Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1968 > March 1968 Decisions > G.R. No. L-27757 March 28, 1968 - RICARDO DEQUITO v. LEOPOLDO LOPEZ, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-27757. March 28, 1968.]

RICARDO DEQUITO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LEOPOLDO LOPEZ, AND/OR MARIA N. LOPEZ. ENRIQUE LOPEZ, SALVADOR LOPEZ, JR., RODOLFO LOPEZ AND FLORDELIZ LOPEZ-IÑIGO, AS CO-HEIRS AND/OR CO-OWNERS OF LOPEZ ESTATE, Defendants-Appellees.

J.C. Gonzales, Jr. for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Nitorreda Law Office for Defendants-Appellees.


SYLLABUS


1. COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS; JURISDICTION; MONEY CLAIMS ARISING FROM AGRARIAN RELATIONS; WORK AS SECURITY GUARD IN AGRICULTURAL. ENTERPRISE NOT A FORM OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS. — Money claims arising from the employment and alleged unjust dismissal of appellant as security guard in an agricultural enterprise owned by appellees are properly within the jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance and not that of the Court of Agrarian Relations. Though Section 154, par. 1 of the Agricultural Land Reform Code, Republic Act No. 3844 vests original and exclusive jurisdiction in the Court of Agrarian Relations over "money claims arising from agrarian relations," it would be to stretch unduly the interpretation of "agrarian relations" to view the work performed by appellant as security guard as embraced therein. The work as security guard lacks that element which would give rise to any form of agrarian relations. There is here an ordinary employment relationship which gave rise to certain money claims.


D E C I S I O N


FERNANDO, J.:


The question involved in this appeal from an order of dismissal of the lower court is one of jurisdiction. More specifically, is it the Court of First Instance or the Court of Agrarian Relations that may take cognizance of a claim for separation pay, a claim for pay differential, and a claim for overtime pay filed by plaintiff- appellant, who, as alleged in the complaint and presumptively admitted in the motion to dismiss of defendants-appellees, which admission is expressly reiterated in their Brief, "was employed as security guard in [their] agricultural enterprise . . . when the latter terminated" such employment? 1 It was the holding of the lower court that the case should "be dismissed on the ground that [it] has no jurisdictional ground to act on the same. . . . 2 In thus sustaining defendants-appellees’ contention that the matter was within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of Agrarian Relations, the lower court was in error. Its order to dismiss cannot stand.

Plaintiff-appellant was employed as security guard by defendants- appellees in their agricultural enterprise in Davao from November 11, 1958 until his dismissal, allegedly without just cause and without prior notice on July 11, 1963. For his first cause of action, he sought to recover in the concept of "separation pay" in the amount of P317.50; for the second cause of action, in the concept of a "claim for pay differential," he would hold defendants-appellees liable for P392.00; and for the third cause of action, in the concept of "claim for overtime pay", allegedly due to his performing his work at night time for regular working days from Monday to Saturday, as well as Sundays and legal holidays, he would fix the responsibility of defendants-appellees in the sum of P1,231.02. For each of the above cause of action, he would further seek recovery of P300.00 as exemplary damages, P100.00 as reimbursement of transportation expenses to Davao City and return to Mati, Davao, and board and lodging while in Davao City and another P100.00 as reimbursement of "litis" expenses.

As above noted, the motion to dismiss before the lower court was predicated on the plaintiff-appellant’s status as a former agricultural employee whose claim, under the Agricultural Land Reform Code, which took effect on August 8, 1963, must be decided by the Court of Agrarian Relations, which is vested with original and exclusive jurisdiction over all cases or action involving matters, controversies, disputes, or money claims arising from agrarian relations. Such a plea, again as was set forth above, elicited a favorable response from the lower court as shown by the appealed order of dismissal.

