Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1962 > May 1962 Decisions > G.R. No. L-11938 May 18, 1962 - LA CAMPANA STARCH FACTORY, ET AL. v. KAISAHAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA LA CAMPANA, ET AL. :




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-11938. May 18, 1962.]

LA CAMPANA STARCH & COFFEE FACTORY, ET AL., Petitioners, v. KAISAHAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA LA CAMPANA (KKM), ET AL., Respondents.

Roxas & Roxas, for Petitioners.

Carlos E. Santiago for Respondents.


D E C I S I O N


DIZON, J.:


Sometime in June, 1951, members of the Kaisahan ng mga Manggagawa sa La Campana, a labor union to which were affiliated employees of the La Campana Starch Factory and La Campana Coffee Factory, presented demands for higher wages and more privileges and benefits in connection with their work. Management having refused to grant their demands, the Department of Labor intervened for purposes of conciliation, and having failed to settle the controversy, it certified the dispute to the Court of Industrial Relations on July 17, 1951, where it was docketed as Case No. 584-V.

Claiming that La Campana Starch Factory and the La Campana Coffee Factory were two separate and distinct entities, and that the laborers who presented the demands were only the 14 working in the latter, a motion to dismiss the case was filed by the latter entity on the ground that CIR had no jurisdiction over the same. The court denied the motion, holding that there was only one management for the two entities with whom the laborers of both dealt regarding their work, ruling, as a consequence, that the filing of the action against both entities was proper and justified. On appeal (G.R. No. L-5677) we affirmed the order, our decision holding that appellants’ attempt to make the two factories appear as two separate businesses, when in reality they were but one, was merely a device to defeat the ends of the law.

Upon the return of the case to the CIR, incidental cases involving the same parties arose and were filed before the court as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Case No. 584-V(1) — petition for contempt against the La Campana Starch and Coffee Factory for having employed 21 new laborers in violation of the order of July 21, 1951, filed on July 25, 1951;

"Case No. 584-V(2) — petition of La Campana for authority to dismiss Loreto Bernabe, filed on July 25, 1951;

"Case No. 584-V(3) — petition of Union to reinstate Bonifacio Calderon with back pay, filed on August 3, 1951;

"Case No. 584-V(5) — petition of Union to reinstate Marcelo Estrada and Exequiel Rapiz with back pay and to punish officials of the company for contempt, filed on February 13, 1952; and

"Case No. 584-V(6) — petition of Union for reinstatement of Ibardolasa and seven other member-laborers and to punish the officers of the company for contempt, filed on July 15, 1953."cralaw virtua1aw library

On May 16, 1956, while all the above cases were pending, Ramon Tantongco, owner and manager of the La Campana Starch Factory and in charge of La Campana Coffee Factory, died, for which reason, on motion of the Kaisahan ng mg Manggagawa sa La Campana, the CIR ordered on June 30, 1956 the inclusion as a party respondent of Ricardo Tantongco, who had been appointed administrator of the estate of said deceased. This administrator, making a special appearance, moved to dismiss the main case as well as the incidental cases, on the ground that they involved claims for money and, in view of the death of Ramon Tantongco, should be filed with the probate court with jurisdiction over his estate, but the court denied the motion in its order of August 23, 1956 (Appendix G of the petition for certiorari).

On November 12, 1956 (not June 12), the court rendered a partial decision in the main case No. 584-V resolving demand No. 10 — the only demand which the parties requested the court to hear and decide — the dispositive portion of which reads as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the Court finds the management of the respondent La Campana Starch & Coffee Factory guilty of unfair labor practice under Section 5 of Commonwealth Act No. 312, and for having dismissed the said workers and admitted new ones, without first securing authority from this court. Consequently, the respondents are hereby ordered to reinstate Natividad Manahan, Eliodora Wayan, Teofila Malinao, Anastacio Caringal, Trinidad Juntila, Trinidad Estrada and Remedios Refugia, and to pay them their back wages from June 16, 1951 until they are reinstated. Inasmuch as the said workers were paid on piece-rate basis, their back wages should be computed and based on their average wages per week from April to June, 1951."cralaw virtua1aw library

On February 18, 1957 the CIR issued an order in the six incidental cases directing the management of the respondent companies and/or the administrator of the estate of Ramon Tantongco to reinstate the laborers mentioned therein, with back wages. This order of February 18, 1957, the order of June 30, 1956, for the inclusion of the administrator as additional respondent, and the order denying the petition of the administrator to dismiss said incidental cases, were appealed to this Court by certiorari (G.R. No. L-12355), but the appeal was summarily dismissed by resolution on June 12, 1957.

