Indophil vs. Adviento

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 731 21/04/2018, 4)52 PM
G.R. No. 171212. August 4, 2014.*

INDOPHIL TEXTILE MILLS, INC., petitioner, vs. ENGR.
SALVADOR ADVIENTO, respondent.
Remedial Law; Civil Procedure; Courts; The delineation

between the jurisdiction of regular courts and labor courts over cases
involving workers and their employers has always been a matter of
dispute. It is up to the Courts to lay the line after careful scrutiny of
the factual milieu of each case.·The delineation between the
jurisdiction of regular courts and labor courts over cases involving
workers and their employers has always been a matter of dispute. It
is up to the Courts to lay the line after careful scrutiny of the
factual milieu of each case. Here, we find that jurisdiction rests on
the regular courts.
Same; Same; Same; Reasonable Causal Connection Rule; If
there is a reasonable causal connection between the claim asserted
and the employer-employee relations, then the case is within the
jurisdiction of the labor courts; and in the absence thereof, it is the
regular courts that have jurisdiction.·We have also recognized that
not all claims involving employees can be resolved solely by our
labor courts, specifically when the law provides otherwise. For this
reason, we have formulated the „reasonable causal connection rule,‰
wherein if there is a reasonable causal connection between the
claim asserted and the employer-employee relations, then the case
is within the jurisdiction of the labor courts; and in the absence
thereof, it is the
_______________
* THIRD DIVISION.
559
VOL. 731, AUGUST 4, 2014 559
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000162e76149055c08b2c5003600fb002c009e/p/AUA798/?username=Guest Page 1 of 20
Indophil Textile Mills, Inc. vs. Adviento
regular courts that have jurisdiction. Such distinction is apt since it

cannot be presumed that money claims of workers which do not
arise out of or in connection with their employer-employee
relationship, and which would therefore fall within the general
jurisdiction of the regular courts of justice, were intended by the
legislative authority to be taken away from the jurisdiction of the
courts and lodged with Labor Arbiters on an exclusive basis.
Same; Same; Same; Same; The Supreme Court (SC) ruled in the
recent case of Portillo v. Rudolf Lietz, Inc., 683 SCRA 568 (2012),
that not all disputes between an employer and his employees fall
within the jurisdiction of the labor tribunals such that when the
claim for damages is grounded on the „wanton failure and refusal‰
without just cause of an employee to report for duty despite repeated
notices served upon him of the disapproval of his application for
leave of absence, the same falls within the purview of Civil Law.·
We ruled in the recent case of Portillo v. Rudolf Lietz, Inc., 683
SCRA 568 (2012), that not all disputes between an employer and
his employees fall within the jurisdiction of the labor tribunals such
that when the claim for damages is grounded on the „wanton failure
and refusal‰ without just cause of an employee to report for duty
despite repeated notices served upon him of the disapproval of his
application for leave of absence, the same falls within the purview
of Civil Law.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Labor Arbiters; Jurisprudence has
evolved the rule that claims for damages under Article 217(a)(4) of
the Labor Code, to be cognizable by the Labor Arbiter (LA), must
have a reasonable causal connection with any of the claims provided
for in that article.·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. Only if there is
such a connection with the other claims can a claim for damages be
considered as arising from employer-employee relations.
Labor Law; The maintenance of a safe and healthy workplace is
ordinarily a subject of labor cases.·True, the maintenance of a safe
and healthy workplace is ordinarily a subject of labor cases. More,
the acts complained of appear to constitute matters involving
employee-employer relations since respondent used to be the Civil
Engineer of petitioner. However, it should be stressed that respon-
560
560 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
dentÊs claim for damages is specifically grounded on petitionerÊs

