Halaguena vs PAL (Labor Law)

Halaguena, et. al. vs Philippines Airlines, Inc. 

GR No. 172013

October 2, 2009

FACTS: 

Petitioners were employees as flight attendants of respondent PAL. They were members of Flight Attendants and Stewards Association of the Philippines (FASAP). The petitioners manifested that the CBA provision on the compulsory retirement (female 55 y.o; male 60 y.o) was discriminatory. They filed a special civil action for declaratory relief with a prayer for the issuance of TRO and writ of preliminary injunction with the RTC. The RTC issued an order enjoining the respondent for implementing Sec 144 of the CBA . Respondents filed a petition for certiorari before the CA praying that the order of RTC be annulled and set aside for having issued without and/or grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. The CA granted, declaring RTC to have no jurisdiction over the case. Hence this petition.

ISSUE: 

Whether the RTC has jurisdiction over petitioners' action challenging the legality or constitutionality of the provisions on compulsory retirement age contained in the CBA between PAL and FASAP. 

RULING: 

Yes, RTC has jurisdiction. From the petitioners' allegations and relief prayed for, it is clear that the issue raised is whether the Sec 144 part A of the PAL-FASAP CBA is unlawful and unconstitutional. Here, the petitoners‘ primary relief is the annulment of the Sec 144 Part A which allegedly discriminates against them for being female flight attendants. The subject of the litigation is incapable of pecuniary estimation, exclusively cognizable by the RTC, pursuant to Sec 19 of BP 129, as amended. Being an ordinary action, the same is beyond the jurisdiction of labor tribunals. The said issue cannot be solved solely applying the LC. Rather, it requires the application of Constitution, labor statues, law on contracts and the convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women, and the power to apply and interpret the constitution and CEDAW is within the jurisdiction of trial court, a court of general jurisdiction.

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.

Banez vs Valdevilla (Labor Law)

Banez vs Valdevilla, 

GR No. 128024, May 9, 2000, 

331 SCRA 584

Facts: 

Petitioner was the sales operations manager of private respondent in its branch in Iligan City. In 1993, private respondent "indefinitely suspended" petitioner and the latter filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with the NLRC-Iligan City. LA Palangan found petitioner to have been illegally dismissed. NLRC likewise dismissed the same for having filed out of time. Elevated by petition for certiorari before SC, the case was dismissed on technical grounds. Private respondent filed a complaint for damages before the RTC of Misamis Oriental to which petitioner filed a motion to dismiss the above complaint. He interposed in the court below that the action for damages, having arisen from an employer-employee relationship, was squarely under the exclusive original jurisdiction of the NLRC under Article 217(a), paragraph 4 of the Labor Code and is barred by reason of the final judgment in the labor case. He accused private respondent of splitting causes of action 

Issue:

Whether Art. 217 apply to employer with regard to its claim of damages against its employees 

Ruling:

Article 217 should apply with equal force to the claim of an employer for actual damages against its dismissed employee, where the basis for the claim arises from or is necessarily connected with the fact of termination, and should be entered as a counterclaim in the illegal dismissal case In the case at bar, private respondent's claim against petitioner for actual damages arose from a prior employer-employee relationship. In the first place, private respondent would not have taken issue with petitioner's "doing business of his own" had the latter not been concurrently its employee. Thus, the damages alleged in the complaint below are: first, those amounting to lost profits and earnings due to petitioner's abandonment or neglect of his duties as sales manager, having been otherwise preoccupied by his unauthorized installment sale scheme; and second, those equivalent to the value of private respondent's property and supplies which petitioner used in conducting his "business ". Second, and more importantly, to allow respondent court to proceed with the instant action for damages would be to open anew the factual issue of whether petitioner's installment sale scheme resulted in business losses and the dissipation of private respondent's property. This issue has been duly raised and ruled upon in the illegal dismissal case. Respondent court clearly having no jurisdiction over private respondent's complaint for damages. Thus, private respondent's remedy is not in the filing of this separate action for damages, but in properly perfecting an appeal from the Labor Arbiter's decision.