4/6/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly 5. Cases arising from any violation of Article 264 of this Code , including questions involving the legality of strikes and lockouts; and 6. Except claims for employees compensation, social security , medicare and maternity benefits, all other claims arising from employer-employee relations, including those of persons in domestic or house hold service ,involving an amount exceeding five thousand pesos (P5,000.00), whether accompanied with a claim for reinstatement. (Emphasis supplied) Based on this provision, it is clear t hat claims for actual, moral, exemplary and other forms of damages arising from employer-employee relations are under the original and exclusive jurisdiction of labor arbiters. While there are cases which hold that the existence of an employer-employee relationship does not negate the civil jurisdiction of the trial courts,[16] in this particular case, we find that jurisdiction properly lies with the Labor Arbiter. Not only are the terms under Article 224, above quoted, clear and unequivocal, practical considerations bolster the Court's resolve that jurisdiction of the instant case falls under the labor tribunals and not with the civil courts. The determination of propriety of petitioner's non-deployment necessarily involves the interpretation and application of labor laws, which are within the expertise of labor tribunals. The question of whether respondents are justified in cancelling the deployment of petitioner requires determination of whether a subsequent advice from the same medical provider as to the health of petitioner could validly supersede its initial finding during the required PEME that petitioner is fit to work. Moreover, if the Court were to make a distinction between the perfection of a contract of employment and the commencement of an employment relationship on its face, and so rule that a mere perfected contract would make the jurisdiction of the case fall under regular courts, the Court will arrive at a dangerous conclusion where domestic seafarers' only recourse in law in case of breach of contract is to file a complaint for damages before the Regional Trial Court. In so doing, domestic seafarers would have to pay filing fees which his overseas counterpart need not comply with in filing a complaint before the labor arbiters.[17] As a necessary consequence, the domestic seafarers would need to prove their claim by preponderance of evidence or "evidence which is of greater weight, or more convincing than that which is offered in opposition to it," which is greater than what overseas seafarers need to discharge in cases before labor arbiters, where they only have to prove their claims by substantial evidence or " hat amount of evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." WHEREFORE, the petition i s GRANTED. The December 11, 2015 Decision and the March 28 , 2016 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP. No. 139164 are REVERSED AND SET ASIDE. The Decision dated October 30, 2014 of the National Labor Relations Commission is REINSTATED. https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/65999 6/8