Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1953 > April 1953 Decisions > G.R. No. L-5206 April 29, 1953 - CALTEX (PHIL.) v. PHIL. LABOR ORG., ET AL.

092 Phil 1014:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-5206. April 29, 1953.]

CALTEX (PHILIPPINES), INC., Petitioner, v. PHILIPPINE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS, CALTEX CHAPTER, Respondent.

Ross, Selph, Carrascoso & Janda for Petitioner.

Baltazar M. Villanueva for Respondent.


SYLLABUS


1. EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYEE; GRATUITY. — The company distributed one-year gratuities to its prewar employees who were working for it after liberation on July 16, 1949. That gratuity should likewise be given to its prewar female employees who were working for it on July 16, 1949. But female employees who were admittedly not working for the company on July 16, 1949, could not, invoking equity, request the same privilege or gratuity.


D E C I S I O N


BENGZON, J.:


In a controversy involving several demands made by the Philippine Labor Organizations, Caltex Chapter, in February 1950, upon the domestic corporation Caltex (Philippines) Inc., the Court of Industrial Relations required the said corporation to pay to its "eleven female prewar employees . . . the corresponding one-year gratuity that it has extended to its prewar male employees." The order, dated August 10, 1951 said, in part, as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"This is a request for one year gratuity to prewar female employees who were not readmitted to the service of the respondent- company after the liberation, in the same manner that the prewar male employees of the company were given one year gratuity.

"From the evidence presented on this demand, it appears that there are 11 prewar female employees involved in this request, . . . These female employees used to handle, before the war, machineries that were functioning a little differently from the ones now in operation in the respondent-company which are presently being handled by the male employees. It is for this reason that they were not reinstated by the company after liberation. Their reinstatement in the service of the respondent-company, however, is beside the point. It is precisely for the fact that they were not reinstated that they are now requesting for one year gratuity given to prewar male employees by the respondent-company. There is no denial on the part of the respondent as to the fact of its having given one year gratuity to the prewar male employees of the company. In the face of this fact, the Court finds no reason why the female prewar employees should be treated differently from the prewar male employees. Upon the whole, it proceeds, in justice and equity, that the prewar female employees of the respondent-company should be extended the same treatment as the prewar male employees."cralaw virtua1aw library

Calling attention to the fact that the gratuity had been granted pursuant to a stipulation approved by the same Court of Industrial Relations on August 9, 1949, in these words,

"(5) On the matter of backpay, the parties stipulated and agreed that the company will give additional ex gratia rehabilitation allowance to its present employees and laborers who were in its employ prior to the last war (in addition to what they have received in the past) such that the total that each employee and laborer will receive will be as much as the Shell Company of the Philippine Islands, Ltd., has given to its present employees and laborers who were in its employ prior to the last war. Any employee or laborer who has not been paid ex gratia allowance in 1947, but entitled thereto, will be paid the amount to him."cralaw virtua1aw library

the corporation argued, in a move to reconsider, that the payment had been made only to prewar male employees who were working for the company at the time the gratuity was given — which was not exactly the situation of the aforesaid eleven female employees.

With the denial of its motion to reconsider, the Caltex Company petitioned for this review, which, in the existing circumstances, appears to be meritorious.

We have held that prewar employees have no legal right to backpay, i.e., salary during the war when they rendered no service to their employer. (Fitzsimmons v. Atlantic Gulf, 1 47 Off. Gaz., 678.)

Thinking along the same line we recently cited "the age old rule governing the relation between labor and capital or management and employee, ’a fair day’s wage for a fair day’s labor’." (J. P. Heilbronn Co. v. National Labor Union, 2 G.R. No. L-5121.)

Hence as a matter of principle, these prewar female employees have no right to backpay. However, we must agree with the Court of Industrial Relations that if prewar male employees are granted backpay gratuity, prewar female employees should also be extended the same privilege, on grounds of equity, remembering always the Government’s constitutional duty to protect labor, especially women, and the statutory injunction that in exercising its duties and powers "the Court shall act according to justice and equity and the substantial merits of the case." (Sec. 20 Com. Act No. 103.)

It appears that Caltex (Phil.) , Inc., distributed one year gratuities to its prewar male employees who were working for it after liberation on July 16, 1949. The gratuity was granted only to those prewar employees who were in the employ of Caltex Inc. on July 16, 1949. On equitable grounds, and in our opinion, that gratuity should likewise be given to its prewar female employees who were working for it on July 16, 1949. Now, it is obvious that as these female laborers were admittedly not working for Caltex on July 16, 1949, they could not, invoking equity, request the same privilege or gratuity.

The above conclusion might be modified, if as respondents’ counsel argues, these women workers "were refused reemployment by their employer when demand therefor had been made after liberation."cralaw virtua1aw library

Yet the record does not support such allegation of rejected petition for reemployment. The Court of Industrial Relations merely declared that these ladies were not "reinstated by the company after liberation." That statement is not necessarily a finding that they desired reemployment but were turned down. They might not have been taken because the machineries were different, or because they chose not to report again for work. The Court’s dictum may not be interpreted as having adjudicated the question of demand-and-refusal, because the issues were joined upon the Chapter’s "request that the one year gratuity given to prewar male employees should also be given to prewar female employees," without reference to women workers who had been refused reemployment. In other words, these women did not plead for money on the ground that they had not been reinstated or had been denied reemployment — rather belated claim it would seem, the company having reopened four years before (1946) — but only because the male employees were given the gratuity. In this connection we would be the last to deny them gratuity had the Caltex corporation awarded compensation to those male prewar employees who had not been reinstated after the war.

In the settlement of industrial disputes it is proper and convenient for the court to insist, in exercising its ample powers, that capital shall make no discrimination between male and female laborers. But discrimination only exists when one is denied privileges given to the other under identical or similar conditions. Material conditions of course. And the condition as to actual employment required by the company is undoubtedly material, the purpose of the gratuity being obviously to induce the company’s workers to render better service in return for such generosity, or simply to improve the finances and morale of its helpers with consequent beneficial effects upon the corporate business operations. In the instant controversy, the conditions were different: the male beneficiaries were employees; whereas these female claimants were not.

Wherefore having previously ruled that the claim for backpay has no legal foundation, and being shown no resultant unfairness, this Court is constrained presently to disapprove the order directing payment to the herein named workers, finding no justification for it, either in law or in equity. Needless to say, Courts are not permitted to render judgments solely upon the basis of sympathies and inclinations. Neither are they authorized, in the guise of affording protection to labor, to distribute charities at the expense of natural or juridicial persons, because our constitutional government assures the latter against deprivation of their property except in accordance with the statutes or supplementary equitable principles.

The appealed order is set aside, without costs.

Feria, Pablo, Tuason, Montemayor, Reyes, Jugo, Bautista Angelo and Labrador, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. 84 Phil., 330.

2. Supra, p. 575.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






April-1953 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. Nos. L-4215-16 April 17, 1953 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEONARDO DOSAL

    092 Phil 877

  • G.R. No. L-5198 April 17, 1953 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PANGLIMA MAHLON, ET AL.

    092 Phil 883

  • G.R. No. L-5539 April 17, 1953 - RUPERTA BOOL v. PERPETUO MENDOZA, ET AL.

    092 Phil 892

  • G.R. No. L-5587 April 17, 1953 - FELIXBERTO MEDEL, ET AL. v. HON. BERNABE DE AQUINO ETC., ET AL.

    092 Phil 895

  • G.R. No. L-5686 April 17, 1953 - ANTONIO DEL ROSARIO, ET AL. v. HON. FROILAN BAYONA, ET AL.

    092 Phil 899

  • G.R. No. L-5770 April 17, 1953 - BRICCIO MADRID, ET AL. v. HON. ANATOLIO C. MAÑALAC, ET AL.

    092 Phil 902

  • G.R. No. L-5790 April 17, 1953 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PABLO DE LA CRUZ

    092 Phil 906

  • G.R. No. L-6103 April 17, 1953 - FORTUNATO MARQUIALA, ET AL. v. HON. FILOMENO YBAÑEZ, ET AL.

    092 Phil 911

  • G.R. No. L-4353 April 20, 1953 - TAN KAY KO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    092 Phil 915

  • G.R. No. L-4476 April 20, 1953 - SAMUEL J. WILSON v. B. H. BERKENKOTTER

    092 Phil 918

  • G.R. No. L-4647 April 20, 1953 - FLOR VILLASOR v. AGAPITO VILLASOR

    092 Phil 929

  • G.R. No. L-5065 April 20, 1953 - ESTEFANIA PISALBON, ET AL. v. HONORATO TESORO, ET AL.

    092 Phil 931

  • G.R. No. L-5242 April 20, 1953 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FILOMENO B. IBAÑEZ, ET AL.

