Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1959 > October 1959 Decisions > G.R. No. L-13098 October 29, 1959 - PHILIPPINE SUGAR INSTITUTE v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

106 Phil 401:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-13098. October 29, 1959.]

PHILIPPINE SUGAR INSTITUTE, Petitioner, v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, VIRGINIA SALUNGA, PAULINA SALUNGA, QUERUBIN SALUNGA AND ROGELIO SALUNGA, Respondents.

First Assistant Government Corporate Counsel Simeon M. Gopengco and Attorney Romualdo Valera for Petitioner.

Alfredo Salas for respondent CIR.

Antonio D. Paguia for the other respondents.


SYLLABUS


1. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS; JURISDICTION; LABOR DISPUTES; ENFROCEMENT OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT AND SEPARATION PAY NOT INCLUDED. — Under Republic Act No. 875, which took effect on June 17, 1953, the jurisdiction of the Court of Industrial Relations was confined to the following: (1) when the labor dispute affects an industry which is indispensable to the national interest and is so certified by the President to the industrial court (section 10, Republic Act No. 875); (2) when the controversy refers to minimum wage under the Minimum Wage Law (Republic Act No. 602); (3) when it involves hours of employment under the Eight-Hour Labor Law (Commonwealth Act No. 444); and (4) when it involves an unfair labor practice [section 5 (a), Republic Act No. 876]. (PAFLU v. Tan, 99 Phil., 854; 52 Off. Gaz., 5836; Reyes v. Tan, 99 Phil., 880, 52 Off. Gaz., 6187, PAFLU v. Barot, 99 Phil., 1008; 52 Off. Gaz., 6544; Allied Free Workers Union v. Apostol 102 Phil., 292; 54 Off. Gaz., 981; Mindanao Bus Employees Labor Union (PLUM) v. Mindanao Bus Co., 102 Phil., 1179; Aguilar v. Salumbides, G. R. No. L-10124, 28 December 1957; Dee Cho Lumber Workers Union (NLU) v. Dee Cho Lumber Co., 101 Phil., 417; 55 Off. Gaz., 434; Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila v. Yanson and Elizalde & Co., Inc. v. Yanson, G.R. Nos. L-12341 & L-12345, 30 April 1958; and Chua Workers Union (NLU) v. City Automotive Co., G.R. No. L-11655, 29 April 1959.) The Court of Industrial Relations has no jurisdiction over a controversy which involves the re-entered into by and between an employer and an employee and separation pay under Republic Act No. 1052.


D E C I S I O N


PADILLA, J.:


This is a petition for a writ of certiorari and preliminary and final injunction.

On 8 February 1957 Virginia, Paulina, Querubin and Rogelio, all surnamed Salunga, the last, a minor, represented by the first, an elder sister, his natural guardian, filed a petition dated 25 January 1957 in the Court of Industrial Relations, alleging that they are the legitimate children and heirs of the late Francisco Salunga who died on 22 January 1956; that their late father was employed by the Insular Sugar Refinery, the predecessor of the herein petitioner, and by the latter as field overseer with a daily wage of P6.50 from the year 1934 to the time of his death; that the herein petitioner had a collective bargaining agreement with its employees to the effect that upon separation from the service the latter would be paid a gratuity of "one month salary for each one full year of continuous service but not to exceed one year period" as a reward for their past services; that at the time their late father became ill he had to his credit more than twenty years of continuous service and pursuant to the collective bargaining agreement entered into by and between the herein petitioner and its employees, he was entitled to 12 months or 365 days wages upon separation from the service; that before their father died, he applied for payment of his gratuity but the herein petitioner refused to pay him; that their father was entitled to a gratuity pay of P2,372.50 and to one month separation pay of P195, or a total sum of P2,567.50; and that notwithstanding a previous demand for payment, the herein petitioner refused to pay and satisfy their claim. The claimants, respondents herein, pray that the herein petitioner be ordered to deposit in court the sum of P2,567.50 to be distributed in equal shares among them, and to pay the costs and that they be granted other just and equitable relief (case No. 1049-V, Annex A). On 12 February 1957 the herein petitioner filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that the Court had no jurisdiction of the subject matter of the case (Annex B). On 5 March 1957 the herein respondents filed an answer to the motion to dismiss dated 4 March 1957 (Annex C). On 21 June 1957 the Court entered an order denying the herein petitioner’s motion to dismiss (Annex D). On 29 June 1957 the herein petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration (Annex E) and on 9 July 1957 "arguments in support of motion for reconsideration" (Annex F). On 9 September 1957 the Court in banc denied the herein petitioner’s motion for reconsideration (Annex G).

