PEDRO C. PASTORAL, PETITIONER, VS. THE COMMISSIONERS OF THE WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, THE SHERIFF OF DAGUPAN CITY AND SILVINO CERVANTES, RESPONDENTS.

Pastoral versus the Workmen's Compensation Commission

The Case

This is a petition for certiorari and prohibition with preliminary injunction, brought by Pedro C. Pastoral against the Workmen's Compensation Commission, the Sheriff of Dagupan City, and Silvino Cervantes. Pastoral had been ordered by the Commission to pay a compensation award, and when he resisted, the Commission itself issued a writ of execution, which the Sheriff then proceeded to enforce by advertising the sale of his properties. Pastoral's central claim is that the Commission has no power to issue a writ of execution at all, and that only a court of record may do so. The case matters because it draws a firm constitutional line: an executive body created by a reorganization plan cannot be given, or give itself, a power that belongs to the courts.

Procedural History

The controversy began before the Workmen's Compensation Commission itself. Silvino Cervantes filed a claim for injury allegedly suffered in Pastoral's employ, and obtained an award in his favor. Pastoral sought a joint physical re-examination of the claimant, filed ex parte petitions that he says were never acted upon, and later invoked Section 23 of the Workmen's Compensation Law, complaining that the claimant refused to submit to examination. The Commission nonetheless informed Pastoral that the award had become final and executory, and after further proceedings rendered its decision, later denying Pastoral's motion for reconsideration and reopening. The Commission then issued a writ of execution addressed to the Sheriff of Dagupan City, who advertised the sale of Pastoral's properties. Pastoral went directly to the Supreme Court by certiorari and prohibition, and a writ of preliminary injunction was issued. The Court decided the matter in July 1961.

Facts

Silvino Cervantes filed a claim with the Workmen's Compensation Commission for an injury allegedly suffered while in the employ of Pedro C. Pastoral. The claim produced an award of 3,000 pesos in Cervantes's favor, plus a fee of 31 pesos. Pastoral was granted permission so that the claimant might be jointly re-examined physically, but he found difficulty in bringing the claimant before the Commission for that purpose. He filed ex parte petitions, which he says were never acted upon.

On October 18, 1956, the Commission wrote Pastoral informing him that the award had become final and executory. Pastoral filed a petition calling attention to Section 23 of the Workmen's Compensation Law and alleging that the claimant refused to submit to examination. On January 7, 1957, the Commission notified Pastoral's counsel that the claimant would be examined that afternoon. The next day the Commission issued a subpoena, received by Pastoral on January 9, requiring him to testify on January 11. Hearings were postponed at his counsel's request, first to January 14 and then to a date to be communicated. On January 30, 1957, the Commission rendered its decision, and on February 26, 1957, it denied Pastoral's motion for reconsideration and reopening.

On May 6, 1957, the Commission issued a writ of execution addressed to the Sheriff of Dagupan City, and the Sheriff advertised the sale of Pastoral's properties. On October 1, 1957, Pastoral began these proceedings, praying that the Commission be restrained from executing its decision and that the decision, the resolution denying reconsideration, and the writ of execution be declared null and void. A writ of preliminary injunction was issued forthwith.

Issues

• Whether or not the Workmen's Compensation Commission has the power to issue a writ of execution of its own awards and decisions.
• Whether or not the reorganization laws and the Commission's own rules validly conferred that power, in light of Section 51 of the Workmen's Compensation Law.

Applicable Provisions

Section 51 of the Workmen's Compensation Law, as amended, provides:

SEC. 51. Enforcement of award.—Any party in interest may file in any court of record in the jurisdiction of which the accident occurred a certified copy of a decision of any referee or the Commissioner, from which no petition for review or appeal has been taken within the time allowed therefor, as the case may be, or a certified copy of a memorandum of agreement duly approved by the Commissioner, whereupon the Court shall render a decree or judgment in accordance therewith and notify the parties thereof. The decree or judgment shall have the same effect, and all proceedings in relation thereto shall thereafter be the same as though the decree or judgment had been rendered in a suit duly heard and tried by the Court, except that there shall be no appeal therefrom. The Commissioner shall, upon application by the proper party or the Court before which such action is instituted, issue a certification that no petition for review or appeal within the time prescribed by section forty-nine hereof has been taken by the respondent.