gross negligence to provide a safe, healthy and workable
environment for its employees — a case of quasi-delict.
Remedial Law; Civil Procedure; Courts; Jurisdiction; It is a
basic tenet that jurisdiction over the subject matter is determined
upon the allegations made in the complaint, irrespective of whether
or not the plaintiff is entitled to recover upon the claim asserted
therein, which is a matter resolved only after and as a result of a
trial.·It is a basic tenet that jurisdiction over the subject matter is
determined upon the allegations made in the complaint,
irrespective of whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to recover
upon the claim asserted therein, which is a matter resolved only
after and as a result of a trial. Neither can jurisdiction of a court be
made to depend upon the defenses made by a defendant in his
answer or motion to dismiss. In this case, a perusal of the complaint
would reveal that the subject matter is one of claim for damages
arising from quasi-delict, which is within the ambit of the regular
courtÊs jurisdiction.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Quasi-Delicts; Requisites to Sustain
Claims for Liability Under Quasi-Delicts.·To sustain a claim
liability under quasi-delict, the following requisites must concur: (a)
damages suffered by the plaintiff; (b) fault or negligence of the
defendant, or some other person for whose acts he must respond;
and (c) the connection of cause and effect between the fault or
negligence of the defendant and the damages incurred by the
plaintiff.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; The cause of action herein
pertains to the consequence of petitionerÊs omission which led to a
work-related disease suffered by respondent, causing harm or
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.·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 petitionerÊs omission which led to a
work-related disease suffered by respondent, causing harm or
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.
561
VOL. 731, AUGUST 4, 2014 561

PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and

resolution of the Court of Appeals.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Reynaldo A. Deray for respondent.
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 Resolution[2]
dated January 10, 2006 in the case entitled Indophil Textile
Mills, Inc. v. Hon. Rolando R. Velasco and Engr. Salvador
Adviento, docketed as C.A.-G.R. S.P. No. 83099.
The facts are not disputed.
Petitioner Indophil Textile Mills, Inc. is a domestic
corporation engaged in the business of manufacturing
thread for weaving.[3] On August 21, 1990, petitioner hired
respondent Engr. Salvador Adviento as Civil Engineer to
maintain its facilities in Lambakin, Marilao, Bulacan.[4]
On August 7, 2002, respondent consulted a physician
due to recurring weakness and dizziness.[5] Few days later,
he was diagnosed with Chronic Poly Sinusitis, and
thereafter, with moderate, severe and persistent Allergic
Rhinitis.[6] Accordingly, respondent was advised by his
doctor to totally avoid
_______________
[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. 103-112.

[2] Penned by Associate Justice Vicente Q. Roxas, with Associate
Justices Portia Aliño-Hormachuelos and Juan Q. Enriquez, concurring;
Annex „K‰ to Petition, id., at pp. 123-124.
[3] Supra note 1 at p. 104.
[4] Id.
[5] Annex „E‰ to Petition, Rollo, p. 51.
[6] Id., at pp. 51-52.
562

house dust mite and textile dust as it will transmute into

health problems.[7]
Distressed, respondent filed a complaint against
petitioner with the National Labor Relations Commission
(NLRC), San Fernando, Pampanga, for alleged illegal
dismissal and for the payment of backwages, separation
pay, actual damages and attorneyÊs fees. The said case,
docketed as NLRC Case No. RAB-III-05-5834-03, is still
pending resolution with the NLRC at the time the instant
petition was filed.[8]
Subsequently, respondent filed another Complaint[9]
with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Aparri, Cagayan,
alleging that he contracted such occupational disease by
reason of the gross negligence of petitioner to provide him
with a safe, healthy and workable environment.
In his Complaint, respondent alleged that as part of his
job description, he conducts regular maintenance check on
petitionerÊs facilities including its dye house area, which is
very hot and emits foul chemical odor with no adequate
safety measures introduced by petitioner.[10] According to
respondent, the air washer dampers and all roof exhaust
vests are blown into open air, carrying dust thereto.[11]
Concerned, respondent recommended to management to
place roof insulation to minimize, if not, eradicate the
health hazards attendant in the work place.[12] However,
said recommendation was turned down by management
due to high cost.[13]

