G.R. No. L-30030. November 29, 1971
PHILIPPINE PACKING CORPORATION AND RICARTE ABEJUELA, PETITIONERS, VS. HON. BALDOMERO B. REYES, COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS, 14TH REGIONAL DISTRICT; NERIO MEDEL, ERIBERTO CABAÑE…
TEEHANKEE, J.:
These two cases involving the same petitioner corporation and
some of its agricultural workers named as private respondent submit the
identical legal issue of whether or not a preliminary investigation is
necessary in unfair labor practice cases filed before the Court of Agrarian Relations. They were therefore ordered consolidated[1]
and are now jointly decided herein.
In L-30030, respondents-agricultural workers filed on November 18, 1965 with respondent
court a complaint for “dismissal without justifiable cause” – which
was deemed as one for unfair labor practice -and alleging that they were
dismissed by petitioner because of their refusal to become members of a
company-favored rival union, prayed that they be
reinstated to their employment with corresponding pay.
In L-33801, respondent-president of the Plantation Supervisors
Union, a union of supervisors in petitioner’s pineapple plantations, filed on
January 11, 1971 with respondent court a complaint for unfair labor practice,
alleging that he had been dismissed without just cause, because of his union
activities, notwithstanding his recognized efficient and faithful service since
1964, and prayed for his reinstatement with corresponding pay and moral and
exemplary damages.
In both cases, petitioner sought dismissal’ of the complaints on
the principal ground that “respondent judge did not validly acquire
jurisdiction over the case because no preliminary investigation was conducted
as required by sec. 5(b) of R. A. 875 in unfair labor practice cases.”
Respondent court sustained its jurisdiction and dismissed
petitioner’s contention that the conduct of such preliminary investigation is a
“mandatory requirement before the case can be heard on the merits, “ in its orders of June 26, 1968[2]
and April 16, 1971[3]. Respondent court anchored its ruling on the
strength of this Court’s decision in Matillano vs. de Leon,[4]
holding that “neither the Rules of the Court of Agrarian Relations nor the
Rules of Court require the preliminary investigation in question.”
The immediate issue raised in the petitions is whether the ruling
of Matillano holding that such preliminary
investigation was not necessary in cases filed before the Agricultural
Land Reform Code took effect on August
8, 1963 is equally applicable to cases filed thereafter,
such as the present cases. In Matillano, the Court, in consonance with its authority and policy to decide actual
controversies and not give opinions on abstract propositions and moot cases[5] had strictly confined its ruling to the issue before it, thus “(A)s the law stood then when the complaint in 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. The
point whether agricultural laborers are now (sic) 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.”
Petitioner contends that by virtue of section 47 of the
Agricultural and Reform Code, Republic Act 3844, which took effect on August 8,
1963 provides that:
“SEC. 47. Other Applicable
Provisions. – All other existing
laws applicable to non-agricultural workers in private enterprises which are not inconsistent
with this Code shall likewise apply to farm workers, farm labor organizations
and agrarian disputes as
defined in this Code, as well as to relations between farm management and farm
labor and the functions of the Department of Labor and other agencies.”[6]
the prior preliminary investigation of unfair labor practice charges
required of the Court of Industrial Relations under section 5(b) of Republic Act 875[7]
is now likewise applicable to
agricultural workers and must be conducted by the agrarian court as a
jurisdictional requirement.
The
Court finds petitioner’s submission to be without merit.
1. The Court’s rationale in Matillano
for holding that there was no need for preliminary investigation of unfair
labor practice cases filed with the agrarian court before approval on
August 8, 1963 of the Agricultural Land Reform Code is equally applicable
to such cases filed after the said Code took effect. The Court, through Mr. Justice Jose P. Bengzon, thus ruled upon the issue:
“To put the issue in proper perspective, let us trace the
procedure in both the Court of 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,
matters, 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.’
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. 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’. The Agrarian Court was given the
authority to adopt its rules of procedure and in accordance therewith, the
court promulgated its own rules of procedure where nothing was said on the
necessity of preliminary investigation.
“As the law stood then when the complaint in 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. The
point whether agricultural laborers are now (sic) 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.”[8]
2. With the enactment of the Agricultural Land Reform Code, the
rule-making power of the agrarian court under Republic Act No. 1267, as amended
by Republic Act No. 1409, has been withdrawn.[9]
Instead, section 155 of the code expressly ordains that “(T)he Courts of Agrarian Relations shall be governed by the
Rules of Court. ”
This is obviously because of the conversion, under the code, of the
agrarian courts from administrative tribunals to regular courts under the
judicial branch of the government with “all the powers and prerogatives
inherent in or belonging to the Court of First Instance.”[10]
There is nothing in the code nor in the
Rules of Court which would require the agrarian courts to conduct a prior
preliminary investigation before taking cognizance of unfair labor practice
cases filed by aggrieved parties. This
was strongly intimated in Matillano, when the Court pointed out, supra, that “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.“
Section 155 of the Code in fact expressly enjoins that the
agrarian courts “in the hearing, investigation and determination of any
question or controversy pending before them. . . . . . without
impairing substantial rights, shall not be bound strictly by the technical
rules of evidence and procedure, except in expropriation cases.”
