May 1962 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1962 > May 1962 Decisions >
G.R. No. L-17905 May 25, 1962 - IGNACIO CAMPOS, ET AL. v. MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY, ET AL. :
EN BANC
[G.R. No. L-17905. May 25, 1962.]
IGNACIO CAMPOS, ET AL., Petitioners, v. MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY, ET AL., Respondents.
Jose C. Espinas, for Petitioners.
The Government Corporate Counsel for Respondents.
SYLLABUS
1. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS; JURISDICTION; CLAIMS FOR REINSTATEMENT WITH BACK WAGES; JURISDICTION RESTATED. — In order that the Court of Industrial Relations may acquire jurisdiction over a controversy in the light of Republic Act No. 875, the following circumstances must be present: (a) There must exist between the parties an employer-employee relationship, or the claimant must seek his reinstatement; and (b) the controversy must relate to a case certified by the President to the CIR as one involving national interest or must have a bearing on an unfair labor practice charge, or must arise either under the Eight-Hour Labor Law, or under the Minimum Wage Law. In default of any of these circumstances, the claim becomes a mere money claim that comes under the jurisdiction of the regular courts.
D E C I S I O N
BAUTISTA ANGELO, J.:
Ignacio Campos, who since 1920 was in the employ of the Manila Railroad Company, was implicated in a criminal case filed before the Municipal Court of Manila for which reason he was summarily dismissed from the service over the protest of the Kapisanan Ng Mga Manggagawa Sa MRR Co. to which he belongs.
On August 20, 1960, after his acquittal, Campos, thru his union, requested that he be reinstated to his former employment with back wages, and when the request was refused, the union filed in his behalf a petition before the Court of Industrial Relations praying for his reinstatement with back wages on the plea that his separation was unwise and illegal.
Respondent corporation moved to dismiss the petition on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, which was objected to by petitioner. On October 14, 1960, the industrial court dismissed the petition, sustaining the plea of lack of jurisdiction. In substance it held that mere claim for reinstatement without being accompanied by other claims related to conditions of employment is not cognizable by the Court of Industrial Relations. Hence the present petition for review.
Under the law and jurisprudence pertaining to labor disputes, the Court of Industrial Relations’ jurisdiction extends only to cases involving (a) labor disputes affecting an industry which is indispensable to national interest and is so certified by the President to the court (Section 10, Republic Act 875); (b) controversy about the Minimum Wage Law (Republic Act. No. 602); (c) hours of employment under the Eight-Hour Labor Law (Commonwealth Act No. 144); and (d) unfair labor practice (Section 5 [a], Republic Act 875). And such disputes, to fall under the jurisdiction of the CIR, must arise while the employer-employee relationship between the parties exists, or the employee seeks reinstatement. When such relationship is over and the employee does not seek reinstatement, all claims become money claims that fall under the jurisdiction of the regular courts. (Sy Huan v. Judge Bautista, Et Al., G.R. No. L-16115, August 29, 1961; See also the cases cited therein)
In PRISCO v. Court of Industrial Relations, G.R. No. L-13806, May 23, 1960, this Court, after analyzing all previous cases rendered on labor disputes, made the following pronouncement: "The underlying principle, it will be noted in all of them, though not stated in express terms, is that where the employer-employee relationship is still existing or is sought to be reestablished because of its wrongful severance (as where the employee seeks reinstatement), the Court of Industrial Relations has jurisdiction over all claims arising out of, or in connection with the employment, such as those related to the Minimum Wage Law and the Eight Hour Law.
We may, therefore, restate, for the benefit of the bench and the bar, that in order that the Court of Industrial Relations may acquire jurisdiction over a controversy in the light of Republic Act No. 875, the following circumstances must be present: (a) there must exist between the parties an employer-employee relationship, or the claimant must seek his reinstatement; and (b) the controversy must relate to a case certified by the President to the CIR as one involving national interest, or must have a bearing on an unfair labor practice charge, or must arise either under the Eight-Hour Labor Law, or under the Minimum Wage Law. In default of any of these circumstances, the claim becomes a mere money claim that comes under the jurisdiction of the regular courts.
