G.R. No. L-18584 January 30, 1967
LO CHI and FELIX TINDUGAN, petitioners-appellants, vs. HONORATO J. DE LEON, DOROTEO L. SERRANO, THE SHERIFF OF QUEZON CITY and TERESITA TUD TORRENTE, respondents-appellees.

FACTS

A claim for compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act (Act 3428, as amended) was filed by Teresita Tud Torrente for the death of her husband, who died while performing his duties as a mechanic-driver for Lo Chi and Felix Tindugan. The claim was filed with Regional Office IV (now VI) of the Department of Labor in Naga City. After the petitioners’ motion to dismiss was denied, Hearing Officer Doroteo L. Serrano rendered a decision on July 12, 1960, ordering the petitioners to pay Torrente P4,200 as compensation. The petitioners received the decision on August 1, 1960. They filed a motion for new hearing on August 10, which was denied in an order dated September 6, received by petitioners on September 13. On September 14, they sent a notice of appeal to the Labor Standards Commission in Manila, furnishing a copy to the Regional Office in Naga. Torrente moved for execution, arguing the appeal was filed out of time and failed to state grounds. Regional Administrator Honorato J. de Leon issued a writ of execution on December 2, 1960, which the Quezon City sheriff proceeded to enforce. To forestall execution, the petitioners filed a special civil action for certiorari with preliminary injunction in the Court of First Instance of Rizal (Quezon City Branch). The respondents moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. Respondent Judge Nicasio Yatco dismissed the petition, prompting this appeal.

ISSUE

1. Whether the decision rendered by Hearing Officer Doroteo L. Serrano had become final and enforceable.
2. Whether respondent Honorato J. de Leon, as Regional Administrator, had legal authority to issue the writ of execution to enforce Serrano’s decision.

RULING

1. Yes, the decision had become final and executory. Although the petitioners filed their notice of appeal within the 15-day reglementary period, they appealed to the Labor Standards Commission, which lacks appellate jurisdiction over workmen’s compensation claims. Under Rule 23 of the Rules of the Workmen’s Compensation Commission (WCC) and Section 46 of Republic Act 722, the WCC has exclusive appellate jurisdiction over such decisions. Perfecting an appeal in the manner and within the period prescribed by law is mandatory and jurisdictional. Since the appeal was filed with the wrong body, it was ineffi cacious, rendering the Regional Office’s decision final and executory when the writ of execution was issued on December 2, 1960.
2. No, the respondent de Leon had no legal authority to issue the writ of execution. The writ was issued on December 2, 1960, before the effectivity of Republic Act 4119 (enacted June 20, 1964), which amended Section 51 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act to vest authority in the WCC and duly deputized regional officials to issue writs of execution. Prior to this amendment, pursuant to Pastoral vs. WCC, et al., and other decisions, the grant of such power to Regional Administrators and the WCC under Reorganization Plan 20-A was invalid, as it constituted an unauthorized transfer of judicial powers from the courts. Therefore, the writ of execution issued by de Leon was null and void. However, the nullity of the writ does not affect the validity of the final and executory award, which must still be enforced through proper channels.
The Court also held that the CFI of Rizal correctly dismissed the petition for certiorari, as it lacked jurisdiction over the persons of respondents Serrano and de Leon, who were in Naga City, and the acts sought to be restrained were theirs. Under the Rules of Court, such a petition must be filed in a court of first instance having jurisdiction over the respondents.
The order of dismissal was affirmed. The records were remanded to the Regional Office in Naga City for proper execution of the award in accordance with law. Costs were assessed against the petitioners.