G.R. No. 131457 Case Digest

G.R. No. 131457, August 19, 1999

Hon. Carlos Fortich (Governor), Hon. Rey Baula (Mayor, Sumilao), NQSR Management and Development Corp.

vs Hon. Renato C. Corona, Deputy Exec. Sec., Hon. Ernesto Garilao, Sec. DAR

Ponente: Ynares-Santiago

Facts:

Respondents and intervenors pray that this case be referred to SC En Banc. A careful reading however, reveals the intention of the framers to draw a distinction between cases, "decided" referring to cases and "resolved" referring to matters, applying the rule of reddendo singula singulis. (referring each to each)

The issue presented by the respondents is whether the power of the LGU to reclassify lands is subject to the approval of the CAR is no longer novel, this having decided in Camarines Sur vs CA case that the LGU need not obtain the approval of the DAR to convert or reclassify lands from agricultural to non-agricultural use.

Intervenors insist that they are real parties in interest inasmuch as they have already been issued certificates of land ownership award, or CLOAs, and that while they are seasonal farm workers at the plantation, they have been identified by the DAR as qualified beneficiaries of the property.

Ruling:

Intervenors, who are admittedly not regular but seasonal farm workers, have no legal or actual and substantive interest over the subject land inasmuch as they have no right to own the land. Rather, their right is limited only to a just share of the fruits of the land.

G.R. No. L-26001 Case Digest

G.R. No. L-26001, October 29, 1968

Phil. National Bank

Vs. Court of Appeals and Phil. Commercial and Industrial Bank

Ponente: Conception

Facts:

January 15, 1962, Augusto Lim deposited in his account with PCIB a GSIS Check in the sum of P57,415, drawn against the PNB. The check as practiced was forwarded for clearing through the Central Bank to PNB, which did not return the said check and paid the amount to PCIB. This payment made was debited against the account of GSIS in PNB. Later on, it was found that the amount was re-credited from PNB for the reason of forged signatures of the officers. Then PNB demanded from PCIB the refund of the amount. 

The demand of PNB was dismissed by the CFI and CA. Allegedly, Mariano Pulido by forging the signatures of the General Manager and Auditor of GSIS; and later on indorsed it to Manuel Go; Go indorsed it to Augusto Lim, who in turn deposited it to PCIB. Prior to this incident, GSIS have notified PNB that the check had been lost, and requested that its payment be stopped.

Issues:

PNB maintains that the court erred in (1) not finding PCIB as negligent, not finding the signatures forged, (2) in not finding that the signatures are forged (3) not finding PCIB liable by virtue of the warranty on the check, (4) in not holding that clearing is not acceptance in contemplation of negotiable instruments law, (5) in not finding that since the PNB did not accept the check, therefore entitles PNB to reimbursement and in (6) denying the PNB’s right to recover from PCIB.

Ruling:

(2) PCIB is not negligent; There is no absolute evidence, and PNB has not even tried to prove that the indorsements are spurious. PNB refunded the amount of  the check to GSIS, on account of the forgery in signatures, not of the indorsers but, the officers of the GSIS as drawers. This is immaterial to PNB’s liability as drawee, for against the drawee, the indorsement of an immediate bank does not guarantee the signature of the drawer.

(3) PCIB thereby guarantee “all prior indorsements”, not the authenticity of the signatures because GSIS is the drawer, not an indorsor.  It is irrelevant, PNB’s alleged right to recover could have been availed by a subsequent indorsee or holder in due course subsequent to PCIB. PNB is neither, but instead after the payment of PNB, the check ceased to be a negotiable instrument and became a mere voucher or proof of payment.

(4) and (5) Acceptance is not required for checks, for the same are payable on demand. Actual payment of the amount of the check implies not only an assent to the order but also a compliance with such obligation.

