Domondon vs NLRC (Labor Law)

Domondon vs NLRC

471 SCRA 559

Facts: 

Petitioner Domondon was hired as Material Manager by the Van Melle Phils. All things went well until a precious general manager was replaced by Have, a Dutch National. Have requested Domondon to file his resignation letter. He refused and his life at work became difficult until he was removed from the company. He later filed for a complaint. In their counter complaint, the respondent denied Domondon‘s allegations and even allowed him to resign. Respondent further averred the parties agreed that in order for him to own the car, he had an agreement with company that petitioner must pay for it in order to transfer ownership thereof. Subsequent demands were made but to no avail. When raised to the Labor Arbiter, the complaint by Domondon was denied. 

Issue: 

Whether or not the Labor Arbiter has jurisdiction to hear the counterclaim of the employer and the return of the car for failure of Domondon to pay. 

Ruling: 

Yes. The Labor Arbiter has jurisdiction. The Court holds by the designating clause ― arising from employer- employee relationship. Article 217 should apply with equal force to the claim of an employer for actual damages against its employee where the basis of the claim arises from or necessarily connected with the fact of termination, and should be entered as a counterclaim in the illegal dismissal case. Private respondent herein made a counterclaim involving the transfer of ownership of the company car to petitioner. Such transfer is connected with Domondon‘s resignation and thus is covered in the jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter.