4/6/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly In this regard, the Court stressed in Romero v. Court of Appeals:[14] We must hasten to add, however, that where the so-called " potestative condition " is imposed not on the birth of the obligation but on its fulfillment, only the condition is avoided , leaving unaffected the obligation itself. (Citation omitted) Clearly , the condition set forth in the Addendum is one that is imposed not on the birth of the contract of employment since the contract has already been perfected, but only on the fulfillment or performance of their respective obligations, i.e., for petitioner to render services on board the ship and for respondents to pay him the agreed compensation for such services. A purely potestative imposition, such as the one in the Addendum, must be obliterated from the face of the contract without affecting the rest of the stipulations considering that the condition relates to the fulfillment of an already existing obligation and not to its inception.[15] Moreover, the condition imposed for the commencement of the employment relations offends the principle of mutuality of contracts ordained in Article 1308 of the Civil Code which states that contracts must bind both contracting parties , and its validity or compliance cannot be left to the will of one of them. The Court is thus constrained to treat the condition as void and of no effect, and declare the respective obligations of the parties as unconditional. Consequently , the employer-employee relationship between petitioner and respondents should be deemed to have arisen as of the agreed effectivity date of the contract of employment, or on March 12, 2013. At this point, it is settled that an employer-employee relationship exists between respondents and petitioner. We now come to the issue of whether the Labor Arbiter had jurisdiction over petitioner's claim for damages arising from breach of contract. Article 224 (now Art. 217) of the Labor Code provides: ART. 217. Jurisdiction of Labor Arbiters and the Commission. - (a) Except as otherwise provided under this Code, the Labor Arbiter shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide, within thirty (30) calendar days after the submission of the case by the parties for decision without extension, even in the absence of stenographic notes, the following cases involving all workers, whether agricultural or non-agricultural: 1. Unfair labor practice cases; 2. Termination disputes; 3. If accompanied with acclaim for reinstatement, those cases that workers may file involving wages, rate[s] of pay, hours of work and other terms and conditions of employment; 4. Claims for actual, moral, exemplary and other forms of damages arising from the employer-employee relations; https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/65999 5/8