G.R. No. L-16025. March 27, 1961.
FOOKIEN TIMES COMPANY, INC. and GO PUAN SENG, petitioners, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS and FLORA CRUZ GALLERO, respondents.

FACTS

Respondent Flora Cruz Gallero filed a complaint in the Court of Industrial Relations (CIR) against the Fookien Times Company, Inc. and Go Puan Seng. She sought various monetary claims, including overtime pay for services rendered from 1952 to 1957, maternity pay for three specific instances, separation pay, and sick and vacation leave pay. Gallero alleged she was employed on July 9, 1952, and was dismissed on September 5, 1958, filing her complaint on November 13, 1958.
The petitioners moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction. The CIR, in an order dated August 4, 1959, dismissed the claims for sick leave, vacation leave, and maternity pay. However, it required the petitioners to answer the claims for separation pay and overtime compensation. The petitioners then filed this petition for prohibition and certiorari, seeking to enjoin the CIR from proceeding with these remaining claims, asserting it lacked jurisdiction over them.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Industrial Relations had jurisdiction to take cognizance of Gallero’s claims for separation pay and overtime compensation.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled that the CIR had no jurisdiction over the claims for separation pay and overtime compensation. The legal logic is anchored on the nature of the claims and the jurisdictional limits of the CIR as established in prior jurisprudence. The complaint contained no allegation of unfair labor practice or a demand for reinstatement. Furthermore, there was no claim that Gallero was a member of a labor organization that had secured contractual rights concerning her claims against the petitioners.
Consequently, her claims for separation pay and overtime compensation were deemed ordinary money claims. The Court, citing a line of controlling precedents including Mindanao Bus Employees Labor Union v. The Mindanao Bus Company, Aguilar v. Salumbides, and Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila v. Yanson, held that such ordinary money claims fall within the jurisdiction of regular courts of justice, not the CIR. The CIR’s jurisdiction at the time was limited to specific labor disputes, such as those involving unfair labor practices, cases certified by the President as involving national interest, or disputes where the employer-employee relationship was still extant or sought to be reestablished. Since Gallero’s claims were purely monetary and did not fall under these categories, the CIR acted without jurisdiction. The writ of prohibition was granted, and the CIR was enjoined from further hearing the claims.