LA UNION LABOR UNION, PETITIONER AND APPELLEE, VS. PHILIPPINE TOBACCO FLUE-CURING & REDRYING CORPORATION, RESPONDENT AND APPELLANT.

The Philippine Tobacco Flue-Curing and Redrying Corporation, later
referred to as the Tobacco Corporation, is appealing the decision of
the Court of First Instance of La Union in Civil Case No. 1203, dated
May 27, 1958, the dispositive part of which reads as follows:

“WHEREFORE judgment is hereby rendered ordering the
issuance of the writ of mandatory injunction prayed for, directing and
commanding the respondent Philippine Tobacco Flue-Curing and Redrying
Corporation to submit to the proper authorities of the Department of
Labor concerned, within a period of ten (10) days from its receipt of a
copy of this decision, its payrolls for the years 1954, 1955 and 1956
seasonal work, as called for in the decision dated July 18, 1956, of
Regional Labor Attorney Fructuoso F. Alban in Case No. 180. Respondent
shall likewise pay as attorney’s fees five per cent of whatever amount
that may be recovered by the plaintiff in accordance with this decision
after the computation made in the payrolls for 1954, 1955 and 1956 and
the costs of this suit.”

On May 12, 1953, the La Union Labor Union, hereafter referred to as
the Union, filed an action in the Court of Industrial Relations (Case
No. 867-V), against the respondent-appellant Tobacco Corporation,
involving demands affecting the improvement of the working conditions
and wages of its members employed by the corporation. On July 7, 1954,
both parties entered into an agreement which in a way settled the labor
dispute between them, but with a proviso that:

“All other points not covered by this agreement such
as the question as to whether or not the workers of the respondent are
agricultural or industrial, wage or salary differentials and claims for
overtime subsequent to the filing of the petition will be presented to
the Wage Administration Service for adjudication.”

This agreement was approved by the Industrial Court on July 10,
1954, thereby terminating the case. On February 26, 1955, pursuant to
the provisions of the agreement aforementioned, particularly the
proviso above-reproduced, the Union in representation of its members
filed a claim for wage differentials with the Wage Administration
Service (WAS). These claims were reiterated by counsel in his letter of
March 14, 1956 to Secretary of Labor, through the WAS.

On April 14, 1956, the Chief of the WAS indorsed the matter for
immediate appropriate action to the Regional Labor Administrator,
Regional Office No. 2, Dagupan, Pangasinan, and on May 25, 1956, the
latter instructed Regional Labor Attorney Fructuoso Alban of San
Fernando, La Union, to proceed with the investigation of the case and
decide it according, to his findings. Atty. Alban made his
investigation and on July 16, 1956, rendered a so-called decision in
Case No. 180, approved by the Regional Labor Administrator, the
dispositive part of which reads:

“IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the claims of the daily
wage worker for the minimum wage of P4.00 a day is hereby granted and
that they are entitled to a wage differential of P1.50 a day. Since it
has been agreed by both parties that the wage differentials of each
claimant and other claimants who may submit their claims after this
decision will be based upon the payrolls signed by them, the
determination of the amount each will be paid will be verified from the
payrolls for the years 1954, 1955 and 1956 seasonal work, and the
respondent is hereby ordered to submit to this Office within ten (10)
days from the receipt of a copy of this decision all payrolls,
pertaining to period covered by the said claims.”

On August 3, 1957, the Union instituted the present action against
the respondent Tobacco Corporation in the Court of First Instance of La
Union, praying among others that said court (1) issue a writ of
mandatory injunction directing the respondent to submit its payrolls
for the years 1954, 1955 and 1956 (seasonal work) to the office of the
Regional Labor Attorney, and (2) issue a writ of execution of the award
of the claims made in the decision in said Case No. 180 after the
Regional Labor Attorney had made the computation of the claims of
petitioners, and that the total amount involved be deposited in court.

On August 30, 1957, the Tobacco Corporation filed its answer, asking
that the complaint be dismissed on the ground that the so-called
decision rendered by Atty. Alban was null and void for lack of
authority to render the same.

On May 27, 1958, the Court of First Instance of La Union rendered
the decision now on appeal. For the reason that we have already decided
several cases on the same point raised in this appeal, to the effect
that the Wage Administration Service and its agents have no power or
authority to decide cases involving claims for wages under the Minimum
Wage Law, where the parties, employer and employee, have not submitted
their cases for arbitration by the WAS, we find it unnecessary to enter
into an extensive and detailed discussion of this case. In quite a
number of cases, we have held that the Wage Administration Service is
not empowered to render a decision binding on the parties in cases
involving claims for wages, underpayment, etc., unless the parties
enter into a written agreement to submit their dispute or differences
to the WAS for arbitration, pursuant to Section 9, Article 7(c),
Chapter 3 of the Code of Rules and Procedure promulgated on January 20,
1953 by the Secretary of Labor, to implement the provisions of the
Minimum Wage Law; that the ordinary function of the Wage Administration
Service is to hear complaints or claims for wages; and conciliate the
parties if possible, and if they are willing to submit the case for
arbitration, to have said parties enter into a written agreement that
they submit the case for arbitration and decision, and that they would
abide by the result of said arbitration, otherwise, all that the WAS
could do if it found the claim for wages meritorious, is to file the
corresponding complaint in a competent court. (Cebrero vs. Talaman, 103 Phil., 687; Winch vs. P. J. Kiener Co. Ltd., 104 Phil., 735; 55 Off. Gaz. [35] 7337; Potente vs. Saulog Transit, Inc., 105 Phil., 525; Ortega vs. Saulog Transit, Inc., 105 Phil., 907, 57 Off. Gaz. [46] 8299; Figueroa vs. Saulog, 105 Phil., 1012; 57 Off. Gaz. [8] 1395; Garcia vs. Garcia, 106 Phil., 413; 57 Off. Gaz. [3] 460; and Ponce vs. Co King Lian, 107 Phil., 263; 57 Off. Gaz. [26] 4762.)

The trial court, however, believed that the agreement of the parties
before the Industrial Court in the aforementioned Case No. 867-V,
particularly, the stipulation above-reproduced, that all other points
of controversy not covered by the agreement would be submitted to the
WAS for adjudication, fully authorized the WAS thru its agent to render
a decision. We consider that stipulation to be insufficient to confer
power and jurisdiction on the WAS to decide the case. The law and the
Code of Rules and Procedure issued by the Secretary of Labor require a
written agreement signed by the parties to submit to arbitration and to
abide by the result of the decision flowing from said arbitration; and
as well observed by counsel for the appellant, during the investigation
made by Atty. Alban of Case No. 180 when referred to him by the
Regional Labor Administrator of Dagupan, he was merely conducting an
investigation and that he was in a hurry to file a report to his
immediate chief because the Department of Labor was waiting for it.
Possibly because of this understanding, the Tobacco Corporation did not
find it necessary to present evidence and later to appeal from this
so-called decision of the Labor Attorney.

In view of the foregoing, the appealed decision is hereby reversed, with costs against appellee.

Paras, C. J., Bengzon, Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L., Barrera, and Gutierrez David, JJ., concur.