May 1961 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1961 > May 1961 Decisions >
G.R. No. L-15635 May 30, 1961 - ISAAC PERAL BOWLING ALLEY v. UNITED EMPLOYEES WELFARE ASSOCIATION, ET AL. :
EN BANC
[G.R. No. L-15635. May 30, 1961.]
ISAAC PERAL BOWLING ALLEY, Petitioner, v. UNITED EMPLOYEES WELFARE ASSOCIATION and the COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, Respondents.
Felix S. Falgui for Petitioner.
Jose C. Concepcion for respondent Union.
Vidal C. Magbanua for respondent Court of Industrial Relations.
SYLLABUS
1. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS; JURISDICTION; AUTHORITY TO HEAR AND DECIDE ALL INCIDENTS OF A CASE. — The Court of Industrial Relations, pursuant to section 27 of Republic Act No. 875, has authority to hear and decide all incidents of a case, according to the provisions of Commonwealth Act No. 103, until all issues therein shall have been fully settled and disposed of, although the case was commenced prior to the approval of the Industrial Peace Act on June 17, 1953.
2. APPEAL AND ERROR; APPEAL BY CERTIORARI; QUESTIONS OF FACTS CANNOT BE RAISED. — Questions of fact can not be raised in a case which is on appeal by certiorari (Commonwealth Act No. 108, section 14). Indias v. Philippine Iron Mines, 101 Phil., 297; 54 Off. Gaz., [6] 1817; Operators, Incorporated v. Pelagio 99 Phil., 893; 52 Off. Gaz., [17] 7268; Dee C. Chuan & Sons, Inc. v. Nahag, 95 Phil., 837; Atok Big Wedge Mining Co. v. Atok Big Wedge Mutual Benefit Assn., 93 Phil., 62; Javellana v. Barilea 92 Phil., 600; H. E. Heacock v. NLU, Et Al., 95 Phil., 553; 50 Off. Gaz., No. 9, 4233; Dee C. Chua v. CIR, 85 Phil., 365; Kaisahan Ng Manggagawa (CLO) v. CIR, 81 Phil., 556; Olavar v. Meralco, 71 Phil., 503, 505).
2. APPEAL AND ERROR; APPEAL BY CERTIORARI; QUESTIONS OF FACTS CANNOT BE RAISED. — Questions of fact can not be raised in a case which is on appeal by certiorari (Commonwealth Act No. 108, section 14). Indias v. Philippine Iron Mines, 101 Phil., 297; 54 Off. Gaz., [6] 1817; Operators, Incorporated v. Pelagio 99 Phil., 893; 52 Off. Gaz., [17] 7268; Dee C. Chuan & Sons, Inc. v. Nahag, 95 Phil., 837; Atok Big Wedge Mining Co. v. Atok Big Wedge Mutual Benefit Assn., 93 Phil., 62; Javellana v. Barilea 92 Phil., 600; H. E. Heacock v. NLU, Et Al., 95 Phil., 553; 50 Off. Gaz., No. 9, 4233; Dee C. Chua v. CIR, 85 Phil., 365; Kaisahan Ng Manggagawa (CLO) v. CIR, 81 Phil., 556; Olavar v. Meralco, 71 Phil., 503, 505).
D E C I S I O N
CONCEPCION, J.:
Appeal by certiorari from an order and a resolution of the Court of Industrial Relations.
On September 30, 1958, we rendered a decision in "United Employees Welfare Association v. Isaac Peral Bowling Alleys" (L- 10327), affirming an order of respondent Court, dated December 9, 1955, directing the reinstatement of Petronio Beriña, Claro Bordones, Caruos Menodiado and Ramon Arevalo, as pinboys of respondent therein, Isaac Peral Bowling Alleys, hereinafter referred to as the Bowling Alleys, with back wages from November 11, 1952 to December 22, 1954. Upon motion for reconsideration filed by the Bowling Alleys, our aforementioned decision was clarified in a resolution of this Court, dated November 5, 1958, reading:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"Acting on the motion for reconsideration filed by respondent in G.R. No. L-10327 (United Employees Welfare Association v. Isaac Peral Bowling Alleys), the Court RESOLVED to clarify its decision rendered on September 30, 1953, in the sense that respondent may deduct the wages or compensation the four pinboys mentioned therein may have received through employment during the period of the suspension from the back wages it has been ordered to pay them in the decision. (Emphasis supplied.)
Subsequently, the Bowling Alleys reinstated the pinboys aforementioned. Moreover, in compliance with the abovequoted resolution, respondent Court proceeded to receive evidence on the hearing of said pinboys from November 11, 1952 to December 22, 1954, so that the amount of said earnings may be deducted from the back wages they were entitled to receive from the Bowling Alleys, pursuant to our aforementioned decision, as clarified. Subsequently, or on May 25, 1959, respondent Court issued an order, pertinent parts of which we quote:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"The evidence presented establishes the facts that:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
1. Petronio Beriña — Through his own admission which was not contradicted by other evidence, Beriña worked casually and made a total amount of P40.00 only during the period of his suspension, from November 11, 1952 to December 22, 1954.
