GR L 64694; (November, 1984) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-64694 November 21, 1984
Eugenio Sagmit, Regional Director, Ministry of Labor and Employment, Regional Office No. V, Legazpi City, petitioner, vs. Hon. Vicente P. Sibulo, Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Legazpi City, Fifth Judicial Region; and Isabelo Asaytuno, owner and operator of St. Gregory Repair Shop, respondents.
FACTS
Three employees of private respondent Isabelo Asaytuno filed complaints for unpaid wages with the Regional Office of the Ministry of Labor and Employment (MOLE). The parties reached an amicable settlement during conciliation, but Asaytuno defaulted after one installment. Consequently, the employees filed a complaint for the balance. Petitioner, Regional Director Eugenio Sagmit, issued an order directing Asaytuno to pay the amount due.
Instead of complying, Asaytuno filed a petition for prohibition (Civil Case No. 6801) with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) to enjoin the enforcement of the MOLE order. He argued that Batas Pambansa Blg. 130 and Presidential Decree No. 1691 had divested the Regional Director of quasi-judicial functions. The RTC, presided by respondent Judge Vicente Sibulo, denied Sagmit’s motion to dismiss and issued a writ of preliminary injunction against the enforcement of the MOLE order. This prompted Sagmit to file the instant petition.
ISSUE
Whether the Regional Trial Court has jurisdiction to take cognizance of a petition to enjoin the enforcement of a Regional Director’s order arising from a money claim of employees.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court granted the petition, set aside the RTC orders, and directed the dismissal of Civil Case No. 6801. The legal logic is anchored on the exclusive jurisdiction over money claims vested in the labor arbiters and the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) by P.D. No. 1691. The Court, citing Getz Corporation Philippines, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, reiterated that all money claims of workers arising from employer-employee relations fall under this exclusive jurisdiction.
While B.P. Blg. 130 repealed Article 228 of the Labor Code, which empowered Regional Directors to endorse cases to labor arbiters, it did not strip them of their conciliation powers under Article 227. The compromise agreement reached in the conciliation conference before the Regional Office was final and binding. The RTC therefore improperly assumed jurisdiction over a matter expressly within the exclusive domain of the labor relations system. The RTC’s intervention was a clear encroachment on this specialized jurisdiction.