GONZALO PUYAT & SONS, INC., PETITIONER, VS. PEDRO LABAYO, HON. JUDGES OF THE COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS JOSE S. BAUTISTA, ARSENIO I. MARTINEZ, BALTAZAR M. VILLANUEVA, EMILIAN…

Sole issue is the jurisdiction of the Court of Industrial
Relations (CIR) over a claim for –

1.  Reinstatement, with back wages for unjustified
dismissal, or, in the alternative, separation pay; and

2.  Compensation for overtime work performed on
regular days and Sundays.

This jurisdictional problem has its roots in the following:  On May
16, 1963, Pedro Labayo lodged in CIR a
complaint against petitioner Gonzalo Puyat &
Sons, Inc.^[1] Labayo there averred that since 1938, he had been a foreman
in petitioner’s furniture manufacturing business, until March 19, 1963 when he was not allowed, without
just cause, to work further.  He
characterized his dismissal as illegal – “without the
benefit of a previous notice nor the payment of the equivalent
separation pay.” He prayed for reinstatement with back wages incident
thereto, or, in the alternative, separation pay; unpaid overtime services for
“not less than two to three hours a day for two working days in a
month” during his entire period of employment; unpaid Sunday work for
“not less than two Sundays in a month’s time, also during his entire
period of employment; and attorneys’ fees.

Petitioner met Labayo’s complaint with
a motion to dismiss.  Ground:  Lack of jurisdiction.  On August
1, 1963, CIR Judge Baltazar M. Villanueva
denied the motion.  Reconsideration was
rejected by CIR’s en banc resolution of
November 19, 1963.  The matter was then elevated by petitioner to
this Court on certiorari and
prohibition.

This question is not new. 
By well-entrenched jurisprudence, CIR has jurisdiction over a claim for
overtime pay for work performed on regular days and Sundays – which arises
under the Eight-Hour Labor Law – when claimant seeks reinstatement or the
reestablishment of employer-employee relationship.^[2]
The recitals of the complaint herein come under this precept.  CIR is with jurisdiction.

Along with the overtime pay claim, CIR, too, has authority to act
over the laborer’s other demands, namely, for back wages due to unjustified dismissal
and separation pay.  For, with the
reinstatement prayer, they all arise out of, or are in connection with, his
employment.^[3]
Accordingly, said laborer need not seek separate relief – for back wages and
separation pay – from a regular court of justice.  We have declared that:^[4]
“[t]o draw a tenuous jurisdictional line is to undermine stability in
labor litigations.  A
piecemeal resort to one court and another gives rise to multiplicity of suits.  To force the employees to shuttle from one
court to another to secure full redress is a situation gravely prejudicial.  The time to be lost, effort wasted, anxiety
augmented, additional expense incurred – these are considerations which weigh
heavily against split jurisdiction.”

Thus, did we say, as we do here, that it is more in keeping with
the orderly administration of justice that all causes of action herein be
cognizable and heard by only one court: 
the Court of Industrial Relations.^[5]

We find no argument potent enough to make us depart from the
views heretofore expressed.  We hold that
CIR has jurisdiction over the complaint here under consideration.

For the reasons given, the petition herein for certiorari and prohibition is hereby
dismissed.

Costs against petitioner.

SO ORDERED.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P., Zaldivar, Castro,
Angeles, and Fernando, JJ., concur.

^[1]
CIR Case No. 1827-V, entitled “Pedro Labayo,
Petitioner, vs. Gonzalo Puyat & Sons,
Inc., Respondent.”

^[2]
Campos vs. Manila Railroad Co., L-17905, May 25, 1962; National Shipyards
and Steel Corporations vs. Court of Industrial Relations, L-21675, May
23, 1967.  See also:  Philippine Engineers’ Syndicate, Inc. vs.
Bautista, L-16440, February 29, 1964;
Moncada Bijon Factory vs.
Court of Industrial Relations, L-16037, April
29, 1964; Serrano vs. Serrano, L-19562, May 23, 1964; Mercado vs. Elizalde & Company, L-13962, December 23, 1964; Red V Coconut Products, Ltd. vs.
Court of Industrial Relations, L-21348, June 30, 1966.

^[3]
PRISCO vs. CIR, L-13806, May
23, 1960.

^[4]
Bay View Hotel, Inc. vs. Manila Hotel Workers’ Union-PTGWO, L-21803,
December 17, 1966; Rheem of the Philippines, Inc. vs.
Ferrer, L-22979, January 27, 1967.

^[5]
Bay View Hotel, Inc. vs. Manila Hotel Workers’ Union-PTGWO, supra, citing Gomez vs.
North Camarines Lumber Co., Inc., L-11945, August 18,
1958; Rheem of the Philippines, Inc. vs. Ferrer, supra.