September 1939 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1939 > September 1939 Decisions >
G.R. No. 46729 September 25, 1939 - KAPISANAN NG MGA MANGAGAWA SA PANTRANCO v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS
068 Phil 552:
068 Phil 552:
FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 46729. September 25, 1939.]
KAPISANAN NG MGA MANGAGAWA SA PANTRANCO, Petitioner, v. THE COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, composed of the Honorables, Francisco Zulueta, Leopoldo Rovira and Jose Generoso, and PANGASINAN TRANSPORTATION CO., INC., Respondents.
Antonio Quesada and Jose Alejandrino for Petitioner.
Manuel Escudero for respondent court.
C. de G. Alvear for other Respondent.
SYLLABUS
COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS; ACT NO. 4123, AS AMENDED BY ACT NO. 4242 AND BY COMMONWEALTH ACT NO. 444; EMPLOYERS; EMPLOYEES; COMPENSATION FOR OVERTIME WORK. — Act No. 4123, as amended by Act No. 4242 and by Commonwealth Act No. 444, limits the number of working hours to eight, although in the special cases mentioned in its sections 3 and 5, employees may work overtime for not more than twelve hours and shall in those cases be entitled to additional compensation. But the power of deciding whether or not the laborers or employees may work for more than the legal number of hours does not rest with the laborers or with their employers, but with the Secretary of Labor who is empowered by law "to decide in each case whether or not it is proper to increase or decrease the number of hours of labor." (Sec. 3, Act No. 4123.) The law requires both the employees and the employer to address an application to the Secretary of Labor for this purpose. Performance of overtime work except in the manner provided is prohibited and penalized. (Sec. 11, Act No. 4123.) Compliance with the law in this regard is a matter of public interest. Having failed to fulfill the mandate of the law, and under the circumstances found by the Court of Industrial Relations, we are of the opinion that said court did not err in declining to extend the benefits of section 5 of Act No. 4123 to the laborers concerned of the petitioner union.
D E C I S I O N
LAUREL, J.:
This appeal was originally case No. 87 of the Court of Industrial Relations, entitled "Kapisanan ng mga Mangagawa sa Pantranco v. Pangasinan transportation Co."cralaw virtua1aw library
It appears that on February 10, 1939, the herein petitioner submitted to the management of the respondent company a 20-point petition (Exhibit A). The Department of Labor intervened in the controversy, and an agreement was reached by virtue of which five unsettled demands of the petitioner were certified to the Court of Industrial Relations. The most important of these demands and which, in reality, is the subject of this appeal is claim No. 4 which refers to the payment of back overtime pay. The respondent courts through one of its judges, rendered judgment on April 3, 1939, denying the demand for overtime payment. The petitioner moved for reconsideration, but the respondent Court of Industrial Relations, sitting in banc, denied the motion. Hence, the elevation of this case to this court.
Act No. 4123, as amended by Act No. 4242 and by Commonwealth Act No. 444, limits the number of working hours to eight, although in the special cases mentioned in its sections 3 and 6, employees may work overtime for not more than twelve hours and shall in those cases be entitled to additional compensation. But the power of deciding whether or not the laborers or employees may work for more than the legal number of hours does not rest with the laborers or with their employers, but with the Secretary of Labor who is empowered by law "to decide in each case whether or not it is proper to increase or decrease the number of hours of labor." (Sec. 3, Act No. 4123.) The law requires both the employees and the employer to address an application to the Secretary of Labor for this purpose. Performance of overtime work except in the manner provided is prohibited and penalized. (Sec. 11, Act No. 4123.) Compliance with the law in this regard is a matter of public interest. Having failed to fulfill the mandate of the law, and under the circumstances found by the Court of Industrial Relations, we are of the opinion that said court did not err in declining to extend the benefits of section 5 of Act No. 4123 to the laborers concerned of the petitioner union.
The appeal is dismissed, without pronouncement regarding costs. So ordered.
Avanceña, C.J., Villa-Real, Imperial, Diaz, Concepcion, and Moran, JJ., concur.
It appears that on February 10, 1939, the herein petitioner submitted to the management of the respondent company a 20-point petition (Exhibit A). The Department of Labor intervened in the controversy, and an agreement was reached by virtue of which five unsettled demands of the petitioner were certified to the Court of Industrial Relations. The most important of these demands and which, in reality, is the subject of this appeal is claim No. 4 which refers to the payment of back overtime pay. The respondent courts through one of its judges, rendered judgment on April 3, 1939, denying the demand for overtime payment. The petitioner moved for reconsideration, but the respondent Court of Industrial Relations, sitting in banc, denied the motion. Hence, the elevation of this case to this court.
Act No. 4123, as amended by Act No. 4242 and by Commonwealth Act No. 444, limits the number of working hours to eight, although in the special cases mentioned in its sections 3 and 6, employees may work overtime for not more than twelve hours and shall in those cases be entitled to additional compensation. But the power of deciding whether or not the laborers or employees may work for more than the legal number of hours does not rest with the laborers or with their employers, but with the Secretary of Labor who is empowered by law "to decide in each case whether or not it is proper to increase or decrease the number of hours of labor." (Sec. 3, Act No. 4123.) The law requires both the employees and the employer to address an application to the Secretary of Labor for this purpose. Performance of overtime work except in the manner provided is prohibited and penalized. (Sec. 11, Act No. 4123.) Compliance with the law in this regard is a matter of public interest. Having failed to fulfill the mandate of the law, and under the circumstances found by the Court of Industrial Relations, we are of the opinion that said court did not err in declining to extend the benefits of section 5 of Act No. 4123 to the laborers concerned of the petitioner union.
The appeal is dismissed, without pronouncement regarding costs. So ordered.
Avanceña, C.J., Villa-Real, Imperial, Diaz, Concepcion, and Moran, JJ., concur.
