G.R. No. L-16283. December 27, 1960
NEW ANGAT-MANILA TRANSPORTATION AND EDUARDO ELCHICO, IN HIS CAPACITY AS HEIR OF THE DECEASED JOSE ELCHICO AND AS ADMINISTRATOR OF THE LATTER’S ESTATE, PETITIONERS VS. COURT OF I…
BARRERA, J.:
certiorari of the decision of the Court of Industrial Relations (in Case No.
1108-V) dated September 11, 1959, as amended on September 21, 1959, and of the
Resolution en banc, denying their motion for reconsideration.
The antecedents are as follows:
In a petition filed in the Court of Industrial Relations ‘(Case No. 1108-V),
Francisco Esquivel, Pedro Gabriel, and Pedro de la Paz, sought recovery of
overtime compensation from the “New Angat-Manila Transportation” and Florencio
Elchico (as manager of the said transportation business), amounting to
P20,481.28, and, together with Pacifico Almazar, Lazaro Gutierrez, and Filemon
de Guzman, for separation pay in this total sum of P10,756.25.[1]
To the petition, only respondent Elchico filed an answer, alleging that the
“New Angat-Manila Transportation” was owned, successively, by Matias
Fernando,[2] Encarnacion Elchico Vda, de
Fernando,[3] and Jose Elchico;[4] that at the time said petition was filed,
there was pending in the Court of First Instance of Rizal, testate and intestate
proceedings where claims against tfre estate of Jose Elchico may he filed; that
the causes of action which took place as early as 1930, do not survive the
deceased employer, and even if they do, they were either fictitious of
unwarranted. As counterclaim, respondent demanded the sum of P2,000.00 as
attorney’s fees. This counterclaim was duly answered and denied by
petitioner.
In a decision rendered on September 12, 1959, the trial judge ordered the
respondent to pay the overtime compensation demanded by petitioners, except the
claim of Pedro Gabriel which, was dismissed, and separation pay in. amounts
equivalent to one month salary for every year of service of each. This
decision was later amended on September 21, 1959 in the sense that the basis for
the computation of the separation fcay was one-half month salary
instead of one-month salary. The court examiner was thus directed to make the
necessary computation of the amounts due the petitioners, and submit the.
corresponding report for proper adjudication. Copy of the original decision was
received by counsel for respondents on September 17, while the amended decision
was received by said respondents on September 21.
On September 22, 1959, respondents’ counsel filed a motion for
reconsideration of the “Decision dated September 12, 1959, as modified by the
Amended Decision dated September 21, 1959”. This motion, however, was denied by
resolution of the court en banc, allegedly for having been filed beyond
the 5-day reglementary period. It is this resolution, as well as the
aforementioned decision, as amended, that respondents ask us to review by means
of the instant petition for certiorari.[5]
Herein petitioners raise several points against the actions taken by the
respondent Court, among which is the question of jurisdiction. This we find to
be decisive in the case at bar.
In the case of Price Stabilization Corporation vs. Court of Industrial
Relations, et al.,[6] this Court
declared:
“Analyzing these cases,[7] the
underlying principle, it will be noted in all of them, though not stated in
express terms, is that where the employer-employee relationship is still
existing mr is sought to be reestablished because of its wrongful severance (as
where the employee seeks reinstatement), the Court of Industrial Relations has
jurisdiction over all claims arising out of, or jn connection with employment,
such as. those related to the Minimum Wage Law and the Eight-Hour Labor Law.
After the termination of the relationship and no reinstatement is sought, such
claims become mere money claims, and come within the jurisdiction of the regular
courts.”,
and held that such principle shall govern all cases of the same nature.
In the instant case, respondent-employees, who were dismissed from
petitioners’ employ in 1958, do not aspire for reinstatement to their former
positions, but merely seek recovery of compensation allegedly still due and
owing them; as a matter of fact, their petition specified that it was only for
“collection of overtime pay and termination pay”. Following the ruling laid down
in the PRISCO case (supra), therefore, this case should
properly be filed in the regular courts or probate court, as the case may
be.
With the above consideration, we find no necessity to pass upon the other
errors assigned by the petitioners.
Wherefore, the decision, as amended, rendered by the respondent Court, as
well as its resolution en banc appealed from, are hereby set aside,
without prejudice to the refiling of the appropriate action in the proper court.
No pronouncement as to costs. So ordered.
Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes,
J.B.L., Gutierrez David, Paredes and Dizon, JJ., concur.
Decision and resolution set aside.
[1] Allegedly under Rep. Act 1052, as
amended by Hep. .Act 1787, Almazar, employed for 28 years at P187.50 a month is
entitled to P2,625.00; Gabriel—11 years of service at P165.00 a month—P907.50;
Gutierrez—10 years of service at P157.00 a month—P863.75; De la Paz—26 years at
P300.00 a month—P3,900.00; Esquivel—24 years at P150.00 a month—P1,800.00; and
De Guzman—11 years at P120.00 a month—P660.00.
[2] Died in May, 1948.
[3] Died in January, 1956.
[4] Died on February 7, 1957.
[5] In Case G. R. No. L-16278, certain
mtervenors sought the review of these same decision and resolution, but the
petition was dismissed by this Court, on the ground that their intervention was
not admitted by the trial court. Hence, that dismissal did not conclude the
issues raised in the present case.
[6] 108 Phil, 134.
[7] PAFLU vs. Tan, 99 Phil-,
854; 52 Off. Gaz., [13] 5836; Detective and Protective Bureau, Inc. vs.
Guevara, et al., L-8738, prom. May 31, 1957; Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila
vs. Yanson, et al-, L-12341, April 30, 1958; Elizalde & Co.
vs. Yanson, et al., L-12345, April 30, 1958; NASCO vs. Almin,
et al., 104 Phil., 836; 36 Off. Gaz., [9] 1899; Monares vs. CNS
Enterprise, L-11749, May 29, 1959.