Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1961 > June 1961 Decisions > G.R. No. L-16637 June 30, 1961 - REPUBLIC SAVINGS BANK v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL. :




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-16637. June 30, 1961.]

REPUBLIC SAVINGS BANK, Petitioner, v. THE HONORABLE COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS and NARCISO MACARAEG, Respondents.

Lichauco, Picazo & Agcaoili for Petitioner.

Gregorio E. Fajardo for respondent Narciso Macaraeg.


SYLLABUS


1. COURTS; JURISDICTION; CLAIMS FOR OVERTIME PAY WITHOUT REINSTATEMENT COGNIZABLE BY THE ORDINARY COURTS. — Where no claim is made by an employee who was separated from the company 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, and the action is merely for the collection of overtime pay, the same is purely a money claim cognizable by the ordinary courts of justice in accordance with the provisions of Republic Act No. 602, and not by the Court of Industrial Relations.


D E C I S I O N


LABRADOR, J.:


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 v. 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 v. Tan, 52 O.G. 5826; Reyes v. Tan, 52 O.G. 6187; Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila v. Hons. V. Jimenez Yanson Et. Al., G.R. No. L-12341, April 30, 1958; Chua Worker’s Union (NLU) v. 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 v. 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 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.

Bautista Angelo, J., took no part.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






June-1961 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-9687 June 30, 1961 - LIDDELL & CO., INC. v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE

  • G.R. No. L-11926 June 30, 1961 - NATIONAL RICE & CORN CORPORATION v. JUAN ANTONIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-12039 June 30, 1961 - EULOGIO RODRIGUEZ, SR. v. SOFRONIO FRANCISCO, ETC.

  • G.R. No. L-12406 June 30, 1961 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FLORO TILA-ON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-14066 June 30, 1961 - VENANCIO CASTAÑEDA, ET AL. v. PASTOR DE AGO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-14146 June 30, 1961 - IN RE: NG LIAM KENG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-14204 June 30, 1961 - MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY v. ROSALINA DE LA PEÑA VDA. DE OLIVEROS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-14210 June 30, 1961 - LUNETA MOTOR COMPANY v. RUBEN A. VILLALUZ, ETC.

  • G.R. No. L-14243 June 30, 1961 - JOSE L. UY v. OSCAR L. UY

  • G.R. No. L-14406 June 30, 1961 - MARCELINO BUYCO v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-14442 June 30, 1961 - EQUITABLE BANKING CORP., ET AL. v. REGIONAL OFFICE NO. 3 OF THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-14457 June 30, 1961 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. OTIAK OMAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-14462 June 30, 1961 - DON GIL MONTILLA, ET AL. v. GERTRUDES MONTILLA

  • G.R. No. L-14502 June 30, 1961 - FEDERICO PINEDA v. DOMINGO CABAÑGON

  • G.R. No. L-14516 June 30, 1961 - VICTOR DE LOS REYES v. PIO PASTORFIDE

  • G.R. No. L-14579 June 30, 1961 - PEDRO GABANI, ET AL. v. JUAN E. REAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-14803 June 30, 1961 - FLAVIANO LOTA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-14837 June 30, 1961 - JOSE COROMINAS, JR., ET AL. v. LABOR STANDARDS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15124 June 30, 1961 - DOMINGA ANTONIO, ET AL. v. JOSE RAMOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15129 June 30, 1961 - MARIA VELASCO, ET AL. v. CARLOS VELASCO

  • G.R. No. L-15145 June 30, 1961 - AURELIA T. DE PINEDA v. FELINO V. VELOIRA

  • G.R. No. L-15279 30 June 30, 1961 - PHILIPPINE WOOD PRODUCTS, ET AL. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15376 June 30, 1961 - MIGUEL DE LOS SANTOS v. FRANCISCO QUISUMBING

  • G.R. No. L-15473 June 30, 1961 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LIBERATO GAGUI, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15717 June 30, 1961 - JULIAN BOÑAGA v. ROBERTO SOLER, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15811 June 30, 1961 - IN RE: JUAN MANUEL, ET AL. v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-15849 June 30, 1961 - BERNARDO SEBASTIAN v. JUAN N. GERARDO

  • G.R. No. L-15908 June 30, 1961 - BASILAN LUMBER COMPANY v. CAGAYAN TIMBER EXPORT COMPANY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16637 June 30, 1961 - REPUBLIC SAVINGS BANK v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16736 June 30, 1961 - PASTOR SANCHEZ v. ANTONIA CLARETE VDA. DE TAMSI

  • G.R. No. L-16994 June 60, 1961 - MANILA PORT SERVICE v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17109 June 30, 1961 - SAMAR MINING CO., INC. v. FRANCISCO P. ARNADO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17314 June 30, 1961 - PACIENCIA B. SALlTA v. EDUARDO CALLEJA, ET AL.