G.R. No. L-23345 November 27, 1968
DIONISIO ABENAZA, GAUDENCIO CARDONA, QUINTIN BRIONES, ALFREDO COMPRA and LUCIO COMPRA, petitioners, vs. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS, POMPOSA VDA. DE NATOR and ALFREDO TALON, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners filed an action in the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Cebu against respondents to recover underpayment, overtime pay, separation pay, moral damages, and attorney’s fees for services rendered at “La Suerte Hotel.” The CFI rendered judgment in favor of petitioners. Respondents appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA- G.R. No. 16861 -R). During the pendency of the appeal, the stenographic notes were lost in a fire, prompting the CA to remand the case to the CFI for retrial. Instead of retrying the case, the CFI dismissed it, declaring itself without jurisdiction, reasoning that claims involving the Minimum Wage Law fell under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of Industrial Relations (CIR). Petitioners’ subsequent petition for mandamus and prohibition (G.R. L-14368) to compel retrial was dismissed by the Supreme Court, which held that appeal was the proper remedy. Petitioners then filed a claim with the CIR. The CIR ruled in favor of petitioners. Respondents appealed this CIR decision to the Supreme Court (G.R. L-16671), raising issues of prescription and bar by prior judgment. In its decision of March 30, 1962, the Supreme Court ruled against respondents on these issues but held that, based on prevailing jurisprudence, the CIR had no jurisdiction over the money claims as the employer-employee relationship had ended and no reinstatement was sought; thus, jurisdiction properly belonged to the CFI. The Supreme Court directed the CFI of Cebu to conduct the hearing as previously ordered by the CA for retaking the lost testimonies and then forward the record to the CA for decision. Subsequently, the CA issued a resolution on February 24, 1964, denying a motion by petitioners to resume consideration of the appeal, stating that CA- G.R. No. 16861 -R had been dismissed by the CA in a resolution dated January 26, 1960. The record shows that after the Supreme Court’s 1962 decision, the CFI did retake the testimonies and elevated the record to the CA, but the CA’s Clerk returned it, citing the 1960 dismissal.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of First Instance of Cebu erred in dismissing Civil Case No. R-3238 (CA- G.R. No. 16861 -R) remanded to it for retrial, and whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the aforesaid appealed case.

RULING

Yes, both courts erred. The CFI of Cebu had no authority or discretion to dismiss the case remanded to it expressly for retrial to reconstitute lost testimonies, as per the CA’s 1958 resolution and the Supreme Court’s 1962 decision in G.R. L-16671. Its only duty was to retake the testimony and forward the record to the CA. Similarly, the CA erred in dismissing CA- G.R. No. 16861 -R, as it should have ordered the CFI to proceed with the retrial. Both dismissal orders are void and of no legal effect. The Supreme Court set aside the CA’s resolutions and ordered the CA to reinstate CA- G.R. No. 16861 -R and, after proper proceedings, render judgment therein. Costs were imposed on private respondents.