Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1960 > November 1960 Decisions > G.R. No. L-15904 November 23, 1960 - ELIZALDE PAINT & OIL FACTORY, INC. v. JOSE S. BAUTISTA

110 Phil 49:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-15904. November 23, 1960.]

ELIZALDE PAINT & OIL FACTORY, INC., Petitioner, v. HON. JOSE S. BAUTISTA, ET AL., Respondents.

J.N. Cajucom for Petitioner.

Tuason & Magbanua for respondent CIR.

Mariano M. de Joya and L.R. Lara, Jr. for the other respondents.


SYLLABUS


COURTS; JURISDICTION; COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS; RECOVERY OF RETIREMENT PAY WITHOUT REINSTATEMENT; REGULAR COURT. — Where a case involves merely the recovery of certain retirement pay after the employer-employee relationship had ceased on account of the latter’s separation from the service and he is not seeking his reinstatement, said case is merely for a money claim cognizable by the regular courts.


D E C I S I O N


BAUTISTA ANGELO, J.:


This is a petition for certiorari and prohibition with preliminary injunction praying this Court to reverse the resolution en banc of the Court of Industrial Relations dated August 14, 1959 and to dismiss the case filed before it on the ground that the industrial court lacks jurisdiction to try the same.

It appears that Pedro Basaysay was formerly employed by the Elizalde Paint & Oil Factory, Inc. during the period from May 30, 1949 to January 2, 1958. Pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement entered into between said company and the Elizalde Paint & Oil Factory Labor Union of which Basaysay was a member providing for gratuity to any deserving laborer who may retire, the company tendered him a check in the amount of P1,051.90 as payment of any and all kinds of services he may have rendered requiring him at the same time to sign a release and quitclaim form. Believing, however, that he was entitled to more compensation, he refused to take the check or sign the quitclaim form and instead he, together with the union, filed the present action before the industrial court on June 20, 1959 praying that the company be ordered to pay him the amount of P1,101.80 as retirement pay, plus moral damages and attorney’s fees.

Within the reglementary period the company filed its answer alleging, among others, that the industrial court has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the case, and on July 9, 1959, it moved to dismiss the case on the same ground. After Basaysay and the union had filed their opposition, Judge Bautista issued an order deferring resolution on the nation to dismiss until after the evidence of both parties had been submitted intimidating that the ground alleged therein was not indubitable. Thereupon, on July 29, 1959, the company filed a motion for reconsideration, but the court en banc denied the same on August 14, 1959 stating that the order sought to be reconsidered is interlocutory.

The only issue posed by petitioner is whether or not the Industrial court has jurisdiction to take cognizance of this case involving as it does merely the recovery of certain retirement pay under the collective bargaining contract entered into between the company and respondent union.

We are inclined to hold the negative. Firstly, since this case involves merely the recovery of certain retirement pay after the employer-employee relationship between petitioning company and respondent Basaysay had ceased, on account of the latter’s separation from the service on January 2, 1958, and he is not seeking his reinstatement, said case is merely for a money claim cognizable by the regular courts. 1 Secondly, through we held in one case 2 that the industrial court has jurisdiction to enforce a collective bargaining contract, such ruling only applies if the subject matter of the contract sought to be enforced refers to a labor dispute affecting an industry certified by the President, or when it involves minimum wage, hours of employment, or unfair labor practice. 3 Here, the issue refers to retirement pay, and not to any of the matters mentioned above.

With regard to the claim that this petition should be dismissed because the order sought to be reversed is only interlocutory, suffice it to quote the following authorities:ClubJuris

"If the question of jurisdiction were not the main ground for this petition for review by certiorari, it would be premature because it seeks to have a review of an interlocutory order. But as it would be useless and futile to go ahead with the proceedings if the court below had no jurisdiction this petition was given due course." (San Beda College v. Court of Industrial Relations, Et Al., 97 Phil., 787; 51 Off. Gaz., No. 11, 5636, 5638.)

"Although an order denying a motion to dismiss a complaint on the ground of lack of jurisdiction is interlocutory, still if it is clear that the trial court lacks jurisdiction a higher court of competent- jurisdiction would be justified in issuing a writ of certiorari and prohibition, for the proceedings in the court below would be a nullity and waste of time" (Philippine International Fair, Inc. Et. Al. v. Hon. Fidel Ibañez, Et Al., 94 Phil., 424; 50 Off. Gaz., No. 3, 1036.)

Wherefore, petition is granted. The order appealed from is reversed without costs. The writ of preliminary injunction issued by this Court is declared permanent.

Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Padilla, Labrador, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Gutierrez David, Paredes and Dizon, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. Price Stabilization Corporation v. Court of Industrial Relations, Et Al., 108, Phil., 134; Sampaguita Pictures, Inc. Et. Al., v. Court of Industrial Relations, Et Al., 109 Phil., 816; 60 Off. Gaz. [52] 8583.

2. Benguet Consolidated Mining Company v. Coto Labor Union (NLU) 105 Phil., 915.

3. Philippine Sugar Institute v. CIR, Et Al., 106 Phil., 401; Dee Cho Lumber Workers Union (NLU) v. Dee Cho Lumber Company, 101 Phil., 417; 55 Off. Gaz., [3] 434.




Back to Home | Back to Main


ClubJuris.Com



November-1960 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-11001 November 23, 1960 - FORTUNATO V. BORROMEO v. GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM

    110 Phil 1

  • G.R. No. L-12125 November 23, 1960 - LUIS G. ABLAZA v. AMANCIO SYCIP

    110 Phil 4

  • G.R. No. L-13251 November 23, 1960 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. ALTO SURETY & INSURANCE CO., INC.

    110 Phil 9

  • G.R. No. L-14223 November 23, 1960 - SABINA SANTIAGO v. J. M. TUASON & CO., INC.

    110 Phil 16

  • G.R. No. L-14569 November 23, 1960 - BENITO CODILLA v. JOSE L. MARTINEZ

    110 Phil 24

  • G.R. No. L-14641 November 23, 1960 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. EUSTAQUIO DE LUNA

    110 Phil 28

  • G.R. No. L-14764 November 23, 1960 - CENON VILLANUEVA v. BARBER WILHELMSEN LINE

    110 Phil 34

  • G.R. No. L-14864 November 23, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUANITO SOLON

    110 Phil 39

  • G.R. No. L-14897 November 23, 1960 - JESUS NEPOMUCENO v. REHABILITATION FINANCE CORPORATION

    110 Phil 42

  • G.R. No. L-15904 November 23, 1960 - ELIZALDE PAINT & OIL FACTORY, INC. v. JOSE S. BAUTISTA

    110 Phil 49

  • G.R. No. L-16022 November 23, 1960 - NATALIA B. NICOMEDES v. CHIEF OF CONSTABULARY

    110 Phil 52

  • G.R. No. L-13114 November 25, 1960 - ELENITA LEDESMA SILVA v. ESTHER PERALTA

    110 Phil 57

  • G.R. No. L-15276 November 28, 1960 - EPIFANIO J. ALANO v. CLARO CORTES

    110 Phil 74

  • G.R. No. L-7330 November 29, 1960 - JOSE BENARES v. CAPITOL SUBDIVISION, INC.

    110 Phil 79

  • G.R. No. L-10508 November 29, 1960 - PO ENG TRADING v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

    110 Phil 83

  • G.R. No. L-10810 November 29, 1960 - JOSEFINA RUIZ DE LUZURIAGA BLANCO v. COMPANIA GRAL. DE TABACOS DE FILIPINAS

    110 Phil 87

  • G.R. No. L-10836 November 29, 1960 - IN RE: PROCOPY MOSCAL v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    110 Phil 99

  • G.R. No. L-11325 November 29, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BOTO BALONTO

    110 Phil 102

  • G.R. No. L-11482 November 29, 1960 - ESTEBAN T. BUMANGLAG v. JOSE FERNANDEZ

    110 Phil 107

  • G.R. No. L-11837 November 29, 1960 - MAGDALENA G. VDA. DE CUAYCONG v. CRISTETA L. VDA. DE SENGBENGCO

    110 Phil 113

  • G.R. No. L-12275 November 29, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TEOTIMO RUBINIAL

    110 Phil 119

  • G.R. No. L-12508 November 29, 1960 - JOSE L. LAGRIMAS v. ROBERTO ZURBANO

    110 Phil 127

  • G.R. Nos. L-13107-08 November 29, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DIO DELMAS

    110 Phil 132

  • G.R. No. L-13173 November 29, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFREDO SORIO

    110 Phil 138

  • G.R. No. L-14217 November 29, 1960 - LUZ H. COLOMA v. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    110 Phil 145

  • G.R. No. L-14274 November 29, 1960 - COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS v. SERREE INVESTMENT COMPANY

