Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1988 > October 1988 Decisions > G.R. No. L-64673 October 21, 1988 - A. CONSTEEL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-64673. October 21, 1988.]

A. CONSTEEL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INCORPORATED, Petitioner, v. THE INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, DANILO C. REYES, for himself and as Attorney-in-fact of FELIXBERTO MACASPAC, JAIME C. PAULE, ROGELIO DE JESUS, DELFIN NUQUI, VICENTE FLORES, GODOFREDO D. BANAL, MANUEL GUEVARRA and ENRIQUE MANANSALA, Respondents.

N.O. Ramoso & Associates for Petitioner.

Citizens Legal Assistance Office for Respondents.


SYLLABUS


1. LABOR LAW; BUREAU OF EMPLOYMENT SERVICES; VESTED WITH EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OVER CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES ARISING FROM OVERSEAS EMPLOYMENT CONTRACTS. — Private respondents’ claims indubitably arose out of employer-employee relations involving overseas employment. All their claims, while couched in different forms of damages, are nonetheless money claims for employment benefits. The Judiciary Act of 1948 relied upon by the private respondents which governs matters which are not capable of pecuniary estimation is a general law. Cases arising out of employer-employee relations involving overseas employment, however, are governed by special laws.


D E C I S I O N


PARAS, J.:


The issue posed for decision is whether or not the court a quo has jurisdiction over claims for damages arising out of an overseas employment contract.

The antecedent facts of the case are as follows:.

On October 23, 1980, private respondents filed a complaint for alleged Breach of Contract with Damages against the petitioner before the Court of First Instance of Pampanga, Fifth Judicial District, docketed as Civil Case No. 5913. Among others, the complaint alleges that in 1978, the petitioner hired private respondents to work in the construction projects undertaken by the petitioner in Saudi Arabia; that prior to their departure from the Philippines, the private respondents and the petitioner signed employment contracts which contained the terms and conditions of their employment; but that while private respondents were working in Saudi Arabia, they were not given adequate compensation or overtime/holiday pay. Neither were they given medical benefits nor adequate meals. Thus, private respondents pray that the petitioner be ordered to pay to them such amount representing the difference between the compensation agreed upon and the compensation actually paid to them, aside from moral and exemplary damages.chanrobles.com.ph : virtual law library

The petitioner moved to dismiss the case on the ground that jurisdiction over the nature of the suit pertained to the Bureau of Employment Services pursuant to Section 1 of Presidential Decree No. 1412, which amended Article 15 paragraph (b) of the Labor Code.

Private respondents opposed dismissal, alleging that jurisdiction over the case belonged to the Court of First Instance since not all of their causes of action are capable of pecuniary estimation. Section 44 of the Judiciary Act of 1948 clearly states that the Courts of First Instance shall have exclusive jurisdiction over all civil actions in which the subject of the litigation is not capable of pecuniary estimation.

The judge denied petitioner’s motion to dismiss and its motion for reconsideration thereof. On appeal, the Court of Appeals * ruled that the court a quo has jurisdiction over the subject matter because reinstatement is not sought and private respondents seek unpaid salaries and damages resulting from alleged breach of contract (pp. 66, Rollo).

Hence, the present petition.

We find for the petitioner. Private respondents’ claims indubitably arose out of employer-employee relations involving overseas employment. All their claims, while couched in different forms of damages, are nonetheless money claims for employment benefits.

The Judiciary Act of 1948 relied upon by the private respondents which governs matters which are not capable of pecuniary estimation is a general law.

Cases arising out of employer-employee relations involving overseas employment, however, are governed by special laws. **

WHEREFORE, the Petition is GRANTED. Respondent judge is directed to dismiss Civil Case No. 5913.

SO ORDERED.

Melencio-Herrera, Padilla, Sarmiento and Regalado, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



* Penned by Justice Milagros A. German and concurred in by Justices Jose A. R. Melo and Santiago M. Kapunan.

** Presidential Decree No. 1412 (which took effect on June 9, 1978) amended Article 15 paragraph (b) of the Labor Code. That law expressly provides that the Bureau of Employment Services shall have exclusive and original jurisdiction over all matters or cases involving employer-employee relations including money claims arising out of or by virtue of any law or contract involving Filipino workers for overseas employment, except seamen. Presidential Degree No. 1412 was superseded by Presidential Decree No. 1619 on May 1, 1980 which transferred the jurisdiction of the said Bureau over the said cases to the regional offices of the Ministry (now Department) of Labor except in the case of the National Capital Region where the Bureau may exercise such power, whenever the Minister (now Secretary) of Labor deems it appropriate. Finally, Executive Order No. 797 was issued on May 1, 1982 which created the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration and which vested on the said office exclusive jurisdiction over all cases, including money claims involving employer-employee relations arising out of or by virtue of any law or contract involving Filipino workers for overseas employment, including seamen.




Back to Home | Back to Main


chanrobles.com



ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com





October-1988 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-25350 October 4, 1988 - WILLIAM A. CHITTICK v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-38039 October 4, 1988 - GENEROSA CAWIT, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-67785 October 4, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FEDERICO CAPINPIN, JR., ET AL.

