Smart Communications v.
Astorga (Short title) contract hence, jurisdiction over the same is vested in the labor tribunal and
| 542 SCRA 434 | January 27, 2008
Petition: Three consolidated petitions for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of
the Rules of Court
Petitioner: Smart Communications, INC.
Respondent: Regina M. Astorga
DOCTRINE
An employers demand for payment of the market value of the car or, in the
alternative, the surrender of the car, is not a labor, but a civil, dispute. A dispute
which involves the relationship of debtor and creditor rather than employeeemployer
relations falls within the jurisdiction of the regular courts.
FACTS
- Astorga was employed by respondent SMART on May 8, 1997 as District
Sales Manager of Corporate Sales Marketing Group (CSMG). One of her
incentives is a car plan in the amount of 455,000.00.
- In February 1998, SMART launched an organizational realignment to
achieve more efficient operations. Thus, SMART entered a joint venture
agreement with NTT of Japan, and formed SMARTNTT Multimedia,
Incorporated (SNMI). Since SNMI was formed to do the sales and marketing
work, SMART abolished the CSMG.
- Astorga was offered a supervisory position in the Customer Case
Department, but she refused the offer. Despite the abolition of her office, she
continued reporting for work.
- SMART issued a memorandum advising Astorga of the termination of her
employment on ground of redundancy. Thus, Astorga filed a complaint for
illegal dismissal against SMART.
- While there is a pending litigation, SMART sent a letter demanding Astorga
to Pay the current market value of the Honda Civic Sedan or to surrender the
same to the company. Astorga did not comply. Thus, SMART filed a suit for
replevin with the RTC.
- Astorga moved to dismiss the complaint on grounds of lack of jurisdiction
she posited that the regular courts have no jurisdiction over the complaint
because the subject thereof pertains to a benefit arising from an employment
not in regular courts.
- RTC denied the motion to dismiss and held that the case is to enforce a right
of possession over a company car. The recovery via replevin suit is allowed
by the Rules of Civil procedure, which is within the jurisdiction of RTC.
- CA reversed the RTC ruling and held that the case is intertwined with
Astorgas complaint for illegal dismissal.
Hence, this petition.
ISSUE/S
1. W/N the recovery of a car benefit via replevin suit is a labor dispute.
RULING & RATIO
NO
RTC rightfully assumed jurisdiction over the suit and acted well within its
discretion in denying Astorgas motion to dismiss. SMARTs demand for
payment of the market value of the car or, in the alternative, the surrender of
the car, is not a labor, but a civil, dispute. It involves the relationship of debtor
and creditor rather than employeeemployer relations. As such, the dispute
falls within the jurisdiction of the regular courts.
In Basaya, Jr. v. Militante, the court held that the labor dispute involved is
not intertwined with the issue in the Replevin Case. The respective issues
raised in each forum can be resolved independently on the other.
DISPOSITION
WHEREFORE, the petition of SMART docketed as G.R. No. 148132 is GRANTED.
The February 28, 2000 Decision and the May 7, 2001 Resolution of the Court of
Appeals in
CAG.R. SP. No. 53831 are SET ASIDE. The Regional Trial Court of Makati City,
Branch 57 is DIRECTED to proceed with the trial of Civil Case No. 981936 and render
its Decision with reasonable dispatch.
Page 1 of 1