Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1962 > April 1962 Decisions > G.R. No. L-17349 April 23, 1962 - NATIONAL SHIPYARDS AND STEEL CORPORATION v. MARTIN ARTOZ, ET AL. :




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-17349. April 23, 1962.]

NATIONAL SHIPYARDS AND STEEL CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. MARTIN ARTOZ, HERBERTO AMANE, VICENTE VENTURILLO, DIONISIO HERMOGENES SANGALANG, and THE COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, Respondents.

M. C. Virata for Petitioner.

Manuel P. Calanog for respondents Martin Artoz, Et. Al.

Vidal C. Magbanua for respondent Court of Industrial Relations.


SYLLABUS


1. LABOR LAWS; EIGHT-HOURS LABOR LAW; EFFECT OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 1993 ON PRESCRIPTIVE PERIOD. — Republic Act No. 1993, Amending Comm. Act No. 444 (The Eight-Hour Labor Law), was approved and became effective on June 22, 1957, and "actions already commenced" before its effectivity "shall not be affected by the period" prescribed therein, pursuant to the proviso in section 7-A thereof. Since in the case at bar the employees filed their petition for overtime pay on April 10, 1957, their action was already pending in the lower court before said Act became effective and was not subject to the prescriptive period set forth therein.


D E C I S I O N


CONCEPCION, J.:


Appeal by certiorari from two (2) orders of the Court of Industrial Relations.

On November 22, 1957, said court issued an order in Case No. 1058-V thereof, in which the National Shipyards and Steel Corporation, hereinafter referred to as the NASSCO, was respondent, and Jose Abiday and fifty-eight (58) other persons, hereinafter referred to as Abiday Et. Al., were petitioners, the dispositive part of which reads:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the respondent is hereby ordered to pay the petitioners an additional 25% for work rendered in excess of eight (8) hours on ordinary days including Sundays, legal holidays and nighttime — (See Luzon Marine Department Union v. Luzon Stevedoring Co. Case No. 147-V).

"For the purpose of determining the amount due to each of the petitioners, the Examiner of the Court or his duly authorized representative is hereby directed to make the computation, taking as basis, in accordance with the stipulation of parties, the logbook of the vessels, time sheets and other pertinent records of the Respondent."cralaw virtua1aw library

On Appeal to this Court, taken by the NASSCO, said order was affirmed, in G. R. No L-13888, on April 29, 1960. Meanwhile, on or about March 7, 1960, Ramon Dimanalata, Renato Reynoso, Martin Artoz, Herberto Amane, Lucio Guinoo, Nicasio Murzo, Antonio Zacarias, Vicente Venturillo, Dionisio Diana, Jose Vicente and Hermogenes Sangalang, hereinafter referred to as Dimanalata Et. Al., had filed, in said Case No. 1058-V of the Court of Industrial Relations, a petition stating that they are and/or were, like Abiday, Et Al., employees of the NASSCO, and that Dimanalata Et. Al. are in the same position as Abiday Et. Al., in relation to the NASSCO, and, praying, therefore, that the benefits, rights and privileges granted to Abiday Et. Al., in the order of November 22, 1957, be extended to Dimanalata Et. Al. Despite the opposition of the NASSCO, the Court of Industrial Relations issued an order, dated May 31, 1960, granting said petition. A reconsideration of this order having been denied by the court en banc, on July 22, 1960, the NASSCO, filed the present petition for review of the resolution of that date and of the order of May 31, 1960. Although, on September 9, 1960, we dismissed the petition, the same was, on motion for reconsideration filed by the NASSCO, given due course on October 4, 1960.

The NASSCO maintains that the order and resolution of the lower court dated May 31 and July 22, 1960, are null and void: (1) because said court had no jurisdiction over the subject-matter of the claims of Dimanalata Et. Al.; and (2) because said claims are barred by the statute of limitations.

