Indophil Textile Mills Digest

INDOPHIL TEXTILE MILLS VS. ENGR. SALVADOR ADVIENTO

Petitioner Indophil Textile Mills, Inc. is a domestic corporation engaged in the business of manufacturing thread for weaving. Petitioner hired respondent Engr. Salvador Adviento as ivil Engineer to maintain its facilities in !amba"in, Marilao, #ulacan. $n August %, &''&, respondent consulted a ph(sician due to recurring recurring wea"ness and di))iness. di))iness. *ew da(s later, later, he was diagnosed with hronic Pol( Sinusiti Sinusitis, s, and thereafter, thereafter, with moderate, severe and persistent Allergic Allergic +hinitis. Accordingl(, Accordingl(, respondent was advised b( his doctor to totall( avoid house dust mite and textile dust as it will transmute into health problems. istressed, respondent filed a complaint against petitioner with the -ational !abor +elations ommission -!+/, San *ernando, Pampanga, for alleged illegal dismissal and for the pa(ment of bac"wages, separation pa(, actual damages and attorne(0s fees. Subse1uentl(, Subse1uentl(, respondent filed another omplaint with the +egional Trial ourt +T/ of Aparri, aga(an, alleging that he contracted such occupational disease b( reason of the gross negligence of petitioner to provide him with a safe, health( and wor"able environment. In his omplaint, respondent alleged that as part of his 2ob description, he conducts regular maintenance chec" on petitioner0s facilities including its d(e house area, which is ver( hot and e mits foul chemical odor  with no ade1uate safet( measures introduced b( petitioner. According to respondent, the air washer  dampers and all roof exhaust vests are blown into open air, air, carr(ing dust thereto. oncerned, respondent recommended to management to place roof insulation to minimi)e, if not, eradicate the health ha)ards attendant in the wor" place. 3owever, said recommendation was turned down b( management due to high cost. In repl(, petitioner filed a Motion to ismiss on the ground that the +T has no 2urisdiction over the sub2ect matter of the complaint because the same falls under the original and exclusive 2urisdiction of the !abor Arbiter !A/ under Article &4%a/5/ of the !abor ode. 6hether or not the +T has 2urisdiction over the sub2ect matter of respondent0s complaint pra(ing for moral damages, exemplar( damages, compensator( damages, anchored on petitioner0s alleged gross negligence in failing to provide a safe and health( wor"ing environment for respondent.

ISSUE:

RULING:

7ES.

True, the maintenance of a safe and health( wor"place is ordinaril( a sub2ect of labor cases. More, the acts complained of appear to constitute matters involving emplo(ee8emplo(er relations since respondent used to be the ivil Engineer of petitioner. 3owever, it should be stressed that respondent0s claim for  damages is specificall( grounded on petitioner0s gross negligence to provide a safe, health( and wor"able environment for its emplo(ees 9a case of 1uasi8delict. This is easil( ascertained from a plain and cursor( reading reading of the omplaint, omplaint, which which enumerate enumerates s the acts and:or and:or omissions omissions of petitioner petitioner relative relative to the conditions in the wor"place. It is a basic tenet that 2urisdiction over the sub2ect matter is determined upon the allegations made in the complaint, irrespective of whether or not the p laintiff is entitled to recover upon the claim asserted therein, which is a matter resolved onl( after and as a result of a trial. In this case, a perusal of the complaint would reveal that the sub2ect matter is one of claim for damages arising from 1uasi8delict, which is within the ambit of the regular court;s 2urisdiction.

In the case at bar, respondent alleges that due to the continued and prolonged exposure to textile dust seriousl( inimical to his health, he suffered wor"8contracted disease which is now irreversible and incurable, and deprived him of 2ob opportunities. learl(, in2ur( and damages were allegedl( suffered b( respondent, an element of 1uasi8delict. Secondl(, the previous contract of emplo(ment between petitioner  and respondent cannot be used to counter the element of