Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1964 > April 1964 Decisions > G.R. No. L-19317 April 30, 1964 - CEBU PORTLAND CEMENT CO. v. MAXIMO S. SAVELLANO, SR., ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-19317. April 30, 1964.]

CEBU PORTLAND CEMENT COMPANY, Petitioner, v. MAXIMO S. SAVELLANO, SR., ET AL., Respondents.

The Government Corporate Counsel for Petitioner.

Maximo A. Savellano, Jr. for respondent Maximo S. Savellano, Sr.

Mariano B. Tuason for respondent Court of Industrial Relations.


SYLLABUS


1. LABOR RELATIONS; REINSTATEMENT WITH BACK WAGES; INCLUDES DIFFERENTIAL IN GENERAL INCREASE OF WAGES. — An order for reinstatement with back wages includes the differential caused by a general increase of salaries, irrespective of individual merit, granted whole-scale by the company during the pendency of the case. In the case at bar, since the back salaries actually paid the reinstated employee by the company are only on the basis of the old rate, the employer has failed to satisfy the judgment in full.

2. ID.; COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS; POWER TO PREVENT PREJUDICE THROUGH ILLEGAL DISMISSAL OF EMPLOYEE. — The Company cannot pretend that it intended to except the respondent employee from the benefits of increased salaries extended en masse to its officials and employees. Otherwise, said respondent employee would be prejudiced through his illegal dismissal, and such result the company had no right to cause, and the labor court had power to prevent.


D E C I S I O N


REYES, J.B.L., J.:


Petition for review of an order of execution of the Court of Industrial Relations, in its Case No. 68-V, directing the herein petitioner, Cebu Portland Cement Company, to pay to the herein respondent, Maximo J. Savellano, the sum of P6,300 representing salary differential of back wages corresponding to the period from 1 October 1951 to 31 December 1956. The said order of execution was issued in pursuance of an order on 2 September 1955, the dispositive portion of which reads:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"WHEREFORE, it is hereby ordered —

(a) That the Cebu Portland Cement Company shall reinstate Maximo J. Savellano, Leon P. Pelaez, Galico Sotto, Emilio Castillo, Pablo Castillo, and Pablo R. Barrios in the services, of the Company, with back salaries and wages from November 16, 1950 up to the date of their reinstatement. . . ."cralaw virtua1aw library

This order of reinstatement is not in controversy.

During the pendency of the case, the petitioner company and employees for the fiscal year 1951-1962 budget, and when the Savellano case was terminated, the company complied with the order of 2 September 1955 by reinstating respondent Savellano on 14 March 1956 and paying his back salaries at the rate of P9,600 per annum, which was his salary as second assistant general manager at the time of his illegal dismissal. However, he was refused the benefit of the whole- scale and general increases which were given to the other officials and employees of the company including personnel in the Administrative Department where Savellano was connected before his illegal dismissal, as well as Savellano’s former co-petitioners in the labor court, namely, Emilio Castillo, Pablo Castillo, and Pablo Briones (or Barrios).

The claim of Savellano starts from 1 October 1951, because it was on this date that the salary of the first assistant general manager, Mamerto de Jesus, who formerly received the same salary as Savellano, P9,600 per annum, was raised under, and in implementation of, the whole-scale and general increases granted by the company.

The petitioner company assigns two errors allegedly committed by the industrial court in ordering the payment of the respondent’s salary differential, namely: that when the company reinstated the respondent and paid him his back salaries based at the same rate he was receiving at the time of his improper dismissal, the employer had satisfied the order of 2 September 1955; and; (2) that the court had no jurisdiction to grant salary increase to the Respondent.

Under the first assignment of error, the petitioner company argues that "backpay", as explained in Donato v. Philippine Marine Officers Association, Et Al., L-12506, 18 May 1959, is "what an employee has lost in the way of wages by reason of his dismissal", which it contends, "cannot be more neither can it be less." Citing also the case of Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office v. Alandy, L-15391, 3 November 1960, the company continues: "An increase in an appropriation or salary should not automatically entitle the holder of the position to the increased salary."cralaw virtua1aw library

Under the second assignment of error, the company simply states that the grant of salary increase to an employee is not, under the existing laws and jurisprudence, within the limited jurisprudence of the labor court.

The foregoing arguments discount the fact that the company not only appropriated but also granted whole-scale general increases to its officials and employees, irrespective of individual merit, efficiency or qualification, during the pendency of the case. Considering this essential fact, brought about by the company’s own doing, the respondent, did lose by way of salaries, during and by reason of his unlawful dismissal, what he would have received at his old rate as well as what he would have received at the corresponding increased rate. Since the back salaries actually paid him by the company are only on the basis of old rate, the employer has failed to satisfy the judgment in full.

The court a quo, in ordering execution for the salary differential, was not assuming, and did not assume, jurisdiction to grant salary increase to the respondent, but was enforcing the company’s own act of granting the whole-scale and general increases, without unjustified discrimination against a particular employee.

