Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1968 > October 1968 Decisions > G.R. No. L-24632 October 26, 1968 - LEXAL LABORATORIES, ET AL. v. NATIONAL CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES WORKERS UNION:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-24632. October 26, 1968.]

LEXAL LABORATORIES and/or JOSE ANGELES, Manager, Petitioners, v. NATIONAL CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES WORKERS UNION — PAFLU (Lexal Laboratories Chapter) and THE COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, Respondents.

Matias, Liboro & Benitez, for Petitioners.

F. M. de los Reyes for Respondents.


SYLLABUS


1. LABOR AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION; INDUSTRIAL PEACE ACT; PER DIEMS, DEFINED. — Our attention has not been drawn to a rule of law or jurisprudence which holds that per diems are integral parts of regular wages or salaries. Per diem, the dictionary definition tells us, is "a daily allowance" given "for each day he [an officer or employee] was away from his home base." It would seem to us that per diem is intended to cover the cost of lodging and subsistence of officers and employees when the latter are on duty outside of their permanent station.

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; PAYMENT OF PER DIEM NOT PROPER IN INSTANT CASE. — Lexal concedes that whenever its employee, Guillermo Ponseca, was out of Manila, he was allowed a per diem of P4.00 broken down as follows: P1.00 for breakfast; P1.00 for lunch; P1.00 for dinner; and P1.00 for lodging. Ponseca — during the period of his dismissal — did not leave Manila. Therefore, he spent nothing for meals and lodging outside of Manila. Because he spent nothing, there is nothing to be reimbursed. Since per diems are in the nature of reimbursement, Ponseca should not be entitled to per diems.


D E C I S I O N


SANCHEZ, J.:


Condensed, the question before us is this: Are per diems included in backpay? This problem came about because of the implementation of the decision of the Court of Industrial Relations (CIR) of June 29, 1963 1 directing petitioner Lexal Laboratories (Lexal) to reinstate Guillermo Ponseca, a dismissed employee, to his former position "with full back wages from the day of his dismissal up to the time he is actually reinstated without loss of his seniority rights and of such other rights and privileges enjoyed by him prior to his lay-off."cralaw virtua1aw library

CIR, confirming the report of its Chief Examiner and Economist, ruled in its order of February 16, 1965 that Ponseca was entitled to back wages from November 5, 1958 when he ceased reporting for work, to November 24, 1963 a day prior to his reinstatement on November 25, 1963; and that for the number of days that he was supposed to be in Manila, he was to earn P4.50 a day, and during the periods when he should have been in the provinces, P4.50 a day plus a per diem of P4.00 or a total of P8.50 daily. This order was subsequently modified by CIR’s resolution of May 22, 1965 which directed the deduction of P5,000.00 previously paid Ponseca under the judgment and P610.00 which Ponseca earned from other sources during his layoff.

Petitioners vigorously objected to the inclusion of the P4.00 per diem in the computation of Ponseca’s back wages because the latter "did not actually spend for his meals and lodgings for he was all the time in Manila, his station." CIR brushed this contention aside. Whereupon, petitioners appealed to this Court from the order of February 16, 1965 and the resolution of May 22, 1965. 2

1. Our attention has not been drawn to a rule of law or jurisprudence which holds that per diems are integral parts of regular wages or salaries. Neither is it suggested in the record that per diems formed part of the terms of employment between petitioners and respondent union (of which Ponseca is a member), or with Ponseca himself for that matter. Nor was pronouncement made either in the original decision or in the questioned order and resolution of CIR that per diems are part of back wages. CIR simply hit upon the idea that per diems should be paid as part of the back wages because they were "paid to him regularly."

Per diem, the dictionary definition tells us, is "a daily allowance" given "for each day he [an officer or employee] was away from his home base." 3 It would seem to us that per diem is intended to cover the cost of lodging and subsistence of officers and employees when the latter are on duty outside of their permanent station. 4 Lexal concedes that whenever its employee, Guillermo Ponseca, was out of Manila, he was allowed a per diem of P4.00 broken down as follows: P1.00 for breakfast; P1.00 for lunch; P1.00 for dinner; and P1.00 for lodging. Ponseca — during the period involved — did not leave Manila. Therefore, he spent nothing for meals and lodging outside of Manila. Because he spent nothing, there is nothing to be reimbursed. Since per diems are in the nature of reimbursement, Ponseca should not be entitled to per diems.

Besides, back wages are what an employee has lost "in the way of wages" due to his dismissal. So that, because Ponseca earned P4.50 a day, "then that is the amount which he lost daily by reason of his dismissal, nothing more nothing less." 5

We, accordingly, rule that CIR erred in including per diems in the back wages due and payable to Guillermo Ponseca.

