Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1961 > December 1961 Decisions > G.R. No. L-17196 December 28, 1961 - TEODORICO B. SANTOS v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL. :




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-17196. December 28, 1961.]

TEODORICO B. SANTOS, Petitioner, v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL., Respondent.

Tabora, Concon & Dacanay for Petitioner.

F.A. Sambajon for respondent Court.

A.G. Flores for other respondents.


SYLLABUS


1. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS; JURISDICTION; AGRICULTURAL LABORER. — A claim relative to an unfair labor practice of an agricultural laborer under Republic Act 875 cannot be taken cognizance of by the Court of Industrial Relations, not only because an agricultural laborer does not come within the purview of the word employee defined in Section 2 (d) of Republic Act No. 875, but also because any matter that may pertain to the relation of tenant and landlord comes under the Agricultural Tenancy Act (Republic Act No. 1199, as amended by Republic Act 2263), and hence, such claim comes under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of Agrarian Relations created by Republic Act No. 1267


D E C I S I O N


BAUTISTA ANGELO, J.:


Adriano Calisin, Et. Al. filed with the Court of Industrial Relations a complaint for unfair labor practice against respondent alleging that being in the employ of the latter as agricultural laborers they were separated from the service on April 5, 1956 for the reason that they have affiliated themselves with the Casaca Peasant Union contrary to the warning given to them by a representative of Respondent. Respondent filed a motion to dismiss on the ground of lack of jurisdiction contending that since complainants were all employed in his hacienda as agricultural laborers their complaint, if any, does not come within the purview of Republic Act No. 875 and, consequently, it is beyond the jurisdiction of the industrial court. Action on this motion having been deferred until the case is tried on the merits, respondent filed his answer wherein he claimed that the complainants were merely casual laborers and not permanent tenants for they were merely paid per hour and that he never interfered with their desire to join a labor union for as a matter of fact, all his tenants in the hacienda were all members of the Casaca Peasant Union. He asked for damages and for the dismissal of the complaint.

Issues having been joined, hearing was held during which both parties presented their evidence. Thereafter, the court a quo rendered decision holding that it has jurisdiction over the case even if complainants are agricultural laborers and, finding respondent guilty of the charge, ordered him to reinstate complainants, except those who withdrew, to their former positions, without loss of seniority, with payment of their back wages from their dismissal up to their reinstatement. Respondent interposed the present petition for review.

It is undisputed that complainants were agricultural laborers for at the time they filed their complaint they were working in the hacienda of respondent devoted to agricultural purposes having an area of 500 hectares. Though it has around 72 tenants working in the hacienda under the leasehold system, the same is not however mechanized. Only 10 hectares thereof were under the administration of petitioner which were devoted to the cultivation of coconuts, coffee, citrus, bananas and other agricultural products.

The question to be determined is: considering that complainants are agricultural laborers in the legal sense can their claim relative to an unfair labor practice committed by petitioner be filed with the Court of Industrial Relations? In other words, can the latter court take cognizance of this claim under Republic Act No. 875 considering that the complainants are agricultural laborers?

We are inclined to uphold the negative view not only because an agricultural laborer does not come within the purview of the word employee defined in Section 2(d) of Republic Act No. 875 but also because any matter that may pertain to the relation of tenant and landlord comes under the Agricultural Tenancy Act (Republic Act No. 1199, as amended by Republic Act No. 2263), and any controversy that may arise between them as an incident of their relationship comes under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of Agrarian Relations created by Republic Act No. 1267. Thus, elaborating on the scope that the word "employee" should have as defined in Section 2(d) of Republic Act No. 875, this Court made the following comment:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"The same thing may be said at the term ‘employee’ under said Wagner Act. It contains several exemptions, such as any individual employed in the domestic service or any person employed by his parent or spouse. Such exemptions are absent under the term ‘employee’ used in our Industrial Peace Act; and yet those exempted under the Wagner Act’s definitions of employer and employee are obviously and clearly entitled to exception or exemption under our own Industrial Peace Act. For instance, there can be no question that under our Industrial Peace Act, the Republic or any political division or subdivision, like a province or municipality, must and should also be excluded from the definition of employer. Similarly, under the term ‘employee’ of our law, agricultural laborers or individuals employed in the domestic service, like private or domestic drivers, housemaids, kitchen help, etc., should be excluded. From this, we can logically conclude that our Legislature, in drafting the law, particularly the portion defining employer and employee, did not deem it necessary or advisable to make the obvious and necessary exemptions or exceptions, but left it to the courts for interpretation and application. For this reason, the cases decided by the United States Federal courts, interpreting the Wagner Act as regards employer and employee, are not applicable." (Boy Scouts of the Philippines v. Araos, G.R. No. L-10091, January 29, 1958; Italics supplied.)

