8/4/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 058

VOL. 58, AUGUST 30, 1974 771

Quisaba vs. Sta. Ines-Melale Veneer & Plywood, Inc.
*
No. L-38088. August 30, 1974.

JOVITO N. QUISABA, petitioner, vs. STA. INES-MELALE

VENEER & PLYWOOD, INC., et al., respondents.

Civil law; Human relations; The abusive exercise of the right of

dismissal by employer may be subject of action for moral damages.—
Although the acts complained of seemingly appear to constitute “matters
involving employee-employer relations” as Quisaba’s dismissal was the
severance of a pre-existing employee-employer relation, his complaint is
grounded not on his dismissal per se, as in fact he does not ask for
reinstatement or backwages, but on the manner of his dismissal and the
consequent effects of such dismissal.
xxx
The “right” of the respondents to dismiss Quisaba should not be
confused with the manner in which the right was exercised and the effects
flowing therefrom. If the dismissal was done anti-socially or oppressively,
as the complaint alleges, then the respondents violated article 1701 of the
Civil Code which prohibits acts of oppression by either capital or labor
against the other, and article 21, which makes a person liable for damages if
he wilfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner that is contrary to
morals, good customs or public policy, the sanction for which, by way of
moral damages is provided in article 2219, no. 10.
Jurisdiction; National Labor Relations Commission; The NLRC has no
jurisdiction over civil disputes.—The case at bar is intrinsically concerned
with a civil (not a labor) dispute; it has to do with an alleged violation of
Quisaba’s rights as a member of society, and does not involve an existing
employee-employer relation within the meaning of section 2(1) of
Presidential Decree No. 21. The complaint is thus properly and exclusively
cognizable by the regular courts of justice, not by the National Labor
Relations Commission.

_________________

* FIRST DIVISION.

772

772 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Quisaba vs. Sta. Ines-Melale Veneer & Plywood, Inc.
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016c5c181737c8a9b37c003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/6
8/4/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 058

PETITION for review on certiorari of an order of the Court of First

Instance of Davao.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

Pedro F. Alcantara, Jr. for petitioner.
Armando Dominguez for respondents.

CASTRO, J.:
1
In this special civil action for certiorari, the sole issue of law posed
for resolution is whether a complaint for moral damages, exemplary
damages, termination pay and attorney’s fees, arising from an
employer’s constructive dismissal of an employee, is exclusively
cognizable by the regular courts of justice or by the National Labor
Relations Commission created by 2
Presidential Decree No. 21,
promulgated on October 14, 1972.
On February 5, 1973 the petitioner Jovito N. Quisaba filed with
the Court of First Instance of Davao a complaint for moral damages,
exemplary damages, termination pay and attorney’s fees against the
Sta. Ines-Melale Veneer & Plywood, Inc. and its vice-president
Robert Hyde. The complaint avers that Quisaba, for eighteen years
prior to his dismissal, was in the employ of the defendant
corporation; that on January 11, 1973 the respondent Robert Hyde
instructed him to purchase logs for the company’s plant; that he
refused on the ground that the work of purchasing logs is
inconsistent with his position as internal auditor; that on the
following day Hyde informed him of his temporary relief as internal
auditor so that

________________

1 The clerk of court of the Court of First Instance of Davao forwarded to this Court
the record of the case in view of the appeal interposed by the plaintiff; the appeal
raising only a question of law, this Court required the appellant to file a petition for
review (Resolution, Dec. 4, 1973). After considering the allegations contained, the
issues raised and arguments adduced in the petition for review as well as in the
respondents’ comment thereon, this Court resolved to consider the petition as a
special civil action and the respondents’ comment as answer, and the case submitted
for decision (Resolution May 17, 1974).
2 The Labor Code of the Philippines, promulgated on May 1, 1974 and effective
six months thereafter, institutionalizes the National Labor Relations Commission
established under Presidential Decree No. 21 (arts. 2, 261 and 337, Presidential
Decree No. 442).

773

VOL. 58, AUGUST 30, 1974 773

Quisaba vs. Sta. Ines-Melale Veneer & Plywood, Inc.

he could carry out immediately the instructions thus given, and he

was warned that his failure to comply would be considered a ground
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016c5c181737c8a9b37c003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/6
8/4/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 058

for his dismissal; that on January 16, 1973 he responded with a plea
for fairness and mercy as he would be without a job during an
economic crisis; that he was demoted from a position of dignity to a
servile and menial job; that the defendants did not reconsider their
“clever and subterfugial dismissal” of him which for all purposes
constituted a “constructive discharge;” and that because of the said
acts of the defendants, he suffered mental anguish, serious anxiety,
besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock and social
humiliation. The complaint does not pray for reinstatement or
payment of backwages.
After the defendants filed their answer, they moved to dismiss the
complaint on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the Davao Court
of First Instance, asserting that the proper forum is the National
Labor Relations Commission established by Presidential Decree No.
21. Quisaba opposed the motion and at the same time informed the
court that in response to a “consulta” presented by his counsel, the
NLRC’s authorized representative in Davao City opined as follows:

“In response to your query dated September 12, 1973, inquiring as to

whether or not the National Labor Relations Commission has jurisdiction
over claims or suits for damages, such as moral, exemplary and other related
damages including attorney’s fees, arising out of employee-employer
relationship, we regret to inform you that the National Labor Relations
Commission has no such power.”

