falls outside the area of competence or expertise ordinarily ascribed to the LA and the NLRC. (underscoring ours) “Therefore, the LA has no jurisdiction over the case in the first place; it should have been filed to the proper trial court.” Following the Supreme Court’s decision in the case of “Spouses Hipolito Dalen, Sr. and Fe G. Dalen, et al. vs. United Philippine Lines, Inc., et al,”, a distinction can be made as to when OFW claims for damages will fall under the jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiters of the NLRC, or of the regular courts. The application of the “reasonable causal connection rule��� – whether or not there is a reasonable connection between the claim asserted and the employer-employee relations – will determine the jurisdiction for OFW claims for damages against the employer. Thus, OFW claims for damages arising from torts or quasi-delict, where the cause of action is grounded on the allegation of gross negligence, as in the case of “Spouses Hipolito Dalen, Sr. and Fe G. Dalen, et al. vs. United Philippine Lines, Inc., et al., which caused the sinking of the vessel, and the resulting death of the loved ones of the petitioners, falls within the jurisdiction of the regular courts, and not of the NLRC. On the other hand, where the OFW claim for damages is based on labor-management relations, wage structures, and other terms and conditions of employment, it is the Labor Arbiters of the NLRC that have the exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide the case. In theory, it may be possible for an OFW to file a claim for damages (not for compensation) arising from a work-related injury, illness or death, provided that the reasonable causal connection with the employer-employee relations can be established. In contrast, local workers suing for work-related injuries, illness or death have two (2) options exclusive of one another – either to seek compensation under the Workmens’ Compensation Act or to seek indemnity under the provisions of the Civil Code. In the case of “Candano Shipping Lines, Inc. vs. Florentina J. Sugata-on”93, the Supreme Court explained the options available to the local worker and his/her heirs as follows: “In the case of Floresca v. Philex Mining Company, we declared that the employees may invoke either the Workmen’s Compensation Act or the provisions of the Civil Code, subject to the consequence that the choice of one remedy will exclude the other and that the acceptance of the compensation under the remedy chosen will exclude the other remedy. The exception is where the claimant who had already been paid under the Workmen’s Compensation Act may still sue for damages under the Civil Code on the basis of supervening facts or developments occurring after he opted for the first remedy. 93 G.R. No. 163212, March 13, 2007. 55