Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1963 > April 1963 Decisions > G.R. No. L-17916 April 30, 1963 - MAXIMO GOMEZ v. FOOKIEN TIMES COMPANY, INC. :




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-17916. April 30, 1963.]

MAXIMO GOMEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FOOKIEN TIMES COMPANY, INC., Defendant-Appellee.

Sancho Inocencio, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Felix S. Falgui, for Defendant-Appellee.


SYLLABUS


1. JURISDICTION; REORGANIZATION PLAN NO. 20-A NULL AND VOID; DECISION OF COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE IN AN APPEAL FROM DECISION OF LABOR STANDARDS COMMISSION, A NULLITY. — Reorganization Plan No. 20-A, particularly Section 25, which grants to the regional offices original and exclusive jurisdiction over money claims of laborers, is null and void, said grant having been made without authority by Republic Act No. 997. It follows that the decision of the hearing officer and of the Labor Standards Commission, en banc, are null and void and without effect, and a decision rendered by the court of first instance base merely on an appeal taken by one of the parties from the decision of the Labor Standards Commission, is likewise without any valid effects, its basis being a nullity. Consequently, all proceedings had before the court as well as before the hearing officer and the said Commission are illegal and wholly ineffective.


D E C I S I O N


BAUTISTA ANGELO, J.:


On November 19, 1957, Maximo Gomez filed a verified complaint with the Regional Office No. 3, Department of Labor, against the Fookien Times Company, Inc. covering four causes of action, among which, the first refers to separation pay in the amount of P1,000.00, the second to overtime pay from July 16, 1947 to September 30, 1957 in the amount of P13,527.90, the third to 25% additional pay for Sundays and legal holidays for the same period in the amount of P1,059.98, and the fourth to another 25% additional pay in excess of eight hours of work on Sundays and holidays for the same period in the amount of P3,312.20, plus attorney’s fees and damages.

On January 16, 1958, the company filed its answer stating as to the first cause of action that Gomez is not entitled to separation pay under the provisions of Republic Act 1787 because he failed to comply with the lawful orders of the management and has abandoned his work. With regard to the second, third and fourth causes of action, Gomez is not entitled to what he is claiming because he had not rendered the supposed services mentioned therein aside from the fact that, if they were true, they were already barred by the statute of limitations.

After hearing, the hearing officer Paulino S. Perez rendered judgment dismissing the complaint for lack of merit. From this judgment, Gomez appealed to the Labor Standards Commission which, after the submission of the memoranda of the parties as required by its rules and regulations, rendered decision which in effect modified that of the hearing officer by awarding to Gomez the amount of P31.97 as overtime pay and the amount of P750.000 as separation pay, or a total of P781.97, with legal interest thereon from October 21, 1957. The rest of the decision was reversed.

On March 16, 1960, the company gave notice of its intention to appeal from the decision insofar only as it held that Gomez was dismissed without cause thereby awarding him the amount of P750.00 as separation pay.

On April 4, 1960, Maximo Gomez also gave notice of his intention to appeal, but having failed to perfect the same within the 30-day period required by Section 44 of the Rules and Regulations of the Labor Standards Commission, it was denied by the Commission en banc. In due course, this order of the Commission became final and executory.

However, on May 26, 1960, much beyond the reglementary period provided for in the rules abovementioned, Maximo Gomez filed a complaint before the Court of First Instance of Manila by way of appeal from the decision of the Labor Standards Commission wherein he tried to collect from the company practically the same overtime, separation pay, and additional compensation which he demanded before the Regional Office of the Department of Labor, although the amounts were substantially reduced, to which defendant company filed a motion to dismiss based mainly on the ground that the court has no jurisdiction to act thereon it appearing that plaintiff Gomez had failed to appeal in due time from the judgment rendered by the Labor Standards Commission en banc. This motion was sustained by the court. Consequently, it denied the appeal of plaintiff Gomez, and declared the decision of the Commission final and executory. His motion for reconsideration was also denied for lack of merit.

