ELIZALDE PAINT & OIL FACTORY, INC., PETITIONER VS. HON. JOSE S. BAUTISTA, ET AL., RESPONDENTS.

Elizalde Paint and Oil Factory versus Bautista

The Case

This is a petition for certiorari and prohibition with preliminary injunction filed by the Elizalde Paint and Oil Factory against Judge Jose Bautista and the Court of Industrial Relations, together with Pedro Basaysay and the Elizalde Paint and Oil Factory Labor Union. The company asks the Supreme Court to reverse a resolution of the industrial court and to dismiss the labor case filed against it, on the ground that the industrial court has no jurisdiction over a claim that is, in substance, a mere money claim for retirement pay. The case matters because it draws the boundary between the jurisdiction of the Court of Industrial Relations and that of the regular courts, and because it tells us when an interlocutory order denying a motion to dismiss may nonetheless be corrected by certiorari.

Procedural History

Pedro Basaysay and the union filed an action before the Court of Industrial Relations, praying that the company be ordered to pay retirement pay, moral damages, and attorney's fees. The company answered and raised lack of jurisdiction, and later moved to dismiss on the same ground. Judge Bautista issued an order deferring resolution of the motion to dismiss until after the evidence of both parties had been submitted, intimating that the ground alleged was not indubitable. The company moved for reconsideration, but the industrial court en banc denied the motion, stating that the order sought to be reconsidered was interlocutory. The company then came to the Supreme Court by petition for certiorari and prohibition with preliminary injunction.

Facts

Pedro Basaysay was employed by the Elizalde Paint and Oil Factory from May 30, 1949 to January 2, 1958. A collective bargaining agreement between the company and the Elizalde Paint and Oil Factory Labor Union, of which Basaysay was a member, provided for gratuity to any deserving laborer who may retire.

Pursuant to that agreement, the company tendered Basaysay a check in the amount of 1,051 pesos and 90 centavos as payment of any and all kinds of services he may have rendered, requiring him at the same time to sign a release and quitclaim form. Believing he was entitled to more, Basaysay refused to take the check or sign the quitclaim.

Instead, on June 20, 1959, he and the union filed an action before the industrial court praying for 1,101 pesos and 80 centavos as retirement pay, plus moral damages and attorney's fees. The company challenged the jurisdiction of the industrial court, and when its motion to dismiss was deferred and reconsideration denied, it brought this petition.

Issues

• Whether or not the Court of Industrial Relations has jurisdiction to take cognizance of a case involving merely the recovery of retirement pay under a collective bargaining contract, after the employer-employee relationship has ceased.
• Whether or not the petition should be dismissed because the order sought to be reversed is merely interlocutory.

Applicable Provisions

The decision does not quote a specific statutory provision; it construes the jurisdictional grant to the Court of Industrial Relations as limited to the matters the Court itself identifies. The Court states the governing rule in its own words:

The industrial court has jurisdiction to enforce a collective bargaining contract, such ruling only applies if the subject matter of the contract sought to be enforced refers to a labor dispute affecting an industry certified by the President, or when it involves minimum wage, hours of employment, or unfair labor practice.

This rule bears on the case because the subject matter here is retirement pay, which falls outside those enumerated matters.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court ruled in the negative. Since the case involves merely the recovery of retirement pay after the employer-employee relationship between the company and Basaysay had ceased on account of his separation from the service on January 2, 1958, and he is not seeking reinstatement, the case is merely a money claim cognizable by the regular courts.

On the second issue, the Court held that the petition was not premature. Although an order denying a motion to dismiss on the ground of lack of jurisdiction is interlocutory, if it is clear that the trial court lacks jurisdiction, a higher court of competent jurisdiction would be justified in issuing a writ of certiorari and prohibition, for the proceedings in the court below would be a nullity and a waste of time. The Court quoted with approval:

If the question of jurisdiction were not the main ground for this petition for review by certiorari, it would be premature because it seeks to have a review of an interlocutory order. But as it would be useless and futile to go ahead with the proceedings if the court below had no jurisdiction this petition was given due course.

And further:

Although an order denying a motion to dismiss a complaint on the ground of lack of jurisdiction is interlocutory, still if it is clear that the trial court lacks jurisdiction a higher court of competent jurisdiction would be justified in issuing a writ of certiorari and prohibition, for the proceedings in the court below would be a nullity and waste of time.

Doctrine

A claim for retirement pay filed after the employer-employee relationship has ceased, where the claimant does not seek reinstatement, is a mere money claim cognizable by the regular courts, not by the Court of Industrial Relations. The industrial court's power to enforce a collective bargaining contract extends only where the subject matter refers to a labor dispute affecting an industry certified by the President, or involves minimum wage, hours of employment, or unfair labor practice. And the extraordinary writs of certiorari and prohibition may issue to correct an interlocutory order denying a motion to dismiss where it is clear that the trial court lacks jurisdiction, because further proceedings would be a nullity and a waste of time.

Disposition

The petition was granted; the order appealed from was reversed without costs, and the writ of preliminary injunction issued by the Supreme Court was declared permanent.

Remember This

Memorize the line that a claim for retirement pay after separation, without reinstatement, is a mere money claim for the regular courts. Examiners use this case to test the limits of the industrial court's jurisdiction over collective bargaining contracts and the exception allowing certiorari against interlocutory orders on jurisdictional grounds.