G.R. No. L-20411. February 17, 1968
BARTOLOME E. SAN DIEGO, PETITIONER-APPELLEE, VS. SALVADOR R. VILLAGRACIA, ET AL., RESPONDENTS, ATTYS. JESUS NACIONGAYO, AGUSTIN T. MISOLA AND PROCOPIO SANTOS, RESPONDENTS-APPELL…
CASTRO, J.:
On November 3, 1958 Bartolome San Diego
instituted certiorari proceedings in the Court of First Instance of
Manila to set aside a decision of the Iloilo Regional Office (No. 5) of the
Department of Labor, ordering him to pay P2,350 to Adelina
Bieles as compensation for the death of her husband
who was, at the time of his death, in the employ of San Diego as radio
operator. The gravamen
of the action is that Reorganization Plan 20-A, which gave regional offices of
the Department of Labor jurisdiction to try and decide workmen’s compensation
claims, was unconstitutional because it was not passed in the manner
prescribed for the enactment of statutes and because it diminished the
jurisdiction of courts.
On April 24, 1959 the court issued a writ of preliminary
injunction directing the respondents Salvador R. Villagracia
and Tirso J. Cabili, labor
administrator and hearing officer, respectively, of the Regional Office 5 in
Iloilo, and “[their] attorneys, representatives, agents, and any other person
assisting [them], to refrain from proceeding and subsequently issuing a writ
of execution in WCC Case No. 1319.”
It appears, however, that at the time the petition for certiorari
was filed, WCC case 1319 had left the regional office, having been elevated on
September 19, 1958 to the Workmen’s Compensation Commission in Manila for
review, in view of the filing by the petitioner San Diego of a motion for
reconsideration. It therefore became
necessary for the latter to amend his petition so as to include the chairman
and the associate commissioners of the WCC as party respondents. This he did on August 27, 1959, but it was
not until February 1, 1960 that the amended petition was admitted by the court
because the petitioner himself filed a motion for the admission of the amended
pleading only on January 27, 1960. In
the meantime, the WCC proceeded with the review of WCC case 1319, decided it,
and on January 22, 1960, through its secretary, the respondent Procopio Santos, issued a writ of execution.
On May 20, 1960 the petitioner asked the court to cite Agustin T.
Misola and Jesus M. Naciongayo,
attorneys for the claimant Adelina Bieles, and Procopio Santos,
secretary of the WCC, for contempt. He
claimed that
“a) Atty.
Agustin T. Misola sought, and obtained in said WCC
Case No. 1319 a writ of execution; and
“b) Atty. Jesus M. Naciongayo,
to implement said writ of execution in WCC Case No. 1319 so obtained, as above
indicated, sought and obtained in said WCC Case No. 1319 an order directing the
Philippine Trust Company, Manila, to deliver to the Sheriff of Manila as it did
deliver – P1,021.48 out of petitioner’s savings account with said bank; and
“(c) the
respondent Atty. Procopio Santos knowingly and wilfully in violation of, and in disobedience to, the
aforesaid writ of preliminary injunction, and in disregard thereto, aided and
abetted the other respondents in proceeding, and subsequently obtaining – he
issued the writ of execution and implementing said writ of execution in said
WCC Case No. 1319.”
In their answer, Misola and Naciongayo averred that it was the WCC which actually
issued the writ of execution and that what they did was nothing but
“routine.” For his part the respondent Santos
claimed that he was not a party enjoined by the court and that, as a matter of
fact, the amended petition (including the WCC commissioner as party respondents)
was admitted by the court only on February
1, 1960, nine days after the issuance of the writ of execution in
WCC case 1319.
The court found the explanation unsatisfactory and sentenced
each of the three respondents-appellants to pay a fine of P50, but, on motion
of the latter, the court reconsidered its order and set the matter for hearing
on August 30, 1962. The petitioner, as movant, did not appear on the day of the hearing. Nevertheless the respondents were heard and
afterwards were again found guilty of contempt and, as before, were sentenced
to pay a fine of P50 each.
Hence this appeal.
The pertinent provisions of section 3 of Rule 64 of the old Rules
of Court (now section 3 of Rule 71) read:
“After charge in writing has been filed, and an opportunity
given to the accused to be heard by himself or counsel, a person guilty of any of
the following acts may be punished for contempt:
“. . . .
“(b)
Disobedience of or resistance to a lawful writ, process, order, judgment, or
command of a court, or injunction granted by a court or judge.”
The two requisites of this species of indirect contempt are: first, that the writ be lawful and, second,
that the disobedience be willful.
Neither of these requisite is present in this case.
First. As we have
stated in the beginning, the petitioner filed his action in 1958 on the theory
that the Regional Office 5 of the Department of Labor did not have jurisdiction
of WCC case 1319 because Reorganization Plan 20-A was unconstitutional. It was since been held, however, that Plan
20-A is not unconstitutional insofar as it gives labor regional offices jurisdiction
over workmen’s compensation claims.[1]
This must be the reason why the petitioner did not press his action for certiorari
which was finally dismissed for non-suit on June 13, 1962.
