Daichi Electronics Manufacturing v. Villarama
Daichi Electronics Manufacturing v. Villarama
Daichi Electronics Manufacturing v. Villarama
*
G.R. No. 112940. November 21, 1994.
_______________
* FIRST DIVISION.
268
QUIASON, J.:
269
II
Petitioner does not ask for any relief under the Labor Code
of the Philippines. It seeks to recover damages agreed upon
in the contract as redress for private respondent’s breach of
his contractual obligation to its “damage and prejudice”
(Rollo, p. 57). Such cause of action is within the realm of
Civil Law, and jurisdiction over the controversy belongs to
the regular courts. More so when we consider that the
stipulation refers to the post-employment relations of the
parties.
A case in point is Singapore Airlines Limited v. Paño,
122 SCRA 671 (1983), which also dealt with the employee’s
breach of an obligation embodied in a written employment
agreement. Singapore Airlines filed a complaint in the trial
court for damages against its employee for “wanton failure
and refusal” without just cause to report to duty and for
having “maliciously and with bad faith” violated the terms
and conditions of its “Agreement for a Course of Conversion
Training at the Expense of Singapore Airlines Limited.”
This agreement provided that the employee shall agree to
remain in the service of the employer for a period of five
years from the date of the commencement of the training
program. The trial court dismissed the complaint on the
grounds that it did not have jurisdiction over the subject
matter of the controversy.
On appeal to this court, we held that jurisdiction over
the controversy belongs to the civil courts. We stated that
the action was for breach of a contractual obligation, which
is intrinsically a
271
272
274
——o0o——
© Copyright 2021 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.