Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-16856 April 25, 1962
OLIVO G. RUIZ, petitioner-appellant,
vs.
CEDAR V. PASTOR, respondent-appellee.
Fernando S. Ruiz for petitioner-appellant.
F. M. Palanca for respondent-appellee.
PAREDES, J.:
Vicente Carin and twenty-five others, filed on May 27, 1957, with the Department of Labor, Regional Office No. VI, Cebu City, a complaint (Case No. R-VI-91), for the recovery of shares and back wages amounting to P23,781.00, against the Agusan Mindanao Timber Corporation and Nasipit Lumber Company, Olivo Ruiz, President of the Nasipit Stevedoring Corporation, Bonifacio Ignacio of the Nasipit Labor Union and Rodolfo Bataliones, Treasurer of Nasipit Labor Union.
After conducting hearings, Cedar V. Pastor of the Regional Office, on February 24, 1958, rendered judgment, the dispositive portion of which reads —
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, Mr. Olivo Ruiz, President, Nasipit Stevedoring Company, is hereby adjudged to pay the above named claimants, thru this office, the total amount of P23,781.00, representing the unpaid shares and salaries due them from January 7 to May 21, 1957, inclusive.
The motion for reconsideration of the above judgment, presented by Ruiz on August 14, 1958, was denied on August 21, 1958.
On August 22, 1958, Ruiz presented with the CFI of Cebu, a petition for Certiorari and Prohibition with Preliminary Injunction (Civil Case No. 5699), assailing the validity of Reorganization Plan No. 20-A, more specifically Sec. 25 thereof, which gave the Regional Offices of the Labor Department, original and exclusive jurisdiction over all claims of laborer arising from violations of labor standards on working conditions, and prayed that the Hearing Officer be enjoined from taking any action in the case, and declare him without jurisdiction to adjudicate the claim of Vicente Carin and his companions. The injunction was issued, but after the case was submitted on a stipulation of facts, the CFI on July 8, 1959, rendered judgment upholding the constitutionality of Reorganization Plan No. 20-A, and denied the Writ (Certiorari & Prohibition) prayed for lack of merit.
This is an appeal from the above judgment. 1äwphï1.ñët
The only issue presented herein is the validity of Reorganization Plan No. 20-A, insofar as it grants original and exclusive jurisdiction to Regional Offices over all cases affecting claims of the nature as the one under controversy (Sec. 25). We have had the occasion to pass upon this issue and We declared that said section is null and void. Thus, in the case of Cagalawan vs. Customs Canteen, et al., G.R. No. L-16031, October 31, 1961, we held:
.... So that it was not the intention of Congress, in enacting Rep. Act No. 997, to authorize the transfer of powers and jurisdiction granted to courts of justice from these, to the officials to be appointed or offices to be created by the Reorganization Plan. .. The Legislature could not have intended to grant such powers to the Reorganization Commission, an executive body, as the Legislature may not and cannot delegate its powers to legislative or create courts of justice to any other agency of the Government. ... the provision of Reorganization Plan No. 20-A, particularly Sec. 25, which grants to the regional offices original and exclusive jurisdiction over money claims of laborers, null and void, said grant having been made without authority by Rep. Act. No. 997 (Corominas, Jr., et al. v. Labor Standards Commission, et al., L-14837; MCU v. Calupitan, et al., L-15483; Wong v. Carlim et al., L-13940; Balrodgen Co., et al., v. Fuentes, et al., L-15015, June 30, 1961). (See also Pitogo v. Len Bee Trading Co., et al., G. R. No. L-15693, July 31, 1961).
The authorities cited are definitive and We find no further reason to elaborate.
WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby set aside and another entered, dismissing the case (not the appeal), without prejudice to its ventilation with the proper court. No costs.
Bengzon, C.J., Padilla, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera and Dizon, JJ., concur.
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