The first ground is based upon the theory that five (5) of the present claimants were no longer employees of the NASSCO when their petition of March 7, 1960 was filed, they having been separated from the service on the dates given after their respective names, to wit:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Martin Artoz May 15, 1959

Herberto Amane May 15, 1959

Vicente Venturillo June 16, 1954

Dionisio Diana May 15, 1959

Hermogenes Sangalang May 7, 1954

The second ground is predicated upon Republic Act No. 1993, amending Commonwealth Act No. 444 (The Eight-Hour Labor Law), by inserting therein a section 7-A, reading:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Any action to enforce any cause of action under this Act shall be commenced within three years after the cause of action accrued, otherwise such action shall be forever barred: Provided, however, That actions already commenced before the effective date of this Act shall not be affected by the period herein prescribed."cralaw virtua1aw library

It should be noted, however, that the validity of the orders complained of cannot be affected by the aforementioned statutory period, even if applicable. An improper refusal to apply the statute of limitations would render said orders erroneous, but not null and void. At any rate, Republic Act No. 1993 was approved and became effective on June 22, 1957, and "actions already commenced" before its effectivity "shall not be affected by the period" prescribed therein, pursuant to the proviso thereof. Abiday Et. Al. filed their petition for overtime pay on April 10, 1957. Hence, their action was already pending in the lower court before said Act became effective and was not subject to the prescriptive period set forth therein.

Neither is said period applicable to Dimanalata Et. Al., for theirs is not a new or separate "action." The present proceedings is a mere incident of the execution of the order of the lower court of November 22, 1957, as affirmed by this Court, on April 29, 1960, in L- 13888. Dimanalata Et. Al. ask no more than the extension to them of the benefits, rights and privileges granted in said order of November 22, 1957 to Abiday Et. Al.

As regards the question of jurisdiction, it is obvious that the same cannot affect those who, admittedly, are still in the employment of the NASSCO, namely, Ramon Dimanalata, Renato Reynoso, Lucio Guinoo, Nicasio Murzo, Antonio Zacarias and Jose Vicente. Moreover, in paragraph (2) of its opposition to the petition of Dimanalata et al, the NASSCO admitted, also, that these claimants are its employees, although as "ordinary seamen" to whom, it maintained, Commonwealth Act No. 444 was inapplicable. Hence, the order appealed from says:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Respondent corporation did not present evidence to deny or controvert the proof adduced by the present 11 claimants and submitted its case relying on the grounds of its opposition that (a) the order of November 22, 1957 could not be made applicable to Dimanalata and 10 companions because they are not parties to the above-entitled cases; (b) C.A. No. 444, otherwise known as the Eight Hour Labor Law, does not apply to the present claimants, they being ordinary seamen; (c) this case is now on appeal with the Supreme Court, docketed as G.R. No. L-13888, to determine the legality of the order of this Court afore-quoted; and (d) the cause of action has already prescribed and barred by the statute of limitations as provided for by R.A. No. 1993. amending C.A. No. 444."cralaw virtua1aw library

Again, it appears that the stipulation of facts submitted in connection with the claim of Jose Abiday Et. Al. stated specifically that some of them were "formerly employed" by the NASSCO; that the latter objected to the jurisdiction of the lower court to entertain the claim of Abiday Et. Al.; that said court overruled the objection; that the NASSCO appealed by certiorari to this Court in G. R. No. L- 13732, upon the ground, among others, of said alleged lack of jurisdiction of the lower court; that, on April 11, 1958, the petition for review in said case L-13732 was dismissed by this Court, for lack of merit; that in case No. L-13888, the NASSCO again raised said question of alleged lack of jurisdiction of the lower court; and that this Court, in its decision of April 29, 1960, in L-13888, once more affirmed the order of the lower court asserting its jurisdiction to entertain the claim of Abiday Et. Al. Said decision in L-13888 and our resolution dismissing the petition in L-13732, constitute, therefore, part of the law of the case, insofar as the jurisdiction of the lower court to adjudicate on claims for overtime of former employees who do not seek reinstatement is concerned and bars the NASSCO from raising the same issue for the third time in the same case No. 1058-V of the Court of Industrial Relations (Jalandoni v. Martir-Guanzon, L-10423, January 21, 1958; Tantongco v. Kaisahan ng mga Manggagawa sa La Campana, L-13119, September 22, 1959; Tanda v. Aldaya, L-13423, November 23, 1959; Testate Estate of Narciso Padilla, Vda. de Padilla v. Paterno, L-8748, December 26, 1961).

