PEPSI COLA DISTRIBUTORS OF THE PHILIPPINES, INC. v. HON.

LOLITA
O. GALANG, September 24, 1991

FACTS:
Private respondents were employees of Pepsi Cola. They were dismissed by
Pepsi Cola after an alleged administrative investigation. Thereafter, private
respondents filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and a separate complaint
for damages for malicious prosecution. The petitioners moved to dismiss the
civil case on the ground that the trial court had no jurisdiction over the case
because it involved employer-employee relationship, which was cognizable by
the Labor Arbiter. The motion was granted. However, it was overturned upon
its reconsideration. Hence, this petition.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the labor arbiter has jurisdiction over the civil case.

HELD:
The petitioners invoked Art 217 of the Labor Code and a number of decisions
to support their position that the private respondents civil complaint for
damages falls under the jurisdiction of the labor arbiter. However, Art 217
applies only when there is a casual connection between the claim asserted
and the employer-employee relationship. Absent such a link, the complaint
shall be cognizable by the regular courts of Justice in the exercise of their civil
and criminal jurisdiction.
Given that, par 3 of Art 217, although referring to "all money claims of
workers," does not suppose that the entire universe of money claims that
might be asserted by workers against their employers has been absorbed into
the original and exclusive jurisdiction of Labor Arbiters. The Court believes
and so holds that the 'money claims of workers" referred to in paragraph 3 of
Article 217 embraces money claims which arise out of or in connection with
the employer- employee relationship, or some aspect or incident of such
relationship. Put a little differently, that money claims of workers which now fall
within the original and exclusive jurisdiction of Labor Arbiters are those money
claims which have some reasonable causal connection with the employer-
employee relationship.
The case now before the Court involves a complaint for damages for
malicious prosecution. It does not appear that there is a "reasonable causal
connection" between the complaint and the relations of the parties as
employer and employees. The complaint did not arise from such relations and
in fact could have arisen independently of an employment relationship
between the parties. No such relationship or any unfair labor practice is
asserted. What the employees are alleging is that the petitioners acted with
bad faith when they filed the criminal complaint which the Municipal Trial
Court said was intended "to harass the poor employees" and the dismissal of
which was affirmed by the Provincial Prosecutor "for lack of evidence to
establish even a slightest probability that all the respondents herein have
committed the crime imputed against them." This is a matter which the labor
arbiter has no competence to resolve as the applicable law is not the Labor
Code but the Revised Penal Code. Therefore, this case is congnizable by the.
regular courts.
PAUL V. SANTIAGO v. CF SHARP CREW MANAGEMENT, INC.,
July 10, 2007

FACTS:
Petitioner had been working as a seafarer for Smith Bell Management, Inc.
(respondent) for about five (5) years. On 3 February 1998, petitioner signed a
new contract of employment with respondent, with the duration of nine (9)
months. He was assured of a monthly salary of US$515.00, overtime pay and
other benefits. Petitioner was to be deployed on board the "MSV Seaspread"
which was scheduled to leave the port of Manila for Canada on 13 February
1998.
A week before the scheduled date of departure, Capt. Pacifico Fernandez,
respondents Vice President, sent a facsimile message to the captain of "MSV
Seaspread, that petioner has a plan to jump ship. Petitioner was thus told
that he would not be leaving for Canada anymore.
Petitioner filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, damages, and attorney's fees
against respondent. The labor arbiter held respondent liable for actual
damages.On appeal by respondent, the National Labor Relations Commission
(NLRC) ruled that there is no employer-employee relationship between
petitioner and respondent because under the Standard Terms and Conditions
Governing the Employment of Filipino Seafarers on Board Ocean Going
Vessels (POEA Standard Contract), the employment contract shall commence
upon actual departure of the seafarer from the airport or seaport at the point
of hire and with a POEA-approved contract. the NLRC found respondents
decision not to deploy petitioner to be a valid exercise of its management
prerogative.
Petitioner moved for the reconsideration of the NLRCs Decision but his
motion was denied for lack of merit. He elevated the case to the Court of
Appeals through a petition for certiorari. the Court of Appeals ruled that
petitioner is not entitled to actual damages because damages are not
recoverable by a worker who was not deployed by his agency within the
period prescribed in the POEA Rules. It agreed with the NLRCs finding that
petitioners non-deployment was a valid exercise of respondents
management prerogative.

