13. Supreme Court Decisions, Diaz and Elechicon v. Hon. Nietes et al. - Justice J.B.L. Reyes.pdf · Rare Periodicals

13. Supreme Court Decisions, Diaz and Elechicon v. Hon. Nietes et al. - Justice J.B.L. Reyes.pdf

Media

Part of The Lawyers Journal

extracted text: 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 au~ in imminent danger of being lost or removed unless a Receiver is appointed to take charge of and preserve the same, GERUNDIO DIASNES, of Dumangas, lloilo, is hereby aP1>ointed as RECEIVER of the property in litigation as well as the products thereof, and upon putting up a bond of SIX THOUSAND PESOS (PG,000.00), approved by this Court, the sa id RECEIVER may qualify and assume his duties as such." Defendants moved for the reoonsideration of the above Ol'der , claiming that the kt in question is in rnstodia lcgis in S1>ecial Proceedings No. 8tfi and can not, therefore, be the subject o!' a receiver~hip in this cas:e; that while it is tru(' that said lot had be<>1• assii.rncd to plaintiff in the pl"o.ject of partition in said praeeedings, the probate court, in approving m id partition, withlwld th<' ordei· or distribution and the closing of the estate " pending the sub:nission by the administration and the heirs of the written conformity of the creditors, namely, th<' RFC and the PNB to such <list ribution and e,·entual assumplion by the heirs of the liabilitiC's of the estate" ; and final!)', that it does not aP1lear fr.:im the com - pla int th:lt plaintiff has such interest in th~ p1 ·oper:y in liti :ation and its produce, and that such property is in dange1· of being lost, removed, or materially injur~, as to justify the appointment of a !'eceiver. This motion having been denied, defendants fil~ the .present petition for certiorari reiterating substantially their arguments in their motion for reconsideration in the court below, and urging that the order appointing a 1-eceiver was issued in grave al-iuse of discretion and in excess of jurisdiction by the court a quo. Upon JlC'titioners' filing of a bond in the amount of ;-z,000.00, we !ssuol! ~ writ of preliminary injunction to restrain the lower court f1·on• en forcing the order complained of. We see no sufficient cause or 1ea:>on in thfl instant case \(I justify placing the land in question in receivership. While it d'()('S appear from the pleadings in the cou1·l below that title or owne1·ship over said land is with plaintiff by virtue of :.he order of pr.rtition in Special Proceedings No. SIS adjudicating ;:aid prope!-ty ·to him, it li~ewise appears, howercr, that petitioners are in the m'.lte>:ial possession ther(oof, hot under any claim of title or ownership, but pursuant to a lease contract signect with them by plaintiff'<; daughter, Rvsario Evangelista, the fonncr administrator er aq~nt of plaintiff ovel" said property. In fact, plaintiff admitted in his answer to the present petition that h<' did " let his daughtf"r "'!'Ianage the said property" (par. 1 of Affirmative and Special Defenses, Answer , p. 2) . Until, therefore, the lease aJn'(!ement sign<.'rl b t>tween Rosario Evangelista, a!; agent of plaintiff, :u1d defendant~ is judicially declared Yoid for want of authority of the agent to c..xecute the ,;ame, defendants are entitlerl to continue in the posS"."S!>ion of the premises in que.~tirm, unle!!s powerful re'.ls:ons exi3t for the lower court t.o deprive them of such possession and appoint a re<:eiver. o'·er said property. These pow~rful reasons are wanting in this case. Indeed, there ifl even no showing here that the property in question and its pending harvest are in danger of hein.1t lost, or that defondants are committing acts of waste thereon or that def1md2nts are insolvent and cannot 1 ·epair any damagri they cause to plaintiff's rights. In fruth, the complaint alk ges no intr-rest on the part of the plaintiff in the .crops subjected to receiv'.'