AMERICAN OXYGEN & ACETYLENE COMPANY, INC., PETITIONER, VS. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS AND ISIDRO NATAVIO, RESPONDENTS.

This is a petition to en join the Court of Industrial Relations from
continuing proceedings in said tribunal in case No. 26-V-Pangasinan, entitled
“Isidro Natavio vs. American Oxygen and Acetylene Company.”

In the above case No. 26-V-Pangasinan, Natavio’s petition contains the
following material allegations: That he was employed by respondent American
Oxygen and Acetylene Company from 1948 to 1958 at a monthly salary of P265; that
sometime in 1959 he was separated from the service because of illness due to the
nature of his job; that the matter of his right to compensation and rein
statement is now pending before Regional Office No. 3 of Manila; that as an
employee he was required to render overtime work from 5 p.m. to 7 p.m. from the
year 1949 to the year 1951, for which he was not paid the corresponding overtime
pay, and from 1952 to 1956 he was also required to render overtime work from 5
p.m. to 6 p.m. without the corresponding payment; that from 1949 to 1956, he was
likewise required to work on Sundays and holidays for which he was not paid; and
that petitioner has not been paid the above demands, respondent refusing to do
so.

Upon the filing of the above petition, the respondent filed a motion to
dismiss, alleging that the court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter;
that the petitioner’s cause of action has prescribed; and that the petition is
barred by the filing of a claim pending in Regional Office No. 3. The original
petition was filed on May 6, 1960 and the motion to dismiss on May 18, 1960. An
amended petition was filed dated, June 7, 1960, in which the following changes
in the complaint were made: (1) an insertion of an allegation that when
petitioner was pronounced cured and already ready to work the company refused to
readmit him; (2) a change in the period when he rendered overtime work, from
“1952 to 1956” to “1952 to 1958;” (3) a change as to the period when he was
required to render work during Sundays and holidays from “1949 to 1956” to “1949
to 1958” (4) a new allegation that upon advice of counsel he has desisted from
prosecuting in the Regional Oflfce, Department of Labor, his overtime and
reinstatement claims leaving for determination by said office his claim for
injury.

Upon the filing of the above amended petition counsel for respondent moved to
strike out the amended petition on the ground that the same was filed without
leave of court and while a motion to dismiss contesting the jurisdiction of the
court was pending resolution. The court through Judge Emiliano C. Tabigne of the
Court of Industrial Relations granted the motion to dismiss and dismissed
Natavio’s petition, on the ground that the relation of employer and employee had
ceased and because of the absence of a sufficient number of laborers (31). But
upon motion for reconsideration the court en banc, Judge Tabigne
dissenting, set aside the order of dismissal and gave due course to the
petition. It is against this order setting aside the dismissal that the present
petition for review is brought before this Court. The petition was given due
course by Us.

It will be noted that the original petition is subscribed and sworn to by the
petitioner, while the amended petition is not; that the changes were made
without permission from the court in which the case was pending and respondent
in the case had the right to object thereto. It is also apparent that the
changes were made to avoid the defense of prescription and the lack of
jurisdiction over the subject matter. Therefore, the present case clearly falls
under our ruling in the case of Campos Rueda Corporation vs. Hon. Jose S.
Bautista, et al., supra, where we declared:

“The allegations made in Muyot’s complaint against petitioner show
conclusively that his employment with the later was terminated on December 31,
1953—almost five years before said complaint was filed; that, without asking for
his reinstatement, neither directly nor indirectly, he only sought to collect
what, in his opinion, was due and payable to him for overtime, Sunday and
holiday services he had rendered to his former employer during the period of his
employment.”

Continuing, Mr. Justice Dizon further stated:

“Respondent Muyot must have finally realized that the Court of Industrial
Relations had no jurisdiction over his claims for, according to his’answer filed
in the present case, he had filed on July 14, 1961—more than two years after the
filing of his action—a motion for leave to amend his complaint and to admit the
amended complaint attached to his motion, the amendment consisting precisely in
the addition of a third cause of action where, inter alia, he alleged that on
May 31, 1953 he was illegally dismissed by herein petitioner and that, as a
consequence, he was entitled to reinstatement, with back wages from the date of
his illegal dismissal up to his actual reinstatement.

“Obviously the purpose of the amendment was to make his case fall within the
jurisdiction of the respondent court. This attempt is, in our opinion, of no
avail.

“It is settled in this jurisdiction that the jurisdiction of a court is
determined by the allegations made in the complaint or petition. On the other
hand, we have also held heretofore that this principle applies to proceedings in
the Court of Industrial Relations (Administrator etc. vs. Alberto et al., G. R.
No. L-12133, October 31, 1958).

“The insufficiency of the allegations of Muyot’s complaint to place his
action within the jurisdiction of the respondent court could not be cured by
amendment, Nor in Rosario vs. Carandang, we clearly held that ‘a complaint can
not be amended so as to confer jurisdiction on the court in which it is filed,
if the cause of action originally set fourth was not within the court’s
jurisdiction.’ (Rosario vs. Carandang, 96 Phil., 845; 51 Off. Gaz., 2387, April
28, 1955).”

Without passing upon the validity of the reasons given by the Court of
Industrial Relations in setting aside the order of dismissal and reinstating the
case, we hold that the amendment of the original complaint by the insertion
allegations that would give jurisdiction to the court are unauthorized and such
amendments cannot be utilized for the purpose of giving jurisdiction over the
amended petition, which we declare to be sham. In consequence, the motion to
dismiss filed in the court below should have been granted.

Wherefore, the writ is hereby granted, and the order of the court below
denying the motion to dismiss is set aside, and the original petition ordered
dismissed. With costs against respondent Isidro Natavio.

So ordered.

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