ABUNDIO MATILLANO, ET AL., PETITIONERS, VS. THE HON. SEVERIANO DE LEON, OF THE COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS, 11TH REGIONAL DISTRICT AND ANGEL LOCSIN, RESPONDENTS.

On April 4, 1963,
twenty-three farmworkers filed a complaint before the
Court of Agrarian Relations of Ne­gros Occidental
against Angel Locsin, owner of thirty-five hectares
of sugar land in Hinigaran, Negros
Occidental for violation of Section 27(5) of Republic Act 1199^[1]
and Section 3 of Republic Act 602.^[2]

Alleged therein, among others, were that:  On October
19, 1962, complainants joined the Philippine Association of Free
Labor.  Unions, Hacienda Carutay Chapter; on January 18, 1963, they went on an unfair
labor practice strike; that when they offered to return to work on March 13,
1963, Locsin refused to admit them back; as to their
wages, from the time of their employment, they worked everyday, except on
Sundays and holidays, and were paid P1.50 per day, ex­cept eight of them who
worked only for 150 days a year, and who were paid only a daily wage of P1.20
each.  They asked for reinstatement and
differential pay.

Upon denial of his motion to dismiss, respondent Loc­sin answered and hearing was held before a Court of
Agra­rian Relations Commissioner, wherein three of plaintiffs’ witnesses
testified.

On August 28, 1965,
Locsin moved to dismiss on the ground that the Agrarian
Court had no jurisdiction because there was no
preliminary investigation in accordance with Section 5(b) of Republic Act 875,
otherwise known as the Industrial Peace Act.

The Agrarian Court Judge Severiano de
Leon, while ob­serving that Section 27(5) of Republic Act 1199 refers to
tenants and not to the farmworkers such as the
complainants, nevertheless took cognizance of the case for the reason that the
complaint was for unfair labor practice over which it had jurisdiction.  As Section 55 of the Agricultural Tenancy Act
allows the application of existing provisions of law not inconsistent with the
Act, the Agrarian Court
applied Section 5 of Republic Act 875 under which in a suit for unfair labor
practice before the Court of Industrial Relations, a preliminary investigation
is necessary before a complaint is filed. 
Considering the absence of this in the present case as a jurisdictional
defect, the complaint was dismissed by the Agrarian
Court on September
5, 1965.

Their motion for reconsideration having been denied, complainants
appealed to Us, setting forth as issue the necessity of preliminary
investigation before the Court of Agrarian Relations.

To put the issue in proper perspective, let us trace the
procedure in both the Court or Agrarian Relations and the Court of Industrial
Relations as regards the matter un­der consideration.

On October 29, 1936, Commonwealth Act No. 103 created the Court
of Industrial Relations giving it jurisdiction over the entire Philippines,
“to consider, investigate, decide, and settle all questions, matter,
controversies, or disputes arising, between, and/or affecting employers and
employees or laborers and landlords and tenants or farm laborers, and regulate
the relations between them, subject to the provisions of this Act.”^[3]
Then, industrial laborers and their employers, tenants, landlords and farm
laborers or agricultural workers were all within the Ju­risdiction of the Court
of Industrial Relations.  Pursuant to
Section 20 of the Act, the court promulgated on October 1, 1945 its Rules of Procedure applicable to all
covered by its jurisdiction.  The Rules
did not provide for such preliminary investigation prior to the filing of the
complaint.  Years after, on June 17, 1953, Republic Act 875 – the
Industrial Peace Act – took effect, which dealt with the relationship between
employer and employee and dis­putes arising therein.  The Act requires among others that a
preliminary investigation be held after the charge for unfair labor practice is
filed as preparatory to the filing of the formal complaint.^[4]
Then on August 30, 1954,
came Republic Act 1199, more popularly known as the Agri­cultural Tenancy Act
governing the relations between land­lord and tenant.  The jurisdiction as to landlords and tenants
was still in the Court of Industrial Relations until Republic Act 1267 became
effective on June 14, 1955, creating the Court of Agrarian Relations with
“original and exclusive Jurisdiction over the entire Philippines, to
consider, investigate, decide, and settle all questions, matters, controversies
or disputes involving all those re­lationships established by law which
determine the varying rights of persons in the cultivation and use of
agricultural land where one of the parties works the land.  x x x.”^[5]  The Agrarian Court
was given the authority to adopt its rules of procedure^[6]
and in accordance therewith, the court promulgated^[7]
its own rules of procedure where nothing was said on the necessity of
preliminary investigation.

