GR L 6018; (May, 1954) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-6018 May 31, 1954
Emiliano Morabe, Acting Chief, Wage Administration Service, petitioner-appellant, vs. William Brown, doing business under the name and style of Clover Theater, respondent-appellee.
FACTS
The petitioner, the Acting Chief of the Wage Administration Service, filed a petition in the Court of First Instance of Manila seeking the reinstatement of Pablo S. Afuang by his employer, respondent William Brown. The petition alleged that Afuang was dismissed because he was one of the complainants in an investigation conducted by the petitioner against the respondent for alleged violations of Republic Act No. 602 (the Minimum Wage Law) concerning late payment of wages. The petitioner contended this dismissal violated Section 13 of the Act. The court initially issued a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction for Afuang’s reinstatement. After a hearing, the lower court found that Afuang’s dismissal for testifying at the investigation was unlawful and violated Section 13. However, it refused to order reinstatement, holding that the remedy of injunction is preventive and not available for a past act (the dismissal already having occurred), and that the proper remedy was prosecution for violation of the law. The court thus dismissed the action and dissolved the preliminary injunction. The petitioner appealed this denial of reinstatement.
ISSUE
Whether the lower court erred in denying the petition to order the respondent to reinstate Pablo S. Afuang to his employment.
RULING
Yes, the lower court erred. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment. The Court held that the action was not one for injunction but for mandamus, as it sought to compel the performance of a legal duty—the reinstatement of an employee unlawfully dismissed. Section 13 of Republic Act No. 602 makes it unlawful to discharge an employee for filing a complaint or participating in a proceeding under the Act. Since Afuang’s dismissal was illegal, he was entitled to be reinstated. The Court cited precedent (Manila Electric Co. vs. Del Rosario) distinguishing mandamus from injunction. It further reasoned that denying reinstatement would leave the employee without an effective remedy to return to his job. The Court noted that the remedy of reinstatement has been granted in similar cases by the Court of Industrial Relations and in United States jurisprudence interpreting analogous wage-hour legislation. The respondent was ordered to reinstate Pablo S. Afuang to his former position.