---

Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-16115             August 29, 1961

BENITO SY HUAN, petitioner,
vs.
HONS. JOSE P. BAUTISTA, BALTAZAR VILLANUEVA, ARSENIO I. MARTINEZ, EMILIANO C. TABIGNE, AMANDO BUGAYONG and LUMBER SAWDUST WORKERS' UNION (PLUM), respondents.

De Guzman and Associates for petitioner.
Vidal C. Magbanua for respondent Court of Industrial Relations.
Vicente R. Rafael for respondent Union.

NATIVIDAD, J.:

This is a proceeding for certiorari and prohibition with preliminary injunction. Its purpose is to secure an order vacating and setting aside a resolution of the Court of Industrial Relations ordering that Case No. 952-V of that Court, Lumber Sawdust Workers' Union (PLUM), petitioner, versus Benito Sy Huan, respondent, be reinstated and set for hearing, declaring that court to be without jurisdiction to hear that case, and enjoining it from further proceeding therein. As prayed for, a writ of preliminary injunction was issued.

It appears that on September 22, 1954, respondent, Lumber Sawdust Workers' Union (PLUM), filed with the Court of Industrial Relations against the petitioner, Benito Sy Huan a petition asking for payment to 23 of its members of compensation for overtime, Sunday and holiday services as follows:

Name	Position	Period of claims	Weekly Wage	Total
1. Gregorio Lagrosa	Laborer	2/10/48 to 9/14/54	P18.00	P5,708.60
2. Gregorio Mislos	Laborer	8/17/50 to 9/14/54	P18.00	P5,244.40
3. Expedito Villaflor	Laborer	1/2/52 to 9/14/54	P18.00	P5,981.64
4. Elpidio Villaflor	Laborer	1/2/52 to 9/14/54	P18.00	P5,981.64
5. Guillermo Honrado	Laborer	10/1/52 to 9/14/54	P18.00	P5,284.56
6. Pedro Maningas	Laborer	6/15/54 to 9/14/54	P25.00	P 321.96
7. Ramon Belenzo	Laborer	3/18/53 to 9/14/54	P36.00	P3,159.44
8. Carlos Besmano	Laborer	6/24/52 to 9/14/54	P18.00	P2,966.00
9. Salvador Beares	Laborer	2/20/49 to 9/14/54	P18.00	P6,957.84
10. Ernesto Pineda	Laborer	6/19/52 to 9/14/54	P18.00	P3,779.84
11. Ernesto de Vera	Laborer	1/19/51 to 9/14/54	P18.00	P2,786.06
12. Anatolio Mindajar	Laborer	5/10/49 to 9/14/54	P18.00	P6,712.04
13. Jeremias Cervantes	Laborer	3/20/50 to 9/14/54	P18.00	P5,658.94
14. Jaime Taber	Laborer	10/16/52 to 9/14/54	P18.00	P2,577.96
15. Angel Rosite	Laborer	3/10/52 to 9/14/54	P18.00	P3,362.88
16. Emilio Dalmacion	Laborer	1/15/51 to 9/14/54	P18.00	P4,821.14
17. Victor Mosende	Laborer	6/12/51 to 9/14/54	P18.00	P3,857.64
18. Tarcilo Juanerio	Laborer	6/15/53 to 9/14/54	P18.00	P1,688.88
19. Amador Tumoro	Laborer	2/ 9/51 to 9/14/54	P18.00	P4,965.70
20. Moises Mosende	Laborer	3/12/53 to 9/14/54	P18.00	P2,034.84
21. David Timayo	Laborer	9/16/52 to 9/14/54	P18.00	P3,805.56
22. Abner Corano	Laborer	1/ 8/53 to 9/14/54	P18.00	P2,272.92
23. Corino Torciano	Laborer	2/18/52 to 9/14/54	P18.00	P3,140.92

On October 9, 1954, Benito Sy Huan filed his answer to the petition, controverting all its material allegations, and asking in counterclaim, for judgment in the sum of P2,000.00 as actual damages, plus P1,000.00 as attorney's fees. Later on, however, or on August 1, 1955, he filed a motion to dismiss the case, on the ground that the Court of Industrial Relations had no jurisdiction to take cognizance thereof, no industrial dispute existing between the parties having been alleged. Lumber Sawdust Workers' Union (PLUM) opposed this motion. After hearing, the Court of Industrial Relations, in an order dated August 22, 1955, dismissed the petition. On May 13, 1959, or about four years thereafter, however, said court, in a resolution bearing that (late, set aside its order of August 22, 1955, dismissing the case declared itself with jurisdiction over it, and ordered that the same be set for hearing. This is the resolution the review of which is sought in this proceeding.

The petitioner contends, in effect, that in issuing the resolution of May 13, 1959, above referred to, the respondent court acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion, and consequently said resolution should be vacated and set aside. It is claimed that as there is no labor dispute between him and respondent union affecting their relation as employer and employee; that the controversy does not refer to minimum wages under the Minimum Wage Law, or involve unfair labor practice, or hours of employment under the Eight-Hour Law, but involves collection of compensation for overtime, Sunday and holiday services, the Court of Industrial Relations had no jurisdiction to entertain the action.

