8.

Pepsi Cola vs Martinez

G.R. No. L-58877 March 15, 1982

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.

ESCOLIN, J.:

FACTS

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]?

Tumala was a salesman of the Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co 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, an award which entitled him to a prize of a house and lot; and that petitioners, despite
demands, have unjustly refused to deliver said prize. Under the second cause of action, it
was alleged that on August 21, 1980, petitioners, "in a manner oppressive to labor" and
"without prior clearance from the Ministry of Labor", "arbitrarily and ilegally" terminated his
employment. He prayed that petitioners be ordered, jointly and severally, to deliver his prize
of house and lot or its cash equivalent, and to pay his back salaries and separation benefits,
plus moral and exemplary damages, attorney's fees and litigation expenses. He did not ask
for reinstatement.

Petitioners moved to dismiss the complaint on grounds of lack of jurisdiction and cause of
action. Petitioners further 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 in the performance of his duties as
salesman and depot in-charge of the bottling company in Davao City, which manipulations
consisted of "unremitted cash collections, fictitious collections of trade accounts, fictitious
loaned empties, fictitious product deals, uncollected loaned empties, advance sales confirmed
as fictitious, and route shortages which resulted to the damage and prejudice of the bottling
company in the amount of P381,851.76." The alleged commission of these fraudulent acts
was also advanced by petitioners to justify Tumala's dismissal.

ISSUE

Whether or not Labor arbiter has jurisdiction over the case

HELD

We rule that the Labor Arbiter has exclusive jurisdiction over the case.

The claim of the prize arose from an employer-employee relationship and therefore under the
jurisdiction of Labor Arbiter as mentioned in Article 217 of the Labor Code “all claims arising
from an employer-employee relations, unless expressly excluded by this Code”. 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. Besides, 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.