Professional Documents
Culture Documents
~upreme Qtourt
;1Manila
THIRD DIVISION
- versus -
Promulgated:
~t 4, 2~
x----~---------------------------~-----~--~-~----------~-----~-------x
DECISION
PERALTA, J.:
Before the Court is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45
of the Revised Rules of Court which seeks to review, reverse and set-aside
the Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals (CA), dated May 30, 2005, and its
Resolution2 dated January 10, 2006 in the case entitled Jndophil Textile
Mills, Inc. v. Hon. Rolando R. Velasco and Engr. Salvador Adviento,
docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 83099.
The facts are not disputed.
Designated Acting Member, per Special Order No. 1691 dated May 22, 2014, in view of the
vacancy in the Third Division.
1
Penned by Associate Justice Vicente Q. Roxas, with Associate Justices Juan Q. Enriquez, Jr. and
Regalado E. Maambong, concurring; Annex "H" to Petition, rollo, pp. I 03-112.
2
Penned by Associate Justice Vicente Q. Roxas, with Associate Justices Portia AlinoHormachuelos and Juan Q. Enriquez, concurring; Annex "K" to Petition, id. at 123-124.
Decision
-2-
Decision
-3-
the office.14 This was further aggravated by the installation of new filters
fronting the office.15 However, no action was taken by management.16
According to respondent, these health hazards have been the persistent
complaints of most, if not all, workers of petitioner.17 Nevertheless, said
complaints fell on deaf ears as petitioner callously ignored the health
problems of its workers and even tended to be apathetic to their plight,
including respondent.18
Respondent averred that, being the only breadwinner in the family, he
made several attempts to apply for a new job, but to his dismay and
frustration, employers who knew of his present health condition
discriminated against him and turned down his application.19 By reason
thereof, respondent suffered intense moral suffering, mental anguish, serious
anxiety and wounded feelings, praying for the recovery of the following: (1)
Five Million Pesos (P5,000,000.00) as moral damages; (2) Two Million
Pesos (P2,000,000.00) as exemplary damages; and (3) Seven Million Three
Thousand and Eight Pesos (P7,003,008.00) as compensatory damages.20
Claiming to be a pauper litigant, respondent was not required to pay any
filing fee.21
In reply, petitioner filed a Motion to Dismiss22 on the ground that: (1)
the RTC has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the complaint because
the same falls under the original and exclusive jurisdiction of the Labor
Arbiter (LA) under Article 217(a)(4) of the Labor Code; and (2) there is
another action pending with the Regional Arbitration Branch III of the
NLRC in San Fernando City, Pampanga, involving the same parties for the
same cause.
On December 29, 2003, the RTC issued a Resolution23 denying the
aforesaid Motion and sustaining its jurisdiction over the instant case. It held
that petitioners alleged failure to provide its employees with a safe, healthy
and workable environment is an act of negligence, a case of quasi-delict. As
such, it is not within the jurisdiction of the LA under Article 217 of the
Labor Code. On the matter of dismissal based on lis pendencia, the RTC
ruled that the complaint before the NLRC has a different cause of action
which is for illegal dismissal and prayer for backwages, actual damages,
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Id.
Id.
Id.
Id.
Id.
Id.
Rollo, pp. 10-11.
Id. at 11.
Annex H to Petition, id. at 61-69.
Annex L to Petition, id. at 78-81.
Decision
-4-
attorneys fees and separation pay due to illegal dismissal while in the
present case, the cause of action is for quasi-delict.24 The fallo of the
Resolution is quoted below:
WHEREFORE, finding the motion to dismiss to be without merit,
the Court denies the motion to dismiss.
SO ORDERED.25
Id. at 81.
Id. (Emphasis in the original)
Supra note 5, at 38.
Supra note 1.
Id. at 112. (Emphasis in the original)
Supra note 2.
Rollo, p. 18.
Decision
-5-
31
32
33
34
Decision
-6-
35
36
37
38
39
40
Emphasis ours.
San Miguel Corporation v. Etcuban, supra note 31.
Id.
San Miguel Corporation v. National Labor Relations Commission, 244 Phil. 741, 748 (1988).
202 Phil. 163 (1982).
Medina v. Hon. Castro-Bartolome, supra, at 170. (Emphasis ours)
Decision
-7-
Indeed, jurisprudence has evolved the rule that claims for damages
under Article 217(a)(4) of the Labor Code, to be cognizable by the LA, must
have a reasonable causal connection with any of the claims provided for in
that article.43 Only if there is such a connection with the other claims can a
claim for damages be considered as arising from employer-employee
relations.44
In the case at bench, we find that such connection is nil.
41
42
43
44
Decision
-8-
Decision
-9-
It also bears stressing that respondent is not praying for any relief
under the Labor Code of the Philippines. He neither claims for reinstatement
nor backwages or separation pay resulting from an illegal termination. The
cause of action herein pertains to the consequence of petitioners omission
which led to a work-related disease suffered by respondent, causing harm or
50
51
52
53
54
55
Emphasis ours.
Huang v. Philippine Hoteliers, Inc., G.R. No. 180440, 687 SCRA 162, 194.
Supra note 5, at 53.
Supra note 51, at 193.
504 Phil. 437 (2005).
Yusen Air and Sea Services Phils., Inc. v. Villamor, supra, at 446-447.
Decision
- 10 -
damage to his person. Such cause of action is within the realm of Civil Law,
and jurisdiction over the controversy belongs to the regular courts.56
Our ruling in Portillo, is instructive, thus:
There is no causal connection between private respondents claim
for damages and the respondent employers claim for damages for the
alleged Goodwill Clause violation. Portillos claim for unpaid salaries
did not have anything to do with her alleged violation of the employment
contract as, in fact, her separation from employment is not rooted in the
alleged contractual violation. She resigned from her employment. She
was not dismissed. Portillos entitlement to the unpaid salaries is not even
contested. Indeed, Lietz Inc.s argument about legal compensation
necessarily admits that it owes the money claimed by Portillo.57
56
San Miguel Corporation v. Etcuban, supra note 31, citing Da-Chi Electronics Manufacturing v.
Villarama, G.R. No. 112940, November 21, 1994, 238 SCRA 267, 271.
57
Portillo v. Rudolf Lietz, Inc., supra note 41, at 584-585.
58
Id. at 581. (Emphasis ours)
- 11 -
Decision
WE CONCUR:
PRESBITER
J. VELASCO, JR.
JOSE C
~trENDOZA
1
AlJ~~J~:tice
)'IARVICM
Associate Justice
59
...
Decision
- 12 -
'
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the inion of the
Court's Division.
J. VELASCO, JR.
Ass iate Justice
Chairpe son, Third Division
CERTIFICATION
"-