ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[ G.R. No. 131380. July 26, 1999]

SAN CARLOS MILLING CO., INC. vs. FERNANDO FRONDA, et al.

THIRD DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JUL 26, 1999.

G.R. No. 131380 (San Carlos Milling Co., Inc. vs. Fernando Fronda, et al.)

In this petition for review on certiorari filed under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, petitioner is questioning the June 6, 1997 decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of San Carlos City, Negros Occidental, Branch 58. Said court reversed the ruling of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) dated February 21, 1997, in San Carlos Milling Co., Inc. v. Fernando Fronda, et al. (Civil Case No. 999, for "unlawful detainer with damages"), where it ruled in favor of the plaintiff, petitioner in this action, by ordering the defendants, respondents herein, to vacate the company's staff houses they were then occupying.

It appears from the records of this case that respondents were employees of petitioner. During their service, they were allowed to stay in the houses in petitioner's compound. The problem arose when petitioner terminated their employment. With their dismissal, petitioner asked them to vacate the premises. They refuse to do so on the ground that they had already filed a labor case before the NLRC in Bacolod City (No. 9-10480-96), for unfair labor practice, illegal dismissal, reinstatement and back wages. Thus, when petitioner filed the case in the court a quo respondents, instead of filing an answer, filed a motion to dismiss grounded on the alleged lack of jurisdiction of the MTCC, the issue of housing privilege being a labor matter over which the NLRC had proper jurisdiction. As stated earlier, the MTCC ruled in favor of petitioner because "it is basic and elementary that jurisdiction of the courts over the subject matter is fixed by law and cannot be conferred by the parties."

In reversing the lower court's ruling, however, the RTC reasoned thus:

"A cursory reading of plaintiff-appellee's complaint in the instant case clearly states a labor relationship between the parties which, plaintiff-appellee asserts, has been terminated for reasons stated in said complaint. BUT PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE SUPPRESSED STATING IN SAID COMPLAINT THAT AS A RESULT OF ITS TERMINATING THE LABOR SERVICES OF DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS TOGETHER WITH SOME OTHERS, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS FILED THE AFORESAID LABOR CASE AGAINST IT WITH THE NLRC - JUST SO IT COULD INVOKE THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT A QUO." (Emphasis supplied).

����������� x x x.�� x x x��� x x x.

It should be stressed that, as defendants-appellants' counsel has contended in their position paper, it is the NLRC which had original and exclusive jurisdiction over (a) labor dispute which 'includes any controversy or matter terms of conditions of employment . . . .' (Underscoring supplied)

citing Art. 217 of the labor Code.

On the basis of the foregoing premise, plaintiff-appellee can not yet say with certitude that defendants-appellants have no more right to stay in their dwellings provided by it as part of their privilege as a result of the labor relationship between them. That issue will have to be resolved first by the NLRC which has original and exclusive jurisdiction over all labor disputes."

After examining the records of this case and poring over the pleadings filed by the parties, the Court is convinced that the RTC did not exceed its jurisdiction, much less gravely abuse its discretion, in reversing the MTCC's decision. In the Court's opinion, the issue of the legality of termination of respondents' employment by petitioner in NLRC Case No. 9-10480-96 poses a prejudicial question to the unlawful detainer action filed by petitioner against its dismissed employees, notwithstanding that some of the latter have already voluntarily left the company-provided shelters.

ACCORDINGLY, the instant petition for certiorari is DISMISSED, there being no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Regional Trial Court of San Carlos City, Negros Occidental, Branch 58, in rendering its assailed decision in Civil Case No. 999, dated February 21, 1997.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) JULIETA Y. CARREON

Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE