HAWAIIAN-PHILIPPINE COMPANY vs GULMATICO (1994) FACTS: Respondent-Union, the National Federation of Sugar Workers-Food and General Trades, filed

d an action against petitioner Hawaiian Phil o! for clai"s under R# $%& 'The Sugar #ct of (&)*+! Respondent Union alleged that the, ha-e ne-er a-ailed of the .enefits due the" under the law! Under the said act/ 0the proceeds of an, increase in participation granted to planters under this #ct and a.o-e their present share shall be divided between the planter and his laborers in the following proportions. 1%2 of the increase participation for the la.orers and 3%2 for the planters! Petitioner argued that respondent 4a.or #r.iter Gul"atico has no 5urisdiction o-er the case considering their case does not fall under those enu"erated in #rticle *(6 of the 4a.or ode which pro-ides the 5urisdiction of 4a.or #r.iters and the o""ission! Further, petitioner contends that it has no 7R-77 relationship with the respondent sugar workers and that respondent union has no cause of action .ecause it is the planters-e"plo,ers who is lia.le to pa, the worker8s share under 49: No! $)3!

Issue1: Whether public respondent Labor Arbiter has jurisdiction to hear and decide the case against petitioner HELD: NO While 5urisdiction o-er contro-ersies in-ol-ing agricultural workers has .een transferred fro" the ourt of #grarian Relations to the 4a.or #r.iters under the 4a.or ode, said transferred 5urisdiction is howe-er, not without li"itations! The contro-ers, "ust fall under one of the cases enu"erated under the 4a.or ode which arise out of or are in connection with an 7R-77 relationship :n the #;, there is no 7R-77 relationship .etween petitioner co"pan, and respondent union! Hence, respondent 4a.or #r.iter has no 5urisdiction to hear and decide the case against petitioner! Issue1: Whether respondent union has a cause of action HELD: NO To ha-e a cause of action, the clai"ant "ust show that he has a legal right and the respondent a correlati-e dut, in respect thereof, which the latter -iolated ., so"e wrongful act or o"ission! :n the instant case, it would show that the pa,"ent of the worker8s share is lia.ilit, of the planterse"plo,ers, and not of the petitioner "illing co"pan,! :t is disputed that petitioner "illing co"pan, has alread, distri.uted to its planters their respecti-e shares! Hence, it has fulfilled its part and has nothing "ore to do with the su.se<uent contri.ution ., the planters of the worker8s share! WHEREFORE PETITION IS GRANTED!