Case Digest: SPS. RODRIGO LACIERDA, et al. v. DR. ROLANDO PLATON, et al.

SPS. RODRIGO LACIERDA, et al. v. DR. ROLANDO PLATON, et al.

468 SCRA 650 (2005), THIRD DIVISION

Petitioners Rodrigo Lacierda, Erlinda Cruz-Lacierda, Jessica and Renan Saliente, Ruby Salde and Armniel Sim (Lacierda, et al.) were all employees/officers of Southeast Asian Fisheries Development Center (SEAFDEC), an international agency which is immune from suits, it being clothed with diplomatic immunity. Meanwhile, respondents Rolando Platon, Agnes Lacuesta, Dan Baliao, Amelita Subosa, Merlita Junion, Teresita Hilado, Demetrio Estenor, Salvador Rex Tillo, Teresita Natividad, Teresa Mallare, Jocelyn Coniza and Nelda Ebron (Platon, et al.) are officers and with the management of SEAFDEC, Aqua Culture Development (AQC), an international organization composed of governments of Southeast Asia created by virtue of a treaty of which the Philippines is a signatory.

Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) and SEAFDEC entered into a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) where the former has found the Department of Agriculture (DA) through SEAFDEC to be qualified in providing the necessary services and in implementing JICA‘s Third Country Training Programme on Responsible Aquaculture Development (training program). Regarding the liquidation, such shall be made by submitting a statement of expenditures containing the itemized breakdown of all expenses incurred, attaching therewith all copies of supporting documents and evidences and receipts certifying the said expenditures (original copies will be kept by SEAFDEC). In case there will be an excess in the amount consigned, the excess amount will be returned to JICA.

Lacierda, et al. were selected by SEAFDEC to take part in the training program. After such was concluded, Lacierda, et al. submitted to SEAFDEC documents in support of their liquidation of cash advances and claim for reimbursement of expenses but an audit of the same showed that “hotel receipts submitted were much higher that the actual amount that they paid on accommodation.” Thus, Lacierda, et al. were terminated for cause ―on the ground of misrepresentation or false statements with intent to gain or take advantage and fraudulent machination for financial gain.

More than a year later, Lacierda, et al. filed a complaint against Platon, et al. alleging that they are suing them in their individual and personal capacities for their commission of malicious, oppressive and inequitable actionable acts. This was dismissed by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Iloilo for want of jurisdiction over the subject matter thereof and the person of Platon, et al., it holding that assailed acts could only be performed by them in their official functions as administrators of SEAFDEC. Also, Lacierda, et al. prayed to be restored and returned to their respective work/positions in SEAFDEC; to be given the salaries, benefits and other privileges; to be awarded actual damages by reason of the deprivation of the salaries and benefits they should have received; and to be paid moral damages. Such allegations and reliefs clearly indicate that their cause/s of action arose out of employer-employee relationship which is under the original and exclusive jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter and not the RTC.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the RTC has jurisdiction over the subject matter of Lacierda, et al.‘s complaint

HELD:

A court cannot be divested of jurisdiction by the ingenuous omission by a plaintiff of any reference to a matter which clearly shows that said court has jurisdiction, nor can a court be conferred with jurisdiction where it has none by a contrived wording by a plaintiff‘s allegations in the complaint in order to impress that it is within said court‘s jurisdiction.

Lacierda, et al.‘s primary prayer — for the Platon, et al. to be ordered “to restore and return Lacierda, et al. to their respective work/positions in SEAFDEC and to all the salaries, benefits and other privileges appurtenent thereto without loss of seniority, diminution of ranks or pay to continue during the pendency of this case,” betrays their cause of action, however. If Platon, et al. were sued in their personal capacity as emphatically stressed by Lacierda, et al., for tort and damages, they would under no circumstance, power or authority be able to carry out such primary prayer.