The Commission’s disclaimer of jurisdiction notwithstanding, the

court a quo, in an order of September 18, 1973, granted the motion
to dismiss on the ground that the complaint basically involves an
employee-employer relation.
Hence the present recourse.
The jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations Commission is
defined by section 2 of Presidential Decree No. 21 which reads:

“SEC. 2. The Commission shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction

over the following:

(1) All matters involving employee-employer relations

774

774 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Quisaba vs. Sta. Ines-Melale Veneer & Plywood, Inc.

including all disputes and grievances which may otherwise lead to

strikes and lockouts under Republic Act No. 875;
(2) All strikes overtaken by Proclamation No. 1081; and
(3) All pending cases in the Bureau of Labor Relations.”

Although the acts complained of seemingly appear to constitute

“matters involving employee-employer relations” as Quisaba’s
dismissal was the severance of a pre-existing employee-employer
relation, his complaint is grounded not on his dismissal per se, as in
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016c5c181737c8a9b37c003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/6
8/4/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 058

fact he does not ask for reinstatement or backwages, but on the

manner of his dismissal and the consequent effects of such
dismissal.
Civil law consists of that “mass of precepts that determine or
regulate the relations . . . that exist 3between members of a society for
the protection of private interests."
The “right” of the respondents to dismiss Quisaba should not be
confused with the manner in which the right was exercised and the
effects flowing therefrom. If the dismissal was done anti-socially or
oppressively, as the complaint alleges, then the respondents violated
article 1701 of the Civil Code which prohibits acts of oppression by
either capital or labor against the other, and article 21, which makes
a person liable for damages if he wilfully causes loss or injury to
another in a manner that is contrary to morals, good customs or
public policy, the sanction for which,
4
by way of moral damages, is
provided in article 2219, no. 10.

“Art. 2219. Moral damages may be recovered in the following and

analogous cases:

x x x

"(10) Acts and actions referred to in articles 21, x x x x.”

The case5 at bar is intrinsically concerned with a civil (not a labor)

dispute; it has to do with an alleged violation of Quisaba’s rights as
a member of society, and does not involve an existing employee-
employer relation within the meaning of section 2(1) of Presidential
Decree No. 21. The complaint is thus

__________________

3 1 Sanchez Roman 3.
4 Cf. Phil. Refining Co. vs. Garcia, L-21962, Sept. 27, 1966, 18 SCRA 107.
5 Cf. Atlantic Gulf & Pacific Co. of Manila, Inc. vs. Olivar, L-19526, Sept. 20,
1965, 15 SCRA 59.

775

VOL. 58, AUGUST 30, 1974 775

Quisaba vs. Sta. Ines-Melale Veneer & Plywood, Inc.

properly and exclusively cognizable by the regular courts of justice,

not by the National Labor Relations Commission.
ACCORDINGLY, the order of September 18, 1973 is set aside,
and this case is hereby ordered remanded to the court a quo for
further proceedings in accordance with law. Costs against the private
respondents.

Makalintal, C.J., Teehankee, Makasiar, Esguerra and

Muñoz Palma, JJ., concur.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016c5c181737c8a9b37c003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/6
8/4/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 058

Order set aside, case remanded to court a quo for further

proceedings.

Notes.—Jurisdiction over civil law disputes among labor

elements.—Where it was shown that when complainant union filed
an unfair labor practice charge against respondent company with the
Court of Industrial Relations, there was pending before the Court of
First Instance brought by the same complainant union against the
same respondent company an action for the enforcement of
collective bargaining contract with damages, it is apparent that the
union brought both actions to enforce the provisions of the collective
bargaining agreement between it and the company, and the
combination of circumstances and the sequence of the pleadings
show that the allegations of unfair labor practice and of bad faith in
bargaining on the part of respondent company are not bona fide.
They must therefore be regarded as nothing more than a clever
maneuver on the part of complainant union to divest the Court of
First Instance of jurisdiction to try the civil case for enforcement of
the collective bargaining contract, and the Court of Industrial
Relations did not commit error in dismissing the unfair labor
practice charge brought before it by complainant union. Nasipit
Labor Union vs. Court of lndustrial Relations, L-17838, Aug. 3,
1966.
In a controversy between a company and a labor union where the
latter demanded, not a change in working terms or conditions nor the
representation of the employees in the company, but the hiring of its
members as stevedores in lieu of the members of another union
(which the petitioner union wanted discharged, notwithstanding the
existing contract of the company with the other union), such a
demand cannot be considered a labor dispute under section 2 of the
Industrial Peace Act and a writ of injunction issued by the Court of
First

776

776 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Palang vs. Zosa

Instance enjoining the members of petitioner labor union from

striking is not improper for lack of jurisdiction and non-observance
of the conditions prescribed in section 9 of the Industrial Peace Act,
for the same section is not applicable in the instant case. Layno vs.
Judge de la Cruz, April 3, 1965.

———o0o———

© Copyright 2019 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016c5c181737c8a9b37c003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/6
8/4/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 058

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016c5c181737c8a9b37c003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/6