To repeat, the lower court misread the law and the appeal must be sustained. The statutory provision 3 that controls vests original and exclusive jurisdiction in the Court of Agrarian Relations over "money claims arising from agrarian relations . . ." While defendants-appellees did operate an agricultural enterprise, the employment of plaintiff- appellant, prior to his alleged unjust dismissal, such employment and dismissal giving rise to the money claims, was that of a security guard. It would be to stretch unduly the interpretation of "agrarian relations" to view the work performed by plaintiff-appellant as embraced therein. Moreover, it would not be contrary to the reason that prompted the grant of such original and exclusive jurisdiction to a tribunal, which necessarily has in its favor the presumption of expertise, with its jurisdiction limited to the disposition of controversies and disputes, as well as money claims arising from the relationship between a proprietor on the one hand, and tenants, lessees, or workers on the other. What we have here is an ordinary employment relationship which gives rise to certain money claims. The work as security guard lacks that element which would give rise to any form of agrarian relations. Under the circumstances, the controlling statutory provision is not susceptible of the interpretation erroneously placed upon it by the lower court in granting the order of dismissal.

It is a doctrine to which there has been an unwavering adherence and steadfast fealty on the part of this Court that its first and fundamental duty is to apply the law, there being no need for an interpretation unless a literal application is impossible. 4 The force of this well-settled principle calls for a reversal of the order of dismissal.

One last matter. The brief of plaintiff-appellant, dated November 6, 1967, was received by this Court on December 8, 1967. Thereafter, on January 15, 1968, a motion to dismiss the appeal, on the ground that the record on appeal did not disclose on its face that the appeal was timely perfected, was fled by defendants-appellees, this notwithstanding the fact that the record on appeal was received by this Court as far back as August 16, 1967. The brief for defendants- appellees, dated January 6, 1968, thus having been presumably completed four (4) days prior to their motion to dismiss appeal, was filed with the Court on January 24, 1968. Under the circumstances, the merit or lack of it of the motion to dismiss could not be inquired into, being filed much too late.

Moreover, in the light of the constitutional, as well as codal and statutory mandates, there being an explicit command of protection to labor as well as the promotion of social justice, such a motion, under circumstances disclosing tardiness for which there was no explanation, could hardly be considered as deserving of sympathy or consideration. Due note should be taken of the long delay to which plaintiff-appellant had already been subjected in his attempt to have a judicial determination of whether his claims for separation pay, differential pay, as well as overtime pay were legally sanctioned by law; the sooner this litigation then is terminated with finality, the better, not only for the parties directly involved, but likewise for the primacy of the rule of law.

WHEREFORE, the order of dismissal of September 22, 1966, by the lower court, is set aside, and this case is remanded to it for further proceedings in accordance with the above opinion. With costs.

Reyes, J.B.L. Actg. C.J., Dizon, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P., Zaldivar, Sanchez and Angeles, JJ., concur.

Castro, J., did not take part.

Concepcion, C.J., is on official leave.

Endnotes:



1. Defendants-Appellees’ Brief, p. 2.

2. Record on Appeal, p. 36.

3. Section 154, par. 1 of the Agricultural Land Reform Code, Republic Act No. 3844.

4. Lizarraga Hermanos v. Yap Tico, 24 Phil. 504 (1913). See also People v. Mapa, L-22301, August 30, 1967 and Pacific Oxygen & Acetylene Co. v. Central Bank of the Philippines, L-21881, March 1, 1968.