    110 Phil 148

  • G.R. No. L-14283 November 29, 1960 - GIL BALBUNA v. SECRETARY OF EDUCATION

    110 Phil 150

  • G.R. No. L-14382 November 29, 1960 - REMEDIOS CUENCO VDA. DE BORROMEO v. COURT OF APPEALS

    110 Phil 155

  • G.R. No. L-14559 November 29, 1960 - REYNALDO MADRIÑAN v. VICENTE G. SINCO

    110 Phil 160

  • G.R. No. L-14567 November 29, 1960 - ELENA PERALTA VDA. DE CAINA v. COURT OF APPEALS

    110 Phil 164

  • G.R. No. L-14594 November 29, 1960 - SEVERINO CAÑGAS v. TAN CHUAN LEONG

    110 Phil 168

  • G.R. No. L-14611 November 29, 1960 - EVANGELINO LASERNA v. MARIA JAVIER

    110 Phil 172

  • G.R. No. L-14656 November 29, 1960 - PHILIPPINE LAND-AIR-SEA LABOR UNION (PLASLU) v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

    110 Phil 176

  • G.R. No. L-14682 November 29, 1960 - FRANCISCO EVARISTO v. OLEGARIO LASTRILLA

    110 Phil 181

  • G.R. No. L-14690 November 29, 1960 - JESUS S. DIZON v. JOSE T. GARCIA, SR.

    110 Phil 186

  • G.R. No. L-14769 November 29, 1960 - LAURO P. LEVISTE v. EUSEBIO F. RAMOS

    110 Phil 190

  • G.R. No. L-14780 November 29, 1960 - POMPEYO L. PALARCA v. RESTITUTA BAROL DE ANZON

    110 Phil 194

  • G.R. Nos. L-14785 & L-14923 November 29, 1960 - FELIX ABE v. FOSTER WHEELER CORPORATION

    110 Phil 198

  • G.R. No. L-14983 November 29, 1960 - AGRIPINA VDA. DE ALBURO v. FILOMENA VDA. DE UMBAO

    110 Phil 210

  • G.R. No. L-15231 November 29, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARTEMIO PERVEZ

    110 Phil 214

  • G.R. No. L-15271 November 29, 1960 - ONG YET MUA HARDWARE CO. v. MANILA RAILROAD CO.

    110 Phil 219

  • G.R. No. L-15312 November 29, 1960 - IN RE: JUAN TACDORO v. JESUS ARCENAS

    110 Phil 222

  • G.R. No. L-15439 November 29, 1960 - ISAAC PERAL BOWLING ALLEY v. UNITED EMPLOYEES WELFARE ASSN.

    110 Phil 227

  • G.R. No. L-15551 November 29, 1960 - DAVID CONSUNJI v. MANILA PORT SERVICE

    110 Phil 231

  • G.R. No. L-15593 November 29, 1960 - MARIA BALDO v. PEDRO GUERRERO

    110 Phil 235

  • G.R. Nos. L-15618, L-16000 & L-16116 November 29, 1960 - ATLANTIC MUTUAL INSURANCE CO. v. MANILA PORT SERVICE

    110 Phil 240

  • G.R. No. L-15671 November 29, 1960 - AMERICAN PRESIDENT LINES, LTD. v. RICHARD A. KLEPPER

    110 Phil 243

  • G.R. No. L-15804 November 29, 1960 - SANCHO B. DE LEON v. ESTANISLAO FAUSTINO

    110 Phil 249

  • G.R. No. L-15925 November 29, 1960 - ESTELA FRANCISCO DE LASALA v. PEDRO SARNATE

    110 Phil 255

  • G.R. No. L-16028 November 29, 1960 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. DALMACIO URTULA

    110 Phil 262

  • G.R. No. L-16030 November 29, 1960 - SEGUNDA INOCANDO v. JUAN INOCANDO

    110 Phil 266

  • G.R. No. L-16068 November 29, 1960 - CONSUELO S. CALALANG v. INTESTATE ESTATE OF GERVACIO TANJANGCO

    110 Phil 270

  • G.R. No. L-16093 November 29, 1960 - LOCAL 7, PRESS & PRINTING FREE WORKERS v. EMILIANO TABIGNE

    110 Phil 276

  • G.R. No. L-16406 November 29, 1960 - PRIMO QUETULIO v. DELFIN B. FLORES

    110 Phil 284

  • G.R. Nos. L-16409 & L-16416 November 29, 1960 - ALEJANDRO L. GUMPAL v. MANUEL ARRANZ

    110 Phil 287

  • G.R. No. L-16523 November 29, 1960 - LUIS G. PERALTA v. FELIXBERTO SERRANO

    110 Phil 301