8/10/2019 22. Pepsi Cola Distributors of the Phils., Inc. vs. Gal-lang

1/9

Pepsi Cola Distributors of the Phils., Inc. vs. Gal-lang

G.R. No. 896 !. "epte#ber $, !99!.%P&P"I C'() DI"*RI+ *'R" ' * & P I(IPPIN&", INC., represente/ b0its Plant General 1anager )N* 'N2 +. "I)N, &(&)3)R (I1+)+, IR&N&'

+)(*)3)R 4 5'RG& &R)2), petitioners, vs. 'N. ('(I*) '. G)(-()NG,")( )D'R N' I((), )(&5)NDR' '(I ), 7I( R&D' C)+) )" 4(G&NCI' (&G', respon/ents.

Civil (a : (abor (a : 5uris/iction: Not ever0 controvers0 involvingor;ers an/ their e#plo0ers can be resolve/ onl0 b0 the labor arbiters:

*here #ust be a reasonable causal connection bet een the clai#asserte/ an/ e#plo0ee-e#plo0er relations to put the case un/er theprovisions of )rticle !reasonable

causal connection? bet een the clai# asserte/ an/ e#plo0ee-e#plo0er relations to put the case un/er the provisions of )rticle !

8/10/2019 22. Pepsi Cola Distributors of the Phils., Inc. vs. Gal-lang

2/9

696

" PR&1& C' R* R&P'R*" )NN'*)*&D

Pepsi Cola Distributors of the Phils., Inc. vs. Gal-lang

parties as e#plo0er an/ e#plo0ees. *he co#plaint /i/ not arise fro#such relations an/ in fact coul/ have arisen in/epen/entl0 of ane#plo0#ent relationship bet een the parties. No such relationship oran0 unfair labor practice is asserte/. 7hat the e#plo0ees are allegingis that the petitioners acte/ ith ba/ faith hen the0 le/ the cri#inalco#plaint hich the 1unicipal *rial Court sai/ as inten/e/ >to harassthe poor e#plo0ees? an/ the /is#issal of hich as aFr#e/ b0 theProvincial Prosecutor >for lac; of evi/ence to establish even a slightest

probabilit0 that all the respon/ents herein have co##itte/ the cri#ei#pute/ against the#.? *his is a #atter hich the labor arbiter has noco#petence to resolve as the applicable la is not the (abor Co/e butthe Revise/ Penal Co/e.

P&*I*I'N for revie fro# the /ecision of the Regional *rial Court ofPalo, (e0te.

*he facts are state/ in the opinion of the Court.

)urelio D. 1en@on for petitioners.

1ario P. Nicolasora co-counsel for petitioners.

Papiano (. "anto for private respon/ents.

CR 3, 5.H

*he uestion no before us has been categoricall0 resolve/ in earlier/ecisions of the Court that a little #ore /iligent research oul/ have/isclose/ to the petitioners. 'n the basis of those cases an/ the factsno before us, the petition #ust be /enie/.

*he private respon/ents ere e#plo0ees of the petitioner ho eresuspecte/ of co#plicit0 in the irregular /isposition of e#pt0 Pepsi Colabottles. 'n 5ul0 !6, !98

8/10/2019 22. Pepsi Cola Distributors of the Phils., Inc. vs. Gal-lang

3/9

/is#issal as aFr#e/ on )pril 8, !988, b0 the 'Fce of the ProvincialProsecutor,

1eanti#e, allege/l0 after an a/#inistrative investigation, the privaterespon/ents ere /is#isse/ b0 the petitioner co#pan0 on Nove#ber

J, !98/istinct fro#the labor case for /a#ages no pen/ing before the labor courts.? *hepetitioners then ca#e to this Court for relief.

*he petitioners invo;e )rticle !< of the (abor Co/e an/ a nu#ber of/ecisions of this Court to support their position that the privaterespon/ents civil co#plaint for /a#ages falls un/er the Auris/iction ofthe labor arbiter. *he0 particularl0 cite the case of Get@ Corporation v.Court of )ppeals,! here it as hel/ that a court of rst instance ha/no Auris/iction over the co#plaint le/ b0 a /is#isse/ e#plo0ee >forunpai/ salar0 an/ other e#plo0#ent bene ts, ter#ination pa0 an/#oral an/ eBe#plar0 /a#ages.?

7e hol/ at the outset that the case is not in point because hat asinvolve/ there as a clai# arising fro# the allege/ illegal /is#issal ofan e#plo0ee, ho chose to co#plain to the regular court an/ not tothe labor arbiter. 'bviousl0, the clai# arose fro# e#plo0ee-e#plo0er

8/10/2019 22. Pepsi Cola Distributors of the Phils., Inc. vs. Gal-lang

4/9

relations an/ so ca#e un/er )rticle !< of the (abor Co/e hich thenprovi/e/ as follo sH

)R*. !)R*. !