(6) and (1) PNB was negligent too. PNB not returning the check implied, under the banking practice, that PNB honoured the check and paid its amount to PCIB; and that only then did PCIB allow Lim to draw said amount from his account. Thus by not returning the check, indicates that PNB had found nothing wrong with the check. PNB induced PCIB to honor the check as well. Hence, PNB is the primary or proximate cause of the loss, hence may not recover from PCIB.

G.R. No. 162420 Case Digest

G.R. No. 162420 April 22, 2008

Jaguar Security and Investigation Agency

vs Rodolfo Sales, etc.

Ponente: Austria-Martinez

Facts:

Jaguar is a private corporation engaged in the business of providing security services; one of their clients is Delta Milling Industries, Inc. The respondents were hired as security guards by Jaguar and were assigned at the premises of Delta. Later on, the security guards instituted an instant labor case before the labor arbiter alleging money claims for their services.

On July 1, 1999, petitioner Jaguar filed a partial appeal questioning the failure of public respondent NLRC to resolve its cross-claim against Delta as the party ultimately liable for payment of the monetary award to the security guards.

In its Resolution dated September 19, 2000, the NLRC dismissed the appeal, holding that it was not the proper forum to raise the issue. It went on to say that Jaguar, being the direct employer of the security guards, is the one principally liable to the employees. Thus, it directed petitioner to file a separate civil action for recovery of the amount before the regular court having jurisdiction over the subject matter, for the purpose of proving the liability of Delta. Jaguar sought reconsideration of the dismissal, but the Commission denied the same.

Petitioner insists that its cross-claim should have been ruled upon in the labor case as the filing of a cross-claim is allowed under Section 3 of the NLRC Rules of Procedure which provides for the suppletory application of the Rules of Court. Petitioner argues that the claim arose out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the original action. Petitioner further argues that as principal, Delta Milling Industries, Inc. (Delta Milling) is liable for the awarded wage increases.

There is no question as regards the respective liabilities of petitioner and Delta Milling. Under Articles 106, 107 and 109 of the Labor Code, the joint and several liability of the contractor and the principal is mandated to assure compliance of the provisions therein including the statutory minimum wage. The contractor, petitioner in this case, is made liable by virtue of his status as direct employer. On the other hand, Delta Milling, as principal, is made the indirect employer of the contractor's employees for purposes of paying the employees their wages should the contractor be unable to pay them. This joint and several liability facilitates, if not guarantees, payment of the workers' performance of any work, task, job or project, thus giving the workers ample protection as mandated by the 1987 Constitution.

Issue: whether petitioner may claim reimbursement from Delta Milling through a cross-claim filed with the labor court?

Ruling:

The jurisdiction of labor courts extends only to cases where an employer-employee relationship exists.

In the present case, there exists no employer-employee relationship between petitioner and Delta Milling. In its cross-claim, petitioner is not seeking any relief under the Labor Code but merely reimbursement of the monetary benefits claims awarded and to be paid to the guard employees. There is no labor dispute involved in the cross-claim against Delta Milling. Rather, the cross-claim involves a civil dispute between petitioner and Delta Milling. Petitioner's cross-claim is within the realm of civil law, and jurisdiction over it belongs to the regular courts.

Moreover, the liability of Delta Milling to reimburse petitioner will only arise if and when petitioner actually pays its employees the adjudged liabilities.

Petition is denied.

G.R. No. 112940 Case Digest

G.R. No. 112940 November 21, 1994

Dai-Chi Electronics Manufacturing Corp.

vs Hon. Martin Villarama, Jr. and Adonis Limjuco

Ponente: Quiason

Facts:

July 1993, petitioner filed a complaint for damages with RTC Pasig against Limjuco, a former employee. Dai-Chi alleged that Limjuco violated their contract of employment. Dai-Chi claimed that Limjuco became an employee of Angel Sound Philippines Corp. engaged in the same business as Dai-Chi. Dai-Chi alleged also that Limjuco was the head of material management control department at the competing corporation while employed in Dai-Chi.

