GR 172927; (February, 2010) (Digest)
G.R. No. 172927, February 11, 2010
Ronilo Sorreda, Petitioner, vs. Cambridge Electronics Corporation, Respondent.
FACTS
Petitioner Ronilo Sorreda was hired by respondent Cambridge Electronics Corporation on May 8, 1999, as a technician under a five-month contract. On June 15, 1999, he met an accident at work resulting in the amputation of his left arm. Petitioner claimed that after his release from the hospital, company officers assured him in a meeting with his family of regular, perpetual employment upon his full recovery. In September 1999, after recovering, he reported for work but was made to sign a resignation memorandum due to the expiration of his contract. On November 16, 1999, petitioner filed a complaint (later amended to breach of contract) with the NLRC, praying for damages based on the alleged perfected contract of perpetual employment. The labor arbiter ruled in his favor, declaring him a regular employee and ordering reinstatement with backwages and damages. The NLRC reversed, finding petitioner was a per-project employee and that the labor arbiter had no jurisdiction over the breach of contract claim. The Court of Appeals affirmed the NLRC, prompting this petition.
ISSUE
Whether the labor arbiter had jurisdiction over petitioner’s complaint for breach of an alleged contract of perpetual employment.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals. Jurisdiction is determined by the allegations of the complaint. Petitioner’s cause of action was based on a purported second contract of perpetual employment, separate from the original per-project employment contract. This claim sought a determination of the existence of a new contract and damages for its breach, which are inherently civil matters not arising from the employer-employee relationship under the original contract. Such disputes fall under the jurisdiction of regular courts, not the labor arbiter. Even assuming jurisdiction, the Court found no proof of a perpetual employment contract, noting such an agreement would be contrary to public policy and management prerogative. The petition was denied.