Respondent further suggested to petitionerÊs
management that the engineering office be relocated
because of its dent prone location, such that even if the
door of the office is
_______________
[7] Id., at p. 52.
[8] Rollo, p. 10.
[9] Supra note 5 at pp. 51-55.
[10] Id., at p. 52.
[11] Id., at p. 53.
[12] Id.
[13] Id.
563
VOL. 731, AUGUST 4, 2014 563

sealed, accumulated dust creeps in outside 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 Dismiss[22] 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)
_______________
[14] Id.
[15] Id.
[16] Id.
[17] Id.
[18] Id.
[19] Id.
[20] Rollo, pp. 10-11.
[21] Id., at p. 11.
[22] Annex „H‰ to Petition, id., at pp. 61-69.
564

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 Resolution[23]
denying the aforesaid Motion and sustaining its
jurisdiction over the instant case. It held that petitionerÊs
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, attorneyÊs 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]
On February 9, 2004, petitioner filed a motion for

reconsideration thereto, which was likewise denied in an
Order issued on even date.
Expectedly, petitioner then filed a Petition for Certiorari
with the CA on the ground that the RTC committed grave
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction in upholding that it has jurisdiction over the
subject matter of the complaint despite the broad and clear
terms of Article 217 of the Labor Code, as amended.[26]
_______________
[23] Annex „L‰ to Petition, id., at pp. 78-81.
[24] Id., at p. 81.
[25] Id. (Emphasis in the original)
565
VOL. 731, AUGUST 4, 2014 565

After the submission by the parties of their respective

Memoranda, the CA rendered a Decision[27] dated May 30,
2005 dismissing petitionerÊs Petition for lack of merit, the
dispositive portion of which states:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, petition for certiorari is

hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.[28]
From the aforesaid Decision, petitioner filed a Motion

for Reconsideration which was nevertheless denied for lack
of merit in the CAÊs Resolution[29] dated January 10, 2006.
Hence, petitioner interposed the instant petition upon

the solitary ground that „THE HONORABLE COURT OF
APPEALS HAS DECIDED A QUESTION OF
SUBSTANCE IN A WAY NOT IN ACCORD WITH LAW
AND WITH APPLICABLE DECISIONS OF THE
HONORABLE SUPREME COURT.‰[30] Simply, the issue
presented before us is whether or not the RTC has
jurisdiction over the subject matter of respondentÊs
complaint praying for moral damages, exemplary damages,
compensatory damages, anchored on petitionerÊs alleged
gross negligence in failing to provide a safe and healthy
working environment for respondent.
The delineation between the jurisdiction of regular
courts and labor courts over cases involving workers and
their employers has always been a matter of dispute.[31] It
is up to the Courts to lay the line after careful scrutiny of
the factual milieu of each case. Here, we find that
jurisdiction rests on the regular courts.
_______________
[27] Supra note 1.
[28] Id., at p. 112. (Emphasis in the original)
[29] Supra note 2.
[30] Rollo, p. 18.
[31] San Miguel Corporation v. Etcuban, 377 Phil. 733, 745; 319 SCRA
704, 713 (1999).
566

In its attempt to overturn the assailed Decision and

Resolution of the CA, petitioner argues that respondentÊs
claim for damages is anchored on the alleged gross
negligence of petitioner as an employer to provide its
employees, including herein respondent, with a safe,
healthy and workable environment; hence, it arose from an
employer-employee relationship.[32] The fact of
respondentÊs employment with petitioner as a civil engineer
is a necessary element of his cause of action because
without the same, respondent cannot claim to have a right

to a safe, healthy and workable environment.[33] Thus,
exclusive jurisdiction over the same should be vested in the
Labor Arbiter and the NLRC pursuant to Article 217(a)(4)
of the Labor Code of the Philippines (Labor Code), as
amended.[34]
We are not convinced.
The jurisdiction of the LA and the NLRC is outlined in
Article 217 of the Labor Code, as amended by Section 9 of
Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6715, to wit:
ART. 217. Jurisdiction of Labor Arbiters and the

