Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-16919 September 29, 1962
RUFlNO GALLARDO and CATALINA VITAL DE GUEVARRA, plaintiffs-appellees,
vs.
MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY, defendant-appellant.
-------------------------------
G.R. No. L-16920 September 29, 1962
MAXIMA DANTING, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY, defendant-appellant.
Gregorio E. Fajardo for plaintiffs-appellees.
Simeon M. Gopengco for defendant-appellant.
BENGZON, C.J.:
Because these two litigations involve the same issue, they are hereby jointly decided.
G.R. No. L-16919. — In March 1958, the above-mentioned petitioned plaintiffs filed with the Regional Office of the department of Labor of this City a complaint against the Manila Railroad Company. They alleged that complainant Rufino Gallardo and the late husband (Demertio Guevarra) of the other complainant were former employees of said Company who had been separated from the service, with gratuity, way back in 1950; and that by reason thereof, they were equally entitled to — but not given — "their accumulated unused leave" in accordance with Circular 45 of said Company, which leave amounted to P809.81 for both employees.
After hearing both sides, the corresponding Officer of Regional Office No. 5, Labor Standards Commission, Department of Labor, ordered the Company to pay complainants the total sum of P809.81, with legal interest. In April 1959, such order was affirmed by the Labor Standards Commission with a slight modification. The Company appealed, and the records were transmitted to the Pangasinan court of first instance, wherein the Company again unsuccessfully resisted the monetary demand.
Appealing to this Court in due time, it now raises the important question of the authority of the Regional Officer to decide the matter of plaintiffs' claim for compensation.1awphîl.nèt
It is admitted that said Regional Office derives its power from Reorganization Plan No. 20-A of the Government Survey and Reorganization Commission created by Republic Act 997 as amended by Republic Act 1241. Section 25 of the said Plan provides that such 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, vacation pay and payment for medical services of domestic help.
Argues the appellant: "the authority granted to the Government Survey and Reorganization Commission was merely to reorganize the Executive Department and should therefore cover only that Branch of the Government. It was never intended to go beyond the Executive Branch and invade the power of the Judiciary."
We have ruled on this point in several cases.1 We have therein held that said Plan No. 20-A was void in so far at it attempted to take away from the courts the power and authority to adjudicate claims for money which they previously had. In this case, inasmuch as the amount demanded was P809.81 only, the plaintiff suit properly belonged in the justice of the peace courts. And the Manila court of first instance had no power to entertain an appeal from the Regional Office or the Labor Department.
The decision, consequently, must be set aside without prejudice to plaintiffs' right, if any, again to sue in the proper court. No costs.
G.R. No. L-16920. — Except for the amount involve (which is P1,197.30) and the party claimants, this case is similar in all material circumstances to the preceding litigation, particularly the procedure followed in the enforcement of the claim before the Regional Office, Department of Labor, and the court of first instance of Rizal. The latter's decision requiring payment is now before us.
The power of the lower court to entertain the claim and the validity of Reorganization Plan No. 20-A is challenged by the Manila Railroad Company.
For the reasons already explained, such decision is revoked, without prejudice to the enforcement of plaintiff' rights, if any, in the proper justice of the peace court. No costs.
Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Paredes, Dizon, Regala and Makalintal, JJ., concur.
Concepcion, J., took no part.
Footnotes
1San Felipe Iron Mines vs. Naldo L-18026, May 30, 1962; Stoll vs. Mardo, L-17241, June 29, 1962; Valderrama Lumber Manufacturer' Company, Inc. vs. The Administrator and Hearing Officer, L-17783, June 30, 1962; Gapan Farmer's Cooperative Marketing Association vs. Parial, L-17024, July 24, 1962.
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
