Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. Nos. L-17776 April 30, 1964
FORTUNATO F. HALILI, petitioner,
vs.
RAFAEL HUGANAS, JUAN GERARDO, Workmen's Compensation Commissioners,
SHERIFF OF MANILA and SHERIFF OF QUEZON CITY, respondents.
Dakila T. Castro for petitioner.
Office of the Solicitor General for respondents.
BENGZON, C.J.:
This appeal involves the validity of Reorganization Plan No. 20-A in the light of constitutional limitations and separation of powers. We have already passed on it several times.
It appears that on May 26, 1958, Rafael Huganas filed a claim for compensation, against Fortunato F. Halili, with Regional Office No. 3 of the Department of Labor; that said claim was heard by Juan Gerardo, the Hearing Officer, who in due course awarded compensation to the claimant in the form of sums of money; that such award was subsequently affirmed upon review by the Workmen's Compensation Commission; that carrying out the award, the Sheriff of the Quezon City took steps to execute it; that consequently, Atty. Jesus I. Santos, counsel for Halili filed, in the Quezon City court of first instance, an action to enjoin such execution, contending that the proceedings held before the Regional Office and the Workmen's Compensation Commission were null and void because they acted by virtue of the authority given by Reorganization Plan No. 20-A which was, for the reasons stated by him, unconstitutional. The court sustained Halili's position and ordered the sheriff to refrain from taking action. Wherefore, Huganas, et al. took this appeal.1äwphï1.ñët
In Madrigal Shipping Co. vs. Workmen's Compensation Commission,1 the decision of the Workmen's Compensation Commission confirming the award of the Regional Office No. 2 of the Department of Labor, pursuant to Re-organization Plan No. 20-A was attacked on the same grounds specified by appellee herein. Nonetheless, we upheld the official award, holding that the Plan was valid so far as claims for compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act was concerned. The same view was expressed in other resolutions of this Court.2
It was error, then, for the lower court to invalidate the proceedings before said administrative agencies. However its order must be approved in the result, because the execution was being carried in pursuance of directives of the Labor Regional Office. We have already ruled that Regional Offices of the Department of Labor are not empowered to enforce their awards by writs of execution, which only courts of justice are authorized to issue. (Nations Shipyards vs. Calixto, L-18471, February 28, 1963; Pastoral vs. Commissioner of the Workmen's Compensation Commission, L-12903, July 31, 1961.)
On this last ground, the Court's order preventing Sheriff from carrying the writ of execution, is affirmed. No costs.
Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Paredes, Dizon and Makalintal, JJ., concur.
Padilla, Labrador, Barrera and Regala, JJ., took no part.
Footnotes
1L-17495, June 29, 1962.
2Stoll vs. Mardo, L-17241, June 29, 1962, and cases cited therein.
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
