G.R. No. L-15904; November 23, 1960
ELIZALDE PAINT & OIL FACTORY, INC., petitioner, vs. HON. JOSE S. BAUTISTA, ET AL., respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Elizalde Paint & Oil Factory, Inc. employed Pedro Basaysay from May 30, 1949, to January 2, 1958. Pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement between the company and the Elizalde Paint & Oil Factory, Labor Union (of which Basaysay was a member) providing for gratuity to deserving retiring laborers, the company tendered Basaysay a check for P1,051.90 as full payment for his services, requiring him to sign a release and quitclaim. Believing he was entitled to more, Basaysay refused the check and the quitclaim. Instead, he and the union filed an action before the Court of Industrial Relations (CIR) on June 20, 1959, praying that the company be ordered to pay him P1,101.80 as retirement pay, plus moral damages and attorney’s fees. The company filed an answer and later a motion to dismiss the case, alleging the CIR lacked jurisdiction. Judge Bautista issued an order deferring resolution on the motion to dismiss until after evidence was submitted. The company’s motion for reconsideration was denied by the CIR en banc on August 14, 1959, stating the order was interlocutory. The petitioner then filed this petition for certiorari and prohibition.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Industrial Relations has jurisdiction to take cognizance of a case involving the recovery of retirement pay under a collective bargaining agreement after the employer-employee relationship has ceased and where reinstatement is not sought.

RULING

No, the Court of Industrial Relations does not have jurisdiction. The Supreme Court ruled that:
1. The case involves merely the recovery of a money claim for retirement pay after the employer-employee relationship between the company and Basaysay had ceased (due to his separation on January 2, 1958) and he was not seeking reinstatement. Such a claim is cognizable by the regular courts.
2. While the industrial court has jurisdiction to enforce collective bargaining contracts, that ruling applies only if the subject matter involves a labor dispute affecting an industry certified by the President, or pertains to minimum wage, hours of employment, or unfair labor practice. The issue here—retirement pay—does not fall under any of these matters.
3. Although the order denying the motion to dismiss was interlocutory, the petition was given due course because it would be futile to proceed if the court below lacked jurisdiction. A higher court is justified in issuing certiorari and prohibition when it is clear the trial court lacks jurisdiction, as further proceedings would be a nullity and a waste of time.
The petition was granted. The order appealed from was reversed, and the preliminary injunction issued by the Supreme Court was declared permanent.