LEONARD M. STOLL, ET AL., PETITIONERS AND APPELLEES VS. ATANACIO A. MARDO, ET AL., RESPONDENTS AND APPELLANTS.

One Andres Moran filed with Regional Office No. 3, Department of
Labor, Manila, against Leonard M. Stoll, et al. a claim for overtime
pay, payment for vacation leave, and separation pay, in view of which
the latter received a summons to appear and answer the claim. Instead
of complying with the summons, Leonard M. Stoll, et al. filed a special
action for prohibition with preliminary injunction before the Court of
First Instance of Rizal alleging that the hearing officer of said
regional office of the Department of Labor has no power to pass upon
the claim because Reorganization Plan No. 20-A which was adopted by the
Government Survey and Reorganization Commission in relation to
Executive Order No. 218, series of 1956, under Republic Act No. 997, as
amended by Republic Act No. 1241, was null and void, not only because
it constitutes an unlawful delegation of legislative power but also
because it was not validly passed as a statute, Congress not having
observed the procedure prescribed in Article VI, Section 21, of the
Philippine constitution.

On July 24,1959, the court a quo required respondents to
answer the petition within a period of 10 days from notice, and set for
hearing the motion for the issuance of a writ of preliminary
injunction. On August 1, 1959, the court a quo issued the
writ enjoining respondents from hearing the claim of Andres Moran upon
the posting of a bond in the amount of P500.00.

On April 4, 1960, after trial on the merits, the court a quo
virtually declared Reorganization Plan No. 20-A null and void because
it was passed in a manner contrary to the procedure prescribed by our
constitution aside from the fact that it constitutes an undue
delegation of legislative power and, as a consequence, it declared
respondent officials of the Department of Labor without authority to
hear and pass upon the claim of Andres Moran, declaring permanent the
writ of injunction it preliminarily issued.

Respondents interposed the present appeal.

The main issue posed in this appeal is whether or not the hearing
officials of the Department of Labor are legally vested with authority
by Reorganization Plan No. 20-A and Executive Order No. 218, series of
1956, in relation to Republic Act No. 997, as amended by Republic Act
No. 1241, to hear and adjudicate the claim of Andres Moran filed in
Regional Office No. 3 of the Department of Labor.

The specific legal provision invoked for the authority of the
different regional offices of the Department of Labor to take
cognizance of labor claims is paragraph 25 of Article VI, of
Reorganization Plan No: 20-A, which we quote:

“25. Each regional office shall have original and
exclusive jurisdiction over all cases falling under the Workmen’s
Compensation law, and cases affecting all money claims arising from
violations of labor standards on working conditions including but not
restrictive to: unpaid wages, underpayment, overtime, separation pay
and maternity leave of employees and laborers; and unpaid wages,
overtime, separation pay, vacation pay and payment for medical services
of domestic help.”

The issue raised is not new. We held in a number of cases that
Reorganization Plan No. 20-A, insofar as it confers judicial powers
upon labor officials to pass upon labor claims other than those that
come under the Workmen’s Compensation Commission, is invalid, because
it involves undue delegation of legislative power not contemplated by
Republic Act 997, as amended.^[1]
Nor can it be contended that the defect in the conferment of Judicial
powers upon labor officials has been cured because of the failure of
Congress to disapprove said reorganization plan upon the theory that
such failure is tantamount to an endorsement as a regular statute, for
in order that a measure may be considered as regular statute the same
must be duly passed in accordance with the procedure laid down by our
constitution. And so, in the recent case of Miller vs. Mardo
(and its companion cases), G. R. No. L-15138, decided on July 31, 1961,
this Court reached the conclusion that said reorganization plan
“insofar as it confers judicial powers to the Regional Offices over
cases other than those falling under the Workmen’s Compensation Law, is
invalid and of no effect.” This cases comes squarely under this ruling.

Wherefore, the decision appealed from is affirmed. No costs.

Bengzon C. J., Padilla, Labrador, Concepcion, Barrera, Parades, Dizon, Regala, and Makalintal, JJ., concur.

---

^[1] Carominas, et al. vs. Labor Standards Commissions, et al., 112 Phil., 551; Chinese Flour Importers’ Association vs. Price Stabilization Board, Surigao Consolidated vs. Collector of Internal Revenue, 94 Phil. 492; U.S. vs. Shereveport, 287 U.S. 77, 77 L.ed, 175; Johnson vs. San Diego, 42 P. 249, cited in 11 Am. Jur., .921-922.