G. R. No. L-17916. April 30, 1963
MAXIMO GOMEZ, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT, VS. FOOKIEN TIMES COMPANY, INC., DEFENDANT AND APPELLEE.
BAUTISTA ANGELO, J.:
RegionaI Office No. 3, Department of Labor, against the Fookien Times
Company, Inc. covering four causes of action, among which, the first
refers to separation pay in the amount of P1,000.00, the second to
overtime pay from July 16, 1947 to September 30, 1957 in the amount of
P13,527.90, the third to 25% additional pay for Sundays and legal
holidays for the same period in the amount of P1,059.98, and the fourth
to another 25% additional pay in excess, of eight hours of work on
Sundays and holidays for the same period in the amount of P3,312. 20,
plus attorney’s fees and damages.
On January 16, 1958, the company filed its answer stating as to the
first cause of action that Gomez is not entitled to separation pay
under the provisions of Republic Act 1787 because he failed to comply
with the lawful orders of the management and has abandoned his work.
With regard to the second, third and fourth causes of action, Gomez is
not entitled to what he is claiming because he had not rendered the
supposed services mentioned therein aside from the fact that, if they
were true, they were already barred by the statute of limitations.
After hearing, the hearing officer Paulino S. Perez rendered
judgment dismissing the complaint for lack of merit. From this
judgment, Gomez appealed to the Labor Standards Commission which, after
the submission of the memoranda of the parties as required by its rules
and regulations, rendered decision which in effect modified that of the
hearing officer by awarding to Gomez the amount of P31.97 as overtime
pay and the amount of P750.000 as separation pay, or a total of
P781.97, with legal interest thereon from October 21, 1957. The rest of
the decision was reversed.
On. March 16, 1960, the company gave notice of its intention to
appeal from the decision insofar only held that Gomez was dismissed
without cause thereby awarding him the amount’ of P750.00 as separation
pay.
On April 4, 1960, Maximo Gomez also gave notice of his intention to
appeal, but having failed to perfect the same within the 30-day period
required by Section 44 of the Rules and Regulations of the Labor
Standards Commission, it was denied by the Commission en banc. In due course, this order of the Commission became final and executory,
However, on May 26, 1960, much beyond the reglementary period
provided for in the rules abovementioned, Maximo Gomez filed a
complaint before the Court of First Instance of Manila by way of appeal
from the decision of the Labor Standards Commission wherein he tried to
collect from the company practically the same overtime, separation pay,
and additional compensation which he demanded before’ the Regional
Office of the Department of Labor, although the amounts were
substantially reduced, to which defendant company filed a motion to
dismiss based mainly on the ground that the court has no jurisdiction
to act thereon it appearing that plaintiff Gomez had failed to appeal
in due time from the judgment rendered by the Labor Standards
Commission en banc. This motion was sustained by the court.
Consequently, it denied the appeal of plaintiff Gomez, and declared the
decision of the Commission final and executory. His motion for
reconsideration was also denied for lack of merit.
In the meantime, the appeal interposed by the Fookien Times Company,
Inc. was given due course and in connection therewith the record of the
case was transmitted to the Court of First Instance of Manila in
accordance with Section 20 (b) of Reorganization Plan 20-A and
Section 26 of Executive Order No. 218 of the President of the
Philippines dated December 10, 1956, issued in accordance with Republic
Act No. 997, as amended by Republic Act No. 1241,
During the trial of the case, insofar as the appeal interposed by the
company is concerned, oral and documentary evidence was presented by
the parties, and thereafter the court rendered judgment dismissing the
complaint filed by Maximo Gomez. In its decision, the court found that,
Gomez refused to follow a lawful order given to him in connection with
his employment and so he was separated from the service with cause.
Gomez interposed the present appeal.
In a long line of decisions heretofore rendered by this Court, we
held that Reorganization Plan No. 20-A, particularly Section 25, which
grants to the regional offices original and exclusive jurisdiction over
money claims of laborers, is null and void, said grant having been made
without authority by Republic Act No. 997.[1]
It was not the intention of Congress in enacting Republic Act 997 to
authorize the transfer of the jurisdiction granted to the courts of
justice to the officials to be appointed or offices to be created by
the Reorganization Plan. Congress is well aware of the provision of the
Constitution that judicial powers are vested, “only in the Supreme
Court and in such courts as the law may establish.” The Commission was
not authorized to create courts of justice, or to take away from them
their jurisdiction and transfer it to the officials to be appointed or
offices to be created under the Reorganization Plan. The legislature
could not have intended to grant Such powers to the Reorganization
Commission, an executive body, as the legislature may not and cannot
delegate its power to legislate to any other agency of the government
(Tiberio vs. Manila Pilots Association, L- 17661, December 28, 1961).
It follows that the decision of the hearing, officer, as well as that of the Labor, Standards Commission en banc, are null and void and without effect. The decision rendered by the court a quo
which is based merely on the appeal taken by the company from the
decision of the Labor Standards, Commission cannot also have any valid
effect, its basis being a nullity. As a consequence, the proceedings
had before the court a quo as well as before the hearing
officer and the Labor Standards Commission are illegal and should be
declared wholly ineffective.
Wherefore, the decision appealed from is reversed. The complaint filed by Maximo Gomez is dismissed. – No costs.
Bengzon, C. J., Labrador, Concepcion, Paredes, Regala, and Makalintal, JJ., concur.
Barrera, J., concurs in the result
[1]Corominas, et al. vs. Labor Standards Commission, et al., L- 14837, June 30, 1961; Manila Central University vs. Calupitan, et al., L-15483, June 30, 1961; Miller vs. Mardo, et al., L-15138, July 31, 1961; Lectura vs.
Regional Office No. 3, et al,, L-15582, L-16061 and L-16685, July 31,
1961; Phil. Tobacco Flue-Curing & Redrying Corporation vs. Sabugo, et al., L-16017, August 31, 1961; Tan vs. De Leon, et al., L-15254, September 16, 1961; Everlasting Pictures, Inc., et al vs. Fuestes, et al. L-16512, November 29, 1961.