G.R. No. L-14738; July 31, 1961
PAMPANGA SUGAR DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, INC., petitioner, vs. F.A. FUENTES, MARCOS PLOMANTES, Administrator and Hearing Officer, respectively of Regional Office No. 3, PABLO ABILLANOZA, ET AL., respondents.

FACTS

On August 8, 1958, respondents Pablo Abillanoza and other employees of the Pampanga Sugar Development Company, Inc. filed a complaint with Regional Office No. 3 of the Department of Labor. They sought to collect alleged unpaid wages for work rendered on Sundays and legal holidays, plus interest and attorney’s fees. The petitioner company, instead of filing an answer, moved to dismiss the complaint on September 4, 1958. It argued the complaint stated no cause of action, the claim was barred by prior judgment and the statute of limitations, and, crucially, that Reorganization Plan No. 20-A (which created the regional offices and granted them jurisdiction over such money claims) was unconstitutional and invalid.
The Hearing Officer, respondent Marcos Plomantes, denied the motion to dismiss on September 16, 1958. The petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, contending that claims under Commonwealth Act No. 444 (the Eight-Hour Labor Law) fell under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of Industrial Relations. This motion, and a subsequent second motion for reconsideration, were both denied by the Hearing Officer in orders dated October 24 and November 18, 1958. The November 18 order directed the company to file its answer. The petitioner then filed this original action for certiorari and prohibition with this Court, seeking to annul the proceedings and enjoin the respondents, arguing the unconstitutionality of Reorganization Plan No. 20-A and the lack of an adequate appellate remedy.

ISSUE

Whether Regional Office No. 3 of the Department of Labor validly exercised original and exclusive jurisdiction over the employees’ money claim for unpaid holiday wages, pursuant to Reorganization Plan No. 20-A.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the petition, set aside the orders of the Hearing Officer, and made the preliminary injunction permanent. The Court ruled that Regional Office No. 3 had no jurisdiction over the subject matter. The legal logic is anchored on the Court’s recent en banc decisions, particularly Equitable Banking Corporation vs. Regional Office 3, et al. (G.R. No. L-14442, June 30, 1961), and other consolidated cases cited therein. In those cases, the Court had definitively held that the grant of original and exclusive jurisdiction to the regional offices over money claims of laborers, including claims for unpaid wages for Sundays and legal holidays, was not authorized by Republic Act No. 997 , the law which created the Reorganization Commission.
The legislature, through Republic Act No. 997 , did not intend to empower the Reorganization Commission to deprive the regular courts of their existing jurisdiction over such money claims and transfer that jurisdiction to administrative regional offices. Since Reorganization Plan No. 20-A, specifically its Section 25, attempted to effect such an unauthorized transfer of judicial power, it was invalid. Consequently, Regional Office No. 3 acted without jurisdiction in taking cognizance of and proceeding with the complaint filed by the employees. The proper remedy for the employees was to file their action in the court of competent jurisdiction.