  • A.M. No. 3005 October 5, 1988 - EMILIA P. FORNILDA-OLILI v. SERGIO I. AMONOY, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. 88-7-1861-RTC October 5, 1988 - IN RE: RODOLFO U. MANZANO

  • G.R. No. L-36549 October 5, 1988 - FAR EAST REALTY INVESTMENT, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-40324 October 5, 1988 - JOSE O. SIA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-51625 October 5, 1988 - FRANCISCO DUMLAO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-70458 October 5, 1988 - BENJAMIN SALVOSA, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-72306 October 5, 1988 - DAVID P. FORNILDA, ET AL. v. REGIONAL TRIAL COURT IVTH JUDICIAL REGION, PASIG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-75927 October 5, 1988 - LAND AND HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CORP., ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 79690-707 October 7, 1988 - ENRIQUE A. ZALDIVAR v. HON. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-32215 October 17, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SANTIAGO O. TAÑADA

  • G.R. No. L-68117 October 17, 1988 - HEIRS OF FELINO T. SANTIAGO v. MANUEL M. LAZARO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-39299 October 18, 1988 - ISAAC PANGAN, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-41380 October 18, 1988 - ORLANDO LAGAZON v. VISIA P. REYES

  • G.R. No. L-44696 October 18, 1988 - JULIAN ESPIRITU v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF CAVITE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-46843 October 18, 1988 - VIRGILIA CABRESOS, ET AL. v. MEYNARDO A. TIRO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-50872 October 18, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROBERTO PARAGOSO

  • G.R. No. L-53552 October 18, 1988 - PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE COMPANY v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-55377 October 18, 1988 - BENJAMIN DEL ROSARIO, ET AL. v. CECILIO F. BALAGOT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-61961 October 18, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NICOLAS MARCIALES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-69679 October 18, 1988 - VIOLETA CABATBAT LIM, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-69723 October 18, 1988 - APEX INVESTMENT AND FINANCING CORP., ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-70836 October 18, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TIMOTEO M. TOLENTINO

  • G.R. No. L-74675 October 18, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUAN REYES

  • G.R. No. 75198 October 18, 1988 - SCHMID & OBERLY, INC. v. RJL MARTINEZ FISHING CORP.

  • G.R. No. 75311 October 18, 1988 - ROSITA ZAFRA BANTILLO v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-75336 October 18, 1988 - ANTONIO BORNALES, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-76633 October 18, 1988 - EASTERN SHIPPING LINES, INC. v. PHILIPPINE OVERSEAS EMPLOYMENT ADMINISTRATION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-77242 October 18, 1988 - ROMEO ZOLETA v. FRANKLIN DRILON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-77278 October 18, 1988 - IN RE: FELLY LEE FONG SHENG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-78133 October 18, 1988 - MARIANO P. PASCUAL, ET AL. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-79237 October 18, 1988 - UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-80231 October 18, 1988 - CELSO A. FERNANDEZ v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-82811 October 18, 1988 - CONSOLIDATED PLYWOOD INDUSTRIES, INC. v. AUGUSTO B. BREVA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-57937 October 21, 1988 - WILFREDO R. ANTONIO v. SANDIGANBAYAN

  • G.R. No. L-64673 October 21, 1988 - A. CONSTEEL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-78391 October 21, 1988 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. RAMON G. ENRIQUEZ

  • G.R. No. L-83996 October 21, 1988 - CITY FISCAL OF TACLOBAN v. PEDRO S. ESPINA, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-71404-09 October 26, 1988 - HERMILO RODIS, SR. v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-73199 October 26, 1988 - RENATO SARA, ET AL. v. CERILA AGARRADO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-76737 October 27, 1988 - PANFILO OLIVA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-81470 October 27, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VIRGILIO TUNHAWAN

  • G.R. No. L-83767 October 27, 1988 - FIRDAUSI SMAIL ABBAS, ET AL. v. SENATE ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL

  • G.R. No. L-84592 October 27, 1988 - ESTHER E. CUERDO v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT

  • G.R. No. L-39008 October 28, 1988 - PEDRO BAUTISTA, ET AL. v. MUNICIPALITY OF SAN JACINTO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-49535 October 28, 1988 - ROMANA M. CRUZ v. FRANCISCO TANTUICO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-51745 October 28, 1988 - RAMON F. SAYSON v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-55188 October 28, 1988 - JESUS LONTOC v. MINISTRY OF LABOR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-60674 October 28, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PUTITO CAFE

  • G.R. No. L-62341 October 28, 1988 - JORGE WEE SIT, ET AL. v. OMAR U. AMIN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-69875 October 28, 1988 - BATANGAS LAGUNA TAYABAS BUS COMPANY v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-71177 October 28, 1988 - ERECTORS, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-72281 October 28, 1988 - MACARIO LAGMAN, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-72622 October 28, 1988 - VICTOR TORNO, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-75955 October 28, 1988 - MARIA LINDA FUENTES v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-76991 October 28, 1988 - HERMENEGILDO L. SANTOS v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-77206 October 28, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAMON M. SOLOMON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-79043 October 28, 1988 - DOMINGO T. ARCEGA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-79369-70 October 28, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALEXANDER A. QUIDILLA

  • G.R. No. L-79958 October 28, 1988 - EMILIANA BAUTISTA, ET AL. v. CAROLINA C. GRIÑO-AQUINO, ET AL.