VICTORIA BISCUIT CO., INC., PETITIONER AND APPELLANT, VS. JORGE BENEDICTO, REGIONAL OFFICE 3, P. G. MALIWANAG, RUBEN F. SANTOS, LABOR STANDARDS COMMISSION, SHERIFF OF RIZAL PROV…

On August 5, 1957 Dionisio Bania filed a complaint (amended on
October 1, 1957) against petitioner herein Victoria Biscuit Co., Inc.,
with the Regional Office No. 3 of the Department of Labor, for the
recovery of overtime and separation pay. On October 18, 1957 an answer
was filed by petitioner denying in substance the allegations, contained
in the complaint. After hearing, the Hearing Office . dismissed the
complaint for lack of merit. Bania appealed the decision to the Labor
Standards Commission. Respondent P.G. Maliwanag, to whom the appealed
case was assigned by the said Commission, reversed the decision of the
Hearing Officer, insofar as the question of overtime pay was concerned
and allowed respondent Bania to recover from ftie petitioner the sum of
Pl,901.74, with legal interest from July 25, 1957 until the whole
amount is paid. Petitioner appealed, the decision of respondent
Maliwanag to the same commission in bane. In a decision dated June 21,
1960, the Commission affirmed the grant of overtime pay but modified
the amount of the award to P904.87, with legal interest from August 5,
1957 until fully paid.

The Victoria Biscuit Co. appealed to the Court of First Instance of
Manila, the case being docketed as Civil Case No. 43863. Instead of
filing an answer, the appellant filed a motion for dismissal on the
ground that the Regional Office No. 3 as well as the Labor Standards
Commission, have no jurisdiction to hear, much” less decide the subject
matter of the action; that the causes of action, if any, have already
prescribed, and that the claim or demand set forth in plaintiff’s
(Bania’s) complaint had been released. On September 3, 1960, Bania
filed a manifestation where he declared that he was joining the
petitioner in its motion to dismiss the ease, although he did not necessarily mean
that he concurred with the three (3) grounds relied upon by the
petitioner. In an order dated September 10, 1960, the Court of First
Instance of Manila, presided over by Judge Conrado M. Vasquez,
dismissed Civil Case No. 43863.

On December 1, 1960 Ruben F. Santos, Commissioner of the Labor
Standards Commission, issued a writ of execution to enforce the
decision of the Commission dated June 21, 1960. Thereupon the
provincial sheriff sent a notice of garnishment to the Philippine Bank
of Communications, the depository of the petitioner, so the Victoria
Biscuit Co., Inc. filed the petition for certiorari and prohibition
(docketed as Civil Case No. 45930) which initiated the present
proceedings before Us, alleging the facts set forth hereinabove and
claiming that the effect of the dismissal of Civil Case No. 43863 of
the Court of. First Instance of Manila by Judge, Conrado Vasquez was
the setting aside of the decision of the Labor Standards Commission;
that the said Commission had/no jurisdiction to declare the petitioner
herein liable for overtime pay in the amount of P104.87; and that
Commissioner Santos of the Labor Standards Commission acted without or
in excess of his juridiction in ordering the execution of the judgment
of the Commission already alluded to.

The petition included a motion for the issuance of a. writ of
preliminary injunction. In the hearing of the petition for injunction
it was argued that the petitioner herein should deposit the sum of
P1,100:61, which petitioner did, so the garnishment on petitioner’s
funds in the bank was lifted.

Respondents answered the petition for certiorari alleging that
respondent, Bania did not object to the dismissal of Civil Cage No.
43863 of the Court of First Instance of Ktanila, and the ettect of his
agreement to the withdrawal or dismissal’ of “the appeal was the
revival of the judgment of the Commission sought to be set aside in
the! action.

The case having been heard by the court, the latter’ rendered
judgment declaring that the dismissal of the case pending before Judge
Vasquez, upon motion of the Victoria Biscuit Co., had the effect of
withdrawing its ¦appeal from the decision of the Labor Standards
Commission, and this in turn resulted in the revival of the said.
decision of the Labor Standards Commission; and that the conformity of
respondent Bania to the petitioner’s motion for dismissal produced no
effeet, the order of dismissal having, been based !on the motion
presented by petitioner herein Victoria Biscuit Co. This decision is
the subject of the present appeal before us.