These provisions have not been modified or amended howsoever by
the amendments introduced in said section by Republic Act 6389, section 30,
(which recently took effect on September 10, 1971), expanding the power of the
agrarian courts to include compulsory arbitration of agrarian conflicts
“upon certification by the Secretary of Justice.”
3. The original and exclusive jurisdiction of the agrarian courts
as conferred by section 154 of the Code over “(1) (A)ll cases involving matters, controversies, disputes
or money claims arising from agrarian relations x x x; (2) All cases or actions involving violations of
Chapters I and II of this Code (referring to the agricultural leasehold system
and the bill of rights for agricultural
labor); and (3) Expropriations to be instituted by the Land Authority x x x “[11] stands unchanged. Again, nothing is therein provided that in
order that the agrarian courts may exercise their jurisdiction over unfair
labor practices or violations of the agricultural laborers’ bill of rights only
after conducting a prior preliminary investigation thereof. As a matter of practical fact, the Code does
not provide for any agency or facility in the agrarian court – such as the
prosecution division of the court of industrial relations – which may conduct a
preliminary investigation of unfair labor practice charges.
4. Section 47 of the Code, supra,
relied upon by petitioner, does not support its contention that the requirement
of prior preliminary investigation of unfair labor practice charges in
industrial disputes under section 5(b) of Republic Act 875 was thereby made
applicable in similar cases before the agrarian courts. For said section only thereby provided for
the applicability of all other existing laws applicable to non-agricultural
workers in private enterprises to farm workers, when “not inconsistent
with this Code.“ Obviously, this was meant for the benefit of farm workers and
not to prejudice them.
Since section 46 of the Code on the farm worker’s “right
against suspension or lay-off” unqualifiedly allows him to apply
unconditionally to the agrarian court for relief and protection against
dismissals without just cause, without need of preliminary investigation,
section 47 may certainly not be availed of indirectly and circuitously to
detract from the agrarian worker’s right by contending that the agrarian court
should follow the industrial court’s procedure of a prior preliminary
investigation. Such procedure is
inconsistent with and is not required by that provided in the agricultural
land reform code.
5. It is settled doctrine
that the right to a preliminary investigation of charges, criminal or
otherwise, is conferred by statute.[12]
In unfair labor charges before the industrial courts, it has been held that the
preliminary investigation ordained by statute (section 5(b) of Republic Act
875) “is really necessary not only for the protection of the respondent
but also for the benefit of the CIR itself so that the respondent may not be
required to defend itself against frivolous and unfounded charges, and the
valuable time of the CIR dissipated and unnecessarily spent in hearing charges
without any basis.”[13]
In the absence of a clear similar statutory requirement that agrarian courts
must conduct a similar prior preliminary investigation of unfair labor
practice complaints filed with them, petitioner’s insistence on such
preliminary investigation cannot prosper.
Congress’ appraisal that the Rules of Court, which it expressly provided
would govern the agrarian court, would provide sufficient safeguard against
frivolous and unfounded charges (rather than a prior preliminary investigation)
is not subject to review by this Court.
ACCORDINGLY, the petitions are hereby dismissed, with
costs against petitioner.
Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Makalintal, Zaldivar, Castro,
Fernando, Barredo, Villamor,
and Makasiar, JJ., concur.
[1]
Res. of July 29, 1971 in L-33801.
[2]
In L-30030.
[3]
In L-33801.
[4]
22 SCRA 1086, 1090 (March 15, 1968).
[5]
Garron vs.
Arca, 88 Phil. 490 (Apr. 18, 1951) and cases cited.
[6]
Emphasis furnished.
[7]
“The Court shall observe the following, procedure, without resort to
mediation and conciliation as provided in section four of Commonwealth Act
Numbered One Hundred and Three,
as amended, or to any pre-trial procedure. Whenever it is
charged by an offended party or his representative that any person has engaged
or is engaging in any, such unfair, labor practice, the Court, or
any agency or agent. designated by the Court, must investigate such
charge and shall have the power to issue
and cause to be served upon such person a Complaint stating the, charges in that respect and containing a notice of hearing
before the Court or a member thereof, or before a designated Hearing Examiner
at the time and place fixed therein not
less than five nor more than ten
days after serving the said complaint. x x x” (R.
A. 875, sec. 5(b)).
[8]
Emphasis furnished.
[9]
Vide Montemayor’s
Labor, Agrarian & Social Legislation, Vol. 3, 1967 Ed., p. 509.
[10]
Section 155, Rep. Act 3344.
[11]
Notes in parentheses furnished.
[12]
People vs. Abejuela, 38 SCRA 324 (March 31, 1971) and cases cited.
[13]
National Union of Printing Workers vs. Asia Printing, 99 Phil. 589 (July 20, 1956).