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
 

   
April-1955 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-7065 April 13, 1955 - TEOFILA S. TIBON v. AUDITOR GENERAL

    096 Phil 786

  • G.R. No. L-7784 April 13, 1955 - NICOLAS ADANTE v. CANDIDO DAGPIN

    096 Phil 789

  • G.R. No. L-7904 April 14, 1955 - EDUARDO HILVANO v. FIDEL FERNANDEZ

    096 Phil 791

  • G.R. No. L-7851 April 15, 1955 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. HONORABLE JOSE P. VELUZ

    096 Phil 794

  • G.R. No. L-8183 April 15, 1955 - VICTOR DE LA CRUZ v. HONORABLE AMBROSIO T. DOLLETE

    096 Phil 797

  • G.R. No. L-8316 April 15, 1955 - LUZON STEVEDORING CO. v. THE HONORABLE CESAREO DE LEON

    096 Phil 801

  • G.R. No. L-7094 April 16, 1955 - JUANITA MIRANDA v. HON. JUDGE DEMETRIO B. ENCARNACION

    096 Phil 805

  • G.R. No. L-7791 April 19, 1955 - LEE TAY & LEE CHAY v. KAISAHAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA KAHOY SA FILIPINAS

    096 Phil 808

  • G.R. No. L-6871 April 20, 1955 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. BANDALI TAGACAOLO

    096 Phil 812

  • G.R. No. L-7301 April 20, 1955 - TIU SAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. ET AL.

    096 Phil 817

  • G.R. No. L-7318 April 20, 1955 - HELEN GENIO DE CHAVEZ v. A. L. AMMEN TRANSPORTATION CO.

    096 Phil 823

  • G.R. No. L-6508 April 25, 1955 - KOPPEL (PHIL) INC. v. EL TRIBUNAL DE RELACIONES INDUSTRIALES

    096 Phil 830

  • G.R. No. L-7076 April 28, 1955 - ROSARIO and UNTALAN v. CARANDANG ET AL.

    096 Phil 845

  • G.R. No. L-6469 April 29, 1955 - NAVARRA v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL and COURT OF APPEALS

    096 Phil 851

  • G.R. No. L-6740 April 29, 1955 - DIMAYUGA v. DIMAYUGA

    096 Phil 859

  • G.R. No. L-6752 April 29, 1955 - NAZARIO TRILLANA v. FAUSTINO MANANSALA

    096 Phil 865

  • G.R. No. L-6972 April 29, 1955 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MAXIMO SATURNINO

    096 Phil 868

  • G.R. No. L-7054 April 29, 1955 - UY v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    096 Phil 871

  • G.R. No. L-7541 April 29, 1955 - VISAYAN SURETY & INS. CORP. v. LACSON ET AL.

    096 Phil 878

  • G.R. No. L-7550 April 29, 1955 - DONALD A. ROCCO v. MORTON MEADS

    096 Phil 884

  • G.R. No. L-7623 April 29, 1955 - FELICIDAD CASTAÑEDA v. BRUNA PESTAÑO

    096 Phil 890

  • G.R. No. L-7692 April 29, 1955 - PEOPLE’S BANK & TRUST CO., v. HONORABLE RAMON R. SAN JOSE

    096 Phil 895

  • G.R. No. L-8107 April 29, 1955 - VISAYAN SURETY & INS. CORP. v. HON. DE AQUINO ET AL.

    096 Phil 900

  • G.R. No. L-8348 April 29, 1955 - BAGTAS v. EL TRIBUNAL DE APELACION

    096 Phil 905

  • G.R. No. L-6931 April 30, 1955 - STANDARD-VACUUM OIL COMPANY v. M. D. ANTIGUA

    096 Phil 909

  • G.R. No. L-7236 April 30, 1955 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. Po GIOK TO

    096 Phil 913

  • G.R. No. L-7296 April 30, 1955 - PLASLU v. PORTLAND CEMENT CO., ET AL.

    096 Phil 920

  • G.R. No. L-7390 April 30, 1955 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REYES, ET AL.

    096 Phil 927

  • G.R. No. L-7561 April 30, 1955 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ISAAC, ET AL.