The order of February 18, 1957 having become executory, the laborers entitled to reinstatement thereunder reported for work on August 28, 1957 but were not admitted by Management. Consequently, they filed on August 30, 1957 a motion for contempt. After a hearing on this motion, the court issued an order on September 30, 1957 requiring the two entities or their manager or the person in charge of their management and the administrator of the estate of Ramon Tantongco, to reinstate the laborers named in the order of February 18, 1957, and to deposit in connection therewith the amount of P65,534.01 to pay their back wages. For refusal or failure to comply with this order of September 30, 1957, the administrator of the estate of Ramon Tantongco was cited for contempt. Said administrator filed a verified petition for a writ of prohibition against the CIR in this connection (G.R. No. L-13119), which we dismissed on September 22, 1959.

The present appeal by certiorari was filed by La Campana Starch and Coffee Factory and Ricardo Tantongco on February 11, 1957.

The first proposition submitted in the petition for certiorari is to the effect that the order of the CIR of June 30, 1956 (Exhibit E attached thereto) ordering the inclusion, as respondent in all the cases mentioned heretofore, of Ricardo Tantongco, in his capacity as administrator of the estate of the deceased Ramon Tantongco, is erroneous. This issue was already raised and decided in G.R. No. L-12355. In our decision in G.R. No. L-13119 entitled Ricardo Tantongco, Petitioner, v. Kaisahan ng mga Manggagawa sa La Campana, Et Al., Respondents, we said inter alia:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"This order of February 18, 1957, as well as the order directing the inclusion of the administrator of the estate of Ramon Tantongco as additional respondent in the incidental cases, and the order denying the petition of the administrator to dismiss said incidental cases were appealed to this tribunal (G.R. No. L-12355) through certiorari. The appeal, however, was summarily dismissed by this Court in its resolution of June 12, 1957, as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

‘This Court, deliberating upon the allegations of the petition filed in case L-12355 (La Campana Starch & Coffee Factory, Et. Al. v. Kaisahan ng mga Manggagawa sa La Campana, KKM, Et. Al.) for review on certiorari of the decision of the Court of Industrial Relations referred to therein, and finding that there is no merit in the petition, RESOLVES TO DISMISS the same.’

. . .; "that after the death of Ramon these two entities continued to exist and to operate under the management of petitioner and that consequently he is the proper person and official to which the order of the CIR are addressed and who is in duty bound to comply with the same."cralaw virtua1aw library

In their second proposition petitioners assail the order of August 23, 1956 (Appendix D of their Petition), denying the petition of Ricardo Tantongco for the dismissal of the main case No. 584-V and of the incidental cases No. 584-V (1-6) on the ground that they all involved claims for money and were outside of the jurisdiction of the CIR. This question is also res judicata. In G.R. No. L-13119 already mentioned before we said among other things:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Petitioner contends that upon the death of Ramon Tantongco, the claims of the laborers should have been dismissed and that said claims should have been filed with the probate court having jurisdiction over the administration proceedings of the estate of Ramon Tantongco, pursuant to the provisions of Rule 3, Section 21 of the Rules of Court, and that the failure to file said claims with the administrator forever barred said claims as provided in Rule 87, Section 5 of the Rules of Court, especially after the assets of the estate had been distributed among the heirs, and petitioner had ceased to be the administrator of the estate. As already stated, this same question was raised by petitioner in G.R. No. L-12355, entitled ‘La Campana Starch and Coffee Factory and Ricardo Tantongco, etc. v. Kaisahan ng mga Manggagawa sa La Campana (KKM)’, which, as already stated, was summarily dismissed by this court in a resolution dated June 12, 1957. Consequently, said question may not again be raised in the present case.

. . . . "Moreover, the money claims of the laborers were merely incidental to their demands for reinstatement for having been unjustly dismissed, and for better working conditions."cralaw virtua1aw library

In their third proposition petitioners contend that the partial decision of November 12, 1956 is not enforceable against the Administrator of the Estate of Ramon Tantongco who was only made a party respondent on June 30, 1956, because to do so would be in violation of the due process clause. Again, this question is res judicata, we having declared in G.R. No. L-13119 that said administrator is the proper person and official in duty bound to comply with the orders issued by the CIR in these cases.

