GR L 13412; (May, 1960) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-13412; May 30, 1960
DESTILLERIA LIM TUACO & COMPANY, INC., petitioner, vs. HON. GUSTAVO VICTORIANO, ETC., ET AL., respondents.
FACTS
On March 23, 1956, respondent Engracio Verian filed a claim with the Wage Administration Service (WAS) against petitioner Destilleria Lim Tuaco & Company, Inc., seeking overtime compensation, vacation, and severance pay. A regional investigator conducted an investigation and, on June 28, 1956, rendered “findings and recommendations,” holding the petitioner liable to pay Verian P5,780.38. The petitioner filed a “motion to review,” arguing that the overtime claim had prescribed and that severance pay was not due under Republic Act No. 1052 , which took effect after Verian’s alleged dismissal. On August 6, 1956, the regional attorney issued a resolution dismissing the severance pay claim but upheld the liability for overtime compensation. The petitioner then filed a petition for rehearing. While this petition was pending, Verian filed a motion for execution in the Court of First Instance of Rizal to enforce the WAS “decision,” which he claimed had become final. The respondent judge granted the motion and issued a writ of execution on December 12, 1957. The petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting the filing of this certiorari petition with a prayer for preliminary injunction.
ISSUE
Whether the “findings and recommendations” of the Wage Administration Service constitute a final and executory judgment that can be enforced by a writ of execution without a court trial on the merits.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court granted the petition and made the preliminary injunction permanent. The Court reiterated that the WAS has no authority to render a binding “decision” on wage claims except in two specific modes: (1) mediation, where an amicable settlement becomes binding; or (2) arbitration, where the parties submit a written agreement to arbitrate before the investigator, making the arbitrator’s decision final and conclusive. If neither mediation nor arbitration occurs, the WAS may only determine if a claim is meritorious as a prerequisite to filing an ordinary court action. In this case, there was no written arbitration agreement signed by the parties. The investigator’s “findings and recommendations” were not a judgment but merely an opinion that the claim was meritorious, justifying the filing of a complaint in court. Consequently, the WAS “decision” was not binding on the petitioner and could not be enforced by a writ of execution without a trial and decision on the merits by a competent court. The case of Brillantes v. Castro cited by the respondent was distinguished, as it involved an express arbitration agreement. The order granting execution was therefore annulled.