STA. CECILLA SAWMILLS CO., INC., PETITIONER, VS. THE COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS AND JUANITO ABIOG, ET AL., RESPONDENTS. STA. CECILLA SAWMILLS CO., INC., PETITIONER, VS. THE C…

These are two petitions for writs of certiorari to annul the orders of
the Court of Industrial Relations dated 22 May 1958, denying the
petitioner’s motion to dismiss, and 30 July 1958, denying the
petitioner’s motion for reconsideration, in Cases Nos. 977-V and 986-V,
and of prohibition to enjoin the Court of Industrial Relations from
further proceeding with the hearing and determination of the aforesaid
cases.

CIR Case No. 977—V (GR No. L-14255)

The respondents filed in the Court of Industrial Relations a petition
dated 7 February 1955 praying that the petitioner be ordered to pay
them overtime wages in the aggregate sum of P392,253.76 (Annex A). On 9
March 1955 the petitioner filed a motion dated 8 March 1955 praying
that the respondents be ordered to state with sufficient definiteness
or particularity their respective residences in Quezon province; the
day or month in 1947 when they had been employed by the petitioner;
whether they were still in its employment; the date or dates when they
had been required by the petitioner to render overtime work; and the
method of computation used in arriving at the amounts indicated
opposite their respective names in the petition (Annex B). On 10 March
1955 the respondents filed an opposition to the petitioner’s motion
(Annex C). On 16 March 1955 the respondents filed an amended petition
dated 12 March 1955 praying that the petitioner be ordered to pay them
overtime wages in the same aggregate sum claimed in the original
petition (Annex D). On 22 March 1955 the petitioner filed a motion to
dismiss dated 18 March 1955 on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over
the subject matter of the action and that the petition states no cause
of action because as the respondents already had ceased to be in its
employ, no labor dispute exists between them (Annex E). On 23 March
1955 the respondents filed an opposition to the petitioner’s motion to
dismiss (Annex F). On 13 April 1955 the Court entered an order
deferring its resolution on the petitioner’s motion to dismiss until
after the trial of the case on the merits, and granting the petitioner
five days from receipt of a copy of the order within which to file its
answer to the respondents’ amended petition (Annex G). On 11 May 1955
the petitioner filed its answer to the respondents’ amended petition
with a counter-claim, reiterating, as special defense, the same grounds
invoked in its motion to dismiss (Annex H). On 12 May 1955 the
respondents filed their answer to the petitioner’s counterclaim (Annex
I).

CIR Case No. 986-V (G. R. No. L-14254)

On 14 May 1955 the respondents filed in the Court of Industrial
Relations a petition praying that the petitioner be ordered to pay them
overtime wages in the aggregate sum of P187,238.43 (Annex A). On 4 June
1955 the petitioner filed a motion dated 2 June 1955 for a bill of
particulars similar to the one filed by it in the first case (Annex B).
On 8 June 1955 the respondents filed an opposition thereto (Annex C).
On 13 June 1955 the Court entered an order directing the respondents to
aver with definiteness or particularity the dates when they had been
employed by the petitioner and when they had ceased to be in its employ
(Annex D.) On 20 June 1955 the respondents complied with the order of
the Court (Annex E).

On 21 December 1955 the respondent
filed an amended petition praying for collection of overtime wages in
the same aggregate amount claimed in the original petition (Annex F).
On 25 January 1956 the petitioner filed a motion to dismiss on the same
grounds invoked in its motion to dismiss in the first case (Annex G).
At the hearing of the petitioner’s motion to dismiss on 11 February
1956, the respondents verbally objected to the motion (see Annex 1). On
2 March 1956 the Court entered an order deferring its resolution on the
petitioner’s motion to dismiss and respondents’ objection thereto until
after the trial of the case on the merits, and giving the petitioner
five days from receipt or a copy of the order within which to file its
answer to the amended petition (Annex I). On 12 March 1956 the
petitioner filed its answer to the amended petition with a
counterclaim, reiterating, as special defense, the same ground invoked
in its motion to dismiss that the Court has no jurisdiction over the
subject matter of the action (Annex J). On 17 March 1956 the
respondents filed an answer to the petitioner’s counterclaim (Annex K).

