ALFREDO V. PEREZ, PETITIONER, VS. THE COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS AND PLASTICS, INC., RESPONDENTS.

CONCEPCION, J.:

Appeal by certiorari from a decision of the Court of Industrial Relations,
affirmed by the court en banc, dismissing this case upon the ground of
lack of jurisdiction to hear the same.

Petitioner Alfredo V. Perez was a janitor of respondent Plastics Incorporated
from March 14 to July 2, 1958. On the date last mentioned, Perez was dismissed
by respondent upon the ground that one of its security guards had then
apprehended him carrying a bundle of plastics allegedly stolen from said
respondent. For reasons not stated in the record, the criminal case for theft
subsequently filed against Perez was eventually dismissed, for which reason
Perez sought reinstatement, which was denied. Accordingly, he filed with the
Court of Industrial Relations a petition for reinstatement with backpay from the
time of his dismissal. Respondent moved to dismiss the petition upon the ground
of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case. The motion was
granted in an order dated September 30, 1960, which, on motion for
reconsideration filed by Perez, was affirmed by the court sitting en
banc. Hence, this appeal by certiorari.

Petitioner maintains that the decision appealed from is erroneous for, in
PRISCO vs. CIR,. 108 Phil., 134 (May 23, 1960), we allegedly held “that
the Court of Industrial Relations has jurisdiction over all labor disputes as
long as the employer-employee relationship does exist or it is being sought to
be re-established”. There is no merit in this pretense.

We have repeatedly held:

“This Court has held in numerous cases that upon the enactment of Republic
Act No. 875, which took effect on 17 June 1953, the jurisdiction of the Court of
Industrial Relations was 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 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).” (Philippine Sugar
Institute vs. CIR, 106 Phil., 401 [October 29, 1959], pp.
2-3.)

This ruling had, however, been misunderstood in some quarters as implying
that cases involving the application of the Minimum Wage Law and the Eight-Hour
Labor Law are always within the jurisdiction of the CIR. Hence, in the PRISCO
case (supra), which involved claims for overtime, we said:

“* * * where the employer-employee relationship is still existing or is
sought to be reestablished because of its wrongful severance (as where the
employee seeks reinstatement), the Court of Industrial Relations has
jurisdiction over all the claims arising out of, or in connection with
employment, such as those related to the Minimum Wage Law and the Eight-Hour
Labor Law. After the termination of the relationship and no reinstatement is
sought, such claims become mere money claims, and come within the jurisdiction
of the regular courts.”

In other words, there must be an employer-employee relationship between the
parties in controversies arising under the Minimum Wage Law and the Eight-Hour
Labor Law, or such relationship must be sought to be re-established, for said
controversies to be within the jurisdiction of the CIR.

The case at bar has not been certified by the President and is not one for
alleged unfair labor practice. Neither does it involve the Minimum Wage Law or
the Eight-Hour Labor Law. Perez merely claims a right to reinstatement because
of the dismissal of the criminal charge of theft against him, upon which his
separation from the service had been’ predicated. His alleged cause of action
does not fall under the jurisdiction of the CIR.

Wherefore, the decision and the resolution appealed from are hereby affirmed,
with costs against petitioner Alfredo V. Perez. It is so ordered.

Bengzon, C. J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Reyres, J. B. L.,
Barrera, Paredes, Dizon., Regala, and Makalintal, JJ., concur.