ALFREDO VELASCO AND ADELINA VELASCO, PETITIONERS-APPELLANTS, VS. HON. BLAS OPLE, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF LABOR AND HON. RONALDO ZAMORA, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY…

This is an appeal from the decision of the Court of First
Instance of Manila (now Regional Trial Court) granting the petition for
Prohibition and Mandamus filed by Alfredo Velasco and Adelina Velasco. 
This was appealed by the parties to the Court of Appeals but the latter
court issued a resolution dated April
9, 1980 certifying the appeal to Us since
only pure questions of law are involved.

The antecedent facts of the case as stated by the Court of
Appeals in its resolution are as follows:

“x x x [O]n
March 28, 1973 Quirino Acebuche,
Primitiva Caranyangan, Cora
Donor and Catalina Ogaya private respondents, thru
their common authorized representative Rolando Bartolome,
filed with the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) complaints against
the herein petitioners, owners and proprietors of the Belen’s Restaurant of Intramuros, Manila, for overtime pay and salary
differentials under the Minimum Wage Law, docketed therein as NLRC Cases Nos. 1953,
2290 and 2427; that after due proceedings in the NLRC, the Commission headed by
chairman Amado G. Inciong,
rendered a decision on August 15, 1973 ordering the petitioners to pay the
claimants the total amount of P14,087.00 (Exh. K);
that upon appeal to respondent Secretary of Labor, the latter rendered a
decision on December 5, 1973 reducing the awards due to the private respondents
due to a mistake in computation (Exh. L); that a
motion for reconsideration by the petitioners was denied by the respondent
Secretary of Labor in his order dated February
14, 1974 (Exh. M); that the petitioners
filed with the Bureau of Labor Relations on March 12, 1974 a notice of appeal
stating that they were appealing the decision and order to the Office of the
President (Exh. N); that on June 10, 1974, Assistant
Executive Secretary Ronaldo Zamora addressed a letter
to the Chief of the Constabulary to cause compliance by the petitioners of the
decision of the Secretary of Labor within five days from the receipt of said
letter, pursuant to Section 10 of P.D. No. 21 which provides for the arrest and
detention of any person failing to comply with a decision or order of the NLRC
(Exh. P); that the petitioners in turn wrote
Assistant Executive Secretary Zamora for a reconsideration of the latter’s
directive of June 10, 1974
on the main ground that their appeal from the decision of the Secretary of
Labor has not yet been resolved (Exh. Q); that on
July 12, 1974 Assistant Executive Secretary Zamora wrote the petitioners
stating that his Office could not entertain the appeal of the petitioners ‘in
view of the President’s instructions that henceforth this Office should take
cognizance of appeals in labor cases from the Secretary of Labor only those
involving national interest and those labor cases pending appeal in this office
not involving national interest should be remanded or returned to the Secretary
of Labor for appropriate action and/or execution’ (Exh.
R); that on July 15, 1974, the petitioners filed with the lower court the present
petition for prohibition and mandamus with a prayer for the issuance of
a preliminary injunction – subsequently amended on July 29, 1974, seeking to
restrain the Secretary of Labor and the Assistant Executive Secretary from
implementing the decision of the Secretary of Labor, alleging that since
petitioners’ appeal to the Office of the President has not yet been resolved,
the decision of the Secretary of Labor has not yet become final and executory, so that the directive of the Assistant Executive
Secretary to implement said decision is therefore null and void; that the lower
court issued an order on October 31, 1974 directing the respondent to answer
the petition and issued a writ of preliminary injunction enjoining the public
respondents from implementing the decision of the Secretary of Labor dated
December 5, 1973 and the order of February 14, 1974, as well as the directives
of the respondent Assistant Executive Secretary dated June 10, 1974 and July
12, 1974; that after the public respondents had filed their Answer to the
amended petition, the lower court, after declaring the private respondents in
default for failure to file their answer, conducted a hearing therein, after
which it rendered its decision on September 30, 1975, x x
x.” (pp. 46-47, Rollo)

The dispositive portion of the decision
of the trial court reads as follows:

“The Court will therefore limit itself to making the preliminary
injunction issued in this case permanent and respondent public officials, their
agents, representatives and/or persons acting under them are prohibited and
enjoined from implementing the decision of the Secretary of Labor dated
December 5, 1973 and order of February 4, 1974, and the letters of respondent
Assistant Executive Secretary dated June 10, 1974 and July 12, 1974, until such
time as petitioners’ appeal has been given due course or otherwise disposed of
in accordance with any official change in the applicable law.” (p. 45, Rollo)

Not satisfied with the decision, both parties appealed.  Respondent public officials, in their appeal
assigned the following errors of the trial court:

“I

THE LOWER COURT
ERRED IN ISSUING INJUNCTION PROHIBITING IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DECISION OF THE
SECRETARY OF LABOR DATED DECEMBER 5,
1973.

“II

THE LOWER COURT
ERRED IN HOLDING THAT PETITIONERS HAVE STILL A RIGHT TO APPEAL FROM THE
DECISION OF THE SECRETARY OF LABOR WHICH WAS ALLEGEDLY VIOLATED BY RESPONDENTS?APPELLANTS
PUBLIC OFFICIALS WHICH SHOULD BE PROTECTED BY INJUNCTION.