Commission.·(a) Except as otherwise provided under this Code
the Labor Arbiter shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction to
hear and decide, within thirty (30) calendar days after the
submission of the case by the parties for decision without extension,
even in the absence of stenographic notes, the following cases
involving all workers, whether agricultural or nonagricultural:
1. Unfair labor practice cases;
2. Termination disputes;
3. If accompanied with a claim for
reinstatement, those cases that workers may file
involving wages, rates of pay, hours of work and
other terms and conditions of employment;
_______________
[32] Rollo, p. 20.
[33] Id.
[34] Id.
567
VOL. 731, AUGUST 4, 2014 567

4. Claims for actual, moral, exemplary

and other forms of damages arising from
employer-employee relations;
5. Cases arising from any violation of Article
264 of this Code including questions involving the
legality of strikes and lockouts; and

6. Except claims for Employees Compensation,
Social Security, Medicare and maternity benefits, all
other claims, arising from employer-employee
relations, including those of persons in domestic or
household service, involving an amount exceeding
five thousand pesos (P5,000.00) regardless of
whether accompanied with a claim for
reinstatement.
x x x.[35]
While we have upheld the present trend to refer

workeremployer controversies to labor courts in light of the
aforequoted provision, we have also recognized that not all
claims involving employees can be resolved solely by our
labor courts, specifically when the law provides otherwise.
[36] For this reason, we have formulated the „reasonable
causal connection rule,‰ wherein if there is a reasonable
causal connection between the claim asserted and the
employer-employee relations, then the case is within the
jurisdiction of the labor courts; and in the absence thereof,
it is the regular courts that have jurisdiction.[37] Such
distinction is apt since it cannot be presumed that money
claims of workers which do not arise out of or in connection
with their employer-employee relationship, and which
would therefore fall within the general jurisdiction of the
regular courts of justice, were intended by the legislative
authority to be taken away from the jurisdiction of
_______________
[35] Emphasis ours.
[36] Supra note 31.
[37] Id.
568

the courts and lodged with Labor Arbiters on an exclusive

basis.[38]
In fact, as early as Medina v. Hon. Castro-Bartolome,[39]

in negating the jurisdiction of the LA, although the parties
involved were an employer and two employees, the Court
succinctly held that:
The pivotal question to Our mind is whether or not the Labor

Code has any relevance to the reliefs sought by the plaintiffs. For if
the Labor Code has no relevance, any discussion concerning
the statutes amending it and whether or not they have
retroactive effect is unnecessary.
It is obvious from the complaint that the plaintiffs have not
alleged any unfair labor practice. Theirs is a simple action for
damages for tortious acts allegedly committed by the
defendants. Such being the case, the governing statute is the
Civil Code and not the Labor Code. It results that the orders
under review are based on a wrong premise.[40]
Similarly, we ruled in the recent case of Portillo v.

Rudolf Lietz, Inc.[41] that not all disputes between an
employer and his employees fall within the jurisdiction of
the labor tribunals such that when the claim for damages
is grounded on the „wanton failure and refusal‰ without
just cause of an employee to report for duty despite
repeated notices served upon him of the disapproval of his
application for leave of absence, the same falls within the
purview of Civil Law, to wit:
_______________
[38] San Miguel Corporation v. National Labor Relations Commission,
244 Phil. 741, 748; 161 SCRA 719, 727 (1988).
[39] 202 Phil. 163; 116 SCRA 597 (1982).
[40] Id., at p. 170; pp. 603-604. (Emphasis ours)
[41] G.R. No. 196539, 683 SCRA 568 (2012).
569
VOL. 731, AUGUST 4, 2014 569

As early as Singapore Airlines Limited v. Paño, we established

that not all disputes between an employer and his
employee(s) fall within the jurisdiction of the labor
tribunals. We differentiated between abandonment per se and the

