Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1964 > November 1964 Decisions > G.R. Nos L-18444-45 November 28, 1964 - MANILA RAILROAD CO. v. UNION DE MAQUINISTAS, FOGONEROS Y MOTORMEN:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. Nos. L-18444-45. November 28, 1964.]

MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY, Petitioner, v. UNION DE MAQUINISTAS, FOGONEROS Y MOTORMEN; UNION DE EMPLEADOS DE TRENES; STATION EMPLOYEES UNION MRR YARD CREW UNION; KAPISANANG LIBERAL SA DAANG BAKAL (KALIDAKAL) and Court OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, Respondents.

Government Corporate Counsel Simeon M. Gopengco and Atty. Lorenzo R. Mosqueda for Petitioner.

Mariano B. Tuason for respondent Court of Industrial Relations.

Carlos E. Santiago for respondent Unions.


SYLLABUS


1. LABOR RELATIONS; BOARD RESOLUTION REDUCING SALARIES; DOUBT CONSTRUED FAVORABLY TO LABOR AND UNDER CIRCUMSTANCE THEN OBTAINING. — In the interpretation of an ambiguous portion of a resolution of the Board of Director of the company reducing the salaries of the employees but promising that such reduction shall be "returned immediately as the finances of the company improve," it was held that resort must be had to contemporaneous circumstances in order to discover the intention of the parties and considering that said resolution was drafted by the company’s Board of Director, any doubt must be resolved in favor of the employees.

2. ID.; CLAIM FOR REFUND OF REDUCED SALARIES TREATED AS INCIDENT IN MAIN CASE. — The claim for refund of reduced salaries must be treated as an incident in the main case, where the non-payment of said amounts was one of the motivating factors that led the employees’ union to declare a strike in said case.


D E C I S I O N


MAKALINTAL, J.:


This case is before us on petition for review of the order of respondent Court of Industrial Relations dated February 17, 1961 in two cases before it: Nos. 17-IPA (6), Union de Maquinistas, Fogoneros y Motormen v. M.R.R., and 18-IPA (6), Union de Empleados de Trenes v. M.R.R., the dispositive portion of which order is as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the Chief Examiner or any of his assistants is hereby directed to proceed to the premises of the respondent and compute the 5 percent, 10 percent and 15 percent salary reductions imposed on the members of the petitioner and intervenors corresponding to the period from January 1, 1951 to June 30, 1954, and to submit a report thereof to the Court for its further disposition in order that it may determine whether or not the finances of the company have improved to warrant the payment of the above monetary claims of the members of the petitioner and intervenors."cralaw virtua1aw library

On January 9, 1951 the Board of Directors of the petitioner, the Manila Railroad Company, passed resolution No. 437 providing for graduated reductions in the salaries of its employees, to wit: 5% with respect to salaries ranging from P121.00 to P160.00 per month; 10% with respect to those ranging from P161.00 to P500.00; 15% with respect to those ranging from P501.00 to P833.33; and 20% with respect to salaries above P833.33. The resolution contained the following condition: "that the above economy measures be, and they hereby are, considered temporary and that the reduction of salaries be returned immediately as the finances of the Manila Railroad Company improve, beginning from the lower bracket up."cralaw virtua1aw library

The resolution was made effective as of January 1, 1951. Subsequently, as the finances of the Company improved, the reductions were gradually set aside and the rates of salaries previously existing were restored, as follows: P150.00 per month and below, on November 16, 1957; P151 to P160, on March 1, 1952; P161 to P300, on May 1, 1952; P301 to P500, on May 1, 1952; and all others, on July, 1954. In other words on the date last mentioned all the salaries had been restored as they were prior to the passage of the resolution in question.

On April 30, 1960 herein respondents filed a petition, as an incident in two cases before the Court of Industrial Relations (No. 17-IPA and No. 18-IPA) asking for the refund of all the amounts deducted pursuant to said resolution until the respective dates of restoration as above stated. The Company moved to dismiss on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, alleging that the claim for refund was not among the unsettled demands of the employees when Case Nos. 17 and 18-IPA were certified by the President to the Court of Industrial Relations and therefore should not be treated as an incident therein but as a new and separate case. The motion was denied, and the Company filed its answer wherein, after raising anew the question of jurisdiction, it challenged the right of herein respondents to the refund claimed.

