Practice question
An employer sues a former employee solely to recover training expenses under a disputed minimum-service repayment clause. Resolution requires enforcing the civil contractual undertaking; no reasonable causal connection to the employee’s dismissal claims exists, as in Esico. The employer argues that the employment relationship alone gives the Labor Arbiter jurisdiction. Which is correct?
- Every claim mentioning an employment contract belongs to the Labor Arbiter
- The civil contractual claim belongs to the proper regular court on these stipulated facts; party status alone does not confer labor jurisdiction
- The NLRC en banc acquires original jurisdiction whenever the employer sues
- The dispute has no possible legal forum
- The employer’s label wrongful resignation conclusively determines jurisdiction
Legal references
- https://lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra1989/ra_6715_1989.html — RA 6715, section 9: Labor Code Article 217, now Article 224, original and appellate jurisdiction and grievance referral.
- https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2021/nov2021/gr_216716_2021.html — Esico v. Alphaland Corp., G.R. 216716, November 17, 2021, main decision: Article 224 categories and reasonable causal connection; distinct civil contract claims.
- https://lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra1994/ra_7730_1994.html — RA 7730, Article 128(b): distinct DOLE inspection and compliance jurisdiction.
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.