ISIDORO CEBRERO, PETITIONER AND APPELLANT, VS. JOSE TALAMAN, RESPONDENT AND APPELLEE.

Appeal from a decision of the Court of First Instance of Manila dismissing
appellant’s petition for a writ of execution to enforce an alleged judgment of
the Wage Administration Service.

The record shows that sometime in 1955, the appellant Isidore Cebrero filed a
claim with the WAS (Wage Administration Service) against the respondent Jose
Talaman, herein appellee, proprietor of a restaurant at Quezon Boulevard,
Manila, where the appellant was working, for underpayment, overtime pay and
additional compensation for services rendered on Sundays and holidays and for
separation-pay. Summoned to a conference, the parties appeared before the
regional investigator assigned to the case; but as the respondent denied
liability on the claim, no amicable settlement resulted. Neither did the parties
agree to submit the case for arbitration. But despite the absence of such
agreement the regional investigator heard evidence for the claimant and
questioned the respondent, who was then unassisted by counsel, and thereafter
rendered a so-called “judgment” for the sum of P2,240.94 and advised the deposit
thereof in his office.

Notified of the “judgment”, the respondent, through counsel, filed a motion
for reconsideration and new trial, alleging that he had appeared before the
investigator merely to be questioned on matters incident to the operation of his
business and not to answer formal charges and defend himself in an investigation
that was to go into the merits of a money claim against him and that for that
reason he was not assisted by counsel. The motion was denied by the
investigator, but at respondent’s request the chief of the regional office
reassigned the case to another investigator for re-investigation. The latter,
however, desisted from taking further action in the case on being informed that
the same had already been taken to the City Fiscal of Manila for proper criminal
action.

On the theory that the “judgment” of the WAS investigator had already become
final because the same was not appealed, the claimant Isidoro Cebrero petitioned
the Court of First Instance of Manila to order its execution. But the court,
after hearing, decided to dismiss the petition without prejudice, holding in
effect that the judgment in question was not proper, the same having been
rendered without an agreement to arbitrate. Reconsideration of this decision
having been denied, the claimant appealed directly to this Court, the question
involved being purely legal.

Under Republic Act No. 602, known as the Minimum Wage Law, an employee is
authorized to bring an action. in the regular courts for the recovery of unpaid
wages. But before taking such action, he is also given the option to try to
collect his claim extra judicially through the mediation of the Wage
Administration Service (called WAS for short), an office created in that same
Act, the said office being for that purpose empowered to mediate and bring about
an amicable settlement, to arbitrate the claim if there is an agreement to
submit it for arbitration or, if no amicable settlement or agreement to
arbitrate is arrived at, to investigate the claim and file an action in court if
the claim is found meritorious and the claimant is without counsel.

The procedure to govern the filing and prosecution of claims of this nature
in the WAS is set forth in a Code of Rules and Regulations promulgated by the
chief of that office under the authority of the Secretary of Labor pursuant to
section 11 of the Act. The pertinent provisions of that code read:

“B. MEDIATION

“SEC. 6. At the opening of the initial conference, the claims investigator or
claims attorney shall endeavor to reconcile the parties and induce them to
settle the claim by amicable agreement. If any agreement as to the whole or part
of the claim is arrived at between the parties a memorandum of its terms shall
be made in writing, signed and acknowledged by the parties, thereto before the
claims investigator or claims attorney. Such agreement shall dispose of the
claim in whole or in part, as the case may be.

“SEC. 7. The period to mediate on any claim shall in no case exceed one week
from the initial conference.

* * * * * * *

“C. ARBITRATION

“SEC. 9. If no amicable agreement is arrived at between the
parties on the whole or any part of the claim, the claims investigator or claims
attorney shall immediately ask the parties whether they are willing to submit
the case for arbitration by the Service with him or any other claims attorney or
investigator acting as arbitrator, whose decision shall be binding, final and
conclusive between them, the agreement to arbitrate shall be made in writing and
signed by the parties before the claims investigator or claims attorney. In case
of arbitration, the hearing on the claim shall not exceed one week, from the
initiation thereof.