Indeed, as the law now stands, original and exclusive jurisdiction
over workmen’s compensation claims belongs to labor regional offices from whose
decisions appeals may be taken to the WCC.
The decision of a member of the WCC is in turn appealable
to the WCC in banc which is composed of three members “who .
. . have the same qualifications as those of judges of the court of first
instance.”[2]
The decisions of the WCC are appealable to the
Supreme Court.[3]
Court of first instance cannot review, much less annul, the decision of the
WCC.[4]
The result is that the writ of preliminary injunction issued by
the lower court was a nullity which could not be forced, let alone made the
basis of contempt proceedings, against the WCC, its officials and other persons
assisting them, such as the respondents Santos,
Misola and Naciongayo.
But it said in the appealed order:
“Even admitting, for the sake of
argument, that this court has no jurisdiction to entertain the petition for
certiorari filed in this case, it is not the respondent who should decide the
question of jurisdiction or validity of the orders of this court. As long as the case is still with this court,
the orders issued therein are presumed to be lawful and anybody who willfully
disregards the same is guilty of contempt of court.”
The court a quo did not seem to be bothered by the
fundamental difference between an injunction which, though erroneous, is issued
by a court of competent jurisdiction and one which, though correct, is issued
by a court which does not have jurisdiction to issue the order. The first is valid and should be obeyed the
second is void ab initio.
The injunction issued in this case is of the second type.
Second. The lower
court’s injunction was directed only against Salvador R. Villagracia
and Tirso J. Cabili of Regional
Office 5, and their “attorneys, representatives, agents and any other
person assisting [them].” But as we have noted earlier, the action was
erroneously brought against the officials of the Regional Office 5 in Iloilo,
because by then the case had been elevated to the WCC in Manila
for review. The petitioner himself
attached to his petition for certiorari (as annex K) a copy of the
regional office order dated September
19, 1958 forwarding the case to the WCC. Obviously he realized his mistake; that is
why on August 27, 1959 he
filed an amended petition, but it was not until January 27, 1960 that he moved for the admission of his
amended petition and only because the WCC had earlier (January 22) issued a
writ of execution in WCC case 1319. The
petitioner thus gambled with his chances on review by the WCC, and it was only
when an adverse judgment was rendered against him and it was executed7
that he asked the court to admit his amended petition so that he might have a
basis for a contempt charge against the new respondents. But even after the amended petition was
finally admitted on February 1, 1960,
that is, nine days after the writ of execution was issued, no corresponding
amendment of the writ of preliminary injunction was made so as to bring within
the sphere of its prohibition the WCC and its officials and any person aiding
them.
Willfulness implies knowledge of the existence of the order and
its provisions. As a general rule, one
who is not a party to an action is not subject to the jurisdiction of the court
trying the case and cannot reasonably be supposed to be aware of the court’s
order. Consequently, he cannot be
declared guilty of contempt for violation of the order.8
The respondent Santos
cannot be punished for what he did before the WCC was made a party to the
action. What is more, he cannot be
punished for doing a duty enjoined upon him by law, absent a restraining or
injunctive order against him. This is
self-evident, and this the court failed to take into account.
ACCORDINGLY, the order appealed from reversed and set
aside, and the respondents-appellant are hereby absolved, at petitioner-appellees cost.
Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P., Zaldivar, Sanchez,
Angeles, and Fernando, JJ., concur.
[1]
E.g., San Miguel Brewery v. Sobremesana,
L-18730, Sept. 16, 1961; In
Mallorca v. Ramos,
L-15476, Sept. 19, 1961.
Latter-day
legislation expressly confers jurisdiction on regional offices to hear and
decide workmen’s compensation claims. See
Rep. Act 4119, effective June 20, 1964,
amending Workmen’s Compensation Act Sec. 48.
[2]Rep.
Act 4119, amending Workmen’s Compensation Act sec. 7-A.
[3]
Workmen’s Compensation Act sec. 46.
[4] Sumilang v. Castillo, L-16172, April 28, 1962.
5 Compañia Gral. de Tabacos v. Alhambra Cigar & Cigarette Mfg. Co.,
33 Phil. 503 (1916).
6 See, e. g., Magallanes v. Sarita,
L-22092, Oct. 29, 1966; Mendoza
v. Alano, L-16222, May 31, 1961.
7
As a matter of legal history, it may be noted here that after the decision in A.
V. H. & Co. of the Phil. v.
WCC L-17502, May 30, 1962; Santiago SyJuco
Inc. v. Resultan L-15050,
Aug. 30, 1962; Pastoral v. WCC, L-12903, July 31,
1961, which denied the power of the WCC to execute its decisions, Congress
passed a law (see Rep. Act 4119, effective June 20, 1964, amending
Workmen’s Compensation Act sec. 51) expressly empowering the WCC to issue writs
of execution of its decisions.
8
Ferrer v. Rodriguez, L-17507, Aug, 6, 1962.