ISSUE:
Whether the claims or disputes of the Overseas Filipino Worker by virtue of a
contract fall within the jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter of the NLRC.

HELD:
There is some merit in the petition.
A distinction must be made between the perfection of the employment
contract and the commencement of the employer-employee relationship. The
perfection of the contract, which in this case coincided with the date of
execution thereof, occurred when petitioner and respondent agreed on the
object and the cause, as well as the rest of the terms and conditions therein.
The commencement of the employer-employee relationship, as earlier
discussed, would have taken place had petitioner been actually deployed from
the point of hire. Thus, even before the start of any employer-employee
relationship, contemporaneous with the perfection of the employment contract
was the birth of certain rights and obligations, the breach of which may give
rise to a cause of action against the erring party. Moreover, while the POEA
Standard Contract must be recognized and respected, neither the manning
agent nor the employer can simply prevent a seafarer from being deployed
without a valid reason.
Respondents act of preventing petitioner from departing the port of Manila
and boarding "MSV Seaspread" constitutes a breach of contract, giving rise to
petitioners cause of action. Respondent unilaterally and unreasonably
reneged on its obligation to deploy petitioner and must therefore answer for
the actual damages he suffered.
Despite the absence of an employer-employee relationship between petitioner
and respondent, the Court rules that the NLRC has jurisdiction over
petitioners complaint. The jurisdiction of labor arbiters is not limited to claims
arising from employer-employee relationships. Since the present petition
involves the employment contract entered into by petitioner for overseas
employment, his claims are cognizable by the labor arbiters of the NLRC.

GR
DATE:
the
Inc.
of
asked
but NO.:
ROBOSA
file
respondent,
employees
union.
issuedunion
Technische
Proctor
Gamble
FACTS:
DFA,
filed
Instead
During
when (CTMI)
a
led
exclusive
the
garner
respondent
memorandum
the
complaint
dismissal
practices
also
a
injunction
writ
it
refused
then
hear
Petitioner
CA
may a for
opined
review
court.
raising
ISSUE:
contempt
against
HELD:
(and
requires
prescribed
Court
labor
to
before
mode
only
218(d)
or
parties and
termination
drivers
their of
to due
issued
preliminary
the
consideration
denied by
its
subsequently
from Hence
by
contempt
appealable;
committed
discretion
contempt
Labor
the
hold
contempt,
indirectly,
appropriate
Labor the
Code,
Rules
when
labor
has
petitioners,
have
brought not
respondents
NLRC. of
offending
in v
February
G.R.
et
petition
certification
demobilizing
territories the
truck-sales
representatives
simultaneously
system(Salon
Groups). by
company.
asNLRC
the
latter
it the
issued
position.
forto
against
and
charge
moved
CA.
the that
an
in
labor
Code,
any
and
Commission
arbiter
does
initiate
is to No.
al.-
bargaining
issued
its
Petitioner
urged
dismissal.
this
and 8,
officers
grave of
for
however,
labor
under
the
of
not
there
powers.
arbiter
jurisdiction
direct or
indirect
trial
be Labor
party
improperly
the 176085
rank
for
However,
sought
the
charge
is
or
therefore,
indirect
before 2012
Manufacturing,
acquired
withdrawal
ignored
preliminary
the
to
directed and/or
was of
the
compulsory
NLRC
a
respondent
comply.
the
motion a
illegal
unfairbut
for
appellate
issues.
powers;
dismissing
respondents
charge
directly or by
abuse
arbiters)
the
impose
penalties or and
ofby
petitioners
electionIt
salesa
informing
while
Business at
failed
agent
union
notice
TRO.
prompted
TRO. which
injunction
but
NLRC
Labor waswhoit.
abolition
CTMI,labor
arbiter
to
manner
Rule
Court.
require
the
observed
court. NLRC
no
Article
toCode,
the
or the
relief
petition
is
NLRC
inthe
71
This
hold
the to
itof
to