First Issue: Jurisdiction over the Action Petitioner argues that her cause of action is not predicated on a quasi delict or tort, but on the failure of private respondents -- as employers of her husband (Captain Tolosa) -- to provide him with timely, adequate and competent medical services under Article 161 of the Labor Code: ART 161. Assistance of employer. -- It shall be the duty of any employer to provide all the necessary assistance to ensure the adequate and immediate medical and dental attendance and treatment to an injured or sick employee in case of emergency. Likewise, she contends that Article 217 (a) (4)[7] of the Labor Code vests labor arbiters and the NLRC with jurisdiction to award all kinds of damages in cases arising from employer-employee relations. Petitioner also alleges that the reasonable causal connection rule should be applied in her favor. Citing San Miguel Corporation v. Etcuban,[8] she insists that a reasonable causal connection between the claim asserted and the employer-employee relation confers jurisdiction upon labor tribunals. She adds that she has satisfied the required conditions: 1) the dispute arose from an employer-employee relation, considering that the claim was for damages based on the failure of private respondents to comply with their obligation under Article 161 of the Labor Code; and 2) the dispute can be resolved by reference to the Labor Code, because the material issue is whether private respondents complied with their legal obligation to provide timely, adequate and competent medical services to guarantee Captain Tolosas occupational safety. [9] We disagree. We affirm the CAs ruling that the NLRC and the labor arbiter had no jurisdiction over petitioners claim for damages, because that ruling was based on a quasi delict or tort per Article 2176 of the Civil Code.[10] Time and time again, we have held that the allegations in the complaint determine the nature of the action and, consequently, the jurisdiction of the courts. [11] After carefully examining the complaint/position paper of petitioner, we are convinced that the allegations therein are in the nature of an action based on a quasi delict or tort. It is evident that she sued Pedro Garate and Mario Asis for gross negligence. Petitioners complaint/position paper refers to and extensively discusses the negligent acts of shipmates Garate and Asis, who had no employer-employee relation with Captain Tolosa. Specifically, the paper alleges the following tortious acts: x x x [R]espondent Asis was the medical officer of the Vessel, who failed to regularly monitor Capt. Tolosas condition, and who needed the USCG to prod him to take the latters vital signs. In fact, he failed to keep a medical record, like a patients card or folder, of Capt. Tolosas illness. [12]