G.R. No. 95237-38 September 13, 1991 DAVAO CITY WAT R DISTRICT !".

CIVI# S RVIC CO$$ISSION %&'t"( Petitioner is one among the more than five hundred (500) water districts existing throughout the country formed pursuant to the provisions of Presidential Decree No. 1 !" as amended #y Presidential Decrees Nos. $%! and 1&$ " otherwise 'nown as the (Provincial )ater *tilities +ct of 1 $,.( -t authori.ed the different local legislative #odies to form and create their respective water districts through a resolution they will pass su#/ect to the guidelines" rules and regulations therein laid down. Petitioners0 argue that they are private corporations without original charter" hence they are outside the /urisdiction of respondents 121 and 13+. 4espondent 121 however asserts that PD No. 1 !" as amended" is the original charter of 5 all water districts in the country and thus come under the coverage of 121. 6enceforth" all appointments of personnel of the different local water districts in the country shall #e su#mitted to the 1ommission for appropriate action. I"")e( )3N water districts are government7owned or controlled corporations with original charters thus under the /urisdiction of 121 and 13+8 *e+,( 9es. :he 1ourt reiterates its ruling in :an/ay case declaring water districts government7 owned or controlled corporations with original charter. :hat the 1ourt already ruled that a water district is a corporation created pursuant to a special law ; P.D. No. 1 !" as amended" and as such its officers and employees are covered #y the 1ivil 2ervice <aw. =rom the foregoing pronouncement" it is clear that what has #een excluded from the coverage of the 121 are those corporations created pursuant to the 1orporation 1ode. 2ignificantly" petitioners are not created under the said code" #ut on the contrary" they were created pursuant to a special law and are governed primarily #y its provision

G.R. No. 85-11 Apr.+ -, 199/ VICTORIANO 0A$ORAS " vs.RO12 S2 %&'t"( Petitioner >amoras was employed #y respondent 4o?ue 2u as overseer of the land since 1 5$ up to and ntil hiss termination from the service sometime in 2eten#er 1 !1. @eanwhile" 2u o#tained a loan from +nita 2u 6ortellano and that he authori.ed her to harvest the coconuts from his property (while the loan was outstanding(. 2u informed >amoras in writing of the said loan. 2u sent >amoras a letter informing him that he was #eing laid7off temporarily until 2u could o#tain a loan from the DAP with which to pay +nita. 6owever" >amoras was not allowed anymore to wor' as overseer of the plantation. :hus >amoras filed in the 4egional +r#itration Aranch of the @inistry of <a#or and Bmployment in >am#oanga 1ity a complaint against 4o?ue 2u" Cr. and +nita 2u 6ortellano for illegal termination and #reach of contract with damages. :he <a#or +r#iter held that the dismissal of >amoras was without /ust cause" hence" illegal. 3n +ppeal" N<41 reversed <a#or +r#iters decision. 6ence this petition. I"")e( )3N N<41 has /urisdiction to try and decide >amoras complaint for -llegal Dimissal. )3N the petitioner was an employee or tenant of the private respondents. *e+,( 9es. -t is the N<41" not the 1ourt of +graraian 4elations" that has /urisdiction to try and decide >amorasD complaint for illegal dismissal since >amora was an employee" and not a tenant of 2u. :he essential re?uisites of a tenancy relationship areE (1) the parties are the landholder and the tenantF (G) the su#/ect is the agricultural holdingF (,) there is consent #etween the partiesF (&) the purpose is agricultural productionF (5) there is personal cultivation by the tenant F and (%) there is a sharing of harvests #etween landlord and tenant (+ntonio 1astro vs. 1+ and De la 1ru." H.4. <7,&%1," Canuary G%" 1 ! F :iongson vs. 1+" 1,0 214+ &!GF Huerrero vs. 1+" 1&G 214+ 1,!). :he element of personal cultivation of the land" or with the aid of his farm household" essential in esta#lishing a landlord7tenant or a lessor7lessee relationship" is a#sent in the relationship #etween 2u and >amoras (1o vs. -+1" 1%G 214+ , 0F Hra.a vs. 1+" 1%, 214+ , )" for >amoras did not cultivate any part of 2u0s plantation either #y himself or with the help of his household. :hus ma'ing him an employee and not a tenant of 2u.