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-1968 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-21738 March 1, 1968 - IN RE: CHOA EK YONG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-21881 March 1, 1968 - PACIFIC OXYGEN & ACETYLENE COMPANY v. CENTRAL BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. No. L-23066 March 1, 1968 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. VICENTE S. UMALI, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23426 March 1, 1968 - LEOPOLDO SY-QUIA, ET AL. v. MARY MARSMAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22667 March 1, 1968 - JOSE DE ASIS, ET AL. v. ANGELINA DUMADAUG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24115 March 1, 1968 - EUFEMIA V. SHAFFER v. VIRGINIA G. PALMA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25175 March 1, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SIMPLICIANO SORIA

  • G.R. No. L-26082 March 1, 1968 - NORBERTO DE LA REA v. ABELARDO SUBIDO

  • G.R. No. L-27030 March 6, 1968 - PABLO GONZAGA, ET AL. v. MARTINIANO P. VIVO

  • G.R. No. L-28473 March 6, 1968 - TAHIR LIDASAN v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28598 March 12, 1968 - NAGA TAGORANAO v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28725 March 12, 1968 - BATANGAS LAGUNA TAYABAS BUS COMPANY v. JOSUE L. CADIAO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20865 March 13, 1968 - ASELA P. TACTAQUIN v. JOSE B. PALILEO

  • G.R. No. L-22485 March 13, 1968 - CONSUELO V. CALO v. AJAX INTERNATIONAL INCORPORATED

  • G.R. No. L-23351 March 13, 1968 - CIRILO PAREDES v. JOSE L. ESPINO

  • G.R. No. L-23718 March 13, 1968 - JUSTINO LUCERO v. LEON P. DACAYO

  • G.R. No. L-24213 March 13, 1968 - VICTORIAS MILLING CO., INC. v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25420 March 13, 1968 - PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE COMPANY v. FREE TELEPHONE WORKERS UNION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25460 March 13, 1968 - INOCENCIO C. TAN v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-26185 March 13, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. WILFORIANO CESAR

  • G.R. No. L-26437 March 13, 1968 - RAQUEL G. DOCE v. BRANCH II OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF QUEZON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26585 March 13, 1968 - NATIONAL MARKETING CORPORATION, ET AL. v. GAUDENCIO CLORIBEL

  • G.R. No. L-25738 March 14, 1968 - SILVERIO CAGAMPANG v. FLAVIANO MORANO

  • G.R. No. L-25001 March 15, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODOLFO B. ALBAPARA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21610 March 15, 1968 - CENTRAL AZUCARERA DON PEDRO v. DON PEDRO SECURITY GUARDS UNION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23912 March 15, 1968 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. JOSE CONCEPCION

  • G.R. No. L-19911 March 15, 1968 - COMMISSIONER OF CIVIL SERVICE v. JOSE S. BAUTISTA

  • G.R. No. L-22997 March 15, 1968 - PABLO C. MONTALBAN, ET AL. v. GERARDO MAXIMO

  • G.R. No. L-25052 March 15, 1968 - DATU MARIGA DIRAMPATEN v. HADJI MADKI ALONTO

  • G.R. No. L-25302 March 15, 1968 - ABUNDIO MATILLANO, ET AL. v. SEVERIANO DE LEON

  • G.R. No. L-25403 March 15, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LUIS A. CATALINO

  • G.R. No. L-26331 March 15, 1968 - BALBINO PAMINTUAN, ET AL. v. EMMANUEL M. MUÑOZ

  • G.R. Nos. L-20662 & L-20663 March 19, 1968 - PHILIPPINE MARlNE OFFICERS’ GUILD v. COMPAÑIA MARITIMA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24466 March 19, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JAIME CAPITO @ JIMMY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22486 March 20, 1968 - TEODORO ALMIROL v. REGISTER OF DEEDS OF AGUSAN

  • G.R. No. L-23586 March 20, 1968 - A.D. SANTOS, INC. v. VENTURA VASQUEZ

  • G.R. No. L-24826 March 20, 1968 - ST. PAUL FIRE & MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY v. MACONDRAY & CO., INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24918 March 20, 1968 - FELIX DE VILLA v. ANACLETO TRINIDAD, ETC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25939 March 20, 1968 - REPARATIONS COMMISSION v. JESUS P. MORFE