Dai-Chi sought to recover liquidated damages in the amount of 100,000 as provided in their contract. Then Judge Villarama, ruled that it had no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the controversy because the complaint is arising from employer-employee relations. Dai-Chi contends that the action did not arise from employer-employee relations, even though the claim is based on the employment contract.

Issue: Is petitioner's claim for damages one arising from employer-employee relations?

Ruling:

No. Petitioner does not ask for any relief under the Labor Code, it seeks to recover damages agreed upon in the contract as redress for private respondent’s breach of his contractual obligation to its "damage and prejudice".

On appeal to this court, we held that jurisdiction over the controversy belongs to the civil courts. We stated that the action was for breach of a contractual obligation, which is intrinsically a civil dispute. We further stated that while seemingly the cause of action arose from employer-employee relations, the employer's claim for damages is grounded on "wanton failure and refusal" without just cause to report to duty coupled with the averment that the employee "maliciously and with bad faith" violated the terms and conditions of the contract to the damage of the employer. Such averments removed the controversy from the coverage of the Labor Code of the Philippines and brought it within the purview of Civil Law.

Jurisprudence has evolved the rule that claims for damages under paragraph 4 of Article 217, to be cognizable by the Labor Arbiter, must have a reasonable causal connection with any of the claims provided for in that article. Only if there is such a connection with the other claims can the claim for damages be considered as arising from employer-employee relations.

Trial Court is ordered to continue with the proceedings.

G.R. No. 104269 Case Digest

G.R. No. 104269 November 11, 1993

Department of Agriculture

vs NLRC

Ponente: Vitug

Facts:

The DA and Sultan Security Agency entered into a contract for security services, pursuant to the agreement guards were deployed by Sultan Agency in the various premises of the DA. September 1990, several guards of Sultan Agency filed a complaint for underpayment of wages, non-payment of 13th month pay, uniform allowances, night shift differential pay, holiday pay and overtime pay, as well as for damages before Regional Arbitration Branch of CDO against the DA and Sultan Security Agency.

The executive labor arbiter rendered that DA and Sultan Agency are jointly and severally liable. Sultan didn't appeal the decision, thus it became final and executory. July 1991, the Labor Arbiter issued a writ of execution commanding the City Sheriff to enforce the judgment against the property of DA and Sultan's property.

DA, filed a petition for injunction, prohibition and mandamus, with prayer for preliminary writ of injunction was filed by the petitioner with the NLRC CDO, saying that the writ issued was affected without the labor arbiter’s jurisdiction over the petitioner. DA also pointed out that the attachment or seizure of its property would hamper and jeopardize petitioner's governmental functions to the prejudice of the public good.

This petition charges NLRC with grave abuse of discretion for refusing to quash the writ of execution. The NLRC has disregarded the cardinal rule on the non-suability of the State. NLRC argued on the other hand that the DA has impliedly waived its immunity from suit by concluding a service contract with Sultan Agency.

Issue: Whether NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion.

Ruling:

Not all contracts entered into by the government operate as a waiver of its non-suability; distinction must still be made between one which is executed in the exercise of its sovereign function and another which is done in its proprietary capacity.

In the instant case, the Department of Agriculture has not pretended to have assumed a capacity apart from its being a governmental entity when it entered into the questioned contract; nor that it could have, in fact, performed any act proprietary in character.

But, be that as it may, the claims of private respondents, i.e. for underpayment of wages, holiday pay, overtime pay and similar other items, arising from the Contract for Service, clearly constitute money claims. Act No. 3083, aforecited, gives the consent of the State to be "sued upon any moneyed claim involving liability arising from contract, express or implied, . . . Pursuant, however, to Commonwealth Act ("C.A.") No. 327, as amended by Presidential Decree ("P.D.") No. 1145, the money claim first be brought to the Commission on Audit.

