02 SMC vs Etcuban

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 127639. December 3, 1999] SAN MIGUEL CORPORAION !"# $ERNARDO NOEL %" &%' c!(!c%)* !' I"#+ I"#+') ')r% r%! ! Re! Re !)% )%o" o"' ' M!"! M!"!-e -er r, petitioners, vs. ALREDO ECU$A ECU$AN, N, $ERNA $ERNA$E $E ECU$ ECU$AN, AN, NOR$ NOR$ER ERO O LA$UCA LA$UCA,, ELIPE ELIPE EC/A EC/A0E, 0E, $ERNA $ERNARD RDINO INO ENAM ENAM$R $RE, E, RO ROGEL GELIO IO A$ELL A$ELLAN ANOSA OSA,, ROMULO CAALAN, PEDRO E$O, ANAOLIO GERALDIO, OSE ALAN ALAN A, EDUARD EDUARDO O LOR ORAN ANCO CO,, LECER LECERIO IO PAR$A, AR$A, RA RAAEL AGUILAR, AGUILAR, RICARDO RICARDO LACUAREN LACUAREN,, $ENAMIN $ENAMIN ALESNA, ALESNA, ANONIO ANONIO $ACUS, PRIMO SOEROL, ESUS ADORMEO, MANUEL MAN MANI IIS IS,, APRO APRONI NIAN ANO O ANG, ANG, RE RENA NAO O 0ILL 0ILLAL ALON ON,, SAMU SAMUEL EL OUAN OU ANO O, OSE OSE DELA DELA,, ESU ESUS S $ASI $ASILG LGO O, CA CAALIN ALINO O COLE COLE,, SR SR., ., ALRE ALREDO DO GONA GONALES LES,, RAMON RAMON LOR LORES, ES, MARCO MARCOS S 0IO 0IO CRU, CRU,  ACINO DI0INAGRACIA, DI0INAGRACIA, ALAN ALINSUGA4 ALINSUGA4 !"# CLAUDIO CLAUDIO AGAN, respondents. DECISION APUNAN, J.5 Before the Court is a petition for review on certiorari of certiorari of the Decision, dated 16 a! 1""6 of the Court of #ppea$s in C#%&'R' CV No' (6))( and of  its its Reso$ eso$ut utio ion, n, date dated d Nove Nove*+ *+er er 1" 1""6 "6 den! den!in in  peti petiti tion oner ers s *oti *otion on for reconsideration of said decision' The Court of #ppea$s decision reversed and set aside the reso$ution of the Reiona$ Tria$ Court of Ce+u, Branch 1", in Civi$ Case Case No' No' C-B% C-B%1) 1).1 .1/, /, dis* dis*is issi sin n for for $ac0 $ac0 of uri urisd sdic icti tion on respo espond nden ents ts co*p$aint for da*aes aainst petitioners for ter*inatin their e*p$o!*ent +! fraudu$ent$! inducin the* to accept petitioners retrench*ent prora*' prora*'  The antecedents of this case are are as fo$$ows2 In 1" 1"31 31,, San San iu iue$ e$ Corp Corpor orat atio ion n 4SC 4SC55 info infor* r*ed ed its its and andaue aue Cit! Cit! Brewer! e*p$o!ees that it was suerin fro* heav! $osses and 7nancia$ distress which cou$d eventua$$! $ead to its tota$ c$osure' In severa$ *eetins convened +! SC with its e*p$o!ees, it was e8p$ained to the* that the distressed state of SC was caused +! its poor sa$es perfor*ance which, in order to survive, ca$$ed for a cut+ac0 in production and a correspondin reduction in the wor0 force' Because of this, SC oered its Retrench*ent Retrench*ent to

9revent :oss 9rora* to its e*p$o!ees' The oerin of the retrench*ent prora* was coup$ed with an unso$icited advise fro* SC that it wou$d +e in the +est interest of the aected e*p$o!ees to avai$ of the said prora* since, +! doin so, the! wou$d +e a+$e to o+tain their retrench*ent +ene7ts and privi$ees with ease' SC ad*onished its e*p$o!ees that their fai$ure to avai$ of the retrench*ent prora* *iht $ead to di;cu$t! in fo$$owin%up and o+tainin their separation pa! fro* SCs *ain o;ce in ani$a' Convinced +! the representations and i*portunins of SC, respondents, who had +een e*p$o!ees of SC since the 1"6/s, avai$ed of the retrench*ent prora* at various ti*es in 1"31, 1"3< and 1"3.'#fter their inc$usion in the retrench*ent prora*, respondents were iven their ter*ination $etters and separation pa!' In return, respondents e8ecuted receipt and re$ease docu*ents in favor of SC' So*eti*e in a! of 1"36, respondents ot ho$d of an SC pu+$ication a$$eed$! revea$in that SC was never in 7nancia$ distress durin the ti*e when the! were +ein retrenched +ut was, in fact, eno!in a rowth in sa$es' Respondents a$so $earned that, durin their retrench*ent, SC was enaed in hirin new e*p$o!ees' Thus, respondents conc$uded that SCs 7nancia$ distress stor! and retrench*ent prora* were *ere$! sche*es to rid itse$f of reu$ar e*p$o!ees and, thus, avoid the pa!*ent of their actua$ +ene7ts' On 1= Octo+er 1"33, respondents 7$ed a co*p$aint +efore the Reiona$ #r+itration Branch No' VII of the Nationa$ :a+or Re$ations Co**ission 4N:RC5 for the dec$aration of nu$$it! of the retrench*ent prora*' In their co*p$aint, respondents a$$eed that the! were for*er reu$ar e*p$o!ees of SC who were deceived into severin their e*p$o!*ent due to SCs concocted 7nancia$ distress stor! and fraudu$ent retrench*ent prora*' Respondents pra!ed for reinstate*ent, +ac0waes and da*aes' On u$! 1"3", the :a+or #r+iter dis*issed the co*p$aint on the round of prescription, statin2 ?hat is apparent fro* their a$$eations, however, is that co*p$ainants are contestin their respective ter*inations pursuant to the Retrench*ent 9rora* eected +! San iue$ Corporation in 1"31, 1"3ARISDICTION OV-R T- INST#NT C#S- #ND T- C#AS- OF #CTION OF TR-S9OND-NTS #R- NOT #CTA#::H B#S-D ON #N -9:OH-R%-9:OH-R-:#TIONSI9 ?-N T- CO9:#INT SO?S T#T T- R-S9OND-NTS #RC:#IIN& TO #V- B--N AN>AST:H S-9#R#T-D FRO T-IR R-&A:#R -9:OH-NTS 4sic5 BH T- 9-TITION-RS #ND #R- D-#NDIN& TO B- 9#ID #CTA#: #ND CO9-NS#TORH D##&-S CONSISTIN& OF T-IR -9-CT-D INCO- BH ?#H OF S#:#RI-S #ND OT-R FRIN&- B-N-FITS DA- T- AND-R T- :#? FRO T- TI- OF T-IR S-9#R#TION #ND ANTI: T-IR R-TIR--NT DA- TO #&- OR :-N&T OF S-RVIC- ' ' ' SOCI#: S-CARITH SHST- B-N-FITS ' ' ' R-TIR--NT B-N-FITS' II IN RA:IN& T#T T- CO9:#INT OF T- R-S9OND-NTS #V- NOT H-T 9R-SCRIB-D ?-N T- R-S9OND-NTS #V- C:#I-D IN T-IR CO9:#INT  T#T T-H #V- B--N #::-&-D:H BR#IN?#S-D BH T- 9-TITION-RS #ND  T-IR CO9#INT 4sic5 ?#S FI:-D ON:H #FT-R OR- T#N SI 465 H-#RS #V- :#9S-D FRO T- TI- T#T T- R-S9OND-NTS C:#I-D TO #VDISCOV-R-D T#T IND--D, D-F-ND#NTS 49etitioners5 D-C-IV-D T- INTO B-:I-VIN& T#T D-F-ND#NT COR9OR#TION ?#S INCARRIN& :OSS-S IN ITS O9-R#TION -NC-, T- N-C-SSITH TO TRI DO?N ITS ?ORJ FORC- TO INDAC- T- TO #CC-9T T- OFF-R OF R-TR-NC-NT 4sic5' III IN RA:IN& T#T T- DISISS#: OF T- FIRST CO9:#INT IS NOT #  >AD&-NT ON T- -RITS #ND T-R-FOR- NOT #99:IC#B:- TO T9R-S-NT C#S- ?-N IT IS T- S#ID DIVISIONS O?N FINDIN& T#T2 TCO9:#INT FI:-D BH -R-IN 9:#INTIFFS%#99-::#NTS 4Respondents5 ?IT  T- R-&ION#: #RBITR#TION BR#NC 9R#H-D FOR T- D-C:#R#TION OF  T- T-RIN#TION SC-- #::-&-D:H D-C-9TIV-:H FORC-D A9ON T-  TO B- NA:: #ND VOID ?IT T- S#- 9R#H-R T#T T-H B- R-INST#T-D  TO T-IR R-&A:#R -9:OH-NT ?IT>OAT #NH :OSS OF #NH RI&TS 4sic5 #ND B-N-FITS 4sic5 #S ?-:: #S 9#H-NT OF T-IR B#CJ?#&-S #ND D##&-S'6E ?e 7nd the petition i*pressed with *erit'

 The de*arcation $ine +etween the urisdiction of reu$ar courts and $a+or courts over cases invo$vin wor0ers and their e*p$o!ers has a$wa!s +een the su+ect of dispute' ?e have reconied that not a$$ c$ai*s invo$vin such roups of $itiants can +e reso$ved so$e$! +! our $a+or courts' =E owever, we have a$so ad*onished that the present trend is to refer wor0er%e*p$o!er controversies to $a+or courts, un$ess un*ista0a+$! provided +! the $aw to +e otherwise'3E Because of this trend, urisprudence has deve$oped the reasona+$e causa$ connection ru$e' Ander this ru$e, if there is a reasona+$e causa$ connection +etween the c$ai* asserted and the e*p$o!er%e*p$o!ee re$ations, then the case is within the urisdiction of our $a+or courts' "E In the a+sence of such ne8us, it is the reu$ar courts that have urisdiction'1/E  The urisdiction of $a+or courts is provided under #rtic$e