MILLER vs.

MARDO
G.R. No. L-15138
July 31, 1961
FACTS:
There were 5 appeals originating from different CFIs. It was consolidated because they present
but one identical question of law, namely, the validity of Reorganization Plan No. 20-A, prepared
and submitted by the Government Survey and Reorganization Commission under the authority of
Republic Act No. 997 [amended by Republic Act No. 1241]. It confers jurisdiction to the Regional
Offices of the DOLE to decide claims of laborers for wages, overtime and separation pay, etc.
The legal provision invoked is paragraph 25 of Article VI of Reorganization Plan No. 20-A:
Each regional office shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction over all cases falling under the
Workmen's Compensation law, and cases affecting all money claims arising from violations of
labor standards on working conditions including but not restrictive to: unpaid wages,
underpayment, overtime, separation pay and maternity leave of employees and laborers; and
unpaid wages, overtime, separation pay, vacation pay and payment for medical services of
domestic help.
It is evident, therefore, that the jurisdiction to take cognizance of cases affecting money claims
such as those sought to be enforced in these proceedings, is a new conferment of power to the
DOLE not theretofore exercised by it.
RA. 1241, amending Section 4 of RA997, which created the Government Survey and
Reorganization Commission, the latter was empowered
(2) To abolish departments, offices, agencies, or functions which may not be necessary, or create
those which way be necessary for the efficient conduct of the government service, activities, and
functions.
"Functions" which could be created, obviously refer merely to administrative, not judicial
functions.
the Government Survey and Reorganization Commission was created to carry out the
reorganization of the Executive Branch of the National Government, which did not include the
creation of courts. the Constitution expressly provides that "the Judicial power shall be vested in
one Supreme Court and in such inferior courts as may be established by law.
It may be conceded that the legislature may confer on administrative boards or bodies quasijudicial powers involving the exercise of judgment and discretion, as incident to the performance
of administrative functions. the legislature must state its intention in express terms that would
leave no doubt, as even such quasi-judicial prerogatives must be limited, if they are to be valid,
only to those incidental to or in connection with the performance of jurisdiction over a matter
exclusively vested in the courts
it was claimed that, in one of the cases, the defect in the conferment of judicial or quasi-judicial
functions to the Regional offices, emanating from the lack of authority of the Reorganization
Commission has been cured by the non-disapproval of Reorganization Plan No. 20-A by
Congress under the provisions of Section 6(a) of RA No. 997. It is, in effect, argued that
Reorganization Plan No. 20-A is not merely the creation of the Reorganization Commission,
exercising its delegated powers, but is in fact an act of Congress itself, a regular statute
directly and duly passed by Congress in the exercise of its legislative powers in the mode
provided in the enabling act.
It is an established fact that the Reorganization Commission submitted Reorganization
Plan No. 20-A to the President who, in turn, transmitted the same to Congress on February
14, 1956. Congress adjourned its sessions without passing a resolution disapproving or

adopting the said reorganization plan. It is now contended that, independent of the matter
of delegation of legislative authority said plan, nevertheless became a law by non-action
on the part of Congress, pursuant to the above-quoted provision.
ISSUE: whether this [Reorganization Plan No. 20-A] was validly passed as a law under our
Constitution
RULING:
NO! The Court ruled that Reorganization Plan No. 20-A, insofar as confers judicial power to the
Regional Offices over cases other than these falling under the Workmen's Compensation on Law,
is invalid and of no effect.
Sec. 21-A of Art. 6 provides that: No bill shall be passed or become a law unless it shall have
been printed and copies thereof in its final form furnished the Members at least 3 calendar days
prior to its passage by Congress except when the President shall have certified to the necessity
of its immediate enactment. Upon the last reading of a bill no amendment thereof shall be
allowed, and the question upon its final passage shall be taken immediately thereafter, and the
yeas and nays entered on the Journal.
Sec. 20[1]. Art. VI of the Constitution states: Every bill passed by the Congress shall, before it
becomes a law, be presented to the President. If he approves the same, he shall sign it, but if
not, he shall return it with his objections to the House where it originated, which shall enter the
objections at large on its Journal and proceed to reconsider it.
If, after such reconsideration, 2/3 of all the Members of such House shall agree to pass the bill, it
shall be sent, together with the objections, to the other House by which it shall likewise be
reconsidered, and if approved by two-thirds of all the Members voting for and against shall be
entered on its journal.
If any bill shall not be returned by the President as herein provided within twenty days (Sundays
excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the same shall become a law in like manner
as if he has signed it, unless the Congress by adjournment prevent its return, in which case it
shall become a law unless vetoed by the President within thirty days after adjournment.
the procedure of enactment provided in section 6 (a) of the Reorganization Act and that
prescribed by the Constitution will show that the former is in distinct contrast to the latter:
Under the first, consent or approval is to be manifested by silence or adjournment or by
"concurrent resolution."
In either case, the contemplated procedure violates the constitutional provisions requiring positive
and separate action by each House of Congress.
It is contrary to the "settled and well-understood parliamentary law which requires that the two
houses are to hold separate sessions for their deliberations, and the determination of the one
upon a proposed law is to be submitted to the separate determination of the other