manner and consequent effects of such abandonment and ruled that
the first, is a labor case, while the second, is a civil law case.
Upon the facts and issues involved, jurisdiction over the
present controversy must be held to belong to the civil Courts.
While seemingly petitionerÊs claim for damages arises from
employer-employee relations, and the latest amendment to Article
217 of the Labor Code under PD No. 1691 and BP Blg. 130 provides
that all other claims arising from employer-employee relationship
are cognizable by Labor Arbiters [citation omitted], in essence,
petitionerÊs claim for damages is grounded on the „wanton
failure and refusal‰ without just cause of private respondent
Cruz to report for duty despite repeated notices served upon
him of the disapproval of his application for leave of absence
without pay. This, coupled with the further averment that
Cruz „maliciously and with bad faith‰ violated the terms and
conditions of the conversion training course agreement to the
damage of petitioner removes the present controversy from
the coverage of the Labor Code and brings it within the
purview of Civil Law.
Clearly, the complaint was anchored not on the abandonment per
se by private respondent Cruz of his job · as the latter was not
required in the Complaint to report back to work · but on the
manner and consequent effects of such abandonment of work
translated in terms of the damages which petitioner had to
suffer. x x x.[42]
Indeed, jurisprudence has evolved the rule that claims

for damages under Article 217(a)(4) of the Labor Code, to
be
_______________
[42] Id., at p. 577. (Emphasis ours; italics in the original)
570

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.
True, the maintenance of a safe and healthy workplace
is ordinarily a subject of labor cases. More, the acts
complained of appear to constitute matters involving
employee-employer relations since respondent used to be
the Civil Engineer of petitioner. However, it should be
stressed that respondentÊs claim for damages is specifically
grounded on petitionerÊs gross negligence to provide a safe,
healthy and workable environment for its employees — a
case of quasi-delict. This is easily ascertained from a plain
and cursory reading of the Complaint,[45] which
enumerates the acts and/or omissions of petitioner relative
to the conditions in the workplace, to wit:
1. PetitionerÊs textile mills have excessive flying
textile dust and waste in its operations and no effort was
exerted by petitioner to minimize or totally eradicate it;
2. Petitioner failed to provide adequate and
sufficient dust suction facilities;
3. Textile machines are cleaned with air
compressors aggravating the dusty workplace;
4. Petitioner has no physician specializing in
respiratory-related illness considering it is a textile
company;
5. Petitioner has no device to detect the
presence or density of dust which is airborne;
_______________
[43] Id.
[44] Id.
[45] Supra note 5 at pp. 51-55.
571
VOL. 731, AUGUST 4, 2014 571

6. The chemical and color room are not

equipped with proper safety chemical nose
mask; and
7. The power and boiler plant emit too
much smoke with solid particles blown to the air
from the smoke stack of the power plant
emitting a brown rust color which engulfs the
entire compound.[46]
In addition, respondent alleged that despite his earnest

efforts to suggest to management to place roof insulation to
minimize, if not, eradicate the health hazards attendant in
the workplace, the same was not heeded.[47]
It is a basic tenet that jurisdiction over the subject
matter is determined upon the allegations made in the
complaint, irrespective of whether or not the plaintiff is
entitled to recover upon the claim asserted therein, which
is a matter resolved only after and as a result of a trial.[48]
Neither can jurisdiction of a court be made to depend upon
the defenses made by a defendant in his answer or motion
to dismiss.[49] In this case, a perusal of the complaint
would reveal that the subject matter is one of claim for
damages arising from quasi-delict, which is within the
ambit of the regular courtÊs jurisdiction.
The pertinent provision of Article 2176 of the Civil Code
which governs quasi-delict provides that:
Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there

being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done.
Such fault or negligence, if there is no preexisting contractual
relation between the parties, is called quasi-delict.[50]
_______________
[46] Id., at pp. 52-53.
[47] Id., at p. 53.
[48] Yusen Air and Sea Services Phils., Inc. v. Villamor, 504 Phil. 437,
447; 467 SCRA 167, 175 (2005).
[49] Id.
[50] Emphasis ours.
572
Thus, to sustain a claim liability under quasi-delict, the

