October 1956 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions

Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1956 > October 1956 Decisions > [G.R. No. L-8804. October 31, 1956.] RUBEN F. SANTOS, ETC., Petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE BIENVENIDO A. TAN, ETC., ET AL., Respondents.:




EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-8804.  October 31, 1956.]

RUBEN F. SANTOS, ETC., Petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE BIENVENIDO A. TAN, ETC., ET AL., Respondents.

 

D E C I S I O N

PARAS, J.:

For some time previously Ruben F. Santos, in his capacity as Acting Chief of the Wage Administration Service, Department of Labor (Petitioner herein), had been investigating the herein Respondent, Jai Alai Corporation of the Philippines, for the purpose of determining its liability to pay some 65 betting ushers (who are members of the Jai Alai Betting Ushers’ Association), the minimum wage of P4 a day from August 4, 1951, when the Minimum Wage Law (Republic Act No. 602), became effective. The investigations thus conducted caused Respondent Jai Alai Corporation to institute in the Court of First Instance of Manila a complaint for prohibition and injunction against the Petitioner and Jai Alai Betting Ushers’ Association.

In its answer, the Jai Alai Betting Ushers’ Association claimed that the betting ushers are employees of Respondent Jai Alai Corporation and prayed that the latter be sentenced to pay the sum of P243,360, representing back wages from August 4, 1951 to September 21, 1954. The Petitioner in his answer alleged that any decision of the Wage Administration Service was not binding on Respondent Jai Alai Corporation and would at most be advisory in nature which the latter might ignore. After trial, Respondent Judge Bienvenido A. Tan of the Court of First Instance of Manila rendered a decision in favor of Respondent Jai Alai Corporation, the dispositive part of which reads as follows:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

“Wherefore, this Court hereby holds that the betting ushers are not employees of the Plaintiff corporation, and that, consequently, the Wage Administration Service, Department of Labor, and/or Ruben F. Santos, as its Acting Chief has no jurisdiction to conduct the investigation of the Plaintiff for any liability under the Minimum Wage Law to pay to betting ushers the minimum wage of P4 per day from August 4, 1951. The claim of Defendant Jai Alai Betting Ushers Association asserted in its answer, that its members be paid said minimum wage of P4 a day from August 4, 1951 to September 24, 1954, or a total of P243,360, is hereby denied for lack of merits, said betting ushers not being employees of the Jai Alai Corporation of the Philippines. The Defendants are ordered to desist from further proceedings in the matter and the writ of preliminary injunction made permanent.”

Whereas, the Jai Alai Betting Ushers’ Association did not appeal, the Petitioner, on December 27, 1954, filed a notice of appeal and posted an appeal bond in the sum of P60. On January 13, 1955, the Respondent Judge ordered the Petitioner to notify Respondent Jai Alai Corporation of the posting of the appeal bond in accordance with the doctrine laid down in Prisco et al., vs. Castelo et al., 48 Off. Gaz., p. 2193. Accordingly, the Petitioner served the necessary notice and set the corresponding hearing for January 22, 1955, when the Respondent Judge issued an order dismissing the appeal, on the ground that the notice regarding the posting of the appeal bond was not made within the reglementary period; chan roblesvirtualawlibrarywhereupon the present petition for certiorari and mandamus was filed by the Petitioner.

We deem it unnecessary to decide whether or not the service by the Petitioner of the notice in question beyond the reglementary period, although the notice of appeal was filed on time, is fatal to the appeal, because we hold that, in view of the failure of the Jai Alai Betting Ushers’ Association to appeal from the decision of the Respondent Judge, the main case has become academic. The betting ushers involved are unquestionably the parties interested in demanding the payment of back wages which in turn caused the Petitioner to look into the matter. The question that arose was whether the betting ushers were employees of Respondent Jai Alai Corporation, and the necessity for finally deciding it has disappeared by the failure or desistance of the Jai Alai Betting Ushers’ Association to appeal from the decision of the Respondent Judge, the Petitioner not having alleged any right or interest independently of that arising from the demands of the betting ushers.

Wherefore, the petition is dismissed without pronouncement as to costs.

Padilla, Montemayor, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L., Endencia and Felix, JJ., concur.




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






October-1956 Jurisprudence                 

  • [G.R. No. L-9132. October 11, 1956.] THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. FELICIANO LAPASARAN, ET AL., Defendants-Appellees.

  • [G.R. No. L-9245. October 11, 1956.] THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. DOMINADOR PANIS, Defendant, ALLIANCE INSURANCE & SURETY CO., INC., Petitioner-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. L-9257. October 17, 1956.] CARCAR ELECTRIC & ICE PLANT CO., INC., Petitioner, vs. THE COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.

  • [G.R. No. L-8989. October 18, 1956.] NGO SHIEK, Petitioner-Appellant, vs. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent-Appellee.

  • [G.R. No. L-10408. October 18, 1956.] SEVERINA MARABILLES, ET AL., Plaintiff and Appellants, vs. ALEJANDRO QUITO and AIDA QUITO, Defendants-Appellees.

  • [G.R. No. L-8780. October 19, 1956.] In the matter of the petition of YU KONG ENG alias JOHN D. YOUNG, to be admitted a citizen of the Philippines. YU KONG ENG alias JOHN D. YOUNG, Petitioner-Appellee, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. L-8155. October 23, 1956.] VIOLET MCGUIRE SUMACAD, ET AL., Plaintiffs-Appellees, vs. THE PROVINCE OF SAMAR, ET AL., Defendants; THE PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. L-8297. October 23, 1956.] THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. JESUS PONCE, BAYANI CASTILLO, alias NAYO CASTILLO, DOMINGO SAN PEDRO, alias HAPONG CABLING, accused-Appellants.

