GROTJAHN GMBH vs.

ISNANI
August 10, 1994; G.R. No. 109272

Topic: Effect when no employer-employee relationship exists/issue

does not involve employer-employee relationship

FACTS:
Petitioner is a multinational corporation (employer). Private
respondent Lanchinebre (employee) worked as its sales
representative from 1983 to mid-1992. Employee obtained loans
and cash advances, a total of P12,170.37 remained unpaid.

In July 1992, Employee filed an illegal suspension case with the

NLRC (NLRC Case). Employer, on the other hand, filed a case for
collection of Sum of Money at the RTC (Collection Case). Employee
moved to dismiss the collection case on the ground that the case
was in the nature of a claim for employee compensation (Art 217
No.4 & 6) and was under the exclusive jurisdiction of the NLRC. The
RTC under respondent judge dismissed the case.

Hence this petition for review.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the RTC has jurisdiction over the Collection Case.

HELD:
YES. While the loans and cash advances were contracted between
employee and employer during the subsistence of their relationship,

it does not follow that Article 217 of the Labor Code covers their
relationship.

The SC writes:

Not every dispute between an employer and employee involves

matters that only labor arbiters and the NLRC can resolve in the
exercise of their adjudicatory or quasi-judicial powers. The
jurisdiction of labor arbiters and the NLRC under Article 217 of the
Labor Code is limited to disputes arising from an employeremployee relationship which can only be resolved by reference to
the Labor Code, other labor statutes, or their collective bargaining
agreement.

xxx

Civil Case No. 92-2486 is a simple collection of a sum of money

brought by petitioner, as creditor, against private respondent
Romana Lanchinebre, as debtor. The fact that they were employer
and employee at the time of the transaction does not negate the
civil jurisdiction of the trial court. The case does not involve
adjudication of a labor dispute but recovery of a sum of money
based on our civil laws on obligation and contract.

xxx

Whether or not the subject loan was incurred by private respondent

as an incident to her profession, occupation or business is a
question of fact. In the absence of relevant evidence, the issue
cannot be resolved in a motion to dismiss.

Thus the relevant test in this instance is the test

of relevance. Specifically, whether or not the Labor Code has any
relevance to the reliefs being sought by the parties. If none, the
case may be considered as intrinsically a civil dispute.

The order of the RTC was reversed and the collection case was
reinstated.