Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1964 > April 1964 Decisions > G.R. No. L-19628 April 30, 1964 - PASUMIL WORKERS UNION v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-19628. April 30, 1964.]

PASUMIL WORKERS UNION, Petitioner, v. THE COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS and NATIONAL LABOR UNION, Respondents.

Cipriano Cid & Associates and Israel Bocobo for Petitioner.

Eulogio R. Lerum for respondent National Labor Union.

Mariano B. Tuason for respondent Court of Industrial Relations.


SYLLABUS


1. LABOR RELATIONS; PAYMENT BY COMPANY TO A LABOR UNION OF A VALID AND ACTUAL CLAIM IS NOT UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE. — Payment by the company to a union, of an actual and valid claim for vacation leave pay earned by seasonal laborers belonging to the union, is not made unfair labor practice by a statement in the agreement that such payment is made in the interest of harmonious relations and as an assistance of the company. Said statement should be considered merely as a superfluity, inserted to justify the action of the directors in granting the said vacation pay.


D E C I S I O N


LABRADOR, J.:


This is an appeal from an order of the Court of Industrial Relations finding petitioner Pasumil Workers Union guilty of unfair labor practice and ordering that it be dis-established and stricken off from the list of legitimate labor organizations in the Department of Labor. The order appealed from was entered upon the complaint of the National Labor Union to the effect that the Pasumil Workers Union received on different dates the following amounts, as an assistance from the Pampanga Sugar Mills, in violation of Sec. 4(a), sub-par. 3 of Republic Act No. 875:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

P 177.00 June 9, 1959

177.21 June 15, 1959

4,500.00 September 26, 1959

The National Labor Union submitted as the basis for charging petitioner with unfair labor practice "Memorandum of Agreement" (Exhibit A) between the Pampanga Sugar Mills and the Pasumil Workers Union dated September 26, 1959, which is as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"In view of the fact that the Company cannot, as a matter of principle, go beyond 1956 in connection with permanent laborers on the monthly or daily basis, working only 6 days a week, and inasmuch as the Union has accepted the stipulation found in par. I of the Supplemental Agreement in settlement of its claim, the Company and the Union agreed that purely in the interest of harmonious relations the Company will make available to the Union a cash amount in the sum of P4,500.00 as an assistance of the Company to the Union for whatever worthy project the latter may undertake."cralaw virtua1aw library

The respondent union in the court below claimed that the amount of P4,500.00 received on September 26, 1959 by virtue of the Memorandum Agreement, represents the three-day vacation leave pay for the years 1954 to 1955 granted to laborers belonging to said labor union, which is one-half of what they were actually entitled to receive under the decision of the Court of Industrial Relations. Herein petitioner union stated also in its answer that the said amount was actually distributed by the union among the employees entitled thereto.

The court below rejected the respondent’s explanation and held that the amount of P4,500.00 stated in the Memorandum was actually received as an assistance from the company to the union for whatever worthy project the latter may undertake, not in payment of vacation leave due the employees.

On this appeal petitioner Pasumil Workers Union insists that the amount represents one-half of the vacation leave due its employees for the years 1954 to 1955 and has submitted documentary evidence to support this claim.

The question presented to Us by this appeal is whether the amount of P4,500.00 was received actually as payment for services rendered, or whether it was merely an assistance from the company to the union "for whatever project the latter may undertake."cralaw virtua1aw library

The evidence submitted in support of the petition for review shows that on January 14, 1949, the Secretary of Labor endorsed to the Court of Industrial Relations for settlement a strike by the Pasumil Workers Union against the Pampanga Sugar Mills. The court was presented with a set of 21 demands, among which was a demand that the union be granted an annual vacation leave of 15 days with full pay for its members, each season’s work to be considered as a year’s service. The company answered the above claim expressing its willingness to grant 15 days vacation leave to employees of not less than one year of continuous service. Said demand (No. 13) was settled in a conference and vacation leave of 15 days was granted for each year of continuous service. However, on the vacation leave of seasonal laborers, no agreement was reached, and the question was left for future resolution. All the above facts and agreements are contained in the decision of the Court of Industrial Relations on the strike and said decision bears the date of February 21, 1950.

On July 31, 1959, a supplemental agreement was entered into as follows: permanent laborers on the monthly or daily basis, working six days a week, shall be given 15 days vacation leave as of July 24, 1956. (Annex L of the answer). So, from this agreement it can be seen that the vacation leave earned by the seasonal laborers of the union prior to July 24, 1956 was held in abeyance.

Then lastly, a bargaining agreement was entered into between the Pampanga Sugar Mills and the Pasumil Workers Union, and in order to finally settle the unsettled claims of seasonal laborers for vacation leave for the years 1954 and 1955, the sum of P4,500.00 was given to the union as per a memorandum agreement already cited above.

The facts and circumstances indicated above satisfy Us that the sum of P4,500.00 was paid in settlement of leave of members of the Pasumil Workers Union for the years 1954 to 1955. And We also find that this sum was actually divided among the members of the union as indicated in the union’s answer contained in Annex E-1.

The court below, however, failed to consider the fact that the sum of P4,500.00 was actually paid in payment of a valid claim, a claim that originally started when the strike occurred in 1949 and remained unsettled in all its details until the year 1959. Inasmuch as the said amount was given in payment of an actual and valid claim for laborers’ vacation leave, the mere fact that the claim was not paid in full because of a compromise does not prove that the amount was merely a sort of a gift paid by the company to the union, as found by the court below. The last words contained in the agreement granting the said sum, that "P4,500.00 is an assistance of the company to the union for whatever worthy project the latter may undertake" should be considered as a mere superfluous statement perhaps inserted in the agreement as an excuse for giving in by the directors of the company to the claims or demands of the union. As the claim was a valid and actual claim, proved by the facts, the mere circumstance that only one-half of the claim was paid and that the company gave in by way of compromise, does not render the amount an actual gift by the company to the union and therefore, a violation of the law to be considered unfair labor practice under Sec. 4(a), sub-par. 3, Rep. Act No. 875.

