Case Summary (G.R. No. L-17202)

Jurisdiction of the Court of Industrial Relations

• The Court of Industrial Relations (CIR) is mandated to act en banc when a case is certified by the Secretary of Labor, as stipulated in Section 16(c) of Republic Act 602.
• However, this requirement does not necessitate that all judges of the CIR must be present for the reception of evidence.
• A literal interpretation of the law, which would require all judges to participate in trials, would be impractical and could hinder the court's ability to manage other pending cases.
• The law's intent is to ensure efficient handling of cases while allowing for a single judge to receive evidence and report to the court en banc for deliberation.

Necessity of Formal Complaint and Answer

• When a case is certified by the Secretary of Labor, the specific points for consideration are outlined in the certification.
• This specification renders the filing of a formal complaint and answer unnecessary prior to trial.
• The primary objective is to expedite the hearing process to ensure timely resolution of the case, adhering to legal timeframes.

Background of the Dispute

• The dispute arose in 1956 between Benguet Consolidated, Inc. and Coto Labor Union regarding certain demands made by the union.
• Following unsuccessful attempts at amicable settlement by the Secretary of Labor, the case was certified to the CIR and assigned to Judge Jose S. Bautista.
• The petitioner filed a motion to dismiss, claiming lack of jurisdiction, arguing that the case should be heard en banc rather than by a single judge.

Court's Rulings and Proceedings

• The motion to dismiss was denied, and the petitioner’s subsequent appeal to the court en banc was also denied.
• The Supreme Court previously ruled that disputes involving minimum wage demands and actual strikes should be acted upon by the CIR en banc, but the decision of Judge Bautista was ultimately affirmed.
• The trial was scheduled for July 29, 1960, but the petitioner sought postponement due to the absence of formal pleadings, asserting that these were necessary for proper issue joining.

Trial and Evidence Reception

• The respondent judge denied the motions for postponement and proceeded with the trial, indicating that he would receive evidence as a representative of the court en banc.
• The petitioner contested this approach, leading to the current petition questioning whether the case could be heard by a single judge or required en banc consideration.
• The Supreme Court reiterated that while the CIR must act en banc ...continue reading

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. L-17202)

Case Background

• The dispute originated in 1956 between Benguet Consolidated, Inc. (petitioner) and Coto Labor Union (NLU) (respondent) due to certain demands made by the labor union.
• Efforts to resolve the issue amicably through the Secretary of Labor were unsuccessful.
• Consequently, the Secretary of Labor certified the case to the Court of Industrial Relations, which became docketed as Case No. 1029-V.
• The presiding judge of the case was Hon. Jose S. Bautista.

Legal Proceedings

• The petitioner filed a motion to dismiss the case, arguing that the Court of Industrial Relations lacked jurisdiction because the case should be heard en banc as mandated by Section 16(c) of the Minimum Wage Law.
• The respondent judge denied the motion to dismiss.
• Following the denial, the petitioner appealed to the court en banc, but this appeal was also denied.

Supreme Court Involvement

• The petitioner elevated the issue to the Supreme Court, leading to a decision on May 29, 1959, in G.R. No. L-12394.
• The Supreme Court agreed that cases involving minimum wage disputes, when endorsed by the Secretary of Labor and involving an actual strike, should be handled by the court en banc.
• Despite this agreement, the Court noted that the trial judge's decision was affirmed by the court en banc, rendering the petitioner’s argument moot at that point.

Trial Preparations

• Upon receiving the Supr...continue reading