Title
Barranta vs. International Harvester Company of the Philippines
Case
G.R. No. L-18198
Decision Date
Apr 22, 1963
Employee Luz Baranta sued for wrongful termination, seeking reinstatement, back wages, damages, and unpaid benefits. The Supreme Court ruled her claims were money-related, not labor disputes, granting jurisdiction to regular courts.
Font Size:

Case Digest (G.R. No. L-18198)

Facts:

Employment and Suspension

  1. Plaintiff's Employment: Luz Baranta, the plaintiff, was employed by the International Harvester Company of the Philippines (defendant) as Secretary to the Treasurer since May 16, 1947. Her salary increased from P275.00 in 1947 to P532.00 by July 1955.
  2. Suspension: On December 12, 1956, the defendant, through its president, Paul Wood, verbally informed Baranta of her suspension. The following day, she received written confirmation stating that the suspension was effective as of 5 PM on December 12, 1956, pending an investigation.
  3. Termination: No investigation was conducted, and Baranta was only informed of her termination on June 3, 1957, retroactive to December 12, 1956.

Claims in the Complaint

  1. First Cause of Action: Baranta sought reinstatement with back wages from December 12, 1956, or alternatively, payment of salaries due up to the date of a favorable judgment, plus severance pay.
  2. Second Cause of Action: Baranta alleged that the defendant encouraged 27 employees to file criminal estafa charges against her, which were later dismissed. She claimed moral and exemplary damages of P50,000.00.
  3. Third Cause of Action: Baranta claimed entitlement to her savings under the company’s Pension and Savings Fund, amounting to at least P1,440.00 plus 25% of the company’s contribution. She alleged that the company only paid her P20.46, causing her moral damages of P50,000.00.
  4. Fourth Cause of Action: Baranta sought payment for 72 days of accrued sick leave, amounting to P1,252.80.

Common Allegations

  • Baranta demanded reinstatement and payment of her claims, but the defendant refused. She was forced to litigate and incurred attorney’s fees of P5,000.00.

Issue:

  • (Unlock)

Ruling:

  • (Unlock)

Ratio:

  1. Jurisdiction of the CIR: The CIR has jurisdiction only in cases where:
    • There is an existing employer-employee relationship or reinstatement is sought due to wrongful severance.
    • The case involves unfair labor practice, is certified by the President as involving national interest, or arises under the Eight-Hour Labor Law or the Minimum Wage Law.
  2. Mere Money Claims: If the employer-employee relationship has been terminated and no reinstatement is sought, the claims become mere money claims, which fall under the jurisdiction of regular courts.
  3. Application to the Case: Baranta’s claims for back wages, damages, savings fund contributions, and sick leave pay were not tied to unfair labor practice or any of the enumerated cases under the CIR’s jurisdiction. Thus, the Court of First Instance had jurisdiction.


Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.