EN BANC
[G.R. No. L-17776. April 30, 1964.]
FORTUNATO F. HALILI, Petitioner, v. RAFAEL HUGANAS, JUAN GERARDO, Workmen’s Compensation Commissioners, SHERIFF OF MANILA and SHERIFF OF QUEZON CITY, Respondents.
Dakila T. Castro for Petitioner.
Solicitor General for Respondents.
SYLLABUS
1. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; SEPARATION OF POWERS; LABOR REGIONAL OFFICES HAVE NO POWER TO ISSUE WRITS OF EXECUTION. — Regional offices of the Department of Labor are not empowered to enforce their awards by writs of execution, which only courts of justice are authorized to issue.
2. ID.; ID.; REORGANIZATION PLAN NO. 20-A; VALID FOR WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION CLAIMS. — Reorganization Plan 20-A is valid in so far as claims for compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act is concerned.
2. ID.; ID.; REORGANIZATION PLAN NO. 20-A; VALID FOR WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION CLAIMS. — Reorganization Plan 20-A is valid in so far as claims for compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act is concerned.
D E C I S I O N
BENGZON, C.J.:
This appeal involves the validity of Reorganization Plan No. 20-A in the light of constitutional limitations and separation of powers. We have already passed on it several times.
It appears that on May 26, 1958, Rafael Huganas filed a claim for compensation, against Fortunato F. Halili, with Regional office No. 3 of the Department of Labor; that said claim was heard by Juan Gerardo, the Hearing Officer, who in due course awarded compensation to the claimant in the form of sums of money; that such award was subsequently affirmed upon review by the Workmen’s Compensation Commission; that carrying out the award, the Sheriff of the Quezon City took steps to execute it; that consequently, Atty. Jesus I. Santos, counsel for Halili filed, in the Quezon City Court of First Instance, an action to enjoin such execution, contending that the proceedings held before the Regional Office and the Workmen’s Compensation Commission were null and void because they acted, by virtue of the authority given by Reorganization Plan No. 20-A which was, for the reasons stated by him, unconstitutional. The court sustained Halili’s position and ordered the sheriff to refrain from taking action. Wherefore, Huganas, Et. Al. took this appeal.
In Madrigal Shipping Co. v. Workmen’s Compensation Commission, 1 the decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Commission confirming the award of the Regional Office No. 2 of the Department of Labor, pursuant to Reorganization Plan No. 20-A was attacked on the same grounds specified by appellee herein. Nonetheless, we upheld the official award, holding that the Plan was valid in so far as claims for compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act was concerned. The same view was expressed in other resolutions of this Court. 2
It was error, then, for the lower court to invalidate the proceedings before said administrative agencies. However, its order must be approved in the result because the execution was being carried in pursuance of directives of the Labor Regional Office. We have already ruled that Regional Offices of the Department of Labor are not empowered to enforce their awards by writs of execution, which only courts of justice are authorized to issue. (National Shipyards v. Calixto, L-18471, February 28, 1963; Pastoral v. Commissioner of the Workmen’s Compensation Commission, L-12903, July 31, 1961.)
On this last ground, the Court’s order preventing the sheriff from carrying out the writ of execution, is affirmed. No costs.
Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Paredes, Dizon and Makalintal, JJ., concur.
Padilla, Labrador, Barrera and Regala, JJ., took no part.
It appears that on May 26, 1958, Rafael Huganas filed a claim for compensation, against Fortunato F. Halili, with Regional office No. 3 of the Department of Labor; that said claim was heard by Juan Gerardo, the Hearing Officer, who in due course awarded compensation to the claimant in the form of sums of money; that such award was subsequently affirmed upon review by the Workmen’s Compensation Commission; that carrying out the award, the Sheriff of the Quezon City took steps to execute it; that consequently, Atty. Jesus I. Santos, counsel for Halili filed, in the Quezon City Court of First Instance, an action to enjoin such execution, contending that the proceedings held before the Regional Office and the Workmen’s Compensation Commission were null and void because they acted, by virtue of the authority given by Reorganization Plan No. 20-A which was, for the reasons stated by him, unconstitutional. The court sustained Halili’s position and ordered the sheriff to refrain from taking action. Wherefore, Huganas, Et. Al. took this appeal.
In Madrigal Shipping Co. v. Workmen’s Compensation Commission, 1 the decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Commission confirming the award of the Regional Office No. 2 of the Department of Labor, pursuant to Reorganization Plan No. 20-A was attacked on the same grounds specified by appellee herein. Nonetheless, we upheld the official award, holding that the Plan was valid in so far as claims for compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act was concerned. The same view was expressed in other resolutions of this Court. 2
It was error, then, for the lower court to invalidate the proceedings before said administrative agencies. However, its order must be approved in the result because the execution was being carried in pursuance of directives of the Labor Regional Office. We have already ruled that Regional Offices of the Department of Labor are not empowered to enforce their awards by writs of execution, which only courts of justice are authorized to issue. (National Shipyards v. Calixto, L-18471, February 28, 1963; Pastoral v. Commissioner of the Workmen’s Compensation Commission, L-12903, July 31, 1961.)
On this last ground, the Court’s order preventing the sheriff from carrying out the writ of execution, is affirmed. No costs.
Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Paredes, Dizon and Makalintal, JJ., concur.
Padilla, Labrador, Barrera and Regala, JJ., took no part.
Endnotes:
1. L-17495, June 29, 1962.
2. Stoll v. Mardo, L-17241, June 29, 1962, and cases cited therein.