With regard to our conclusion that the present controversy comes under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of Agrarian Relations, suffice it to state that the latter court was created for "the enforcement of all laws and regulations governing the relation of capital and labor on all agricultural lands under any system of cultivation" (Section 1, Republic Act 1267, as amended by Republic 1409), and was given exclusive jurisdiction over the entire Philippines "to consider, investigate, decide, and settle all questions, matters, controversies, or disputes involving all those relationships established by law which determine the varying rights of persons in the cultivation and use of agricultural land where one of the parties works the land" (Section 7, Ibid.) . Complainants, therefore, should have lodged their complaint with the agrarian court for the redress of their grievance considering this broad power given to it by law even if nothing is said therein relative to unfair labor practice. The subsequent enactment of Republic Act No. 2263 which grants to agricultural workers the right to file an action of this nature merely serves to confirm this jurisdiction of the agrarian court. The conclusion is, therefore, inescapable that the industrial court has improperly assumed jurisdiction over the present case for it comes under the exclusive jurisdiction of the agrarian court.

WHEREFORE, the order subject of review is set aside, without pronouncement as to costs.

Padilla, Labrador, Barrera, Paredes, Dizon and De Leon, JJ., concur.

Reyes, J.B.L., and Barrera, JJ., concurs in the result.

Bengzon, C.J., and Concepcion, 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






December-1961 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-15264 December 22, 1961 - GARCIA SAMSON v. RAMON ENRIQUEZ, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-15763 December 22, 1961 - NATIONAL POWER CORP. v. HON. JESUS DE VEYRA, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-16806 December 22, 1961 - SERGIO DEL ROSARIO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-16825 December 22, 1961 - IN RE: CHUA PUN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-16950 December 22, 1961 - SIMEON T. GARCIA v. ARTURO B. PASCUAL

  • G.R. No. L-18054 December 22, 1961 - CITY OF BUTUAN v. HON. JUDGE MONTANO A. ORTIZ, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-19168 December 22, 1961 - ANSBERTO P. PAREDES v. ROSALIND B. ANTILLON

  • G.R. No. L-16173 December 23, 1961 - PASCUALA R. VITO v. HON. ARSENIO H. LACSON, ETC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16992 December 23, 1961 - ATLANTIC GULF & PACIFIC CO. OF MLA., INC. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-8748 December 26, 1961 - ISABEL B. VDA. DE PADILLA v. CONCEPCION PATERNO

  • G.R. No. L-15365 December 26, 1961 - ASUNCION FRANCISCO, ET AL v. HON. HERMOGENES CALUAG, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-18128 December 26, 1961 - J. M. TUASON & CO., INC., ET AL v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-16600 December 27, 1961 - ILOILO CHINESE COMMERCIAL SCHOOL v. LEONORA FABRIGAR, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-12996 December 28, 1961 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. ANTONIO ALBERT

  • G.R. No. L-14337 December 28, 1961 - AGAPITO TRIA, ET AL v. PEDRO ZABALLA, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-14823 December 28, 1961 - ANACLETA BARILLO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-15013 December 28, 1961 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. ASTURIAS SUGAR CENTRAL, INC.

