EN BANC
[G.R. No. L-17016. April 25, 1962. ]
WORLDWIDE PAPER MILLS, INC., Petitioner-Appellant, v. LABOR STANDARDS COMMISSION and ERNESTO PALOMIQUE, Respondents-Appellees.
Bausa, Ampil & Suarez for Petitioner-Appellant.
Paciano C. Villavieja, Edgardo de la Cruz for Respondents-Appellees.
SYLLABUS
1. JURISDICTION; MONEY CLAIMS OF LABORERS; REORGANIZATION PLAN NO. 20-A, SECTION 25, AND VOID. — It was not the intention of Congress, in enacting Rep. Act No. 997, to authorize the transfer of power and jurisdiction granted to courts of justice to the officials to be appointed or offices to be created by 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 delegates its powers to legislate or create courts of justice to any other agency of the Government. The provision of Reorganization Plan No. 20-A, particularly Sec. 25, which grants to the regional offices an exclusive jurisdiction over money claims of laborers, is null and void, said grant having been made without authority by Rep. Act No. 997 (Corominas, Jr., Et. Al. v. Labor Standards Commission, Et Al., MCU v. Calupitan, Et Al., Wong v. Carlim, Et Al., Baldrogan Co., Et Al., v. Fuestes, Et Al., 112 Phil, 551; 59 Off. Gaz., [43] 7432).
D E C I S I O N
PAREDES, J.:
On June 20, 1958, Ernesto Palomique presented with the Regional Office No. 3 of the Department of Labor, Manila, a complaint against the Worldwide Paper Mills, Inc. for the recovery of a sum of money, consisting of unpaid overtime wages and separation pay (RO3-LS Case No. 1495).
In answer to the complaint, Worldwide Paper Mills, after the usual admissions and denials, interposed, among others, the special defense of lack of authority and jurisdiction of the Regional officer over the subject-matter, contending that Reorganization Plan No. 20-A and the rules and regulations issued to implement the same, are unconstitutional.
Upon the facts and proofs presented by the parties, the hearing officer in Regional Office No. 3, on November 10, 1958, rendered judgment finding that Palomique was entitled to overtime pay from June 23, 1955 to May 12, 1958, amounting to P341.85 and P340.00 as separation pay, and ordered Worldwide Paper Mills to pay said Palomique the total sum of P681.85 with legal interest from June 23, 1958.
An appeal from the above judgment to the Labor Standards Commission was interposed by Worldwide on November 24, 1958, asking for the dismissal of the case, for lack of jurisdiction of the Regional Office. The Labor Standards Commission on June 15, 1959, sustained the Regional Office, holding that the Reorganization Act (Rep. Act No. 997, as amended by Act 1241), upon which Reorganization Plan No. 20-A was based, conferred sufficient authority and jurisdiction upon the Regional Office to hear and decide claims of the same nature involved in the litigation. Worldwide also brought the matter to the CFI of Manila on a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition with Preliminary Injunction (Civil Case No. 41193), under the same issues as presented by them with the Regional Office and the Labor Standards Commission. The CFI, likewise upheld the validity of Reorganization Plan No. 20-A.
The case is now before Us on the singular issue of "the validity of Reorganization Plan No. 20-A."cralaw virtua1aw library
We have in a number of cases ruled upon the above issue. Thus, in the case of Cagalawan v. Customs Canteen, Et Al., G.R. No. L-16031, Oct. 31, 1961, We said —
". . . . So that it was not the intention of Congress, in enacting Rep Act No. 997, to authorize the transfer of powers and jurisdiction granted to courts of justice from these, to the officials to be appointed or offices to be created by 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 powers to legislate or create courts of justice to any other agency of the Government. . . the provision of Reorganization Plan No. 20-A, particularly Sec. 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 Rep. Act No. 997 (Corominas, Jr., Et Al., v. Labor Standards Commission, Et Al., L-14837; MCU v. Calupitan, Et Al., L-15483; Wong v. Carlim, Et Al., L-13940; Balgodgen Co., Et Al., v. Fuentes, Et Al., L-15015, June 30, 1961). (See also Pitogo, v. Sen Bee Trading Co., at al., G.R. No. L-15693, July 31, 1961)’."
Under the authority of the cases cited above, the case at bar should be, as it is hereby dismissed, reserving to Ernesto Palomique the right to bring the appropriate action before the proper court. The decision appealed from is set aside. No costs.
Bengzon, C.J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera and Dizon, JJ., concur.
In answer to the complaint, Worldwide Paper Mills, after the usual admissions and denials, interposed, among others, the special defense of lack of authority and jurisdiction of the Regional officer over the subject-matter, contending that Reorganization Plan No. 20-A and the rules and regulations issued to implement the same, are unconstitutional.
Upon the facts and proofs presented by the parties, the hearing officer in Regional Office No. 3, on November 10, 1958, rendered judgment finding that Palomique was entitled to overtime pay from June 23, 1955 to May 12, 1958, amounting to P341.85 and P340.00 as separation pay, and ordered Worldwide Paper Mills to pay said Palomique the total sum of P681.85 with legal interest from June 23, 1958.
An appeal from the above judgment to the Labor Standards Commission was interposed by Worldwide on November 24, 1958, asking for the dismissal of the case, for lack of jurisdiction of the Regional Office. The Labor Standards Commission on June 15, 1959, sustained the Regional Office, holding that the Reorganization Act (Rep. Act No. 997, as amended by Act 1241), upon which Reorganization Plan No. 20-A was based, conferred sufficient authority and jurisdiction upon the Regional Office to hear and decide claims of the same nature involved in the litigation. Worldwide also brought the matter to the CFI of Manila on a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition with Preliminary Injunction (Civil Case No. 41193), under the same issues as presented by them with the Regional Office and the Labor Standards Commission. The CFI, likewise upheld the validity of Reorganization Plan No. 20-A.
The case is now before Us on the singular issue of "the validity of Reorganization Plan No. 20-A."cralaw virtua1aw library
We have in a number of cases ruled upon the above issue. Thus, in the case of Cagalawan v. Customs Canteen, Et Al., G.R. No. L-16031, Oct. 31, 1961, We said —
". . . . So that it was not the intention of Congress, in enacting Rep Act No. 997, to authorize the transfer of powers and jurisdiction granted to courts of justice from these, to the officials to be appointed or offices to be created by 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 powers to legislate or create courts of justice to any other agency of the Government. . . the provision of Reorganization Plan No. 20-A, particularly Sec. 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 Rep. Act No. 997 (Corominas, Jr., Et Al., v. Labor Standards Commission, Et Al., L-14837; MCU v. Calupitan, Et Al., L-15483; Wong v. Carlim, Et Al., L-13940; Balgodgen Co., Et Al., v. Fuentes, Et Al., L-15015, June 30, 1961). (See also Pitogo, v. Sen Bee Trading Co., at al., G.R. No. L-15693, July 31, 1961)’."
Under the authority of the cases cited above, the case at bar should be, as it is hereby dismissed, reserving to Ernesto Palomique the right to bring the appropriate action before the proper court. The decision appealed from is set aside. No costs.
Bengzon, C.J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera and Dizon, JJ., concur.