In the meantime, the appeal interposed by the Fookien Times Company, Inc. was given due course and in connection therewith the record of the case was transmitted to the Court of First Instance of Manila in accordance with Section 20(b) of Reorganization Plan 20-A and Section 26 of Executive Order No. 218 of the President of the Philippines dated December 10, 1956, issued in accordance with Republic Act No. 997, as amended by Republic Act No. 1241.

During the trial of the case, insofar as the appeal interposed by the company is concerned, oral and documentary evidence was presented by the parties, and thereafter the court rendered judgment dismissing the complaint filed by Maximo Gomez. In its decision, the court found that Gomez refused to follow a lawful order given to him in connection with his employment and so he was separated from the service with cause. Gomez interposed the present appeal.

In a long line of decisions heretofore rendered by this Court, we held that Reorganization Plan No. 20-A, particularly Section 25, which grants to the regional offices original and exclusive jurisdiction over money claims of laborers, is null and void, said grant having been made without authority by Republic Act No. 997.1 It was not the intention of Congress in enacting Republic Act 997 to authorize the transfer of the jurisdiction granted to the courts of justice to the officials to be appointed or offices to be created by the Reorganization Plan. Congress is well aware of the provision of the Constitution that judicial powers are vested "only in the Supreme Court and in such courts as the law may establish." The Commission was not authorized to create courts of justice, or to take away from them their jurisdiction and transfer it to the officials to be appointed or offices to be created under the Reorganization Plan. The legislature could not have intended to grant such powers to the Reorganization Commission, an executive body, as the legislature may not and cannot delegate its power to legislate to any other agency of the government (Tiberio v. Manila Pilots Association, L-17661, December 28, 1961).

It follows that the decision of the hearing officer, as well as that of the Labor Standards Commission en banc, are null and void and without effect. The decision rendered by the court a quo which is based merely on the appeal taken by the company from the decision of the Labor Standards Commission cannot also have any valid effect, its basis being a nullity. As a consequence, the proceedings had before the court a quo as well as before the hearing officer and the Labor Standards Commission are illegal and should be declared wholly ineffective.

WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is reversed. The complaint filed by Maximo Gomez is dismissed. No costs.

Bengzon, C.J., Labrador, Concepcion, Paredes, Regala and Makalintal, JJ., concur.

Barrera, J., concurs in the result.

Padilla, Reyes, J.B.L. and Dizon, JJ., did not take part.

Endnotes:



1. Corominas, Et. Al. v. Labor Standards Commission, Et Al., L-14837, June 30, 1961; Manila Central University v. Calupitan, Et Al., L-15483, June 30, 1961; Miller v. Mardo, Et Al., L-15138, July 31, 1961; Lectura v. Regional Office No. 3, Et Al., L-15582, L-16061 and L-16685, July 31, 1961; Phil. Tobacco Flue-Curing & Redrying Corporation v. Sabugo, Et Al., L-16017, August 31, 1961; Tan v. De Leon, Et Al., L-15254, September 16, 1961; Everlasting Pictures, Inc., et al v. Fuentes, Et. Al. L-16512, November 29, 1961.




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






April-1963 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-15699 April 22, 1963 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PROCOPIO CADERAO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15807 April 22, 1963 - INES SANTOS, ET AL. v. MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT OF CALOOCAN, RIZAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16357 April 22, 1963 - MAGDALENA ESTATE, INC., ET AL. v. FRANCISCO BANGILAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17324 April 22, 1963 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. CLASICO TAJANLAÑGIT

  • G.R. No. L-17610 April 22, 1963 - JESUS R. FRANCO, ET AL. v. MONTE DE PIEDAD AND SAVINGS BANK

  • G.R. No. L-17738 April 22, 1963 - LUPO L. DIÑOSO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18080 April 22, 1963 - TAN KIM KEE v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18198 April 22, 1963 - LUZ BARRANTA v. INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER COMPANY OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. No. L-18610 April 22, 1963 - ANGEL BERMUDEZ, ET AL. v. MARGARITA FERNANDO