The Court proceeded to hear and try the two cases separately. On 20
January 1958 the petitioner filed in the two cases separate motions to
dismiss date 16 January 1958 invoking the rule laid down by this Court
in Mindanao Bus Employees Labor Union (PLUM) vs. Mindanao Bus
Company, G. R. No. L-9795, 28 December 1957, that the Court of
Industrial Relations has no jurisdiction over cases for collection of
overtime wages (Annexes L and G. R. Nos. L-14255 and L-14254,
respectively). On 22 May 1958 the Court entered an order in the two
cases denying the petitioner’s motions to dismiss and set the
resumption of the hearing on 10, 11 and 12 June 1958 at 9:00 o’clock in
the morning (Annexes K and M, G. R. Nos. L-14255 and L-14254,
respectively). On 29 May 1958 the petitioner filed a motion for
reconsideration dated 28 May 1958 of the foregoing order (Annexes L and
N, G. R. Nos. L-14255 and L-14254, respectively). On 30 July 1958 the
Court en banc entered a resolution denying the petitioner’s
motion for reconsideration (Annexes M and O., G. R. Nos. L-14255 and
14254, respectively).

Contending that in denying its motion
to dismiss and motion for reconsideration of the order of denial, the
Court of Industrial Relations acted without and/or in excess of
jurisdiction and with grave abuse of discretion, and that there being
left for it neither the remedy of appeal nor any plain, speedy and
adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, the petitioner prays for
writs of certiorari to annul the orders of the respondent Court dated
22 May and 30 July 1958 (Annexes K and M and M and O, G. R. Nos.
L-14255 and L-14254, respectively), and of prohibition to enjoin the
Court from further proceeding with the hearing and determination of the
aforesaid cases.

This Court has held in a long line of
decisions that upon the enactment of Republic Act No. 875, which took
effect on 17 June 1953, the jurisdiction of the Court of Industrial
Relations is confined to the following: (1) when the labor dispute
affects an industry which is indispensable to the national interest and
is so certified by the President to the industrial court (section 10,
Republic Act No. 875) ; (2) when the controversy refers to the minimum
wage under the Minimum Wage Law (Republic Act No. 602); (3) when it
involves hours of employment under the Eight-Hour Labor Law
(Commonwealth Act No. 444); and (4) when it involves an unfair labor
practice [Section 5, (a), Republic Act No. 875]^[1]; and that the Court of Industrial Relations has no jurisdiction to hear and determine cases for collection of overtime wages.^[2]

In CIR Case No. 977-V (G. R. No. L-14255) the respondents allege and
pray in their amended petition filed in the Court of Industrial
Relations:

3. That the petitioners have been employed by the respondent in the operation of its business since 1947.
4. That since the employment of the petitioners with the respondent, they
   were required to work overtime in ordinary working days and on legal
   holidays, in violation of the Eight-Hour Labor Law (Commonwealth Act
   No. 444).

5. That the petitioners are
   entitled to the following amounts by way of overtime pay: (followed by
   the names of the claimants and the amounts they respectively claim).

Wherefore, it is respectfully prayed that judgment be rendered ordering
the respondent to pay the sum of P392,253.76 in accordance with the
provisions of Commonwealth Act 444. (Annex D.)

It is, therefore, clear that the Court of Industrial Relations did not
and does not have jurisdiction to hear and determine the respondents’
petition.