G.R. No. 797-2 3&4)&r5 26, 1991 %ORT2N C $ NT COR7ORATION vs.NATIONA# #A8OR CO$$ISSION 9%.r"t D.!.".o4: &4, ANTONIO $. #AGDA$ O

R #ATIONS

%&'t"( <agdameo is a registered stoc'holder of =ortune 1ement 1orporation (=11 for #revity). +t the =11 Aoard of Directors0 regular monthly meeting" he was elected Bxecutive Iice7President of =11. 2ome ! years later" at su#se?uent regular meetings the =11 Aoard approved and adopted a resolution dismissing <agdameo as Bxecutive Iice7President of the company" effective immediately" for loss of trust and confidence. " <agdameo filed with the N<41 a complaint for illegal dismissal against =11. =11 moved to dismiss <agdameo0s complaint on the ground that his dismiss as a corporate officer is a purely intra7corporate controversy over which the 2ecurities and Bxchange 1ommission (2B1) has original and exclusive /urisdiction. <a#or ar#iter granted respondents motion. 3n +ooeal" N<41 set aside <a#or +r#iterDs order. 6ence this petition. I"")e( )3N N<41 has /urisdiction over a complaint filed #y a corporate executive vice7president for illegal dismissal" resulting from a #oard resolution dismissing him as such officer. *e+,( No. + complaint filed #y a cororate executive vice7 president for illegal dismissal" resulting from a #oard resolution dismissing him as such officer is within the /urisdiction of the 2B1" not of the N<41. -n PSBA vs. Leao (1G$ 214+ $$!)" this 1ourt" confronted with a similar controversy" ruled that the 2B1" not the N<41" has /urisdictionE J:his is not a case of dismissal. :he situation is that of a corporate office having #een declared vacant" and of :an0s not having #een elected thereafter. :he matter of whom to elect is a prerogative that #elongs to the Aoard" and involves the exercise of deli#erate choice and the faculty of discriminative selection. Henerally spea'ing" the relationship of a person to a corporation" whether as officer or as agent or employee is not determined #y the nature of the services performed" #ut #y the incidents of the relationship as they actually exist.K :he issue of the 2B10s power or /urisdiction is decisive and renders unnecessary a consideration of the other ?uestions raised #y <agdameo. :hus did this 1ourt rule in the case of Dy vs. National Labor Relations Commission (1&5 214+ G11) which involved a similar situationE J-t is of no moment that Iailoces" in his amended complaint" see's other reliefs which would seemingly fall under the /urisdiction of the <a#or +r#iter" #ecause a closer loo' at these ; underpayment of salary and non7 payment of living allowance ; shows that they are actually part of the per?uisites of his elective position" hence" intimately lin'ed with his relations with the corporation. :he ?uestion of remuneration" involving as it does" a person who is not a mere employee but a stockholder and o icer! an inte"ral part! it mi"ht be said! o the corporation! is not a simple labor problem but a matter that comes within the area o corporate a airs and mana"ement! and is in act a corporate controversy in contemplation o the Corporation Code.K

G.R. No. 8-773 %ebr)&r5 16, 1992 S A%D C-A1D vs. NATIONA# #A8OR R #ATIONS CO$$ISSION &4, 32V NA# #A0AGA %&'t"( . 2B+=DB17+LD is a department of an international organi.ation" the 2outheast +sian =isheries Development 1enter" organi.ed through an agreement entered into in Aang'o'" :hailand #y the governments of @alaysia" 2ingapore" :hailand" Iietnam" -ndonesia and the Philippines with Capan as the sponsoring country. Private 4espondent Cuvenal <a.aga was an employee of 2B+=DB17+LD. 6e was thereafter terminated due to financial constraints #eing experienced #y the department and that he is entitled to separation #enefits. Petitioner failed to pay private respondents separation pay thus a complaint against petitioners for non7payment of separation #enefits plus moral damages and attorney0s fees with the +r#itration Aranch of the N<41. Petitioners alleged that N<41 has no /urisdiction over the case inasmuch as the 2B+=DB17+LD is an international organi.ation. :he <a#or ar#iter rendered a decision ordering petitioners to pay private respondent full payment of h separation ay and other #enefits. N<41 affirmed la#or ar#iters decision except the actual damage and attorneyDs fees. 6ence this petition. I"")e( )3 N<41 has /urisdiction over the case.

