G.R. No. 128024 - BEBIANO M. BAÑEZ, VS. HON. DOWNEY C. VALDEVILLA AND ORO MARKETING, INC..D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

accordingly plaintiffs sales decreased and reduced to a considerable extent the profits which it would have earned. [5] In declaring itself as having jurisdiction over the subject matter of the instant controversy, respondent court stated: A perusal of the complaint which is for damages does not ask for any relief under the Labor Code of the Philippines. It seeks to recover damages as redress for defendant's breach of his contractual obligation to plaintiff who was damaged and prejudiced. The Court believes such cause of action is within the realm of civil law, and jurisdiction over the controversy belongs to the regular courts. While seemingly the cause of action arose from employer- employee relations, the employer's claim for damages is grounded on the nefarious activities of defendant causing damage and prejudice to plaintiff as alleged in paragraph 7 of the complaint. The Court believes that there was a breach of a contractual obligation, which is intrinsically a civil dispute. The averments in the complaint removed the controversy from the coverage of the Labor Code of the Philippines and brought it within the purview of civil law. (Singapore Airlines, Ltd. Vs. Paño, 122 SCRA 671.) xxx [6] Petitioner's motion for reconsideration of the above Order was denied for lack of merit on October 16, 1996. Hence, this petition. Acting on petitioner's prayer, the Second Division of this Court issued a Temporary Restraining Order ("TRO ") on March 5, 1997, enjoining respondents from further proceeding with Civil Case No. 95-554 until further orders from the Court. By way of assignment of errors, the petition reiterates the grounds raised in the Motion to Dismiss dated January 30, 1996, namely, lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action, res judicata , splitting of causes of action, and forum-shopping. The determining issue, however, is the issue of jurisdiction. Article 217(a), paragraph 4 of the Labor Code, which was already in effect at the time of the filing of this case, reads: ART. 217. Jurisdiction of Labor Arbiters and the Commission. --- (a) Except as otherwise provided under this Code the Labor Arbiters shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide, within thirty (30) calendar days after the submission of the case by the parties for decision without extension, even in the absence of stenographic notes, the following cases involving all workers, whether agricultural or non-agricultural: xxx 4. Claims for actual, moral, exemplary and other forms of damages arising from the employer-employee relations; xxx The above provisions are a result of the amendment by Section 9 of Republic Act ("R.A.") No. 6715, which took effect on March 21, 1989, and which put to rest the earlier confusion as to who between Labor Arbiters and regular courts had jurisdiction over claims for damages as between employers and employees. It will be recalled that years prior to R.A. 6715, jurisdiction over all money claims of workers, incl