IGNACIO CAMPOS, ET AL., PETITIONERS VS. MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY,.ET AL., RESPONDENTS.

Ignacio Campos, who since 1920 was in the employ of the Manila
Railroad Company, was implicated in a criminal case filed before the
Municipal Court of Manila for which reason he was summarily dismissed
from the service over the protest of the Kapisanan Ng Mga Manggagawa Sa
MRR Co. to which he belongs.

On August 20, 1960, after his acquittal, Campos, thru his union,
requested that he be reinstated to his former employment with back
wages, and when the request was refused, the union filed in his behalf
a petition before the Court of Industrial Relations praying for his
reinstatement with back wages on the plea that his separation was
unwise and illegal.

Respondent corporation moved to dismiss the petition on the ground
of lack of jurisdiction, which was objected to by petitioner. On
October 14, 1960, the industrial court dismissed the petition,
sustaining the plea of lack of jurisdiction. In substance it held that
mere claim for reinstatement without being accompanied by other claims
related to conditions of employment is not cognizable by the Court of
Industrial Relations. Hence the present petition for review.

Under the law and jurisprudence pertaining to labor disputes, the
Court of Industrial Relations’ jurisdiction extends only to cases
involving (a) labor disputes affecting an industry which is
indispensable to national interest and is so certified by the President
to the court (Section 10, Republic Act 875) ; (b) controversy about the Minimum Wage Law (Republic Act No. 602) ; (c) hours of employment under the Eight-Hour Labor Law (Commonwealth Act No. 144); and (d) unfair labor practice (Section 5 [a],
Republic Act 875). And such disputes, to fall under the jurisdiction of
the CIR, must arise while the employer-employee relationship between
the parties exists, or the employee seeks reinstatement. When such
relationship is over and the employee does not seek reinstatement, all
claims become money claims that fall under the jurisdiction of the
regular courts. (Sy Huan vs. Judge Bautista, et al., 112 Phil., 914 See
also the cases cited therein).

In PRISCO vs. Court of Industrial Relations, 108 Phil., 134 this
Court, after analyzing all previous cases rendered on labor disputes,
made the following pronouncement: “The underlying principle, it will be
noted in all of them, though not stated in express terms, is that 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 claims arising out of, or in connection with the
employment, such as those related to the Minimum Wage Law and the Eight
Hour Law.

We may, therefore, restate, for the benefit of the bench and the
bar, that in order that the Court of Industrial Relations may acquire
jurisdiction over a controversy in the light of Republic Act No. 875,
the following circumstances must be present: (a) there must exist
between the parties an employer-employee relationship, or the claimant
must seek his reinstatement; and (b) the controversy must relate to a
case certified by the President to the CIR as one involving national
interest, or must have a bearing on an unfair labor practice charge, or
must arise either under the Eight-Hour Labor Law, or under the Minimum
Wage Law. In default of any of these circumstances, the claim becomes a
mere money claim that comes under the jurisdiction of the regular
courts.

In the case at bar, it is undisputed that petitioner merely seeks
his reinstatement with back wages. He does not claim any salary
differential nor overtime pay that may his case come either under the
Eight-Hour Labor Law or the Minimum Wage Law. Neither does he prefer
any unfair labor practice charge against his employer.

Consequently, the Court of Industrial Relations has no power to act
on his claim for the same is a mere money claim that comes under the
jurisdiction of the regular courts.

Wherefore, the order appealed from is affirmed. No costs.

Padilla, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L., Barrera, Paredes and Dizon, JJ., concur.