erroneous.
Claims arising from employer-employee relations are now limited to those mentioned
in paragraphs 2 and 3 of Article 217. There is no di culty on our part in stating that
those in the case below should not be faulted for not being aware of the last
amendment to the frequently changing Labor Code. llcd
The claim of DEFENDANT that he should still be considered an employee of
PLAINTIFF, because the latter has not sought clearance for his separation from the
service, will not affect the jurisdiction of respondent Judge to resolve the complaint of
PLAINTIFF. DEFENDANT could still be liable to PLAINTIFF for payment of the accounts
sued for even if he remains an employee of PLAINTIFF. LLpr
WHEREFORE, the Petition is granted, and respondent Judge is hereby ordered to
take cognizance of the case below and to render judgment therein accordingly.
No costs.
SO ORDERED.
Teehankee, Plana, Relova, Gutierrez, Jr. and De la Fuente, JJ ., concur.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2019 cdasiaonline.com