WHEREFORE, the order and the resolution appealed from are hereby affirmed, with costs against the National Shipyards and Steel Corporation. It is so ordered.

Bengzon, C.J., Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Reyes, J.B.L., Paredes and Dizon, 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






April-1962 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-18462 April 13, 1962 - MENELEO B. BERNARDEZ v. FRANCISCO T. VALERA

  • G.R. No. L-13704 April 18, 1962 - BENJAMIN T. ASUNCION v. LUZ DE ASIS DE AQUINO, ETC. ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15162 April 18, 1962 - PHILIPPINE AMERICAN DRUG CO. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16642 April 18, 1962 - ANTONIO RAGUDO, ET AL. v. EMELITA R. PASNO

  • G.R. No. L-16864 April 18, 1962 - VALDERRAMA LUMBER MANUFACTURERS’ CO. INC. v. VICENTE N. CUSI, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-19440 and L-19447 April 18, 1962 - CESAR CLIMACO, ET AL. v. HIGINIO B. MACADAEG, ET AL.

  • A.C. No. 518 April 23, 1962 - DOMINADOR CARLOS v. BENIGNO PALAGANAS

  • G.R. No. L-11816 April 23, 1962 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. OSCAR CASTELO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-14716 April 23, 1962 - TERESA REALTY, INC. v. JOSE SISON

  • G.R. No. L-15499 April 23, 1962 - ANGELA M. BUTTE v. MANUEL UY & SONS, INC.

  • G.R. No. L-15634 April 23, 1962 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUANITO LLANTO

  • G.R. No. L-15714 April 23, 1962 - LORENZA FABIAN, ET AL. v. EULOGIO MENCIAS, ETC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15778 April 23, 1962 - TAN TIONG BIO, ET AL. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

  • G.R. No. L-15892 April 23, 1962 - FERNANDO LACSON, ET AL. v. BACOLOD CITY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16665 April 23, 1962 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. IRINEO SANTELLA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17344 April 23, 1962 - TALISAY-SILAY MILLING CO., INC. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17349 April 23, 1962 - NATIONAL SHIPYARDS AND STEEL CORPORATION v. MARTIN ARTOZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-12219 April 25, 1962 - FRANCISCO PASCUAL v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

  • G.R. No. L-13918 April 25, 1962 - CALTEX (PHILIPPINES) INC. v. KATIPUNAN LABOR UNION

  • G.R. No. L-14530 April 25, 1962 - LEONA AGLIBOT, ET AL. v. ANDREA ACAY MAÑALAC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-14591 April 25, 1962 - PINDAÑGAN AGRICULTURAL COMPANY, INC. v. JOSE P. DANS, ETC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15080 April 25, 1962 - IN RE: RICARDO R. CARABALLO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-15404 April 25, 1962 - ILDEFONSO SUZARA v. HERMONES CALUAG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16066 April 25, 1962 - ENCARNACION BACANI, ET AL. v. FELICISIMA PAZ SAMIA GALAURAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16856 April 25, 1962 - OLIVO G. RUIZ v. CEDAR V. PASTOR

  • G.R. No. L-16954 April 25, 1962 - ARMINIO RIVERA v. LITAM & COMPANY, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16997 April 25, 1962 - RAMCAR INCORPORATED v. DOMINGO GARCIA

  • G.R. No. L-17016 April 25, 1962 - WORLDWIDE PAPER MILLS, INC. v. LABOR STANDARDS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-12174 April 26, 1962 - MARIA B. CASTRO v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE

  • G.R. No. L-14455 April 26, 1962 - LINO GUTIERREZ v. LUCIANO L. MEDEL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15369 April 26, 1962 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TIMOTEO CRUZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15427 April 26, 1962 - SAN MIGUEL BREWERY, INC. v. ELPIDIO FLORESCA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15638 April 26, 1962 - HERMOGENES CONCEPCION, JR. v. FRANCISCO F. GONZALES IV