  • G.R. No. L-14853 April 23, 1963 - SANTIAGO LOPEZ, ET AL. v. JUAN MAGALLANES

  • G.R. No. L-15808 April 23, 1963 - FAUSTA AGCANAS, ET AL. v. BRUNO MERCADO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17467 April 23, 1963 - NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY v. JOSE YULO TOBIAS

  • G.R. No. L-17840 April 23, 1963 - MARIA ELENA ARAULLO v. MONTE DE PIEDAD SAVINGS BANK, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-17880 and L-17881 April 23, 1963 - MALAYA WORKERS UNION, ET AL. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17908 April 23, 1963 - FLORENCIO MORENO v. HIGINIO MACADAEG

  • G.R. No. L-18206 April 23, 1963 - CIRIACO NOBEL v. VICENTE CABIJE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18263 April 23, 1963 - APOLINARIO DACANAY, ET AL. v. JAVIER PABALAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18371 April 23, 1963 - FIL-HISPANO LABOR UNION, ET AL. v. AGUSTIN P. MONTESA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18587 April 23, 1963 - APOLINARIO VALERIO v. SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE & NATURAL RESOURCES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18810 April 23, 1963 - MD TRANSIT & TAXI CO., INC., ET AL. v. BIENVENIDO DE GUZMAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18848 April 23, 1963 - ACOJE WORKERS’ UNION v. NATIONAL MINES AND ALLIED WORKERS’ UNION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18957 April 23, 1963 - VILLA-REY TRANSIT, INC. v. ELOY B. BELLO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20522 April 23, 1963 - APOLONIO GONZAGA v. CONRADO D. SENO

  • G.R. No. L-16998 April 24, 1963 - DANIEL ROMERO, ET AL. v. PALAWAN MANGANESE MINE, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17820 April 24, 1963 - LAND SETTLEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. GARCIA PLANTATION CO., INC.

  • G.R. No. L-18969 April 24, 1963 - KAPISANAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA MANILA RAILROAD CO., ET AL. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

  • A.C. No. 266 April 27, 1963 - PAZ ARELLANO TOLEDO v. JESUS B. TOLEDO

  • G.R. No. L-15731 April 27, 1963 - TAYTAY METHODIST COMMUNITY CHURCH, INC. v. ELADIO M. REYES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17501 April 27, 1963 - MEAD JOHNSON & COMPANY v. N. V. J. VAN DORP, LTD., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18117 April 27, 1963 - ROMAN GUERRERO v. JUAN AGUSTIN ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18258 April 27, 1963 - GUILLERMO COMEDA v. E. Q. CAJILOG, ETC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18401 April 27, 1963 - PERFECTO JABALDE v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK

  • G.R. No. L-18513 April 27, 1963 - SY HA, ET AL. v. EMILIO L. GALANG

  • G.R. No. L-18563 April 27, 1963 - RADIOWEALTH, INC. v. JOSE LAVIN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18815 April 27, 1963 - J. M. TUASON & CO., INC. v. FEDERICO CADAMPOG

  • G.R. No. L-19343 April 27, 1963 - CRISPULO D. BELMI, ET AL. v. COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-12320 April 29, 1963 - VICENTA CORPUS, ET AL. v. JOSE A. V. CORPUS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15581 April 29, 1963 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MOROS TANJI AMBRAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15927 April 29, 1963 - VICENTE MARTELINO v. MAXIMO ESTRELLA

  • G.R. No. L-16924 April 29, 1963 - ANTONIA A. YEE v. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SCHOOL

  • G.R. No. L-17361 April 29, 1963 - FRANKLIN BAKER COMPANY OF THE PHILIPPINES v. SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM

  • G.R. No. L-17846 April 29, 1963 - EDUARDA DUELLOME v. BONIFACIO GOTICO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18716 April 29, 1963 - CLEMENTE SUMCAD v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18835 April 29, 1963 - GASPAR DUMLAO v. MARCELO T. DOMINGO

  • G.R. No. L-19019 April 29, 1963 - MALAN BROTHERS WATCHMAN AGENCY v. MAGDALENO CONANAN, ET AL.

