12. Supreme Court Decisions, La Mallorca Bus Co. et al. v. Ramos et al. - Justice Natividad.pdf · Rare Periodicals

12. Supreme Court Decisions, La Mallorca Bus Co. et al. v. Ramos et al. - Justice Natividad.pdf

Media

Part of The Lawyers Journal

extracted text: additional costs as directed by the provisions of Article 1724 of the Civil Code. WHEREFORE, the writ is hereby granted, the decision of the Court of Appeals reversed, and the action of respondent dismissed. Without eosts. Beng.:001, C.J., Padilla, J.13.l. Reyes, Pa1·cdes, Dizon 1.,11ul De LCQI!, JJ., concurrctl. Barrera, Natividad u11d C001cepcion, JJ., took no part. VIII la Mallorca Bu.s Co., et al., Petitioners-appellees, vs. Nica1101· R-0.mos, et al., Respondents; Fuentes a.nd Plomantes, Respondents<1vpellants0 G.R. No. L-15476, September 19, 1961 . Natividad, J. l. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR; REORGANIZATlON PLAN NO. 20-A; JUDICIAL POWER CONFERRED TO REGIONAL OFFICES ORIGINAL AND EXCLUSIVE IJURISDICTION OVER MONEY CLAIMS OF LABORERS IS NULL AND VOID.- The p1·ovisions of Reorganization Plan No. 20;-A, nndertaken under the provisions of Republic Act No. 997, as a mended, insofar as they confer judicial power upon the R.:!gi!lnal Offices thereby created and give said offices origin3l and exclusive jurisdiction over money claims of laborers other th1l!l those falling unde~· the Workmen's Compensatfon Law, . '"trc null and void and of no effect. Corominas, el a\'. vs. L"hor Stundar•I Commission, G.R. NO. L-14837, and companion ~a~e,;, June 30, 1961; Miller vs: J\lardo, G.R. No. L-15138, and. companion ca~es, July 31, 1961; Caltex (Phil.) Inr.. ''S. Villanue·ca. f't al., August 21, 1961. 2. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION LAW; APPLICABILITY TO. CLAIM FOR COMPENSATJ0::-1 FOR DISABILITY DUE TO T UBERCULOSIS. - The claim fo1· disability due to tuberculosis, a!legedly to have been caused and aggravated by the 11ature of plaintiff'~ employment in the petitioners' servic~, falls squarely under Section 2 of the Workmen's Compensat ion Law (Act No. 3423, as amc:nded hy Act No. 3812, Commor,"ealth Act i>Jo. 210 and Re))Ublic Act Nos. 772 and' 889). 3. WORKMEN'S . COMPENSATION COMMISSION ; \JURISDICTION WHICH IS NOT REPEALED BY REP. ACT 992; REGIONAL OFFICES; JURISDICTION OVER CLAIMS F01~ COMPENSATION FALLING UNDER WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION LAW.- As the juris.diction vested by Act No. 3428, as amended, on the Workmen's Compensation Commission to hear and decide claims for compensation coming under its pre.visions has not heen ri:vok::d, f'ither expressly or by necessa ry implication, by Republic Act No. 992, as amended, or by any olher subsequent staitite, :rnd t he regional offices created under Rcl·r~nization Plan No. 20-A in the Depa1·tment o~ Labor partake of the nature of referees which the Workmen'~ . Compensation Corrmission had the right to appoint and clot!'!e with juri.!'diction to hear and decide such cl:iims (Sec. 48, .Act No. 3428, as amended), the provisions of said wganizat1011 plan, insobr a!'I they confer or: said regional offices j1:nsdiction 1.v11r daims for compen.-sation falling under the Worl:m~n's Compensation Law, is perfeetly legal, and their d;xi· . sions on such claims are valid' and binding. . DECI S IO N Thi!> action fo1· prohibition with preliminary injunction, initiated in the Court of First Instance of Manila to enjoin the respondents from enforcing a decision of the Regional Office No. 3 ('.f the Department of Labor which ordned the petitioners to IJ:t~ to respondent NicP.nor Ramos t.he sum vf Pl,862.00 as compe!1sation for disability due to tuberculosis, plus Pl9.00 as fees, is n'lw before this Court on the appeal interposed by the respondents from the judgment therein entered by t hat Court grantii1g the w1·it therein prayed for, on the ground that said regional offire was wilhout jurisdiction to hear and determine the claim therein involyed. It appear:. that respondent