!'ship. 1)11011 the other hand, defendants occupied and planted the land in questio11 in good faith ~l!; less(es, and it is only j ust and equitable that they be allowed to cuntinue in their possession and harvest the fruits of their labor (subject to their obligation to pay their lessor his due share in the harvest) until the respl'ICtive rights <-•f the parties in this case lo the po!s·~i:sion of the land in question a !'e fin:i.llr resolved and adju<licatecl. This Court has repeated\~~ ruled that where the effect of the appointment of a receiver is to take rral estate out of the possei:sion r,f the d-efendants before the final adjudication of the rights of the parties, the appoint· ment should be made only in extreme cases and on a clear showing of ncce~i~y therefoi-e in order to save the plaintiU from grave and irreme<!iable loss of d'amage (Mendoza v. Arellano, 36 Phil. 59; De la Cruz v. Guinto, G.R. No. L-1315, Sept. 2D, 1947; Calo and San J ose v. Roldan, 76 Phil'. 455; Municipality of Camiling v. De Aquino, G.R. No. L-11476, Feb. 28, 1958; Delos Reyes v. Bayona, G.R. No. L-13832, March 29, 1960) . Moreover, the trial court seems to have overlooked that as has cften been held, "the power to appoint a receiver is a delicate- one: that said power should be exercised with extreme caution and only when the ci1·cumstances so demand, either because there is imminent danger that the pro1 >ert y SC'ugl1t to Oc placed in the hands of a receiver be lost or because they nm the r isk of being impaired, endeavoring to avoid that the injury thereby caused be greater than tl,e one sought to be averted. For this reason, l:efore tho 1 ·emcdy' is g r:i.ntert, the consequences or effects thereof shouJd be considered or, at least, estimated in ot·der to avoid causing irreparable injustice or injury to others who are entitled to as much consideration as those seeking it", (Velasco & Co. v. Gochico & Co., 28 Phil. 39; Claudio, et al. vs. Zandueta, 64 Phil. 812; Calo v. Roldan, 76 Phil. 454) . WHEREF'ORE, the orders of November 14, 1959 and December 10, 1959 are set aside, a11d the writ of preliminary injunction issued by this Ccurt on February 3, 1960 is made pennanent. Costs againts respondent Daniel' Evangelista. Bengzon, Padillo., Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, llarrern, (;utie1..,·ez Du vid, Paredes, aml Dizon, JJ., concurred. x Concordia Cagalaw•rn, Plaintijf-oppellant, i•s. Custom8 Canti>en. el n/., Dcfe71dwnttJ-a7>pellee8, G N. No /,-/f;Ofll , October .':/, 191;1, P,ircde1J, :.J. 1 COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS; JURISDICTION; WHEN IT HAS NO J URISDIC"fION OVER MONF:Y CLAIMS.- Under th<! law and jurisprudence the Court d Ind:1strial Relations' j urisdiction extends only le. cases in•1oh·ing (a) labor dispute3 affecting an industry which is incfo- · pcnsable to thf' n:itional· interest nmt is so certified by the Prei:ident to the Court (Sec. 10, Rep . . <\ct No. 87C); (b) controversy .'.lbout the minimum wage, under the Minimum W-:>.!"'e Law, Rep. Act No. 602; (c) hours of employment, under the Eight-Hour Labor Law, Comm. Act No. 444 and (d) unfai!· labor practice (Se<.'. 5 [a), Rep. Act No. 875). And such c.lisputes, to fall under the jurisdiction of the CIR, must ar i"W while the employer-employee rel'ationship betw(>en the parties nxists or the employee seeks reinstatement. When such relation· ship is over and the employee doc!' not seek reinstatement, R!l claims become money claims that fall un<lei- the jurisdiction of the regular courts (Sy H uan vs. ,Judge Bautista, et al., G.R. No. L-16115, Aug. 29, 1961; and cases cited t herein). 2. ID.; ID.; WHE N IT HAS NO POWER TO GRANT REM?<-;DY UNDER ITS POWER OF l\IEDIAT ION AND CONCILIA T ION.- In th'-' absencf"! of unfair lRbor practice. the CIR ha'! no power to grant reme..ly under its genera! p(lwers cf ma<!i~ tion and conciliatir:n, such as 1 ·einstatemcnt or back wages. 3. ID. ; ID.; NO JURISDICT ION ON VIOLATION OF SEPARATION PAY LAW ; OHDINARY COURT, JURISDICTION Of<~.- A violation of the law on separation pay (Rep. Act No. \OU2, as amended by Rep. Act No. 1787), involvt>s, at most. :i breach of an obligation of the employer to his employ&> or vice versa, to be prose;::uted like an ordina!·y contract or ohligati(ln - a breach of a pl'ivatc l'h~ht which may be redres..-e•l oy a r<'cr,111·se to the ordinary <'our!. DEC I S I ON · On December 2-i, 1957, Concordia Cagalawan, filed a claim againsl the Manager, Customs Canteen (Ral"fl<>lla Pastorat). befor<' the Reg<onal Office No. S, Department of Labor, Davao City for November 30, 1961 LAWYERS ~JOURNAL Page ::!'3
Date: 1961
Rights