RUBY INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF MANILA, BRANCH XXVII, FELIX FLORES, IN HIS CAPACITY AS COMPULSORY ARBITRATOR OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RE…

Before the National Labor Relations Commission
Unit, Regional Office No. IV, Leonila Ramirez,
a worker, filed a complaint against her employer, the Ruby Industrial Corporation,
for underpayment, overtime pay and separation pay (NLRC-RO4, Case No.
8-1583-73) covering the period from November, 1969 to October, 1972.  Respondent filed a motion to dismiss on the
ground that “the Honorable Commission has no jurisdiction over the
above-entitled case.”

In her opposition, the complainant prays for the denial of
respondent’s motion.

Acting upon the foregoing pleadings, the Commission issued an
order on October 13, 1973,
denying the motion to dismiss, and resetting the case for hearing.

Unsatisfied, respondent Ruby Industrial Corporation sought
redress in the Court of First Instance of Manila by way of a petition for certiorari,
mandamus and prohibition, alleging that the National Labor Relations
Commission has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the complaint, to
which an answer was duly filed.

On a “Motion For Judgment On the
Pleadings” filed by the petitioner, judgment was rendered on June 7, 1974, “dismissing the
petition and setting aside this Court’s restraining order.”

Still unsatisfied, the petitioner appears before us, citing the
following reasons for the allowance of certiorari:

“1. Respondent Court erred, as a matter of law, in holding
that the National Labor Relations Commission has jurisdic­tion to arbitrate and
adjudicate respondent Ramirez’ claim against the petitioner for separation pay,
wage differential pay under Republic Act 602, as amended, and overtime pay
under the Eight Hour Labor Law.

“2. Respondent Court erred, as a matter of law, in considering
extraneous matters in the application of Presidential Decree No. 21.”

The issue therefore is whether or not the National Labor
Relations Commission has jurisdiction to arbitrate and adjudicate the claim of
private respondent against petitioner.

On October 18, 1972,
respondent National Labor Relations Commission promulgated a set of rules and
regula­tions defining further its jurisdiction, and the pertinent portion
thereof, as later amended, reads:

“WHAT COMPLAINTS MAY
BE FILED WITH THE COMMISSION

“Section 5.  (1) All matters involving employer-employee
relations, including all disputes and grievances which may otherwise lead to
strikes and lockouts under Republic Act No. 875, and irrespective of the
date of accrual of action thereof, not pending in any court on September 21,
1972;

“(2) All strikes and lockouts overtaken by Proclamation 1081;

“(3) All pending cases in the Bureau of Labor Relations;

“(4) All dismissals,
terminations and shutdowns after Proclamation 1081 but prior to Presidential
Decree No. 21.” – (Underscoring supplied)

Therefore, the only claims arising from employer-employee
relationships which are beyond the jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations
Commission are those already pending in courts on or before September 21, 1972.  Inasmuch as respondent Leonila
Ramirez’ claim (NLRC-RO4-Case No. 8-1583-73) was instituted on July 31, 1973,
it is well within the jurisdiction of respondent National Labor Relations
Commission.

WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby dismissed for
lack of merit.

SO ORDERED.

Fernando, (Chairman), Barredo,
Antonio, and Santos,
JJ., concur.

Aquino, J., concurs in a separate opinion.