2. The rest is a matter of mathematical computation. But first to the facts. The union’s evidence is that since the last part of October, 1958 Ponseca had been reporting everyday to the bodega of respondents. 6 Anyway, prior to Ponseca’s dismissal, he worked daily either in Manila or in the provinces. 7

But the order of February 15, 1965 credits Ponseca with 1,856 days for the period from November 5, 1958 to November 24, 1963. We checked the accuracy of this figure. We found that there should only be 1,846 days from November 5, 1958 to November 24, 1963, viz:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

November 5, 1958 to December 31, 1958 57 days

January 1, 1959 to December 31, 1959 365 days

January 1, 1960 to December 31, 1960 366 days

January 1, 1961 to December 31, 1961 365 days

January 1, 1962 to December 31, 1962 365 days

January 1, 1963 to November 24, 1963 328 days

————

TOTAL 1,846 days

=======

This brings us to the total amount due from Lexal to Guillermo Ponseca, as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

1,846 days x P4.50 8,307.00

Less: Advance payment P5,000.00

Earnings from other sources P610.00 P5,610.00 8

———— ————

NET BACK PAY P2,697.00

=======

For the foregoing reasons, the order of February 16, 1965 and the resolution of May 22, 1965, both of the Court of Industrial Relations, in its Case No. 2002-ULP, entitled "National Chemical Industries Workers Union-PAFLU (Lexal Laboratories Chapter), Complainant, v. Lexal Laboratories and Jose Angeles, its Manager, Respondents," are hereby modified; and

Judgment is hereby rendered ordering petitioner Lexal Laboratories to pay Guillermo Ponseca, by way of net backpay, the sum of P2,697.00.

No costs. So ordered.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Castro, Angeles, Fernando and Capistrano, JJ., concur.

Zaldivar, J., is on leave.

Endnotes:



1. CIR Case No. 2002-ULP, entitled "National Chemical Industries Workers Union-PAFLU (Lexal Laboratories Chapter), Complainant, v. Lexal Laboratories and Jose Angeles, its Manager, Respondents."cralaw virtua1aw library

2. CIR Record, p. 257.

3. Webster’s Third New International Dictionary [1964], p. 1676.

4. Cf . Republic Act 3847; General Order Circulars Nos. 88 and 88-A; Executive Order No. 38, series of 1917, XV Gaceta Official, p. 811.

5. Donato v. Philippine Marine Officers Association, L-12506, May 18, 1959, citing United Employees Welfare Association v. Isaac Peral Bowling Alleys, L-10327, September 30, 1958, and C.E. Church v. La Union Labor Union, L-4393, April 28, 1952; underscoring ours.

6. Printed Decision, Appendix A of petitioners’ brief, p. 10-A.

7. Examiner’s Report, CIR Record, pp. 171-172.

8. The amounts of P5,000.00 and P610.00 were ordered deducted from the backpay pursuant to the CIR’s resolution of May 22, 1965.




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-1968 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-25153 October 4, 1968 - ANTONIO CLEMENTE v. BERNARDINO PASCUA

  • G.R. No. L-25461 October 4, 1968 - DY CHUN, ET AL. v. JOSE M. MENDOZA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23319 October 7, 1968 - LUZON GLASS FACTORY v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24680 October 7, 1968 - JESUSA VDA. DE MURGA v. JUANITO CHAN

  • G.R. No. L-24797 October 8, 1968 - SOUTHWEST AGRICULTURAL MARKETING CORP. v. SECRETARY OF FINANCE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25724 October 8, 1968 - FILIPRO, INC. v. MANILA PORT SERVICE

  • G.R. No. L-25573 October 11, 1968 - NATIONAL WATERWORKS AND SEWERAGE AUTHORITY v. MINERVA I. PIGUING

  • G.R. No. L-18793 October 11, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GETULIO PANTOJA

  • G.R. No. L-25328 October 11, 1968 - NAWASA v. KAISAHAN AT KAPATIRAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA AT KAWANI NG NAWASA

  • G.R. No. L-21488 October 14, 1968 - LUCILA DE LA PAZ v. COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24802 October 14, 1968 - LIM KIAH v. KAYNEE COMPANY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25607 October 14, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAMON NAVARRA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25332 October 14, 1968 - ARTURO T. UBARRA, ET AL. v. BISCOM EMPLOYEES COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATION, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-25032 and L-25037-38 October 14, 1968 - CEBU PORTLAND CEMENT COMPANY v. CEMENT WORKERS UNION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21957 October 14, 1968 - LAURO ADAMOS, ET AL. v. J. M. TUASON & CO., INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25646 October 14, 1968 - GERVACIO VALENCIA v. CARMEN P. CRISOLOGO

  • G.R. No. L-22226 October 14, 1968 - PACIFIC TUG & SALVAGE CORPORATION OF PANAMA v. RAMON O. NOLASCO

  • G.R. No. L-20158 October 14, 1968 - CANDELARIO ALMENDRAS, ET AL. v. AMADO DEL ROSARIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24139 October 14, 1968 - COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION v. GAUDENCIO CLORIBEL