8/10/2019 22. Pepsi Cola Distributors of the Phils., Inc. vs. Gal-lang

5/9

LJKM calen/ar /a0s after the sub#ission of the case b0 the parties for/ecision ithout eBtension, even in the absence of stenographic notes,the follo ing cases involving all or;ers, hether agricultural or non-agriculturalH

!. nfair labor practice cases: . *er#ination /isputes: J. If acco#panie/ ith a clai# for reinstate#ent, those cases thator;ers #a0 le involving ages, rates of pa0, hours of or; an/ otherter#s an/ con/itions of e#plo0#ent: $. Clai#s for actual, #oral, eBe#plar0 an/ other for#s of /a#agesarising fro# the e#plo0er-e#plo0ee relations: . Cases arising fro# an0 violation of )rticle 6$ of this Co/e,inclu/ing uestions involving the legalit0 of stri;e an/ loc;outs: an/ 6. &Bcept clai#s for plo0ees Co#pensation, "ocial "ecurit0,1e/icare an/ #aternit0 bene ts, all other clai#s, arising fro#

e#plo0er-e#plo0ee relations, inclu/ing those of persons in /o#estic orhousehol/ service, involving an a#ount eBcee/ing ve thousan/ pesosLP ,KKK.KKM regar/less of hether acco#panie/ ith a clai# forreinstate#ent.

LbM *he Co##ission shall have eBclusive appellate Auris/iction overall cases /eci/e/ b0 (abor )rbiters. LcM Cases arising fro# the interpretation or i#ple#entation ofcollective bargaining agree#ent an/ those arising fro# theinterpretation or enforce#ent of co#pan0 personnel policies shall be/ispose/ of b0 the (abor )rbiter b0 referring the sa#e to

699

'(. K!, "&P*&1+&R $, !99!

699

Pepsi Cola Distributors of the Phils., Inc. vs. Gal-lang

It #ust be stresse/ that not ever0 controvers0 involving or;ers an/their e#plo0ers can be resolve/ onl0 b0 the labor arbiters. *his ill beso onl0 if there is a >reasonable causal connection? bet een the clai#asserte/ an/ e#plo0ee-e#plo0er relations to put the case un/er theprovisions of )rticle !

8/10/2019 22. Pepsi Cola Distributors of the Phils., Inc. vs. Gal-lang

6/9

In 1e/ina v. Castro-+artolo#e,J t o e#plo0ees le/ in the Court ofirst Instance of Ri@al a civil co#plaint for /a#ages against theire#plo0er for slan/erous re#ar;s #a/e against the# b0 the co#pan0presi/ent. 'n the or/er /is#issing the case because it ca#e un/er the

Auris/iction of the labor arbiters, 5ustice icente )ba/ "antos sai/ for

the CourtHIt is obvious fro# the co#plaint that the plainti s have not allege/ an0unfair labor practice. *heirs is a si#ple action for /a#ages for tortiousacts allege/l0 co##itte/ b0 the /efen/ants. "uch being the case, thegoverning statute is the Civil Co/e an/ not the (abor Co/e. It resultsthat the or/ers un/er revie are base/ on a rong pre#ise.

In "ingapore )irlines (t/. v. PaOo,$ here the plainti as suing for/a#ages for allege/ violation b0 the /efen/ant of an >)gree#ent for aCourse of Conversion *raining at the &Bpense of "ingapore )irlines

(i#ite/,? the Auris/iction of the Court of irst Instance of Ri@al over thecase as uestione/. *he Court, citing the earlier case of uisaba v."ta. Ines 1elale eneer an/ Pl0 oo/, Inc., /eclare/ through 5usticeerreraH

"tate/ /i erentl0, petitioner see;s protection un/er the civil la s an/clai#s no bene ts un/er the (abor Co/e. *he pri#ar0 relief sought isfor li ui/ate/ /a#ages for breach of a contractual obligation. *heother ite#s /e#an/e/ are not labor bene ts /e#an/e/ b0 or;ersgenerall0 ta;en cogni@ance of in labor /isputes, such as pa0#ent

EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE the grievance #achiner0 an/ voluntar0 arbitration as #a0 beprovi/e/ in sai/ agree#ents.

J !!6 "CR) 9

8/10/2019 22. Pepsi Cola Distributors of the Phils., Inc. vs. Gal-lang

7/9

of ages, overti#e co#pensation or separation pa0. *he ite#s clai#e/are the natural conse uences Qo ing fro# breach of an obligation,intrinsicall0 a civil /ispute.

In 1olave "ales, Inc. v. (aron,6 the sa#e 5ustice hel/ for the Court thatthe clai# of the plainti against its sales #anager for pa0#ent ofcertain accounts pertaining to his purchase of vehicles an/ auto#otiveparts, repairs of such vehicles, an/ cash a/vances fro# the corporationas properl0 cogni@able b0 the Regional *rial Court of Dagupan Cit0an/ not the labor arbiter, because >although a controvers0 is bet eenan e#plo0er an/ an e#plo0ee, the (abor )rbiters have no Auris/ictionif the (abor Co/e is not involve/.?

*he latest ruling on this issue is foun/ in "an 1iguel Corporation v.N(RC,< here the above cases are cite/ an/ the changes in )rticle !