BOARD OF LIQUIDATORS AND NATIONAL RESETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION ADMINISTRATION, PETITIONERS, VS. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS AND EX-LASEDECO EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, RESPONDENTS.

This is a petition to review on certiorari the decision of
respondent Court of Industrial Relations of March 19, 1959, as well as
its resolution en banc dated May 4, 1959.

The principal issue in this case, upon the resolution of which
depend the others discussed by the parties, is whether the respondent
Court of Industrial Relations has jurisdiction to hear and adjudicate
the claims of respondent Ex-Lasedeco Employees Association “contained
in its petition filed against herein petitioners board of Liquidators
(BOL) and National Resettlement and Rehabilitation Administration
(NARRA).

Respondent labor organization, in representation of its members,
numbering 211 employees and workers formerly employed with the defunct
Land Settlement and Development Corporation (LASEDECO) filed a petition
in the trial court (in Case No. 1024-V, Court of Industrial Relations),
for alleged underpayment of their salaries and wages from November,
1953 to June 18, 1954; separation pay; gratuity claimed to be due them
under Republic Act 1160; and for sick and vacation leave pay, plus
actual and moral damages. A motion to dismiss on the ground, among
others, of lack of jurisdiction of the court, was denied, although the
resolution of said specific question was deferred “until after the
hearing on the merits, to avoid repetition in the presentation of
evidence”. After answer and the trial, judgment was rendered declaring
the court with jurisdiction and ordering the therein respondent BOL to
compute, and the NARRA to pay, (1) the back salaries of
claimants-members of therein petitioner Association and, (2) the
differential pay in their gratuities, severance pay and vacation and
sick leaves of absences.

Their motion for reconsideration having been denied, herein
petitioners presented in this Court the instant petition for review on
certiorari, complaining that the lower court erred (1) in assuming
jurisdiction over the case; (2) in holding petitioner NARRA liable to
pay the monetary claims of respondent Ex-Lasedeco Employees
Association; and (3) in holding that the cause of action accrued
against petitioner NARRA.

Anent the first error assigned above, it appears that
claimants—members of respondent Association were all former employees
and workers of the defunct LASEDECO, who never were in tile service of
either BOL or NARRA; that they do not seek reinstatement to their
former jobs; that their first cause of action in their complaint refers
to alleged, unpaid back salaries; the second cause of action refers to
the collection of separation pay under Republic Act No. 1160; the third
cause of action refers to the payment of gratuity, also under Republic
Act No. 1160; and the fourth cause of action refers to the cash value
of sick and vacation leaves of absences during their past employment.
All these obligations, even if true, concern purely civil or monetary
obligations, and the action for their collection, is within the
jurisdiction of the Courts of First Instance and not of respondent
Court of Industrial Relations.

In the recent case of Price Stabilization Corporation vs. Court of Industrial Relations, et al. (supra,
p. 134) this Court had occasion to consider again the question of
jurisdiction of the Court of Industrial Relations on similar money
claims and after reviewing previous decisions on the matter, we ruled.

“Analyzing these cases, the underlying principle, it
will be noted in all of them, though not stated in express terms, is
that where the employer-employee relationship is still existing or is
sought to be reestablished because of its wrongful severance (as where
the employee seeks reinstatement), the Court of Industrial Relations
has jurisdiction over all claims arising out of, or in connection with
the employment, such as those related to the minimum Wage Law and the
Eight-Hour Labor Law. After the termination of the relationship and no
reinstatement is sought, such claims become mere money claims, and come
within the jurisdiction of the regular courts.

“We are aware that in 2 cases (Mindanao Bus Employees Labor Union [PLUM] vs. Mindanao Bus Co., et al., 102 Phil., 1179; Gomez vs.
North Camarines Lumber Co., Inc., 104 Phil., 294; 56 Off. Gaz., [12]
2630) some statements implying a different view have been made, but we
now hold and declare the principle set forth in the next preceding
paragraph as the one governing all cases of this nature.”

In the light of the foregoing, and considering that the members of
respondent Association are former employees and workers of the defunct
LASEDECO, who were laid off from service therewith in November, 1953,
and do not seek reinstatement thereto, we find that respondent Court
had no jurisdiction over the present case. With this conclusion we deem
it unnecessary to deal with the other errors assigned by petitioner.

Wherefore the questioned decision and resolution of respondent Court
of Industrial Relations, are hereby set aside, without costs. So
ordered.

Paras, C. J., Bengzon, Montemayor, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion and Gutierrez David, JJ., concur.
Reyes, J.B.L., J., on leave, took no part.