G.R. No. 60716. October 27, 1983
AGUSAN DEL NORTE ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC., ANTONIO L. SUAREZ, AS GENERAL MANAGER AND EX-OFICIO MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS, ET AL., PETITIONERS, VS. HON. FORTUNATO A. VAI…
PLANA, J.:
This is a petition for certiorari with preliminary
injunction set against the following background:
From 1977 to December 1981, Perlita S. Jongko was employed by the Agusan
del Norte Electric Company, Inc. (ANECO) initially as
accountant and later as office manager. On December 7, 1981, allegedly in the absence
of a substantial basis and without giving Jongko
reasonably sufficient opportunity to put up her defense, the ANECO general manager, Antonio Suarez, with
the concurrence of the ANECO board of directors, dismissed Jongko
as office manager for alleged dishonesty, conflicting interest, abuse of
authority and insubordination.
On December 22, 1981,
Jongko filed with the Court of First Instance of Agusan del Norte and Butuan City
a petition for prohibition and mandamus against ANECO and its officers
based on illegal dismissal, with
a prayer for reinstatement with back salary. (Civil Case No.
410.) The defendants filed a motion to dismiss on the ground, among
others, that the CFI had no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action.
The court denied the motion and refused to reconsider the same. Hence, this
petition for certiorari filed on June 14, 1982 assailing the denial of
the motion to dismiss on the ground that ordinary courts have no jurisdiction
over illegal dismissal cases which have been assigned by law exclusively to
labor arbiters.
Meanwhile, on the same date that the instant petition was filed, Jongko also filed with the court a quo an amended petition seeking not only reinstatement with back
salary but also moral and exemplary damages.
Under Article 217 of Presidential Decree 442 (Labor Code), as
amended by Presidential Decree 1367, labor arbiters had exclusive jurisdiction
over labor cases involving illegal dismissal and all other cases arising from
employer-employee relations, exclusive of claims for damages. For under P.D.
1367, “labor arbiters shall not entertain claims of moral or other forms
of damages.”
On May 1, 1980,
however, PD 1691 amended the Labor Code by deleting the ban against labor
arbiters taking cognizance of claims for damages. This amendment had the effect
of restoring the jurisdiction of labor arbiters over said claims under their
broad and exclusive authority to hear and decide –
“All money claims of workers, including those based on
non-payment… of wages… and other benefits provided by law…
“All other claims arising from
employer-employee relations, unless expressly excluded by this Code.”
[Article 217 (a). See Aguda
vs. Vallejos, 113 SCRA 69; Cardinal Industries, Inc.
vs. Vallejos, 114 SCRA 472; Getz Corp. (Phil), Inc.
vs. Court of Appeals, 116 SCRA 86.]
The legal situation remained despite the subsequent enactment of
Batas Pambansa 130 on August 21, 1980.
Thus, when in December, 1981 the services of private respondent Jongko were terminated by ANECO and Jongko
filed her petition for prohibition and mandamus against ANECO with the
Court of First Instance of Agusan del Norte and Butuan City praying for reinstatement with back salary
(without asking for damages), the applicable law was Article 217 of the Labor
Code, as amended on August 21, 1980 by Batas Pambansa
130 giving labor arbiters exclusive
jurisdiction over all
money claims of workers (including those based on non-payment of wages and
other benefits provided by law) as well as all other claims arising from
employer-employee relations, including moral and other forms of damages.
And when Jongko filed on June 14, 1982
her amended petition praying not only for reinstatement and backwages
but also moral and exemplary damages, the law applicable was the same Article
217 of the Labor Code, as amended by
Batas Pambansa 227 effective June 1, 1982, under
which “all money claims of workers including those based on non-payment…
of wages… and other benefits provided by law” were still under the exclusive
jurisdiction of labor arbiters, inclusive of illegal dismissal cases with
prayer for reinstatement, backwages and damages,
notwithstanding the fact that Batas Pambansa 227
deleted the basket clause in Article 217 of the Labor Code which previously
gave labor arbiters jurisdiction over “all other claims arising from
employer-employee relations.” For as observed by this Court in Ebon vs. De
Guzman, 113 SCRA 52 at 56 –
“The provisions… that the Labor Arbiters and the NLRC have
jurisdiction over ‘all money claims of workers x x x’…are comprehensive
enough to include claims for moral and exemplary damages of a dismissed
employee against his employer.” (See also Getz Corp. (Phil.), Inc. 116
SCRA 86.)
Therefore, when the court a quo denied petitioners’
motion to dismiss the illegal dismissal case instituted by private respondent,
it resolved to take cognizance of a case over which it had no jurisdiction.
WHEREFORE, the petition is granted. Respondent judge or
his successor is directed to dismiss Civil Case 410 without prejudice to the
right of private respondent to re-file her claim with the proper labor
arbiter. No costs.
SO ORDERED.
Teehankee, (Chairman), Melencio-Herrera, Relova, and Gutierrez, Jr., JJ.,
concur.