Manila Hotel v.

NLRC
GR 120077 13 Oct 2000

Facts:Marcelo Santos was employed at Mazoon Printing Press in the Sultanate of Oman.Santos
received a letter dated May 2, 1988 from Mr. Gerhard R. Shmidt, General Manager, Palace
Hotel, Beijing, China. Mr. Schmidt informed respondent Santos that he was recommended by
one Nestor Buenio, a friend of his.

Mr. Shmidt offered respondent Santos the same position as printer, but with a higher
monthly salary and increased benefits. The position was slated to open on October 1, 1988.

On May 8, 1988, respondent Santos wrote to Mr. Shmidt and signified his acceptance of the
offer. The employment contract of June 4, 1988 stated that his employment would commence
September 1, 1988 for a period of two years. 12 It provided for a monthly salary of nine hundred
dollars (US$900.00) net of taxes, payable fourteen (14) times a year.
August 10, 1989, the Palace Hotel informed respondent Santos by letter signed by Mr.
Shmidt that his employment at the Palace Hotel print shop would be terminated due to business
reverses brought about by the political upheaval in China.
On February 20, 1990, respondent Santos filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with the
Arbitration Branch, National Capital Region, National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC).

Issue: Whether Labor Arbiter de Vera’s recommendation had no basis in law and in fact.

Ruling: Principle of effectiveness, no power to execute decision. — Even assuming that a proper
decision could be reached by the NLRC, such would not have any binding effect against the
employer, the Palace Hotel. The Palace Hotel is a corporation incorporated under the laws of
China and was not even served with summons. Jurisdiction over its person was not acquired.
  If Santos were an "overseas contract worker", a Philippine forum, specifically the POEA,
not the NLRC, would protect him. He is not an "overseas contract worker" a fact which he
admits with conviction.
 Puyat v. Zabarte
GR 141536 26 Feb 2001

Fact: Respondent Ron Zabarte commenced to enforce the money judgment rendered by the
Superior Court for the State of California, County of Contra Costa, U.S.A. On 18 March 1994.
Petitioner argues that the RTC should have refused to entertain the Complaint for
enforcement of the foreign judgment on the principle of forum non conveniens. He claims that
the trial court had no jurisdiction, because the case involved partnership interest, and there was
difficulty in ascertaining the applicable law in California. All the aspects of the transaction took
place in a foreign country, and respondent is not even Filipino.

Issue: Whether a suit should be entertained or dismissed on the basis of the principle of forum
non conveniens.

Ruling:Yes based upon the facts of each case and on the sound discretion of the trial
court.  Since the present action lodged in the RTC was for the enforcement of a foreign
judgment, there was no need to ascertain the rights and the obligations of the parties based on
foreign laws or contracts. The parties needed only to perform their obligations under the
Compromise Agreement they had entered into.

Under Section 48, Rule 39 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, a judgment in an
action in personam rendered by a foreign tribunal clothed with jurisdiction is presumptive
evidence of a right as between the parties and their successors-in-interest by a subsequent title. 

Also, under Section 5(n) of Rule 131, a court -- whether in the Philippines or elsewhere --
enjoys the presumption that it is acting in the lawful exercise of its jurisdiction, and that it is
regularly performing its official duty.  Its judgment may, however, be assailed if there is
evidence of want of jurisdiction, want of notice to the party, collusion, fraud or clear mistake of
law or fact. But precisely, this possibility signals the need for a local trial court to exercise
jurisdiction. Clearly, the application of forum non coveniens is not called for.
 Pioneer v. Guadiz

GR 156848 Oct 11, 2007

Facts:On 16 January 1998, Antonio D. filed a complaint for sum of money and damages with
preliminary attachment against PIL, Pioneer Concrete Philippines, Inc. (PCPI), Pioneer
Philippines Holdings, Inc. (PPHI), John G. McDonald (McDonald), and Philip J. Klepzig
(Klepzig). Before Todaro filed his complaint, there were several meetings and exchanges of
letters between Todaro and the officers of Pioneer Concrete (Hong Kong) Limited, Pioneer
Concrete Group HK, PPHI, and PIL. According to Todaro, PIL contacted him in May 1996 and
asked if he could join it in establishing a pre-mixed concrete plant and in overseeing its
operations in the Philippines. Todaro confirmed his availability and expressed interest in joining
PIL.

