Professional Documents
Culture Documents
01 Citibank v. CA
01 Citibank v. CA
The Case
[G.R. No. 108961. November 27, 1998.]
The case before the Court is a petition for review on certiorari seeking to reverse
N.A. petitioner, vs . COURT OF APPEALS (Third Division),
CITIBANK, N.A., and set aside the decision of the Court of Appeals 1 and its resolution denying
and CITIBANK INTEGRATED GUARDS LABOR ALLIANCE (CIGLA) reconsideration 2 , ruling that it is the labor tribunal, not the regional trial court, that has
SEGATUPAS/FSM LOCAL CHAPTER No. 1394 , respondents. jurisdiction over the complaint for injunction and damages led by petitioner with the
regional trial court. cdll
2. ID.; LABOR & SOCIAL LEGISLATION; LABOR ARBITER; JURISDICTION. — It has El Toro or any of its assigned personnel. 4
been decided also that the Labor Arbiter has no jurisdiction over a claim led where no
Citibank renewed the security contract with El Toro yearly until 1990. On April 22,
employer-employee relationship existed between a company and the security guards
1990, the contract between Citibank and El Toro expired.
assigned to it by security service contractor. In this case, it was the security agency El
Toro that recruited, hired and assigned the watchmen to their place of work. It was the On June 7, 1990, respondent Citibank Integrated Guards Labor Alliance-SEGA-
security agency that was answerable to Citibank for the conduct of its guards. SCIcTD
TUPAS/FSM (hereafter CIGLA) led with National Conciliation and Mediation Board
(NCMB) a request for preventive mediation citing Citibank as respondent therein giving as
3. REMEDIAL LAW; CIVIL PROCEDURE; JURISDICTION; DETERMINED BY THE
issues for preventive mediation the following:
ALLEGATIONS OF THE COMPLAINT. — It is a basic rule of procedure that "jurisdiction of
the court over the subject matter of the action is determined by the allegations of the a) Unfair labor practice;
complaint, irrespective of whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to recover upon all or
some of the claims asserted therein. The jurisdiction of the court cannot be made to b) Dismissal of union officers/members; and
depend upon the defenses set up in the answer or upon the motion to dismiss, for
c) Union busting.
otherwise, the question of jurisdiction would almost entirely depend upon the defendant."
"What determines the jurisdiction of the court is the nature of the action pleaded as On June 10, 1990, petitioner of Citibank served on El Toro a written notice that the
appearing from the allegations in the complaint. The averments therein and the character bank would not renew anymore the service agreement with the latter. Simultaneously,
of the relief sought are the ones to be consulted." Citibank hired another security agency, the Golden Pyramid Security Agency, to render
security services at Citibank's premises.
4. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; CASE AT BAR. — In the complaint led with the trial court,
petitioner alleged that in 1983, it entered into a contract with El Toro, a security agency, for On the same date, June 10, 1990, respondent CIGLA led a manifestation with the
security and protection service. The parties renewed the contract yearly until April 22, NCMB that it was converting its request for preventive mediation into a notice of strike for
1990. Petitioner further alleged that from June 11, 1990, until the ling of the complaint. El failure of the parties to reach a mutually acceptable settlement of the issues, which it
Toro security guards formerly assigned to guard Citibank premises loitered around the followed with a supplemental notice of strike alleging as supplemental issue the mass
bank's premises in large groups and threatened to stage a strike, which would hamper its dismissal of all union officers and members.
operations and the normal conduct of its business and that the bank would suffer
damages should a strike push through. On the basis of the allegations of the complaint, it On June 11, 1990, security guards of El Toro who were replaced by guards of the
is safe to conclude that the dispute involved is a civil one, not a labor dispute. Golden Pyramid Security Agency considered the non-renewal of El Toro's service
Consequently, we rule that jurisdiction over the subject matter of the complaint lies with agreement with Citibank as constituting a lockout and/or a mass dismissal. They
the regional trial court. threatened to go on strike against Citibank and picket its premises.