*e+,( No. Petitioner 2outheast +sian =isheries Development 1enter7 +?uaculture Department (2B+=DB17+LD) is an international agency #eyond the /urisdiction of pu#lic respondent N<41. Aeing an intergovernmental organi.ation" 2B+=DB1 including its Departments (+LD)" en/oys functional independence and freedom from control of the state in whose territory its office is located. 4espondent <a.aga0s invocation of estoppel with respect to the issue of /urisdiction is unavailing #ecause estoppel does not apply to confer /urisdiction to a tri#unal that has none over a cause of action. Curisdiction is conferred #y law. )here there is none" no agreement of the parties can provide one. 2ettled is the rule that the decision of a tri#unal not vested with appropriate /urisdiction is null and void.

G.R. No. 8/7-7 Apr.+ 22, 1991 8OY SCO2TS O% T* 7*I#I77IN S CO$$ISSION

vs.NATIONA#

#A8OR

R #ATIONS

%&'t"( Private respondents =ortunato 1. Bs?uerra" 4o#erto 3. @ala#or#or" Bstanislao @. @isa" Iicente N. Bvangelista and @arcelino P. Harcia" had all #een ran'7 and7file employees of petitioner Aoy 2couts of the Philippines ((A2PK) :he 2ecretary7 Heneral of petitioner A2P issued 3rders addressed separately to the five (5) private respondents" informing them that they were to #e transferred from the A2P 1amp in @a'iling to the A2P <and Hrant in +suncion" Davao del Norte. :hese orders however were opposed #y private respondents. + complaint for illegal transfer was filed with the then @inistry of <a#or and Bmployment against A2P. Private respondents continued pertinaciously to diso#ey the disputed transfer orders despite warning of termination of employment. A2P imposed a 5 day suspension on the 5 private respondents. 2u#se?uently" they were ordered terminated. Private respondents amended their original complaint to include charges of illegal dismissal and unfair la#or practice against petitioner A2P. :he <a#or +r#iter ordered the dismissal of private respondents0 complaint for lac' of merit. N<41 reversed <a#or ar#iterDs order. I"")e( )3N the <a#or +r#iter and N<41 has /urisdiction over the complaint.

*e+,( No. )hile the A2P may #e seen to #e a mixed type of entity" com#ining aspects of #oth pu#lic and private entities" we #elieve that considering the character of its purposes and its functions" the statutory designation of the A2P as (a pu#lic corporation( and the su#stantial participation of the Hovernment in the selection of mem#ers of the National Bxecutive Aoard of the A2P" the A2P" as presently constituted under its charter" is a government7controlled corporation within the meaning of +rticle -M. (A) (G) (1) of the 1onstitution. )e #elieve that the A2P is appropriately regarded as (a government instrumentality( under the 1 !$ +dministrative 1ode. -t thus appears that the A2P may #e regarded as #oth a (government controlled corporation with an original charter( and as an (instrumentality( of the Hovernment within the meaning of +rticle -M (A) (G) (1) of the 1onstitution. -t follows that the employees of petitioner A2P are em#raced within the 1ivil 2ervice and are accordingly governed #y the 1ivil 2ervice <aw and 4egulations. -n view of the foregoing" the 1ourt hold that #oth the <a#or +r#iter and pu#lic respondent N<41 had no /urisdiction over the complaint filed #y private respondents in N<41 1ase No. 1%,$7!&F neither la#or agency had #efore it any matter which could validly have #een passed upon #y it in the exercise of original or appellate /urisdiction.

G.R. No. 89-21 September 26, 1991 7 7SI CO#A DISTRI82TORS O% T* 7*I#I77IN S, INC vs.*ON. #O#ITA O. GA##ANG, SA#VADOR NOVI##A, A# 3ANDRO O#IVA, WI#%R DO CA8A;AS < %2#G NCIO # GO %&'t"( :he private respondents were employees of the petitioner who were suspected of complicity in the irregular disposition of empty Pepsi 1ola #ottles. :he petitioners filed a criminal complaint for theft against them #ut this was later withdrawn and su#stituted with a criminal complaint for falsification of private documents. -t was however dismissed. @eantime" allegedly after an administrative investigation" the private respondents were dismissed #y the petitioner company. +s a result" they lodged a complaint for illegal dismissal with the 4egional +r#itration Aranch of the N<41 and a and decisions manded reinstatement with damages. -n addition" they also instituted in the 4egional :rial 1ourt of <eyte" a separate civil complaint against the petitioners for damages arising from what they claimed to #e their malicious prosecution. :he petitioners moved to dismiss the civil complaint on the ground that the trial court had no /urisdiction over the case #ecause it involved employee7employer relations that were exclusively cogni.a#le #y the la#or ar#iter. -t was granted. 3n reconsideration" the complaint was reinstated" saying it was (distinct from the la#or case for damages now pending #efore the la#or courts.( 6ence petitioners came to this 1ourt for relief. I"")e( )3N the <a#or +r#iter and the N<41 has /urisdiction over the case.