Claiming that the Court of Industrial Relations has no jurisdiction of the subject matter of the case and that there is no appeal or any other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, the herein petitioner prays for a writ of preliminary injunction enjoining the respondent court from proceeding with the hearing of the case on the merits and, after hearing, for a writ of certiorari annulling the orders of the respondent court dated 21 June 1957 and 9 September 1957. On 13 November 1957 this Court granted the petitioner’s prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction upon the filing of a bond of P1,000. On 23 November 1957, after the filing of the required bond, the writ was issued.

This Court has held in numerous cases that upon the enactment of Republic Act No. 875, which took effect on 17 June 1953, the jurisdiction of the Court of Industrial Relations was confined to the following: (1) when the labor dispute affects an industry which is indispensable to the national interest and is so certified by the President to the industrial court (section 10, Republic Act No. 875); (2) when the controversy refers to minimum wage under the Minimum Wage Law (Republic Act No. 602); (3) when it involves hours of employment under the Eight-Hour Labor Law (Commonwealth Act No. 444); and (4) when it involves an unfair labor practice [Section 5 (a), Republic Act No. 876]. 1 The claimants, respondents herein, seek to recover gratuity and separation pay, to which they claim their late father was entitled under the collective bargaining agreement entered into by and between the herein petitioner and its employees, and one month separation pay under the provisions of Republic Act No. 1052. The subject matter of the claimants’ (respondents herein) petition filed in the Court of Industrial Relations is not any of those enumerated. In Dee Cho Lumber Workers Union (NLU) v. Dee Cho Lumber Co. supra, this Court held that the Court of Industrial Relations cannot take cognizance of cases for the enforcement of a collective bargaining agreement.

The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted and the writ of preliminary injunction heretofore issued is made final, with costs against the respondents, except the Court.

Bengzon, Montemayor, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepción, Endencia, Barrera and Gutierrez David, JJ., concur.

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

Endnotes:



1. PAFLU v. Tan, 99 Phil., 854; 52 Off. Gaz., 5836; Reyes v. Tan, 99 Phil., 880, 52 Off. Gaz., 6187, PAFLU v. Barot, 99 Phil., 1008; 52 Off. Gaz., 6544; Allied Free Workers Union v. Apostol 102 Phil., 292; 54 Off. Gaz., 981; Mindanao Bus Employees Labor Union (PLUM) v. Mindanao Bus Co., 102 Phil., 1179; Aguilar v. Salumbides, G. R. No. L-10124, 28 December 1957; Dee Cho Lumber Workers Union (NLU) v. Dee Cho Lumber Co., 101 Phil., 417; 55 Off. Gaz., 434; Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila v. Yanson and Elizalde & Co., Inc. v. Yanson, G.R. Nos. L-12341 & L-12345, 30 April 1958; and Chua Workers Union (NLU) v. City Automotive Co., G.R. No. L-11655, 29 April 1959.




Back to Home | Back to Main


chanrobles.com



ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc. : www.chanroblesprofessionalreview.com
ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com
ChanRobles CPA Review Online

ChanRobles CPALE Review Online : www.chanroblescpareviewonline.com
ChanRobles Special Lecture Series

ChanRobles Special Lecture Series - Memory Man : www.chanroblesbar.com/memoryman





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