Petitioner's position is well taken. The jurisdiction of the Court of Industrial Relations, under the law and the jurisprudence, extends only to cases involving (a) labor disputes affecting an industry which is indispensable to the national interest and is so certified by the President to the Court, Section 10, Republic Act No. 875; (b) controversy about the minimum wage under the Minimum Wage Law, Republic Act No. 602; (c) hours of employment tinder the Eight-Hour Labor Law Commonwealth Act No. 444; and (d) unfair labor practice, Sec. 5-(a), Republic Act No. 875; (PAFLU vs. Tan, 52 O.G. 5836; Reyes vs. Tan, 52 O.G. 6187; PAFLU vs. Barot, 52 O.G. 6544; Allied Free Workers Union vs. Apostol, 54 O.G. 981; Mindanao Bus Employees Labor (PLUM) vs. Mindanao Bus Co., G.R. No. L-9795, December 28, 1957; Dee Cho Lumber Workers (NLU) vs. Dee Cho Lumber Co., 55 O.G. 434; Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila vs. J. Yanzon and Elizalde & Co. vs. J. Yanzon G.R. Nos. 12341 and 121045, April 30, 1958; Chua Workers' Union (NLU) vs. City Automotive Co. G.P,. No. L-11655, April 29, 1959; and Philippine Sugar Institute vs. Court of Industrial Relations, et al., G.R. No. L-13098, October 29, 1959). And such disputes and controversies, in order that they may fall under the jurisdiction of the Court of Industrial Relations, must arise while the employer-employee relationship between the parties exists, or the employee seeks reinstatement. When such relationship is over and the employee does not seek reinstatement come money claims that fall under the jurisdiction of the regular courts. Price Stabilization Corporation vs. Court of Industrial Relations, et al., G.R. No. L- 13906, May 23, 1960; New Angat-Manila Transportation Co., et al. vs. Court of Industrial Relations, et al., G.R. No. L-16283, December 27, 1960; Philippine Wood Products, et al. vs. Court of Industrial Relations, et al., G.R. No. L-15279, June 30, 1961. In Price Stabilization Corporation vs. Court of Industrial Relations, supra, this Court, after an analysis of the previous rulings on the subject, held:

Analyzing these cases, the underlying principle, it will be noted in all of them, though not stated in express terms, is that where the employer-employee relationship is still existing or is sought to be reestablished because of its wrongful severance (as where the employee seeks reinstatement), the Court of Industrial Relations has jurisdiction over all claims arising out of, or in connection with employment, Such as those related to the Minimum Wage Law and the Eight-Hour Labor Law. After the termination of the relationship and no reinstatement is sought, such claims become mere money Claims, and come within the jurisdiction of the regular courts.

The petition filed by respondent Lumber Sawdust Workers Union (PLUM) in case No. 952-V of the Court of Industrial Relations merely prays that the petitioner Benito Sy Huan be ordered to pay to 23 of its union members therein named the several amounts stated opposite their names, which were claimed to be due to them as compensation for overtime, Sunday and holiday services previously rendered to said petitioner and which the latter failed to pay. It contains no statement that said 23 union members were still employed by the petitioner at the time of the filing of said petition, or that they were seeking reinstatement in the service of said petitioner. In fact, there is reason to Conclude that the employer-employee relationship between said union members and the petitioner had already been severed, for in the latter's answer to the union's petition there was an averment that "some of the petitioners were dismissed for lack of confidence and misappropriation of respondent's money whereas the rest of the petitioners through their own accord stopped working with respondent in sympathy with their companions," and this averment has not been contradicted. There is no allegation either in the petition, or elsewhere in the pleadings, that there existed a labor dispute between the parties, or that the case involves an unfair labor practice, or minimum wage under the Minimum Wage Law. It merely states that "this labor dispute is brought to this Honorable Court inasmuch as respondent company has failed to enforce and with Com. Act 444 regarding payment for wages due as well as premiums for overtime, Sunday and holiday work rendered by said unionists," which is far from constituting an affirmative allegation that the case involves a labor dispute over which, under the law, the Court of Industrial Relations has jurisdiction.

Upon the facts, therefore, as disclosed by the pleadings, it is clear that the demand made in case No. 952-V is purely a money claim falling under the jurisdiction of the regular courts and over which the Court of Industrial Relations no jurisdiction. Consequently, the respondent court committed error and acted without jurisdiction in issuing its resolution of May 13, 1959, declaring itself with jurisdiction over the case, and ordering that it be set for hearing.

WHEREFORE, the instant petition for certiorari and prohibition is granted, and the resolution of the respondent court of May 13, 1959, herein complained of, is vacated and set aside and the writ of injunction heretofore issued made permanent. Without costs.

Bengzon, C.J., Padilla, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Paredes, Dizon, and De Leon, JJ., concur.

The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation

---