1.

Lacierda vs. Platon, 468 SCRA 650 , August 31, 2005

Case Title : SPS. RODRIGO LACIERDA and DR. ERLINDA CRUZ-LACIERDA,
SPS. JESSICA and RENAN SALIENTE, RUBY SALDE and ARMNIEL SIM,
petitioners, vs. DR. ROLANDO PLATON, AGNES LACUESTA, DAN BALIAO,
AMELITA SUBOSA, MERLINDA JUNION, TERESITA HILADO, DEMETRIO
ESTENOR, SALVADOR REX TILLO, TERESITA NATIVIDAD, TERESA MALLARE,
JOCELYN CONIZA and NELDA EBRON, respondents.Case Nature : PETITION
for review on certiorari of the orders of the Regional Trial Court of Iloilo, Br.
36.
Syllabi Class : Actions|Courts|Jurisdictions|Torts|Pleadings and Practice
Division: THIRD DIVISION

Docket Number: G.R. No. 157141

Counsel: Rex M. Salas, Hector P. Teodosio
Ponente: CARPIO-MORALES
Dispositive Portion:
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED. The assailed Orders of October
25, 2002 and January 14, 2003 of the Regional Trial Court of Iloilo, Branch
36 are hereby AFFIRMED.
Citation Ref:
377 SCRA 39 | 226 SCRA 49 | 311 SCRA 784 | 283 SCRA 493 | 72 Phil.
514 |
650
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Lacierda vs. Platon
G.R. No. 157141. August 31, 2005.*
SPS. RODRIGO LACIERDA and DR. ERLINDA CRUZ-LACIERDA, SPS. JESSICA and
RENAN SALIENTE, RUBY SALDE and ARMNIEL SIM, petitioners, vs. DR. ROLANDO
PLATON, AGNES LACUESTA, DAN BALIAO, AMELITA SUBOSA, MERLINDA JUNION,
TERESITA HILADO, DEMETRIO ESTENOR, SALVADOR REX TILLO, TERESITA
NATIVIDAD, TERESA MALLARE, JOCELYN CONIZA and NELDA EBRON, respondents.
Actions; Courts; Jurisdictions; A court cannot be divested of jurisdiction by the
ingenuous omission by a plaintiff of any reference to a matter which clearly shows
that the said court has jurisdiction, nor can a court be conferred with jurisdiction
where it has none by a contrived wording by a plaintiffs allegation in the complaint
in order to impress that it is within said courts jurisdiction.The issue raised is one

of jurisdiction over the subject mattermeaning, the nature of the cause of action
and of the relief sought. It is settled that jurisdiction over a particular case is
determined by the allegations of the complaint, or the allegations of the complaint
and the relief sought, or the allegations of the pleadingsthe complaint, motion to
dismiss, and answer in some cases. The allegations in the complaint-bases of
determining jurisdiction must be of the ultimate facts and the relief prayed for. 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 plaintiffs allegations in the complaint in order to impress that it is within said
courts jurisdiction.
Same; Torts; Pleadings and Practice; The allegations in the complaint that the
respondents unlawfully and illegally interfered with and intruded into the
contractual relations between them and another is a mere conclusion, not an
allegation of ultimate fact, worded as such in an attempt to justify their contention
that the complaint is one based on tort.From the allegations of petitioners
_______________

* THIRD DIVISION.
651

VOL. 468, AUGUST 31, 2005

651
Lacierda vs. Platon
complaint, it is clear that their cause of action arose from the termination of their
employment on the basis of the findings and recommendation of the Ad Hoc
Investigating Committee, of which some of respondents were members, which
termination petitioners claim to be without factual and legal bases. Petitioners
allegation in the complaint that respondents unlawfully and illegally interfered with
and intruded into the contractual relations between [them] and JICA is a mere
conclusion, not an allegation of ultimate fact, worded as such in an attempt to
justify their contention that the complaint is one based on tort.
PETITION for review on certiorari of the orders of the Regional Trial Court of Iloilo, Br.
36.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

Rex M. Salas for petitioners.
Hector P. Teodosio for respondents.

