Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1959 > October 1959 Decisions > G.R. No. L-12046 October 29, 1959 - TIMOTEO CRUZ v. SEE YING

106 Phil 397:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-12046. October 29, 1959.]

TIMOTEO CRUZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SEE YING, doing business under the name and style of TIMES CANDY FACTORY, Defendant-Appellee.

Ferdinand B. Garcia and Isauro J. Pagdañganan for Appellant.

Manuel L. Pitco for Appellee.


SYLLABUS


1. COURTS; JURISDICTION; COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE; RIGHT OF EMPLOYEE TO RECOVER OVERTIME PAY OR UNPAID WAGES. — Where no written agreement is entered into by the parties to submit their dispute to the Wage Administration Service for arbitration and to abide by whatever decision it may render in the case, an employee has, under section 15, paragraph (e), Republic Act No. 602, the right to bring in a competent court an action to recover from an employer the amount of his unpaid wages.

2. EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYEE; OVERTIME PAY; WAIVER NOT EFFECTUAL. — A quit claim signed by the appellant in favor of his employer renouncing any and all kinds of claims against the said factory does not deprive the employee of his right to collect overtime and legal holiday wages under the provisions of Commonwealth Act No. 444. Overtime pay cannot be waived. (Section 6, Conmonwealth Act No. 444; Manila Terminal Co., Inc. v. Court of Industrial Relations, 91 Phil., 625; 48 Off. Gaz., 2725; Luzon Stevedoring Co. v. Luzon Marine department, 101 Phil., 257)


D E C I S I O N


PADILLA, J.:


This is a pauper’s appeal from an order of the Court of First Instance of Rizal dismissing the plaintiff’s complaint in civil case No. 3568.

On 15 April 1955 the appellant brought an action in pauperis against the appellee in the said Court for collection of overtime and legal holiday wages from 20 December 1949 to 31 March 1954 amounting to P8,960.62, computed upon a minimum of six hours overtime and legal holiday service rendered daily, legal interest from the filing of the complaint, 10% of the amount to be awarded as attorney’s fees and costs. He also prayed for other just and equitable relief.

On 4 May 1955 the appellee filed an answer denying the appellant’s claim and interposing the defense that upon separation from the service, the appellant was paid P579 as a sort of material help; and that the same claim having been dismissed by the Wage Administration Service was already barred by prior judgment. The appellee filed a counterclaim for P2,500 for the services of an attorney engaged to defend a malicious and unfounded action, and P579 to be refunded by the appellant. He further prayed for other just and equitable relief.

On 12 May 1955, the appellant filed a reply to the appellee’s answer and an answer to his counterclaim.

On 2 October 1956 the appellee filed a motion to dismiss the appellant’s complaint on the ground that the same case already had been finally and conclusively decided by the Wage and Administration Service. He invoked the rule laid down in Brillantes v. Castro, 99 Phil., 497; 56 Off. Gaz., (29) 4621.

On 5 October 1956 the appellant filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss.

On 9 October 1956 the Court entered an order dismissing the appellant’s complaint following the rule laid down in the cited case. Hence this appeal.

In the case of Brillantes v. Castro, supra, invoked by the appellee to move for the dismissal of the complaint and relied upon by the trial court to dismiss it, the parties entered into a written agreement to submit their dispute to the Wage Administration Service for arbitration and agreed to abide by whatever decision it might render in the case. 1 In the case at bar, no such written agreement was entered into by the parties. 2 The fact that the appellant did not challenge the authority of the Wage Administration Service to hear and determine the case; that after rendition of the "decision" he filed a motion for reconsideration; and that after the denial of his motion for reconsideration, he appealed to the Secretary of Labor, who affirmed the "decision", are of no moment. Even if the provisions of the Minimum Wage Law (Republic Act No. 602) were to be applied to the appellant’s claim for overtime and legal holiday wages, section 15, paragraph (e), Republic Act No. 602 grants to any employee the right to bring in a competent court an action to recover from the employer who underpaid him the amount of unpaid wages.

The alleged quit claim signed by the appellant in favor of the appellee renouncing "any and all kinds of claims against the said factory" (Annex I), cannot deprive the appellant of his right to collect overtime and legal holiday wages under the provisions of Commonwealth Act No. 444. Overtime pay cannot be waived. 3

The order appealed from is set aside and the case remanded to the court of origin for further proceedings in accordance with law, without pronouncement as to costs.

Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Montemayor, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Endencia, Barrera and Gutierrez David, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. See also Umbao v. Yap, 100 Phil., 1008; 55 Off. Gaz., (17) 3112 Ortiz v. Pacific Engineering Co., G.R. No. L-12086, 30 January 1959.

2. Cebrero v. Talaman, 103 Phil., 687; Winch v. Kienner, 104 Phil., 735.

3. Section 6, Commonwealth Act No. 444; Manila Terminal Co., Inc. v. Court of Industrial Relations, 91 Phil., 625; 48 Off. Gaz., 2725; Luzon Stevedoring Co. v. Luzon Marine Department, 101 Phil., 257.




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-1959 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-13106 October 16, 1959 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JULIANA UBA

    106 Phil 332

  • G.R. No. L-13211 October 16, 1959 - VICTORIA GREFALDEO VDA. DE GILLEGO v. GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM

    106 Phil 336

  • G.R. No. L-13657 October 16, 1959 - FELICIDAD CASTUERAS v. FROILAN BAYONA

    106 Phil 340

  • G.R. No. L-11175 October 20, 1959 - JAI ALAI CORPORATION OF THE PHILIPPINES v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS

    106 Phil 345

  • G.R. Nos. L-12010 & L-12113 October 20, 1959 - KUENZLE & STREIFF v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE

    106 Phil 355

  • G.R. No. L-12405 October 20, 1959 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ISIDORO VALLADOLID

    106 Phil 363

  • G.R. No. L-12466 October 20, 1959 - ROSARIO OLIVEROS v. TEODORO OLIVEROS

    106 Phil 369

  • G.R. No. L-12939 October 20, 1959 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODOLFO M. PATERNO

    106 Phil 371

  • G.R. No. L-13517 October 20, 1959 - CONRADA LIWANAG v. FELIX CASTILLO

    106 Phil 375

  • G.R. No. L-13785 October 20, 1959 - ALBERTO DE SANTOS v. MARIANO ACOSTA

    106 Phil 380

  • G.R. No. L-13679 October 26, 1959 - DOMITILA ANGELES v. PEDRO RAZON

    106 Phil 384

  • G.R. No. L-12367 October 28, 1959 - JOVENCIO BROCE v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

    106 Phil 388

  • G.R. No. L-12622 October 28, 1959 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO DIMDIMAN

    106 Phil 391

  • G.R. No. L-12046 October 29, 1959 - TIMOTEO CRUZ v. SEE YING

    106 Phil 397

  • G.R. No. L-13098 October 29, 1959 - PHILIPPINE SUGAR INSTITUTE v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

    106 Phil 401

  • G.R. No. L-11046 October 30, 1959 - AGUSTIN LIBORO v. WILLIAM P. ROGERS

    106 Phil 404

  • G.R. Nos. L-11368-69 October 30, 1959 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE GO

    106 Phil 409

  • G.R. No. L-11972 October 30, 1959 - FELIX GARCIA v. FRANCISCO GARCIA

    106 Phil 413

  • G.R. No. L-12325 October 30, 1959 - OLEGARIO BRITO v. COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION

    106 Phil 417

  • G.R. No. L-12705 October 30, 1959 - VICENTE BAUTISTA v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

    106 Phil 420

  • G.R. No. L-12735 October 30, 1959 - LUCIA GOROSPE v. EPHRAIM G. GOCHANGCO

    106 Phil 425

  • G.R. No. L-12875 October 30, 1959 - TEOTIMO S. SAAVEDRA v. SIARI VALLEY ESTATES

    106 Phil 432

  • G.R. No. L-13748 October 30, 1959 - UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS v. BALTAZAR VILLANUEVA

    106 Phil 439

  • G.R. No. L-14557 October 30, 1959 - EPIFANIO J. ALANO v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF BULACAN

    106 Phil 445

  • G.R. No. L-10650 October 31, 1959 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARCELO ALVAREZ

    106 Phil 455

  • G.R. No. L-11959 October 31, 1959 - ARTURO B. PASCUAL v. PROVINCIAL BOARD OF NUEVA ECIJA

    106 Phil 466

  • G.R. No. L-13207 October 31, 1959 - PERFECTO GALLARDO v. PEDRO TUASON

    106 Phil 472

  • G.R. No. L-13479 October 31, 1959 - MARCELINO TIBURCIO v. PEOPLE’S HOMESITE & HOUSING CORPORATION

    106 Phil 477