  • G.R. No. L-22504 October 14, 1968 - GUARDIANSHIP OF THE INCOMPETENT FEDERICO GARLIT v. ERLINDA G. GARLIT

  • G.R. No. L-25726 October 21, 1968 - CESAR C. ALTAREJOS v. TEODORO K. MOLO

  • G.R. No. L-23454 October 25, 1968 - EDILBERTO M. RAMOS, ET AL. v. GUILLERMO TORRES

  • G.R. No. L-22290 October 25, 1968 - EMILIANA MOLO-PECKSON, ET AL. v. PEDRO JL. BAUTISTA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26242 October 25, 1968 - IN RE: JAMES Y. NG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-26398 October 25, 1968 - ELPIDIO TALASTAS v. CLEMENCO ABELLA

  • Adm. Case No. 501 October 26, 1968 - IN RE: ZACARIAS MANIGBAS

  • G.R. No. L-29648 October 26, 1968 - FRANCISCO SOCORRO v. NORA VARGAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25301 October 26, 1968 - GOLD STAR MINING CO., INC. v. MARTA LIM-JIMENA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20973 October 26, 1968 - JOSE BELTRAN v. NICANOR CRUZ

  • G.R. No. L-26863 October 26, 1968 - INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER MACLEOD, INC. v. CO BAN LING & SONS CO., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25411 October 26, 1968 - MARTINIANO P. VIVO v. GAUDENCIO CLORIBEL

  • G.R. No. L-26332 October 26, 1968 - SWEDISH EAST ASIA CO., LTD. v. MANILA PORT SERVICE

  • G.R. No. L-27802 October 26, 1968 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. CENTRAL SURETY & INSURANCE COMPANY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24377 October 26, 1968 - FAR EASTERN SURETY & INSURANCE COMPANY, INC. v. SOCORRO DANCEL VDA. DE MISA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24632 October 26, 1968 - LEXAL LABORATORIES, ET AL. v. NATIONAL CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES WORKERS UNION

  • G.R. No. L-19857 October 26, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DAMASO ATIENZA

  • G.R. No. L-24695 October 26, 1968 - B.J. SERVER v. RICARDO SIKAT

  • G.R. No. L-21756 October 28, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NORMAN VIÑAS

  • G.R. No. L-16995 October 28, 1968 - JULIO LUCERO v. JAIME L. LOOT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26001 October 29, 1968 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27662 October 29, 1968 - MANILA PEST CONTROL, INC. v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28469 October 29, 1968 - UNA KIBAD v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16941 October 29, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MATEO DEL CASTILLO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17888 October 29, 1968 - RESINS INCORPORATED v. AUDITOR GENERAL OF THE PHILIPPINES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19069 October 29, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AMADEO PERALTA ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20563 October 29, 1968 - CEBU PORTLAND CEMENT CO. v. COLLECTOR (NOW COMMISSIONER) OF INTERNAL REVENUE

  • G.R. No. L-21115 October 29, 1968 - LINKOD JUANE, ET AL. v. GREGORIO N. GARCIA

  • G.R. No. L-22046 October 29, 1968 - CHU HOI HORN v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22252 October 29, 1968 - ELPIDIO MARCELO v. REYNALDO MATIAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23270 October 29, 1968 - MARIA O. SARMIENTO, ET AL. v. VICTORIANO H. ENDAYA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23657 October 29, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUAN ACOSTA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23645 October 29, 1968 - BENJAMIN P. GOMEZ v. ENRICO PALOMAR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23893 October 29, 1968 - VILLA REY TRANSIT INC. v. EUSEBIO E. FERRER, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25888 October 29, 1968 - TIDEWATER OIL COMPANY v. ADELAIDA C. DIONISIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26047 October 30, 1968 - DONATO MATA v. DELFIN B. FLORES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26981 October 30, 1968 - IN RE: GLORIA GOMEZ v. RUFINO IMPERIAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20398 October 31, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUAN GIL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24530 October 31, 1968 - BOARD OF IMMIGRATION COMMISSIONERS, ET AL. v. BEATO GO CALLANO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18543 October 31, 1968 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. GENERAL SALES SUPPLY CO., INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-20960-61 October 31, 1968 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, ET AL. v. PHILIPPINE ACE LINES, INC.

  • G.R. No. L-23708 October 31, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SOCORRO MONGAYA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22403 October 31, 1968 - LUIS CASTRO v. AUDITOR GENERAL

  • G.R. No. L-23309 October 31, 1968 - NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION v. FRANCISCO ARCA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24756 October 31, 1968 - CITY OF BAGUIO v. FORTUNATO DE LEON