“III

THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE ‘INTEGRITY’ OF THE
DECISION OF THE SECRETARY OF LABOR DATED DECEMBER 5, 1973 SUFFERS FROM TAINT OF
UNDUE INFLUENCE WHICH IS ADDITIONAL REASON FOR ENJOINING ITS IMPLEMENTATION.”
(pp. 1-2, Brief for the Respondents-Appellants)

On the other hand, petitioners in their appeal made the following
assignment of error:

“THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN HOLDING IN ITS ORDER DATED NOVEMBER 17,
1975 THAT IT HAD NO JURISDICTION TO REVIEW THE CORRECTNESS OF THE DECISION OF
THE SECRETARY OF LABOR AND ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE SECRETARY IN NLRC CASES NOS.
1953, 2290 and 2497.” (p. 42, Brief for the Petitioners as Appellees and Appellants.)

In view of the foregoing assignment of errors by the parties, the
following issues are presented to this Court for resolution:  1) whether or not the petitioners-appellants
have the right of appeal to the President of the Philippines under the
provision of P.D. No. 21; and 2) whether or not the Court of First Instance,
(now Regional Trial Court) of Manila has the jurisdiction to issue the writ of
injunction prohibiting the implementation of the decision of the Secretary of
Labor.

The issue on whether petitioners can appeal to the Office of the
President from the Secretary of Labor shall be decided in accordance with the
law in force at that time.  Article 293
of the Labor Code, as amended, provides:

“ART. 293.  Application of
law enacted prior to this Code.  — All
actions or claims accruing prior to the effectivity
of this Code shall be determined in accordance with the laws in force at the
time of their accrual.

Moreover, Article 299 of the same Code
states, in part:

“ART. 299.  Disposition of
pending cases.  x x x.  Cases on labor relations on appeal with the
Secretary of Labor or the Office of the President of the Philippines as of the
date of effectivity of this Code shall remain under
their respective jurisdiction and shall be decided in accordance with the rules
and regulations in force at the time of appeal.

The applicable law then governing appeals to the Office the
President is Presidential Decree No. 21, promulgated on October 14, 1972.  Section 5 of P.D. No. 21 provides:

“SEC. 5. 
The decision of the Commission shall be immediately executory
unless appealed to the Secretary of Labor who shall act on all cases within
five (5) days from filing.  The latter’s
decision is appealable to
the President.” (Emphasis ours)

The aforequoted section expressly
provides for the remedy of appeal to the office of the President from the
decision of the Secretary of Labor without qualification.  It is only when Presidential Decree No. 1367
was promulgated on May 1, 1978 that the decision of the Secretary of Labor in
labor cases shall be immediately executory provided
that the President of the Philippines may assume jurisdiction over cases which
he considers national interest cases. 
Subsequently, Presidential Decree 1391 promulgated on May 29, 1978
further eliminated appeals from the NLRC to the Secretary of Labor.  Hence, petitioners Alfredo and Adelina Velasco could still avail of the remedy of appeal
to the President when the decision of the Secretary of Labor was rendered on
December 5, 1973.

The second issue involves the jurisdiction of the trial court to
enjoin or restrain the implementation and execution of the decision of the
Secretary of Labor in labor cases.  The
rule is settled that regular courts have no jurisdiction to act on labor cases
or various incidents arising therefrom.  Jurisdiction to try and
adjudicate such cases pertain exclusively to the proper labor officials
of the Department of Labor (Associated Labor Unions (ALU-TUCP) v. Borromeo, G.R. 75736, September 29, 1988, 166 SCRA
99).  Regular courts, being ill-prepared
to apply labor laws, should not interfere in labor cases (Goodrich Employees
Association v. CFI of Rizal, L-30211, October 5,
1976, 73 SCRA 297).  Hence, the Court of
First Instance had no jurisdiction in the case at bar to issue the writ of
injunction to restrain the enforcement of the decision rendered by the
Secretary of Labor.  Where the issue is
lack of authority or arbitrary or improvident exercise thereof, the decision of
the Secretary of Labor may only be questioned and reviewed through a petition
for certiorari with the Supreme Court, which is the proper forum for it
(Asiaworld Publishing House Inc. v. Ople. G.R. 56398, July 23, 1987, 152 SCRA 219).  Thus, We find the
decision of the trial court null and void for lack of jurisdiction in enjoining
the Secretary of Labor from implementing his decision.

With regard to the remedy of appeal to which the petitioners are entitled
under the applicable law then, this Court deems it impractical to allow the
parties to still pursue their appeal to the Office of the President at this
time considering that under the present law, the Labor Code, as amended, the
President may only assume jurisdiction only in cases which the latter considers
to be of national interest.  With respect
to those labor cases which do not involve national interest, such as the case
at bar, the machinery or body in the Office of the President governing such
appeals apparently is no longer existing under the
present law.  Hence, for just and
equitable considerations, this Court instead shall grant the petitioners the
opportunity to file a proper petition for certiorari within a reasonable
time questioning the decision on the merits of the Secretary of Labor.

ACCORDINGLY, the assailed decision of the Court of First
Instance of Manila (now Regional Trial Court) Branch XX in Civil Case No. 94698
dated September 30, 1975 is hereby REVERSED AND SET ASIDE for lack of
jurisdiction.  Petitioners Alfredo and Adelina Velasco shall be allowed the right to file a proper
petition to this Court assailing the decision of the Secretary of Labor dated
December 5, 1973 in NLRC Cases Nos. 1953, 2290 and 2427.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, (Chairman), Cruz, and Griño-Aquino, JJ., concur.

Gancayco, J., no part. Participated in CA
resolution.