PEPSI-COLA BOTTLING COMPANY, COSME DE ABOITIZ, and ALBERTO M.

DACUYCUY, petitioners,
vs.
HON. JUDGE ANTONIO M. MARTINEZ, in his official capacity, and ABRAHAM TUMALA, JR., respondents.

FACTS

 On September 19, 1980, respondent Abraham Tumala, Jr. filed a complaintagainst petitioners Pepsi-Cola Bottling
Co., Inc., its president Cosme de Aboitiz and other company officers.
o First cause of action: Tumala was a salesman of the company in Davao City from 1977 up to August 21,
1980; that in the annual "Sumakwel" contest conducted by the company in 1979, Tumala was declared
winner of the "Lapu-Lapu Award" for his performance as top salesman of the year, earning him a prize of
a house and lot
o Second cause of action: alleged that on August 21, 1980, petitioners", "arbitrarily and ilegally" terminated
his employment
 Petitioners moved to dismiss the complaint
o grounds of lack of jurisdiction and cause of action
o alleged that Tumala was not entitled to the "Sumakwel" prize for having misled the company into
declaring him top salesman for 1979 through various deceitful and fraudulent manipulations and
machinations

ISSUE:

 Which tribunal has exclusive jurisdiction over an action filed by an employee against his employer for recovery of
unpaid salaries, separation benefits and damages — the court of general jurisdiction or the Labor Arbiter of the
National Labor Relations Commission [NLRC]?

RULING:

 We rule that the Labor Arbiter has exclusive jurisdiction over the case.
 Since the jurisdiction of courts and judicial tribunals is derived exclusively from the statutes of the forum, the issue
eforeUs should be resolved on the basis of the law or statute now in force. We find that law in Presidential Decree
1691 which took effect on May 1, 1980.
o Under paragraphs 3 and 5 of the above Presidential Decree, the case is exclusively cognizable by the
Labor Arbiters of the National Labor Relations Commission
 It is to be noted that P.D. 1691 is an exact reproduction of Article 217 of the Labor Code (P.D. 442), which took
effect on May 1, 1974
 In Garcia vs. Martinez, We held that under Article 217 of the Labor Code, the law then in force, the case was
within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiters and the National Labor Relations Commission [NLRC].
 Art. 217 of the Labor Code was amended by PD 1367, which was promulgated on May, 1, 1978.
 However, on May 1, 1980, Article 217, as amended by P.D. 1367, was amended anew by P.D. 1691. This last
decree, which is a verbatim reproduction of the original test of Article 217 of the Labor Code, restored to the Labor
Arbiters of the NLRC exclusive jurisdiction over claims, money or otherwise, arising from employer-employee
relations, except those expressly excluded therefrom.
 The claim for said prize unquestionably arose from an employer-employee relation and, therefore, falls within the
coverage of par. 5 of P.D. 1691, which speaks of "all claims arising from employer-employee relations, unless
expressly excluded by this Code." Indeed, Tumala would not have qualitfied for the content, much less won the
prize, if he was not an employee of the company at the time of the holding of the contest.
o the cause advanced by petitioners to justify their refusal to deliver the prize—the alleged fraudulent
manipulations committed by Tumala in connection with his duties as salesman of the company—involves
an inquiry into his actuations as an employee
 Besides, to hold that Tumala's claim for the prize should be passed upon by the regular court of justice,
independently and separately from his claim for back salaries, retirement benefits and damages, would be to
sanction split juridiction and multiplicity of suits which are prejudicial to the orderly administration of justice.