PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS

ARTICLE 36
Topic: Prejudicial Question
COCA COLA BOTTLERS vs SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSION
Facts: Petitioner Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils. Is a corporation engaged
in manufacture and sale of softdrink beverages. Co-petitioner Eric
Montinola was the general manager of its plant in Bacolod City.
Respondent Dr. Dean Climaco was a former retainer physician at the
companys plant in Bacolod City.

In 1988, the petitioner company entered into a Retainer Agreement
with Dr. Climaco with a compensation and he can also charge
separately professional fees for professional services. The contract
includes that either party may terminate the contract upon giving
30 day notice written notice to either party. Explicit in the contract
is the provision that there is no employer-employee relationship.

Meantime, on 1994, Dr. Climaco inquired with Department of Labor
and Employment and the SSS whether he was an employee of the
company or not. Both agencies replied affirmative. As a result, Dr.
Climaco filed a complaint before the NLRC, he sought recognition as
a regular employee demanding 13
th
month pay, COLA, Holiday pay,
service incentive leave pay, Christmas bonus and other benefits.

During the pendency of the complaint, the petitioner company
terminated the retainer agreement with Dr. Climaco. Thus, Dr.
Climaco filed another complaint for on the ground of Illegal
Dismissal. The labor arbiter ruled in favor of the petitioner
company. The first complaint was dismissed as the company did not
have the power of control over Dr.Climacos performance of his
duties and responsibilities. Second complaint was likewise dismissed
in view of the dismissal of the first complaint.

Meantime, while the NLRC cases were pending, Dr. Climaco filed
with the SSC a petition praying, among others, that the petitioner
Coca-cola bottlers be ordered to report him for compulsory social
security coverage. Petitioner moved for dismissal.

The Court notes that petitioners, in their petition, averred that the
appeal from the NLRC and CA dispositions on the illegal dismissal of
respondent Climaco is still pending with this Court. Upon
verification, however, it was unveiled that the said case had already
been decided by this Courts First Division on February 5, 2007.

Issue:
WON the action for regularization and/or illegal dismissal poses a
prejudicial question in the case at bench.

Held:
No prejudicial question exist.

There is prejudicial question when;
(a) The previously instituted civil action involves an issue similar or
intimately related to the issue raised in the subsequent criminal
action, and
(b) The resolution of such issue determines whether or not the
criminal action may proceed.

In the case at bar there is no pending criminal case. Therefor there
is no prejudicial question to talk about. The consolidated NLRC
cases cannot be considered as previously instituted civil
action. In Berbari v. Concepcion,
[40]
it was held that a prejudicial
question is understood in law to be that which must precede the
criminal action, that which requires a decision with which said
question is closely related.
PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS


In addition, the issue in the case filed by Dr.Climaco with the SSC
involves a question regarding his employment subject to coverage
in SSS. On the contrary, case filed in the NLRC involves different
issue, which is the recognition as a regular employee of the
company. Thus, the issues in the NLRC cases are not determinative
of whether or not the SSC should proceed. It is settled that the
question claimed to be prejudicial in nature must be determinative
of the case before the court.

ARTICLE 40, 41
Topic: Personality
QUIMIGING VS ICAO
Facts:
The appellant, Quimiging, sue Icao for support and damages. The
parties are neighbor in Dapitan. It was alleged that the appellee,
Icao, engaged into carnal intercourse with the appellant by the use
of force and intimidation and without her consent, as a result, the
appellant become pregnant.

Duly summoned, defendant Icao moved to dismiss for lack of cause
of action since the complaint did not allege that the child had been
born; and after hearing arguments, the trial judge sustained
defendant's motion and dismissed the complaint.

Thereafter, plaintiff moved to amend the complaint to allege that as
a result of the intercourse, plaintiff had later given birth to a baby
girl; but the court, sustaining defendant's objection, ruled that no
amendment was allowable, since the original complaint averred no
cause of action. Wherefore, the plaintiff appealed directly to this
Court.
Issue:
WON the appellant be entitled for support and damages even
though the baby is not yet born.

Held:
YES, the appellant is entitled for support.

Applying Article 40 of the new civil code that a conceived child,
although unborn is given by law a provisional personality of its own
for all purposes favorable to it. Therefore, the unborn child has the
right for support from its progenitors, in this case, the appellee.

Second reason of reversal of decision is grounded on Article 20 of
the same code that for a married man to force a woman not his wife
to yield to his lust (as averred in the original complaint in this case)
constitutes a clear violation of the rights of his victim that entitles
her to claim compensation for the damage caused.