G.R. No. L-9446. December 29, 1956

This is a petition under Rule 67 for a writ of certiorari with preliminary injunction.  Petitioner  seeks  to anunl and set aside the order of the Court of Industrial Relations dated  1  June 1955 deferring action on  the  petitioner’s motion to dismiss tine complaint or demand for back pay filed by  the  respondents for lack of jurisdiction of the respondent court and to restrain  it from proceeding with the determination of Case No. 397-V(7).

On 1 September 1955 a writ of preliminary injunction was issued restraining the respondent Court of Industrial Relations from proceeding with the ease.

Petitioner avers that on 7  April 1951 am amended petition was filed by 425 members of the Luzon Labor Union with the  Court of Industrial Relations alleging that at the outbreak of the Pacific war in December 1941, at the instance  of the Luzon Brokerage  Company,  the herein petitioner, they worked with the  United States Army  by hauling military equipment to Bataan; that some of them died during the war and were represented by their heirs; that sometime  in  1945 the Company, en the  promise to pay them four to five years back pay, induced some thirty  chauffeurs to testify,  as they did  in fact testify, before the United States  military  authorities that the Company  had 400 trucks commandeered by the  United States  Army; and that according  to their information the Company, was paid by the  War Damage Commission for its  trucks and other services related to the work of the claimants.  They prayed that after hearing  the Company be  ordered to pay them back  wages earned  during the war in the respective amounts  as computed by them.

On 5 May 1955 the Company filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that as the claim was purely  and exclusively for sums of money allegedly owing to certain persons, “most of whom  have already severed their  connection with the  Company,” the Court of  Industrial Relations had no  jurisdiction over the subject  matter.  To  abbreviate the proceedings and to avoid repeated presentation of the same evidence, on 1 June 1955  the  Court  deferred action on several  motions filed by the  Company including the motion’ to dismiss, on the ground that the motion alleged facts which should be established by  competent evidence. A motion for reconsideration was denied.

Petitioner contends that  the Court committed  grave abuse of discretion in denying the motion to dismiss and that its taking cognizance of the case would be a  waste of time because it had no jurisdiction .to hear 4nd decide it for lack of employer-employee relationship between the  petitioner and the respondents.

The petitioner  admitted that  some of  the claimants for back pay were still under its employ when it averred in its motion  to  dismiss filed in the  Court of Industrial Relations that “* * * this case is purely and exclusively a claim for sums of money supposedly owing to certain ‘persons, most of  whom  have long ago severed their connections with the  Luzon Brokerage  Company * * **  (Annex-C), thereby implying that some of them were still in its  employ. And in its own memorandum  filed in  this “Court the petitioner admits that “some of the claimants, not more than 60, have been employed anew by the petitioner”  As there exists an  employer-employee relation between the petitioner  and the  claimants for back pay even with  respect only  to some of them, and their claim 1 for back pay is a potential source of dispute between management and labor, the respondent Court has jurisdiction to pass upon and decide the demand made by the respondents.

As the respondent Court has jurisdiction over the case, the order of 1 June 1955 deferring action on  the petitioner’s motion to  dismiss is just interlocutory and can  not.be appealed.

The petition is denied and the writ of preliminary injunction  heretofore issued  discharged, with costs against the petitioner.

Paras, C. J., Bengzon, Montemayor,  Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L., Endencia, and Felix, JJ., concur.