Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1961 > March 1961 Decisions > G.R. No. L-16025 March 27, 1961 - FOOKIEN TIMES COMPANY, INC., ET AL. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL. :




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-16025. March 27, 1961.]

FOOKIEN TIMES COMPANY, INC., and GO PUAN SENG, Petitioners, v. THE HONORABLE COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS and FLORA CRUZ GALLERO, Respondents.

Domingo de los Reyes, for Petitioners.

Vidal C. Magbanua and F. S. Falgui for Respondents.


SYLLABUS


1. COURTS; JURISDICTION; WHEN CLAIM FOR SEPARATION PAY AND OVERTIME PAY COGNIZABLE BY ORDINARY COURTS. — Since no claim is made in the complaint for unfair labor practice or for reinstatement, and there is no claim that the dismissed employee is a member of any labor labor organization which has secured contractual rights with respect to her claim against the company, the claim for separation and overtime compensation should be considered an ordinary claim for money, cognizable in the ordinary courts of Justice.


D E C I S I O N


LABRADOR, J.:


This is a petition for prohibition and certiorari against the Court of Industrial Relations and Flora Cruz Gallero, to enjoin the Court of Industrial Relations from taking cognizance of the claims of respondent Flora Cruz Gallero for separation pay and overtime compensation, on the ground that the respondent court has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the said claims.

Flora Cruz Gallero filed the action in the Court of Industrial Relations against the Fookien Times Company, Inc. and Go Puan Seng for overtime pay during the period from 1952 to 1957, maternity pay on three occasions, namely, on July 16, 1954, October 8, 1955, and June 4, 1958, separation pay, and sick and vacation leave pay. She alleged that she started as employee in the respondent Fookien Times Company, Inc. on July 9, 1952 and was dismissed on September 5, 1958. The complaint was filed on November 13, 1958.

Upon being apprised of the petition, the respondents filed a motion to dismiss the action, alleging that the court has no jurisdiction to consider the claims for separation pay, sick and vacation leave pay, overtime wages, and maternity leave pay. In an order dated August 4, 1959, the court dismissed the claims for sick and vacation leave pay and maternity leave pay, but required the respondents to answer the claim for separation pay and overtime compensation.

It is claimed that the respondent court has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of said separation pay and overtime compensation. It is to be noted that no claim is made in the complaint for unfair labor practice or for reinstatement. Neither is there a claim that respondent is a member of any labor organization which has secured contractual rights with respect to her claim against the petitioner herein, respondent in the court below. The claim for separation pay and overtime compensation is therefore an ordinary claim for money, cognizable in the ordinary courts of Justice. To such effect are the decisions of this Court in the cases of Mindanao Bus Employees Labor Union v. The Mindanao Bus Company and the Court of Industrial Relations, G.R. No. L-9795, December 28, 1957; Aguilar v. Salumbides, G.R. No. L-10124, Dec. 28, 1957; Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila v. Yanson, Et Al., G.R. Nos. L-12341 and L-12345, April 30, 1958; Chua Workers’ Union v. City Automotive Co., Et Al., G.R. No. L-11655, April 29, 1959. In the said cases we held:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Conformably to the above ruling, we have also held that as the law stands the Court of Industrial Relations has no authority to hear and determine petitions for payment of overtime wages (Mindanao Bus Employees Labor Union v. Mindanao Bus Co. Et. Al., G. R. No. L-9795, December 28, 1957), or for payment of wage differentials and separation pays (Aguilar v. Salumbides, G. R. No. L-10124, December 28, 1957)." (Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila v. Yanson, Et Al., supra.)

"The subject matter of the case at bar is, thus, identical to that of the foregoing cases, which are accordingly controlling on the issue before us. It should be noted, also, that the rule laid down in the two (2) cases above mentioned, was reiterated by this Court in Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila v. Hon. V. Jimenez Yanzon, Et. Al. (L-12341) and Elizalde & Co. v. Hon. V. Jimenez Yanson, Et. Al. (L- 12345), both decided on April 30, 1958. Inasmuch as the Court of Industrial Relations had no jurisdiction over the present case, a discussion of the other questions raised by appellants herein is unnecessary." (Chua Workers’ Union [NLU] v. City Automotive Co., Et. Al. supra.) .

In view of the above decisions, the writ is hereby granted and the respondent court enjoined from hearing the claims of respondent Flora Cruz Gallero. With costs against respondents.

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




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






March-1961 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-13579 March 8, 1961 - EPIFANIO ALFORQUE, ET AL. v. MINDANAO MOTOR LINES, INC.