Leipzig’s letter, under the letterhead of PPHI, to Todaro dated 18 September

1997.Informing Todaro that on behalf of Pioneer International Ltd. the agreement will cease
from August 31st as per previous discussions.

PIL asserted that the trial court has no jurisdiction over PIL because PIL is a foreign
corporation not doing business in the Philippines. PIL also questioned the service of summons on
it. Assuming arguendo that Klepzig is PIL’s agent in the Philippines, it was not Klepzig but De
Leon who received the summons for PIL. PIL further stated that the National Labor Relations
Commission (NLRC), and not the trial court, has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the
action. It claimed that assuming that the trial court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the
action, the complaint should be dismissed on the ground of forum non-conveniens. Finally, PIL
maintained that the complaint does not state a cause of action because there was no perfected
contract, and no personal judgment could be rendered by the trial court against PIL because PIL
is a foreign corporation not doing business in the Philippines and there was improper service of
summons on PIL.

Issue: Pursuant to the principle of forum non-conveniens, the trial court committed grave abuse
of discretion when it took cognizance of the case.

Ruling:The doctrine of forum non-conveniens requires an examination of the truthfulness of the

allegations in the complaint. Section 1, Rule 16 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure does not
mention forum non-conveniens as a ground for filing a motion to dismiss. The propriety of
dismissing a case based on forum non-conveniens requires a factual determination; hence, it is
more properly considered a matter of defense. While it is within the discretion of the trial court
to abstain from assuming jurisdiction on this ground, the trial court should do so only after vital
facts are established to determine whether special circumstances require the court’s desistance.
 Raytheon v. Rouzie
GR 162894 26 Feb 2008

Facts: Brand Marine Services, Inc. (BMSI), a corporation duly organized and existing under the
laws of the State of Connecticut, United States of America, and respondent Stockton W. Rouzie,
Jr., an American citizen, entered into a contract whereby BMSI hired respondent as its
representative to negotiate the sale of services in several government projects in the Philippines
for an agreed remuneration of 10% of the gross receipts. On 11 March 1992, respondent secured
a service contract with the Republic of the Philippines on behalf of BMSI for the dredging of
rivers affected by the Mt. Pinatubo eruption and mudflows.

On 16 July 1994, respondent filed before the Arbitration Branch of the National Labor
Relations Commission (NLRC) a suit against BMSI and Rust International, Inc. (RUST),
Rodney C. Gilbert and Walter G. Browning for alleged nonpayment of commissions, illegal
termination and breach of employment contract.

Petitioner alleged that contrary to respondent’s claim, it was a foreign corporation duly
licensed to do business in the Philippines and denied entering into any arrangement with
respondent or paying the latter any sum of money. Petitioner also denied combining with BMSI
and RUST for the purpose of assuming the alleged obligation of the said companies.Petitioner
also referred to the NLRC decision which disclosed that per the written agreement between
respondent and BMSI and RUST, denominated as "Special Sales Representative Agreement," the
rights and obligations of the parties shall be governed by the laws of the State of
Connecticut.Petitioner sought the dismissal of the complaint on grounds of failure to state a
cause of action and forum non conveniens and prayed for damages by way of compulsory
counterclaim.

Issue: Whether the CA erred in refusing to dismiss the complaint on the ground of Forum Non
Conveniens.

Ruling: No.Under the doctrine of forum non conveniens, a court, in conflicts-of-laws cases, may
refuse impositions on its jurisdiction where it is not the most "convenient" or available forum
and the parties are not precluded from seeking remedies elsewhere. Petitioner’s averments of the
foreign elements in the instant case are not sufficient to oust the trial court of its jurisdiction over
Civil Case No. No. 1192-BG and the parties involved.

Moreover, the propriety of dismissing a case based on the principle of forum non
conveniens requires a factual determination; hence, it is more properly considered as a matter of
defense. While it is within the discretion of the trial court to abstain from assuming jurisdiction
on this ground, it should do so only after vital facts are established, to determine whether special
circumstances require the court’s desistance.Finding no grave abuse of discretion on the trial
court, the Court of Appeals respected its conclusion that it can assume jurisdiction over the
dispute notwithstanding its foreign elements. In the same manner, the Court defers to the sound
discretion of the lower courts because their findings are binding on this Court.

