DOJOSE, DOMEL TRADING AND DOMINGO JOSE, PETITIONERS, VS. HON. SECRETARY OF LABOR, THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION AND INOCENCIO BARRIENTOS, RESPONDENTS.

The Court of Industrial Relations, in a decision dated January
20, 1971, adjudged Domingo Jose and the corporations controlled by him, known
as Dojose and Domel
Trading, guilty of unfair labor practice for having dismissed Inocencio Barrientos due to his union
activities, and ordered them to reinstate him to     his former position of driver, with back wages from May, 1964,
the date of the dismissal, up to his actual reinstatement (CIR Case No.
5277-ULP).  The CIR denied the two
motions for reconsideration of Domingo Jose, Dojose
and Domel Trading.

Instead of asking this Court to review that decision, Domingo
Jose, Dojose and Domel
Trading on January 20, 1972
filed a motion in the CIR “to reopen the case”.  The CIR denied the motion in its order of May 28, 1974.

On June 14, 1974
Domingo Jose, Dojose and Domel
Trading, with a pertinacity worthy of a better cause,
filed another motion for reconsideration. 
Later, they moved that they be given a chance to argue the motion
orally.  The CIR did not act on those
motions.  After the Labor Code became
effective, the case was turned over to the National Labor Relations Commission
(NLRC).

In a decision dated July
1, 1975 the NLRC affirmed the CIR’s 1971
judgment.  Domingo Jose, Dojose and Domel Trading appealed
to the Secretary of Labor.  The Secretary, in a minute order dated July 27, 1976, affirmed the NLRC’ s decision with the modification that the earnings of Barrientos during the pendency of
the case should be deducted from his back wages.

On October 7, 1976
Domingo Jose, Dojose and Domel
Trading filed in this Court the instant petition for certiorari and
prohibition.  The petitioners seek to
annul the 1971 judgment of the CIR on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.  They also contend that they were denied due
process; that the CIR’s decision is not supported by
substantial evidence; that there was no employer-employee relationship between Barrientos and the petitioners; that the two corporations
were not yet in existence when the alleged unfair labor practice was committed,
and that Domingo Jose, who had employed Barrientos as
his family driver, was not sued as the employer of Barrientos.

Barrientos in his answer stressed that
the long final and executory decision of the CIR
could no longer be disturbed.

The Secretary of Labor and the NLRC, through the Solicitor
General, interposed the plea of nonexhaustion of
administrative remedies.  They contended
that the petitioners should have appealed to the President of the Philippines
(Art. 222, Labor Code).  The Solicitor
General observed that the CIR had jurisdiction to decide the unfair labor
practice case, that the NLRC and the Secretary of Labor had jurisdiction to
review the CIR decision (Art. 289, Labor Code), and that they did not gravely
abuse their discretion in affirming the CIR decision.  He adverted to the fact that Barrientos, although a family driver, was employed in
Jose’s business, which later became the business of two corporations controlled
by him.

The issue is whether the petitioners have a cause of action for certiorari
and prohibition or whether at this late hour the 1971 judgment of the CIR can still be annulled or modified.

We hold that the petition is patently devoid of merit.  The CIR and the NLRC did not act without
jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction. 
There is no jurisdictional issue involved in this case.

The petitioners simply failed to appeal from the CIR’s decision.  They
should have seasonably appealed to this Court so that their contention that the
decision is not supported by substantial evidence could have been duly
resolved.  Instead, they resorted to
dilatory tactics.  The CIR’s decision has the force of res
judicata.

The record shows that Barrientos was
allegedly the family driver of Atty. Julian Villaluz
from February 1, 1966 to March 30, 1968 and that from December 5, 1969 up to
January 28, 1971, he was an ”extra regular taxi driver” of the Zomar Taxi (pp. 83-84, Record).  Because of these alleged facts, the Secretary
of Labor directed that the earnings of Barrientos
should be deducted from his back wages.

WHEREFORE, the order of the Secretary of Labor is
affirmed.  No costs.

SO ORDERED.

Fernando, (Chairman), Barredo,
Antonio, and Concepcion,
Jr., JJ., concur.