25. Eviota v CA

Eviota v. Court of Appeals GR 152121 | 407 SCRA 394 | July 29 2003 !etitio" for revie# o" certiorari  u"$er  u"$er Rule 45 !etitio"er% E&'AR&( G. E)*(+A Respo" Respo"$e" $e"t% t% +,E ,(-. ,(-. C('R+ C('R+ ( A!!EA A!!EA/S /S +,E +,E ,(-. ,(-. J(SE J(SE A'+*S+ A'+*S+A A !resi$i" !resi$i" Ju$e of ra" ra" 13 Reio"al Reio"al +rial +rial Court Court of  a6ati a"$ S+A-&AR& C,AR+ERE& A- 8Effet #e" -( eployer:eployee relatio"sip e;ists< #e" ai" issue $oes "ot i"volve ER:EE relatio"sip= &(C+R*-E It is evident that the causes of action of the private respondent against the petitioner do not involve the provisions of the Labor Code and other labor  laws but the New Civil Code. Thus, the said causes of action are intrinsically civil. There is no causal relationship between the causes of action of the private private responde respondents nts causes causes of action action against against the petitione petitionerr and their  employer-employee employer-employee relationship. AC+S

-

Eduardo Eduardo . Eviota Eviota was employed employed by the respondent respondent ban! as Compensation and "enefits #anager. $n %une &', &''(, the respondent ban! filed a complaint against the petitioner with the )TC of #a!ati City, alleging* $n +ecember , &'', Eviota began negotiating with the o "an! on his possible employment with the latter. Ta!en Ta!en up during these negotiations were not only his compensation and benefit pac!age, but also the nature and demands of  his prospective position. The "an! made sure that Eviota was fully aware aware of all the terms and conditions conditions of his possible ob with the "an!. $n %anuary /, &''(, Eviota indicated his conformity with o the "an!s $ffer of Employment by signing a written copy of such offer dated %anuary , &''( 0the Employment Contract1. The ban! made the following e2penses, pursuant to the o contract contract of employme employment* nt* 0a1 payment of signing signing bonus3 renovated and refurbished the room which was to serve as Eviota4s Eviota4s office3 office3 0b1 purchased purchased a &''( 5onda C)-6 for  Eviota4s use3 0c1 purchased a des!top I"# computer for  Eviota4s use3 0d1 arranged the ta!eout of Eviota4s loans with Eviota4s Eviota4s former former employer3 employer3 0e1 released released Eviota4s Eviota4s signi signing ng bonus bonus in the net amount amount of 7899,9 7899,999. 99.993 993 0f1 boo!ed Eviota4s participation in a :ingapore conference on ;< proect scheduled3 and 0g1 introduced Eviota to the

-

-

-

local local and region regional al staff staff and officers officers of the "an! "an! via personal introductions and electronic mail. Eviota suddenly resigned his employment with immediate o effect to re-oin his previous employer. 5is resignation did not comply with the 89-day prior notice rule under the law and under the Employment Contract. There is evidence to show that in his attempts to ustify his o hasty hasty depart departure ure from from the "an! and conceal conceal the real reason for his move, Eviota has resorted to falsehoods derogatory to the reputation of the "an!. 5e has been maliciously purveying the canard that he had hurriedly left the "an! because it had failed to provide him support. 5is untruthful remar!s have falsely depicted the "an! as a contra contract ct viola violator tor and an undesi undesirab rable le employ employer er,, thus thus damaging the "an!s reputation and business standing in the the high highly ly comp compet etit itiv ive e ban! ban!in ing g comm commun unit ity y, and and underm undermini ining ng its abili ability ty to recrui recruitt and retain retain the best best personnel in the labor mar!et o Eviota never complied with the "an!s demand that he reimburse the latter for the other e2penses incurred on his account The respondent respondent ban! alleged alleged its causes causes of action action against against the petitioner* Eviota4s actions constitute a clear violation of =rticles &', o 9 and & of the Civil Code >nder =rticle (? 0a1 of the Labor Code, an employee may o terminate terminate without without ust cause the employeremployer-empl employee oyee relationship by serving written notice on the employer at least one 0&1 month in advance. In addition, :ection &8 of  the Employment Contract specifically provides that* ;our  employme employment nt may be terminated terminated by either either party giving notice of at least one month Eviota4s false and derogatory statements that the "an! o had failed to deliver what it had purportedly promised have besmirche besmirched d the "an!s reputation reputation and depicted depicted it as a cont contra ract ct viol violat ator or and and one one whic which h does does not not trea treatt its its employees properly The petitioner filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that the action action for damages damages was within within the e2clusive e2clusive urisdic urisdiction tion of the Labor =rbiter. The )TC denied this motion. C= held that it was the Trial Court that had urisdiction and not the L=.