The court below holds that the petitioner union should not have given in to the reduction in the pay of its laborers. It is to be noted that the union made various demands, most of which were already given. The demands had been paid up to the year 1955 and 1956. Only the demands from the years 1954 to 1955 were reduced by reason of the compromise.

The compromise, instead of being rejected by the court below, should have been accepted in view of the direct provisions of the law, namely, Art. 2028 of the New Civil Code, and Rule 20, Sec. 1 of the Rules of Court which directs that parties and attorneys should also "consider the possibilities of an amicable settlement" and Sec. 3 of Rule 21 which direct the court at the pre-trial to persuade the litigants to agree upon some fair compromise.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, We hold that the payment of the aforesaid sum of P4,500.00 was a payment of an actual and valid demand or claim for vacation leave pay for the years 1954 and 1955, reduced because of a desire to compromise, and the statement in the agreement that payment was made in the interest of harmonious relations, as an assistance of the company, should be considered merely as a superfluity, inserted perhaps in the resolution to justify the action of the directors of the company in granting the said vacation pay.

FOR THE FOREGOING CONSIDERATIONS, the decision appealed from should be, as it is hereby reversed and set aside. Without costs. So ordered.

Bengzon, C.J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Paredes, Dizon and Makalintal, 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-1964 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-16037 April 29, 1964 - MONCADA BIJON FACTORY v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-18120 April 29, 1964 - DALMACIO DADURAL, ET AL v. COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-19063 April 29, 1964 - JULIANA CALADIAO, ET AL v. MAXIMA SANTOS VDA. DE BLAS

  • G.R. No. L-19863 April 29, 1964 - NAT’L., DEVELOPMENT CO. v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COM., ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-19866 April 29, 1964 - DAVAO STEEL CORP. v. JOSE R. CABATUANDO, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-14336 April 30, 1964 - LA TONDEÑA, INC. v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15975 April 30, 1964 - HEIRS of the DECEASED JUAN SINDIONG, ET AL v. COMMITTEE ON BURNT AREAS & IMPROVEMENTS OF CEBU,

    ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-16147 April 30, 1964 - LUZON COMMODITIES CORP. v. AMOR and SAYO, , ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-16391 April 30, 1964 - HECTOR MORENO v. MACARIO TANGONAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16483 April 30, 1964 - MARIA DE LA CRUZ, ET AL v. PLARIDEL SURETY & INSURANCE CO.

  • G.R. No. L-16520 April 30, 1964 - JUAN CABUNGCAL, ET AL. v. HON. JOSE F. FERNANDEZ

  • G.R. No. L-16986 April 30, 1964 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SABAS SAYON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17438 April 30, 1964 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. RITA LIM DE YU

  • G.R. No. L-17776 April 30, 1964 - FORTUNATO F. HALILI v. RAFAEL HUGANAS, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-17917 April 30, 1964 - VICTORIO GUY CO CHIA v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-17954 April 30, 1964 - TAN CHING v. HON. A. GERALDEZ, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-18202 April 30, 1964 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PERCIVAL GILO

  • G.R. No. L-18271 April 30, 1964 - FELIX V. ESPINO v. PEDRO M. GIMENEZ, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-18784 April 30, 1964 - CITY OF MANILA, ET AL v. BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS, ET AL

  • G.R. Nos. L-18889-90 April 30, 1964 - FORTUNATO F. HALILI v. ANTONIO HERAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18993 April 30, 1964 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. CAPITOL SUBDIVISION, INC.

  • G.R. No. L-19001 April 30, 1964 - PRUDENTIAL BANK & TRUST CO. v. SAURA IMPORT & EXPORT CO. INC.

  • G.R. No. L-19007 April 30, 1964 - PHIL. COAL MINER’S UNION v. CEBU PORTLAND CEMENT CO., ET AL

  • G.R. No. -19020 April 30, 1964 - ANTONIO M. SAMIA v. HON. GREGORIO N. GARCIA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19298 April 30, 1964 - EUGENIO S. DE GRACIA v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-19317 April 30, 1964 - CEBU PORTLAND CEMENT CO. v. MAXIMO S. SAVELLANO, SR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19370 April 30, 1964 - GENARO PRADO v. APOLINARIO CALPO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19383 April 30, 1964 - UNITED STATES LINES CO. v. SAN MIGUEL BREWERY, INC.

  • G.R. No. L-19589 April 30, 1964 - RELIANCE SURETY & INSURANCE CO. v. MANILA RAILROAD CO., ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-19624 April 30, 1964 - BARTOLOME PUZON v. HON. MANUEL P. BARCELONA, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-19628 April 30, 1964 - PASUMIL WORKERS UNION v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-19759 April 30, 1964 - CONCEPCION MONTELIBANO, ET AL v. HON. JOSE S. DE LA CRUZ, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-19760 April 30, 1964 - MARCELO VILLAVIZA, ET AL. v. JUDGE TOMAS PANGANIBAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19761 April 30, 1964 - QUINTINA S. VDA. DE AMPIL, ET AL v. HON. JUDGE CARMELINO G. ALVENDIA, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-19767 April 30, 1964 - RIZAL CEMENT WORKERS UNION (FFW), ET AL v. MADRlGAL & CO., ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-19896 April 30, 1964 - REMEDIOS LAYAG, ET AL. v. JUAN GERARDO

  • G.R. No. L-20044 April 30, 1964 - NATIONAL UNION OF RESTAURANT WORKERS (PTUC) v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.