GR L 11924; (May, 1958) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-11924; May 16, 1958
ISIDORO CEBRERO, petitioner-appellant, vs. JOSE TALAMAN, respondent-appellee.
FACTS
The appellant, Isidoro Cebrero, filed a claim with the Wage Administration Service (WAS) against the appellee, Jose Talaman, for underpayment, overtime pay, holiday pay, and separation pay. A conference was held before a WAS regional investigator, but no amicable settlement was reached, and the parties did not agree to submit the case to arbitration. Despite the lack of an arbitration agreement, the investigator proceeded to hear evidence from the claimant and question the unrepresented respondent, after which he rendered a “judgment” ordering the respondent to pay P2,240.94. The respondent, through counsel, filed a motion for reconsideration and new trial, which was denied, though the case was later reassigned for re-investigation. The new investigator desisted upon learning the matter was with the City Fiscal for criminal action. Appellant, believing the WAS “judgment” was final for lack of an appeal, petitioned the Court of First Instance of Manila for a writ of execution. The court dismissed the petition without prejudice, holding the judgment was improper as it was rendered without an arbitration agreement.
ISSUE
Whether the “judgment” rendered by the WAS regional investigator, without an amicable settlement or an agreement to arbitrate, is a final and executory judgment that can be enforced through a writ of execution.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the lower court dismissing the petition for execution. The Court held that under the Code of Rules and Regulations implementing Republic Act No. 602 (Minimum Wage Law), the WAS investigator’s authority is limited. Where mediation fails and the parties are not willing to arbitrate, the claim must be assigned to a claims attorney to investigate its merit and, if found meritorious, to prepare a complaint for court action. The investigator’s so-called “judgment,” rendered without an arbitration agreement, was not a valid, final judgment capable of execution. It was merely a finding that the claim was meritorious, warranting the filing of a court action. The Court cited its prior resolutions in Nestle vs. Secretary of Labor and Elizalde and Co., Inc. vs. Arnado, which held that without an arbitration agreement, the proper recourse is to file an action in the competent Court of First Instance. The appeal was dismissed, with costs against the appellant.