You are on page 1of 3

Question:

Whether or not the Labor Arbiter awards damages arising from tortious acts and
jurisprudence to support this.

Answer:
No. The Labor Arbiter cannot award damages arising from tortious acts. It is the
RTC which has jurisdiction thereto. This is also true when the employer-employee
relationship is merely incidental, and the cause of action proceeds from a different source
of obligation.

Jurisprudence
jeffsarabusing.wordpress.com
Baez v. Valdevilla and Oro Marketing, Inc
GR No. 128024

Facts:
Baez was the sales operations manager of Oro Marketing Inc. In 1993, Oro
Marketing indefinitely suspended Baez, prompting Baez to file for illegal dismissal.
Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of Baez. Since Oro Marketing failed to timely file the
appeal, both NLRC and SC dismissed the same.

Oro Marketing filed a complaint for damages before the RTC for loss of profit,
cost of supplies, litigation expenses, and attorney’s fees. It alleged that due to Baez’
modus operandi, its sales decreased and reduced its profits.

Baez filed a motion to dismiss, interposing that the action for damages, having
arisen from employer-employee relationship, was squarely under the exclusive original
jurisdiction of NLRC under Art. 217(a) par. 4 of Labor Code, and is barred by reason of
the final judgement in labor case. As such, he accused Oro Marketing of splitting causes
of action, and that the latter should have included the claim in its counterclaim before the
Labor Arbiter.

The respondent RTC Judge Valdevilla ruled that it had jurisdiction over the
subject matter, since the complaint does not ask for any relief under the Labor Code, but
rather to recover damages as redress for Baez’s nefarious activities, causing damage and
prejudice to Oro Marketing. Since this there was a breach of contractual obligation,
which is within the realm of civil law, the jurisdiction belongs to the regular courts.

Issue:

1
Whether or not RTC has jurisdiction over the claim for damages filed by Oro
Marketing against Baez.

Held:
No. RTC had no jurisdiction over Oro Marketing’s complaint for damages.

RTC was incorrect in saying that the resolution of the issues presented by the
complaint did not entail application of the Labor Code or other labor laws, the dispute
was intrinsically civil. Article 217(a) of the Labor Code, as amended, clearly bestows
upon the Labor Arbiter original and exclusive jurisdiction over claims for damages
arising from employer-employee relations ---in other words, the Labor Arbiter has
jurisdiction to award not only the reliefs provided by labor laws, but also damages
governed by the Civil Code.

It is clear that under Art. 217(a) par. 4 of Labor Code, the Labor
Arbiter and NLRC have original and exclusive jurisdiction claims for
actual, moral, exemplary and other forms of damages arising from the
employer-employee relations. This provision is the result of the
amendment by Section 9 of Republic Act ("R.A.") No. 6715, which took
effect on March 21, 1989, and which put to rest the earlier confusion as to
who between Labor Arbiters and regular courts had jurisdiction over
claims for damages as between employers and employees.

It will be recalled that years prior to R.A. 6715, jurisdiction over all
money claims of workers, including claims for damages, was originally
lodged with the Labor Arbiters and the NLRC by Article 217 of the Labor
Code. On May 1, 1979, however, Presidential Decree ("P.D.") No. 1367
amended said Article 217 to the effect that "Regional Directors shall not
indorse and Labor Arbiters shall not entertain claims for moral or other
forms of damages." This limitation in jurisdiction, however, lasted only
briefly since on May 1, 1980, P.D. No. 1691 nullified P.D. No. 1367 and
restored Article 217 of the Labor Code almost to its original form.
Presently, and as amended by R.A. 6715, the jurisdiction of Labor Arbiters
and the NLRC in Article 217 is comprehensive enough to include claims
for all forms of damages "arising from the employer-employee relations".

By the designating clause "arising from the employer-employee relations", Art. 217
should also apply with equal force to the claim of an employer for actual damages against
its dismissed employee, where the basis for the claim arises from or is necessarily

2
connected with the fact of termination, and should be entered as a counterclaim in the
illegal dismissal case.

In this case, Oro Marketing’s claim against Baez for actual damages
arose from a prior employer-employee relationship. In the first place, Oro
Marketing’s would not have taken issue with Baez’s "doing business of his
own" had the latter not been concurrently its employee. Thus, the damages
alleged in the complaint were: first, those amounting to lost profits and
earnings due to Baez's abandonment or neglect of his duties as sales
manager, having been otherwise preoccupied by his unauthorized
installment sale scheme; and second, those equivalent to the value of Oro
Marketing's property and supplies which Baez used in conducting his
"business".

Second, contrary to Oro Marketing’s allegations, no business losses


may be attributed to Baez as in fact, it was by reason of Baez’s sales
operations that the sales reached its highest record level, and that the
installment scheme was in fact with the knowledge of the management of
Oro Marketing. In other words, the issue of actual damages has been
settled in the labor case, which is now final and executory.

This is, of course, to distinguish from cases of actions for damages where the
employer-employee relationship is merely incidental and the cause of action
proceeds from a different source of obligation. Thus, the jurisdiction of regular
courts was upheld where the damages, claimed for were based on tort, malicious
prosecution, or breach of contract, as when the claimant seeks to recover a debt
from a former employee or seeks liquidated damages in enforcement of a prior
employment contract.