G.R. No. L-33089. July 31, 1978.
STA. CLARA LUMBER CO., INC., petitioner, vs. HON. JUDGE ARSENIO MARTINEZ, CHIEF COURT PROSECUTOR and ARNALDO DE MESA, et al., respondents.

FACTS

Private respondents, members and officers of the Sta. Clara Employees’ Union, filed an unfair labor practice complaint against petitioner Sta. Clara Lumber Co., Inc., with the Court of Industrial Relations (CIR). The CIR Prosecutor, after preliminary investigation, moved to dismiss the charge on grounds of lack of jurisdiction and failure to establish a prima facie case. Respondent Judge Arsenio Martinez denied the motion and directed the filing of a formal complaint. Petitioner moved for reconsideration, which the judge denied in an order dated May 12, 1970.
Petitioner then filed another motion for reconsideration, arguing that the denial of such a motion by a single presiding judge, instead of by the CIR sitting en banc, violated Section 1 of Commonwealth Act No. 103 , as amended, and established jurisprudence. Petitioner contended that an en banc ruling was a prerequisite for appeal. Respondent Judge denied this motion on January 11, 1971, holding that preliminary investigations under Republic Act No. 875 were administrative in nature and thus under the direct control of the Presiding Judge as administrative head, making en banc review unnecessary.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent judge acted without or in excess of jurisdiction by resolving the motions for reconsideration of the order denying the motion to dismiss the unfair labor practice charge without submitting them to the CIR en banc.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition, annulling the questioned orders. The Court held that the preliminary investigation of unfair labor practice charges under Republic Act No. 875 is judicial, not administrative, in nature. This was settled in previous jurisprudence, as referenced in the Court’s resolution of February 11, 1971, which had already enjoined further proceedings in the case based on this principle.
Consequently, pursuant to Section 1 of Commonwealth Act No. 103 , as amended, any party aggrieved by a ruling or decision of any CIR judge is entitled to seek its reconsideration by the CIR sitting en banc. The law explicitly requires that “the Judges shall sit together, and the concurrence of at least three of the five judges shall be necessary for the pronouncement of a decision, order, or award” upon a request for reconsideration. By resolving the motions himself, respondent Judge Martinez acted without legal authority. The orders dated May 12, 1970, and January 11, 1971, were therefore invalid and of no legal effect. The case was remanded to the National Labor Relations Commission for further proceedings in accordance with the governing rules.