  • G.R. No. L-16384 April 26, 1962 - IN RE: JAYME S. TAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • Nos. L-17325 and L-16594 April 26, 1962


  • SYLLABUS


    1. TAXATION; PERCENTAGE TAXES; FORFEITURE OF BOND WITHIN TEN YEARS. — Upon the execution of a bond to guarantee the payment of an internal revenue tax, the tax-payer, as principal, and the bondsman, as surety, assumed an obligation entirely distinct from the tax and became subject to an entirely different kind of liability. A bond being a written contract imposing rights and liabilities, the government, pursuant to article 1144 of the new Civil Code, has the right to take court action for its forfeiture within 10 years from the accrual of the right of action.

    2. ID.; ID.; ID.; SECTION 332 (c) OF REVENUE CODE NOT APPLICABLE. — Section 332 (c) of the Revenue Code, is not applicable to actions for forfeiture of bonds. The period of limitation provided in this section is evidently confined to actions for the collection of taxes.

    3. ID.; ID.; ID.; PRESCRIPTIVE PERIOD FOR PAYMENT OF TAX INTERRUPTED BY EXECUTION OF BOND. — Obligations contracted in a bond by a tax-payer constitute written acknowledgments of the debt and interrupt the 5-year period of prescription for the payment of tax.

    G.R. No. L-15265 April 27, 1962 - BAGUIO GOLD MINING COMPANY v. BENJAMIN TABISOLA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16467 April 27, 1962 - FLORENTINA MATA DE STUART v. NICASIO YATCO

  • G.R. No. L-11964 April 28, 1962 - REGISTER OF DEEDS OF MANILA v. CHINA BANKING CORPORATION

  • G.R. No. L-12116 April 28, 1962 - MACARIA TINIO DE DOMINGO v. COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-12570 April 28, 1962 - VICENTE PAZ, ETC., ET AL. v. COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-14166 & L-14320 April 28, 1962 - FINLEY J. GIBBS, ET AL. v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-14231 April 28, 1962 - CATALINO BALBECINO, ET AL. v. WENCESLAO M. ORTEGA, ETC., ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-14546-47 April 28, 1962 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BASILIO PADUA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-14833 April 28, 1962 - OROMECA LUMBER CO., INC. v. SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15089 April 28, 1962 - TEODULO DOMINGUEZ, ET AL. v. ROMAN B. DE JESUS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15338 April 28, 1962 - CALTEX REFINERY EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION-PAFLU v. ANTONIO LUCERO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16005 April 28, 1962 - MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. L-16172 April 28, 1962 - ARSENIO SUMILANG v. GUALBERTO CASTILLO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16219 April 28, 1962 - NATIVIDAD VERNUS-SANGCIANGCO v. DIOSDADO SANGCIANGCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16716 April 28, 1962 - PEDRO R. JAO, ET AL. v. ROYAL FINANCING CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16804 April 28, 1962 - FRANCO J. ALTOMONTE v. PHILIPPINE AMERICAN DRUG COMPANY

  • G.R. No. L-17044 April 28, 1962 - EUSTAQUIO JUAN, ET AL. v. VICENTE ZUÑIGA ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17047 April 28, 1962 - ATLANTIC MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY v. MANILA PORT TERMINAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17247 April 28, 1962 - C. N. HODGES v. ELPIDIO JAVELLANA, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-17481 & L-17537-59 April 28, 1962 - LIBERATA ANTONIO ESTRADA, ET AL. v. COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17887 April 28, 1962 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODOLFO SANTOS

  • G.R. No. L-18751 April 28, 1962 - A. C. ESGUERRA & SONS v. DOMINADOR R. AYTONA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-10909 April 30, 1962 - ADELAIDA TABOTABO, ET AL. v. AGUEDO TABOTABO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16843 April 30, 1962 - GONZALO PUYAT & SONS INC. v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK

  • G.R. No. L-17082 April 30, 1962 - MERCEDES RAFFIÑAN v. FELIPE L. ABEL

  • G.R. No. L-17378 April 30, 1962 - NORTHWEST AIRLINES, INC. v. NORTHWEST AIRLINES PHILIPPINES EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, ET AL.