Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 1

LABOR LAW

Evelyn Tolosa v. NLRC et al.


GR 149578, April 10, 2003

FACTS:
Evelyn Tolosa was the widow of Capt. Virgilio Tolosa who was hired by Qwana-Kawin through its
manning agent, Asia Bulk Transport Phils., Inc. (ABTPI) to be the master of the vessel named M/V Lady
Dona. He officially began work on 11/1/1992 when he assumed command of the vessel in Yokohama,
Japan. The vessel was en route to Long Beach, CA, USA with a passage through Hawaii. Capt. Tolosa
was allegedly in good health.

During the 'channelling activities' when the vessel departed Yokohama Capt. Tolosa was drenched in
rainwater. The next day, 11/7/1992, he had slight fever and hereafter his health worsened until his death
on 11/18/1992. Upon arrival in CA, Pedro Garate, Chief Mate of the vessel narrated that as Capt.
Tolosaa's condition worsened, an able seaman watched him 24h/day, that on 11/10/1992 the Chief
Engineer contacted Asia Bulk which left Garate and Mario Asis, Second Mate and in-charge of the crew
and officer's health as in-charge, that on 11/17/1992 as Capt. Tolosa was worsening, a telex was sent to
Asia Bulk requesting immediate airlift and thereafter an airlift was scheduled for 11/19/1992, that
however, on 11/18/1992 at 0753H GMT, Capt. Tolosa died.

Due to Capt. Tolosa's death Evelyn filed a complaint/position paper with the POEA against Qwana-Kawin
thru its resident-agent Mr. Fumiro Nakagawa, Pedro Garate and Mario Asis as respondents.

After hearings and submission of pleadings the case was transferred to the DOLE's NLRC and raffled to a
Labor Arbiter. Labor Arbiter Sampang ruled in favor of Evelyn. NLRC dismissed petitioner's case for lack
of jurisdiction. CA sustained the NLRC.

ISSUE(S):

1. Does the NLRC have jurisdiction over the case?

2. Is petitioner Evelyn entitled to the monetary awards granted by the LA?

RULING:

1. No, NLRC has no jurisdiction over the case as petitioner's claim is based on a quasi-delict or
tort under Art. 217 of the LC. This court has in a long line of cases held that the allegations in the
complaint determine the nature of the action and consequently, the jurisdiction of the courts. Indeed,
petitioner sued Garate and Asis for gross negligence. Petitioner's complaint/ position paper refers to and
extensively discusses the negligent acts of shipmates Garate and Asis, who had no employer-employee
relations with Capt. Tolosa. Even the LA himself classified petitioner's case as "complaint for damages,
blacklisting and watchlisting (pending injury) for gross negligence resulting in the death of compalinants
husband, Capt. Tolosa."

The case clearly does not involve the adjudication of a labor dispute, but the recovery of damages based
on a quasi-delict. In Georg GMBH and Co. v. Isnani, the court ruled that the "jurisdiction of the LA and the
NLRC under Art. 217 of LC is limited to disputes arising from an employer-employee relationship which
can only be resolved by reference to the LC, other labor disputes, or their CBA."

In addition, petitioner seeks the following awards; (1) loss of earning capacity denominated therein as
"actual damages" or "lost income" and (2) blacklisting. Such is recoverable based on quasi-delict provided
in Art. 2206 of the Civil Code, not the LC. LA and NLRC have jurisdiction to award not only reliefs
provided by labor laws but also damages governed by the civil code, these reliefs must still be based on
an action that has a reasonable caussal connection with the LC, other labor statutes or CBA's. Loss of
earning capacity and blacklisting are not to be equated with wages, overtime pay, or separation pay, and
other labor benefits generally cognized in labor disputes. Rather, loss of earning capacity is a relief or
claim arising from a quasi-delict or similar cause within the realm of civil law.

2. No, contrary to petitioner's claim that the award has already reached finality for failure of
private respondents to file a timely appeal before the NLRC since the same was not raised in the tribunals
a quo. Well-settled is the rule that issues not raised below cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.
Thus, points of law, theories, and arguments not brought to the attention of the CA need not and
ordinarily will not, be considered by this court. Petitioner's allegation cannot be accepted by this court on
its face; to do so would be tantamount to a denial of respondents' right to due process.

Petition denied. CA decision affirmed.

Вам также может понравиться