G. R. No. L-18969. April 24, 1963
KAPISANAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY, ET AL., PETITIONERS, VS. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL., RESPONDENTS.
Decisions / Signed Resolutions April 24, 1963 DIZON, J.:
DIZON, J.:
Petitioner Polingon is an employess of respondent Manila Railroad
Company and a member of his co-petitioner, the Kapisanan ng mga
Manggagawa sa Manila Road Company. On October 10, 1954, he was
suspended from his employment by reason of the filing of criminal
charges for qualified theft against him in the Court of First Instance
of Pangasinan (Criminal Cases Nos. D-175 and D-176). After his
acquittal in said cases on April 16, 1959, he was reinstated to his
former position but without backwages, for which reason he filed a
petition with the respondent Court of Industrial Relations to recover
such backwages from his employer. The latter moved to dismiss the
petition on the ground that said court had no jurisdiction over its
subject matter. On August 25, 1961, the court dismissed the petition on
said ground. Subsequently, Court en banc denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration. Hence, this appeal.
Company and a member of his co-petitioner, the Kapisanan ng mga
Manggagawa sa Manila Road Company. On October 10, 1954, he was
suspended from his employment by reason of the filing of criminal
charges for qualified theft against him in the Court of First Instance
of Pangasinan (Criminal Cases Nos. D-175 and D-176). After his
acquittal in said cases on April 16, 1959, he was reinstated to his
former position but without backwages, for which reason he filed a
petition with the respondent Court of Industrial Relations to recover
such backwages from his employer. The latter moved to dismiss the
petition on the ground that said court had no jurisdiction over its
subject matter. On August 25, 1961, the court dismissed the petition on
said ground. Subsequently, Court en banc denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration. Hence, this appeal.
Upon the facts stated above, Polingon’s claim is a mere money claim not
within the jurisdiction of the respondent court to adjudicate, it being
clear that it involves no charge of unfair labor practice against his
employer (Cagalawan vs. Customs Canteen, G. R. No. L-16031, October 31,1961).
Wherefore, the orders appealed from are hereby affirmed, with costs.
Bengzon, C. J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Reyes, J. B, L., Paredes, Regala, and Makalintal, JJ., concur.