ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[G.R. No. 142434. July 5, 2000]
SPS. QUINTANO vs. MOLDEX LAND, INC.
SECOND DIVISION
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JUL 5 2000.
G.R. No. 142434 (Sps. Antonio S. Quintano and Irene B. Quintano vs. Moldex Land, Inc.)
Petitioner Antonio Quintano left his job at Globo Realty to work as senior executive vice-president of private respondent. On June 19, 1995, he signed an agreement which is embodied in a letter he wrote to the chairman of the board of respondent, Mr. Jacinto Uy. The letter reads:
Dear Mr. Uy:
For and in consideration of cash advances amounting to PHILIPPINE
PESOS FIVE MILLION ONE HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND ONLY (P5,150,000) which I
shall be receiving from the company as part of may compensation package for
joining Moldex Land Inc., I hereby agree to the following:
1. The cash
advances shall be used solely for: a) the purchase of condominium unit
#2505A at the Wack Wack Tower A located at Wack Wack Road, Mandaluyong to be
covered by a Contract To Sell which unit I shall use as my residence; b) the
acquisition of a Mitsubishi GLXI car with automatic transmission for the use of
my family; c) the liquidation of P600,000 outstanding cash advances with
my previous employer, Globo Realty, Inc.
2. Upon execution of the Contract To Sell, I shall similarly execute and submit to you a Deed of Assignment of the Contract To Sell covering the condominium unit in favor of Moldex land, Inc. as collateral. This Assignment shall be extinguished only after full liquidation of the cash advances.
3. For as long as the cash advances have not yet been fully paid, I shall not constitute any lien on the property. I shall likewise pay on time all taxes and assessments on the condominium unit and appropriately insure the same.
4. The cash advances shall be liquidated by applying from year to year the year-end bonuses I shall have earned in my employ with Moldex Land, Inc., until the cash advances are fully paid.
My employment with Moldex Land, Inc shall not be less than five (5) years from 19 June 1995. Should, for any reason, I am no longer connected with the company, any remaining unliquidated amount of the cash advances shall be due and payable upon demand together with lawful interest until [the] time payment is made.
����������������������������������������������������������� ����������������������������������� Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) ANTONIO S. QUINTANO
With my Marital Consent:
(Sgd.) IRENE B. QUINTANO
ACCEPTED BY:
MOLDEX LAND, INC.
By:
(Sgd.) JACINTO T. UY
Chairman
Pursuant to this agreement,
petitioner received cash advances from respondent, amounting to P5,150,000.00.
He bought a car and used the balance of P4,000,000.00 to purchase a P6,800,000.00
condominium unit. To pay the full amount of the purchase price of the unit, he
obtained a loan for P2,800,000.00 from Citytrust Banking Corporation,
using the unit as collateral.
He claimed that the mortgage was executed with the knowledge and consent of respondent's chairman, Jacinto Uy, and its president, Roy Vinuya. But on November 13, 1997, Jacinto Uy announced petitioner's alleged resignation.
Alleging that the announcement came as a surprise to him, petitioner filed on January 12, 1998 a labor case for illegal dismissal against respondent, Jacinto Uy, and Roy Vinuya.
Respondent, on the other hand,
filed a complaint, docketed as Civil Case No. MC 98-215, in the Regional Trial
Court, Branch 214, Mandaluyong City, against petitioner spouses for collection
of a sum of money and for damages. Respondent alleged that in breach of their
agreement, petitioner Antonio Quintano executed a real estate mortgage over the
condominium unit in favor of Citytrust Banking Corporation while his loan advances
was still outstanding. Respondent sought to recover from petitioners the
condominium unit, the cash advances of P5,150,000.00, and damages.
Petitioner spouses moved for the dismissal of the case on the ground of litis pendentia and forum shopping. However, the trial court, denied the motion to dismiss and later, petitioners' motion for reconsideration. On certiorari, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's orders. Hence this petition.
Petitioners argue that the case (Civil Case No. MC 98-215) filed against them arising from the employer-employee relationship of the parties and is cognizable by the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC).
The contention has no merit. Not all controversies between employees and their employers fall within the jurisdiction of the NLRC. The jurisdiction of regular courts has been upheld in cases where the employer-employee relationship is merely incidental and the damages claimed proceed from a different source of obligation, i.e., tort, 1 Ocheda v. Court of Appeals, 214 SCRA 629 (1992).malicious prosecution, 2 Pepsi-Cola Distributors of the Phils., Inc. v. Gal-lang, 201 SCRA 695 (1991).or breach of contract, as when the claimant seeks to recover a debt from a former employee 3 Georg Grotjahn GMBH & Co v. Isnani, 235 SCRA 216 (1994).or liquidated damages in the enforcement of a prior employment contract. 4 Dai-Chi Electronics Manufacturing Corp. v. Villarama, Jr. v. 238 SCRA 267 (1994).
In Civil Case No. MC 98-215, respondent's cause of action alleges breach of contract arising from the execution by the petitioners of a real estate mortgage on the condominium unit assigned by them to respondent. As correctly pointed out by the Court of Appeals, "the outcome of the labor case has nothing to do with whether petitioners herein should be held liable for the damages inflicted upon private respondent herein as a result of petitioners' violation of the letter of undertaking or deed of assignment with respect to the subject condominium unit, the two cases having arisen from different acts and environmental circumstances."
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED for lack of showing that the Court of Appeals committed a reversible error.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) TOMASITA B. MAGAY-DRIS
Clerk of Court
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
