Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila FIRST DIVISION G.R. No.

112940 November 21, 199 DAI-CHI ELECTRONICS MANU ACTURING CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. HON. MARTIN S. !ILLARAMA, "R., Pre#$%$&' "(%'e, Re'$o&)* Tr$)* Co(r+, ,r)&-. 1/0, P)#$', Me+ro M)&$*) )&% ADONIS C. LIM"UCO, respondents. Sebastian, Liganor & Galinato for petitioner. Jara, Baarde & Associates for private respondent. 1UIASON, J.: This is a petition for revie on certiorari under Rule !" of the Revised Rules of #ourt in relation to R.$. No. "!!% and #ircular No. &'(% of the follo in) orders of the Re)ional Trial #ourt, *ranch +",, Pasi), Metro Manila, in #ivil #ase No. ,-!!./ +0 Order dated Septe1ber &%, +((-, dis1issin) the co1plaint of petitioner on the )round of lac2 of 3urisdiction over the sub3ect 1atter of the controvers45 and &0 Order dated Nove1ber &(, +((-, den4in) petitioner6s 1otion for reconsideration. I On 7ul4 &(, +((-, petitioner filed a co1plaint for da1a)es ith the Re)ional Trial #ourt, *ranch +",, Pasi), Metro Manila, a)ainst private respondent, a for1er e1plo4ee. Petitioner alle)ed that private respondent violated para)raph five of their #ontract of 81plo41ent dated $u)ust &9, +((%, hich provides/ That for a period of t o :&0 4ears after ter1ination of service fro1 8MP;O<8R, 8MP;O<88 shall not in an4 1anner be connected, and=or e1plo4ed, be a consultant and=or be an infor1ative bod4 directl4 or indirectl4, ith an4 business fir1, entit4 or underta2in) en)a)ed in a business si1ilar to or in co1petition ith that of the 8MP;O<8R : Rollo, p. &!0. Petitioner clai1ed that private respondent beca1e an e1plo4ee of $n)el Sound Philippines #orporation, a corporation en)a)ed in the sa1e line of business as that of petitioner, ithin t o 4ears fro1 7anuar4 -%, +((&, the date of private respondent6s resi)nation fro1 petitioner6s e1plo4. Petitioner further alle)ed that private respondent is holdin) the position of >ead of the Material Mana)e1ent #ontrol Depart1ent, the sa1e position he held hile in the e1plo4 of petitioner. Petitioner sou)ht to recover li?uidated da1a)es in the a1ount of One >undred Thousand Pesos :P+%%,%%%.%%0, as provided for in para)raph seven of the contract, hich provides/ That a violation of the conditions set forth in provisions Nos. :&0 and :"0 of this contract shall entitle the 8MP;O<8R to collect fro1 the 8MP;O<88 the su1 of ON8 >@NDR8D T>O@S$ND P8SOS :P+%%,%%%.%%0 b4 a4 of li?uidated da1a)es and li2e ise to adopt appropriate le)al 1easures to prevent the 8MP;O<88 fro1 acceptin) e1plo41ent and=or en)a)in), directl4 or indirectl4, in a business si1ilar to or in co1petition ith that of the 8MP;O<8R, before the lapse of the aforesaid period of TAO :&0 <8$RS fro1 date of ter1ination of service fro1 8MP;O<8R :Rollo, p. &"0. Respondent court, in its Order dated Septe1ber &%, +((-, ruled that it had no 3urisdiction over the sub3ect 1atter of the controvers4 because the co1plaint as for da1a)es arisin) fro1 e1plo4er'e1plo4ee relations. #itin) $rticle &+9:!0 of the ;abor #ode of the Philippines, as a1ended b4 R.$. No. ,9+", respondent court stated that it is the ;abor $rbiter hich had ori)inal and eBclusive 3urisdiction over the sub3ect 1atter of the case : Rollo, pp. &.'-&0. In this petition, petitioner as2s for the reversal of respondent court6s dis1issal of the civil case, contendin) that the case is co)niCable b4 the re)ular courts. It ar)ues that the cause of action did not arise fro1 e1plo4er'e1plo4ee relations, even thou)h the clai1 is based on a provision in the e1plo41ent contract. II This issue is/ Is petitioner6s clai1 for da1a)es one arisin) fro1 e1plo4er'e1plo4ee relationsD Ae ans er in the ne)ative. $rticle &+9, as a1ended b4 Section ( of R.$. No. ,9+", provides as follo s/

7urisdiction of ;abor $rbiters and the #o11ission. E :a0 8Bcept as other ise provided under this #ode, the ;abor $rbiters shall have ori)inal and eBclusive 3urisdiction to hear and decide, ithin thirt4 :-%0 calendar da4s after the sub1ission of the case b4 the parties for decision ithout eBtension, even in the absence of steno)raphic notes, the follo in) cases involvin) all or2ers, hether a)ricultural or non'a)ricultural/ BBB BBB BBB !. Claims for actual, moral, exemplar and ot!er forms of damages arising from t!e emplo er"emplo ee relations 5 :81phasis supplied0 BBB BBB BBB Petitioner does not as2 for an4 relief under the ;abor #ode of the Philippines. It see2s to recover da1a)es a)reed upon in the contract as redress for private respondent6s breach of his contractual obli)ation to its Fda1a)e and pre3udiceF :Rollo, p. "90. Such cause of action is ithin the real1 of #ivil ;a , and 3urisdiction over the controvers4 belon)s to the re)ular courts. More so hen e consider that the stipulation refers to the post'e1plo41ent relations of the parties. $ case in point is Singapore Airlines Limited v. #a$o, +&& S#R$ ,9+ :+(.-0, hich also dealt ith the e1plo4ee6s breach of an obli)ation e1bodied in a ritten e1plo41ent a)ree1ent. Sin)apore $irlines filed a co1plaint in the trial court for da1a)es a)ainst its e1plo4ee for F anton failure and refusalF ithout 3ust cause to report to dut4 and for havin) F1aliciousl4 and ith bad faithF violated the ter1s and conditions of its F$)ree1ent for a #ourse of #onversion Trainin) at the 8Bpense of Sin)apore $irlines ;i1ited.F This a)ree1ent provided that the e1plo4ee shall a)ree to re1ain in the service of the e1plo4er for a period of five 4ears fro1 the date of the co11ence1ent of the trainin) pro)ra1. The trial court dis1issed the co1plaint on the )rounds that it did not have 3urisdiction over the sub3ect 1atter of the controvers4. On appeal to this court, e held that 3urisdiction over the controvers4 belon)s to the civil courts. Ae stated that the action as for breach of a contractual obli)ation, hich is intrinsicall4 a civil dispute. Ae further stated that hile see1in)l4 the cause of action arose fro1 e1plo4er'e1plo4ee relations, the e1plo4er6s clai1 for da1a)es is )rounded on F anton failure and refusalF ithout 3ust cause to report to dut4 coupled ith the aver1ent that the e1plo4ee F1aliciousl4 and ith bad faithF violated the ter1s and conditions of the contract to the da1a)e of the e1plo4er. Such aver1ents re1oved the controvers4 fro1 the covera)e of the ;abor #ode of the Philippines and brou)ht it ithin the purvie of #ivil ;a . 7urisprudence has evolved the rule that clai1s for da1a)es under para)raph ! of $rticle &+9, to be co)niCable b4 the ;abor $rbiter, 1ust have a reasonable causal connection ith an4 of the clai1s provided for in that article. Onl4 if there is such a connection ith the other clai1s can the clai1 for da1a)es be considered as arisin) fro1 e1plo4er'e1plo4ee relations. In San %iguel Corporation v. &ational Labor Relations Commission, +,+ S#R$ 9+( :+(..0, e had occasion to construe $rticle &+9, as a1ended b4 *.P. *l). &&9. $rticle &+9 then provided that the ;abor $rbiter had 3urisdiction over all 1one4 clai1s of or2ers, but the phrase Farisin) fro1 e1plo4er' e1plo4ee relationF as deleted. Ae ruled thus/ Ahile para)raph - above refers to Fall 1one4 clai1s of or2ers,F it is not necessar4 to suppose that the entire universe of 1one4 clai1s that 1i)ht be asserted b4 or2ers a)ainst their e1plo4ers has been absorbed into the ori)inal and eBclusive 3urisdiction of ;abor $rbiters. In the first place, para)raph - should be read not in isolation fro1 but rather ithin the conteBt for1ed b4 para)raph + :relatin) to unfair labor practices0, para)raph & :relatin) to clai1s concernin) ter1s and conditions of e1plo41ent0, para)raph ! :clai1s relatin) to household services, a particular species of e1plo4er'e1plo4ee relations0, and para)raph " :relatin) to certain activities prohibited to e1plo4ees or to e1plo4ers0. It is evident that there is a unif4in) ele1ent hich runs throu)h para)raphs + to " and that is, that the4 all refer to cases or disputes arisin) out of or in connection ith an e1plo4er'e1plo4ee relationship. This is, in other ords, a situation here the rule of noscitur a sociis 1a4 be usefull4 invo2ed in clarif4in) the scope of para)raph -, and an4 other para)raph of $rticle &+9 of the ;abor #ode, as a1ended. Ae reach the above conclusion fro1 an eBa1ination of the ter1s the1selves of $rticle &+9, as last a1ended b4 *.P *l). &&9, and even thou)h earlier versions of $rticle &+9 of the ;abor #ode eBpressl4 brou)ht ithin the 3urisdiction of the ;abor $rbiters and the N;R# Fcases arisin) fro1 e1plo4er'e1plo4ee relations,F hich clause as not eBpressl4 carried over, in printer6s in2, in $rticle &+9 as it eBists toda4. For it cannot be presu1ed that 1one4 clai1s of or2ers hich do not arise out of or in connection ith their e1plo4er'e1plo4ee relationship, and hich ould therefore fall ithin the )eneral 3urisdiction of re)ular courts of 3ustice, ere intended b4 the le)islative authorit4 to be ta2en a a4 fro1 the 3urisdiction of the courts and lod)ed ith ;abor $rbiters on an eBclusive basis. The #ourt, therefore, believes and so holds that the F1one4 clai1s of or2ersF referred to in para)raph - of $rticle &+9 e1braces 1one4 clai1s hich arise out of or in connection ith the e1plo4er'e1plo4ee relationship or so1e aspect or incident of so1e relationship. Put a little differentl4, that 1one4 clai1s of or2ers hich no fall ithin the ori)inal and eBclusive 3urisdiction of ;abor $rbiters are those 1one4 clai1s hich have so1e reasonable causal connection ith the e1plo4er'e1plo4ee relationship :81phasis supplied0. San %iguel as cited in 'c!eda v. Court of Appeals, &+! S#R$ ,&( :+((&0, here e held that hen the cause of action is based on a (uasi"delict or tort, hich has no reasonable causal connection ith an4 of the clai1s provided for in $rticle &+9, 3urisdiction over the action is ith the re)ular courts. Ae also applied the Freasonable causal connection ruleF in #epsi"Cola )istributors of t!e #!ilippines, *nc. v.Gallang, &%+ S#R$ ,(" :+((+0, here e held that an action filed b4 e1plo4ees a)ainst an e1plo4er for da1a)es for the latter6s 1alicious filin) of a cri1inal co1plaint for falsification of private docu1ents a)ainst the1 ca1e under the 3urisdiction of the re)ular courts :See also >oniron Philippines, Inc. v. Inter1ediate $ppellate #ourt, G.R. No. ,,(&(, $u)ust +-, +((% and $be3aron v. #ourt of $ppeals, &%. S#R$ .(( H+((&I0. The rationale behind the holdin)s in these cases is that the co1plaint for da1a)es as anchored not on the ter1ination of the e1plo4ee6s services per se, but rather on the 1anner and conse?uent effects of such ter1ination. #ases decided under earlier versions of $rticle &+9 ere consistent also in that intrinsicall4 civil disputes, even if these involve an e1plo4er and his e1plo4ee, are co)niCable b4 the re)ular courts. In %edina vs. Castro"Bartolome, ++, S#R$ "(9 :+(.&0, a civil co1plaint for da1a)es a)ainst the

e1plo4er for slanderous re1ar2s 1ade a)ainst the1, e upheld the re)ular court6s 3urisdiction after findin) that the plaintiffs did not alle)e an4 unfair labor practice, their co1plaint bein) a si1ple action for da1a)es for tortious acts alle)edl4 co11itted b4 the defendants. In %olave Sales, *nc. v. Laron, +&( S#R$ !." :+(.!0, e held that the clai1 of the plaintiff a)ainst its sales 1ana)er for pa41ent of certain accounts and cash advances as properl4 co)niCable b4 the re)ular courts because Falthou)h a controvers4 is bet een an e1plo4er and an e1plo4ee, the ;abor $rbiters have no 3urisdiction if the ;abor #ode is not involved.F Private respondent also raises the issue of foru1 shoppin). >e asserts that the petition should be dis1issed pursuant to #ircular No. &.'(+ because petitioner 1erel4 F1entioned in passin) a labor case bet een petitioner and private respondent hich is bein) handled b4 petitioner6s other counselF :Rollo, p. !&0. Private respondent is referrin) to N;R# N#R #ase No. %%'++'%,.(!(- filed b4 hi1 on Nove1ber ., +((-. Petitioner asserts that the case before the ;abor $rbiter as filed b4 private respondent a)ainst petitioner for alle)ed ille)al dis1issal, underpa41ent of a)es and non'pa41ent of overti1e and pre1iu1 pa4 ith pra4er for 1oral and eBe1plar4 da1a)es, to hich petitioner, throu)h its other counsel, Flo)icall4 raised as one of its several counterclai1s a)ainst private respondent the li?uidated da1a)es 1entioned in the contract of e1plo41ent bet een the partiesF :Rollo, p. ,(0. Petitioner did not fail to disclose the pendin) labor case in the certification re?uired under #ircular No. &.'(+. Thus, petitioner cannot be considered to have sub1itted a false certification arrantin) su11ar4 dis1issal of the petition :Par. -HaI of #ircular No. &.'(+0. Petitioner did not co11it foru1 shoppin). It set up its counterclai1 for li?uidated da1a)es 1erel4 as a defense a)ainst private respondent6s co1plaint before the ;abor $rbiter. $##ORDING;<, the Orders of the Re)ional Trial #ourt dated Septe1ber &%, +((- and Nove1ber &(, +((- are S8T $SID8. The trial court is ORD8R8D to continue ith the proceedin)s in #ivil #ase No. ,-!!.. SO ORD8R8D. #adilla, )avide, Jr., Bellosillo and +apunan, JJ., concur.