    096 Phil 931

  • G.R. No. L-7680 April 30, 1955 - TAN TONG v. DEPORTATION BOARD

    096 Phil 934

  • G.R. No. L-7830 Abril 30, 1955 - MANZA v. HON. VICENTE SANTIAGO, ET AL.

    096 Phil 938

  • G.R. No. L-8017 April 30, 1955 - MANSAL v. P. P. GOCHECO LUMBER CO.

    096 Phil 941

  • G.R. No. L-8278 April 30, 1955 - SUMAIL v. HON. JUDGE OF THE CFI OF COTABATO, ET AL

    096 Phil 946

  • G.R. No. L-8332 April 30, 1955 - JESUS S. RODRIGUEZ v. FRANCISCO A. ARELLANO

    096 Phil 954

  • G.R. No. L-8909 Abril 30, 1955 - JOSE LAANAN v. EL ALCAIDE PROVINCIAL DE RIZAL

    096 Phil 959

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. L-7791   April 19, 1955 - LEE TAY & LEE CHAY v. KAISAHAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA KAHOY SA FILIPINAS<br /><br />096 Phil 808

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    EN BANC

    [G.R. No. L-7791. April 19, 1955.]

    LEE TAY & LEE CHAY, INC., Petitioner, v. KAISAHAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA KAHOY SA FILIPINAS, Respondent.

    Quijano & Azores for Petitioner.

    Carlos E. Santiago for Respondent.


    SYLLABUS


    EMPLOYER AND LABORERS; NUMBER OF LABOR DAYS IN A WEEK TO FIX GRATUITY. — A week of labor is to be understood to embrace the ordinary number of six labor days, in the absence of an express agreement to the contrary. Backpay might justify a basis fixed on the number of actual labor days a week in force at the time of the contract; but not gratuity. The contract in the case at bar contemplates gratuity for those separated to be computed at a basis of six day a week.


    D E C I S I O N


    LABRADOR, J.:


    Petitioner herein is a corporation engaged in sawing lumber under the business name "General Sawmill," while respondent is a labor union the members of which were employed in petitioner’s sawmill. The business of the petitioner, which had been established since 1946, appears to have encountered financial difficulties, and by the end of 1950 its business had so deteriorated that the working days of the laborers had been reduced to three days a week. A labor dispute also ensued between the petitioner and the union, docketed in the Court of Industrial Relations as Case No. 373-V. Fortunately, this was settled by an agreement that the parties entered into with the court’s approval on March 31, 1951. The most important terms of the agreement are as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "That, in the remote event that the petitioner sells or leases its lumber business to a third party, the petitioner undertakes and obligates itself to see to it that proper provision is made in the corresponding contract of sale or lease, as the case may be, that the vendee or lessee shall employ all the laborers involved to this case, under the same terms and conditions of employment existing at the time of the temporary closing, if the said vendee or lessee shall also engage in the lumber business, otherwise, the petitioner agrees to pay the laborers involved in this case a gratuity equivalent to the following schedule:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    (a) Those who started working during or before the year 1946, shall receive corresponding to 9 weeks pay;

    (b) Those who started working in the year 1947, shall receive corresponding to 8 weeks pay;

    (c) Those who started working in the year 1948, shall receive corresponding to 7 weeks pay."cralaw virtua1aw library

    Sometime after the approval of the above agreement, petitioner leased the sawmill to the Alaska Lumber Company. When the latter began the operation of the sawmill in January, 1952, some 18 of the laborers of the petitioner were taken in. Not all of the former laborers were employed as other new workers were taken in. Of the 18 laborers taken in, all were satisfied with the conditions of their new employment except three, who were found to have been forced to accept less pay than what they used to receive under petitioner. As not all of the laborers were employed in the Alaska Lumber Company sawmill compliance with the agreement between the petitioner and the union was demanded, and on January 28, 1953 the Court of Industrial Relations issued a decision ordering petitioner to pay the gratuities as per agreement, except as to those who were satisfied with their new employment under the Alaska Lumber Company. In accordance with the agreement, the gratuities were ordered to be computed to the Chief of the Examining Division, the representatives of both parties being authorized to take part in the computation. The three laborers who were forced to the new employment were allowed differential pay, as the court found that they were re-employed under different working conditions. Both parties asked for a reconsideration of the decision but the court refused to alter or modify it. On December 8, 1963, the Chief of the Examining Division submitted his report, Annex A, fixing the annuities at six labor days a week. Petitioner moved that the gratuities should be computed at the rate of three labor days a week, while the respondent also moved that it should be at the rate of seven labor days a week, but both motions were overruled by order of the Court dated May 4, 1954. It is against this final order that the appeal is directed.