following requisites must concur: (a) damages suffered by
the plaintiff; (b) fault or negligence of the defendant, or
some other person for whose acts he must respond; and (c)
the connection of cause and effect between the fault or
negligence of the defendant and the damages incurred by
the plaintiff.[51]
In the case at bar, respondent alleges that due to the
continued and prolonged exposure to textile dust seriously
inimical to his health, he suffered work-contracted disease
which is now irreversible and incurable, and deprived him
of job opportunities.[52] Clearly, injury and damages were
allegedly suffered by respondent, an element of quasi-
delict. Secondly, the previous contract of employment
between petitioner and respondent cannot be used to
counter the element of „no preexisting contractual
relation‰ since petitionerÊs alleged gross negligence in
maintaining a hazardous work environment cannot be
considered a mere breach of such contract of employment,
but falls squarely within the elements of quasi-delict under
Article 2176 of the Civil Code since the negligence is direct,
substantive and independent.[53] Hence, we ruled in Yusen
Air and Sea Services Phils., Inc. v. Villamor[54] that:
When, as here, the cause of action is based on a quasi-delict or

tort, which has no reasonable causal connection with any of the
claims provided for in Article 217, jurisdiction over the action is
with the regular courts.[55]
It also bears stressing that respondent is not praying

for any relief under the Labor Code of the Philippines. He
neither
_______________
[51] Huang v. Philippine Hoteliers, Inc., G.R. No. 180440, 687 SCRA
162, 194.
[53] Huang v. Philippine Hoteliers, Inc., supra at p. 193.
[54] Supra note 48.
[55] Id., at pp. 446-447; pp. 174-175.
573
VOL. 731, AUGUST 4, 2014 573

claims for reinstatement nor backwages or separation pay

resulting from an illegal termination. The cause of action
herein pertains to the consequence of petitionerÊs omission
which led to a work-related disease suffered by respondent,
causing harm or 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 respondentÊs claim

for damages and the respondent employersÊ claim for damages for
the alleged „Goodwill Clause‰ violation. PortilloÊs 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. PortilloÊs entitlement to
the unpaid salaries is not even contested. Indeed, Lietz, Inc.Ês
argument about legal compensation necessarily admits that it owes
the money claimed by Portillo.[57]
Further, it cannot be gainsaid that the claim for

damages occurred after the employer-employee relationship
of petitioner and respondent has ceased. Given that
respondent no longer demands for any relief under the
Labor Code as well as the rules and regulations pertinent
thereto, Article 217(a)(4) of the Labor Code is inapplicable
to the instant case, as emphatically held in Portillo, to wit:
It is clear, therefore, that while PortilloÊs claim for unpaid

salaries is a money claim that arises out of or in connection with an
employer-employee relationship,
_______________
[56] Supra note 31, citing Da-Chi Electronics Manufacturing v. Villarama,
G.R. No. 112940, November 21, 1994, 238 SCRA 267, 271.
[57] Supra note 41 at pp. 584-585.
574

Lietz, Inc.Ês claim against Portillo for violation of the

goodwill clause is a money claim based on an act done after
the cessation of the employment relationship. And, while the
jurisdiction over PortilloÊs claim is vested in the labor
arbiter, the jurisdiction over Lietz, Inc.Ês claim rests on the
regular courts. Thus:
As it is, petitioner does not ask for any
relief under the Labor Code. It merely seeks
to recover damages based on the partiesÊ
contract of employment as redress for
respondentÊs breach thereof. Such cause of
action is within the realm of Civil Law, and
jurisdiction over the controversy belongs to
the regular courts. More so must this be in
the present case, what with the reality that
the stipulation refers to the post-
employment relations of the parties.[58]
Where the resolution of the dispute requires expertise,

not in labor management relations nor in wage structures
and other terms and conditions of employment, but rather
in the application of the general civil law, such claim falls
outside the area of competence of expertise ordinarily
ascribed to the LA and the NLRC.[59]
Guided by the aforequoted doctrines, we find no reason
to reverse the findings of the CA. The RTC has jurisdiction
over the subject matter of respondentÊs complaint praying
for moral damages, exemplary damages, compensatory
damages, anchored on petitionerÊs alleged gross negligence
in failing to provide a safe and healthy working
environment for respondent.
_______________
[58] Id. at p. 581. (Emphasis ours)
[59] Supra note 31 at p. 743; p. 711.
575
VOL. 731, AUGUST 4, 2014 575

