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

Fookien Times versus Gallero

The Case

This is a petition for prohibition and certiorari brought by Fookien Times Company, Incorporated and Go Puan Seng against the Court of Industrial Relations and Flora Cruz Gallero. The petitioners ask the Supreme Court to stop the Court of Industrial Relations from taking cognizance of Gallero's claims for separation pay and overtime compensation, on the ground that the industrial court has no jurisdiction over them. The case matters because it fixes a clean jurisdictional line: a money claim by an employee, standing alone, belongs to the ordinary courts, not to the Court of Industrial Relations.

Procedural History

Flora Cruz Gallero filed her action in the Court of Industrial Relations against Fookien Times Company, Incorporated and Go Puan Seng, claiming overtime pay, maternity pay, separation pay, and sick and vacation leave pay. The respondents moved to dismiss on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. In an order dated August 4, 1959, the industrial court dismissed the claims for sick and vacation leave pay and maternity leave pay, but required the respondents to answer the claims for separation pay and overtime compensation. The petitioners then came to the Supreme Court on a petition for prohibition and certiorari to enjoin the industrial court from hearing those two remaining claims.

Facts

Flora Cruz Gallero alleged that she began working for Fookien Times Company, Incorporated on July 9, 1952, and that she was dismissed on September 5, 1958. On November 13, 1958, she filed a complaint in the Court of Industrial Relations seeking overtime pay for the period from 1952 to 1957, maternity pay on three occasions, namely July 16, 1954, October 8, 1955, and June 4, 1958, separation pay, and sick and vacation leave pay.

The respondents moved to dismiss, arguing that the industrial court had no jurisdiction over the claims for separation pay, sick and vacation leave pay, overtime wages, and maternity leave pay. The industrial court dismissed the sick and vacation leave pay and maternity leave pay claims, but ordered the respondents to answer the claims for separation pay and overtime compensation.

The Supreme Court noted that the complaint made no claim for unfair labor practice and no claim for reinstatement. Neither was there any claim that Gallero belonged to a labor organization that had secured contractual rights in her favor against the company. On that record, the two remaining claims stood as ordinary claims for money.

Issues

• Whether or not the Court of Industrial Relations has jurisdiction to take cognizance of a claim for separation pay where the complaint alleges no unfair labor practice, no reinstatement, and no union contract.
• Whether or not the Court of Industrial Relations has jurisdiction to take cognizance of a claim for overtime compensation under the same circumstances.

Applicable Provisions

The decision does not quote a statute; it rests on the Court's own prior rulings, which it quotes as controlling. The first quoted ruling states:

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, or for payment of wage differentials and separation pays.

This fixes the rule that overtime wages and separation pay, claimed as ordinary money demands, lie outside the industrial court.

The second quoted ruling states:

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.

This confirms that once jurisdiction is absent, the industrial court may not proceed at all, and no other question need be reached.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the claim for separation pay is an ordinary claim for money, cognizable in the ordinary courts of justice. The complaint alleged no unfair labor practice, no reinstatement, and no union contract securing the claim. The Court relied on its earlier decisions, including the Mindanao Bus Employees' Labor Union case, Aguilar versus Salumbides, Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila versus Yanson, and Chua Workers' Union versus City Automotive Company, which held that the Court of Industrial Relations has no authority to hear petitions for payment of separation pay.

On the second issue, the Court reached the same result for overtime compensation. Applying the same line of decisions, it held that a petition for payment of overtime wages is likewise beyond the industrial court's authority, and so the claim is an ordinary money claim for the ordinary courts.

Doctrine

A claim for separation pay or overtime compensation, unaccompanied by any charge of unfair labor practice, any prayer for reinstatement, or any union contract establishing the right, is an ordinary claim for money cognizable only in the ordinary courts. The Court of Industrial Relations has no jurisdiction over such claims. Jurisdiction is determined by the nature of the claim as pleaded, not by the fact that the claimant is an employee.

Disposition

The writ was granted, and the Court of Industrial Relations was enjoined from hearing the claims of Flora Cruz Gallero, with costs against the respondents.

Remember This

Memorize the line: separation pay and overtime pay, claimed alone, are ordinary money claims for the ordinary courts, not the industrial court. Examiners use this case to test the jurisdiction of labor tribunals over pure money claims unaccompanied by unfair labor practice, reinstatement, or a union contract.