Hasegawa v. Kitamura

GR 149177 23 Nov 2007

Facts: Petitioner Nippon Engineering Consultants Co., Ltd. (Nippon), a Japanese consultancy
firm providing technical and management support in the infrastructure projects of foreign
governments entered into an Independent Contractor Agreement (ICA) with respondent Minoru
Kitamura, a Japanese national permanently residing in the Philippines. The agreement provides
that respondent was to extend professional services to Nippon for a year starting on April 1,
1999. Nippon then assigned respondent to work as the project manager of the Southern Tagalog
Access Road (STAR) Project in the Philippines, following the company's consultancy contract
with the Philippine Government.Petitioner Kazuhiro Hasegawa, Nippon's general manager for its
International Division, informed respondent that the company had no more intention of
automatically renewing his ICA. His services would be engaged by the company only up to the
substantial completion of the STAR Project on March 31, 2000, just in time for the ICA's expiry.
Respondent, through his lawyer, requested a negotiation conference and demanded that he be
assigned to the BBRI project. Nippon insisted that respondent’s contract was for a fixed term that
had already expired, and refused to negotiate for the renewal of the ICA.Petitioners, contending
that the ICA had been perfected in Japan and executed by and between Japanese nationals,
moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction. They asserted that the claim for improper
pre-termination of respondent's ICA could only be heard and ventilated in the proper courts of
Japan following the principles of lex loci celebrationis and lex contractus.

Issue:Whether the subject matter jurisdiction of Philippine courts in civil cases for specific
performance and damages involving contracts executed outside the country by foreign nationals
may be assailed on the principles of lex loci celebrationis, lex contractus, the "state of the most
significant relationship rule," or forum non conveniens.

Ruling:The doctrine of lex contractus or lex loci contractus means the "law of the place where a
contract is executed or to be performed." It controls the nature, construction, and validity of the
contract  and it may pertain to the law voluntarily agreed upon by the parties or the law intended
by them either expressly or implicitly. Under the "state of the most significant relationship rule,"
to ascertain what state law to apply to a dispute, the court should determine which state has the
most substantial connection to the occurrence and the parties. Petitioners' premature invocation
of choice-of-law rules is exposed by the fact that they have not yet pointed out any conflict
between the laws of Japan and ours. Before determining which law should apply, first there
should exist a conflict of laws situation requiring the application of the conflict of laws
rules.Also, when the law of a foreign country is invoked to provide the proper rules for the
solution of a case, the existence of such law must be pleaded and proved.forum non conveniens,
cannot be used to deprive the trial court of its jurisdiction herein. First, it is not a proper basis for
a motion to dismiss because Section 1, Rule 16 of the Rules of Court does not include it as a
ground. Second, whether a suit should be entertained or dismissed on the basis of the said
doctrine depends largely upon the facts of the particular case and is addressed to the sound
discretion of the trial court. In this case, the RTC decided to assume jurisdiction. Third, the
propriety of dismissing a case based on this principle requires a factual determination; hence, this
conflicts principle is more properly considered a matter of defense

Bank of America v. Court of Appeals

GR 120135 21 Mar 2003

Facts: Eduardo K. Litonjua, Sr. and Aurelio J. Litonjua filed a Complaint before the Regional
Trial Court of Pasig against the Bank of America NT&SA and Bank of America International,
Ltd. alleging that: they were engaged in the shipping business; they owned two vessels: Don
Aurelio and El Champion, through their wholly-owned corporations; they deposited their
revenues from said business together with other funds with the branches of said banks in the
United Kingdom and Hongkong up to 1979; with their business doing well, the defendant banks
induced them to increase the number of their ships in operation, offering them easy loans to
acquire said vessels. Litonjuas claimed that defendant banks as trustees did not fully render an
account of all the income derived from the operation of the vessels as well as of the proceeds of
the subsequent foreclosure sale; because of the breach of their fiduciary duties and/or negligence
of the petitioners and/or the persons designated by them in the operation of private respondents'
six vessels, the revenues derived from the operation of all the vessels declined drastically; the
loans acquired for the purchase of the four additional vessels then matured and remained unpaid,
prompting defendant banks to have all the six vessels, including the two vessels originally owned
by the private respondents, foreclosed and sold at public auction to answer for the obligations
incurred for and in behalf of the operation of the vessels.

