GR L 17202; (April, 1961) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-17202. April 29, 1961. BENGUET CONSOLIDATED, INC., petitioner, vs. COTO LABOR UNION (NLU) ET AL., respondents.
FACTS:
A labor dispute between Benguet Consolidated, Inc. and the Coto Labor Union was certified by the Secretary of Labor to the Court of Industrial Relations (CIR) and docketed as Case No. 1029-V. Petitioner moved to dismiss, arguing that under Section 16(c) of the Minimum Wage Law ( Republic Act No. 602 ), a case certified due to an actual strike must be heard by the CIR en banc, not by a single judge. This motion was denied. The Supreme Court, in a prior related case (G.R. No. L-12394), ruled that such cases indeed require a decision by the court en banc, but found the issue moot as the single judge’s decision had already been affirmed by the full court.
Subsequently, the trial judge set the case for hearing. Petitioner moved for postponement, arguing first that formal pleadings were necessary to join the issues, and later, reiterating that the hearing must be conducted by the court en banc, not a single judge. The trial judge denied both motions, stating he would receive evidence only as a representative of the court en banc. Petitioner then filed this petition.
ISSUE
Whether a labor case certified by the Secretary of Labor under Section 16(c) of Republic Act No. 602 must be heard (i.e., the evidence received) by the Court of Industrial Relations en banc, or whether a single judge may validly conduct the trial.
RULING
The petition is denied. The Supreme Court held that while Section 16(c) of the Minimum Wage Law mandates that the final decision in such certified cases must be rendered by the CIR en banc, it does not require that all judges sit to receive the evidence. The legal logic is grounded in practicality and statutory interpretation. Requiring all judges to attend the trial would be cumbersome, inefficient, and would disrupt the handling of other pending cases before the individual judges. The law’s intent is satisfied by allowing one judge to act as a trial commissioner to receive evidence and then submit a report to the full court for its en banc deliberation and decision. This procedure ensures compliance with the law without sacrificing expeditious proceedings.
Regarding the need for formal complaints and answers, the Court ruled this unnecessary. The certification by the Secretary of Labor already specifies the issues for resolution. The paramount objective is to proceed to hearing promptly to allow a decision within the legally prescribed period. Thus, the trial judge’s act of receiving evidence was proper, and his orders were affirmed.