The principal issue here, as in the Court below, revolves around the interpretation of Resolution No. 437, particularly that portion thereof which states that "the above economy measures are considered as temporary and that the reduction of salaries be returned immediately as the finances of the Company improves . . ." Petitioner contends that the reductions should merely be set aside and the former rates of salaries restored; respondents answer that the amounts themselves that had been deducted should be refunded.

We agree with respondent Court that the language of the resolution is not clear, that its literal sense can not be taken as guide and therefore resort must be had to contemporaneous circumstances in order to discover the intention of the parties. These circumstances, enumerated in the order appealed from, are as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"1. That the P30.00 monthly flat allowances of the train and engine crews corresponding to the period from December, 1949 to April, 1951, which were previously deducted, were already refunded to them;

2. That the respondent’s general manager promised orally that said reductions were merely temporary and pledged to refund the same while campaigning among the employees;

3. That the respondent did not set up in its accounting books an accounts payable to cover said salary reduction although accounts payable were not also set up by the respondent to cover the P30.00 monthly flat allowances, unenjoyed rest days or franco, P15,00 monthly increases, P35.00 monthly increases of the motormen, 25% per cent nighttime differentials;

4. That the appointments of the employees subjected to said salary reductions were not altered to show said reductions;

5. That the finances of the respondent have improved as evidenced by the P35.00 monthly increase of the motormen, P15.00 monthly general increase of all employees, payment of 25% per cent nighttime differentials, and payment of unenjoyed rest days;

6. That a literal interpretation of the pertinent provision of Resolution No. 437 would not resolve the issue; and,

7. That Article 1702 of the Civil Code provides, "in case of doubt, all labor legislations and all labor contracts shall be construed in favor of the safety and decent living of the laborer."cralaw virtua1aw library

Of the circumstances above mentioned, the first two bear emphasizing. The P30.00 monthly allowances of the train and engine crews were not paid from December 1949 to April 1951 by virtue of another resolution (No. 226) of petitioner’s Board of Directors, but were later on refunded in accordance with an order of respondent Court issued on September 5, 1959, which states; "considering that the Company, since September 15, 1956, has been paying by installment its accrued obligations to the workers, the Court believes that it is now appropriate time to pay also the P30.00 flat allowances which were not paid prior to April 1, 1951." Respondent Court considered the refund of said allowances as in pari materia with the refund herein claimed, and petitioner has not indicated why the same procedure should not have been followed.

As to the second circumstance, respondent Court found as a fact that the General Manager of the Company, together with the Presidents of the different unions concerned, campaigned among the employees to get them to agree to a reduction in their salaries and that in the course of that campaign the General Manager pledged to refund the deductions as soon as the finances of the Company improved. In view of this, and of the fact that the resolution was drafted by the Company’s Board of Directors, it must be construed in the light of that pledge and any doubt must be resolved in favor of the employees.

On the question of jurisdiction, petitioner maintains that the claim for refund should not be treated as an incident in the two cases (17 and 18-IPA) which had been certified by the President to respondent Court inasmuch as said claim was not one of the unsettled demands of the employees at the time of such certification on October 7, 1957, after the Union de Maquinistas, Fogoneros, y Motormen, and the Union de Empleados de Trenes, both respondents herein, went on strike on October 6, and 7, 1957. It appears, however, that one of the demands of the Union as Empleados de Trenes embodied in its letter dated February 19, 1957, precisely referred to the refund of the amounts deducted under resolution No. 437. And as stated by the lower court in its order denying the motion to dismiss filed by herein petitioner, the non-payment of said amounts was one of the motivating factors that led the petitioner below in Case No. 18-IPA (16), now respondent Union de Empleados de Trenes, to declare a strike. The conclusion of said court, therefore, that the claim for refund is necessarily connected with the main case and may be treated as an incident therein, is correct.

The order appealed from is affirmed, with costs.

Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Paredes, Dizon, Regala, Bengzon, J.P. and Zaldivar, 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






November-1964 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-17064 November 9, 1964 - FIDEL GERALDEZ v. JOSE S. RODRIGUEZ

  • G.R. No. L-19642 November 9, 1964 - IN RE: NILDA TSE v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-17020 November 17, 1964 - PABLO ALMARINEZ v. CRESENCIANA MANABAT POTENCIANO

  • G.R. No. L-17118 November 17, 1964 - IN RE: UY ENG HIOK v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-16677 November 27, 1964 - LAMBERTO YNOTORIO, ET AL. v. CANUTA LIRA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17445 November 27, 1964 - MANILA UNDERWRITERS INSURANCE CO., INC. v. BIENVENIDO A. TAN

  • G.R. No. L-17642 November 27, 1964 - CANDIDA REYES v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-18922 November 27, 1964 - NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT CO. v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. L-18208 November 27, 1964 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. MANILA PORT SERVICE

  • G.R. No. L-19133 November 27, 1964 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELIX MAGPANTAY

  • G.R. No. L-20138 November 27, 1964 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DOMINADOR SEGARINO Y BORGA

  • G.R. No. L-21951 November 27, 1964 - IN RE: UGGI LINDAMAND THERKELSE v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-9866-7 November 28, 1964 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JULIAN TIONGSON Y DE LA CRUZ

  • G.R. No. L-14250 November 28, 1964 - MARIA LOURDES PRIANES v. FERMIN HENSON

  • G.R. No. L-15945 November 28, 1964 - PORFIRIO VILLAMOR v. ARSENIO H. LACSON

  • G.R. Nos. L-16076-77 November 28, 1964 - ESTEBAN VILLANUEVA v. MISAMIS LUMBER Co., INC.

  • G.R. No. L-17249 November 28, 1964 - LICOTEDRA PARCOTILO v. FILOMENA PARCOTILO

  • G.R. No. L-17401 November 28, 1964 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SANTIAGO RAQUEL

  • G.R. No. L-17469 November 28, 1964 - JUAN SORIANO v. PERFECTO R. PALACIO

  • G.R. No. L-17850 November 28, 1964 - JOSE MALIMIT v. ESTEBAN DEGAMO

  • G.R. No. L-18116 November 28, 1964 - CLODUALDO MENESES v. ESTANISLAO LUAT

  • G.R. Nos L-18444-45 November 28, 1964 - MANILA RAILROAD CO. v. UNION DE MAQUINISTAS, FOGONEROS Y MOTORMEN

  • G.R. No. L-18487 November 28, 1964 - GENERAL ENTERPRISES, INC. v. LIANGA BAY LOGGING CO., INC.

  • G.R. No. L-18621 November 28, 1964 - SALVADOR D. LACUNA v. BOARD OF LIQUIDATORS

  • G.R. No. L-18891 November 28, 1964 - PEOPLE’S HOMESITE & HOUSING CORP. v. MELCHOR TIONGCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19299 November 28, 1964 - FELIZA JOVEN DE JESUS v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK

  • G.R. No. L-19473 November 28, 1964 - REMEDIOS L. VDA. DE LACSAMANA v. DOMINGO M. CABANGON

  • G.R. No. L-19518 November 28, 1964 - TRINIDAD A. DEAÑO v. DIOGENEZ GODINEZ

  • G.R. No. L-19519 November 28, 1964 - IN RE: ANANIAS ABUSTAN v. RUPERTO FERRER

  • G.R. No. L-19564 November 28, 1964 - SERREE INVESTMENT CO. v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

  • G.R. No. L-19733 November 28, 1964 - ARSENIO L. CANLAS v. JUDGE OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF TARLAC

  • G.R. No. L-20031 November 28, 1964 - MAGDALENA RULLAN v. BERNARDO O. VALDEZ

  • G.R. No. L-20043 November 28, 1964 - LOURDES RAMIREZ-CUADERNO v. ANGEL CUADERNO

  • G.R. No. L-20228 November 28, 1964 - ROMANA CAMPITA v. AQUILINO L. VILLANUEVA

  • G.R. No. L-20345 November 28, 1964 - RICARDO HAUTEA v. RAMON S. MAGALLON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20403 November 28, 1964 - TOMAS S. CARPIO v. CORAZON JULIANO AGRAVA

  • G.R. No. L-20484 November 28, 1964 - VIDAL PAULINO v. ADELAIDA ROSENDO

  • G.R. No. L-20860 November 28, 1964 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GLICERIO NAVARRO

  • G.R. No. L-21189 November 28, 1964 - JOSE AVENDAÑO, ET AL. v. FEDERICO C. ALIKPALA, ET AL.