VICENTE BASA, PETITIONER, VS. ANTONIO V. ESCANO, RESPONDENT.

This action was initiated in the Municipal Court of Davao City. Its
purpose is to recover P885.27 representing wage differential,
compensation for overtime work, separation pay and attorney’s fees
allegedly due to plaintiff Vicente Basa, as former employee of
defendant Antonio V. Escano. Said court having rendered judgment for
the plaintiff, defendant appealed to the Court of First Instance of
Davao, in which the latter moved to dismiss the case for alleged lack
of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant or the subject matter
of the action, the party named in the complaint as defendant being the
“Eagle Theater”, which is not a juridical person. Acting upon the
motion said court of first instance ordered that an amended complaint
naming Antonio V. Escano as defendant be filed, it being alleged in the
first paragraph of the original complaint that said Eagle Theater is a
business enterprise engaged in the theater business, which is owned and
operated by said Antonio V. Escano. In due course, after the filing of
said amended complaint, the defendant was sentenced to pay the
aforementioned amount to the plaintiff. Defendant appealed to the Court
of Appeals, alleging that the lower court had erred in denying his
aforementioned motion to dismiss and in rendering judgment for the
plaintiff. Without passing upon the merits of these issues, the Court
of Appeals dismissed the case without costs, upon the ground that the
cause of action set forth in plaintiff’s complaint “falls within the
jurisdiction of the Court of Industrial Relations”. Hence, this appeal
by certiorari taken by the plaintiff, who maintains that this case is
within the jurisdiction, not of the Court of Industrial Relations, but
of our regular courts.

Plaintiff’s contention is borne out by the doctrine laid down in
Price Stabilization Corporation (PRISCO) vs. Court of Industrial
Relations, 108 Phil., 134, from which we quote:

“* * * 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 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.” (Italics ours)

and subsequently adhered to in Pomeroy & Company, Inc., et al. vs. Court of Industrial Relations, et al., supra, p. 140; Sy Huan vs. Bautista, et al., 112 Phil., 941; 61 Off. Gaz., [20] 2942, Southwestern Sugar & Molasses (Far East), Inc. vs. CIR, et al., 112 Phil., 956; 59 Off. Gaz., [14] 2324; De los Santos vs. Quisumbing, 112 Phil., 644; 59 Off. Gaz., [3] 399, Dableo vs. Luzon Stevedoring Co., Inc., 112 Phil., 378; 59 Off. Gaz., [8] 1211, Fookien Times Co., Inc., et al. vs. CIR, et al., 111 Phil., 441; 59 Off. Gaz., [12] 1916; New Angat-Manila Transportation, et al. vs. CIR, et al., 110 Phil., 318; Elizalde Paint & Oil Factory, Inc. vs. Bautista, et al., 110 Phil., 49; Sta. Cecilia Sawmills Co., Inc. vs. CIR, et al. 108 Phil., 300; 58 Off. Gaz., [18] 3711 and Board of Liquidators, et al. vs. CIR, et al., 108 Phil., 162 in line with the view previously taken in Aguilar vs. Salumbides, L-10124 (Dec 28, 1957) Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila vs. Yanson, et al., L-12341 and Elizalde & Co., Inc. vs. Yanson, et al., L-12345 (April 30, 1958), and Chua Workers’ Union vs. City Automotive Co., et al., L-11655 (April 29, 1959).

Inasmuch as plaintiff is no longer defendant’s employee and does not
seek reinstatement as such employee, it is clear that the Court of
Industrial Relations has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of
this case and that the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the same.

Wherefore, the decision of the Court of Appeals is hereby reversed
and the case is remanded to said Court for further proceedings, not
inconsistent with this decision, without special pronouncement as to
costs in this instance. It is so ordered.

Bengzon, C. J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Reyes, J. B. L., Paredes, Dizon and De Leon, JJ., concur.