  • G.R. No. L-16269 March 8, 1961 - CRISTETA L. VDA. DE SENGBENGCO, ET AL. v. FRANCISCO ARELLANO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-11664 March 16, 1961 - AMBROSIO GABIO, ET AL. v. RODOLFO GANZON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-12539 March 16, 1961 - FRANCISCO SANCHEZ, ET AL. v. MARTIN N. FRANCISCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-10510 March 17, 1961 - M. MCCONNEL, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-11340 March 17, 1961 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEODEGARIO BALONGCAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-14861 March 17, 1961 - IN RE: OSMUNDO TAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-15453 and 15723 March 17, 1961 - SAN CARLOS MILLING CO., INC., ET AL. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-13461 March 20, 1961 - PEDRO TUBALLA v. MARIA DE LA CRUZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16412 March 20, 1961 - AMABLE VALDEZ v. PEDRO OCTAVIANO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-11781 March 24, 1961 - TEOTIMO RIVERA v. TIMOTEO PEÑA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-12957 March 24, 1961 - CONSTANCIO SIENES, ET AL. v. FIDEL ESPARCIA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-12976 March 24, 1961 - CESAR GONZALES v. JOSE V. RODRIGUEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-13239 March 24, 1961 - STEWART E. TAIT, ET AL. v. PLACIDO L. MAPA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15630 March 24, 1961 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANTONIO E. DALEON

  • G.R. No. L-15672 March 24, 1961 - PATRICIO VILLEZA v. JESUS OLMEDO

  • G.R. No. L-16114 March 24, 1961 - MIGUEL MACTAL v. FILOMENO MELEGRITO

  • G.R. No. L-11015 March 25, 1961 - BALBIR SINGH v. BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF THE BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION

  • G.R. No. L-12783 March 25, 1961 - COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. EULOGIO RODRIGUEZ, JR., ETC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-13178 March 25, 1961 - PAMPANGA SUGAR DEVELOPMENT COMPANY v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-13693 March 25, 1961 - FLORENTINA ALEMAN, ET AL. v. PRESENTACION DE CATERA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-14911 March 25, 1961 - ONG PENG v. JOSE CUSTODIO

  • G.R. No. L-15313 March 25, 1961 - PISINGAN CHIONG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-16611 March 25, 1961 - ROMAN CUISON v. SIMPLICIO GOITE

  • G.R. No. L-16898 March 25, 1961 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PHILANDER LONGAO

  • G.R. No. L-19452 March 27, 1961 - FERNANDO MENDOZA v. EDILBERTO Y. DAVID, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-13086 March 27, 1961 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CEFERINA FLORES DE GARCIA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-13470 March 27, 1961 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SEGUNDINO C. ABEJERO

  • G.R. No. L-14188 March 27, 1961 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EUTIQUIO YAMSON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-14307 March 27, 1961 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ICASIANO C. CUELLO

  • G.R. No. L-14352 March 27, 1961 - DOROTEA CONFESOR, ET AL. v. PANTALEON PELAYO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-14597 March 27, 1961 - PASTOR TOLENTINO v. BASILIO BALTAZAR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-14865 March 27, 1961 - IN RE: GELACIO LO CHICOMBING v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-15267 March 27, 1961 - DOMINGO NATIVIDAD v. PASTOR L. DE GUZMAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15691 March 27, 1961 - IN RE: ONG CHING GUAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-15811 March 27, 1961 - IN RE: JUAN MANUEL, ET AL. v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-16025 March 27, 1961 - FOOKIEN TIMES COMPANY, INC., ET AL. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16073 March 27, 1961 - IN RE: GERVACIO CABRALES CU v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-16131 March 27, 1961 - CASIANO IGNACIO, ET AL. v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

  • G.R. No. L-16567 March 27, 1961 - DELGADO BROTHERS, INC. v. HOME INSURANCE COMPANY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16883 March 27, 1961 - DEMETRIO B. ENCARNACION v. JOSE L. BALTAZAR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17288 March 27, 1961 - DEOGRACIAS G. TRINIDAD, ET AL. v. NICASIO YATCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16371 March 28, 1961 - ZAMBALES COLLEGES, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ETC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-12035 March 29, 1961 - JOSEFINA T. VDA. DE LACSON, ET AL. v. SANTIAGO GRANADA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-12377 March 29, 1961 - WARNER, BARNES & CO., LTD. v. RAMON FLORES

  • G.R. No. L-12400 March 29, 1961 - SY ANG HOC v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-13294 March 29, 1961 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ISIDORO ESCALONA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-14070 March 29, 1961 - MARIA GERVACIO BLAS, ET AL. v. ROSALINA SANTOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15000 March 29, 1961 - MAYON MOTORS, INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

  • G.R. No. L-15195 March 29, 1961 - ANUNCIACION NARABAL DE NILO, ET AL. v. HONORIO ROMERO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15203 March 29, 1961 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFREDO ALBAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15776 March 29, 1961 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ADOLFO SAEZ

  • G.R. No. L-15940 March 29, 1961 - VICENTE CAMBARE v. UNION OBRERA DE TABACO LINES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16003 March 29, 1961 - CESAREO PEREZ, ET AL. v. VICENTE EVITE, ET AL.