G.R. No. 17776. April 30, 1964
FORTUNATO F. HALILI, PETITIONER, VS. RAFAEL HUGANAS, JUAN GERARDO, WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSIONERS, SHERIFF OF MANILA AND SHERIFF OF QUEZON CITY, RESPONDENTS.
BENGZON, C.J.:
in the light of constitutional limitations and separation of powers. We
have already passed on it several times.
It appears that on May 26, 1958, Rafael Huganas filed a claim for
compensation, against Fortunate F. Halili, with Regional office No. 3
of the Department of Labor; that said claim was heard by Juan Gerardo,
the Hearing Officer, who in due course awarded compensation to the
claimant in the form of sums of money; that such award was subsequently
affirmed upon review by the Workmen’s Compensation Commission; that
carrying out the award, the Sheriff of the Quezon City took steps to
execute it; that consequently, Atty. Jesus I. Santos, counsel for
Halili filed, in the Quezon City Court of First Instance, an action to
enjoin such execution, contending that the proceedings held before the
Regional Office and the Workmen’s Compensation Commission were null and
void because they acted, by virtue of the authority given by
Reorganization Plan No. 20-A which was, for the reasons stated by him,
unconstitutional. The court sustained Halili’s position and ordered the
sheriff to refrain from taking action. Wherefore, Huganas, et al. took
this appeal.
In Madrigal Shipping Co. vs. Workmen’s Compensation Commission[1]
the decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Commission confirming the
award of the Regional Office No. 2 of the Department of Labor, pursuant
to Reorganization Plan No. 20-A was attacked on the same grounds
specified by appellee herein. Nonetheless, we upheld the official
award, holding that the Plan was valid in so far as claims
for compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act was concerned.
The same view was expressed in other resolutions of this Court.[2]
It was error, then, for the lower court to invalidate the
proceedings before said administrative agencies. However, its order
must be approved in the result because the execution was being carried
in pursuance of directives of the Labor Regional Office. We have
already ruled that Regional Offices of the Department of Labor are not
empowered to enforce their awards by writs of execution, which only
courts of justice are authorized to issue. (National Shipyards vs.
Calixto, L-18471, February 28, 1963; Pastoral vs. Commissioner of the Workmen’s Compensation Commission, L-12903, July 31, 1961.)
On this last ground, the Court’s order preventing the sheriff from carrying out the writ of execution, is affirmed. No costs.
Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Paredes, Dizon, and Makalintal, JJ., concur.
[1] L-17495, June 29, 1962.
[2] Stoll vs. Mardo, L-17241, June 29, 1962, and cases cited therein.