G.R. No.

L-50459 August 25, 1989

LEONARDO D. SUARIO, petitioner,
vs.
BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, Davao Branch or The Manager/Cashier and
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, respondents.
FACTS:
On August 4,1977, petitioner Leonardo D. Suario filed a complaint for separation
pay, damages and attorney's fees against the Bank of the Philippine Islands,
Davao Branch/ or the Manager and Assistant Manager/Cashier alleging:
3. That during the time of the complainant's employment with the respondent
bank, he pursued his studies of law without criticism or adverse comments from
the respondent bank but instead praises were showered and incentives and
considerations were bestowed in view of the complainant's determination for
intellectual advancement;
6. That complainant never suspected that his application would be disapproved,
much less any bad faith on the part of the respondent bank to discriminate union
member (sic), since it has been the policy of the respondent bank to grant request
of this nature as shown in the case of four (4) former employees who were all
granted leave of absence without pay.
10. That during the first week of August, 1976, the complainant received a letter
from the Asst. Manager/Cashier, Mr. Douglas E. Aurelio, ordering the complainant
to report back for work since the complainant's request was allegedly
disapproved and that failure to report back for work would be a conclusive proof
that the complainant is no longer interested to continue working and therefore
considered resigned. ...
That sometime during the first week of December, 1976, the complainant went to
the respondent bank but was verbally informed that he was already dismissed;
That the dismissal of the complainant was clearly illegal and without just cause,
being discriminatory in character he being an active union member and in fact the
Vice President of the ALU-BPI Chapter until his dismissal in view of the uneven
application of the respondent's policy; ... (Rollo, pp. 15-19)
The case was set for conciliation but since the parties could not agree on any
settlement, the case was certified to the Labor Arbiter. Thereafter, the Executive
Labor Arbiter required the parties to submit their position papers. Based on the
position papers submitted, a decision was rendered on December 7, 1977. The
dispositive portion reads as follows:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, respondent is hereby ordered to pay
complainant's claim for separation pay in the amount of P11,813.36. His claim for
moral, actual, and exemplary damages and attorney's fees are hereby dismissed
for lack of merit. (Rollo, p. 46)
The decision of the Executive Labor Arbiter was affirmed on appeal to the
National Labor Relations Commission on October 9, 1978. A motion for
reconsideration was likewise denied. Hence, this petition.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the
petitioner's claim for actual, moral and exemplary damages plus attorney's fees in
addition to his separation pay.
RULING:
On the matter of NLRC jurisdiction over claims for damages, it clearly appears that
the complaint was filed on August 4, 1977 and decided by the Labor Arbiter on
December 7, 1977; hence, the applicable law is Article 217 of the Labor Code
which took effect on October 1, 1974, and which provides:
xxx xxx xxx
ART. 217. Jurisdiction of Labor Arbiters and the Commission. — (a) The Labor
Arbiters shall have exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide the following cases
involving all workers, whether agricultural or non-agricultural:
(1) Unfair labor practice cases;
(2) Unresolved issues in collective bargaining including those which involve wages,
hours of work, and other terms and conditions of employment duly indorsed by
the Bureau in accordance with the provisions of this Code;
(3) All money claims of workers involving non-payment or underpayment of
wages, overtime or premium compensation, maternity or service incentive leave,
separation pay and other money claims arising from employer-employee relation,
except claims for employee's compensation, social security and medicare benefits
and as otherwise provided in Article 128 of this Code;
(4) Cases involving household services; and
(5) All other cases arising from employer-employee relationship unless expressly
excluded by this Code.
(b) The Commission shall have exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all cases
decided by Labor Arbiters, compulsory arbitrators, and voluntary arbitrators in
appropriate casino provided in Article 263 of this Code. ...
The contention of private respondent that the NLRC is not clothed with authority
to entertain claims for moral and other forms of damages is based on PD 1367
which took effect on May 1, 1979 and which amended Article 217 by specifically
providing that "Regional Directors shall not indorse and Labor Arbiters shall not
entertain claims for moral or other forms of damages."
This limitation on jurisdiction did not last long. This Court in the case of Ebon v. De
Guzman, (113 SCRA 52 [1982]) explained:
Evidently, the lawmaking authority had second thoughts about depriving the
Labor Arbiters and the NLRC of the jurisdiction to award damages in labor cases
because that set up would mean duplicity of suits, splitting the cause of action
and possible conflicting findings and conclusions by two tribunals on one and the
same claim.
So, on May 1, 1980, Presidential Decree No. 1691 (which substantially reenacted
Article 217 in its original form) nullified Presidential Decree No. 1367 and restored
to the Labor Arbiters and the NLRC their jurisdiction to award all kinds of damages
in cases arising from employer-employee relations (Pepsi-Cola Bottling Company
of the Philippines v. Martinez, G.R. No. 58877).
It is now well settled that money claims of workers provided by law over which
the labor arbiter has original and exclusive jurisdiction are comprehensive enough
to include claims for moral damages of a dismissed employee against his
employer. (Vargas v. Akai Phil. Inc., 156 SCRA 531 [1987]).