SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

Search for www.chanrobles.com

PLEASE CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST ➔ SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-14212 July 31, 1961

MR. AND MRS. CU BU LIONG, petitioners-appellees, vs. JULIANO E. ESTRELLA, ET AL., respondents-appellants.

x---------------------------------------------------------x

G.R. No. L-14757 July 31, 1961

EULOGIO BERJA, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. EDWIN FERNANDEZ, Defendant-Appellee.

Bausa, Ampil and Suarez for petitioners-appellees.
Office of the Solicitor General for respondents-appellants.
Arturo A. Alafriz as Amicus Curiae.

BENGZON, J.:chanrobles virtual law library

These two appeals involved the validity of section 25 of Reorganization Plan No. 20-A issued under Republic Act No. 997. It reads as follows:

Each Regional Office shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction over all cases affecting all money claims arising from violations of labor standards on working conditions, including but not restrictive to: Unpaid wages, under payment, overtime, separation pay, vacation pay and payment for medical services of domestic help. (Sec. 25, Reorganization Plan No. 20-A).

The first was a petition for certiorari and prohibition, filed in the Court of First Instance of Manila, against certain officials of the Department of Labor and the Sheriff of the City of Manila, to enjoin them from enforcing the decision of the Regional Office of said Department ordering the petitioning spouses to pay one Eleno Legrorio the amount of P786.14 with legal interest, representing vacation pay, indemnity pay and overtime compensation. The petition rested on the allegation that said Reorganization Plan No. 20-A(sec. 25), upon which the respondent officials of the said department allegedly derived their power to adjudicate, was null and void.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

The court, after due considerations of the matter, opined, that the said section of the Reorganization Plan was invalid for having conferred judicial powers upon an executive agency. Accordingly, it granted the petition for certiorari, and issued a permanent injunction against the said respondent officials. The latter appealed to this Court, maintaining the validity of the said Reorganization Plan.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

In the second, a complaint was filed before the Justice of the Peace Court of Dingle, Iloilo, to recover overtime pay, separation pay and additional pay for work on Sundays and legal holidays. After the issues had been joined and the hearing held, the said court rendered judgment requiring Edwin Fernandez to pay Berja the amounts of P1,317.35, P23,00 and P50.45 as overtime pay, separation pay and additional compensation. Defendant Fernandez appealed to the Court of First Instance of Iloilo, where plaintiff Berja submitted an amended complaint. Thereafter Fernandez moved to dismiss, on the ground of lack of jurisdiction because under Reorganization Plan No. 20-A, the issue should be threshed out not before the courts holding the motion, the court dismissed the case.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Therefore, plaintiff Berja appealed to this Court challenging the validity of the said Reorganization Plan No. powers to the executive branch of government.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

As stated, both the above-entitled cases involve the validity of Reorganization Plan No. 20-A (sec. 25) promulgated in purchase of Republic Act No. 997. No more shall be undertaken here than to reaffirm what we have categorically made clear in the very recent cases of Jose Corominas, Jr., et al. v. Labor Standards Commission, et al.¹ Manila Central University v. Jose Calupitan, et al.² Wong Chun, alias Ha Hing v. Diego Carlin, et al.³ and Balrodgan Co. Ltd., et al. v. F.A. Fuentes, et al.⁴ We repeat that:

So that it was not the intention of Congress, in enacting Republic Act No. 997, to authorize the transfer of powers and jurisdiction granted to the courts of justice, from these to the officials to be appointed or offices to be created by the Reorganization Plan. Congress is well aware of the provisions 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 these their jurisdiction and transfer said jurisdiction to the officials appointed or offices 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 or create courts of justice to any other agency of the Government. (Chinese Flour Importers' Ass. vs. Price Stabilization Board, G.R. No. Sheveport, 287 U.S. 77 L. ed. 175 and Johnson v. San Diego, 42 P. 249, cited in 11 Am. Jur. 291-122).chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

It is clear, therefore, that in vesting regional office with the original and exclusive jurisdiction over money claims, the Commission overstepped the limits of its powers as conferred buy Republic Act No. 997, which is merely that of reorganizing the departments, bureaus, and offices of the Executive Branch of the Government.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

In consequence, we are constrained to hold and declare that the provisions of 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 of Republic Act No. 997.

WHEREFORE, as the Reorganization Plan (sec. 25) was invalid, the decision in G.R. No. L-14212 is hereby affirmed; but the decision in G.R. No. L-14757 is reversed and the case remanded to the court of first instance for further proceedings. Without costs.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Padilla, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Paredes, Dizon, De Leon and Natividad, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:

¹ G.R. No. L-14837, Promulgated June 30, 1961.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

² G.R. No. L-15483, Promulgated June 30, 1961.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

³ G.R. No. L-13940, Promulgated June 30, 1961.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

⁴ G.R. No. L-15015, Promulgated June 30, 1961.