Nicanor Ramos was a driver of the petitioners La Mallorca and Pampan.ga Bw; Co., Jn::. Sometime prior to November 19, 1968, said respondent filed against the \:it· ter with the Regional Office No. 3 o! the Department of Labor a complaint asking for payment of compensation for disability due lo tuberculosis allegedly contracted by him as a resuJt of his employment in said concerns. The petitioners resisted the action. After hearing, the Regional Office No. 3 of the Department of Labor, on November 19, 1958, i·endered a decision ordering the petitioners to pay to said respondeht the sum of Pl,862.00 as disability compensation, and to said office the amount of Pl9.00 as fees. Notified of this decision the petitioners, on cranunry 23, 1959, filed in thf' Court of F irst lnswnce of Manib the instant action, whe1·ein they asked that the enforcement of said decision of the Reg ional Office No. 3 be restrained, alleging that it is null and vcid ab inili-0 as said region:il office lia<l no j uriscl'iction to hear :ind rleci<lt. t'1c claim which was the subjl:'Ct·matter t hereof. ResrionclP.nis fil::d ~n answer to the petition. When the case was called for hearing on February 13, 1959, the parties submitted the same for judgment on the pleadings. The trial court took the cnse under advisement, and on March 12, 1959, rendered judgment on the pleadings, vacating and 'setting aside the decision of the Regional Office No. 3 of the Department of Labor complained of, on the gt·ound that said regional offic.e was without jurisdiction to hear and decide the claim therein involved, and granting the writ of prohibition applied for. l''rom this judgment, t he responJrnb appealed to this Court. They contend in this instance that the trial court committed error in granting, on the ground invoked, the writ of prohibition applied for by the petitioners. It is claimed that the decision of the Regional Office No. 3 of the Department of Labor complained of is legal and binding, for the Reorganization Plan No. 20-A, undertaken pw·suant to Republic Act No. 997, as amended, gives said regional office j urisdiction to hear claims for compensation under, the Workmen's Compensation Act . The issues raised has ah·eady been the subject of previous pronouncements made by this Court. In three recent decisions u11 the ~ubject, thi~ Court held that thc provisions of Reorganization Plan No. 20-A, undet·tak.:!n under the provisions of Republic J\ct No. 097, as amendocl, insofar as the>y confor judicial power l!{10n the Regional Offices thereby created and give said officEs origi!'la\ <111J exclusive jurisdiction over money claim!! of laborers otht>r than those falling under the Workmen's Compens~tion Law, art> null and void and of no effect. Corominas, et at. vs. Labor Standard Commission, C.R. No. L-14837, and companion cases, J une 30, 1961; Miller vs. Mardo, G.R. No. L-15138, :ind c-::mpanion C.'\.~.s. July 31, 1961; Caltex (Phil.) Inc. vs. Villanueva, E:t al., Augu"'t 21, 1961. In the Corominas case, 81t;prn, this Court said: "The provision of Reorganization Plan No. 20-A, particularly Section 23, which grants t n the regional· offices origina l and exclusive j urisdiction over money claims of laborers, is null nnd void, said grant having been made without authority by Republic Act No. 097." In that of Mill!!r vs. Mardo, snwa, this Court held : "On the basis of the foregoing conskteratbu, wc hold ~,nd declare that Reorganization Plan No. 20-A, in!