Miller v Mardo 2 SCRA 398 BILL MILLER, petitioner-appellee, ATANACIO A.

MARDO, and MANUEL GONZALES, respondents-appellants FACTS: T ese appeals, alt o!" ori"inatin" #ro$ di##erent Co!rts o# %irst Instan&e, are ere treated to"et er in t is sin"le de&ision 'e&a!se t e( present '!t one identi&al )!estion o# la*, na$el(, t e +alidit( o# Reor"ani,ation -lan No. ./-A, prepared and s!'$itted '( t e Go+ern$ent S!r+e( and Reor"ani,ation Co$$ission !nder t e a!t orit( o# Rep!'li& A&t No. 001, as a$ended '( Rep!'li& A&t No. 2.32, inso#ar as it &on#ers 4!risdi&tion to t e Re"ional O##i&es o# t e Depart$ent o# La'or &reated in said -lan to de&ide &lai$s o# la'orers #or *a"es, o+erti$e and separation pa(, et&. In G.R. No. L-15138, Man!el Gon,ales #iled *it Re"ional O##i&e No. 5 o# t e Depart$ent o# La'or, in Manila, a &o$plaint 6IS-22378 a"ainst Bill Miller 6o*ner and $ana"er o# Miller Motors8 &lai$in" to 'e a dri+er o# Miller #ro$ De&e$'er 2, 209: to O&to'er 52, 2091, on * i& latter date e *as alle"edl( ar'itraril( dis$issed, *it o!t 'ein" paid separation pa(. ;e pra(ed #or 4!d"e$ent #or t e a$o!nt d!e i$ as separation pa( pl!s da$a"es. Upon re&eipt o# said &o$plaint, C ie# ;earin" O##i&er Atana&io Mardo o# Re"ional O##i&e No. 5 o# t e Depart$ent o# La'or re)!ired Miller to #ile an ans*er. < ere!pon, Miller #iled *it t e Co!rt o# %irst Instan&e o# Ba"!io a petition 6Ci+il Case No. 1908 pra(in" #or 4!d"$ent pro i'itin" t e ;earin" O##i&er #ro$ pro&eedin" *it t e &ase, #or t e reason t at said ;earin" O##i&er ad no 4!risdi&tion to ear and de&ide t e s!'4e&t $atter o# t e &o$plaint. T e &o!rt t en re)!ired t e ;earin" O##i&er and Gon,ales to ans*er and, as pra(ed #or, iss!ed a *rit o# preli$inar( in4!n&tion. T e latter #ile t eir separate $otions to dis$iss t e petition, on t e "ro!nd o# la&= o# 4!risdi&tion, i$proper +en!e, and non-e> a!stion o# ad$inistrati+e re$edies, it 'ein" ar"!ed t at p!rs!ant to Rep!'li& A&ts Nos. 001 and 2.32, as i$ple$ented '( E>e&!ti+e Order No. .27, series o# 209: and Reor"ani,ation -lan No. ./-A, re"ional o##i&es o# t e Depart$ent o# la'or a+e e>&l!si+e and ori"inal 4!risdi&tion o+er all &ases a##e&tin" $one( &lai$s arisin" #ro$ +iolations o# la'or standards or *or=in" &onditions. Said $otions to dis$iss *ere denied '( t e &o!rt. Ans*ers *ere t en #iled and t e &ase *as eard. T erea#ter, t e &o!rt rendered a de&ision oldin" t at Rep!'li& A&ts Nos. 001 and 2.32, as *ell as E>e&!ti+e Order No. .27, series o# 209: and Reor"ani,ation -lan No. ./-A iss!ed p!rs!ant t ereto, did not repeal t e pro+ision o# t e ?!di&iar( A&t &on#errin" on &o!rts o# #irst instan&e ori"inal 4!risdi&tion to ta=e &o"ni,an&e o# $one( &lai$s arisin" #ro$ +iolations o# la'or standards. T e )!estion o# +en!e *as also dis$issed #or 'ein" $oot, t e sa$e a+in" 'een alread( raised and de&ided in a petition #or certiorari and pro i'ition pre+io!sl( #iled *it t is Co!rt in G.R. No. L-23//1 6Mardo, et&. +. De @e(ra, et&.8 * i& *as dis$issed #or la&= o# $erit in o!r resol!tion o# ?!l( 1, 2097. %ro$ t e de&ision o# t e Co!rt o# %irst Instan&e o# Ba"!io, respondents ;earin" O##i&er and Gon,ales interposed t e present appeal no* 'e#ore !s.