*SS'ES @hether the L= has urisdiction over this case A N$ !R()*S*(-S  =)T. &. Jurisdiction of Labor Arbiters and the Commission. 0a1 E2cept as otherwise provided under this Code the Labor =rbiters shall have original and e2clusive urisdiction to hear and decide within thirty 0891 calendar days after the submission of the case by the parties for decision without e2tension, even in the absence of stenographic notes, the following cases involving all wor!ers, whether agricultural or non-agricultural*

&. >nfair labor practice cases3 . Termination disputes3 8. If accompanied with a claim for reinstatement, those cases that wor!ers may file involving wages, rates of pay, hours of wor! and other terms and conditions of employment3 B. Claims for actual, moral, e2emplary and other forms of damages arising from the employer-employee relations.

R'/*-G

-

-

N$. The trial Court has urisdiction. Not every controversy or money claim by an employee against the employer or vice-versa is within the e2clusive urisdiction of the labor arbiter. = money claim by a wor!er against the employer or  vice-versa is within the e2clusive urisdiction of the labor arbiter only if there is a reasonable causal connection between the claim asserted and employee-employer relation. =bsent such a lin!, the complaint will be cogniable by the regular courts of ustice.  =ctions between employees and employer where the employeremployee relationship is merely incidental and the cause of action precedes from a different source of obligation is within the e2clusive  urisdiction of the regular court. %urisdiction of the Labor =rbiter under =rticle & of the o Labor Code, as amended, is limited to disputes arising from an employer-employee relationship which can only be resolved by reference to the Labor Code, other labor  laws or their collective bargaining agreements.

In Singapore Airlines v. Pao, we stated that the action was for breach of a contractual obligation, which is intrinsically a civil dispute. @e further stated that while seemingly the cause of action arose from employer-employee relations, the employers claim for damages is grounded on wanton failure and refusal without ust cause to report to duty coupled with the averment that the employee maliciously and with bad faith violated the terms and conditions of the contract to the damage of the employer. :uch averments removed the controversy from the coverage of the Labor  Code of the 7hilippines and brought it within the purview of the Civil Law. In this case, the private respondent4s first cause of action for  damages is anchored on the petitioner4s employment of deceit and of ma!ing the private respondent believe that he would fulfill his obligation under the employment contract with assiduousness and earnestness. The petitioner when, without the reDuisite thirty-day notice o under the contract and the Labor Code, he abandoned his office and reoined his former employer3 thus, forcing the private respondent to hire a replacement. The private respondent was left in a lurch, and its corporate plans and program in eopardy and disarray. #oreover, the petitioner  too! off with the private respondents computer dis!ette, papers and documents containing confidential information on employee compensation and other ban! matters. $n its second cause of action, the petitioner simply wal!ed away from his employment with the private respondent absent any written notice, to the preudice of the private respondent, its ban!ing operations and the conduct of its business. $n its third cause of action, the petitioner made false and derogatory statements that the private respondent reneged on its obligations under their contract of employment3 thus, depicting the private respondent as unworthy of trust. It is evident that the causes of action of the private respondent against the petitioner do not involve the provisions of the Labor  Code and other labor laws but the New Civil Code. Thus, the said causes of action are intrinsically civil. There is no causal relationship between the causes of action of the private respondent4s causes of action against the petitioner and their  employer-employee relationship. The fact that the private respondent was the erstwhile employer of the petitioner under an e2isting employment contract before the latter abandoned his employment is merely incidental. o

-

-

-

&*S!(S*+*(-

The 7etition is +ENIE+. The +ecision of the Court of =ppeals dismissing the petition of the petitioner is =I)#E+.