In the case at bar, it is undisputed that petitioner merely seeks his reinstatement with back wages. He does not claim any salary differential nor overtime pay that may his case come either under the Eight-Hour Labor Law or the Minimum Wage Law. Neither does he prefer any unfair labor practice charge against his employer. Consequently, the Court of Industrial Relations has no power to act on his claim for the same is a mere money claim that comes under the jurisdiction of the regular courts.
WHEREFORE, the order appealed from is affirmed. No costs.
Padilla, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L., Barrera, Paredes and Dizon, JJ., concur.
On August 20, 1960, after his acquittal, Campos, thru his union, requested that he be reinstated to his former employment with back wages, and when the request was refused, the union filed in his behalf a petition before the Court of Industrial Relations praying for his reinstatement with back wages on the plea that his separation was unwise and illegal.
Respondent corporation moved to dismiss the petition on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, which was objected to by petitioner. On October 14, 1960, the industrial court dismissed the petition, sustaining the plea of lack of jurisdiction. In substance it held that mere claim for reinstatement without being accompanied by other claims related to conditions of employment is not cognizable by the Court of Industrial Relations. Hence the present petition for review.
Under the law and jurisprudence pertaining to labor disputes, the Court of Industrial Relations’ jurisdiction extends only to cases involving (a) labor disputes affecting an industry which is indispensable to national interest and is so certified by the President to the court (Section 10, Republic Act 875); (b) controversy about the Minimum Wage Law (Republic Act. No. 602); (c) hours of employment under the Eight-Hour Labor Law (Commonwealth Act No. 144); and (d) unfair labor practice (Section 5 [a], Republic Act 875). And such disputes, to fall under the jurisdiction of the CIR, must arise while the employer-employee relationship between the parties exists, or the employee seeks reinstatement. When such relationship is over and the employee does not seek reinstatement, all claims become money claims that fall under the jurisdiction of the regular courts. (Sy Huan v. Judge Bautista, Et Al., G.R. No. L-16115, August 29, 1961; See also the cases cited therein)
In PRISCO v. Court of Industrial Relations, G.R. No. L-13806, May 23, 1960, this Court, after analyzing all previous cases rendered on labor disputes, made the following pronouncement: "The underlying principle, it will be noted in all of them, though not stated in express terms, is that where the employer-employee relationship is still existing or is sought to be reestablished because of its wrongful severance (as where the employee seeks reinstatement), the Court of Industrial Relations has jurisdiction over all claims arising out of, or in connection with the employment, such as those related to the Minimum Wage Law and the Eight Hour Law.
We may, therefore, restate, for the benefit of the bench and the bar, that in order that the Court of Industrial Relations may acquire jurisdiction over a controversy in the light of Republic Act No. 875, the following circumstances must be present: (a) there must exist between the parties an employer-employee relationship, or the claimant must seek his reinstatement; and (b) the controversy must relate to a case certified by the President to the CIR as one involving national interest, or must have a bearing on an unfair labor practice charge, or must arise either under the Eight-Hour Labor Law, or under the Minimum Wage Law. In default of any of these circumstances, the claim becomes a mere money claim that comes under the jurisdiction of the regular courts.
In the case at bar, it is undisputed that petitioner merely seeks his reinstatement with back wages. He does not claim any salary differential nor overtime pay that may his case come either under the Eight-Hour Labor Law or the Minimum Wage Law. Neither does he prefer any unfair labor practice charge against his employer. Consequently, the Court of Industrial Relations has no power to act on his claim for the same is a mere money claim that comes under the jurisdiction of the regular courts.
WHEREFORE, the order appealed from is affirmed. No costs.
Padilla, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L., Barrera, Paredes and Dizon, JJ., concur.