On this appeal the Victoria Biscuit Co., Inc. makes the following assignment of errors:

I

THE
TRIAL COURT SHRED’IN HOLDING THAT THE .ORDER OF DISMISSAL OF CIVII.
CASE NO. 43868 BY JUDGE CONRADO M. VASQUEZ H£D THE EFFECT OF REVIVING
THE DECISION OF THE LABOR STANDARDS COMMISSION EN BANG FOR,SAID ORDER
IS IN THE NATURE OF WITHDRAWAL OF THE APPEAL.

II

THE
TRIAL COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE DECISION OF THE LABOR STANDARDS
COMMISSION EN BANC REQUIRING VICTORIA BISCUIT CO., INC. TO PAY OVERTIME
PAY TO DIONISIO BANIA CAN BE ENFORCED.

There is no question that the Regional Office No. 3 which took
cognizance of the claim of respondent Bania for overtime and separation
pay was absolutely without jurisdiction thereof as a money claim.” This
is the ruling of this Court in a long line of decisions, beginning with
the case of Corominag vs. Labor Standards Commission, G.E. No. L-14837,
dated June 30, 1961 and Vicente Tan vs. Belen de Leon, G.R. No;
L-15254, dated September 16, 1961. Since the Regional Office No. 3 had
no jurisdiction of Bania’s claim, neither had the Labor Standards
Commission jurisdiction over such claim. As the Labor Standards
Commission had no jurisdiction, it also had no power to issue a writ
of execution for the enforcement of the decision.

Appellee Bania in his brief argues that upon the dismissal of Civil
Case No. 45930 of the Court of First Instance of Manila and the deposit
of the amount of 11,500.61 for the payment of Bania’s claim, the
decision of the Labor Standards Commission was revived. Let us examine
the claim of respondent Bania as borne out by the proceedings in Civil
Case No. 4S863. In said case the Victoria Biscuit Co., Inc. presented a
motion for the dismissal of the case on the following grounds:

1.  THAT THE REGIONAL OFFICE NO. 3 AS WELL As THE
   LABOR STANDARDS COMMISSION HAS NO JURISDICTION TO HEAR, MUCH LESS
   DECIDE THE SUBJECT MATTJSK OP THE PRESENT ACTION;

2. THAT THE CAUSES OF ACTION, IF ANY, HAVE ALREADY PRESCRIBED;

3. THAT THE CLAIM OK DEMAND SET FORTH IN PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT HAS BEEN RELEASED.”

and the judge, acting upon said motion, dismissed the case with the following order:

“On motion of the defendant, which brought this case
on appeal to this Court from the decision of the Labor Standards
Commission, to dismiss the said appeal, and plaintiff having’ expressed
its conformity to the said motion, provided that the dismissal of the
appeal , shall not be on the grounds stated in the motion to dismiss
filed by the defendant, dated August 31, 1960, this case is hereby
dismissed without cost.”

So, the question now is what really were the grounds upon which the
court dismissed the appeal? It could not have been other than those
stated in the motion to dismiss, the most important reason being that
the Labor Standards Commission as well as the Regional Office No. 3 had
no jurisdiction over the ease. The conformity of the plaintiff to the
motion to dismiss is of no effect. Consequently, it cannot be stated
that the order of dismissal had the effect of reviving the decision of
the Labor Standards Commission ordering the Victoria Biscuit Co. to pay
the sum mentioned in the decision. Even if the dismissal was based on
the grounds stated in the conformity of, the plaintiff-respondent
Bania’s theory, the judgment of the Labor Standards Commission did not
become valid and binding on the Victoria Biscuit Co. by its alleged
implied conformity; since the Labor Standards Commission, as well as
the Regional Office No. 3 had no jurisdiction over the claim of Bania,
the consent of the parties to its judgment did not have the effect of
legalizing its decision. The jurisdiction of courts is fixed by law and
not by the consent of the parties.

So that from whatever point of view we examine the decision of the
Labor Standards Commission, whether it had jurisdiction of the claim or
whether the Commission’s judgment was ratified by the court of first
instance, the said judgment or decision is always null and void for
lack of jurisdiction.

Wherefore, the judgment dismissing the petition for certiorari is
reversed and the writ is hereby granted, and the decision of the Labor
Standards Commission sought to be reviewed is declared null and void
and of no effect and its enforcement enjoined. With costs against
respondent Dionisio Bania. So ordered.

Bengzon, C. J, Padilla, Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L., Barrera, Paredes, Dizon, Regala and Makalintal, JJ., concur: