LABOR CASE #11PEPSI COLA DISTRIBUTORS OF THE PHILIPPINES, INC (petitioner) vs. Hon. Lolita O.

Gal-lang, Salvador Novilla, Alejandro Oliva, Wilfredo Cabanas & Fulgencio Lego (respondents) GR. # 89621, SEPTEMBER 24, 1991 FACTS: The private respondents were employees of petitioner who were suspected of participation in the irregular disposition of empty Pepsi Cola bottles. Petitioners filed a criminal complaint for theft against them but later on withdrawn such complaint and substituted it with a criminal complaint for falsification of private documents. After the preliminary investigation was conducted by MTC of Tanauan, Leyte, the complaint was dismissed. The dismissal was also affirmed by the office of the Provincial Prosecutor. Meantime, after an administrative investigation, respondents were dismissed by the petitioner. So that, respondents filed a complaint for illegal dismissal before the Regional Arbitration Branch of the NLRC in Tacloban City and decisions demanded reinstatement with damages. In addition, they instituted in the RTC of Leyte a separate civil complaint against the petitioners for damages arising from what they claimed to be their malicious prosecution. Petitioners moved to dismiss the civil complaint on the ground that the trial court had no jurisdiction over the case because it involved employee-employer relations that were exclusively cognizable by the Labor Arbiter. Said motion was granted, however, the respondent judge reinstated the complaint, saying it was distinct from the Labor case for damages now pending before the labor courts. So that, petitioners petitioned the SC. Petitioners invoked Art. 217 of the Labor Code, alleging that the respondents civil complaint for damages falls under the jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter. However, SC holds that such contention is not in point because what was involved was a claim arising from the alleged illegal dismissal of an employee, who chose to complain to the regular court and not to the Labor Arbiter. ISSUE: whether or not the instant case is within the jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter. HELD: Petition was DENIED and the decision of RTC is AFFIRMED. The case involves a complaint for damages for malicious prosecution which was filed with the RTC of Leyte by the employees of the defendant company. It does not appear that there is a reasonable causal connection between the complaint and the relations of the parties as employer and employees. The complaint did not arise from such relations and in fact could have arisen

independently of an employment relationship between the parties. No such relationship or any unfair labor practice is asserted. What the employees are alleging is that the petitioners acted with bad faith when they filed the criminal complaint which the MTC was intended to harass the poor employees and the dismissal of which was affirmed by the Provincial Prosecutor for lack of evidence to establish even a slightest probability that all the respondents herein have committed the crime imputed against them. This is a matter which the Labor Arbiter has no competence to resolve as the applicable law is not the Labor code but the Revised Penal Code. NOTES: TO DETERMINE JURISDICTION, THE FOLLOWING CONSIDERED: A. the existence of employer-employee relationship B. character of the principal relief sought, and C. the applicable law MUST BE

CRIM CASE #11 People vs. Gidoc G.R. # 185162 April 24, 2009 FACTS: Two separate complaints which was later on consolidated was filed against Rolly Gidoc alias Bayeng, Ronnie Ocenar alias Erap and one John Doe in RTC for 2 counts of murder for the death of brothers Ceasar Perez and Arnel Perez under Article 248 of the RPC. On arraignment, the accused pleaded not guilty to the crimes charged. So the prosecution now presented its witness Bernard Paladin who positively identified the accused as the person who stabbed the brothers Arnel and Cesar. Accordingly, around 10 oclock pm of April 8, 2001, Paladin together with the victims were drinking and singing in a videoke in Tanza, Navotas. On the same place, accused and Ocenar got involved in a fight with another group nearby, while he (Paladin) and the victims did not join in the fray. After the fight, accused and Ocenar left but returned after 5 minutes armed with bladed weapons. Accused armed with a long knife approached the group and suddenly stabbed victim Arnel on the right breast. 5 seconds thereafter, accused stabbed victim Cesar. The victims were sitting side by side and singing when the incident

happened. While the stabbing was taking place, Ocenar stood guard with a bladed weapon on hand and was watching if somebody would help. After the incident, accused and Ocenar ran away, while the victims managed to run home. As a result of the stabbing, the victims died while undergoing treatment in the Hospital. Dr. Porciuncula was called to interpret the findings of Medico-Legal Officer Michael Maunahan who conducted the autopsy on the cadavers identified as the victims. Accused denied the accusations against him claiming that it was not him but his cousin named Rolly Gidoc who killed the victims because his real name is Rolando Gidoc alias Bayeng. Accused now presented his version of the incident that took place. However, on May 2006, RTC ruled against his favor and charged him guilty beyond reasonable doubt. So that, accused appealed before the CA, however the latter affirmed the decision of RTC, with certain modification as to the award of damages. Hence, an appeal before the SC is hereby resorted to by the accused. ISSUES: 1. Whether or not the accused guilty is of the crimes charged despite the failure of the prosecution to prove the same beyond reasonable doubt. 2. Whether or not RTC erred in appreciating the qualifying circumstance of treachery. HELD: Decisions of RTC and CA is AFFIRMED. The prosecution was able to establish the fact of the commission of the crimes charged through the findings of the Medico-Legal Officer and that the prosecution was able to prove the fact that accused was the perpetrator of the crimes through the testimony of eyewitness Paladin. It was held that Paladins testimony is clear and his positive identification of the accused has greater evidentiary weight than the bare denial of the accused. (Greater weight is given to the positive identification of the accused by the prosecution witness than the accuseds denial and explanation concerning the commission of the crime). With regard to the second issue, it was held that there is treachery on the instant case. There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against persons, employing means, method, or forms in the execution thereof, which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offender might make. The essence of treachery is a swift and unexpected attack on an unarmed victim without the slightest provocation on the latters part. On the instant case, the circumstances showing how the victims were stabbed reveal that they had no opportunity to defend themselves.