  • [G.R. No. L-8585. October 23, 1956.] THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. VIRGILIO TRIOMPO Y BAGANTE, ET AL., Defendants. ANTONIO NAVARRO, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. L-8800. October 23, 1956.] TAN TIONG BIO, ET AL., Petitioners, vs. BUREAU OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.

  • [G.R. No. L-8936. October 23, 1956.] THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. FEDERICO GERONIMO alias Cmdr. OSCAR, ET AL., Defendants, FEDERICO GERONIMO alias Cmdr. OSCAR, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. L-9072. October 23, 1956.] THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. CORNELIO FERRER, Defendant-Appellee.

  • [G.R. No. L-9276. October 23, 1956.] THE COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Petitioner, vs. V. G. SINCO EDUCATIONAL CORPORATION, Respondent.

  • [G.R. No. L-8683. October 24, 1956.] In re: Petition to annotate liens constituted in Acts Nos. 1812 and 1977. MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY, Petitioner-Appellant, vs. LUZON STEVEDORING COMPANY, Oppositor-Appellee.

  • [G.R. No. L-9340. October 24, 1956.] PAULINO NAVARRO, Petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE ANTONIO G. LUCERO, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Manila, MANUEL H. BARREDO, THE TREASURER OF THE PHILIPPINES, IGNACIO DE GUZMAN and ALFREDO EDWARD FAWCETT, Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. L-8578. October 29, 1956.] SOUTHERN MOTORS, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. EFRAIN MAGBANUA, Defendant-Appellee.

  • [G.R. No. L-8993. October 29, 1956.] ALFREDO HAHN, ET AL., Plaintiffs-Appellees, vs. YSMAEL & CO., INC., ET AL., Defendants-Appellants.

  • [G.R. No. L-9085. October 29, 1956.] DONATA R. DE CO and ELISA CO, Petitioners, vs. HON. ANTONIO G. LUCERO, Judge Presiding Branch XI of the Court of First Instance of Manila, and B. MORALES Co., LTD., Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. L-7470. October 31, 1956.] COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, Petitioner, vs. ROMEO H. VALENCIA, Respondent.

  • [G.R. No. L-7807. October 31, 1956.] ANA GERARDO, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. PLARIDEL SURETY AND INSURANCE CO., INC., Defendants-Appellees.

  • [G.R. No. L-7817. October 31, 1956.] ALFREDO M. VELAYO, in his capacity as Assignee of the insolvent COMMERCIAL AIR LINES, INC. (CALI), Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. SHELL COMPANY OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, LTD., Defendant-Appellee, YEK HUA TRADING CORPORATION, PAUL SYCIP and MABASA & CO., intervenors.

  • [G.R. No. L-8072. October 31, 1956.] LIM HOA, Petitioner, vs. DIRECTOR OF PATENTS, Respondent.

  • [G.R. No. L-8688. October 31, 1956.] ANSELMA LAMPA, DOMINGO LAMPA, BONIFACIO LAMPA and CATALINA LAMPA, Petitioners, vs. RODRIGO RAMIREZ and DONATO GUILA, Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. L-8773. October 31, 1956.] JAIME ABOGADO, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. IGMIDIO AQUINO, JUAN AQUINO, JULIANA PASION, CAMILO MATEO and CONSOLACION VELUAN, Defendants-Appellants.

  • [G.R. No. L-8804. October 31, 1956.] RUBEN F. SANTOS, ETC., Petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE BIENVENIDO A. TAN, ETC., ET AL., Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. L-8881. October 31, 1956.] REYNALDO T SANTOS, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. EMILIANO ACU�A, ET AL., Defendants-Appellants.

  • [G.R. No. L-8996. October 31, 1956.] Testate Estate of the deceased MARCELO DE CASTRO, ANGELITA DE CASTRO, ISABEL DE CASTRO, and FELISA DE CASTRO, Petitioner-Appellants, vs. EMILIO DE CASTRO, and ALVARO DE CASTRO, Oppositors-Appellees.

  • [G.R. No. L-9014. October 31, 1956.] SIMEONA BARCELONA, QUIRICO SAN GABRIEL, and TEODORA SAN GABRIEL, Petitioners, vs. HILARION BARCELONA and THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. L-9107. October 31, 1956.] In the matter of the petition of ESTEBAN LUI (KIONG) to be admitted citizen of the Philippines. ESTEBAN LUI (KIONG), Petitioner-Appellee, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Oppositor-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. L-9218. October 31, 1956.] MAXIMA ALCALA, ET AL., Petitioners, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL., Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. L-9248. October 31, 1956.] COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Petitioner, vs. MARCELO STEEL CORPORATION and COURT OF TAX APPEALS, Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. L-9316. October 31, 1956.] TRINIDAD L. AURELIO, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. MAXIMO BAQUIRAN, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. L-9335. October 31, 1956.] CONCORDIA MEJIA DE LUCAS, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. ANDRES GAMPONIA, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. L-9380. October 31, 1956.] RIZAL L. NAPIZA, VICENTE RIVERA and JULIO HAMOS, Petitioners, vs. BERNARDINO MILICIO and THE COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. L-9408. October 31, 1956.] EMILIO Y. HILADO, Petitioner, vs. THE COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE and THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS, Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. L-9484. October 31, 1956.] APOLINARIA MALOPING, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. TEOFILO COBA, Defendant-Appellee.