REPUBLIC SAVINGS BANK, PETITIONER, VS. THE HONORABLE COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS AND NARCISO MACARAEG, RESPONDENTS.

This is a petition filed in this Court against the Court of Industrial
Relations, alleging that said court has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of
the complaint filed before it by Narciso Macaraeg against the Republic Savings
Bank for the collection of overtime pay for services rendered as security guard
of said bank from July, 1955 to July 18, 1958, when he was separated from the
bank, and praying that the said court’s order granting and giving due course to
the complaint be set aside and said complaint be dismissed.

The action, cognizance of which is sought to be enjoined in the present
petition, is Case No. 1104-V of the Court of Industrial Relations, Narciso
Macaraeg vs. Republic Savings Bank, for overtime pay rendered up to the
time when plaintiff was separated from the defendant. There is no claim that
plaintiff is entitled to be reinstated in his position nor any petition to that
effect. After filing its answer the defendant moved to dismiss the case on the
ground that the Court of Industrial Relations had no jurisdiction over the same.
The motion was granted by the hearing judge, Associate Judge Emiliano C.
Tabigne, but on motion for reconsideration the majority of the respondent court
en banc reconsidered the order of dismissal and remanded the case for
trial for the reception of evidence on the merits of the case.

In a long line of decisions we have heretofore held that the Court of
Industrial Relations under Republic Act No. 875 no longer has jurisdiction to
take cognizance of money claims. Jurisdiction to consider such claims is vested
in a competent court by Section 16 of Republic Act No. 602. (PAFLU vs.
Tan, 99 Phil., 854; 52 Off. Gaz., 5826; Reyes vs. Tan, 99 Phil., 880;
52 Off. Gaz., 6187; Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila vs. Hons. V.
Jimenez Yanson, et al., G.R. No. L-12341, April 30, 1958 ; Chua Worker’s Union
(NLU) vs. City Automotive Company and Chuan Hon. G.R. No. L-11655,
April 29, 1959). We have however, excepted from the above ruling cases in which
an employee or laborer continues in the service of his employer or seeks
reinstatement after dismissal or separation. The case cited by respondent court
to sustain its ruling that it still has jurisdiction over the case of respondent
Republic Savings Bank filed against it by Macaraeg, is Monares vs. C.
H. S. Enterprises, et al., G. R. No L-11749, May 29, 1959 . But this case (of
Monares) the complaint not only sought salary differentials and overtime pay but
also reinstatement. In the the case at bar respondent Macaraeg had
already been separated from the service of the Republic Savings Bank when he
instituted the action. No claim is made that his separation is illegal or that
he still has the right to continue in the service or to be reinstated, by virtue
of a contract or otherwise. Under this circumstance, the action is purely a
money claim cognizable by the ordinary courts of justice in accordance with the
provisions of Republic Act No. 602.

Wherefore, the petition is hereby granted and the order of the respondent
court reconsidering the order of dismissal rendered by judge Tabigne and setting
it aside, is set aside, without prejudice to the filing of the claim of Macaraeg
in any competent court. Without costs.

Bengzon, C.J., Padilla,
Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Paredes, Dizon, De Leon, and
Natividad, JJ., concur.