16 tucp vs coscolluela 17 primero vs iac 18pepsi cola

with the petition for custody of minors under Rule 99 of the Rules of Court.
16. TUCP vs. Coscolluela
17. Primero vs. IAC
18.PEPSI COLA DISTRIBUTOR PHILS.vs. GALANG, September 24,1991
Facts: The private respondents were employees of the petitioner who were
suspected of complicity in the irregular disposition of empty Pepsi Cola
bottles. On July 16, 1987, the petitioners filed a criminal complaint for theft
against them but this was later withdrawn and substituted with a criminal
complaint for falsification of private documents. After a preliminary
investigation conducted by the Municipal Trial Court of Tanauan, Leyte, the
complaint was dismissed.
Allegedly after an administrative investigation, the private respondents were
dismissed by the petitioner company on November 23, 1987. As a result,
they lodged a complaint for illegal dismissal with the Regional Arbitration
Branch of the NLRC in Tacloban City and decisions mandateed
reinstatement with damages. In addition, they instituted in the Regional Trial
Court of Leyte, a separate civil complaint against the petitioners for
damages arising from what they claimed to be their malicious prosecution.
The petitioners moved to dismiss the civil complaint on the ground that the
trial court had no jurisdiction over the case because it involved employee-
employer relations that were exclusively cognizable by the labor arbiter. The
motion was granted .On July 6, 1989, however, the respondent judge, acting
on the motion for reconsideration, reinstated the complaint, saying it was
“distinct from the labor case for damages now pending before the labor
courts.” The petitioners then came to this Court for relief.
Issue: Whether or not RTC has jurisdiction over the claim for damages
arising from the malicious prosecution of the petitioner company.
Held: It must be stressed that not every controversy involving workers and
their employers can be resolved only by the labor arbiters. This will be so
only if there is a “reasonable causal connection” between the claim asserted
and employee-employer relations to put the case under the provisions of
Article 217. Absent such a link, the complaint will be cognizable by the
regular courts of justice in the exercise of their civil and criminal jurisdiction.
In Medina v. Castro-Bartolome, 3 two employees filed in the Court of First
Instance of Rizal a civil complaint for damages against their employer for
slanderous remarks made against them by the company president. On the
order dismissing the case because it came under the jurisdiction of the labor
arbiters, Justice Vicente Abad Santos said for the Court:
It is obvious from the complaint that the plaintiffs have not alleged any unfair
labor practice. Theirs is a simple action for damages for tortious acts
allegedly committed by the defendants. Such being the case, the governing
statute is the Civil Code and not the Labor Code. It results that the orders
under review are based on a wrong premise.