Defendant banks filed a Motion to Dismiss on grounds of forum non conveniens and lack of
cause of action against them.

Issue: Should the complaint be dismissed on the ground of forum non-convenien?

Ruling: No.The doctrine of forum non-conveniens, literally meaning 'the forum is inconvenient',

emerged in private international law to deter the practice of global forum shopping, that is to
prevent non-resident litigants from choosing the forum or place wherein to bring their suit for
malicious reasons, such as to secure procedural advantages, to annoy and harass the defendant, to
avoid overcrowded dockets, or to select a more friendly venue. Under this doctrine, a court, in
conflicts of law cases, may refuse impositions on its jurisdiction where it is not the most
"convenient" or available forum and the parties are not precluded from seeking remedies
elsewhere.

Whether a suit should be entertained or dismissed on the basis of said doctrine depends largely
upon the facts of the particular case and is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court.In
the case of Communication Materials and Design, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals,this Court held that
"xxx [a Philippine Court may assume jurisdiction over the case if it chooses to do so; provided,
that the following requisites are met: (1) that the Philippine Court is one to which the parties may
conveniently resort to; (2) that the Philippine Court is in a position to make an intelligent
decision as to the law and the facts; and, (3) that the Philippine Court has or is likely to have
power to enforce its decision."Evidently, all these requisites are present in the instant case.

Philsec Investment v. Court of Appeals

GR 103493 June 19, 1997

Facts: On April 10, 1987, while Civil Case No. H-86-440 was pending in the United States,
petitioners filed a complaint "For Sum of Money with Damages and Writ of Preliminary
Attachment" against private respondents in the Regional Trial Court of Makati, where it was
docketed as Civil Case No. 16563. The complaint reiterated the allegation of petitioners in their
respective counterclaims in Civil Action No. H-86-440 of the United States District Court of
Southern Texas that private respondents committed fraud by selling the property at a price 400
percent more than its true value of US$800,000.00. Petitioners claimed that, as a result of private
respondents' fraudulent misrepresentations, ATHONA, PHILSEC, and AYALA were induced to
enter into the Agreement and to purchase the Houston property. Petitioners prayed that private
respondents be ordered to return to ATHONA the excess payment of US$1,700,000.00 and to
pay damages. On April 20, 1987, the trial court issued a writ of preliminary attachment against
the real and personal properties of private respondents. 2

Private respondent Ducat moved to dismiss Civil Case No. 16563 on the grounds of (1) litis
pendentia, vis-a-vis Civil Action No. H-86-440 filed by 1488, Inc. and Daic in the U.S.,
(2)  forum non conveniens, and (3) failure of petitioners PHILSEC and BPI-IFL to state a cause
of action.

Issue: Is the principle of Forum Non Conveniens applicable?

Ruling: A motion to dismiss is limited to the grounds under Rule 16, §1, which does not
include forum non conveniens.  The propriety of dismissing a case based on this principle
requires a factual determination, hence, it is more properly considered a matter of defense.
Second, while it is within the discretion of the trial court to abstain from assuming jurisdiction on
this ground, it should do so only after "vital facts are established, to determine whether special
circumstances" require the court's desistance. 1

In this case, the trial court abstained from taking jurisdiction solely on the basis of the
pleadings filed by private respondents in connection with the motion to dismiss. It failed to
consider that one of the plaintiffs (PHILSEC) is a domestic corporation and one of the
defendants (Ventura Ducat) is a Filipino, and that it was the extinguishment of the latter's debt
which was the object of the transaction under litigation. The trial court arbitrarily dismissed the
case even after finding that Ducat was not a party in the U.S. case.
 Philippine National Construction Corp. v. Asiavest Merchant Bankers (M) Berhad,

G.R. No. 172301, August 19, 2015

Facts: Asiavest Merchant Bankers (M) Berhad filed a Complaint for recovery of sum of money
against PNCC before the Regional Trial Court of Pasig. It based its action on Malaysian laws.
Specifically, it invoked Section 98 of the Malaysian Contracts Act of 1950 and Section 11of the
Malaysian Civil Law Act of 1956.

Petitioner argues that in view of the compelling necessity to implead the two foreign
corporations, the Trial Court should have refused to assume jurisdiction over the case on the
ground of forum non-conveniens, even if the Court might have acquired jurisdiction over the
subject matter and over the person of the petitioner.

