SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM, Petitioner, v. DEBBIE UBAÑA, Respondent.
G.R. No. 200114 August 24, 2015
Facts: Respondent Debbie Ubana filed a civil case for damages
against the DBP Service Corporation, petitioner Social Security System (SSS),
and the SSS Retirees Association before the RTC. She alleged that after she
applied for employment, passed the examinations and accomplished all the
requirements, she was instead referred to DBP Service Corporation for
"transitory employment." She claimed she was qualified for her
position as Processor, having completed required training and passed the SSS
qualifying examination for Computer Operations Course given by the National
Computer Institute, U.P. Diliman yet she was not given the proper salary. When
she can no longer stand the exploitation of being transferred from one
department to another without being absorbed permanently as an employee and
without proper payment of wage, she was then forced to resign.She averred that
she suffered actual losses because of it for six years while working for the
petitioner. Citing Civil Service Commission Memorandum Circular No. 40,
respondent contended that the performance of functions outside of the nature
provided in the appointment and receiving salary way below that received by
regular SSS employee’s amount to an abuse of rights.
Petitioner and its co-defendants SSS Retirees Association and DBP Service Corporation filed their respective motions to dismiss, arguing that the subject matter of the case and respondent's claims arose out of employer-employee relations, which are beyond the RTC's jurisdiction and properly cognizable by the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC).
RTC dismissed the complaint on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, stating that the complaint filed is clearly a case of unfair labor practice, therefore should be filed with the Labor Arbiter of the NLRC. This was however set aside by the same court during reconsideration because SSS was created under an original charter pursuant to R.A. No. 1161as amended by R.A. 8282, which means that the said agency is governed by the Civil Service Commission. However, since the SSS denied the existence of an employer-employee relationship, and the case is one for Damages, it is not the Civil Service Commission that has jurisdiction to try the case, but the regular courts.
CA affirmed this decision of RTC
agreeing that a careful perusal of the complaint shows that it is one action
for damages which the regular courts have jurisdiction. It is the nature of
action of the subject of the controversy that must be based on in determining
which body has jurisdiction. Where the claim to the principal relief sought is
to be resolved not by reference to the Labor Code or other labor relations
statute or a collective bargaining agreement but by the general civil law, the
jurisdiction over the dispute belongs to the regular courts of justice and not
to the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC.
Issue: Whether or not Labor Code has any relevance to the principal relief sought in the complaint, giving NLRC jurisdiction over it?
RULING: No. Labor Code does not apply in this case, therefore NLRC has no jurisdiction to try and hear the case. Jurisdiction should be with the regular courts.
During respondent's stint with
petitioner, she never became an SSS employee, as she remained an employee of
DBP Service Corporation and SSS Retirees Association - the two being
independent contractors with legitimate service contracts with SSS. Petitioner
denied the existence of employer-employee relationship but in fact insists on
the validity of the service agreements with DBP Service Corporation and SSS
Retirees Association, meaning that SSS is not the true employer. In order for
the Labor Arbiter to acquire jurisdiction over a dispute, there must be an
employer-employee relation between the parties thereto. Article 217 of the
Labor Code as amended vests upon the labor arbiters exclusive original jurisdiction
only over the following:
1. Unfair labor practices;
2. Termination disputes;
3. If accompanied with a claim for reinstatement, those cases that workers may file involving wages, rates of pay, hours of work and other terms and conditions of employment;
4. Claims for actual, moral, exemplary and other forms of damages arising from employer-employee relations;
5. Cases arising from any violation of Article 264 of this Code, including questions involving legality of strikes and lockouts; and
6. Except claims for Employees Compensation, Social Security, Medicare and maternity benefits, all other claims, arising from employer- employee relations, including those of persons in domestic or household service, involving an amount exceeding five thousand pesos (P5,000.00) regardless of whether accompanied with a claim for reinstatement.
Since there is no employer-employee relationship between the parties herein, then there is no labor dispute cognizable by the Labor Arbiters or the NLRC. There being no employer-employee relation or any other definite or direct contract between respondent and petitioner, the latter being responsible to the former only for the proper payment of wages, respondent is thus justified in filing a case against petitioner, based on Articles 19 and 20 of the Civil Code, to recover the proper salary due her as SSS Processor. Because of this, case is remanded to RTC for the continuation of proceedings.