CARPIO-MORALES, J.:

The present petition for review1 assails the October 25, 2002 Order2 of Branch 36
of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Iloilo dismissing, for lack of jurisdiction,
petitioners complaint, denominated FOR: INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACT,
SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE AND DAMAGES, against Dr. Rolando Platon, et al., as well
as said courts January 14, 2003 Order3 denying their Motion for Reconsideration of
the first Order.
Petitioners were all employees/officers of Southeast Asian Fisheries Development
Center (SEAFDEC), an international agency.
Respondents are officers, and with the management of SEAFDEC, Aqua Culture
Development (AQC), an international organization composed of governments of
Southeast
_______________

1 Rollo at pp. 10-39 exclusive of annexes.

2 Annex F to petition, Id., at pp. 123-127.
3 Annex I to petition, Id., at pp. 154-157.
652

652
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Lacierda vs. Platon
Asia created by virtue of a treaty of which the Philippines is a signatory.
As an international organization, SEAFDEC is immune from suits, it being clothed
with diplomatic immunity, and enjoys functional independence and freedom from
control of the state in whose territory its office is located.4
On August 21, 2000, Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) and SEAFDEC,
represented by respondent Dr. Rolando R. Platon, Chief of its Aquaculture
Department, entered into a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA),5 the pertinent
provisions of which read:
xxx
WHEREAS, JICA has found the Department of Agriculture (DA) through SEAFDEC to
be qualified in providing the necessary services and in implementing JICAs Third
Country Training Programme on Responsible Aquaculture Development (hereinafter
referred to as the Training);

WHEREAS, SEAFDEC submitted the programme design and budget proposal for the
training;
xxx
ARTICLE 1. SCOPE OF WORK
1.01. That SEAFDEC agrees to furnish all the necessary materials and services for
the satisfactory implementation and completion of the Training . . .
xxx
ARTICLE 2. THE CONTRACT AMOUNT
2.01 JICA agrees that for and in consideration of the faithful performance by
SEAFDEC, JICA shall pay to SEAFDEC, in a manner provided hereinafter the amount
of Three Million Five Hundred Forty Thousand, One Hundred Fifty Pesos
(P3,540.150.00) segregated as per accomplished. The itemized breakdown of the
contract amount is shown in Annex 2.
_______________

4 SEAFDEC v. Acosta, 226 SCRA 49 (1993).

5 Rollo at pp. 59-64.
653

VOL. 468, AUGUST 31, 2005

653
Lacierda vs. Platon
xxx
ARTICLE 5. LIQUIDATION
5.01 Liquidation 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 (sic) 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 . . .
x x x (Emphasis and italics supplied).
Petitioners-employees of SEAFDEC who were assigned at its Training and
Information Division were selected by SEAFDEC to take part in the training program
subject of the MOA between JICA and SEAFDEC.

As the training program involved visitation of several placesBohol, Cebu, Bacolod

and Manila, petitioners were given cash advances subject to liquidation.
After the training program was concluded, petitioners submitted to SEAFDEC
documents in support of their liquidation of cash advances and claim for
reimbursement of expenses, but in a Report dated November 16, 20006 for the
Chief submitted by respondent Amelita A. Subosa, Audit Supervisor, an audit of the
same showed that hotel receipts submitted [we]re much higher that the actual
amount that they paid on accommodation.
Petitioners were accordingly directed, by Memoranda Nos. ACL-276 and 277 dated
December 12, 2000 issued by respondent Human Resources Management Officer
Agnes C. Lacuesta,7 to show cause in writing why no administrative sanction should
be imposed upon them for violation of the
_______________

6 Annex H to petition, Id., at p. 88.

7 Annexes J and K to petition, Id., at pp. 90-91.
654

654
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Lacierda vs. Platon
[SEAFDEC AQC] Rules on Personnel Conduct and Discipline, particularly the
following provisions:
IV. Moral Turpitude
A.Misrepresentation or false statements whether oral or written with intent to gain
or take advantage.
B. x x x fraudulent machinations for financial gain the commission of which are as
stated in the Audit Findings . . .
x x x (Italics supplied).
And an Ad Hoc Committee to conduct an investigation on the Audit Report was
created by respondent Dan D. Baliao, Head Administrative Division.8
While petitioners appear to have profferred their explanation behind the charges
against them, they, by letter of January 24, 2001,9 waived participating in the
administrative hearing and accordingly submitted for decision the administrative
charges on the basis of the written charges by the management and of [their]
written explanation.

