Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1950 > January 1950 Decisions > G.R. No. L-2548 January 28, 1950 - DEE C. CHUAN & SONS v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

085 Phil 365:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-2548. January 28, 1950.]

DEE C. CHUAN & SONS, INC., Petitioner-Appellant, v. THE COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, CONGRESS OF LABOR ORGANIZATIONS, KAISAHAN NG MANGGAGAWA SA KAHOY SA PILIPINAS, and JULIAN LUMANOG AND HIS WORK-CONTRACT LABORERS, Respondents-Appellees.

Quisumbing, Sycip & Quisumbing for Petitioner.

Lazatin & Caballero for Respondents.

SYLLABUS


1. EMPLOYERS AND EMPLOYEES; CLAIM FOR DAMAGES RESULTING FROM LABORERS’ STRIKE. — A strike is not in itself inconsistent with or destructive of the efficacy of an award or decision, since the Court of Industrial Relations in proper cases may enforce the same during the statutory period. In other words, an employer, as soon as the laborers walk out, may resort to said court defeat the aims of the strike by alleging the existence of a binding decision settling a previous similar industrial dispute, subject of course to the power of the power of the court to reopen any question involved therein (sec. 17, Commonwealth Act No. 103). A s a matter of fact, a strike may not be staged only when, during the pendency of an industrial dispute, the Court of Industrial Relations has issued the proper injunction against the laborers (sec. 19, Commonwealth Act No. 103, as amended). Capital need not, however, be apprehensive the recurrence of strikes in view of the system of compulsory arbitration by the Court of Industrial Relations. This conclusion on the basis phase of the case. — that the strike in question is legal and justified, — is necessarily fatal (1) to petitioner’s claim for damages, even assuming that the Court of Industrial Relations has jurisdiction to pass thereon, and (2) to petitioner’s claim that the striking laborers had deceased to be in its employ as a consequence of their unjustified strike.


D E C I S I O N


PARAS, J.:


This is an appeal by the petitioner from a decision of the Court of Industrial Relations ordering the petitioner (1) to grant an increase of P0.30 a day to all its employees and laborers except workers under the "pakiao system" ; (2) to grant its laborers, under certain conditions, 15 days vacation leave and 15 days sick leave both with full pay every year, and, upon the other hand, denying (a) petitioner’s prayer for the reduction of the salaries and wages of its employees and laborers, including the work-contract laborers of Julian Lumanog; (b) petitioner’s claim for damages resulting from its laborers’ strike; (c) petitioner’s prayer for the filing of a bond by Julian Lumanog under Act No. 3959 and for the reduction of wages of his work-contract laborers.

The contention of the petitioner that the strike declared by its laborers on April 12, 1947, is illegal or unjustified because it originated from unfounded demands and was planned by the Congress of Labor Organizations to create a general strike condition in Manila and embarrass the Roxas Administration, raises questions of fact decided adversely to the petitioner by the Court of Industrial Relations; and, it is now needless to state, we are not authorized to re-examine the same.

It appears that there was a previous industrial dispute between the petitioner and its laborers resulting in a strike which was decided and settled by the Court of Industrial Relations in a final judgment promulgated on November 23, 1946. It is presently argued by the petitioner that the effective duration of this judgment is three years during which a strike may not be staged. Section 17 of Commonwealth Act No. 103, invoked by the petitioner, provides that "An award, order, or decision of the Court shall be valid and effective during the time therein specified. In the absence of such specification, any party or both parties to a controversy may terminate the effectiveness of an award, order or decision after three years have elapsed from the date of said award, order or decision by giving notice to that effect to the Court: Provided, however, That at any time during the effectiveness of an award, order or decision, the Court may, on application of an interested party, and after due hearing, alter, modify in whole or in part, or set aside any such award, order or decision, or reopen any question involved therein."cralaw virtua1aw library

The petitioner admits that this provision does not expressly prohibit the declaration of a strike during the effective duration of an award or decision, but contends that the prohibition may be inferred from the legislative intent of forestalling strikes. We cannot agree. A strike is not in itself inconsistent with or destructive of the efficacy of an award or decision, since the Court of Industrial Relations in proper cases may enforce the same during the statutory period. In other words, an employer as soon as the laborers walk out, may resort to said court and defeat the aims of the strike by alleging the existence of a binding decision settling a previous similar industrial dispute, subject of course to the power of the court to reopen any question involved therein (sec. 17, Commonwealth Act No. 103). As a matter of fact, a strike may not be staged only when, during the pendency of an industrial dispute, the Court of Industrial Relations has issued the proper injunction against the laborers (section 19, Commonwealth Act No. 103, as amended). Capital need not, however, be apprehensive about the recurrence of strikes in view of the system of compulsory arbitration by the Court of Industrial Relations.

This conclusion on the basic phase of the case, — that the strike in question is legal and justified, — is necessarily fatal (1) to petitioner’s claim for damages, even assuming that the Court of Industrial Relations has jurisdiction to pass thereon, and (2) to petitioner’s claim that the striking laborers had ceased to be in its employ as a consequence of their unjustified strike.

The raise in wages and the 15-day vacation leave with full pay every year conceded to the workers by the Court of Industrial Relations were based on the financial ability of the petitioner as shown by the evidence adduced before and weighed by said court, and for us to review this feature of the case will involve a factual inquiry which we are not empowered to undertake.