We fail to see any substantial conflict or inconsistency between the provisions of C.A. No. 327 and the Labor Code with respect to money claims against the State. The Labor code, in relation to Act No. 3083, provides the legal basis for the State liability but the prosecution, enforcement or satisfaction thereof must still be pursued in accordance with the rules and procedures laid down in C.A. No. 327, as amended by P.D. 1445.

Wherefore, the petition is granted.

G.R. No. 163768 Case Digest

G.R. No. 163768 March 27, 2007

Julius Kawachi and Gayle Kawachi

vs Dominie Del Quero and Hon. Judge Taro

Ponente: Tinga

Facts:

Del Quero charged AJ Raymundo Pawnshop, Virgilio Kawachi and Julius Kawachi with illegal dismissal, non-execution of a contract of employment, violation of minimum wage law and non-payment of overtime pay. The complaint was filed before the NLRC.Del Quero also filed an action for damages against Kawachi before the MeTC of Quezon City.

Kwachi moved for the dismissal of the complaint on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction and forum-shopping or splitting cause of action. The MeTC rejected the dismissal and the subsequent motion for reconsideration.

Kawachi then elevated the case to the RTC. RTC held that Del Quero's action for damages was based on the tortious acts committed by her employers and did not seek any relief under the Labor code. RTC also denied the motion for reconsideration, hence this petition for review on certiorari.

Issue: Jurisdiction over the complaint for damages.

Kawachi: NLRC has jurisdiction over the action for damages because the alleged injury is work-related and that Del Quero should not be allowed to split her causes.

Ruling:

Petition is meritorious. Article 217(a) of the Labor Code, as amended, clearly bestows upon the Labor Arbiter original and exclusive jurisdiction over claims for damages arising from employer-employee relations —in other words, the Labor Arbiter has jurisdiction to award not only the reliefs provided by labor laws, but also damages governed by the Civil Code.

In the instant case, the allegations in Del Quero's complaint for damages show that her injury was the offshoot of petitioners immediate harsh reaction as her administrative superiors to the supposedly sloppy manner by which she had discharged her duties. This incident was similarly narrated in both illegal dismissal complaint and damages complaint; which shows that the injury is directly related to the employer-employee relations of the parties.

The dismissed employee cannot be allowed to sue in two forums. NLRC has jurisdiction over the complaint for illegal dismissal and damages arising there from.

G.R. No. 89621 Case Digest

G.R. No. 89621 September 24, 1991

Pepsi Cola

vs Hon. Lolita Gal-ang

Ponente: Cruz

Facts:

Some employees of Pepsi were suspected of irregular disposition of empty pepsi bottles. On July 1987, pepsi filed a criminal complaint for theft against the employees but later withdrawn it for falsification of private documents. The MTC Leyte, after conducting a preliminary investigation dismissed the complaint, with a separate civil complaint against Pepsi for damages due to their malicious prosecution.

Pepsi moved to dismiss the civil complaint on the ground of no jurisdiction because it involved an employee-employer relationship which exclusive under the labor arbiter's jurisdiction. The motion was granted. However, Hon. Gal-ang , acting on a motion for reconsideration, reinstated the case saying that it was distinct from labor case for damages. The petitioners then came to SC for relief.

Pepsi cited Getz Corp vs CA when the court said that "for unpaid salary and other employment benefits, termination pay and moral and exemplary damages" the labor arbiter shall have the jurisdiction over the case.

Issue: Whether there the labor arbiter has the jurisdiction over the case for malicious prosecution?

Ruling:

SC: Not every controversy involving workers and their employers can be resolved only by the labor arbiters. This will be so if there is a "reasonable causal connection" between the claims asserted. Absence the link, it will be under the civil or criminal jurisdiction of the regular courts.

At the case at bar, it involves a complaint for damages for malicious prosecution which does not appear that there is a "reasonable causal connection" between the complaint and the relations of the parties. The complaint did not arise from such relations and in fact could have arisen independently of an employment relationship between the parties.