G.R. No. L-17241




Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC G.R. No. L-17241 June 29, 1962 LEONARD M. STOLL, ET AL., petitioners-appellees, vs. ATANACIO A. MARDO, ET AL., respondents; ATANACIO A. MARDO, ET AL., respondents-appellants. Manuel O. Chan for petitioners-appellees. Office of the Solicitor General for respondents-appellants. BAUTISTA ANGELO, J.: One Andres Moran filed with Regional Office No. 3, Department of Labor, Manila, against Leonard M. Stoll, et al., a claim for overtime pay, payment for vacation leave, and separation pay, in view of which the latter received a summons to appear and answer the claim. Instead of complying with the summons, Leonard M. Stoll, et al., filed a special action for prohibition with preliminary injunction before the Court of First Instance of Rizal alleging that the hearing officer of said regional office of the Department of Labor has no power to pass upon the claim because Reorganization Plan No. 20-A which was adopted by the Government Survey and Reorganization Commission in relation to Executive Order No. 218, series of 1956, under Republic Act No. 997, as amended by Republic Act No. 1241, was null and void, not only because it constitutes an unlawful delegation of legislative power but also because it was not validly passed as a statute, Congress not having observed the procedure prescribed in Article VI, Section 21, of the Philippine constitution. On July 24, 1959, the court a quo required respondents to answer the petition within a period of 10 days from notice, and set for hearing the motion for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction. On August 1, 1959, the court a quo issued the writ enjoining respondents from hearing the claim of Andres Moran upon the posting of a bond in the amount of P500.00.1äwphï1.ñët On April 4, 1960, after trial on the merits, the court a quo virtually declared Reorganization Plan No. 20-A null and void because it was passed in a manner contrary to the procedure prescribed by our constitution aside from the fact that it constitutes an undue delegation of legislative power and, as a consequence, it declared respondent officials of the Department of Labor without authority to hear and pass upon the claim of Andres Moran, declaring permanent the writ of injunction it preliminary issued. Respondents interposed the present appeal. The main issue posed in this appeal is whether or not the hearing officials of the Department of Labor are legally vested with authority by Reorganization Plan No. 20-A and Executive Order No. 218, series of 1956, in relation to Republic Act No. 997, as amended by Republic Act No. 1241, to hear and adjudicate the claim of Andres Moran filed in Regional Office No. 3 of the Department of Labor. The specific legal provision invoked for the authority of the different regional offices of the Department of Labor to take cognizance of labor claims is paragraph 25 of Article VI, of Reorganization Plan No. 20-A, which we quote: 25. Each regional office shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction over all cases falling under the Workmen's Compensation Law, and cases affecting all money claims arising from violations of labor standards on working conditions including but not restrictive to: unpaid wages, underpayment, overtime, separation pay and maternity leave of employees and laborers; and unpaid wages, overtime; separation pay, vacation pay and payment for medical services of domestic help. The issue raised is not new. We held in a number of cases that Reorganization Plan No. 20-A, insofar as it confers judicial powers upon labor officials to pass upon labor claims other than those that come under the Workmen's Compensation Commission, is invalid, because it involves undue delegation of legislative power not contemplated by Republic Act 997, as amended.¹ Nor can it be contended that the defect in the conferment of judicial powers upon labor officials has been cured because of the failure of Congress to disapprove said reorganization plan upon the theory that such failure is tantamount to an indorsement as a regular statute, for in order that a measure may be considered as regular statute the same must be duly passed in accordance with the procedure laid down by our constitution. And so, in the recent case of Miller v. Mardo (and its companion cases), G.R. No. L-15138, decided on July 31, 1961, this Court reached the conclusion that said reorganization plan "insofar as it confers judicial powers to the Regional Offices over cases other than those falling under the Workmen's Compensation Law, is invalid and of no effect." This case comes squarely under this ruling. WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is affirmed. No costs. Bengzon, C.J., Padilla, Labrador, Concepcion, Barrera, Parades, Dizon, Regala and Makalintal, JJ., concur. Reyes, J.B.L., J., took no part. Footnotes ¹Corominas, et al. vs. Labor Standard Commission, et al., G.R. No. L-14831, June 30, 1961; Chinese Flour Importers' Association v. Price Stabilization Board, G.R. No. L-4465, July 12, 1951; Surigao Consolidated v. Collector of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. L-5692, March 5, 1954; U.S. v. Shreveport, 287 U.S. 77, 77 L Ed., 175; Johnson v. San Diego, 42 P. 249, cited in 11 Am. Jur., 921-922. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation