ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 









 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
November-1941 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 48348 November 1, 1941 - AQUINO DEL ROSARIO v. BENGUET CONSOLIDATED MINING COMPANY, ET AL.

    073 Phil 371

  • G.R. No. 48524 November 1, 1941 - MANILA HOTEL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION v. MANILA HOTEL COMPANY, ET AL.

    073 Phil 374

  • G.R. No. 48662 November 6, 1941 - JESUS B. LAVA v. JOSE LOPEZ VITO, ET AL.

    073 Phil 390

  • G.R. No. 48306 November 7, 1941 - PEDRO L. GALANG v. P. M. ENDENCIA, ET AL.

    073 Phil 399

  • G.R. No. 48415 November 7, 1941 - INTERNATIONAL OIL FACTORY v. NATIONAL LABOR UNION, INC., ET AL.

    073 Phil 401

  • G.R. No. 48458 November 7, 1941 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FIDEL FORTUNO

    073 Phil 407

  • G.R. No. 48683 November 8, 1941 - GERONIMO SANTIAGO v. FAR EASTERN BROADCASTING

    073 Phil 408

  • G.R. No. 48183 November 10, 1941 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODOLFO A. SCHNECKENBURGER, ET AL.

    073 Phil 413

  • G.R. No. 48456 November 12, 1941 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. NGO CHAY

    073 Phil 418

  • G.R. No. 47813 November 18, 1941 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. SIMEON ANTONIO

    073 Phil 421

  • G.R. No. 48320 November 18, 1941 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. JUAN CACHERO

    073 Phil 426

  • G.R. No. 48459 November 18, 1941 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. FIDEL FORTUNO

    073 Phil 429

  • G.R. No. 47805 November 19, 1941 - CONCEPCION PIÑON v. CONSUELO ZAFRA, ET AL.

    073 Phil 431

  • G.R. No. 48101 November 22, 1941 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICENTE NABORA

    073 Phil 434

  • G.R. No. 48123 November 22, 1941 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. ANACLETO VINEDA

    073 Phil 436

  • G.R. No. 48395 November 22, 1941 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. ALEJANDRO ENCARNACION

    073 Phil 442

  • G.R. No. 48554 November 22, 1941 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. BILAANS S. SUNI

    073 Phil 445

  • G.R. No. 47688 November 24, 1941 - BASILIA CABRERA v. PHILIPPINE EDUCATION CO., INC.

    073 Phil 448

  • G.R. No. 47988 November 24, 1941 - H. S. FENWICK v. JOAQUlN PARDO DE TAVERA

    073 Phil 452

  • G.R. No. 48641 November 24, 1941 - PEDRO GALLEGO v. VICENTE VERRA

    073 Phil 453

  • G.R. No. 47887 November 25, 1941 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. CARMEN DE UMALI

    073 Phil 460

  • G.R. No. 48125 November 25, 1941 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. FELIX CABADDU

    073 Phil 462

  • G.R. No. 47357 November 26, 1941 - SALVADOR E. IMPERIAL v. CHINA INSURANCE & SURETY COMPANY, INC., ET AL.

    073 Phil 466

  • G.R. No. 47775 November 26, 1941 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANASTACIO FIGUEROA

    073 Phil 473

  • G.R. No. 47976 November 26, 1941 - A. P. SEVA Y OTROS v. PABLO S. RIVERA

    073 Phil 477

  • G.R. No. 48215 November 26, 1941 - PARSONS HARDWARE CO. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

    073 Phil 481

  • G.R. No. 48754 November 26, 1941 - EMILIO V. REYES v. APOLONIO R. DIAZ

    073 Phil 484

  • G.R. No. 47804 November 27, 1941 - JUAN CASTILLO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

    073 Phil 489

  • G.R. No. 48147 November 27, 1941 - CLARO CASTRO, ET AL. v. ROSENDO REYES

    073 Phil 492

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. 48215   November 26, 1941 - PARSONS HARDWARE CO. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL. <br /><br />073 Phil 481

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    EN BANC

    [G.R. No. 48215. November 26, 1941.]

    PARSONS HARDWARE CO., INC., Petitioner, v. THE COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS and PARSONS WORKERS & EMPLOYEES UNION, Respondents.

    SYLLABUS


    1. EMPLOYERS AND EMPLOYEES; INCREASE OF WAGES BY COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS; BENEFITS UNION OR NONUNION MEMBERS. — The order of the Court of Industrial Relations raising the minimum wage of laborers and employees applies to all its employees and laborers without distinction as to whether they are or they are not members of the labor union. It has to be so, because to accord such increase only to members of the Union would constitute an unjust and unwarranted discrimination against the nonmembers.


    D E C I S I O N


    MORAN, J.:


    On May 19, 1939, respondent Parsons Workers & Employees Union addressed a six-point petition to the management of petitioner here, Parsons Hardware Co., Inc., praying, among others, for a general increase in the salaries and wages of its employees and workers. The petition was denied and the Union thereafter sought the intervention of the Department of Labor. Efforts at amicable settlement failed, and on August 11, 1939, the Secretary of Labor certified the case to the Court of Industrial Relations for arbitration and settlement, under the provisions of section 4 of Commonwealth Act No. 103. Upon the question of the general increase in the salaries and wages of the employees and laborers of the petitioner here (the only question left unadjudged in the decision of the Court of Industrial Relations of August 24, 1939), evidence was submitted by both parties and a thorough examination of the financial condition of the company was ordered. On December 28, 1939, the Court of Industrial Relations rendered its supplementary decision, the dispositive part of which reads:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "After a careful consideration of all the facts submitted and the circumstances of the case the Court holds and so decides that the minimum wage of the workers should be fixed at P1.25 daily and P30.00 a month for the monthly salaried employees. The respondent Parsons Hardware Company, Inc., is, therefore, hereby ordered to raise accordingly the minimum pay of all its employees and laborers effective January 2, 1940.."

    This decision was, after several incidents, finally complied with by the company with respect to twenty-three of its laborers. On September 23, 1940, respondent Union sought the application of the raise to sixteen laborers of the company who were not paid the minimum wage specified therein, and on December 5, 1940, another motion to the same effect was filed in behalf of two more laborers. The Court of Industrial Relations by its order of February 3, 1941, resolved both motions favorably to the Respondent. Petitioner now challenges this order on two grounds: (1) that the eighteen employees and laborers concerned were not members of the Union on May 29, 1939 when the Union’s petition was submitted to the company and, therefore, they are not entitled to the benefits of the minimum wage fixed by the decision of the court; and (2) that before a minimum wage may be made applicable to all employees and laborers, an order of the Court to that effect must have been issued pursuant to the provisions of section 5 of Commonwealth Act No. 103, and not under section 4 thereof, as in the instant case.

    Upon the first ground urged by petitioner, even assuming that the eighteen laborers were not members of the Union at the time its petition for a general increase in salaries was submitted, we are of the opinion and so hold that as they are laborers of the company they are entitled to the increase. The order of the Court of Industrial Relations raising the minimum wage of laborers and employees of the herein petitioner applies to "all its employees and laborers" without distinction as to whether they are or they are not members of the respondent Union. It has to be so, because to accord such increase only to members of the Union would constitute an unjust and unwarranted discrimination against the non-members.

    Upon petitioner’s second ground, we have more than once said:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "Under the provisions of section 5, of Act 103, minimum wages are determinable in reference to a given industry or given locality, which should be of general application and have the force and effect of law, after approval by the President of the Philippines. This section however, does not contemplate the arbitration and settlement of industrial or agricultural disputes causing or likely to cause a strike or lockout, and is designed merely to provide for a workable device whereby a scheme of minimum wage or share for laborers or tenants in a given industry or locality may be evolved, whenever conditions therein warrant.

    "If an industrial dispute between an employer and its employees causing or likely to cause a strike or lockout arises from differences as regards a minimum wage, the Court of Industrial Relations would be without authority to take cognizance of the dispute for arbitration and settlement unless the President of the Philippines, under section 5 of Commonwealth Act No. 103, directs it to investigate and study all pertinent facts related to the industry concerned, with a view to determining the necessity and fairness of fixing a minimum wage which shall apply generally to all the employees engaged in such industry. To adopt such a narrow construction would be to set at naught the plenary powers conferred upon the Court to enable it to ’settle all questions, matters, controversies or disputes arising between, and or affecting employers and employees and to frustrate the very objective of the law, namely, to create an instrumentality through which the intervention of the Government could be made effective in order to prevent non-pacific methods in the determination of industrial or agricultural disputes. It is fundamental that the intention and policy of the National Assembly, as expressed in the enactment, should be effectuated, and the Act should receive a construction that will lead to this result." (International Hardwood and Veneer Company v. Pañgil Federation of Labor, G. R. No. 47178, Nov. 25, 1940; Antamok Gold Fields Mining Company v. Court of Industrial Relations Et. Al., G. R. No. 46892, June 28, 1940; Mindanao Bus Co. v. Mindanao Bus Company Employees Association, G. R. Nos. 47544 & 47611.) .

    Order is affirmed, with costs against petitioner.

    Abad Santos, Diaz, Horrilleno and Ozaeta, JJ., concur.

    G.R. No. 48215   November 26, 1941 - PARSONS HARDWARE CO. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL. <br /><br />073 Phil 481


    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED