Complainant Francisco M. Ortega was employed by the Saulog Transit, Inc., owned and  operated by  Eliseo  Saulog, first as conductor  (from September 1948 to July 8, 1951) and later as inspector  (from July 10, 1951  to August 12, 1954).  As conductor he received a salary of P4.50 a day from the time he started  working up  to October, 1948,  when his salary was increased to P6.00 a  day, until he became an inspector, when again it was increased to P7.00 a day.   As a conductor he began working from 4:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m» three times a week,  and from  5:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.  four times a week; as an inspector he had no fixed working schedule,  but he actually-rendered at least twelve hours every day.    (See Decision of the WAS, Department of Labor.)  Believing himself  entitled  to over time pay,  complainant filed, in April,  1953,  a  claim with the Wage  Administration  Service, Department of Labor, Regional Office No. I, for the payment of the overtime service he  rendered to the company.  After  several continuances the case was again set for hearing on June 30,1955, but neither of the parties  appeared on said date;  so  the hearing was once more postponed to July 16,1955, on which date only complainant appeared.  After considering complainant's testimony, Felipe N. Aurea, Investigator of  the WAS, rendered a decision,  dated August 18,  1955, finding respondent company liable to complainant for overtime pay in  the amount of P13,101.81,  and requiring  it to deposit said amount with  the WAS.  On August  22, 1955, both complainant and the respondent were furnished with copies of the decision, but respondent did not appeal therefrom within the reglamentary period.

In  the meantime, complainant  filed with the Court of First Instance of Cavite a  complaint for overtime pay similar to that  filed with the Wage Administration Service. Before  the  Court of First  Instance  of  Cavite could hear the case, and on December 11, 1956, complainant filed with the Court  of  First Instance of Rizal a petition for the execution of  the  aforementioned decision of the  WAS. Respondent filed an opposition thereto on the ground that the court is not empowered to enforce the decision of the regional office, as said decision  is without authority of law.

The Court of First Instance of Rizal granted the petition for execution,  and upon failure of respondent to  secure an order to reconsider the  order for execution, it appealed the case to this Court.

Appellant assigns five errors.  However, the resolution of the third will dispose of the case.

Under the third  assignment of  error, it is alleged that the decision of the WAS, which was enforced by the lower court, and the writ of execution are both illegal, because the parties have not agreed to a mediation or arbitration in accordance  with  the "Code of Rules and  Regulations to Implement  the Minimum Wage Law," issued by the Secretary of Labor, or the Arbitration Law  (Republic Act No. 876).  The Code of Rules, promulgated On January 20, 1953 by  the  Secretary  of  Labor pursuant  to  Section 11 of Republic Act No. 602, seeks to implement the provisions of Sections 15(D), 15(E) and  16(A)  of Republic Act No. 602  (by outlining the  procedure to be followed in case the Secretary of Labor chooses  to bring an action in court for the recovery of wages or to  restrain violations of the  provisions of Republic Act No.  602.   Under said Code, the claims investigator or attorney is required to endeavor  to reconcile  the parties or ask them  if they are willing to arbitrate or submit  their case to arbitration.   In  the event that mediation fails and the  parties are not willing to arbitrate, the claims attorney shall find out if the claim is meritorious or not.   (Sees. 6 &  7, Article 7, Code  of Rules.)  If meritorious, the attorney will prepare the  corresponding  complaint and petition for indigency for  court action, as the case  may be, within  one week after receiving the case  (Sec. 14, Id.).

In the case at bar,  the  respondent did not appear at the trial, so  that no mediation or arbitration could be  had to enable  the claims attorney to convince the parties to come to an agreement.   Despite the lack of such mediation or arbitration, the claims  investigator went right ahead to hear the evidence  of the complainant and  rendered  a decision on the merits.   This  action is irregular and does not conform to  the procedure laid down  by law.  What the  claims attorney should have  done was to bring an action in  court  to recover payment for overtime service rendered,  in behalf of the complainant.

In Potente vs. Saulog Transit, Inc.,  105 Phil.,  525, we held that the Workmen's  Compensation Commission  has no authority to render a decision  in the  sense in which this term is used in legal  parlance.  If the claim is  considered meritorious action may be brought before "any competent court" for the recovery of the sum of money it considers  due to the claimant  and Section 51 of  Act No. 3428  does not authorized the  issuance  of a  writ of execution  of  a decision of  the  Workmen's  Compensation Commission.  Similarly,  the WAS  has no power to render a  decision that can  be enforced in the courts of justice.  It is only when an arbitration agreement or compromise is entered into between the  parties that a judgment can be rendered by the WAS and enforced by the courts.

The order of the lower court of December 24, 1956,  ordering the issuance of the writ of execution as well as the writ of execution of January 10,  1957,  are declared null and void and hereby set aside.  Without costs.

Paras, C J., Bengzon, Montemayor, Reyes, A., Bautista Angela, Concepcion, and Endencia,  JJ,, concur.