LABOR LAW

Pepsi Cola Distributors of the PHL, Inc. represented by Plant GM Anthony Sian et al. v. Hon. Lolita Gal-lang et
al.
GR 89621, September 24, 1991

FACTS:
Private respondents are employees of petitioner and suspected of complicity in the irregular disposition of
empty Pepsi-Cola Bottles. On 7/16/1987 petitioner filed a complaint for theft against respondents but later
withdrawn and substituted with a criminal complaint for falsification of private documents. On 11/26/1987
after preliminary investigation was conducted by the MTC of Tanauan, the complaint was dismissed and
later affirmed by the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor. Meantime, after admin investigation, private
respondents were dismissed by petitioner on 11/23/1987.

Respondents filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with RAB of NLRC in Tacloban City on 12/1/1987
which decided for the reinstatement of dismissed respondents. Respondents also instituted with the RTC
of Leyte a separate civil complaint against petitioners for malicious prosecution.

Petitioner moved for the dismissal of the civil complaint arguing trial court had no jurisdiction over the
case as it involved employer-employee relations cognizable by the labor arbiter. Motion was granted but
later changed when on motion for reconsideration respondent judge ruled it was "distinct from the labor
case for damages pending before the courts."

ISSUE:

Is the civil complaint filed by private respondents cognizable by the regular courts?

RULING:

Yes, it does not appear that there is a "reasonable causal connection" between the complaint and
the relations of the parties as employer-employee. The complaint did not arise from such relations and in
fact could have arisen independently of an employment relationship between the parties. No such
relationship or any unfair labor practice is asserted. What the employees are alleging is that the
petitioners acted with bad faith when they filed the criminal complaint which the MTC said was intended to
"honor the poor employees" the dismissal of which was affirmed by the Provincial Prosecutor "for lack of
evidence to establish even the slightest probability that all the respondents herein have committed the
crime imputed against them." This is a matter the labor arbiter has no competence to resolve as the
applicable law is not the Labor Code but the RPC.

Petition DENIED.