Kontra-reklamo para sa employment bond

ni Atty. Persida Rueda-Acosta @Magtanong Kay Attorney | May 3, 2025

Dear Chief Acosta,

Nagsampa ng kaso ang dati naming empleyado para sa kanyang huling sahod at 13th month pay. Gayunpaman, sinisingil namin siya para sa bond dahil hindi niya natapos ang dalawang taong kontrata niya para sa trainings na ibinigay sa kanya. Maaari bang magsampa ng aksyon ang employer para sa nasabing bond? — Gavin

---

Dear Gavin,

Alinsunod sa Article 224 ng ating Labor Code, ang labor tribunals ay may orihinal at eksklusibong hurisdiksyon sa mga habol para sa mga pinsala na nagmumula sa relasyon ng employer at empleyado. Kaayon nito, sa kasong Comscentre Phils., Inc. and Patrick Boe vs. Camille B. Rocio, G.R. No. 222212, ika-22 ng Enero 2020, sa panulat ni Honorable Associate Justice Amy C. Lazaro-Javier, pinasyahan ng ating Korte Suprema na may hurisdiksyon ang labor tribunals na maggawad hindi lamang ng reliefs sa ilalim ng Labor Code, kundi pati na rin ang mga pinsalang pinamamahalaan ng ating New Civil Code:

“In Bañez v. Valdevilla, the Court elucidated that the jurisdiction of labor tribunals is comprehensive enough to include claims for all forms of damages ‘arising from the employer-employee relations.’ Thus, the Court decreed therein that labor tribunals have jurisdiction to award not only the reliefs provided by labor laws, but also damages governed by the Civil Code.

Further, in Supra Multi-Services, Inc. v. Labitigan, while we recognized that Article 224 of the Labor Code had been invariably applied to claims for damages filed by an employee against the employer, we held that the law should also apply with equal force to an employer's claim for damages against its dismissed employee, provided that the claim arises from or is necessarily connected with the fact of termination and should be entered as a counterclaim in the illegal dismissal case. Thus, the ‘reasonable causal connection with the employer-employee relationship’ is a requirement not only in employees’ money claims against the employer but is, likewise, a condition when the claimant is the employer. x x x    x x x   x x x

It is clear that petitioners’ claim for payment is inseparably intertwined with the parties’ employer-employee relationship. For it was respondent’s act of prematurely severing her employment with the company which gave rise to the latter’s cause of action for payment of ‘employment bond.’ As aptly found by the NLRC, petitioners' claim was ‘an offshoot of the resignation of [respondent] and the complications arising therefrom and which eventually led to the filing of the case before the Labor Arbiter.’ Verily, petitioners' claim falls within the original and exclusive jurisdiction of the labor tribunals.”

Sa madaling salita, maaaring magsampa ng aksyon o reklamo ang employer upang singilin ng bond ang isang empleyado. Ipinaliwanag ng ating Kataas-taasang Hukuman na hindi maikakaila na ang employment bond ay nagmumula sa relasyon nila bilang employer at empleyado, sapagkat ang aksyon ng empleyado na maagang putulin ang kanyang trabaho sa kumpanya ay nagbunga ng dahilan para sa aksyon naman ng kumpanya na habulin ang kanyang employment bond.

Sana ay nabigyan namin ng linaw ang iyong katanungan. Ang payong aming ibinigay ay base lamang sa mga impormasyon na iyong inilahad at maaaring magbago kung mababawasan o madaragdagan ang mga detalye ng iyong salaysay. 

Maraming salamat sa iyong patuloy na pagtitiwala.