Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1963 > January 1963 Decisions > G.R. No. L-15151 January 31, 1963 - EDMUNDO GRACELLA v. EL COLEGIO DEL HOSPICIO DE SAN JOSE, INC.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-15151. January 31, 1963.]

EDMUNDO GRACELLA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. EL COLEGIO DEL HOSPICIO DE SAN JOSE, INC., Defendant-Appellee.

Francisco P. de Guzman, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Teodoro Padilla, for Defendant-Appellee.


SYLLABUS


1. ACTIONS; DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION NOT RES JUDICATA. — The dismissal of a complaint on the ground of lack of jurisdiction does not constitute res judicata.

2. COURTS; JURISDICTION; WHEN DISPUTES UNDER MINIMUM WAGE LAW AND EIGHT-HOUR LABOR LAW FALL WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS. — Disputes under the Minimum Wage Law and the Eight-Hour Labor Law fall within the jurisdiction of the Court of Industrial Relations if they arise while the employer-employee relationship between the parties exists, or if a former employee seeks reinstatement.


D E C I S I O N


BENGZON, J.:


Appeal from an order of the Court of First Instance of Manila dismissing, on the basis of res judicata and lack of jurisdiction, plaintiff’s complaint for unpaid wages and overtime pay against his former employer, El Colegio del Hospicio de San Jose, Inc., (referred to herein, for brevity, either as defendant or the Hospicio)

It appears that in 1952, defendant hired plaintiff as a laborer (later as cook) at a monthly salary of P120.00 plus food and lodging. Five years later, defendant dismissed plaintiff, for reasons not stated in the record.

On February 28, 1959, Gracella sued his former employer in the Regional Office No. 3 of the Department of Labor. During his employment, he alleged in his complaint, he received less than the salary agreed upon, and rendered overtime work without the corresponding extra pay. He, therefore, demanded the sum of P5,162.50 representing the balance of his unpaid wages, and the amount due for overtime work already rendered.

On April 16, 1958, the Hospicio moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction. After hearing, the Regional Office on June 16, 1958, sustained the motion and quashed the litigation. It held that the Hospicio was a charitable institution, and therefore, not subject to the pertinent labor laws. Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal; however, it was not given due course, for failure to present it on time.

Thereafter, on October 29, 1958, Gracella filed another complaint, this time in the Court of First Instance of Manila, against the same defendant, the Hospicio. He demanded, as damages, the payment to him of P4,392.00 with interest, for the same unpaid overtime work, and wages not received during his employment, plus P1,000.00 as attorney’s fees.

The Manila court, on November 25, 1958, dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction. And then, upon plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration, it added a new ground: res judicata.

Hence this appeal by the plaintiff.

As to the second ground of dismissal, it appears that the lower court held that plaintiff’s failure in the Regional Labor Office precluded the presentation of this complaint, res judicata having supervened.

We do not agree. It is true, at the behest of the defendant, the Regional Office dismissed the complaint for want of jurisdiction; but it is now well established that a dismissal on the ground, lack of jurisdiction, does not constitute res judicata. 1

Now, in disclaiming jurisdiction over the complaint, the Manila judge, after citing cases decided by this Court, concluded:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"In all these cases, the rules is that claims for overtime pay and under-payment under Republic Act 602 and Commonwealth Act 444, the proper court which has original jurisdiction is the Court of Industrial Relations. Consequently, the ordinary court has no jurisdiction . . ."cralaw virtua1aw library

We have explained in several decisions, however, that disputes under the Minimum Wage Law and the Eight-Hour Labor Law, fall within the jurisdiction of the Court of Industrial Relations, if they arise while the employer-employee relationship between the parties exists, or if a former employee seeks reinstatement. 2

In a recent opinion, we succinctly announced the rule thus:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"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 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." 3

At the time this complaint was filed, the employer-employee relationship between herein defendant and plaintiff no longer existed; and he asked for no reinstatement. He prayed merely for the payment of the above-mentioned wages plus interest, and attorney’s fees. Therefore, his was a money claim properly filed in the ordinary courts, like the court below.

Consequently, the order dismissing this complaint should be, as it is hereby, set aside. And this record is remanded to the court a quo for further proceedings. Without costs. So ordered.

Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Paredes, Dizon, Regala and Makalintal, JJ., concur.

Padilla, J., took no part.

Endnotes:



1. Montinola Et. Al. v. Barrido, Et Al., G.R. No. L-14438, prom. March 24, 1962; Bañas v. Phil Veterans Board, G.R. No. L-13398, prom. Oct. 20, 1959; Bayot v. Zurbito, 39 Phil. 650.

2. San Miguel Brewery, Inc. v. Floresca, Et. Al. G.R. No. L-15427. prom. April 26, 1962, and cases therein.

3. Campos Et. Al. v. Manila Railroad Co., G.R. No. L-17905, prom. May 25, 1962; see also Dy v. Court of Industrial Relations, G.R. No. L-17788, prom. May 25, 1962.




