INDOPHIL TEXTILE MILLS, INC.,petitioner,vs. ENGR.

SALVADOR
ADVIENTO,respondent.
G.R.No.171212.August4,2014

Topic:2011NLRCRulesofProcedure

FACTS:

OnAugust21,1990,petitioneradomesticcorporationhiredrespondentEngr.SalvadorAdviento
as Civil Engineer to maintain its facilities in Bulacan.On August 7, 2002, respondent
consultedaphysicianduetorecurringweaknessanddizziness.5Fewdayslater,hewas
diagnosedwithChronicPolySinusitis,andthereafter,withmoderate,severeandpersistent
AllergicRhinitis.

Distressed, respondent filed a complaint against petitioner withthe National Labor Relations
Commission(NLRC),SanFernando,Pampanga,forallegedillegaldismissalandforthe
paymentofbackwages,separationpay,actualdamagesandattorney'sfees.Thecasewasstill
pendingbeforetheNLRCwhentheinstantpetitionwasfiled.Subsequently,respondentfiled
anotherComplaint9withtheRegionalTrialCourt(RTC)ofAparri,Cagayan

a) Petitionersargument:(IndophilLOST)
Inhisreply,petitionerfiledaMotiontoDismissonthegroundthat:
1) theRTChasnojurisdictionoverthesubjectmatterofthecomplaintbecausethesame
fallsundertheoriginalandexclusivejurisdictionoftheLaborArbiter(LA)underArticle
217(a)(4)oftheLaborCode;and
2) thereisanotheractionpendingwiththeRegionalArbitrationBranchIIIoftheNLRCin
Pampanga,involvingthesamepartiesforthesamecause.

b) Privaterespondentsargument:(AdvientoWON)
Inhiscomplaint,respondentallegedthathecontractedsuchoccupationaldiseasebyreasonofthe
grossnegligenceofpetitionertoprovidehimwithasafe,healthyandworkableenvironment.

ISSUE:
WhetherornottheRTChasjurisdictionoverthesubjectmatterofrespondent'scomplaint

RULING:

TheCourtinthiscasefindthatthejurisdictionrestsontheregularcourtsbecauseclaimsfor
damagesunderArticle217(a)(4)oftheLaborCode,tobecognizablebytheLA,musthave
areasonablecausalconnectionwithanyoftheclaimsprovidedforinthatarticle.Onlyif
thereissuchaconnectionwiththeotherclaimscanaclaimfordamagesbeconsideredas
arisingfromemployeremployeerelations.

ItalsobearsstressingthatrespondentisnotprayingforanyreliefundertheLaborCodeofthe
Philippines.Heneitherclaimsforreinstatementnorbackwagesorseparationpayresulting
from an illegal termination. The cause of actionhereinpertains to the consequence of
petitioner'somissionwhichledtoaworkrelateddiseasesufferedbyrespondent,causing
 harmordamagetohisperson.SuchcauseofactioniswithintherealmofCivilLaw,and
jurisdictionoverthecontroversybelongstotheregularcourts.56

Rule:

The jurisdiction of the LA and the NLRC is outlined in Article 217 of theLabor Code,as
amendedbySection9ofRepublicAct(R.A.)No.6715,towit:

ART.217.JurisdictionofLaborArbitersandtheCommission(a)Exceptas
otherwise providedunder this Code the Labor Arbiter shall have original and
exclusivejurisdictiontohearanddecide,withinthirty(30)calendardaysafterthe
submissionofthecasebythepartiesfordecisionwithoutextension,eveninthe
absenceofstenographicnotes,thefollowingcasesinvolvingallworkers,whether
agriculturalornonagricultural:
1. Unfairlaborpracticecases;
2. Terminationdisputes;
3. Ifaccompaniedwithaclaimforreinstatement,thosecasesthatworkers
mayfileinvolvingwages,ratesofpay,hoursofworkandothertermsand
conditionsofemployment;
4. Claimsforactual,moral,exemplaryandotherformsofdamagesarising
fromemployeremployeerelations;
5. Cases arising from any violation of Article 264of this Code including
questionsinvolvingthelegalityofstrikesandlockouts;and
6. Except claims for Employees Compensation, Social Security, Medicare
andmaternitybenefits,allotherclaims,arisingfromemployeremployee
relations, including those of persons in domestic or household service,
involvinganamountexceedingfivethousandpesos(P5,000.00)regardless
ofwhetheraccompaniedwithaclaimforreinstatement.

WhiletheCourthaveupheldthepresenttrendtoreferworkeremployercontroversiestolabor
courtsinlightoftheaforequotedprovision,theCourthavealsorecognizedthatnotallclaims
involving employees can be resolved solely by our labor courts, specifically when the law
providesotherwise.

Forthisreason,wehaveformulatedthe"reasonablecausalconnectionrule",whereinifthereisa
reasonable causal connection between the claim asserted and the employeremployee
relations,thenthecaseiswithinthejurisdictionofthelaborcourts;andintheabsence
thereof,itistheregularcourtsthathavejurisdiction.

Conclusion:

Therefore,theRTChasjurisdictionoverthesubjectmatterofrespondent'scomplaintpraying
formoraldamages,exemplarydamages,compensatorydamages,anchoredonpetitioner's
allegedgrossnegligenceinfailingtoprovideasafeandhealthyworkingenvironmentfor
respondent.