EVIOTA vs CA Case Digest

FACTS Sometime on January 26, 1998, the respondent Standard Chartered Bank and petitioner Eduardo G. Eviota exe uted a ontra t o! emp"oyment under #hi h the petitioner #as emp"oyed $y the respondent $ank as Compensation and Bene!its %ana&er, '( )%21*. (etitioner ame up #ith many proposa"s #hi h the $ank approved and made preparations o!. +e #as a"so &iven privi"e&es "ike ar, renovation o! the o!!i e, and even a trip to Sin&apore at the ompany,s expense. +o#ever, the petitioner a$rupt"y resi&ned !rom the respondent $ank $are"y a month a!ter his emp"oyment and re-oined his !ormer emp"oyer. .n June 19, 1998, the respondent $ank !i"ed a omp"aint a&ainst the petitioner #ith the /0C o! %akati City !or dama&es $rou&ht a$out his a$rupt resi&nation. 0hou&h petitioner reim$ursed part o! the amount demanded $y Standard, he #as not a$"e to pay it !u"". Standard a""e&ed that assumin& ar&uendo that Eviota had the ri&ht to terminate his emp"oyment #ith the Bank !or no reason, the manner in and ir umstan es under #hi h he exer ised the same are "ear"y a$usive and ontrary to the ru"es &overnin& human re"ations, &overned $y the Civi" Code. 1urther, Standard a""e&ed that petitioner a"so vio"ated the 2a$or Code #hen he terminated his emp"oyment #ithout one )1* noti e in advan e. 0his stipu"ation #as a"so provided in the emp"oyment ontra t o! Eviota #ith Standard, #hi h #ou"d a"so onstitute $rea h o! ontra t. 0he petitioner !i"ed a motion to dismiss the omp"aint on the &round that the a tion !or dama&es o! the respondent $ank #as #ithin the ex "usive -urisdi tion o! the 2a$or 3r$iter under para&raph 4, 3rti "e 215 o! the 2a$or Code o! the (hi"ippines, as amended. 0he petitioner averred that the respondent $ank,s "aim !or dama&es arose out o! or #ere in onne tion #ith his emp"oyer6emp"oyee re"ationship #ith the respondent $ank or some aspe t or in ident o! su h re"ationship. 0he respondent $ank opposed the motion, "aimin& that its a tion !or dama&es #as #ithin the ex "usive -urisdi tion o! the tria" ourt. 3"thou&h its "aims !or dama&es in identa""y invo"ved an emp"oyer6emp"oyee re"ationship, the said "aims are a tua""y predi ated on the petitioner,s a ts and omissions #hi h are separate"y, spe i!i a""y and distin t"y &overned $y the 7e# Civi" Code. ISSUE 8hether or not the /0C had -urisdi tion over the ase. HELD 0he SC he"d that the /0C has -urisdi tion. Case "a# has it that the nature o! an a tion and the su$-e t matter thereo!, as #e"" as #hi h ourt has -urisdi tion over the same, are determined $y the materia" a""e&ations o! the omp"aint and the re"ie!s prayed !or in re"ation to the "a# invo"ved. 7ot every ontroversy or money "aim $y an emp"oyee a&ainst the emp"oyer or vi e6versa is #ithin the ex "usive -urisdi tion o! the "a$or ar$iter. 3 money "aim $y a #orker a&ainst the emp"oyer or vi e6 versa is #ithin the ex "usive -urisdi tion o! the "a$or ar$iter on"y i! there is a 9reasona$"e ausa" onne tion: $et#een the "aim asserted and emp"oyee6emp"oyer re"ation. 3$sent su h a "ink, the omp"aint #i"" $e o&ni;a$"e $y the re&u"ar ourts o! -usti e. 3 tions $et#een emp"oyees and emp"oyer #here the emp"oyer6emp"oyee re"ationship is mere"y in identa" and the ause o! a tion pre edes !rom a di!!erent sour e o! o$"i&ation is #ithin the ex "usive -urisdi tion o! the re&u"ar ourt. 0he -urisdi tion o! the 2a$or 3r$iter under 3rti "e 215 o! the 2a$or Code, as amended, is "imited to disputes arisin& !rom an emp"oyer6 emp"oyee re"ationship #hi h an on"y $e reso"ved $y re!eren e to the 2a$or Code o! the (hi"ippines, other "a$or "a#s or their o""e tive $ar&ainin& a&reements. Jurispruden e has evo"ved the ru"e that "aims !or dama&es under para&raph 4 o! 3rti "e 215, to $e o&ni;a$"e $y the 2a$or 3r$iter, must have a reasona$"e ausa" onne tion #ith any o! the "aims provided !or in that arti "e. .n"y i! there is su h a onne tion #ith the other "aims an the "aim !or dama&es $e onsidered as arisin& !rom emp"oyer6emp"oyee re"ations. <n this ase, the private respondent,s !irst ause o! a tion !or dama&es is an hored on the petitioner,s emp"oyment o! de eit and o! makin& the private respondent $e"ieve that he #ou"d !u"!i"" his o$"i&ation under the emp"oyment ontra t #ith assiduousness and earnestness. 0he petitioner vo"te !a e #hen, #ithout the re=uisite thirty6day noti e under the ontra t and the 2a$or Code o! the (hi"ippines, as amended, he a$andoned his o!!i e and re-oined his !ormer emp"oyer> thus, !or in& the private respondent to hire a rep"a ement. 0he private respondent #as "e!t in a "ur h, and its orporate p"ans and pro&ram in -eopardy and disarray. %oreover, the petitioner took o!! #ith the private respondent,s omputer diskette, papers and do uments ontainin& on!identia" in!ormation on emp"oyee ompensation and other $ank matters. .n its se ond ause o! a tion, the petitioner simp"y #a"ked a#ay !rom his emp"oyment #ith the private respondent sans any #ritten noti e, to the pre-udi e o! the private respondent, its $ankin& operations and the ondu t o! its $usiness. 3nent its third ause o! a tion, the petitioner made !a"se and dero&atory statements that the private respondent rene&ed on its o$"i&ations under their ontra t o! emp"oyment> thus, depi tin& the private respondent as un#orthy o! trust. 0he primary re"ie! sou&ht is !or "i=uidated dama&es !or $rea h o! a ontra tua" o$"i&ation. 0he other items demanded are not "a$or $ene!its demanded $y #orkers &enera""y taken o&ni;an e o! in "a$or disputes, su h as payment o! #a&es, overtime ompensation or separation pay. 0he items "aimed are the natura" onse=uen es !"o#in& !rom $rea h o! an o$"i&ation, intrinsi a""y a ivi" dispute. <t is evident that the auses o! a tion o! the private respondent a&ainst the petitioner do not invo"ve the provisions o! the 2a$or Code o! the (hi"ippines and other "a$or "a#s $ut the 7e# Civi" Code. 0hus, the said auses o! a tion are intrinsi a""y ivi". 0here is no ausa" re"ationship $et#een the auses o! a tion o! the private respondent,s auses o! a tion a&ainst the

petitioner and their emp"oyer6emp"oyee re"ationship. 0he !a t that the private respondent #as the erst#hi"e emp"oyer o! the petitioner under an existin& emp"oyment ontra t $e!ore the "atter a$andoned his emp"oyment is mere"y in identa". (etition is denied.