2. Claro Bordones — By agreement of the parties, for having undergone military training in the Philippine Army for the period covering July 12, 1954 to December 30, 1954, Claro Bordones received the total amount of P187.00.
So, therefore, deducting the amounts received by pinboys Beriña and Bordones during their suspension from the amounts that they shall receive from the respondent in accordance with the report of the Examiner, dated August 8, 1958, the total amount shall now be:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
1. Carlos Menodiado — P2,167.00 — P2,167.00
2. Petronio Beriñas — 1,651.69 — P40.00 — 1,611.69
3. Claro Bordones — 1,980.75 — 187.00 — 1,793.75
4. Ramon Arevalo — 1,183.70 — 1,183.70
———
Total P6,758.14
======
WHEREFORE, the respondent is hereby ordered to deposit with the Court the amount of P6,756.14 within five (5) days from receipt of this order for further disposition thereof and, in case of failure, the Clerk of Court is hereby directed to issue a writ of execution in accordance thereto."cralaw virtua1aw library
The Bowling Alleys moved for a reconsideration of this order, but the motion was denied by a resolution of respondent Court sitting en banc. The case is now before us on appeal by certiorari, taken by the Bowling Alleys, from said order of May 25, 1959 and the resolution confirmatory thereof. The petition for review by certiorari was given due course insofar only as pinboys Petronio Beriña and Claro Bordones are concerned.
The Bowling Alleys maintains, upon the authority of our decision in Philippine Association of Free Labor Unions, Et Al., v. Tan Et. Al., L-9115 (August 31, 1956, Administrator of Hacienda Luisita Estate v. Artemio Alberto, L-12133 (October 31, 1958) and Teodora Donato v. Phil. Marine Officers Association, Et Al., L-12506 (May 10, 1959), that respondent Court had no jurisdiction to further hear this case for the purpose of receiving evidence and determining how much backpay is due to Petronio Beriña and Claro Bordones. This pretense is devoid of merit, for said decisions refer to the jurisdiction of respondent Court under Republic Act No. 875, whereas the evidence in question was received and the order appealed from issued upon the authority of Commonwealth Act No. 103, as amended. Indeed, the present appeal is but an incident of Case No. 751-V(1) of respondent Court, which was commenced on October 10, 1952, or prior to the approval of the Industrial Peace Act on June 17, 1953. Having already acquired jurisdiction over the case, said Court retained, pursuant to section 27 of Republic Act No. 875, its authority to hear and decide all incidents thereof, according to the provisions of Commonwealth Act No. 103, until all issues therein shall have been fully settled and disposed of.
It is next urged that respondent Court should have deducted from the back wages of Petronio Beriña and Claro Bordones the additional sums of P60.00 and P248.00, respectively, which according to the Bowling Alleys, have been earned by said pinboys, during the period aforementioned, aside from the amounts stated in the order appealed from. Suffice it to say, that the case is before us on appeal by certiorari (Commonwealth Act No. 103, section 14) in which questions of fact can not be raised (Indias v. Philippine Iron Mines, L-9987, April 27, 1957; Operators, Incorporated v. Pelagio, L-9182, September 12, 1956; Dee C. Chun & Sons, Inc. v. Nahag, L-7201 & L-7211, September 22, 1954; Tok Big Wedge Mining Co. v. Atok Big Wedge Mutual Benefit Assn., L-5594, May 15, 1953; Javellana v. Parilea, L-4347, January 31, 1953; H. E. Heacock v. NUL, Et Al., 50 O.G. No. 9, 4233; Dee C. Chuan v. CIR, L-2548, Jan. 28, 1950; Kaisahan Ng Manggagawa (CLO) v. CIR, 81 Phil., 566; Olaivar v. Meralco, 71 Phil., 503, 505).
WHEREFORE, the order and the resolution appealed from are hereby affirmed, with costs against petitioner Isaac Peral Bowling Alleys. It is so ordered.
Bengzon, C.J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Paredes, Dizon, De Leon and Natividad, JJ., concur.
On September 30, 1958, we rendered a decision in "United Employees Welfare Association v. Isaac Peral Bowling Alleys" (L- 10327), affirming an order of respondent Court, dated December 9, 1955, directing the reinstatement of Petronio Beriña, Claro Bordones, Caruos Menodiado and Ramon Arevalo, as pinboys of respondent therein, Isaac Peral Bowling Alleys, hereinafter referred to as the Bowling Alleys, with back wages from November 11, 1952 to December 22, 1954. Upon motion for reconsideration filed by the Bowling Alleys, our aforementioned decision was clarified in a resolution of this Court, dated November 5, 1958, reading:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"Acting on the motion for reconsideration filed by respondent in G.R. No. L-10327 (United Employees Welfare Association v. Isaac Peral Bowling Alleys), the Court RESOLVED to clarify its decision rendered on September 30, 1953, in the sense that respondent may deduct the wages or compensation the four pinboys mentioned therein may have received through employment during the period of the suspension from the back wages it has been ordered to pay them in the decision. (Emphasis supplied.)