By separate Memoranda of March 5, 2001,10 respondent Platon notified petitioners

that a study and evaluation of the evidence against them established that they
committed the serious charges, hence, effective at the close of office hours of
even date, they 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 under Section IV (a & b) of the Department Rules on Personnel
Conduct and Discipline in relation to Article 282 (a and b) of the Labor Code of the
Philippines.
More than a year later or on May 3, 2002, petitioners filed the Complaint11 against
respondents subject of the present petition, the pertinent allegations of which read:
_______________

8 Annex L to petition, Id., at p. 92.

9 Annex M to petition, Id., at p. 93.
10 Annexes O-Q inclusive, Id., at pp. 95-97.
11 Annex A to petition, Id., at pp. 43-58 exclusive of annexes.
655

VOL. 468, AUGUST 31, 2005

655
Lacierda vs. Platon
3. This case is not a suit against the Southeast Asian Fisheries Development Center
(SEAFDEC) or against the Japan international Cooperation Agency (JICA), but against
the defendants in their individual and personal capacities who are individual officers
and employees of SEAFDEC, for their commission of malicious, oppressive and
inequitable actionable acts for which they alone are liable but which they sought to
cover up with the pretense of official actions;
xxx
7. The plaintiffs are the actual implementors and trainors for this Seventh Session,
which, being a Special Project is a work and a responsibility governed by the MOA
and is outside of their regular duties and responsibilities as employees of SEAFDEC.
For this reason, they are given by JICA, from its own funds, honoraria, per diems and
accommodation allowances as part of the Training program, specifically provided
under par. 3.04 of the MOA, Annex A hereof, which amount cannot be altered or
changed as specifically provided under par. 3.03 of the same MOA. The specific
sums payable is provided in the itemized breakdown of the contract amount
attached to the MOA as Annex 2 thereof. No funds of SEAFDEC is involved in this
Training;

8. On the other hand, the defendants had nothing to do with this JICA Training nor
do they have any participation in its implementation, except as officers or
employees of SEAFDEC who must do or act what the MOA requires of SEAFDEC
under its terms and conditions;
9. This notwithstanding, the defendants, in conspiracy and cooperation with each
other, have interfered and violated the aforementioned MOA between SEAFDEC and
JICA by acts and omissions:
(a) which reduced, and later eventually denied, the plaintiffs the benefits they are
entitled thereunder; and
(b) thereafter, without legal bases and in excess and abuse of their authority, have
illegally and unlawfully terminated the employment of plaintiffs with SEAFDEC for
alleged violations which in fact are authorized by the MOA and have nothing to do
with plaintiffs work with SEAFDEC;
all of which caused the plaintiffs damage and injury, . . .
xxx
656

656
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Lacierda vs. Platon
15. However, when plaintiffs presented for liquidation and reimbursement the
receipts for expenses corresponding to the excess amount over the SEAFDEC rate,
which however did not exceed the JICA rate, the aforenamed defendants
disapproved reimbursement. Instead, through the defendants Amelita Subosa as
Audit Supervisor and defendants Merlinda Junio and Teresita Hilado as members of
the Internal Audit Team, the said defendants caused a verification and audit of these
expenses whether they were validly incurred;
16. This was never done in the past Six Sessions of the Training for the basic reason
that it was not necessary as the expenses incurred were within the amount already
budgeted and provided for under Annex 2 of the MOA and the budgeted amount
thereunder, whether spent or not, should have been paid to the plaintiffs;
17. In this self-authorized audit and examination, the aforementioned defendantsmembers of the Internal Audit Team conveniently found and recommended that the
plaintiffs request for reimbursement be denied, such that until the present,
plaintiffs were not paid their honoraria and per diems nor reimbursed the expenses
they incurred over the SEAFDEC rate but below the JICA rate for the field trips to the
aforenamed places, including the last one in Manila;

18. Worse and in addition to this unlawful acts, the afore-named defendants
charged the plaintiffs with (A) misrepresentation or false statements whether oral
or written with intent to gain or take advantage; and (B) x x x fraudulent
machination for financial gain for submitting their claims for reimbursement, which
as these defendants who are officers of SEAFDEC should know, are without legal
and factual basis because:
xxx
e. Even if arguendo defendants have such authority, the conduct and framework
thereof should be the MOA between SEAFDEC and JICA, and not the unauthorized
and illegal impositions and actions of the defendants which are in fact violative of
the provisions of the MOA itself;
19. Worst, prompted by malice, bad faith and evil motive, defendants unlawfully
and illegally constituted an Investigating Committee composed of defendants
Demetrio Estenor, Salvador Rex Tillo, Teresita Natividad, Teresa Mallare, Agnes
Lacuesta, Jocelyn Coniza and Nelda Ebron, which conducted an ex parte
investigation of the case; which disregarded plaintiffs objections and requests for
the
657