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






January-1963 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-19823 January 12, 1963 - RUPERTO ADVINCULA, ET AL. v. COMMISSION ON APPOINTMENTS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-13873 January 31, 1963 - GENERAL INSURANCE and SURETY CORPORATION v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-14311 January 31, 1963 - MANILA SANITARIUM & HOSPITAL v. FAUSTO GABUCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-14653 January 31, 1963 - IN RE: RICARDO SANTIAGO v. COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION

  • G.R. No. L-14676 January 31, 1963 - CANDIDA VILLALUZ, ET AL. v. JUAN NEME, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-14801 January 31, 1963 - FILOMENA SILVA v. DOMINGO M. CABAÑGON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15151 January 31, 1963 - EDMUNDO GRACELLA v. EL COLEGIO DEL HOSPICIO DE SAN JOSE, INC.

  • G.R. No. L-15467 January 31, 1963 - JESUS LANCITA, ET AL. v. GONZALO MAGBANUA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15484 January 31, 1963 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. RICARDO RAMOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15656 January 31, 1963 - ASSOCIATED INSURANCE & SURETY COMPANY, INC. v. WELLINGTON CHUA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15754 January 31, 1963 - NORTH CAMARINES LUMBER COMPANY, INC. v. METROPOLITAN INSURANCE COMPANY

  • G.R. No. L-15948 January 31, 1963 - PEDRO P. RIVERA v. CARLOS P. MACLANG

  • G.R. No. L-16257 January 31, 1963 - CAPITOL SUBDIVISION, INC. v. PROVINCE OF NEGROS OCCIDENTAL

  • G.R. No. L-16396 January 31, 1963 - BASILISA JUSTIVA v. JESUS GUSTILO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16417 January 31, 1963 - P. J. KIENER CO., LTD. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

  • G.R. No. L-16435 January 31, 1963 - DIOSDADO ESPINOSA v. NICASIO A. YATCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16489 January 31, 1963 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAUL BASBANIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16525 January 31, 1963 - JOSEPH REICH v. EDMUND SCHWESINGER, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16749 January 31, 1963 - IN RE: EDWARD E. CHRISTENSEN v. HELEN CHRISTENSEN GARCIA

  • G.R. No. L-16827 January 31, 1963 - J. M. TUASON & CO., INC. v. JOSE AGUIRRE

  • G.R. No. L-16884 January 31, 1963 - NATIONAL MINES AND ALLIED WORKERS’ UNION v. MELQUIADES G. ILAO

  • G.R. No. L-17085 January 31, 1963 - LUZON BROKERAGE COMPANY v. LUZON LABOR UNION

  • G.R. No. L-17625 January 31, 1963 - INSULAR LUMBER COMPANY v. SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM

  • G.R. No. L-17804 January 31, 1963 - NATIONAL MARKETING CORPORATION, ET AL. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17837 January 31, 1963 - ORIENTAL KAPOK INDUSTRIES v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

  • G.R. No. L-17878 January 31, 1963 - AMERICAN STEAMSHIP AGENCIES, INC. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18096 January 31, 1963 - MARIA ABON, ET AL. v. AMPARO E. PABLO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18129 January 31, 1963 - C. N. HODGES v. MUNICIPAL BOARD OF THE CITY OF ILOILO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18178 January 31, 1963 - REGISTER OF DEEDS OF ILOILO v. C. N. HODGES

  • G.R. No. L-18184 January 31, 1963 - GAUDENCIO VERA, ET AL. v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18240 January 31, 1963 - SOFRONIO C. QUIMSON, ET AL. v. PASTOR L. DE GUZMAN

  • G.R. No. L-18290 January 31, 1963 - CITY OF BACOLOD v. LEANDRO GRUET

  • G.R. No. L-18360 January 31, 1963 - TATALON BARRIO COUNCIL, ET AL. v. CHIEF ACCOUNTANT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18389 January 31, 1963 - MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18480 January 31, 1963 - LEOPOLDO SALCEDO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18515 January 31, 1963 - GERONIMO E. CAPARAS v. DOMINGO C. GONZALES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18518 January 31, 1963 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FEDERICO TAGARO

  • G.R. No. L-18601-2 January 31, 1963 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LUALHATI S. MACANDOG

  • G.R. No. L-18639 January 31, 1963 - JAVIER SECURITY SPECIAL WATCHMAN AGENCY, ET AL. v. SHELL CRAFT & BUTTON CORPORATION

  • G.R. No. L-18692 January 31, 1963 - MANUEL B. RUIZ v. J. M. TUASON & CO., INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18704 January 31, 1963 - OCEANIC AIR PRODUCTS, INC. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18742 January 31, 1963 - OFELIA DE GREARTE, ET AL. v. LONDON ASSURANCE

  • G.R. No. L-18746 January 31, 1963 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FREDERICK G. WEBER, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18879 January 31, 1963 - LOPE DAMASCO v. ABUNDIO Z. ARRIETA

  • G.R. No. L-18941 January 31, 1963 - GERTRUDES MATA, ET AL. v. RITA LEGARDA, INC.

  • G.R. No. L-18982 January 31, 1963 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RUPERTO SORIA

  • G.R. No. L-19423 January 31, 1963 - PEOPLE’S SURETY AND INSURANCE COMPANY, INC. v. CRISANTO ARAGON