The Court of Industrial Relations has also ordered the petitioner to grant its workers 15-day sick leave with full pay every year. In the case of Leyte Land Transportation Company, Inc. v. Leyte Farmers’ and Laborers’ Union, L-1377, decided on May 12, 1948 (45 Off. Gaz., 4862) 1 we already sustained the authority of the Court of Industrial Relations to grant vacation and sick leaves with pay, and observed that "when there is an assurance of holidays and vacations, workers take up their tasks with greater efficiency and tend to sustain their productiveness for longer periods."cralaw virtua1aw library

The claims of the petitioner against Julian Lumanog must also be overruled, first, because it is admitted that the latter is an independent contractor, and his laborers (who joined the strike) are therefore not in the service of the petitioner, with the result that the Court of Industrial Relations has no jurisdiction over them; and, secondly, because we have ruled that the strike in question is legal and justified, and cannot consequently be a cause for discharge.

The appealed decision of the Court of Industrial Relations is therefore affirmed, and it is so ordered with costs against the petitioner.

Ozaeta, Pablo, Bengzon, Padilla, Tuason, Montemayor, Reyes and Torres, JJ., concur.

Moran, C.J., concurs in the result.

Endnotes:



1. 80 Phil., 840.




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






January-1950 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-2015 January 6, 1950 - LUISA CRUZ VDA. DE JOSE ET AL. v. EUGENIA DE LA PAZ

    085 Phil 287

  • G.R. No. L-2569 January 13, 1950 - GOTAMCO LUMBER CO. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL

    085 Phil 291

  • G.R. No. L-2700 January 13, 1950 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MANUEL BLANCO

    085 Phil 296

  • G.R. No. L-3033 January 13, 1950 - PHIL. MANUFACTURING CO. v. NAT’L. LABOR UNION, ET AL

    085 Phil 298

  • G.R. No. L-858 January 18, 1950 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. GREGORIO HONTAÑOSAS

    085 Phil 302

  • G.R. No. L 1477 January 18, 1950 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JULIO GUILLEN

    085 Phil 307

  • G.R. No. L-2247 January 23, 1950 - FLORENTINO UY BOCO v. REPUBLICA DE FILIPINAS

    085 Phil 320

  • G.R. No. L-2248 January 23, 1950 - VICENTE ROSAL PARDO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    085 Phil 323

  • G.R. No. L-2347 January 23, 1950 - ANSELMO BULASAG ET AL. v. ALIPIO RAMOS, ET AL

    085 Phil 330

  • G.R. No. L-711 January 28, 1950 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AMADO PAÑGANIBAN

    085 Phil 336

  • G.R. No. L-1986 January 28, 1950 - PLACIDA CLEMENTE DE BELARMINO, ET AL v. PEDRO DE MESA

    085 Phil 344

  • G.R. No. L-2003 January 28, 1950 - FILEMON ARCIGA v. ERNESTO DE JESUS, ET AL

    085 Phil 348

  • G.R. No. L-2095 January 28, 1950 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FAUSTO CLAMANIA ET AL.

    085 Phil 350

  • G.R. No. L-2540 January 28, 1950 - BENIGNO S. VIRAY v. AMNESTY COM. OF THE AFP

    085 Phil 354

  • G.R. No. L-2548 January 28, 1950 - DEE C. CHUAN & SONS v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

    085 Phil 365

  • G.R. No. L-2811 January 28, 1950 - PRESCILA S. EBOÑA, ET AL v. MUNICIPALITY OF DAET

    085 Phil 369

  • G.R. No. L-3282 January 28, 1950 - VICTORINA A. DE GAERLAN, ET AL v. FELIX MARTINEZ, ET AL

    085 Phil 375

  • G.R. No. L-1559 January 31, 1950 - FILIPINAS COMPAÑIA DE SEGUROS v. TAN CHAUCO

    085 Phil 379

  • G.R. No. L-1577 January 31, 1950 - ENRIQUE BAUTISTA v. EUSTAQUIO FULE

    085 Phil 391

  • G.R. No. L-1655 January 31, 1950 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROBERTO BAUTISTA

    085 Phil 396

  • G.R. No. L-1731 January 31, 1950 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEON GUTIERREZ

    085 Phil 403

  • G.R. No. L-2000 January 31, 1950 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCISCO DEDUYO

    085 Phil 408

  • G.R. No. L-2065 January 31, 1950 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HILARION JARDINICO

    085 Phil 410

  • G.R. No. L-2156 January 31, 1950 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. PEDRO ANTONIO, ET AL

    085 Phil 418

  • G.R. No. L-2196 January 31, 1950 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. PEDRO CAPUA

    085 Phil 421

  • G.R. No. L-2235 January 31, 1950 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. URBANO MARASIGAN

    085 Phil 427

  • G.R. No. L-2216 January 31, 1950 - DEE C. CHAN & SONS v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL

    085 Phil 431

  • G.R. No. L-2237 January 31, 1950 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AMADO MENOR

    085 Phil 443

  • G.R. No. L-2321 January 31, 1950 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARSENIA NUÑEZ

    085 Phil 448

  • G.R. No. L-2592 January 31, 1950 - MUN. OF DINGRAS v. CORNELIO BONOAN, ET AL.

    085 Phil 457

  • G.R. No. L-2851 January 31, 1950 - ANGELA GOYENA DE QUIZON v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK

    085 Phil 459

  • G.R. No. L-2944 January 31, 1950 - JULIA MANUELA LICHAUCO, ET AL v. ANTONIO G. LUCERO, ET AL

    085 Phil 466