G.R. No. L-13945; July 31, 1961
MERCY A. DE VERA, doing business under the name and style of M. C. BOOK STORE, petitioner-appellee, vs. FLORDELIZA PALOMA SUPITRAN, CECILIA C. PURAY, F. A. FUENTES AND GERONIMO CORDERO, respondents-appellants.

FACTS

Petitioner Mercy A. de Vera, owner of M.C. Book Store, filed a petition for prohibition with preliminary injunction in the Court of First Instance of Manila. She sought to restrain the Regional Office No. 3 of the Department of Labor from hearing and deciding the money claims filed against her by her former employees, respondents Flordeliza Paloma Supitran and Cecilia C. Puray. The claims involved overtime pay, wage differentials, maternity leave benefits, and separation pay under various labor laws. The petitioner asserted that the regional office, through respondents Administrator F.A. Fuentes and Hearing Officer Geronimo Cordero, had arrogated unto itself judicial functions not conferred by law, as it was conducting hearings, receiving evidence, and intended to render a judgment enforceable by execution.
The parties submitted a stipulation of facts, agreeing that the regional office was proceeding based on the authority it believed was granted by Reorganization Plan No. 20-A and related executive orders issued under Republic Act No. 997, as amended. The petitioner consistently contested this authority. The trial court ruled in favor of the petitioner, declaring Reorganization Plan No. 20-A not validly approved by Congress and, consequently, that the regional office lacked judicial authority to adjudicate the money claims. The respondent officers appealed this decision to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether Regional Office No. 3 of the Department of Labor, under Reorganization Plan No. 20-A, validly possessed original and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and determine the employees’ money claims.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s judgment, ruling that the regional office had no jurisdiction over the money claims. The legal logic is anchored on the principle of statutory authority and the separation of powers. Reorganization Plan No. 20-A was promulgated by the Government Survey and Reorganization Commission pursuant to Republic Act No. 997. The Court, referencing its recent consolidated rulings in cases such as Corominas vs. Labor Standards Commission, held that the provision in said Plan—particularly Section 25, which granted regional offices original and exclusive jurisdiction over money claims of laborers—was null and void. The grant of such adjudicatory power, which is inherently judicial in nature, was made without proper legislative authority. Republic Act No. 997, which authorized the reorganization plan, did not validly delegate to the Commission the power to confer quasi-judicial functions upon administrative offices. Consequently, the regional office’s assumption of jurisdiction to hear, receive evidence, and render enforceable decisions on the claims was invalid for lack of a constitutional and statutory basis. The writ of prohibition was correctly issued to restrain the respondents from proceeding with the cases.