    092 Phil 933

  • G.R. No. L-5750 April 20, 1953 - RODRIGO COLOSO v. BOARD OF ACCOUNTANCY

    092 Phil 938

  • G.R. No. L-4940 April 22, 1953 - MADRIGAL & CO. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    092 Phil 941

  • G.R. No. L-5163 April 22, 1953 - P. J. KIENER CO., LTD. v. SATURNINO DAVID

    092 Phil 945

  • G.R. No. L-5888 April 22, 1953 - ANTONIO T. CARRASCOSO v. JOSE FUENTEBELLA

    092 Phil 948

  • G.R. No. L-4831 April 24, 1953 - NATIVIDAD SIDECO, ET AL. v. ANGELA AZNAR, ET AL.

    092 Phil 952

  • G.R. No. L-5515 April 24, 1953 - FELIPA FERIA, ET AL. v. GERONIMO T. SUVA

    092 Phil 963

  • G.R. No. L-4814 April 27, 1953 - LEA AROJO DE DUMELOD, ET AL. v. BUENAVENTURA VILARAY

    092 Phil 967

  • G.R. No. L-5157 April 27, 1953 - VISAYAN ELECTRIC CO. v. SATURNINO DAVID

    092 Phil 969

  • G.R. No. L-5675 April 27, 1953 - ANTONIO CARBALLO v. DEMETRIO B. ENCARNACION, ET AL.

    092 Phil 974

  • G.R. No. L-5876 April 27, 1953 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CHU CHI

    092 Phil 977

  • G.R. No. L-4144 April 29, 1953 - GEORGE S. CORBET v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    092 Phil 980

  • G.R. No. L-4790 April 29, 1953 - ISIDORO FOJAS, ET AL. v. SEGUNDO AGUSTIN, ET AL.

    092 Phil 983

  • G.R. No. L-4802 April 29, 1953 - IN RE: . KIAT CHUN TAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    092 Phil 987

  • G.R. No. L-4948 April 29, 1953 - JUDGE OF THE CFI OF BAGUIO v. JOSE VALLES

    092 Phil 989

  • G.R. No. L-5062 April 29, 1953 - MANILA TRADING & SUPPLY CO. v. MANILA TRADING LABOR ASS’N.

    092 Phil 997

  • G.R. No. L-5099 April 29, 1953 - BEATRIZ CABAHUG-MENDOZA v. VICENTE VARELA, ET AL.

    092 Phil 1001

  • G.R. No. L-5104 April 29, 1953 - IN RE: OSCAR ANGLO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    092 Phil 1006

  • G.R. Nos. L-5190-93 April 29, 1953 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EMILIO BAYSA, ET AL.

    092 Phil 1008

  • G.R. No. L-5206 April 29, 1953 - CALTEX (PHIL.) v. PHIL. LABOR ORG., ET AL.

    092 Phil 1014

  • G.R. No. L-5394 April 29, 1953 - BERNARDO TORRES v. MAMERTO S. RIBO

    092 Phil 1019

  • G.R. No. L-5470 April 29, 1953 - WOODCRAFT WORKS, LTD. v. SEGUNDO C. MOSCOSO, ET AL.

    092 Phil 1021

  • G.R. No. L-5558 April 29, 1953 - ENRIQUE D. MANABAT, ET AL. v. HON. BERNABE DE AQUINO, ET AL.

    092 Phil 1025

  • G.R. No. L-5788 April 29, 1953 - CHUA BUN POK, ET AL. v. JUZGADO DE PRIMERA INSTANCIA DE MANILA, ET AL.

    092 Phil 1029

  • G.R. No. L-5826 April 29, 1953 - VICENTE CAGRO, ET AL. v. PELAGIO CAGRO, ET AL.

    092 Phil 1032

  • G.R. No. L-5948 April 29, 1953 - FORTUNATO F. HALILI v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.

    092 Phil 1036

  • G.R. No. L-5969 April 29, 1953 - ALFREDO P. DALAO v. FRANCISCO GERONIMO

    092 Phil 1042

  • G.R. No. L-5989 April 29, 1953 - APOLINARIO DUQUE, ET AL. v. L. PASICOLAN, ET AL.

    092 Phil 1044

  • G.R. No. L-6079 April 29, 1953 - SOFRONIO GAMMAD, ET AL. v. MANUEL ARRANZ, ET AL.

    092 Phil 1048

  • G.R. No. L-6177 April 29, 1953 - GABINO LOZADA, ET AL v. HON. FERNANDO HERNANDEZ, ET AL.

    092 Phil 1051

  • G.R. No. L-4896 April 30, 1953 - APOLINARIO CRUZ v. PATROCINIO KELLY

    092 Phil 1054

  • G.R. No. L-5452 April 30, 1953 - FLORENTINO KIAMKO, ET AL. v. CIRILO C. MACEREN, ET AL.

    092 Phil 1057