*e+,( No. -t must #e stressed that not every controversy involving wor'ers and their employers can #e resolved only #y the la#or ar#iters. :his will #e so only if there is a (reasona#le causal connection( #etween the claim asserted and employee7employer relations to put the case under the provisions of +rticle G1$. +#sent such a lin'" the complaint will #e cogni.a#le #y the regular courts of /ustice in the exercise of their civil and criminal /urisdiction. :he case now #efore the 1ourt involves a complaint for damages for malicious prosecution which was filed with the 4egional :rial 1ourt of <eyte #y the employees of the defendant company. -t does not appear that there is a (reasona#le causal connection( #etween the complaint and the relations of the parties as employer and employees. :he complaint did not arise from such relations and in fact could have arisen independently of an employment relationship #etween the parties. No such relationship or any unfair la#or practice is asserted. )hat the employees are alleging is that the petitioners acted with #ad faith when they filed the criminal complaint which the @unicipal :rial 1ourt said was intended (to harass the poor employees( and the dismissal of which was affirmed #y the Provincial Prosecutor (for lac' of evidence to esta#lish even a slightest pro#a#ility that all the respondents herein have committed the crime imputed against them.( :his is a matter which the la#or ar#iter has no competence to resolve as the applica#le law is not the <a#or 1ode #ut the 4evised Penal 1ode.

G.R. No. 169578 Apr.+ 1/, 2//3 V #YN TO#OSA vs. NATIONA# #A8OR R #ATIONS CO$$ISSION, 1WANA =AI2N 9t>ro)?> .t" re".,e4t-&?e4t, %2$IO NA=AGAWA:, ASIA 82#= TRANS7ORT 7*I#S. INC., 7 DRO GARAT &4, $ARIO ASIS %&'t"( Petitioner Bvelyn :olosa (hereafter BIB<9N)" was the widow of 1aptain Iirgilio :olosa (hereafter 1+P:. :3<32+) who was hired #y Lwana7Naiun" through its manning agent" +sia Aul' :ransport Phils. -nc." (+2-+ A*<N for #revity)" to #e the master of the Iessel named @OI <ady Dona. 1+P:. 6is contract officially #egan on Novem#er 1" 1 G" as supported #y his contract of employment when he assumed command of the vessel in 9o'ohama" Capan. :he vessel departed for <ong Aeach 1alifornia" passing #y 6awaii in the middle of the voyage. +t the time of em#ar'ation" 1+P:. :3<32+ was allegedly shown to #e in good health. During the trip he had a slight fever and in the succeeding twelve (1G) days" his health rapidly deteriorated resulting in his death. Aecause of the death of 1+P:. :3<32+" his wife" BIB<9N filed a complaint #efore the P3B+. :he case was then transferred to 13<B" N<41. :he <a#or +r#iter ruled in her favor. :he N<41" affirmed #y the 1ourt of +ppeals" however" ruled that the la#or commission had no /urisdiction over the su#/ect matter filed #y petitioner. 6ence this petition. I"")e( )3N N<41 has /urisdiction over the case.

*e+,( No. :he allegation in the complaint determine the nature if the action and" conse?uently" the /urisdiction of the court. +fter carefully examining the complaintO position paper of petitioner" the 1ourt is convinced that the allegations therein are in the nature of an action #ased on a ?uasi7delict or tort. -t is evident that she sued Pedro Harate and @ario +sis for gross negligence. :he /urisdiction of la#or tri#unals is limited to disputes arising from employer7employee relations. )hile it is true that la#or ar#iters and the N<41 have /urisdiction to award not only reliefs provided #y la#or laws" #ut also damages governed #y the 1ivil 1ode" these reliefs must still he #ased on an action that has a reasona#le causal connection with the <a#or 1ode" other la#or statutes" or collective #argaining agreements. -t is not the N<41 #ut the regular courts that have /urisdiction over actions for damages" in which the employer7employee relation is merely incidental" and in which the cause of action proceeds from a different source of o#ligation such as a tort. 2ince petitioner0s claim for damages is predicated on a ?uasi delict or tort that has no reasona#le causal connection with any of the claims provided for in +rticle G1$" other la#or statutes" or collective #argaining agreements" /urisdiction over the action lies with the regular courts 77 not with the N<41 or the la#or ar#iters.