FOOKIEN TIMES COMPANY, INC., AND GO PUAN SENG, PETITIONERS, VS. THE HONORABLE COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS AND FLORA CRUZ GALLERO, RESPONDENTS.

This is a petition for prohibition and certiorari against the Court of
Industrial Relations and Flora Cruz Gallero, to enjoin the Court of
Industrial Relations from taking cognizance of the claims of respondent
Flora Cruz Gallero for separation pay and overtime compensation, on the
ground that the respondent court has no jurisdiction to take cognizance
of the said claims.

Flora Cruz Gallero filed the action in
the Court of Industrial Relations against the Fookien Times Company,
Inc. and Go Puan Seng for overtime pay during the period from 1952 to
1957, maternity pay on three occasions, namely, on July 16, 1954,
October 8, 1955, and June 4, 1958, separation pay, and sick and
vacation leave pay. She alleged that she started as employee in the
respondent Fookien Times Company, Inc. on July 9, 1952 and was
dismissed on September 5, 1958. The complaint was filed on November 13,
1958.

Upon being apprised of the petition, the respondents
filed a motion to dismiss the action, alleging that the court has no
jurisdiction to consider the claims for separation pay, sick and
vacation leave pay, overtime wages, and maternity leave pay. In an
order dated August 4, 1959, the court dismissed the claims for sick and
vacation leave pay and maternity leave pay, but required the
respondents to answer the claim for separation pay and overtime
compensation.

It is claimed that the respondent court has no
jurisdiction to take cognizance of said separation pay and overtime
compensation. It is to be noted that no claim is made in the complaint
for unfair labor practice or for reinstatement. Neither is there a
claim that respondent is a member of any labor organization which has
secured contractual rights with respect to her claim against the
petitioner herein, respondent in the court below. The claim for
separation pay and overtime compensation is therefore an ordinary claim
for money, cognizable in the ordinary courts of Justice. To such effect
are the decisions of this Court in the eases of Mindanao Bus Employees’
Labor Union vs. The Mindanao Bus Company and the Court of Industrial Relations, G. R. No. L-9795, December 28, 1957; Aguilar vs. Salumbides, G. R. No. L-10124, Dec. 28, 1957; Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila vs. Yanson, et al., G. R. Nos. L-12341 and L-12345, April 30, 1958; Chua Workers’ Union vs. City Automotive Co., et al., G. R. L-11655, April 29, 1959. In the said cases we held:

“Conformably
to the above ruling, we have also held that as the law stands the Court
of Industrial Relations has no authority to hear and determine
petitions for payment of overtime wages (Mindanao Bus Employees Labor
Union vs. Mindanao Bus Co. et al., G. R. No. L-9795, December
28, 1957), or for payment of wage differentials and separation pays
(Aguilar vs. Salumbides, G. R. No. L-10124, December 28, 1857).” (Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila vs. Yanson, et al., supra.)

“The
subject matter of the case at bar is, thus, identical to that of the
foregoing cases, which are accordingly controlling on the issue before
us. It should be noted, also, that the rule laid down in the two (2)
cases above mentioned, was reiterated by this Court in Roman Catholic
Archbishop of Manila vs. Hon. V. Jimenez Yanzon, et al. (L-12341) and Elizalde & Co. vs.
Hon. V. Jimenez Yanzon, et al. (L-12345), both decided on April 30,
1958. Inasmuch as the Court of Industrial Relations had no jurisdiction
over the present case, a discussion of the other questions raised by
appellants herein is unnecessary.” (Chua Workers’ Union [NLU] vs. City Automotive Co., et al. supra.)

In view of the above decisions, the writ is hereby granted and the
respondent court enjoined from hearing the claims of respondent Flora
Cruz Gallero. With costs against respondents.

Bengzon, Acting C. J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L., Barrera, Paredes, and Dizon, JJ., concur.