As the law stood then when the complaint the pre­sent case was
filed on April 14, 1963,
the procedure con­tained in Section 5 of Republic Act 875 could not be ap­plied
to agricultural laborers, since Republic Act 875 was not then applicable to
them.^[8]
The point whether agricul­tural laborers are now covered by Republic Act
875 by vir­tue of the Agricultural Land Reform Code is not being decided here.  For, in any case, the present suit was filed
before the Agricultural Land Reform Code took effect.

The procedure applicable to cases involving agricul­tural
laborers prior to the creation of the Court of Agrarian Relations, was the
Rules of the Court of Industrial Relations. 
After the Court of Agrarian Relations was created on June 14, 1955 until the effectivity of the Agricul­tural Land Reform Code on August 8, 1963, the procedure for said
cases was that provided for in the Rules of the Court of Agrarian
Relations.  This, as stated, was the
procedure applicable when the present suit was filed.  And, finally, since August 8, 1963 to the present, the proce­dure
governing agricultural laborers’ cases is the Rules of Court by virtue of Sec.
155 of the Agricultural Land Reform Code. 
Neither the Rules of the Court of Agrarian Relations nor the Rules of
Court require the preliminary investigation in question.

The violation of the Minimum Wage law not being one of the
enumerated instances of unfair labor practices, in the second cause of action
wage differential – there is, in any event, no need of preliminary
investigation.

As regards the contention that the Agrarian Court has no
jurisdiction over violations of the Minimum Wage Law, suffice it to say that
Sections 1 and 7 of Republic Act 1267 created the Court of Agrarian Relations
for the enforcement of all laws and regulations governing the relation
of capital and labor on all agricultural lands un­der any system of
cultivation, with exclusive jurisdiction over the entire Philippines to
consider, decide and settle all, questions, matters, controversies or disputes
involving all those relationships established by law.^[9]

The question of whether reinstatement or differen­tial pay may be
ordered is a matter that should be deter­mined upon the merits or at least on
consideration of the main case, and not in the resolution of this incident of
the case.

WHEREFORE, the questioned order of dismissal is here­by
reversed and set aside.  This case is
hereby ordered remanded to the Eleventh Regional District of the Court of
Agrarian Relations for further proceedings. 
No costs.

SO ORDERED.

Reyes, Acting C.J., Dizon, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Sanchez,
Ruiz Castro, Angeles, and Fernando, JJ.,
concur.

^[1]
“The landholder shall not discourage, directly or indi­rectly, the
formation, maintenance or growth of a union or organization of tenants in his
landholding, but he shall not initiate, dominate, assist or in­terfere in the
formation or administration of any such union or organization.”

^[2]
Said law, effective 120 days after April
6, 1961, re­quires every farm enterprise operator of more than 12
hectares to pay his employees the following rates:

(a) P1.75 a day on the effective
date of the Act and for one year thereafter but not to be re­duced by
allowances for board and lodging below P1.50 cash.

(b) P2.00 a day one year after its effectivi­ty but not to be reduced by allowances for board
and lodging below P1.75 cash.

(c) P2.50 a day one year thereafter
but not to be reduced by allowances for board and lodging below P2.25 cash.

^[3]
Section 1.

^[4]
Section 5(b) of R.A. 875 National Union of Printing
Workers v. Asia Printing, 99 Phil. 589.

^[5]
Section 7, R.A. 1267.

^[6]
Section 10, R.A. 1267.

^[7]
52 O.G. 71; 53 O.G. 2728.

^[8] Victorias Milling Co., Inc. v. CIR, G.R. No. L-17281,
March 30, 1963; Santos
v. CIR, G.R. No. L-17196, Dec.
28, 1961; Hacien­da Esperanza v. CIR, G.R. No. L-18708, Nov. 28, 1962.

^[9] Elizalde v. Allied Workers Association of the Philippines
& CIR, G.R. No. L-20792, May 31,
1965.