Subsequently, the Bowling Alleys reinstated the pinboys aforementioned. Moreover, in compliance with the abovequoted resolution, respondent Court proceeded to receive evidence on the hearing of said pinboys from November 11, 1952 to December 22, 1954, so that the amount of said earnings may be deducted from the back wages they were entitled to receive from the Bowling Alleys, pursuant to our aforementioned decision, as clarified. Subsequently, or on May 25, 1959, respondent Court issued an order, pertinent parts of which we quote:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"The evidence presented establishes the facts that:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
1. Petronio Beriña — Through his own admission which was not contradicted by other evidence, Beriña worked casually and made a total amount of P40.00 only during the period of his suspension, from November 11, 1952 to December 22, 1954.
2. Claro Bordones — By agreement of the parties, for having undergone military training in the Philippine Army for the period covering July 12, 1954 to December 30, 1954, Claro Bordones received the total amount of P187.00.
So, therefore, deducting the amounts received by pinboys Beriña and Bordones during their suspension from the amounts that they shall receive from the respondent in accordance with the report of the Examiner, dated August 8, 1958, the total amount shall now be:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
1. Carlos Menodiado — P2,167.00 — P2,167.00
2. Petronio Beriñas — 1,651.69 — P40.00 — 1,611.69
3. Claro Bordones — 1,980.75 — 187.00 — 1,793.75
4. Ramon Arevalo — 1,183.70 — 1,183.70
———
Total P6,758.14
======
WHEREFORE, the respondent is hereby ordered to deposit with the Court the amount of P6,756.14 within five (5) days from receipt of this order for further disposition thereof and, in case of failure, the Clerk of Court is hereby directed to issue a writ of execution in accordance thereto."cralaw virtua1aw library
The Bowling Alleys moved for a reconsideration of this order, but the motion was denied by a resolution of respondent Court sitting en banc. The case is now before us on appeal by certiorari, taken by the Bowling Alleys, from said order of May 25, 1959 and the resolution confirmatory thereof. The petition for review by certiorari was given due course insofar only as pinboys Petronio Beriña and Claro Bordones are concerned.
The Bowling Alleys maintains, upon the authority of our decision in Philippine Association of Free Labor Unions, Et Al., v. Tan Et. Al., L-9115 (August 31, 1956, Administrator of Hacienda Luisita Estate v. Artemio Alberto, L-12133 (October 31, 1958) and Teodora Donato v. Phil. Marine Officers Association, Et Al., L-12506 (May 10, 1959), that respondent Court had no jurisdiction to further hear this case for the purpose of receiving evidence and determining how much backpay is due to Petronio Beriña and Claro Bordones. This pretense is devoid of merit, for said decisions refer to the jurisdiction of respondent Court under Republic Act No. 875, whereas the evidence in question was received and the order appealed from issued upon the authority of Commonwealth Act No. 103, as amended. Indeed, the present appeal is but an incident of Case No. 751-V(1) of respondent Court, which was commenced on October 10, 1952, or prior to the approval of the Industrial Peace Act on June 17, 1953. Having already acquired jurisdiction over the case, said Court retained, pursuant to section 27 of Republic Act No. 875, its authority to hear and decide all incidents thereof, according to the provisions of Commonwealth Act No. 103, until all issues therein shall have been fully settled and disposed of.
It is next urged that respondent Court should have deducted from the back wages of Petronio Beriña and Claro Bordones the additional sums of P60.00 and P248.00, respectively, which according to the Bowling Alleys, have been earned by said pinboys, during the period aforementioned, aside from the amounts stated in the order appealed from. Suffice it to say, that the case is before us on appeal by certiorari (Commonwealth Act No. 103, section 14) in which questions of fact can not be raised (Indias v. Philippine Iron Mines, L-9987, April 27, 1957; Operators, Incorporated v. Pelagio, L-9182, September 12, 1956; Dee C. Chun & Sons, Inc. v. Nahag, L-7201 & L-7211, September 22, 1954; Tok Big Wedge Mining Co. v. Atok Big Wedge Mutual Benefit Assn., L-5594, May 15, 1953; Javellana v. Parilea, L-4347, January 31, 1953; H. E. Heacock v. NUL, Et Al., 50 O.G. No. 9, 4233; Dee C. Chuan v. CIR, L-2548, Jan. 28, 1950; Kaisahan Ng Manggagawa (CLO) v. CIR, 81 Phil., 566; Olaivar v. Meralco, 71 Phil., 503, 505).
WHEREFORE, the order and the resolution appealed from are hereby affirmed, with costs against petitioner Isaac Peral Bowling Alleys. It is so ordered.
Bengzon, C.J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Paredes, Dizon, De Leon and Natividad, JJ., concur.