This is the provision the Court treats as controlling: it routes enforcement through a court of record, not through the Commission.

Section 12, Article 3, of Reorganization Plan Number 20-A, invoked by the Solicitor General, provides:

A decision of a Regional Office or of the Commission from which no appeal has been taken, and which has become final and executory, shall be enforced like a final decision of a court of justice by writ of execution issued by the Regional Administrator concerned or by the Commission, as the case may be, which writ of execution shall be carried out by the Sheriff or other proper official in the same manner as writs of execution issued by the Court.

The Court holds that this plan provision cannot stand against Section 51, because a reorganization plan cannot enlarge the Commission's powers at the expense of the courts.

Section 1, Rule 11 of the Workmen's Compensation Rules, also relied upon by the respondents, provides:

SEC. 1. As soon as a decision, order or award has become final and executory, the Regional Administrator or Commission, as the case may be, shall, moto proprio or on motion of the interested party, issue a writ of execution requiring the Sheriff or other proper officer to whom it is directed to execute said decision, order or award, pursuant to Rule 39 of the Rules of Court in the Philippines.

This rule fares no better, since a rule promulgated under an invalid delegation cannot supply a power the statute withholds.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court holds that the Workmen's Compensation Commission has no power to issue a writ of execution of its awards or decisions. Section 51 is clear and unequivocal in language and purpose: the interested party files a certified copy of the final decision in any court of record in the jurisdiction where the accident occurred, the Court renders a decree or judgment in accordance therewith, and it is that judgment of the court which is enforced by a writ of execution issued by the court. The Court reasons that an order for the execution of a decision or award is essentially a judicial power or function of the court.

On the second issue, the Court holds that the reorganization laws cannot validly supply the missing power. Quoting its recent rulings in the Corominas cases, the Court explains:

A cursory study of these provisions of Rep. Act No. 997 will show that nowhere therein is there a grant of authority to the Government Survey and Reorganization Commission to grant powers, duties and functions to offices or entities to be created by it, which are not already granted to the offices or officials of the Department of Labor.

And further:

So that it was not the intention of Congress, in enacting Rep. Act No. 997, to authorize the transfer of powers and jurisdiction granted to the courts of justice, from these to the officials to be appointed or offices to be created by the Reorganization Plan.

The Court adds that Congress could not have intended to grant such powers to the Reorganization Commission, an executive body, since the Legislature may not and cannot delegate the power to legislate or create courts of justice to any other agency of the Government. The powers given to the Commission by the reorganization acts therefore cannot validly include the power to amend Section 51, for that would diminish the jurisdiction and judicial functions vested by law in the courts of record.

Doctrine

First, the Workmen's Compensation Commission has no power to issue a writ of execution of its own final awards; under Section 51 of the Workmen's Compensation Law, enforcement must pass through a court of record, which renders a decree or judgment that is then executed like any judgment.

Second, a reorganization plan issued under the reorganization statutes cannot transfer to an executive body a power or jurisdiction vested in the courts, because judicial power is vested only in the Supreme Court and in such courts as the law may establish, and the Legislature cannot delegate the power to create courts or to strip them of jurisdiction.

Third, the issuance of a writ of execution is essentially a judicial function, so a rule of an administrative body purporting to authorize it is void.

Disposition

The writ was granted: the order of execution of May 6, 1957, issued by the respondent Commission was set aside and declared null and void, the case was remanded for further proceedings in accordance with law, and the preliminary injunction was made permanent, without costs.

Remember This

The single line to memorize is that the Workmen's Compensation Commission cannot execute its own awards, because execution is a judicial function that Section 51 lodges in a court of record. Examiners use this case on the limits of reorganization plans and the non-delegation of judicial power, so pair it with the Corominas ruling on the transfer of judicial jurisdiction to executive agencies.