VOL. 468, AUGUST 31, 2005

657
Lacierda vs. Platon
disqualifications of its members, and which on the basis defendants own evidence,
decided and found the plaintiffs guilty of violating what actually were fabricated
charges based on the unauthorized and illegal acts and impositions of the
defendants, on the basis of which, they recommended plaintiffs for dismissal from
service;
20. Using this recommendation as an excuse and justification, defendant Dr.
Rolando Platon at first tried to persuade the plaintiffs to voluntarily retire from
service; when plaintiffs refused, he promptly terminated their services with
SEAFDEC on March 5, 2001;
21.The termination is without factual and legal bases because (a) the acts
complained of were allowed under the MOA between SEAFDEC and JICA: (b)
defendant Dan Baliao had no authority nor jurisdiction to constitute the
Investigating Committee because the acts subject of its investigation involve not
SEAFDEC, but JICA project governed by the MOA; (c) the Investigating Committee
itself has no legal basis for its existence and for its investigation because it should
have been JICA not SEAFDEC which should initiate and conduct the same; and (d)
the defendants who are SEAFDEC officers and employees are not involved in the
JICA Training project, hence, they have no power or authority to assume

investigation and adjudication of matters arising from JICA projects like the one in
question;
21.1.Even assuming arguendo that they have, the penalty imposed which is the
dismissal of the plaintiffs from service in SEAFDEC is oppressively and inequitably
disproportionate to the alleged violation which involve JICA project considering that
(a) plaintiff Rodrigo Lacierda has twenty two (22) years; (b) plaintiff Jessica Saliente
has nineteen (19) years; (c) plaintiff Ruby Salde has twenty three (23) years; and (d)
plaintiff Armniel Sim has seven (7) years of services with SEAFDEC;
xxx
25. The defendants, in conspiracy and cooperation with each other, by acts earlierspecified, have unlawfully and illegally interfered with and intruded into the
contractual relations between the plaintiffs and JICA under a stipulation pour autri
or stipulation for the benefit of the plaintiffs as provided under the MOA between
SEAFDEC and JICA, made unauthorized alterations and changes in the MOA,
required plaintiffs to comply therewith when such compliance was unnecessary
thereunder, and on the pretext that plaintiffs
658

658
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Lacierda vs. Platon
failed to abide by their unauthorized changes and alterations, denied the plaintiffs
the benefits to which they are entitled and unlawfully and illegally terminated the
employment of plaintiffs without authority to do so from either SEAFDEC or JICA;
26. These unlawful interference and meddling of defendants in the professional and
contractual relations of the plaintiffs have been causing plaintiffs continuing
damage and injury and are violations of and contrary to the standard of conduct
prescribed under Art. 19, and thereby make defendants jointly and severally liable
under Arts. 20 and 21 of the Chapter on Human Relations and under Article 2176 of
the Chapter on Quasi-Delicts, of the Civil Code of the Philippines;
27. The defendants should, therefore, be compelled to abide and comply with the
terms and conditions of the MOA, particularly pars. 3.03 and 3.04, Article 3 thereof,
in relation to Annex B attached thereto and forming part of the contract; to
declare as null and void the creation, investigation and recommendation of the
Investigating Committee and the Notice of Termination issued by defendant Rolando
Platon; and to order the defendants concerned to restore and return the plaintiffs to
their respective work or positions in the SEAFDEC before the illegal and unlawful
termination of their services by the defendants, without loss of seniority, diminution
in ranks or salaries.
x x x (Italics supplied).

