Laws Applicable:
FACTS:
- August 21, 1974: Carlos E. Cruz was offered employment Engineer Officer with the opportunity to undergo a B-707 I conversion training course requiring him to enter into a bond with Singapore Airlines Limited for 5 years
- Claiming that Cruz had applied for "leave without pay" and had gone on leave without approval of the application during the second year, SIA filed suit for damages against Cruz and his surety, Villanueva, for violation of the terms and conditions
- RTC: dismissed the complaint, counterclaim and cross-claim for lack of jurisdiction
HELD: YES. records are hereby ordered remanded to the proper Branch of the Regional Trial Court
- jurisdiction over the present controversy must be held to belong to the civil Courts
- Article 217 of the Labor Code under PD No. 1691 and BP Blg. 130 provides that all other claims arising from employer-employee relationship are cognizable by Labor Arbiters
- petitioner's claim for damages is grounded on the "wanton failure and refusal" without just cause of private respondent Cruz to report for duty despite repeated notices served upon him of the disapproval of his application for leave of absence without pay. This, coupled with the further averment that Cruz "maliciously and with bad faith" violated the terms and conditions of the conversion training course agreement to the damage of petitioner removes the present controversy from the coverage of the Labor Code and brings it within the purview of Civil Law
- complaint was anchored not on the abandonment per se but on the manner and consequent effects of such abandonment of work translated in terms of the damages which petitioner had to suffer
- The primary relief sought is for liquidated damages for breach of a contractual obligation. The other items demanded are not labor benefits demanded by workers generally taken cognizance of in labor disputes, such as payment of wages, overtime compensation or separation pay. The items claimed are the natural consequences flowing from breach of an obligation, intrinsically a civil dispute.
- Additionally, there is a secondary issue involved that is outside the pale of competence of Labor Arbiters. Is the liability of Villanueva one of suretyship or one of guaranty? Unquestionably, this question is beyond the field of specialization of Labor Arbiters.
