BERNARDO SEBASTIAN, PETITIONER AND APPELLANT, VS. JUAN N. GERARDO, ETC., ET AL., RESPONDENTS AND APPELLEES.

Sebastian versus Gerardo

The Case

This is a petition for certiorari with preliminary injunction filed by Bernardo Sebastian against Juan N. Gerardo, the hearing officer of Regional Office Number 3 of the Department of Labor, and against Crispin Selosa, the complainant in a money claim. Sebastian asks the courts to declare null and void the proceedings and the award rendered against him by the regional office on Selosa's claim for overtime pay. The case matters because it fixes two enduring rules: the regional offices of the Department of Labor cannot, under the Reorganization Plan, take from the ordinary courts their jurisdiction over money claims; and a party who attacks the jurisdiction of such an office need not first appeal to the Labor Standards Commission, because a void proceeding confers no jurisdiction to review and an objection to jurisdiction is never waived.

Procedural History

Crispin Selosa filed a complaint for collection of overtime pay with Regional Office Number 3 of the Department of Labor. Sebastian answered, a hearing was conducted by Hearing Officer Juan N. Gerardo, and the hearing officer rendered a decision awarding Selosa the sum of 850 pesos and 37 centavos, with interest until fully paid.

Sebastian then filed with the Court of First Instance of Manila a petition for certiorari with preliminary injunction, praying that the proceedings before the hearing officer be declared null and void and that execution of the decision be stayed. The hearing officer moved to dismiss on the ground that the petition stated no cause of action, there being no allegation that the Reorganization Plan was void or unconstitutional, nor of abuse of discretion. The trial court, through Judge Froilan Bayona, dismissed the petition on the ground that Sebastian had not appealed from the decision of the regional office to the Labor Standards Commission, as required by law and by the Reorganization Plan. Sebastian's motion for reconsideration was denied, and he appealed to the Supreme Court.

Facts

Crispin Selosa claimed that he had been employed by Bernardo Sebastian as a helper mechanic from the second of February 1955 up to the twentieth of November 1956, at a daily wage of four pesos. On that claim he instituted a complaint with Regional Office Number 3 of the Department of Labor for the collection of overtime pay.

Sebastian filed an answer, and Hearing Officer Juan N. Gerardo conducted a hearing. The hearing officer thereafter rendered a decision awarding Selosa 850 pesos and 37 centavos, with interest until fully paid.

Rather than appealing to the Labor Standards Commission, Sebastian went directly to the Court of First Instance of Manila on certiorari, seeking to annul the proceedings on the ground that the regional office had no jurisdiction over the claim. The trial court dismissed the petition, holding that he should first have appealed to the Labor Standards Commission. Hence the appeal to the Supreme Court.

Issues

• Whether or not the Court of First Instance erred in dismissing the petition for certiorari on the ground that Sebastian had failed to appeal from the decision of the regional office to the Labor Standards Commission.
• Whether or not the regional offices of the Department of Labor have jurisdiction to hear and decide money claims such as a claim for overtime pay.

Applicable Provisions

Section 25 of Reorganization Plan Number 20-A, as discussed in the decision, provides:

The provision of Reorganization Plan No. 20-A especially Section 25, which grants regional offices original and exclusive jurisdiction to consider money claims, including overtime pay, under payment, pay for Sundays and legal holidays, etc., is not authorized by the provisions of Republic Act No. 997, which creates and grants power to the Reorganization Commission.

This is the provision whose validity the Court passes upon, and it is the very source of the jurisdiction the hearing officer assumed.

Republic Act Number 997, as amended by Republic Act Number 1241, is the statute that created the Reorganization Commission and defined its powers. The Court measures Section 25 of the Plan against this statute and finds the grant of jurisdiction beyond what the legislature authorized.

Ruling

On the second issue, taken first because it is the foundation of the case, the Court held that the regional offices have no jurisdiction to hear and decide money claims such as the claim of Crispin Selosa. The Court relied on its recent decisions, among them Corominas versus Labor Standards Commission, Manila Central University versus Calupitan, Wong Chun versus Carlim, and Balrodgan Company versus Fuentes, where it had already ruled that the provision of Reorganization Plan Number 20-A, especially Section 25, granting regional offices original and exclusive jurisdiction over money claims including overtime pay, is not authorized by Republic Act Number 997. The Court expressly held that the legislature could not have contemplated a grant of power to the Reorganization Commission to take away jurisdiction over money claims from the ordinary courts of justice and transfer it to the regional offices established by the Commission. The trial court's statement that the regional offices had no jurisdiction was therefore correct.

On the first issue, the Court held that the trial court erred in dismissing the petition for failure to appeal to the Labor Standards Commission. If the regional office had no jurisdiction to hear and consider the claim, then all proceedings held in that office concerning the claim are null and void, and it was not necessary for Sebastian to appeal first to the Labor Standards Commission before questioning that jurisdiction in the courts. The Court stated the governing rule:

An objection to the jurisdiction of a hearing officer is not waived by failure to raise the issue on an appeal therefrom and can be raised at any time before courts of justice.

The dismissal therefore could not stand, and the decision appealed from was reversed.

Doctrine

First, the regional offices of the Department of Labor cannot exercise original and exclusive jurisdiction over money claims, including overtime pay, because Section 25 of Reorganization Plan Number 20-A exceeds the authority conferred on the Reorganization Commission by Republic Act Number 997. Jurisdiction over money claims remains with the ordinary courts of justice.

Second, proceedings conducted by a tribunal without jurisdiction are null and void, and a party is not required to appeal from such void proceedings before challenging that jurisdiction. An objection to the jurisdiction of a hearing officer is not waived by the failure to raise it on appeal and may be raised at any time before courts of justice.

Disposition

The Supreme Court reversed the decision appealed from, set aside the proceedings before and the judgment of the regional office, and ordered costs against respondent Crispin Selosa.

Remember This

Memorize the line that an objection to the jurisdiction of a hearing officer is not waived by failure to raise it on appeal and may be raised at any time before courts of justice. Examiners use this case to test jurisdiction over labor money claims and the rule that a void proceeding need not be appealed before it can be attacked.