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision

of the Court of Appeals, dated May 30, 2005, and its
Resolution dated January 10, 2006 in C.A.-G.R. S.P. No.
83099 are hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
Velasco, Jr. (Chairperson), Villarama, Jr.,** Mendoza

and Leonen, JJ., concur.
Petition denied, judgment and resolution affirmed.
Notes.·Under the „reasonable causal connection rule,‰

if there is a reasonable causal connection between the
claim asserted and the employer-employee relations, then
the case is within the jurisdiction of our labor courts.
(Kawachi vs. Del Quero, 519 SCRA 102 [2007])
Shouting at one another in the workplace and during
office hours is arrant discourtesy and disrespect not only
towards co-workers, but to the court itself · any fighting
or misunderstanding becomes a disgraceful sight reflecting
adversely on the good image of the judiciary. (Mariano vs.
Mondala, 570 SCRA 34 [2008])
··o0o··
_______________
** Designated acting member per Special Order No. 1691 dated May
22, 2014, in view of the vacancy in the Third Division.
© Copyright 2018 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

Indophil vs. Adviento

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Indophil vs. Adviento

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 731 21/04/2018, 4)52 PM

G.R. No. 171212. August 4, 2014.*

Remedial Law; Civil Procedure; Courts; The delineation

VOL. 731, AUGUST 4, 2014 559

Indophil Textile Mills, Inc. vs. Adviento

regular courts that have jurisdiction. Such distinction is apt since it

560 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Indophil Textile Mills, Inc. vs. Adviento

dentÊs claim for damages is specifically grounded on petitionerÊs

resulting from an illegal termination. The cause of action herein

VOL. 731, AUGUST 4, 2014 561

PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and

Annex „H‰ to Petition, Rollo, pp. 103-112.

562 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

house dust mite and textile dust as it will transmute into

due to high cost.[13]

VOL. 731, AUGUST 4, 2014 563

sealed, accumulated dust creeps in outside the office.[14]

as compensatory damages.[20] Claiming to be a pauper

564 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

under Article 217(a)(4) of the Labor Code; and (2) there is

illegal dismissal while in the present case, the cause of

WHEREFORE, finding the motion to dismiss to be without

On February 9, 2004, petitioner filed a motion for

VOL. 731, AUGUST 4, 2014 565

After the submission by the parties of their respective

WHEREFORE, premises considered, petition for certiorari is

From the aforesaid Decision, petitioner filed a Motion

Hence, petitioner interposed the instant petition upon

566 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

In its attempt to overturn the assailed Decision and

without the same, respondent cannot claim to have a right

ART. 217. Jurisdiction of Labor Arbiters and the

VOL. 731, AUGUST 4, 2014 567

4. Claims for actual, moral, exemplary

legality of strikes and lockouts; and

While we have upheld the present trend to refer

568 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

the courts and lodged with Labor Arbiters on an exclusive

In fact, as early as Medina v. Hon. Castro-Bartolome,[39]

The pivotal question to Our mind is whether or not the Labor

Similarly, we ruled in the recent case of Portillo v.

VOL. 731, AUGUST 4, 2014 569

As early as Singapore Airlines Limited v. Paño, we established

tribunals. We differentiated between abandonment per se and the

Indeed, jurisprudence has evolved the rule that claims

570 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

cognizable by the LA, must have a reasonable causal

claims can a claim for damages be considered as arising

VOL. 731, AUGUST 4, 2014 571

6. The chemical and color room are not

In addition, respondent alleged that despite his earnest

Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there

572 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Indophil Textile Mills, Inc. vs. Adviento

Thus, to sustain a claim liability under quasi-delict, the

When, as here, the cause of action is based on a quasi-delict or

It also bears stressing that respondent is not praying

VOL. 731, AUGUST 4, 2014 573

claims for reinstatement nor backwages or separation pay

There is no causal connection between private respondentÊs claim

Further, it cannot be gainsaid that the claim for

It is clear, therefore, that while PortilloÊs claim for unpaid

574 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED