1. Tolosa vs. NLRC G.R. No.

149578, April 10, 2003

Facts: Petitioner is the wife of Capt. Tolosa who was hired to be the master of M/V Lady Dona with
private respondents Garate and Asis as Chief Mate and Second Mate of the vessel respectively. Capt.
Tolosa was hired by co-private respondent Qwana-Kaiun through the manning agent Asia Bulk
Transport Phils., Inc. The voyage was from Yokohama, Japan to Long Beach, California. Capt. Tolosa
was given a compensation of US$1,700 monthly plus US$400 overtime allowance monthly. Upon
embarkation, Capt. Tolosa’s health was still in good shape but after being drenched in rainwater after
embarkation, he suffered Loose Bowel Movement and fever which led eventually to his death after
several days.

Petitioner filed a Complaint/Position Paper with the Philippine Overseas Employment Agency against
private respondents herein but because of the amendatory law expanding the jurisdiction of the
National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), the case was raffled to a Labor Arbiter. She sought to
recover (a) loss of earning capacity as ‘actual damages’ and (b) blacklisting imputing gross negligence
to private respondents Garate and Asis. She anchored her claim on Article 161 of the Labor Code
regarding Assistance of Employer.

Private respondents, on the other hand, asserted that the Labor Arbiter has no jurisdiction as the
complaint is based on torts which the regular courts have jurisdiction.

The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of petitioner granting her the relief sought. On appeal, the NLRC
reversed the Labor Arbiter’s Decision. It ruled that the Labor Arbiter had no jurisdiction over the
subject matter. The Court of Appeals affirmed the NLRC. It ruled that the case did not arise from a
quasi-delict or tort and not from an employee-employer relationship nor does it have any reasonable
causal connection for damages to be awarded incident to an employee-employer relationship. Hence,
this instant petition.

Petitioner argued that her cause of action is not based on negligence but on Art. 161 of the Labor
Code. She alleged that the reasonable causal rule should be applied in her favor.

Issue: Whether or not the Labor Arbiter has jurisdiction over the subject matter?

Ruling: No, the Labor Arbiter does not have jurisdiction over the subject matter. The Court ruled that
labor arbiters and the NLRC have no power to grant reliefs from claims that do not arise from
employer-employee relationships. They have no jurisdiction over torts that do not have a reasonable
causal connection to any of the claims provided for in the Labor Code, other labor statutes, or
collective bargaining agreements.

It has been emphasized that the allegation of the complaint determines the nature of the action and
consequently, the jurisdiction of the courts. The Court was convinced that the allegations were in the
nature of an action based on quasi-delict or tort resulting from gross negligence. Even though Labor
Arbiters have jurisdiction to grant damages under the Civil Code, these reliefs must still be based on
an action that has a reasonable causal connection with the Labor Code, other labor statutes, or
collective bargaining agreements. It is the character of the principal relief that appears essential in this
connection.

In the case at hand, loss of earning capacity and blacklisting cannot be equated to wages, overtime
compensation or separation pays. They arise from causes within the realm of civil law. Petitioner
cannot also anchor her claim on Article 161 as this does not grant or specify a claim or relief.