>ofar as it c1ir.fers judicial power to the Regional Offices ove1· cases other th:m those falling under the Workmen's Compensation Law, i!' invalid and of no effect." And in the C2.ltex case su pra,, this Court said: "From t he foregoing provision of la'" and Jules, it may be gathered that a r egional office of the Department of Lal:c·r has original j urisdiction to hear and detenr.ine claims for ccmpenrntion under the Workmen's Compeni ation Act. If :l elaim is controverted it shall' be hear d 11nd d'ecided t>nly by a r'?!lNove"!l:tfr 30, 1961 LAWYERS \JOVR>NA.L Page 341 ularly a ppointed hearing officer or any othei- employee duly IX designated by the Regional Actministrator to act !ls hear.ing Porfirio Di<1z aml Jiw.nito Elechieon, Pet1"timtCTS, vs. Hon. officer. But when the claim is uneontrovcrtcd and there i1; n l) /;'ymidio Nietes: and Daniel E1•a719elista, Dc/nulan ts, G. ll . . \lo. necessity of requiring the clnimant to present further evidence, f,-J(J5!:1, Dec.. 31, 1960, Reyes, J.B.L., J. th~ Regional Administrator may <'ntcr an award or deny the I . RECEIVER; CASES WHEN APPOINTMENT BE MADE claim." BY THE COURT.-lt has been repeatedly ruled that. where As we a nalyze the facts of the present case, appellants' C f'n- the cffecl of the appointment of a re<>.eiver is to take real estate tention is not without merits. The claim involved in this a.ctior. out of the possession of the defendants before the final adis for compensation for disability due to tubercu!usis, alleged t fl have been caused and' aggravated by the nature of plaintiff's t~m ployment in the petitioners' service. It is then a claim which falls squarely under Section 2 of the Workmen's Com1 >ensat.ion Law 2 . j uclication of t he rights or the p~rti£s, t.he appointment should be made only in ext.rem(! cases and on a clear showing of nf'Cessily therefore in order to save t.he plaintiff from g-rnve and irremediable loss of d:image. ID. ; Rf<~A SON FOR THE RULE. - The power to appoint a receiver is a delicate one; that said power shQuld be ex~!"Cise<l with extreme caution and cnly when the circumstances so drmand, either because the1·e is imminent danger that. th~, property sought to be placed in the hands of a re~E:-iver be bst 01· because they run t he risk of being impair(>(), endeavoring to avoid that the injury thereby caused be g-reater than the one sought to be averted. For this reason, before the remedy is granted, the consequences or effects thereof should be considered or, at least, cs\imalfd in orrler to avoid causin~ irreparabb injustice or (njury to othe1·s who are entitled to as much consideration as t hose seeking it. (Act No. 3428, as amendc:! by Act No. 3812, Commonwealth Act No. 210 and Republic Act No.>. 772 and 88fll, which provides : "See. 2. Gro1m<i.s f or compensation.-- When an employe::: suffe:-i; personal injury from any ucci<!r-nt a rising out of and in the course of his employ1'nent, ;:,i· contracts tuberculosis or other ilincs directly cauS{'d by surh cmvloyment, or eithe1· aggravated by or the result of the nature of such employment., his employer shall pay compensat ion in the :;urns a_nd to th« person hereinafter specified. The right to compensation as pr<'vided in this Act shall n!>t be def<;ated or impaired on the g round that the death, injury or <liseasr- was due to the rv:g~ ligence of a fellow servant or employee, without prejudice l.!> th" r ight of the employers to p1·oceed ngninst the neglig\·nt )>arty." And as t.hc i11risdict1on w~stcd l..y Alt No. 3428, as am:ndecl, ;.in the \vorkmen'~ Compemation ('0mmission to hear and de::ide ci:l:ms ror compensation coming under its provisions has :loL been revoke1 t, either expressly or by neeessa1-y implication, by Rt.public Act Ne. fl92, as amended, or by any other suhscf}uent statute, and the 1'.:!gional offices created under Reorganize.hon Plan No. 20-A in t.he Department of Labor partakl' of the nature of referees which the Workmen's Compens'ati<>n Commission h!Hl the right to appoint ~nd clothe with jurisdiction to hea1· and decide such claims (Sec. 48. Act No. 3428, as amended), the provisions of said reorganizatio!l plan, insofar as they confer on said regional offices j urisdiction rver claims for compensation falling UI1der the Wc.rkmen's Cornp1:nsation Law, is perfectly legal, a11d their decisions on <:uch claims are valid and binding. Th-J petit.ionc>r cannot cla;m, to bolst...•r their stand, t hat the Regional" Office No. 3 that renderc-d said decision had no authority to enforce said decision directly. Tim records do not disclose tha~ said r;egional office had made any attempt to do so. Immediately ?.ftcr the petitioners were notified of the decision, they brought this action. Under the circumstance~. it cannot be assumed t.hnt the Commissioner who is p!'cr;umeJ to know the law, wouH make nny such attempt. Hat.her, it must b e assumed that in "l'forcin~ said ciccision said Commissioner and the parties will ff'Jll<>w tile procedure prescribeC' in Section 51 of the Workm"n"s Compensation Law, Act No. 3428, n" amended. The trial court, therefore, committed error in issuing th<' wl'ii of prohibition restraining enforcement of the decision of the Regional Office No. 3 in question. For ~he foregoing, we find that the judgment appealed fi·nm is contrary to law. Hence, the same is reversed, and another is hereby "nrered dismissing the petition by which This action wa~ initiatl'd, with the costs in both instances taxed again ~t th ~ p(titioners-ar pellees. IT IS SO ORDERED. Bengi<m, C.J., l'adilla , Ltr.li'Yttdcr, J.8.L. Reyes, Bar-rera, Pare<lee, Dizon and De L um, JJ., concun-ed. Concevcion, ./., took no p:nt DECIS I ON This is a petition fo1· c<'rtiorati with a prayer for a writ <1f preliminary inju1 1ct.ion to annul the order of the Court of F ir st Instance cf Iioilo in its Civil Case No. 5313 appointing a l'C'Cl'iver of the property in litigation and of th(' producls t herrof. Civil Case No. 5313 is an action filed by Daniel Evanb~lista on October 7, 1959 against Porfirio Diaz and J uanito Elechicon foi· the recovery of the posscs3ion of 1! portion of 12 hectares ou1 of Lot No. 4651 of the Dumangas, Ilo:Jo, Ca<lastre. The amenrlel! ccmplain~ alleges that plaintiff is the owner of the aforesaid lot, the same having been adjudicated to i1im in the project of partition in Special P roceedings No. 815 of the same Court, which partition the probate court has already npprvvM and un<h:!r which ~he adjudicutee3 han~ a lready received their respective shares; that defendants a re in the possession of the pr'lperty in question unrler "'' unlawf ul claim of ownership ; that defendants have het:ded none of t he demands made by plaintiff for them to va~at.a the premises; that said property is first-class ricl'land, with a net yearly produce of 200 bultos of rice equivalent to 1'3,000; that the produce of saicl l:\nd for the crop year 1959-60 is about to be harvested; and that the appointment of a receiver is ne<:essary, and the most convenient and peaceable means to preserve, administer, and disposl!' of the J;J"Operty in question and its 1959-60 harvest. In answer, defendants aver tha.t U·.ey arc not claimin~ the land in question as owr.er~ bui. as lessees thereof for a perio<l of five years, in accordance wit.h a contract. of lease signed by thl'ffi with t he administratrix "If said propt:rty, Rosario Evangelista (pla;ntiff's daughter), on Ma1·ch 30, 1959; that said land rert.nin~ to Group I of the project of partition in Special P rocecJini::o No. 8 15 and for that reason, the°Court diet not have jurisdidion to appoint n receiver over the same in this ca~; and that the a llegations of the complaint do not wan·ant the appointment of a 1·eceivcr. The opposition to the motion for receivership notwithstanding, tl:e lower col,rl, on Novcm~cr 14, HJ5il, lssue1! an ordel' placing the propel'ty in Jit igalion and its produce under receivership. This order reads : "It appearing that t.h2 verified c:-implair:t a nd from Annexes 'A', 'A'-1, "A'-2, and 'B' that the plaintiff-petitioner for the appointment of Re<:eiver has an intc-rest in the propertv described in the complaint ns owner th_ereof, the same bt>in~ a part of his share in the partit ion of the intestate estate of his father (Speeia! Proceedings No. 815 of the Court (Jf First Instance of llnilo) and, therefoi·e, Nititlt!d 10 the products of the said p1 ·operty; a11d it being alleged that I.he said products Page 342 LA WYERS O"OURNAL November 30, 1961
Date: 1961
Rights