  • G.R. No. L-15091 December 28, 1961 - GENOVEVA CATALAN PAULINO, ET AL v. PAZ H. PAULINO, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-15798 December 28, 1961 - JOSE P. TECSON v. SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM

  • G.R. No. L-16359 December 28, 1961 - INSULAR LIFE ASSURANCE CO., LTD. v. SSS

  • G.R. No. L-16563 December 28, 1961 - Z. E. LOTHO, INC. v. ICE & COLD STORAGE INDUSTRIES OF THE PHIL., INC., ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-17066 December 28, 1961 - IN RE: CARMEN PADILLA VDA. DE BENGSON v. PHIL. NAT’L., BANK

  • G.R. No. L-17135 December 28, 1961 - MANILA CORDAGE CO. v. HON. MAGNO GATMAITAN, ETC., ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-17196 December 28, 1961 - TEODORICO B. SANTOS v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17237 December 28, 1961 - GREGORIA BARTOLO v. PRIMO G. MALIWANAG, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-17535 December 28, 1961 - H. G. HENARES & SONS v. NATIONAL LABOR UNION

  • G.R. No. L-17661 December 28, 1961 - MANUEL TIBERIO v. MANILA PILOTS ASSO.

  • G.R. No. L-17687 December 28, 1961 - JANUARIO L. JISON, SR. v. IGNACIO DEBUQUE, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-17690 December 28, 1961 - MANUEL DIVINAGRACIA v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF MLA., ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-17934 December 28, 1961 - ALLIED FREE WORKERS’ UNION v. HON. JUDGE MANUEL ESTIPONA, ETC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17937 December 28, 1961 - COMMUNITY SAWMILL CO. v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COM., ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-13254 December 30, 1961 - CALIFORNIA LINES INC. v. AMPARO DE LOS SANTOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-13415 December 30, 1961 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DOROTEO BOLLENA, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-14814 December 30, 1961 - EARNSHAWS DOCKS & HONOLULU IRON WORKS v. PEDRO GIMENEZ

  • G.R. No. 1-14999 December 30, 1961 - NARIC WORKERS’ UNION v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-15436 December 30, 1961 - EUSEBIO G. DIMAANO v. AUDITOR GENERAL, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-15759 December 30, 1961 - PAMPANGA BUS COMPANY, INC., ET AL v. MUNICIPALITY OF TARLAC

  • G.R. No. L-15812 December 30, 1961 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO RACCA, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-15901 December 30, 1961 - ALIPIO GONZALES v. Hon. SERGIO OSMEÑA, JR., ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-16106 December 30, 1961 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. PNB, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-16124 December 30, 1961 - ESPERANZA FERNANDEZ v. HON. HERMOGENES CALUAG, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-16381 December 30, 1961 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANTONIO FAUSTO Y TOMAS

  • G.R. No. L-16486 December 30, 1961 - SHIU SHUN MAN v. EMILIO L. GALANG

  • G.R. No. L-16746 December 30, 1961 - REXWELL CORP. v. DOMINADOR P. CANLAS

  • G.R. No. L-16988 December 30, 1961 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LUCIO RADA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17061 December 30, 1961 - LUNETA MOTOR COMPANY v. ANGEL DIMAGIBA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17068 December 30, 1961 - NATIONAL SHIPYARDS AND STEEL CORP. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17400 December 30, 1961 - EPIFANIA M. CUENCA v. SUPERINTENDENT OF THE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION FOR WOMEN

  • G.R. No. L-17477 December 30, 1961 - POLO FIANZA, ET AL. v. NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17669 December 30, 1961 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LONGENOS PEÑAFIEL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17883 December 30, 1961 - RODOLFO B. SANTIAGO, ETC. v. AMADO DIMAYUGA, ETC.

  • G.R. No. L-18734 December 30, 1961 - GSIS EMPLOYEES ASSOC., ET AL. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.