Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=50116:gr-155990-2007&amp;catid=1496&amp;Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 03:40:38+00:00

Document:
UNIVERSAL AQUARIUS, INC. and CONCHITA TAN, Petitioners, v. Q.C. HUMAN RESOURCES MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, Respondent * .
Before the Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assailing the Decision1 dated August 23, 2002 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 65570 and the CA Resolution2 dated October 22, 2002 which denied petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration.
Universal Aquarius, Inc. (Universal) is engaged in the manufacture and distribution of chemical products in Metro Manila. It operates a chemical plant in Antipolo City. Conchita Tan (Tan), as a proprietor under the name and style of Marman Trading (Marman), is engaged in the trading, delivery and distribution of chemical products in Metro Manila, with a depot in Antipolo City adjoining Universal's chemical plant.
Q.C. Human Resources Management Corporation (Resources) is engaged in supplying manpower to various establishments. It supplied Universal with about seventy-four (74) temporary workers to assist Universal in the operation of its chemical plant in Antipolo City.
On December 13, 2000, Rodolfo Capocyan (Capocyan), claiming to be the general counsel/national president of the labor organization called Obrero Pilipino (Universal Aquarius Chapter), hereinafter referred to as Obrero Filipino, sent a Notice of Strike to Universal.
On the same date, Resources informed the Regional Office of the Department of Labor and Employment that the officers and members of Obrero Pilipino are its employees and not employees of Universal.
Five days later, or on December 19, 2000, Capocyon and 36 other union officers and members3 of Obrero Pilipino, picketed, barricaded and obstructed the entry and exit of Universal's Antipolo City chemical plant and intercepted Universal's delivery trucks thereby disrupting its business operations. Marman's depot, which adjoined Universal's plant, suffered a similar fate.
The Honorable Court of Appeals seriously erred in dismissing Civil Case No. 00-6829 for lack of cause of action.
Universal and Tan aver that the complaint stated a cause of action against Resources that would warrant cognizance by the RTC; the allegations of the complaint clearly point out that Universal is suing Resources for the latter's failure to supply the former with temporary workers who will help in its business.
On the other hand, Resources contends that the complaint stated no cause of action against it since there is nothing in the allegations thereof that it participated in the acts committed by its employees.
The petition is partly impressed with merit.
Anent Universal's claim for breach for contract and damages, the Court is convinced that the Complaint sufficiently states a cause of action against Resources. The Complaint alleged that Universal had a contract of employment of temporary workers with Resources; and that Resources violated said contract by supplying it with unfit, maladjusted individuals who staged a strike and disrupted its business operations. Given these hypothetically admitted facts, the RTC, in the exercise of its original and exclusive jurisdiction,27 could have rendered judgment over the dispute.
However, with regard to Tan's claim for damages, the Court finds that she has no cause of action against Resources. A thorough reading of the allegations of the Complaint reveals that Tan's claim for damages clearly springs from the strike effected by the employees of Resources. It is settled that an employer's liability for acts of its employees attaches only when the tortious conduct of the employee relates to, or is in the course of, his employment.28 The question then is whether, at the time of the damage or injury, the employee is engaged in the affairs or concerns of the employer or, independently, in that of his own. An employer incurs no liability when an employee's conduct, act or omission is beyond the range of employment.29 Unquestionably, when Resources' employees staged a strike, they were acting on their own, beyond the range of their employment. Thus, Resources cannot be held liable for damages caused by the strike staged by its employees.
WHEREFORE, the petition is PARTLY GRANTED. The Decision dated August 23, 2002 and Resolution dated October 22, 2002 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 65570 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE insofar only as the dismissal of the complaint in Civil Case No. 00-6029 for lack of cause of action of Universal Aquarius, Inc. against Q.C. Human Resources Management Corporation is concerned. The complaint against the latter is REINSTATED.The Regional Trial Court, Branch 74, Antipolo City is DIRECTED to continue with the proceedings on the cause of action of Universal Aquarius, Inc. against Q.C. Human Resources Management Corporation.
The dismissal of the complaint in Civil Case No. 00-6029 for lack of cause of action of Conchita Tan against Q.C. Human Resources Management Corporation is AFFIRMED.
* The Court of Appeals, impleaded as co-respondent, is deleted from the title pursuant to Section 4, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
1 Penned by Associate Justice Sergio L. PestaÃ±o and concurred in by Associate Justices Delilah Vidallon-Magtolis and Edgardo F. Sundiam; CA rollo, p. 166.
2 CA rollo, p. 189.
3 Namely: Ruperto Awat, Noel Covera, Rodolfo De Guzman, Manuel Erickson, Alex Aucena, Jonathan Orbe, Anastacio Morillo, Elizaded Lora, Rogen Posada, Roberto Lumosad, Lyndon Bergula, Antonio Osinsao, Roebr Monajan, Richard Alijandro, Ferdinand Valle, Jeremy Medrano, Herminigildo Magno, Charlito Sibol, Regidor Equillos, Enrico Sernas, Roberto Panaligan, Ali Garlan, Reynaldo Valerio, Alexander Banago, Reynante Cortez, Marlon Navat, Rhoderick Manahan, Eddie Amosco, Mario Mariposte, Francisco Garnica, Rojo Joenefer and Romero Beros; CA rollo, p. 18.
(j) That a condition precedent for filing the claim has not been complied with.
19 Ferrer v. Ferrer, G.R. No. 166496, November 29, 2006, 508 SCRA 570, 578-579; Danfoss, Incorporated v. Continental Cement Corporation, G.R. No. 143788, September 9, 2005, 469 SCRA 505, 511.
20 Agoy v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 162927, March 6, 2007, p. 6; Swagman Hotels and Travel, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 161135, April 8, 2005,455 SCRA 175, 183.
21 Zepeda v. China Banking Corporation, G.R. No. 172175, October 9, 2006, 504 SCRA 126, 131; Swagman Hotels and Travel, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, supra note 20.
22 G.R. No. 159590, October 18, 2004, 440 SCRA 498.
23 Id . at 510.
24 Santiago v. Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority, G.R. No. 156888, November 20, 2006, 507 SCRA 283, 298.
25 Pioneer Concrete Philippines, Inc. v. Todaro, G.R. No. 154830, June 8, 2007, p. 8; Santos v. De Leon, G.R. No. 140892, September 21, 2005, 470 SCRA 455, 460.
27 '19, Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as amended by Republic Act No. 7691.
28 Art. 2180. The obligation imposed by Article 2176 is demandable not only for one's own acts or omissions, but also for those of persons for whom one is responsible.
(1) The father and, in case of his death or incapacity, the mother, are responsible for the damages caused by the minor children who live in their company.
(2) Guardians are liable for damages caused by the minors or incapacitated persons who are under their authority and live in their company.
(3) The owners and managers of an establishment or enterprise are likewise responsible for damages caused by their employees in the service of the branches in which the latter are employed or on the occasion of their functions.
(4) Employers shall be liable for the damage caused by their employees and household helps acting within the scope of their assigned task, even though the former are not engaged in any business or industry.
(5) The State is responsible in like manner when it acts through a special agent; but not when the damage has been caused by the official to whom the task done properly pertains, in which case what is provided in Article 2176 shall be applicable.
(6) Lastly, teachers or heads of establishments of arts and trades shall be liable for damages caused by their pupils and students or apprentices, so long as they remain in their custody.
29 See Marquez v. Castillo, 68 Phil. 568 (1939).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 Art. 2180
 v.