Petitioners thus prayed as follows:

WHEREFORE, it is most respectfully prayed of this Honorable Court that:
a. After due hearing, a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction be issued directing
the defendants, their agents and/or representatives, to restore and return the
plaintiffs to their respective work/positions in SEAFDEC and to all the salaries,
benefits and other privileges appurtenant thereto without loss of seniority,
diminution of ranks or pay, to continue during the pendency of this case;
b. After trial on the merits, that judgment be rendered for plaintiffs and against the
defendants:
1. Making the writ of preliminary mandatory injunction, when granted, final and
permanent;
659

VOL. 468, AUGUST 31, 2005

659
Lacierda vs. Platon
2. Directing the defendants, jointly and severally, to pay to the plaintiffs actual
damages in the amount of at least: (a) P482,000.00 for plaintiff Rodrigo Lacierda;
(b) P482,000.00 for plaintiff Jessica L. Saliente; (c) P407,000.00 for plaintiff Ruby
Salde; and P194,000.0 for plaintiff Armniel Sim, plus all such other remunerations,
benefits and privileges which this Honorable Court may hereafter determine, as well
as moral damages of at least P100,000.00 for each plaintiff;
3. Ordering the defendants, jointly and severally, to pay the plaintiffs attorneys fees
of P200,000.00, plus a contingent 25% of whatever amount adjudged in their favor;
litigation expenses of at least P100,000.00, such amount of exemplary damages as
may be just and equitable; and
4. To pay the costs.
x x x12 (Emphasis and underscoring supplied).
Respondents, in their Answer,13 justified the conduct of an audit of petitioners
travel expenses and the constitution of an Ad Hoc Committee to investigate them
for the charges found to have been committed by thembases of petitioners
termination from employment. And they alleged that [i]n reality this is a suit
against [SEAFDEC] of which the Honorable Court has no jurisdiction over its person,
and [s]imilarly, [the] cause of action being one of reinstatement and recovery of
wages, salaries, allowances and per diems, the Honorable Court has also no
jurisdiction over the subject matter . . . [it involving] employer-employee relations.

Finally, respondents alleged that the MOA relied upon by petitioners is an

agreement between SEAFDEC and JICA under which petitioners have no right,
hence, they have no cause of action.
By Order of October 25, 2002,14 Branch 36 of the Iloilo RTC dismissed petitioners
complaint for want of jurisdiction over
_______________

12 Rollo at p. 56.
13 Id., at pp. 65-75, exclusive of annexes.
14 Supra note 2.
660

660
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Lacierda vs. Platon
the subject matter thereof and the person of the defendants-herein respondents, it
holding that nothing in the allegations of the complaint shows that respondents
acted in their personal capacities or beyond the scope of their official functions as in
fact respondents assailed acts could only be performed by them in their official
functions as administrators of SEAFDEC.
A careful analysis of the complaint will reveal that there is really nothing in the
averments of the complaint which indicate that defendants acted in their personal
capacities or beyond the scope of their official functions, except plaintiffs general
allegation to that effect. On the contrary, what they alleged were acts which could
only be performed by the defendants in their official duties/functions as executives
or administrators of SEAFDEC, and could not have been done had they acted in their
personal capacities. At most, it may be argued that defendants committed some
indiscretions or lapses in their investigation or misappreciation of facts, but still
their actions were work related and within the scope of their functions as officials of
SEAFDEC. Accordingly, under such circumstances and as correctly contended by the
defendants, the suit against them is in reality a suit directed against SEAFDEC. In
fact, it can also be observed in the complaint that the reliefs sought for by the
plaintiff is directed to SEAFDEC and not to the defendants who cannot perform the
same in their personal capacity.
Aside from the foregoing, the Court is also of the belief that it has no jurisdiction
over the subject matter of the case even assuming that it could validly acquire
jurisdiction over SEAFDEC. To reiterate, a careful reading of the allegations in the
complaint will show that plaintiffs are complaining about their alleged illegal

separation from service and the non-payment of their salaries and other benefits, all
of which were allegedly caused by the defendants. Thus, they 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 plaintiffs
cause/s of action arose out of employer-employee relationship which under the law,
is under the original and exclusive jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter and not the
Regional
661

VOL. 468, AUGUST 31, 2005

661
Lacierda vs. Platon
Trial Court. Article 217 of the Labor Code, as amended by R.A. 6715 provides that
the Labor Arbiter shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide x
x x the following cases involving all workers, whether agricultural or nonagricultural:
1. x x x
2. Termination disputes;
3. If accompanied with a claim for reinstatement, those cases that workers may file
involving wages, rates of pay, hours of work and other terms and conditions of
employment;
4. Claims for actual, moral and exemplary and other forms of damages arising from
employer-employee relations;
5. x x x
6. x x x all other claims, arising from employer-employee relations x x x involving an
amount exceeding five thousand pesos (P5,000.00) whether or not accompanied
with a claim for reinstatement.
It may also be worthwhile to note that plaintiffs admitted that they have also raised
the issue of unlawful termination in another forum (paragraph 22, complaint; TSN,
September 10, 2002, pp. 14-15) which has the authority to resolve said issue, i.e.
they filed a motion for reconsideration of the order of termination which to date has
not yet been resolved. However, notwithstanding the fact that the issue of
termination is still pending in another venue, they sought relief from the Court on
the very same issue hoping that they could secure a favorable judgment. Such act,
therefore, constitutes a violation of the rule on forum shopping which Circular No.
28-91 intends to stop. According to the Supreme Court what is truly important to
consider in determining whether forum shopping exists or not is the vexation

caused the courts and parties-litigant by a party who asks different courts and/or
administrative agencies to rule on the same or related causes and/or grant the
same or substantially the same reliefs, in the process creating possibility of
conflicting decisions being rendered by the different for a upon the same issues
(Golango v. Court of Appeals, 283 SCRA 493; MSF Tire and Rubber Inc. vs. Court of
Appeals, 311 SCRA 784). (Emphasis and italics supplied).
Petitioners Motion for Reconsideration having been denied, they filed the present
petition, they maintaining that
662

662
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Lacierda vs. Platon
4.1. The lower court (Iloilo RTC Branch 36) has jurisdiction over the respondents who
are sued in their private capacities, hence it should not have dismissed the
plaintiffs complaint;
4.2. The lower court erred in holding that petitioners complaint for interference with
contract, specific performance and damages is a labor case, since petitioners
action is based on tort; the restoration of petitioners to their former position in
SEAFDEC is only incidental to the prayed for nullification of the acts complained of,
hence the lower court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the complaint.15
(Emphasis and italics supplied).
The assailed orders dismissing petitioners complaint are in order, hence, the
petition must be DENIED.
The issue raised is one of jurisdiction over the subject mattermeaning, the nature
of the cause of action and of the relief sought.16
It is settled that jurisdiction over a particular case is determined by the allegations
of the complaint, or the allegations of the complaint and the relief sought, or the
allegations of the pleadingsthe complaint, motion to dismiss, and answer in some
cases.17
The allegations in the complaint-bases of determining jurisdiction must be of the
ultimate facts and the relief prayed for.18
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 plaintiffs allegations in the complaint in order to impress that it is within said
courts jurisdiction.
_______________

15 Rollo at pp. 14-15.

16 Perkins v. Roxas, 72 Phil. 514 (1941).
17 Quiazon, PHILIPPINE COURTS AND THEIR JURISDICTION.
18 Payomo v. Floyd, 42 Phil. 788 (1922).
663

VOL. 468, AUGUST 31, 2005

663
Lacierda vs. Platon
From the allegations of petitioners complaint, it is clear that their cause of action
arose from the termination of their employment on the basis of the findings and
recommendation of the Ad Hoc Investigating Committee, of which some of
respondents were members, which termination petitioners claim to be without
factual and legal bases.
Petitioners allegation in the complaint that respondents unlawfully and illegally
interfered with and intruded into the contractual relations between [them] and JICA
is a mere conclusion, not an allegation of ultimate fact, worded as such in an
attempt to justify their contention that the complaint is one based on tort.
Petitioners primary prayerfor the defendants-herein respondents to be ordered
to restore and return [petitioners] 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 respondents were sued in their
personal capacity as emphatically stressed by petitioners, for tort and damages,
they would under no circumstance, power or authority be able to carry out such
primary prayer. Where lies petitioners logic?
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED. The assailed Orders of October 25,
2002 and January 14, 2003 of the Regional Trial Court of Iloilo, Branch 36 are hereby
AFFIRMED.
Costs against petitioners.
SO ORDERED.
Panganiban (Chairman), Sandoval-Gutierrez, Corona and Garcia, JJ., concur.
Petition denied, assailed orders affirmed.
664

664
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Lopez vs. Fajardo
Notes.Jurisdiction is the authority to hear and determine a causea right to act in
a case. It is conferred by law and not by mere administrative policy of any court or
tribunal. (Arranza vs. B.F. Homes, Inc., 33 SCRA 799 [2000])
Jurisdiction is conferred by substantive law. (Department of Environment and
Natural Resources [DENR], Region VIII, Tacloban City vs. Daraman, 377 SCRA 39
[2002])
o0o Lacierda vs. Platon, 468 SCRA 650, G.R. No. 157141 August 31, 2005