GR L 15476; (September,1961) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-15476; September 19, 1961
LA MALLORCA and PAMPANGA BUS COMPANY, INC., petitioners-appellees, vs. NICANOR RAMOS, ET AL., respondents; F. A. FUENTES and MARCOS PLOMANTES, respondents-appellants.
FACTS
Respondent Nicanor Ramos, a bus driver for petitioners La Mallorca and Pampanga Bus Company, filed a claim for disability compensation due to tuberculosis with Regional Office No. 3 of the Department of Labor. He alleged his illness was caused or aggravated by his employment. After a hearing, the regional office rendered a decision ordering the petitioners to pay Ramos the sum of P1,862.00 as compensation. The petitioners then filed an action for prohibition with preliminary injunction in the Court of First Instance of Manila, seeking to restrain the enforcement of this decision.
The petitioners contended that the regional office was entirely without jurisdiction to hear and decide the claim, rendering its decision null and void. The parties submitted the case for judgment on the pleadings. The trial court ruled in favor of the petitioners, vacating the regional office’s decision and granting the writ of prohibition on the sole ground of lack of jurisdiction. The respondents, represented by the Solicitor General, appealed this judgment directly to the Supreme Court.
ISSUE
Whether Regional Office No. 3 of the Department of Labor had jurisdiction to hear and decide a claim for disability compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s judgment and dismissed the petition for prohibition. The legal logic proceeds from a distinction established in prior jurisprudence regarding the validity of Reorganization Plan No. 20-A. The Court had previously declared null and void those provisions of the Plan that conferred judicial power upon regional offices to adjudicate ordinary money claims of laborers, as such a grant exceeded the authority of Republic Act No. 997 .
However, the Court distinguished claims arising under the Workmen’s Compensation Act ( Act No. 3428 , as amended). The jurisdiction over such compensation claims was originally vested in the Workmen’s Compensation Commission. The Court ruled that Reorganization Plan No. 20-A validly empowered the regional offices to act as referees or hearing officers for these specific claims, a function the Commission itself was authorized to delegate under Section 48 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act. Since the claim of Ramos was explicitly for disability due to tuberculosis allegedly arising from employment, it fell squarely under Section 2 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act.
Therefore, the regional office had proper jurisdiction to hear and decide this particular claim. Its decision was valid and binding. The trial court erred in issuing the writ of prohibition, as there was no jurisdictional defect. The Supreme Court emphasized that enforcement of the decision would presumably follow the procedure outlined in the Workmen’s Compensation Act, not an unauthorized direct action by the regional office.