In the fourth proposition submitted in their petition, petitioners contend that the partial decision mentioned heretofore is contrary to an existing written contract of collective bargaining between La Campana Starch and Coffee Factory, on the one hand, and the Labor Union at first known as PLOW and later as CLAP, on the other, and is therefore destructive of said parties’ freedom to enter into a collective bargaining contract. In this connection the contention of respondents is that the contract relied upon by petitioners, attached as Annex P to their petition is not the true agreement between the parties, the true Agreement being the one submitted to the CIR as Exhibit D, as certified copy of which is attached as Annex 2 to the answer of the respondent Union filed in this case; that the phrase "closed shop and open union" appearing in Appendix P of the petition under consideration does not appear in the original contract, as shown by a copy thereof attached as Annex 2 to said answer.

When the CIR resolved the motion to dismiss mentioned heretofore, filed by La Campana Starch & Coffee Factory, in which the same question was invoked as one of the grounds for dismissal, the CIR held that said particular ground did not appear to be indubitable. There is nothing in the record of the present case to show that, after the hearing held in connection with Demand No. 10, this ground had been established beyond doubt. Besides, it is obvious that the issue under consideration involves a question of fact, namely, whether the contract has been altered or not — a question not now reviewable.

The last proposition submitted in the petition for certiorari, as well as the one invoked in the supplemental petition, are mere corollaries of the previous ones and must be deemed to have been resolved by what has been said heretofore.

WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari under consideration being without merit, the same is dismissed, with costs.

Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera and Paredes, 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






May-1962 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-19721 May 10, 1962 - CARLOS CUNANAN v. JORGE TAN, JR.

  • G.R. No. L-15580 May 10, 1962 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PACIFICO CLOMA

  • G.R. No. L-19593 May 10, 1962 - DELFIN B. ALBANO v. PROVINCIAL BOARD OF CANVASSERS OF ISABELA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-14975 May 15, 1962 - NATIONAL LABOR UNION v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-11938 May 18, 1962 - LA CAMPANA STARCH FACTORY, ET AL. v. KAISAHAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA LA CAMPANA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-12658 May 18, 1962 - FORTUNATO PICHAY, ET AL. v. MICHAEL S. KAIRUZ

  • G.R. No. L-14573 May 18, 1962 - CONCEPCION FELICIANO v. COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15092 May 18, 1962 - ALFREDO MONTELIBANO, ET AL. v. BACOLOD-MURCIA MILLING CO., INC.

  • G.R. Nos. L-17041-17042 May 18, 1962 - TOMAS LITIMCO v. LA MALLORCA

  • G.R. No. L-17153 May 18, 1962 - UNITED STATES RUBBER CO. v. MARIANO MEDINA

  • G.R. No. L-17524 May 18, 1962 - FELICIANO VERGARA v. CIRIACO VERGARA

  • G.R. No. L-18883 May 18, 1962 - PEDRO ESTELLA v. PEDRO EDAÑO

  • G.R. No. L-10457 May 22, 1962 - CONCEPCION H. LUNA, ET AL. v. PEDRO P. SANTOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16472 May 23, 1962 - JUANA VDA DE MARTEL, ET AL. v. JULIANA F. ADRALES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16628 May 23, 1962 - VIVENCIO LASALA, ET AL. v. JOSE F. FERNANDEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17593 May 24, 1962 - INES SAPONG CASEÑAS, ET AL. v. RICARDO JANDAYAN

  • G.R. No. L-18420 May 24, 1962 - DALMACIO PREPOTENTE v. JOSE SURTIDA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17788 May 25, 1962 - LUIS RECATO DY, ET AL. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17905 May 25, 1962 - IGNACIO CAMPOS, ET AL. v. MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15345 May 26, 1962 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RICARDO MAPA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15915 May 26, 1962 - MARCELINO T. MACARAEG, ET AL. v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK

  • G.R. No. L-17923 May 26, 1962 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. ROMAN CANSINO, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18069 May 26, 1962 - ALFONSO DY CUECO v. SEC. OF JUSTICE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16732 May 29, 1962 - RAMON AUGUSTO, ET AL. v. ARCADIO ABING, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17622 May 29, 1962 - IN RE: FERNANDO UY v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-12613 May 30, 1962 - FARM IMPLEMENT MACHINERY CO. v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

  • G.R. No. L-13250 May 30, 1962 - COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. ANTONIO CAMPOS RUEDA

  • G.R. No. L-13555 May 30, 1962 - SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSION v. FROILAN BAYONA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-14010 May 30, 1962 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LUIS M. TARUC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-14207 May 30, 1962 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DIONISIO MENDIOLA