  • G.R. No. L-27106 March 20, 1968 - PALANAN LUMBER & PLYWOOD CO., INC., ET AL. v. MANUEL ARRANZ

  • G.R. Nos. L-20589-90 March 21, 1968 - ERNESTO DEL ROSARIO v. VICTORINO DE LOS SANTOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22231 March 21, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARCELO PAAT

  • G.R. No. L-23565 March 21, 1968 - INSULAR LIFE INSURANCE CO., LTD. v. SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25640 March 21, 1968 - VICTORIAS MILLING CO., INC. v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26538 March 21, 1968 - MELECIO ROSARIO, ET AL. v. TAYUG RURAL BANK, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-26922 and 26923 March 21, 1968 - EUFRACIO FAGTANAC, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.C. No. 101 March 27, 1968 - EMETERIO A. BUYCO, ET AL. v. MARIANO A. ZOSA

  • G.R. No. L-19378 March 27, 1968 - ACOJE MINING COMPANY, INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20046 March 27, 1968 - ROMEO PAYLAGO, ET AL. v. INES PASTRANA JARABE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22265 March 27, 1968 - COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. GOODRICH INTERNATIONAL RUBBER CO.

  • G.R. No. L-22984 March 27, 1968 - MARGARITO SARONA, ET AL. v. FELIPE VILLEGAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23467 March 27, 1968 - AMALGAMATED LABORERS’ ASSOCIATION v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23489 March 27, 1968 - JULIAN ABANA v. FRANCISCO QUISUMBING

  • G.R. Nos. L-24123, L-24124, L-24125 & L-24126 March 27, 1968 - GREGORIO ROBLES v. CONCEPCION FERNANDO BLAYLOCK, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25471 March 27, 1968 - BENGUET CONSOLIDATED, INC., ET AL. v. BCI EMPLOYEES & WORKERS UNION-PAFLU, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25513 March 27, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROSAURO C. DIONISIO

  • G.R. No. L-25676 March 27, 1968 - ROSENDA A. DE NUQUI, ET AL. v. ILDEFONSO D. YAP

  • G.R. No. L-26213 March 27, 1968 - PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF FREE LABOR UNIONS (PAFLU), ET AL. v. PIO R. MARCOS

  • G.R. Nos. L-28550 to L-28552 March 27, 1968 - PEDRO R. DIZON v. TITO V. TIZON

  • G.R. No. L-28563 March 27, 1968 - GOV. PEDRO R. DIZON v. HON. TITO V. TIZON

  • G.R. No. L-21196 March 28, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ELPIDIO BELCHEZ

  • G.R. No. L-22535 March 28, 1968 - ALFREDO VILLARUEL v. MANILA PORT SERVICE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24440 March 28, 1968 - PROVINCE OF ZAMBOANGA DEL NORTE v. CITY OF ZAMBOANGA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24660 March 28, 1968 - PEDRO VIDAL, ET AL. v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. L-27757 March 28, 1968 - RICARDO DEQUITO v. LEOPOLDO LOPEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20477 March 29, 1968 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. FELIX B. ACEBEDO

  • G.R. No. L-20802 March 29, 1968 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. REPUBLIC SURETY & INSURANCE CO., INC.

  • G.R. No. L-21890 March 29, 1968 - MANILA PORT SERVICE, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22062 March 29, 1968 - GREGORIO Y. ROMERO v. MUNICIPAL MAYOR OF BOLJOON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22759 March 29, 1968 - MANUEL R. JIMENEZ v. ALBERTO V. AVERIA

  • G.R. No. L-25366 March 29, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE BUAN

  • G.R. No. L-25475 March 29, 1968 - FELICIDAD REYES-TALAG v. REGISTER OF DEEDS OF LAGUNA

  • G.R. No. L-26830 March 29, 1968 - CIPRIANO A. FALCON, ET AL. v. FELICIANO OROBIA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23375 March 30, 1968 - FRANCISCO ORFIDA v. PEDRO PANUELOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28539 March 30, 1968 - SALVADOR Q. PEDIDO, ET AL. v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.