It is argued that the grant of salary increases is discretionary upon the appointing power. Indeed, it is, and the company did exercise that discretion by granting the general increases. It cannot now pretend that it intended to except the respondent from the benefits extended en masse to its officials and employees. Otherwise, Savellano would be prejudiced through his illegal dismissal, and such result the company had no right to cause, and the labor court had power to prevent.

Finding no error in the order under review, the same is hereby affirmed, with costs against the petitioner.

Bengzon, C.J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Barrera, Paredes, Dizon and Makalintal, 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






April-1964 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-16037 April 29, 1964 - MONCADA BIJON FACTORY v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-18120 April 29, 1964 - DALMACIO DADURAL, ET AL v. COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-19063 April 29, 1964 - JULIANA CALADIAO, ET AL v. MAXIMA SANTOS VDA. DE BLAS

  • G.R. No. L-19863 April 29, 1964 - NAT’L., DEVELOPMENT CO. v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COM., ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-19866 April 29, 1964 - DAVAO STEEL CORP. v. JOSE R. CABATUANDO, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-14336 April 30, 1964 - LA TONDEÑA, INC. v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15975 April 30, 1964 - HEIRS of the DECEASED JUAN SINDIONG, ET AL v. COMMITTEE ON BURNT AREAS & IMPROVEMENTS OF CEBU,

    ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-16147 April 30, 1964 - LUZON COMMODITIES CORP. v. AMOR and SAYO, , ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-16391 April 30, 1964 - HECTOR MORENO v. MACARIO TANGONAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16483 April 30, 1964 - MARIA DE LA CRUZ, ET AL v. PLARIDEL SURETY & INSURANCE CO.

  • G.R. No. L-16520 April 30, 1964 - JUAN CABUNGCAL, ET AL. v. HON. JOSE F. FERNANDEZ

  • G.R. No. L-16986 April 30, 1964 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SABAS SAYON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17438 April 30, 1964 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. RITA LIM DE YU

  • G.R. No. L-17776 April 30, 1964 - FORTUNATO F. HALILI v. RAFAEL HUGANAS, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-17917 April 30, 1964 - VICTORIO GUY CO CHIA v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-17954 April 30, 1964 - TAN CHING v. HON. A. GERALDEZ, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-18202 April 30, 1964 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PERCIVAL GILO

  • G.R. No. L-18271 April 30, 1964 - FELIX V. ESPINO v. PEDRO M. GIMENEZ, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-18784 April 30, 1964 - CITY OF MANILA, ET AL v. BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS, ET AL

  • G.R. Nos. L-18889-90 April 30, 1964 - FORTUNATO F. HALILI v. ANTONIO HERAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18993 April 30, 1964 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. CAPITOL SUBDIVISION, INC.

  • G.R. No. L-19001 April 30, 1964 - PRUDENTIAL BANK & TRUST CO. v. SAURA IMPORT & EXPORT CO. INC.

  • G.R. No. L-19007 April 30, 1964 - PHIL. COAL MINER’S UNION v. CEBU PORTLAND CEMENT CO., ET AL

  • G.R. No. -19020 April 30, 1964 - ANTONIO M. SAMIA v. HON. GREGORIO N. GARCIA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19298 April 30, 1964 - EUGENIO S. DE GRACIA v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-19317 April 30, 1964 - CEBU PORTLAND CEMENT CO. v. MAXIMO S. SAVELLANO, SR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19370 April 30, 1964 - GENARO PRADO v. APOLINARIO CALPO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19383 April 30, 1964 - UNITED STATES LINES CO. v. SAN MIGUEL BREWERY, INC.

  • G.R. No. L-19589 April 30, 1964 - RELIANCE SURETY & INSURANCE CO. v. MANILA RAILROAD CO., ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-19624 April 30, 1964 - BARTOLOME PUZON v. HON. MANUEL P. BARCELONA, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-19628 April 30, 1964 - PASUMIL WORKERS UNION v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-19759 April 30, 1964 - CONCEPCION MONTELIBANO, ET AL v. HON. JOSE S. DE LA CRUZ, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-19760 April 30, 1964 - MARCELO VILLAVIZA, ET AL. v. JUDGE TOMAS PANGANIBAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19761 April 30, 1964 - QUINTINA S. VDA. DE AMPIL, ET AL v. HON. JUDGE CARMELINO G. ALVENDIA, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-19767 April 30, 1964 - RIZAL CEMENT WORKERS UNION (FFW), ET AL v. MADRlGAL & CO., ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-19896 April 30, 1964 - REMEDIOS LAYAG, ET AL. v. JUAN GERARDO

  • G.R. No. L-20044 April 30, 1964 - NATIONAL UNION OF RESTAURANT WORKERS (PTUC) v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.