  • G.R. No. L-15680 May 30, 1962 - LUZON STEVEDORING CORPORATION v. LAND REGISTRATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16027 May 30, 1962 - LUMEN POLICARPIO v. MANILA TIMES PUBLICATION CO., INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16383 May 30, 1962 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELIPE LUMANTAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16407 May 30, 1962 - ARCADIO G. MATELA v. CHUA TAY

  • G.R. No. L-16828 May 30, 1962 - SI NE v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-16850 May 30, 1962 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. UNITED STATES LINES COMPANY

  • G.R. No. L-16955 May 30, 1962 - SALVADOR PANLILIO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17013 May 30, 1962 - IN RE: YAN HANG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-17025 May 30, 1962 - IN RE: SY SEE v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-17338 May 30, 1962 - ADRIANO D. DASALLA, ET AL. v. CITY ATTORNEY OF QUEZON CITY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17394 May 30, 1962 - AMADOR D. SANTOS v. DOLORES BANZON TOLENTINO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17396 May 30, 1962 - CECILIO PE, ET AL. v. ALFONSO PE

  • G.R. No. L-17458 May 30, 1962 - DANILO DAVID v. ALASKA LUMBER COMPANY

  • G.R. No. L-17502 May 30, 1962 - A. V. H. & COMPANY OF THE PHIL. v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSIONER, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17588 May 30, 1962 - TERESA REALTY, INC. v. MAXIMA BLOUSE DE POTENCIANO

  • G.R. No. L-17591 May 30, 1962 - CLEOTILDE LAT v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17616 May 30, 1962 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELIPE ABUY

  • G.R. No. L-17656 May 30, 1962 - EDUARDO TAYLOR v. PEDRO M. GIMENEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17663 May 30, 1962 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ISAURO SANTIAGO

  • G.R. Nos. L-17684-85 May 30, 1962 - VILLA REY TRANSIT, INC. v. PANGASINAN TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17757 May 30, 1962 - MAMERTA DE LA MERCED v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17896 May 30, 1962 - VALENTIN A. FERNANDO v. ANGAT LABOR UNION

  • G.R. No. L-17920 May 30, 1962 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ORLANDO CARREON

  • G.R. No. L-17932 May 30, 1962 - JOSE D. DE LA CRUZ v. SULPICIO DOLLETE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17939 May 30, 1962 - RICARDO CARLOS v. MARIA DE LA ROSA

  • G.R. No. L-17977 May 30, 1962 - JEREMIAS MONTEJO v. DOMINGO CABANGON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18023 May 30, 1962 - ANGEL OTIBAR, ET AL. v. DEMETRIO G. VINSON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18026 May 30, 1962 - SAN FELIPE IRON MINES, INC. v. JOSE A. NALDO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18165 May 30, 1962 - PLYWOOD INDUSTRIES, INC. v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18530 May 30, 1962 - JOSE ALCANTARA v. DIONISIA YAP, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18535 May 30, 1962 - VALDERRAMA LUMBER MANUFACTURERS’ COMPANY, INC. v. L. S. SARMIENTO, CO., INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18871 May 30, 1962 - EDUARDO SOTTO v. DIRECTOR OF PRISONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-11357 May 31, 1962 - FELIPE B. OLLADA, ETC. v. CENTRAL BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. No. L-11621 May 31, 1962 - ANTONIA DE GUZMAN VDA. DE RONQUILLO, ET AL. v. FRANCISCO MARASIGAN

  • G.R. No. L-11848 May 31, 1962 - IN RE: ADELA SANTOS GUTIERREZ v. JOSE D. VILLEGAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-12719 May 31, 1962 - COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. CLUB FILIPINO, INC., DE CEBU

  • G.R. No. L-14180 May 31, 1962 - LUDOVICO ESTRADA, ET AL. v. AMADO S. SANTIAGO, ETC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16045 May 31, 1962 - IN RE: CHUA CHIONG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-16185-86 May 31, 1962 - BENIGNO T. PEREZ, ET AL. v. ANTONIO M. PEREZ

  • G.R. No. L-17437 May 31, 1962 - MENO PE BENITO v. ZOSIMO MONTEMAYOR

  • G.R. No. L-17520 May 31, 1962 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FAUSTINO BALANCIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-17603-04 May 31, 1962 - CEFERINA SAMO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17835 May 31, 1962 - GONZALO SANTOS RIVERA, ET AL. v. ANTONIO J. VILLEGAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17852 May 31, 1962 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. AMADOR E. GOMEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17955 May 31, 1962 - PILAR LAZARO VDA. DE JACINTO, ET AL. v. SALUD DEL ROSARIO VDA. DE JACINTO, ET AL.