  • A.C. No. 376 April 30, 1963 - JOSEFINA ROYONG v. ARISTON OBLENA

  • G.R. No. L-10963 April 30, 1963 - COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. AMERICAN RUBBER COMPANY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-13739 April 30, 1963 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. CARLOS MORAN SISON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-14264 April 30, 1963 - RAYMUNDO B. TAN, ET AL. v. MUNICIPALITY OF PAGBILAO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-14302 April 30, 1963 - JOSE MARGATE v. JULIA RABACAL

  • G.R. No. L-14752 April 30, 1963 - FRANCISCO R. CARIÑO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15639 April 30, 1963 - INDUSTRIAL COMMERCIAL AGRICULTURAL WORKERS ORGANIZATION v. JOSE S. BAUTISTA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15698 April 30, 1963 - IN RE: ALEJANDRO SOMOZA v. ALICIA S. BANOGAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15876 April 30, 1963 - MANUEL R. SOLIVIO v. FRANCISCO ARELLANO

  • G.R. No. L-16307 April 30, 1963 - FEDERICA ABALLE v. FORTUNATO SANTIAGO

  • G.R. No. L-16428 April 30, 1963 - LEALDA ELECTRIC CO., INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16620 April 30, 1963 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALEJANDRO BUMATAY, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-16688-90 April 30, 1963 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PACITA MADRIGAL-GONZALES

  • G.R. No. L-16790 April 30, 1963 - URBANO MAGBOO, ET AL. v. DELFIN BERNARDO

  • G.R. No. L-16880 April 30, 1963 - LUNETA MOTOR COMPANY v. ANTONIO MENENDEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16922 April 30, 1963 - IN RE: ROSE C. ELLIS v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-17173 April 30, 1963 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. THEODORE (TED) LEWIN

  • G.R. No. L-17431 April 30, 1963 - IN RE: REMEDIO SAN LUIS DE CASTRO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-17447 April 30, 1963 - GONZALO PUYAT & SONS, INC. v. CITY OF MANILA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17527 April 30, 1963 - SUN BROTHERS APPLIANCES, INC. v. DAMASO P. PEREZ

  • G.R. No. L-17791 April 30, 1963 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE TAN

  • G.R. No. L-17813 April 30, 1963 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. L-17916 April 30, 1963 - MAXIMO GOMEZ v. FOOKIEN TIMES COMPANY, INC.

  • G.R. No. L-17928 April 30, 1963 - SERVILLANO DE LA CRUZ, JR., ET AL. v. ASUNCION D. STA. MARIA

  • G.R. No. L-17938 April 30, 1963 - ESPERIDION TOLENTINO v. ADELA ONGSIAKO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17946 April 30, 1963 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. ANTONIO PRIETO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18081 April 30, 1963 - SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION v. E. SORIANO, ETC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18044 April 30, 1963 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AMBROSIA VALLE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18174 April 30, 1963 - FELIX LACSON v. FELINA LOZADA ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18220 April 30, 1963 - IN RE: ROBERT MCCULLOCH DICK v. HELEN C. DICK, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18270 April 30, 1963 - SAN PABLO OIL FACTORY, INC., ET AL. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18284 April 30, 1963 - IN RE: ANA ISABEL HENRIETTE ANTONIA CONCEPCION GEORGIANA v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-18332 April 30, 1963 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ESTANISLAO M. IGNACIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18481 April 30, 1963 - JOSE B. ESCUETA v. CITY MAYOR, ET AL.