Respondents, however, failed Capt. Tolosa because Garate never initiated actions to save him. x x x In fact, Garate rarely checked personally on Capt. Tolosas condition, to wit: [13] x x x Noticeably, the History (Annex D) fails to mention any instance when Garate consulted the other officers, much less Capt. Tolosa, regarding the possibility of deviation. To save Capt. Tolosas life was surely a just cause for the change in course, which the other officers would have concurred in had they been consulted by respondent Garate which he grossly neglected to do. Garates poor judgement, since he was the officer effectively in command of the vessel, prevented him from undertaking these emergency measures, the neglect of which resulted in Capt. Tolosas untimely demise. [14] The labor arbiter himself classified petitioners case as a complaint for damages, blacklisting and watchlisting (pending inquiry) for gross negligence resulting in the death of complainants husband, Capt. Virgilio Tolosa.[15] We stress that the case does not involve the adjudication of a labor dispute, but the recovery of damages based on a quasi delict. The jurisdiction of labor tribunals is limited to disputes arising from employer-employee relations, as we ruled in Georg Grotjahn GMBH & Co. v. Isnani:[16] Not every dispute between an employer and employee involves matters that only labor arbiters and the NLRC can resolve in the exercise of their adjudicatory or quasijudicial powers. The jurisdiction of labor arbiters and the NLRC under Article 217 of the Labor Code is limited to disputes arising from an employer-employee relationship which can only be resolved by reference to the Labor Code, other labor statutes, or their collective bargaining agreement. [17] The pivotal question is whether the Labor Code has any relevance to the relief sought by petitioner. From her paper, it is evident that the primary reliefs she seeks are as follows: (a) loss of earning capacity denominated therein as actual damages or lost income and (b) blacklisting. The loss she claims does not refer to the actual earnings of the deceased, but to his earning capacity based on a life expectancy of 65 years. This amount is recoverable if the action is based on a quasi delict as provided for in Article 2206 of the Civil Code,[18] but not in the Labor Code. While it is true that labor arbiters and the NLRC have jurisdiction to award not only reliefs provided by labor laws, but also damages governed by the Civil Code, [19] these reliefs must still be based on an action that has a reasonable causal connection with the Labor Code, other labor statutes, or collective bargaining agreements. [20] The central issue is determined essentially from the relief sought in the complaint. In San Miguel Corporation v. NLRC,[21] this Court held: