Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1962 > August 1962 Decisions > G.R. No. L-18460 August 24, 1962 - DY PAC & COMPANY, INC. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL. :




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-18460. August 24, 1962.]

DY PAC & COMPANY, INC., Petitioner, v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS and DY PAC PAKIAO WORKERS UNION, Respondents.

Gil B. Galang and Iñigo S. Fojas for petitioner Dy Pac & Company.

Carlos E. Santiago for respondent Dy Pac Pakiao Worker’s Union.

Mariano B. Tuason for respondent Court of Industrial Relations.


SYLLABUS


1. EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYEE; DISMISSAL AND REINSTATEMENT; FACTS NEGATING EXISTENCE OF AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. — One who hires workers subject to the approval of the company, which pays their wages, is not an independent contractor but an agent of the company. An unjust dismissal of the workers by the alleged contractor constitutes, therefore, an unfair labor practice on the part of the company.

2. NEW TRIAL; MOTION ON GROUND OF FRAUD, ACCIDENT, MISTAKE OR EXCUSABLE NEGLIGENCE BECAUSE A WITNESS COULD NOT BE LOCATED; NECESSITY OF SHOWING REASONABLE DILIGENCE IN NOTIFYING WITNESS; WHAT AFFIDAVIT SHOULD BE ATTACHED TO MOTION. — A motion for new trial upon the ground of fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence, because a witness could not be located before trial, must be supported by an affidavit of the witness showing what he would testify to, if a new trial were held, and indicating that the result then would probably be otherwise. There should, moreover, be a showing that the movant exercised reasonable diligence in notifying the witness of the date of the trial and of assuring himself of his presence.


D E C I S I O N


CONCEPCION, J.:


At the behest of Dy Pac Pakiao Workers’ Union — hereinafter referred to as the Union — an acting prosecutor of the Court of Industrial Relations filed therewith a complaint for unfair labor practice against Dy Pac & Co. Inc., — hereinafter referred to as the Company — and A. Santos Soriano. The latter and the Company, although represented by the same counsel, filed separate answers denying the material allegations of the complaint and setting up some special and affirmative defenses. After due trial the Court of Industrial Relations rendered a decision in favor of the Union, the dispositive part of which reads:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING CONSIDERATIONS, the respondents are hereby ordered to pay immediately, the backwages of the complainant workers, from the date of the stoppage of work in the old carro up to the date when this decision shall become final and executory, without reinstatement."cralaw virtua1aw library

A motion for reconsideration of this decision was denied in an unanimous resolution of said court sitting en banc. Hence, the present petition for review by certiorari filed by the Company.

The latter is a private corporation engaged in the lumber business in the City of Manila, where it operated two (2) — machines of a given type — referred to in the record as "carros" — for the sawing of logs. One of these "carros", which, seemingly, was older than the other, was operated at nighttime, by about nineteen (19) laborers under the supervision of A. Santos Soriano. Another group of persons operated the other "carro" at daytime. Said A. Santos Soriano, was, according to the Company, an independent contractor, but the lower court found that he was merely a "dummy" of the Company. Indeed, it appears that on November 14, 1956, the laborers working under A. Santos Soriano organized the Union, and then notified the Company about it. Subsequently, or in January, 1957, the Union wrote to the Company a letter calling attention to the fact that the compensation paid to said laborers was below that fixed in the Minimum Wage Law, and requesting, among other things, an increase in their wages. Soon thereafter the work under the old "carro" stopped. When the laborers inquired about the reason therefor, the Company informed them that it had received a letter from Santos Soriano terminating his contract with the Company and that Santos Soriano was away. It was only then that the laborers learned of the alleged existence of a contract between the Company and Santos Soriano. Sometime in November or December, 1957, the old "carro" of the Company resumed operation under Alfonso Soriano, a son of Santos Soriano, with another set of laborers. The Union members were not readmitted to the work — although they sought readmission — upon the ground that they were troublesome. The record shows, also, that the Union members were hired by Santos Soriano subject to the approval of the Company, which paid their wages and that although, at first, the laborers signed no payroll, they were later required to sign a payroll of the Company. Under the foregoing facts, we find that lower court did not err in concluding that Santos Soriano was not an independent contractor, but merely an agent of the Company (Madrigal Shipping Co., Inc. v. Workmen’s Compensation Commission, L-17495, June 29, 1962; Velez v. PAV Watchmen’s Union, L-12639, April 27, 1960; U. S. Lines v. Associated Watchmen & Security Union, L-12208-11, May 21, 1958; Asia Steel v. Workmen’s Compensation Commission, L-7636, June 27, 1955), and that the stoppage of the work of the members of the Union was due to their Union activities, thus constituting an unfair labor practice on the part of the Company.

It is next urged that the Court of Industrial Relations should have granted the motion for new trial therein filed by the Company upon the ground of fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence, because it could not introduce the testimony of Santos Soriano owing to the failure of their common counsel to locate him prior to the trial in the lower court. We find, however, no merit in this pretense, for there is no showing that appellant had exercised reasonable diligence to notify Santos Soriano of the date of the trial and assure itself of his presence on that occasion. Besides, no affidavit of Santos Soriano showing what he would testify to if a new trial were held and indicating that the result then would probably be otherwise, was submitted in support of said motion. Hence, the same was properly denied.

WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby affirmed, with costs against appellant. It is so ordered.

Bengzon, C.J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Barrera, Dizon, Regala and Makalintal, JJ., concur.

Paredes, J., took no part.




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






August-1962 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-17507 August 6, 1962 - ALFREDO FERRER, ET AL. v. ANGELES RODRIGUEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-14127-28 August 21, 1962 - ISIDORO M. MERCADO v. LEON C. VIARDO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16253 August 21, 1962 - EAST ASIATIC CO., LTD. v. CITY OF DAVAO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17780 August 24, 1962 - EUGENIO NADURA v. BENGUET CONSOLIDATED, INC.

  • G.R. No. L-17993 August 24, 1962 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PROTACIO MANLAPAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18327 August 24, 1962 - AGUSTIN ATIENZA v. N. ALMEDA LOPEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18460 August 24, 1962 - DY PAC & COMPANY, INC. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-14034 August 30, 1962 - ACTING COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. LAZARUS JOSEPH, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15050 August 30, 1962 - SANTIAGO SYJUCO, INC. v. FELISA RESULTAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15206 August 30, 1962 - EXEQUIEL FLORO v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15662 August 30, 1962 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CARMELO VALERA

  • G.R. No. L-15988 August 30, 1962 - VICENTE GARCIA, ET AL. v. PEDRO DE GUZMAN

  • G.R. No. L-17084 August 30, 1962 - JOSEFA DULAY v. PEDRO C. MERRERA

  • G.R. No. L-17317 August 30, 1962 - PHILIPPINE RABBIT BUS LINE, INC. v. JESUS D. VILLAPANA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17449 August 30, 1962 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ZOSIMO MONTEMAYOR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17595 August 30, 1962 - RAFAEL MASCARIÑAS, ETC. v. CARMELO L. PORRAS, ETC.

  • G.R. No. L-17801 August 30, 1962 - LEONOR G. TAGAYUMA v. OLEGARIO LASTRILLA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17836 August 30, 1962 - MATEO CANITE, ET AL. v. MADRIGAL & CO., INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17890 August 30, 1962 - REINERIO TICAO, ET AL. v. ARSENIO NAÑAWA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18058 August 30, 1962 - NATIONAL RICE AND CORN CORPORATION v. NARIC WORKERS UNION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18107 August 30, 1962 - MARIA G. AGUAS, ET AL. v. PERPETUA YERRO-LLEMOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18119 August 30, 1962 - PABLO S. HAMOY v. PAMBAYA BATINGOLO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18177 August 30, 1962 - REHABILITATION FINANCE CORPORATION v. ISABEL ACUÑA DE NEPOMUCENO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-14129 August 30, 1962 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GUILLERMO MANANTAN

  • G.R. No. L-15858 August 30, 1962 - DY LAM GO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-18428 August 30, 1962 - MARIANO G. ALMEDA, SR., ET AL. v. JESUS Y. PEREZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18745 August 30, 1962 - JOSE T. VELASQUEZ v. PEDRO K. CORONEL, ETC.

  • G.R. No. L-13081 August 31, 1962 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. LIMACO & DE GUZMAN COMMERCIAL CO., INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-14187 August 31, 1962 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RUBEN DE LA CRUZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-14401 31 August 31, 1962 - PANGASINAN TRANSPORTATION CO., INC. v. RICARDO FELICIANO

  • G.R. No. L-15022 August 31, 1962 - VICENTE STO. DOMINGO BERNARDO, ET AL. v. FRANCISCO B. JOSE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15121 August 31, 1962 - GREGORIO PALACIO v. FELY TRANSPORTATION COMPANY

  • G.R. No. L-15379 August 31, 1962 - TEODORO L. URBAYAN v. CALTEX (PHILIPPINES) INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15663 August 31, 1962 - ANTONIO GUISADIO v. RUBEN A. VILLALUZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16021 August 31, 1962 - ANTONIO PORTA FERRER v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

  • G.R. No. L-16169 August 31, 1962 - BLAS CUNANAN v. FELICIDAD LARA DE ANTEPASADO, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-16204 and L-16256 August 31, 1962 - ERNESTO A. PAPA, ET AL. v. SEVERO J. SANTIAGO

  • G.R. No. L-16449 August 31, 1962 - PAUL SCHENKER v. WILLIAM F. GEMPERLE

  • G.R. No. L-16945 August 31, 1962 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JESUS L. CRISOSTOMO

  • G.R. No. L-16953 August 31, 1962 - PABLO SARNILLO, ET AL. v. MONTANO A. ORTIZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17303 August 31, 1962 - ANTONIO CO PO v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE

  • G.R. No. L-17311 August 31, 1962 - QUIRICO A. ABELA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17389 August 31, 1962 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MAMERTO S. MIRANDA

  • G.R. No. L-17448 August 31, 1962 - VICENTE DICHOSO v. LEANDRO VALDEPEÑAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17464 August 31, 1962 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICENTE RECOLIZADO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17620 August 31, 1962 - FAR EASTERN UNIVERSITY v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17750 August 31, 1962 - A. L. AMMEN TRANSPORTATION COMPANY INC., ET AL. v. JOSE BORJA

  • G.R. No. L-17766 August 31, 1962 - LEONARDO MADRIGAL v. CITY SHERIFF OF MANILA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17799 August 31, 1962 - BENVENENCIO VALENCIA, ET AL. v. CITY OF DUMAGUETE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17831 August 31, 1962 - JESUS J. ANDRES v. MELECIO DOMINGO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17849 August 31, 1962 - GREGORIO G. AGUILAR v. FELIPE NATIVIDAD, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17897 August 31, 1962 - CEBU PORTLAND CEMENT COMPANY v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18040 August 31, 1962 - SANTIAGO RICE MILL, ET AL. v. SANTIAGO LABOR UNION

  • G.R. No. L-18055 August 31, 1962 - FELIX MORADA v. HERMOGENES CALUAG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18076 August 31, 1962 - ELEUTERIO CANEDA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-18251 and Nos L-18252 August 31, 1962 - IRINEO SANTOS, JR., ET AL. v. JOSE P. FLORES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18316 August 31, 1962 - RODOLFO CACHUELA v. NATALIO P. CASTILLO

  • G.R. No. L-18469 August 31, 1962 - MUNICIPAL BOARD OF CANVASSERS OF BANSUD, ORIENTAL MINDORO, ET AL. v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18541 August 31, 1962 - DONATO IGNACIO, ET AL. v. PASTOR L. DE GUZMAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18564 August 31, 1962 - CONSUELO T. DE CASES v. TERESITA F. PEYER

  • G.R. No. L-18695 August 31, 1962 - CIPRIANO MARTINEZ, ET AL. v. RAYMUNDO VILLACETE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18836 August 31, 1962 - BENJAMIN SIA v. JAVIER T. BUENA

  • G.R. No. L-19823 August 31, 1962 - RUPERTO ADVINCULA, ET AL. v. COMMISSION ON APPOINTMENTS, ET AL.