A. Consteel Construction Company v. Intermediate Appellate Court

Manila

SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. L-64673 October 21, 1988

A. CONSTEEL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INCORPORATION RATED,petitioner,
vs.
THE INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, DANILO C. REYES, for himself and as Attorney-in-fact of FELIXBERTO MACASPAC, JAIME C. PAULE, ROGELIO DE JESUS, DELFIN NUQUI, VICENTE FLORES, GODOFREDO D. BANAL, MANUEL GUEVARRA and ENRIQUE MANANSALA,respondents.

N.O. Ramoso & Associates for petitioner.

Citizens Legal Assistance Office for respondents.

PARAS,J.:

The issue posed for decision is whether or not the courta quohas jurisdiction over claims for damages arising out of an overseas employment contract.

The antecedent facts of the case are as follows:

On October 23, 1980, private respondents filed a complaint for alleged Breach of Contract with Damages against the petitioner before the Court of First Instance of Pampanga, Fifth Judicial District, docketed as Civil Case No. 5913. Among others, the complaint alleges that in 1978, the petitioner hired private respondents to work in the construction projects undertaken by the petitioner in Saudi Arabia; that prior to their departure from the Philippines, the private respondents and the petitioner signed employment contracts which contained the terms and conditions of their employment; but that while private respondents were working in Saudi Arabia, they were not given adequate compensation or overtime/holiday pay. Neither were they given medical benefits nor adequate meals. Thus, private respondents pray that the petitioner be ordered to pay to them such amount representing the difference between the compensation agreed upon and the compensation actually paid to them, aside from moral and exemplary damages.

The petitioner moved to dismiss the case on the ground that jurisdiction over the nature of the suit pertained to the Bureau of Employment Services pursuant to Section 1 of Presidential Decree No. 1412, which amended Article 15 paragraph (b) of the Labor Code.

Private respondents opposed dismissal, alleging that jurisdiction over the case belonged to the Court of First Instance since not all of their causes of action are capable of pecuniary estimation. Section 44 of the Judiciary Act of 1948 clearly states that the Courts of First Instance shall have exclusive jurisdiction over all civil actions in which the subject of the litigation is not capable of pecuniary estimation.

The judge denied petitioner's motion to dismiss and its motion for reconsideration thereof. On appeal, the Court of Appeals*ruled that the courta quohas jurisdiction over the subject matter because reinstatement is not sought and private respondents seek unpaid salaries and damages resulting from alleged breach of contract (pp. 66, Rollo). Hence, the present petition. We find for the petitioner. Private respondents' claims indubitably arose out of employer-employee relations involving overseas employment. All their claims, while couched in different forms of damages, are nonetheless money claims for employment benefits. The Judiciary Act of 1948 relied upon by the private respondents which governs matters which are not capable of pecuniary estimation is a general law. Cases arising out of employer-employee relations involving overseas employment, however, are governed by special laws.**

WHEREFORE,the Petition isGRANTED.Respondent judge is directed to dismiss Civil Case No. 5913.ℒαwρhi৷

SO ORDERED.

Melencio-Herrera (Chairperson), Padilla, Sarmiento and Regalado, JJ., concur.

Footnotes