In CIR Case No. 986-V (G.R. No. L-14254) the respondents allege and pray in their amended petition:

3. That the petitioners were employed by the respondent corporation on the
   dates appearing opposite their respective names hereinbelow under the
   heading “Date of Employment” and were dismissed on the dates also
   appearing therein under the heading “Date of Dismissal or Termination
   of Service,” and that since the employment of petitioners in the
   respondent corporation, without any known authority therefor and
   sometime under threats of dismissal, the said corporation required
   petitioners to work for more than eight (8) hours a day during ordinary
   working days and for more than the same number of hours on Sundays and
   legal holidays, and without compensating them for their extra hours of
   work as required by law, paying them the same daily wage which at the
   start was P3.50 but was later reduced to P3.15, thereby entitling
   petitioners by way of overtime pay and extra compensation for work
   during Sundays and legal holidays to at least an amount indicated
   opposite their respective names under the heading “Amount Due” for the
   length of time of their service also hereinbelow indicate: (Followed by
   the names of the claimants, the dates of employment and dismissal or
   termination of service and amount of their respective claims)

4. That the petitioners received during all their respective period of
   services an amount as aforesaid less than that provided for by Republic
   Act No. 602 otherwise known as “The Minimum Wage Law” and that since
   the effectivity of said law up to the time of dismissal of petitioners
   (with respect to those who were dismissed after said law took effect)
   the latter never received the compensation in accordance with said
   Minimum Wage Law.

Wherefore,
premises considered it is most respectfully prayed that judgment be
rendered ordering the respondent to pay, each of the petitioners the
respective sum due of them as warranted by the evidence amounting to a
total of not less than the sum of P187,238.43 for all of them and to
grant petitioners such other remedies as may be just and equitable
under the premises.

It appears from the
“compliance” of the respondents filed in CIR Case No. 986-V on 20 June
1955 (Annex E) and the amended petition dated 20 December and filed on
21 December 1955 in the same case (Annex F) that they are no longer in
the service of the petitioner, the latest dismissal or termination of
service having been on 31 March 1955 with respect to Jesus Pies (or
Pica), while the petition in this case was filed on 14 May 1955, and
that they are not seeking reinstatement to their respective positions.
Hence no labor dispute is involved in the case and for that reason the
Court of Industrial Relations has no jurisdiction to hear and determine
the respondents’ petition.^[1]

The petitions for writs of certiorari and prohibition are granted, with
costs against the respondents, except the Court.

Paras, C. J., Bengzon, Montemayor, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Barrera, and Gutierrez David, JJ., concur.

---

^[1] PAFLU vs. Tan, 99 Phil., 854; 52 Off. Gaz., 5826; Reyes vs. Tan, 99 Phil., 880; 52 Off. Gaz., 6187; PAFLU vs. Barot, 99 Phil., 1008; 52 Off. Gaz,, 6544; Allied Free Workers Union vs. Apostol, 102 Phil., 292; 54 Off. Gaz. 981; Mindanao Bus Employees Labor Union (PLUM) vs. Mindanao Bus Co., G.R. No. L-9795, 28 December 1957; Aguilar vs. Salumbides, G.R. No. L-10124. 28 December 1957; Dee Cho Lumber Workers Union (NLU) vs. Dee Cho Lumber Co., 101 Phil., 417; 55 Off. Gaz., 434; Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila, vs. Yanson and Elizalde & Co., Inc. vs. Yanson, G.R. Nos. L-12341 and L-12345, 30 April 1958; Chua Workers Union (NLU) vs. City Automotive Co., G.R. L-11655, 29 April; 1959; and Philippine Sugar Institute vs. Court of Industrial Relations 106 Phil., 401; 57 Off. Gaz., (4) 635.

^[2] Mindanao Bus Employees Labor Union (PLUM) vs. Mindanao Bus Co., supra; Aguilar vs. Salumbides, supra; Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila vs. Yanson and Elizalde & Co., Inc., vs. Yanson, supra; Chua Workers Union (NLU) vs. City Automotive Co., supra.

^[1] Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila vs. Yanson and Elizalde & Co., Inc. vs. Yanson, supra.