G.R. No. L-20843; June 23, 1965
THE EDWARD J. NELL COMPANY, petitioner, vs. RICARDO CUBACUB and THE COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, respondents.

FACTS

Respondent Ricardo Cubacub, a former employee of petitioner The Edward J. Nell Company, filed a petition in the Court of Industrial Relations (CIR) on September 5, 1962 (Case No. 1740-V), seeking reinstatement, back wages, and attorney’s fees. Cubacub alleged that in October 1955, while earning P4.50 a day, the company refused to let him work due to a pending homicide case against him, which was unrelated to his employment. He claimed the company promised to reinstate him once the criminal case was settled. Cubacub was convicted in 1958, served imprisonment until April 1962, and was released on parole. Upon reporting for work, he was denied reinstatement due to lack of vacancy. The petitioner moved to dismiss the case on grounds of lack of jurisdiction, prescription, and failure to state a cause of action. The CIR, through Judge Arsenio J. Martinez, deferred resolution of the motion until trial, citing questions of law and fact. The petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied by the CIR en banc on January 5, 1963, prompting this petition for certiorari and prohibition to annul the CIR’s orders and enjoin further proceedings.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Industrial Relations had jurisdiction over Cubacub’s claim for reinstatement and back wages, and if it lacked jurisdiction, whether it committed grave abuse of discretion in deferring consideration of the motion to dismiss.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the writ, holding that the CIR had no jurisdiction over the case. Jurisdiction is determined by the allegations in the complaint, which must show: (a) an employer-employee relationship or a claim for reinstatement, and (b) that the controversy involves a case certified by the President as one of national interest, relates to an unfair labor practice charge, or arises under the Eight-Hour Labor Law or Minimum Wage Law. While Cubacub sought reinstatement, his claim did not satisfy any of the other required circumstances. The Court analogized the case to San Miguel Brewery, Inc. vs. Floresca and CIR, where a mere prayer for reinstatement and back salaries, without the additional jurisdictional elements, was insufficient. The Court further noted that Cubacub’s action was essentially for specific performance of an alleged promise to reemploy after his criminal case, a matter cognizable by ordinary courts, not the CIR. The CIR’s deferment of the motion to dismiss constituted grave abuse of discretion, as lack of jurisdiction was clear from the petition’s allegations, rendering further proceedings a nullity. The CIR was ordered to desist from taking cognizance of the case. No costs were awarded.