1.

a. RRPA should file its case for damages before the Labor Arbiter.
Ms. Azzys was not able to fulfill her obligations pursuant to an overseas employment contract
she signed with RRPA. Under Sec. 10 of R.A. 8042, the Labor Arbiters of the National Labor
Relations shall have the original and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide claims arising out
of any law or contract involving Filipino workers or overseas deployment including claims for
actual, moral, exemplary and other forms of damages.
Applying the above-mentioned provision, RRPA should file its case for damages before the
Labor Arbiter who has jurisdiction over the subject matter.
b. No. An employer-employee relationship does not exist between Ms. Azzys and RRPA.
In order to determine the existence of an employer-employee relationship, the following must
be present: the manner of selection and engagement of the putative employee; the mode of
payment of wages; the presence of the power of dismissal; and the presence of a power to
control the putative employee’s conduct. In the instant case, the fourth requisite is lacking,
which is the control test. RRPA has no control over the manner with which the work is to be
accomplished since the Russian war veteran has such control. Furthermore, Ms. Azzys was not
able to perform her obligations, as a consequence, she had not rendered any service. An
employer-employee relationship cannot yet arise when there is no service rendered. Therefore,
considering the aforementioned reasons, there is no employer-employee relationship between
Ms. Azys and RRPA.

2. Pedring, Daniel, and Paul should file their claims before the Labor Arbiter.
Art. 224 states that the Labor Arbiters shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction to decide all
claims arising form employer-employee relations, involving an amount exceeding five thousand
pesos (P5,000.00) regardless of whther accompanied with a claim for reinstatement. Pedring’s
claim amounts to P20,000.00 while Paul’s claim is P22,000.00. Both claims exceed P5,000.00.
Since both claims exceeded the amount stated, by express provision, Pedring and Paul should
file their claim before the Labor Arbiter who has jurisdiction over the case.
Likewise, Daniel should file his claim before the Labor Arbiter. The same provision provides that
the Labor Arbiter has original and exclusive jurisdiction over cases which workers may file
involving wages, rates of pay, hours of work, and other terms and conditions of employment, if
accompanied with a claim or reinstatement. In the case at bar, the prayer for reinstatement by
the employee converted the cause of action from money claim into an illegal case over which
the Labor Arbiter has jurisdiction.
3. No. The employer’s motion is untenable.
The filing of the criminal case is not a prejudicial question to the criminal case. It is not
necessary that there must be a determination of the criminal case filed for theft before it can
be held that there is illegal dismissal. There can be a finding of illegal dismissal when it can be
proven that the employee was dismissed in a manner not provided by law. In an illegal
dismissal case, the employer must prove that the dismissal of the employee was for a just and
authorized cause. Therefore, the illegal dismissal case need not be suspended pending the
determination of the criminal case filed for theft.
4. The complaint filed by Filip who is an employee of Kris Cosmetics will not prosper.
Upon the purchase of the Bong Go Corp. of the business Kris Cosmetics, the former does not
become the employer of the employees of the latter. An employer-employee relationship is
personal in character. Labor contracts such as employment contracts, being in personam, are
binding only between the parties and is therefore not enforceable against a buyer in good faith.
When Bong Go Corp. bought the business of Kris Cosmetics, it did not create an employer-
employee relationship between the purchaser and the employees of the latter. Filip should
have filed a case against his employer, Kris Cosmetics.

5. Yes. The motion to dismiss should be granted.

The Labor Arbiter has no jurisdiction over the instant case since under it is an intracorporate
dispute. Sec. 5 of Republic Act. No. 8799 provides that controversies in the election or
appointments of directors, trustees, officers, or managers of such corporations, partnerships or
associations is cognizable by the Regional Trial Courts.
In the case at bar, the subject matter is the appointment or election of Jose Lovina who is a
member of the Board of Directors of San Jose Corporation. Applying the above-mentioned
provision, the case must be brought before the Regional Trial Court. Additionally, no employer-
employee relationship exists between Jose Lovina and San Jose Corporation. Labor Arbiters only
has jurisdiction over those cases which has employer-employee relationship. Therefore, the
motion to dismiss should be granted on the basis of lack of jurisdiction over the case.