INDOPHIL TEXTILE MILLS VS. ENGR. SALVADOR ADVIENTO
Petitioner Indophil Textile Mills, Inc. is a domestic corporation engaged in the business of manufacturing thread for weaving. Petitioner hired respondent Engr. Salvador Adviento as ivil Engineer to maintain its facilities in !amba"in, Marilao, #ulacan. $n August %, &''&, respondent consulted a ph(sician due to recurring recurring wea"ness and di))iness. di))iness. *ew da(s later, later, he was diagnosed with hronic Pol( Sinusiti Sinusitis, s, and thereafter, thereafter, with moderate, severe and persistent Allergic Allergic +hinitis. Accordingl(, Accordingl(, respondent was advised b( his doctor to totall( avoid house dust mite and textile dust as it will transmute into health problems. istressed, respondent filed a complaint against petitioner with the -ational !abor +elations ommission -!+/, San *ernando, Pampanga, for alleged illegal dismissal and for the pa(ment of bac"wages, separation pa(, actual damages and attorne(0s fees. Subse1uentl(, Subse1uentl(, respondent filed another omplaint with the +egional Trial ourt +T/ of Aparri, aga(an, alleging that he contracted such occupational disease b( reason of the gross negligence of petitioner to provide him with a safe, health( and wor"able environment. In his omplaint, respondent alleged that as part of his 2ob description, he conducts regular maintenance chec" on petitioner0s facilities including its d(e house area, which is ver( hot and e mits foul chemical odor with no ade1uate safet( measures introduced b( petitioner. According to respondent, the air washer dampers and all roof exhaust vests are blown into open air, air, carr(ing dust thereto. oncerned, respondent recommended to management to place roof insulation to minimi)e, if not, eradicate the health ha)ards attendant in the wor" place. 3owever, said recommendation was turned down b( management due to high cost. In repl(, petitioner filed a Motion to ismiss on the ground that the +T has no 2urisdiction over the sub2ect matter of the complaint because the same falls under the original and exclusive 2urisdiction of the !abor Arbiter !A/ under Article &4%a/5/ of the !abor ode. 6hether or not the +T has 2urisdiction over the sub2ect matter of respondent0s complaint pra(ing for moral damages, exemplar( damages, compensator( damages, anchored on petitioner0s alleged gross negligence in failing to provide a safe and health( wor"ing environment for respondent.
ISSUE:
RULING:
7ES.
True, the maintenance of a safe and health( wor"place is ordinaril( a sub2ect of labor cases. More, the acts complained of appear to constitute matters involving emplo(ee8emplo(er relations since respondent used to be the ivil Engineer of petitioner. 3owever, it should be stressed that respondent0s claim for damages is specificall( grounded on petitioner0s gross negligence to provide a safe, health( and wor"able environment for its emplo(ees 9a case of 1uasi8delict. This is easil( ascertained from a plain and cursor( reading reading of the omplaint, omplaint, which which enumerate enumerates s the acts and:or and:or omissions omissions of petitioner petitioner relative relative to the conditions in the wor"place. It is a basic tenet that 2urisdiction over the sub2ect matter is determined upon the allegations made in the complaint, irrespective of whether or not the p laintiff is entitled to recover upon the claim asserted therein, which is a matter resolved onl( after and as a result of a trial. In this case, a perusal of the complaint would reveal that the sub2ect matter is one of claim for damages arising from 1uasi8delict, which is within the ambit of the regular court;s 2urisdiction.
In the case at bar, respondent alleges that due to the continued and prolonged exposure to textile dust seriousl( seriousl( inimical inimical to his health, health, he suffered suffered wor"8contract wor"8contracted ed disease disease which which is now irreversible irreversible and incurable, and deprived him of 2ob opportunities. learl(, in2ur( and damages were allegedl( suffered b( respondent, an element of 1uasi8delict. Secondl(, Secondl(, the previous contract of emplo(ment between petitioner and respondent cannot be used to counter the element of illamor that? 6hen, as here, the cause of action is based on a 1uasi8delict or tort, which has no reasonable causal connection with an( of the claims provided for in Article &4%, 2urisdiction over the action is with the regular courts. Therefore, the +T has 2urisdiction over the sub2ect matter of respondent;s complaint pra(ing for moral damage damages, s, exempl exemplar( ar( damage damages, s, compen compensat sator( or( damage damages, s, anchor anchored ed on petiti petitione oner;s r;s allege alleged d gross gross negligence in failing to provide a safe and health( wor"ing environment for respondent.