“SEC. 14. In the event that mediation fails and the parties are not willing
to arbitrate, the claim shall immediately be assigned to a claims attorney, who
will investigate the claimant and his witnesses to find out if such claim is
meritorious or not. If meritorious, the attorney will prepare the corresponding
complaint and petition for indigency for court action, as the case may be,
within one week after receiving the same.”

It is clear from the above provisions of the Code of Rules and Regulations
for the implementation of the Act that where an employee, instead of going
directly to court, files his claim with the WAS, that office, through an
investigator assigned to the case, should first call the parties to a conference
and endeavor to effect an amicable settlement; that if no amicable agreement is
arrived at, the investigator should ask the parties if they are willing to
submit the case for arbitration; and that if mediation fails and the parties are
not willing to arbitrate, the claim shall immediately be assigned to a claims
attorney, who shall then “investigate the claimant and his witnesses to find out
if such claim is meritorious or not” and who, if he finds the claim meritorious
“will prepare the corresponding complaint and petition for indigency for court
action”.

It is obvious that the WAS investigator assigned to the present case went
beyond what the Code of Rules and Regulations of that office authorizes for
without the parties having arrived at an amicable settlement or submitted the
case for arbitration, he investigated the case and then rendered a “judgment”
for a sum of money. That so-called judgment with its “findings” was no judgment
at all, that is, a judgment that could be enforced through a writ of execution.
Under the code of rules above mentioned, it is nothing more than a finding that
the claim is meritorious and justifies the filing of a complaint in court.

Appellant, citing the case of Brillantes vs. Castro (99″ Phil., 497; 56 Off.
Gaz., [29], 4621), contends that even without an arbitration agreement the
decision of the WAS Investigator becomes final if not appealed. The contention
is without basis. Actually, the decision of the WAS in that case was predicated
on an agreement to arbitrate and, contrary to the impression that appellant
seeks to convey, we did not there hold that even without such an agreement the
decision of the WAS would be final if not appealed. Indeed, the rule already
adopted by this Court on this point is to the contrary. Thus, in the case of
Nestle vs. Secretary of Labor et al. (G. K. No. L-11630) and then again in
Elizalde & Co., Inc., et al. vs. Arnado, et al. (G. R. No. L-11592), this
Court, acting on a petition to review a so-called decision of the WAS rendered
without an agreement to arbitrate, adopted the following resolution:

“* * * Considering that Section 14 of the Code of Rules and Regulations to
implement the Minimum Wage Law (Rep. Act No. 602) provides that ‘in the event
that mediation fails and the parties are not willing to arbitrate, the claims
shall immediately be assigned to a claims attorney, who will investigate the
claimant and his witnesses to find out if such claim is meritorious or not. If
meritorious, the attorney -will prepare the corresponding petition for court
action, as the case may be within one week after receipt of the case’, and
considering further that this case falls squarely within the provisions of
Section 16 of said Minimum Wage Law, which confers on Courts of First Instance
jurisdiction to restrain violations of this Act and provides that ‘Action by the
Secretary (of Labor) or by the employees affected to recover underpayment may be
brought in any competent court’, the Court Resolved to dismiss the petition,
without prejudice to whatever right the petitioner may have to defend her
interests in this case by filing the corresponding action before the competent
Court of First Instance.” (See Minutes of December 14 and 18, 1956; see also
Franklin Baker Co. of the Phil. vs. Malasmas, dismissed by minute resolution on
Jan. 23, 1957.)

In view of the foregoing, the decision appealed from is affirmed, with costs
against the appellant.

Paras C.J., Bengzon, Montemayor, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion,
Reyes, J.B.L., Endencia, and Felix, JJ., concur.