    The petitioner claims on this appeal (1) that the gratuities should be computed on the basis of three labor days a week, in accordance with the first part of the agreement, as at the time of the closing of petitioner’s sawmills, the laborers were working on a three-day a week basis; and (2) that the salary differentials awarded in the decision to Benigno Senelaso, Ricardo Mallari and Felix Miranda, the three laborers who were not satisfied with their new employment, should be revoked, as they had waived their rights under the agreement when they accepted lower rates of pay in the new sawmill. In answer to the above claims, the respondent union contends (a) that the appeal was made after the resolution of the court a quo had become final and executory, and (b) that as petitioner had agreed to pay a gratuity and not back pay, the computation thereof should be on the basis of six days a week, not three days as claimed.

    With respect to the award of salary differentials to the three laborers, the record discloses that the said award was made in the court’s order of January 28, 1953. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, though not attacking this award of salary differentials directly, on February 3, 1953, and this motion for reconsideration was denied on August 23, 1953. No appeal was taken against this award until May 24, 1954, when the petition for review in this case was filed. Therefore, the award of the salary differential was already final and executory when the appeal was filed against it, as more than nine months had elapsed from the time the motion to reconsider the ward was denied. The appeal with respect thereto is, therefore, dismissed.

    As to the award of gratuity on the basis of six days of work a week, it is to be noted that while the granting of the gratuity was made in the court’s order of January 28, 1953. Said grant did not fix the basis (number of workdays a week) at which the weekly gratuity was to be paid. The basis was made for the first time in Annex A, the report submitted by the Chief Examiner of the court a quo on December 8, 1953. A motion to reconsider the computation was filed by petitioner and this was denied in a resolution of the court a quo on May 4, 1954 and the petition in this Court was presented before us on May 24, 1954. It does not appear when the order appealed from was served on the petitioner. As no claim is made that the petition for review was filed beyond the period prescribed by the Rules, we must assume that it was filed on time. The appeal on this question must, therefore, be decided on its merits.

    We find much merit in the claim of the respondent union that the gratuity provided for in the second part of the agreement should be computed on the basis of six labor days a week, and not on the basis of three days only as claimed by the petitioner, because the agreement provided for gratuity and not for backpay. Backpay might justify a basis fixed on the number of actual labor days a week in force at the time of the closing of the sawmill, but not gratuity. A week of labor is to be understood to embrace the ordinary number of six labor days, in the absence of an express agreement to the contrary. As there is no such express agreement in the contract and an intention to mean three labor days a week cannot otherwise be inferred from the terms of the agreement, we must assume that the parties meant a week of six labor days instead of three only.

    There is another reason why petitioner’s claim of a three-day a week basis for the gratuity can not be sustained. The provision for three labor days a week is found in the first part of the contract, which first part is applicable if all the laborers of the sawmill are to be employed by the vendee or lessee of the business. This condition, where all of the employees of the sawmill were to be employed also by the vendee or the lessee, did not take place because only 18 of the old employees were taken in, other new workers having been employed. The portion of the agreement that was applicable, therefore, is the second, which is to apply in all other cases. The second portion of the agreement is preceded by the term "otherwise." As a matter of fact, demand for the payment of gratuities was made because the lessee of the sawmill did not employ all the original employees or laborers of the petitioner. In this second portion of the agreement, there is absolutely no mention even indirectly, of a week as constituting only three days of labor. We, therefore, find that the basis of the computation of the weekly annuity must be six days, and not three days as contended by the petitioner.

    For all the foregoing, the petition should be, as it hereby is, denied, with costs against petitioner.

    Pablo, Acting C. J., Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Reyes, A., Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, and Reyes, J. B. L., JJ., concur.

    G.R. No. L-7791   April 19, 1955 - LEE TAY & LEE CHAY v. KAISAHAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA KAHOY SA FILIPINAS<br /><br />096 Phil 808


    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