Issue: whether our courts have subject matter jurisdiction over an action for recovery of sum of
money filed by a Malaysian corporation against a Philippine corporation involving a contract
executed and performed in Malaysia, and the applicability of the forum non conveniens principle.

Ruling:The court finds that the trial court correctly assumed jurisdiction over the Complaint.

"Forum non conveniens literally translates to 'the forum is inconvenient.' This doctrine applies in

conflicts of law cases. It gives courts the choice of not assuming jurisdiction when it appears that
it is not the most convenient forum and the parties may seek redress in another one. It is a device
"designed to frustrate illicit means for securing advantages and vexing litigants that would
otherwise be possible if the venue of litigation (or dispute resolution) were left entirely to the
whim of either party."

The determination of whether to entertain a case is addressed to the sound discretion of the court,
which must carefully consider the facts of the particular case. A mere invocation of the doctrine
of forum non conveniens or an easy averment that foreign elements exist cannot operate to
automatically divest a court of its jurisdiction. It is crucial for courts to determine first if facts
were established such that special circumstances exist to warrant its desistance from assuming
jurisdiction.

The trial court assumed jurisdiction and explained in its Order dated August 11, 1995 that "on
the contrary, to try the case in the Philippines, it is believed, would be more convenient to
defendant corporation as its principal office is located in the Philippines, its records will be more
accessible, witnesses would be readily available and entail less expenses in terms of legal
services.
 Saudi Arabian Airlines v. Rebesencio,

G.R. No. 198587,January 14,2015

Facts: Petitioner Saudi Arabian Airlines (Saudia) is a foreign corporation established and
existing under the laws of Jeddah, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. It has a Philippine office located at
4/F, Metro House Building, Sen. Gil J. Puyat Avenue, Makati City. Respondents were recruited
and hired by Saudia as Temporary Flight Attendants with the accreditation and approval of the
Philippine Overseas Employment Administration. After undergoing seminars required by the
Philippine Overseas Employment Administration for deployment overseas, as well as training
modules offered by Saudia (e.g., initial flight attendant/training course and transition training),
and after working as Temporary Flight Attendants, respondents became Permanent Flight
Attendants. Respondents continued their employment with Saudia until they were separated from
service on various dates in 2006.

Respondents contended that the termination of their employment was illegal. They alleged that
the termination was made solely because they were pregnant. Saudia assailed the jurisdiction of
the Labor Arbiter. It claimed that all the determining points of contact referred to foreign law and
insisted that the Complaint ought to be dismissed on the ground of forum non conveniens. It
added that respondents had no cause of action as they resigned voluntarily.
Issue:  Whether the Labor Arbiter and the National Labor Relations Commission may exercise
jurisdiction over Saudi Arabian Airlines and apply Philippine law in adjudicating the present
dispute
Rulings: Forum non conveniens is soundly applied not only to address parallel litigation and
undermine a litigant's capacity to vex and secure undue advantages by engaging in forum
shopping on an international scale. It is also grounded on principles of comity and judicial
efficiency.

Consistent with the principle of comity, a tribunal's desistance in exercising jurisdiction on

account of forum non conveniens is a deferential gesture to the tribunals of another sovereign. It
is a measure that prevents the former's having to interfere in affairs which are better and more
competently addressed by the latter. Further, forum non conveniens entails a recognition not only
that tribunals elsewhere are better suited to rule on and resolve a controversy, but also, that these
tribunals are better positioned to enforce judgments and, ultimately, to dispense justice. Forum
non conveniens prevents the embarrassment of an awkward situation where a tribunal is rendered
incompetent in the face of the greater capability — both analytical and practical — of a tribunal
in another jurisdiction.
 Continental Micronesia, Inc. v. Basso
G.R. Nos. 178382-83, September 23, 2015
Facts: Petitioner Continental Micronesia, Inc. (CMI) is a foreign corporation organized and
existing under the laws of and domiciled in the United States of America (US). It is licensed to
do business in the Philippines. Mr. Keith R. Braden (Mr. Braden), Managing Director-Asia of
Continental Airlines, Inc. (Continental), offered Basso the position of General Manager of the
Philippine Branch of Continental. Basso accepted the offer.
November 7, 1992, CMI took over the Philippine operations of Continental, with Basso retaining
his position as General Manager.

On December 20, 1995, Basso received a letter from Mr. Ralph Schulz, who was then CMI's
Vice President of Marketing and Sales, informing Basso that he has agreed to work in CMI as a
consultant on an "as needed basis" effective February 1, 1996 to July 31, 1996. On March 14,
1996, Basso wrote another letter addressed to Ms. Marty Woodward (Ms. Woodward) of CMI's
Human Resources Department inquiring about the status of his employment. On the same day,
Ms. Woodward responded that pursuant to the employment contract dated February 1, 1991,
Basso could be terminated at will upon a thirty-day notice.
Basso filed a Complaint for Illegal Dismissal with Moral and Exemplary Damages against CMI
on December 19, 1996. Alleging the presence of foreign elements, CMI filed a Motion to
Dismiss15 dated February 10, 1997 on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the person of CMI
and the subject matter of the controversy. 
Issue: Whether the Labor Arbiter and NLRC had jurisdiction to hear the illegal dismissal case.
Ruling: we agree with the Court of Appeals that the Labor Arbiter acquired jurisdiction over the
person of Basso, notwithstanding his citizenship, when he filed his complaint against CMI. On
the other hand, jurisdiction over the person of CMI was acquired through the coercive process of
service of summons. We note that CMI never denied that it was served with summons. CMI has,
in fact, voluntarily appeared and participated in the proceedings before the courts. Though a
foreign corporation, CMI is licensed to do business in the Philippines and has a local business
address here. The purpose of the law in requiring that foreign corporations doing business in the
country be licensed to do so, is to subject the foreign corporations to the jurisdiction of our
courts.

Considering that the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC have jurisdiction over the parties and the
subject matter of this case, these tribunals may proceed to try the case even if the rules of
conflict-of-laws or the convenience of the parties point to a foreign forum, this being an exercise
of sovereign prerogative of the country where the case is filed.

Spouses Dalen v. Mitsui O.S.K. Lines

G.R. No. 194403 July 24, 2019
Facts: Mitsui O.S.K. Lines, a non-resident corporation, not doing business in the Philippines,
was the charterer of MV Sea Prospect while Diamond Camellia, S.A., another non-resident
corporation, not doing business in the Philippines, and of Panamian registry is the registered
owner of the said vessel. On or about August 22, 1998, MV Sea Prospect headed to Japan. While
there, or on August 26, 1998, weather was inclement and the vessel developed a list between 10
and 15 degrees to starboard. Upon inspection, it was found that the cargo was very wet so the
Captain ordered to fill the ballast tanks, thus achieving the vessel's stability. He then ordered a
change in the course of the vessel to the Island of Okinawa to seek refuge. While nearing the
Island of Okinawa, the vessel listed again 3 to 5 degrees then to 90 degrees, taking water in the
bridge, the engine stopping and the electric power being cut. After 30 minutes, MV Sea Prospect
sunk drowning 10 crew members, which are under Magsaysay Maritime Corporation, the
manning agent of the respondents in the Philippines.

Respondents alleged that on November 4, 1998, November 5, 1998 and December 10,
1998, petitioners who are heirs and beneficiaries of the missing seafarers received full payment
of death benefits based on the employment contract. Petitioners argue that respondents are duty
bound to exercise due diligence required by law in order to ensure the safety of the crew and all
the passengers therein For failure therefore to exercise extra ordinary diligence required of them,
the respondents must be held liable for damages to the surviving heirs of the deceased crew
members.
Issue: Whether The Labor Arbiter has no jurisdiction over tort cases.

Ruling. No the Labor Arbiter has no jurisdiction. Based on this, the subject matter of the
complaint is one of claim for damages arising from quasi-delict, which is within the ambit of the
regular court's jurisdiction.

According to Article 2176 of the New Civil Code, "Whoever by act or omission causes damage
to another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault or
negligence, if there is no pre-existing contractual relation between the parties, is called quasi-
delict. Where the resolution of the dispute requires expertise, not in labor management relations
nor in wage structures and other terms and conditions of employment, but rather in the
application of the general civil law, such claim falls outside the area of competence or expertise
ordinarily ascribed to the LA and the NLRC.

Therefore, the LA has no jurisdiction over the case in the first place; it should have been filed to
the proper trial court.