In fact, security guards formerly assigned to Citibank under the expired agreement
loitered around and near the Citibank premises in large groups of from twenty (20) and at
DECISION times fifty (50) persons.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
On June 14, 1990, respondent CIGLA led a notice of strike directed at the premises disputed the jurisdiction of the court, the parties having employer-employee
of the Citibank main office. relationship; this mere allegation did not serve to automatically deprive the court
of its jurisdiction duly conferred by the allegations of the complaint; in the opinion
Faced with the prospect of disruption of its business operations, on June 5, 1990, of the defendants, a labor dispute exists, the court is duty bound to nd out if
petitioner Citibank led with the Regional Trial Court, Makati, a complaint for injunction and such circumstances really exist.
damages. 5 The complaint sought to enjoin CIGLA and any person claiming membership
therein from striking or otherwise disrupting the operations of the bank. The Court weighing the evidence and jurisprudence in support of the
respective contention of the parties, and nding that in the case at bar, plaintiff
On June 18, 1990, respondent CIGLA led with the trial court a motion to dismiss seeks to recover pecuniary damages, the Court gives more credence to the
the complaint. The motion alleged that: decisions cited by the plaintiff, hence the special and a rmative defenses
alleged in the answer treated as a 'Motion to Dismiss' is hereby denied." Cdpr
If at all, the dispute between the Citibank and El Toro security agency is one 4. Petition, Annex "A", Rollo, pp. 37-42.
regarding the termination or non-renewal of the contract of services. This is a civil dispute. 5. Civil Case No. 90-1612.
9 El Toro was an independent contractor. Thus, no employer-employee relationship existed
between Citibank and the security guards members of the union in the security agency 6. CA-G.R. SP No. 25584.
who were assigned to secure the bank's premises and property. Hence, there was no labor
7. Sandigan Savings and Loan Bank, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, 254
dispute and no right to strike against the bank. SCRA 126; See also Victorias Milling Co., Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission,
It is a basic rule of procedure that "jurisdiction of the court over the subject matter 262 SCRA 623; Filipinas Broadcasting Network, Inc. v. NLRC and Simeon Mapa, Jr., G.R.
of the action is determined by the allegations of the complaint, irrespective of whether or No. 118892, March 11, 1998.
not the plaintiff is entitled to recover upon all or some of the claims asserted therein. The 8. Philippine Airlines, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, 263 SCRA 638; Georg
jurisdiction of the court can not be made to depend upon the defenses set up in the Grotjahn GMBH & Co. vs. Isnani, 235 SCRA 216.
answer or upon the motion to dismiss, for otherwise, the question of jurisdiction would
almost entirely depend upon the defendant." 1 0 "What determines the jurisdiction of the 9. Cf. Liwayway Publications, Inc. v. Permanent Concrete Workers Union, 108 SCRA 161;
court is the nature of the action pleaded as appearing from the allegations in the Trade Union of the Philippines & Allied Services v. Coscolluela, 140 SCRA 302 [1985].
complaint. The averments therein and the character of the relief sought are the ones to be 10. Serdoncillo v. Benolirao, G.R. No. 118328, October 8, 1998, citing cases; San Miguel
consulted." 1 1 Corp. v. National Labor Relations Commission, 255 SCRA 133.
In the complaint led with the trial court, petitioner alleged that in 1983, it entered 11. Serdoncillo v. Benolirao, supra, citing Banayos v. Susana Realty, Inc., 71 SCRA 557
into a contract with El Toro, a security agency, for security and protection service. The [1976].
parties renewed the contract yearly until April 22, 1990. Petitioner further alleged that from
June 11, 1990, until the ling of the complaint, El Toro security guards formerly assigned 12. National Mines and Allied Workers Union v. Vera, 133 SCRA 259; Peñalosa v.
to guard Citibank premises loitered around the bank's premises in large groups and Villanueva, 177 SCRA 778.
threatened to stage a strike, which would hamper its operations and the normal conduct of
its business and that the bank would suffer damages should a strike push through. cdasia
On the basis of the allegations of the complaint, it is safe to conclude that the
dispute involved is a civil one, not a labor dispute. 12 Consequently, we rule that jurisdiction
over the subject matter of the complaint lies with the regional trial court.
Relief
WHEREFORE, the Court hereby GRANTS the petition for review on certiorari. We
REVERSE and SET ASIDE the decision of the Court of Appeals and its resolution denying
reconsideration in CA-G.R. SP No. 25584, and REMAND the records of the case to the
Regional Trial Court, Makati, for further proceedings in line with the ruling herein that
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com