xxxxxxxxx Despite other peripheral issues raised by the parties in their respective pleadings, the NLRC on September 10, 1998, vacated the appealed decision dated July 8, 1997 of the Labor Arbiter and dismissed petitioners case for lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action pursuant to the provisions of the Labor Code, as amended. (Citations omitted) [4] Ruling of the Court of Appeals Sustaining the NLRC, the CA ruled that the labor commission had no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action filed by petitioner.Her cause did not arise from an employer-employee relation, but from a quasi delict or tort. Further, there is no reasonable causal connection between her suit for damages and her claim under Article 217 (a)(4) of the Labor Code, which allows an award of damages incident to an employer-employee relation. Hence, this Petition.[5] Issues Petitioner raises the following issues for our consideration: I Whether or not the NLRC has jurisdiction over the case. II Whether or not Evelyn is entitled to the monetary awards granted by the labor arbiter. [6] After reviewing petitioners Memorandum, we find that we are specifically being asked to determine 1) whether the labor arbiter and the NLRC had jurisdiction over petitioners action, and 2) whether the monetary award granted by the labor arbiter has already reached finality. The Courts Ruling The Petition has no merit.