Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 250 views

    Eduardo Eviota v. CA Et Al., GR 152121

    Uploaded by

    Vincent Quiña Piga
    Eduardo Eviota was hired as Compensation and Benefits Manager by Standard Chartered Bank but resigned after only a month to return to his former employer. The bank filed a complaint against Eviota in Regional Trial Court for Makati City citing violations of the Civil Code and failure to provide proper notice under the Labor Code. Eviota filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction which was denied. On appeal, the Court of Appeals and Supreme Court affirmed that the Regional Trial Court, not the labor arbitrator, had proper jurisdiction over the case as the claims were for breach of contractual obligations under civil law, not disputes arising from the employer-employee relationship covered by the Labor Code.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Eduardo Eviota v. CA Et Al., GR 152121

    Uploaded by

    Vincent Quiña Piga
    250 views1 page
    Eduardo Eviota was hired as Compensation and Benefits Manager by Standard Chartered Bank but resigned after only a month to return to his former employer. The bank filed a complaint against Eviota in Regional Trial Court for Makati City citing violations of the Civil Code and failure to provide proper notice under the Labor Code. Eviota filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction which was denied. On appeal, the Court of Appeals and Supreme Court affirmed that the Regional Trial Court, not the labor arbitrator, had proper jurisdiction over the case as the claims were for breach of contractual obligations under civil law, not disputes arising from the employer-employee relationship covered by the Labor Code.

    Original Description:

    Labor law case brief

    Original Title

    Eduardo Eviota v. CA Et Al., Gr 152121

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Eduardo Eviota was hired as Compensation and Benefits Manager by Standard Chartered Bank but resigned after only a month to return to his former employer. The bank filed a complaint against Eviota in Regional Trial Court for Makati City citing violations of the Civil Code and failure to provide proper notice under the Labor Code. Eviota filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction which was denied. On appeal, the Court of Appeals and Supreme Court affirmed that the Regional Trial Court, not the labor arbitrator, had proper jurisdiction over the case as the claims were for breach of contractual obligations under civil law, not disputes arising from the employer-employee relationship covered by the Labor Code.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    250 views1 page

    Eduardo Eviota v. CA Et Al., GR 152121

    Uploaded by

    Vincent Quiña Piga
    Eduardo Eviota was hired as Compensation and Benefits Manager by Standard Chartered Bank but resigned after only a month to return to his former employer. The bank filed a complaint against Eviota in Regional Trial Court for Makati City citing violations of the Civil Code and failure to provide proper notice under the Labor Code. Eviota filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction which was denied. On appeal, the Court of Appeals and Supreme Court affirmed that the Regional Trial Court, not the labor arbitrator, had proper jurisdiction over the case as the claims were for breach of contractual obligations under civil law, not disputes arising from the employer-employee relationship covered by the Labor Code.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    LABOR LAW

    Eduardo Eviota v. CA et al.


    GR 152121, July 29, 2003

    FACTS:
    Sometime on 1/26/1998 Standard Chartered Bank employed Eviota as Compensation and Benefits
    Manager. However, petitioner resigned from respondent bank after barely a month later and rejoined his
    former employer. On 6/19/1998 respondent bank filed a complaint with RTC Makati City citing as its first
    cause of action Eviota's violation of Arts. 19, 20, 21 of RA 386 (NCC) for improper termination of contract
    and by his actions and representations led the respondent bank to incur expenses totaling PHP
    1,272,636 and actual damages of PHP 360,562.12.

    Second cause cited by respondent bank is Eviota's violation of Art. 285 (a) of PD 442 as amended by
    failing to provide at least a 1 month notice to the employer before terminating without just cause an
    employment. Eviota's failure to comply with said provision resulted in chaos in the bank's scheduled
    meetings. Eviota is then liable for damages in the amount of PHP 100K. Third cause of action is Eviota's
    false and derogatory statements that respondent bank does not treat its employees properly, damaging
    the banks reputation. Exemplary damages accrue to the bank in the amount of PHP 1M, attorney's fees
    of PHP 200K.

    Petitioner filed a motion to dismiss citing lack of jurisdiction of the RTC of Makati City the same being with
    the LA under par. 4, Art. 217 of LC. On 11/29/1999 trial court denied petitioner's motion to dismiss. Motion
    for Reconsideration of petitioners was denied by court a quo. On appeal with CA, the same was denied.

    ISSUE:

    Is the plaintiffs complaint within the jurisdiction of the LA?

    RULING:

    No, the nature of the action and the subject matter thereof, as well as which court has jurisdiction
    over the same, are determined by the material allegations of the complaint and the reliefs prayed for in
    relation to the law provided. A money claim by a worker or vice versa is within the exclusive jurisdiction of
    the LA only if there is a "reasonable causal connection" between the claim asserted and employer-
    employee relation. Absent such link, the complaint will be cognizable by the regular courts of justice.

    In Georg Gratjahn GMBH and Co. v. Isnani, the court held that the jurisdiction of the LA under Art. 217 of
    LC, as amended, is limited to disputes arising from an employer-employee relationship which can only be
    resolved by reference to the LC, other labor laws or their CBA. In Singapore Airlines v. Pao, the
    complaints of the employer against the employee for damages for wanton justice and refusal without just
    cause to report for duty and for having maliciously and with bad faith violated the terms and conditions of
    their agreement for a course of conversion training and the expense of the employer, such jurisdiction
    belongs to the civil court.

    Actions for breach of contractual obligations is essentially a civil dispute and belongs to the civil courts.
    While the cause of action seemingly arose from an employer-employee relations, the employer 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. Such is removed from the coverage of the LC and within the purview of the Civil Law.

    Petition DENIED. CA ruling is affirmed.

    You might also like