EVIOTA vs CA Case Digest

EVIOTA vs CA Case Digest FACTS

Sometime Sometime on January January 26, 1998, the respondent respondent Standard Standard Chartered Chartered Bank and petitioner petitioner Eduardo Eduardo G. Eviota Eviota exeuted exeuted a ontrat o! emp"oyment under #hih the petitioner #as emp"oyed $y the respondent $ank as Compensation and Bene!its %ana&er, '( )%21*. (etitioner ame up #ith many proposa"s #hih the $ank approved and made preparations o!. +e #as a"so &iven privi"e&es privi"e&es "ike ar, renovation renovation o! the o!!ie, and even a trip to Sin&apore Sin&apore at the ompanys ompanys expense. expense. +o#ever, +o#ever, the petitione petitionerr a$rupt"y a$rupt"y resi&ned !rom the respondent respondent $ank $are"y $are"y a month month a!ter a!ter his emp"oyment emp"oyment and re-oined re-oined his !ormer emp"oyer. n June 19, 1998, the respondent $ank !i"ed a omp"aint a&ainst the petitioner #ith the /0C o! %akati City !or dama&es $rou&ht a$out his a$rupt resi&nation.  0hou&h petitioner reim$ursed reim$ursed part o! the the amount demanded demanded $y Standard, he #as #as not a$"e to pay it !u"". Standard a""e&ed that assumin& ar&uendo ar&uendo that Eviota had the ri&ht to terminate his emp"oyment #ith the Bank !or no reason, the manner in and irumstanes under #hih he exerised the same are "ear"y a$usive and ontrary to the ru"es &overnin& human re"ations, &overned $y the Civi" Code. urther, Standard a""e&ed that petitioner a"so vio"ated vio"ated the a$or Code #hen he terminated his emp"oyment #ithout one )1* notie in advane. 0his stipu"ation #as a"so provided in the emp"oyment ontrat o! Eviota #ith Standard, #hih #ou"d a"so onstitute $reah o! ontrat.  0he petitioner !i"ed a motion to dismiss the omp"aint on the &round that the ation !or dama&es o! the respondent $ank #as #ithin the ex"usive -urisdition o! the a$or 3r$iter under para&raph para&raph 4, 3rti"e 215 o! the a$or Code o! the (hi"ippines, as amended. 0he petitioner averred that the respondent respondent $anks "aim !or dama&es arose out o! or #ere in onnetion onnetion #ith his emp"oyeremp"oyee re"ationship re"ationship #ith the respondent $ank $ank or some aspet or inident o! suh suh re"ationship. 0he respondent $ank opposed the motion, "aimin& that its ation !or dama&es #as #ithin the ex"usive -urisdition o! the tria" ourt. 3"thou&h its "aims !or dama&es inidenta""y invo"ved an emp"oyeremp"oyee re"ationship, the said "aims are atua""y prediated on the petitioners ats and omissions #hih are separate"y, spei!ia""y and distint"y &overned $y the 7e# Civi" Code. ISSUE

hether or not the /0C had -urisdition over the ase. HELD

 0he SC he"d that the /0C has -urisdition. Case "a# has it that the nature o! an ation and the su$-et matter thereo!, as #e"" as #hih ourt has -urisditi -urisdition on over the same, are determined determined $y the materia" materia" a""e&ations a""e&ations o! the omp"aint omp"aint and the re"ie!s prayed prayed !or in re"ation to the "a# invo"ved. invo"ved. 7ot every every ontrove ontroversy rsy or money money "aim $y an emp"oyee emp"oyee a&ainst the emp"oyer emp"oyer or vieversa is #ithin the ex"usive -urisdition o! the "a$or ar$iter. ar$iter. 3 money "aim $y a #orker a&ainst the emp"oyer or vie versa is #ithin the ex"usive -urisdition o! the "a$or ar$iter on"y i ! there is a reasona$"e ausa" onnetion: $et#een the "aim asserted and emp"oyeeemp"oyer emp"oyeeemp"oyer re"ation. 3$sent suh a "ink, the omp"aint omp"aint #i"" $e o∋a$"e $y the re&u"ar re&u"ar ourts o!  -ustie. 3tions $et#een emp"oyees and emp"oyer #here the emp"oyeremp"oyee re"ationship is mere"y inidenta" and the ause o! ation preedes !rom !rom a di!!erent soure o! o$"i&ation is #ithin the ex"usive -urisdition -urisdition o! the re&u"ar ourt. 0he -urisdition o! the a$or 3r$iter under 3rti"e 215 o! the a$or Code, as amended, is "imited to disputes arisin& !rom an emp"oyer emp"oyee re"ationship #hih an on"y $e reso"ved $y re!erene to the a$or Code o! the (hi"ippines, other "a$or "a#s or their o""etive $ar&ainin& a&reements.  Jurisprudene has evo"ved the ru"e that "aims !or dama&es under para&raph 4 o! 3rti"e 215, to $e o∋a$"e $y the a$or 3r$iter, must have a reasona$"e reasona$"e ausa" onnetion onnetion #ith any o! the "aims provided provided !or in that arti"e. n"y i! there is suh a onnetion #ith the other "aims an the "aim !or dama&es $e onsidered as arisin& !rom emp"oyeremp"oyee re"ations. thus, !orin& the private private respondent respondent to hire a rep"aeme rep"aement. nt. 0he private responde respondent nt #as "e!t in a "urh, "urh, and its orporate orporate p"ans and pro&ram in -eopardy and disarray. disarray. %oreover, the petitioner petitioner took o!! #ith the private respondents respondents omputer diskette, diskette, papers and douments ontainin& ontainin& on!identia" in!ormation on on emp"oyee ompensation ompensation and other $ank matters. matters. n its seond ause o! ation, the petitioner simp"y #a"ked a#ay !rom his emp"oyment #ith the private respondent sans any #ritten notie, to the pre-udie o! the private respondent, respondent, its $ankin& operations and the ondut o! its $usiness. 3nent its third ause o! ation, the petitioner made !a"se and dero&atory statements that the private respondent rene&ed on its o$"i&ations under their ontrat o! emp"oyment> thus, depitin& the private respondent as un#orthy o! trust.  0he primary re"ie! sou&ht is !or "i=uidated dama&es !or $reah $reah o! a ontratua" o$"i&ation. o$"i&ation. 0he other items demanded are not not "a$or $ene!its demanded $y #orkers &enera""y taken o∋ane o! in "a$or disputes, suh as payment o! #a&es, overtime ompensa ompensation tion or separation separation pay. 0he items "aimed are the natura" natura" onse=uene onse=uenes s !"o#in& !"o#in& !rom $reah o! an o$"i&ation, o$"i&ation, intrinsia""y a ivi" dispute.
petitioner and their emp"oyeremp"oyee re"ationship. 0he !at that the private respondent #as the erst#hi"e emp"oyer o! the petitioner under an existin& emp"oyment ontrat $e!ore the "atter a$andoned his emp"oyment is mere"y inidenta". (etition is denied.