BANK OF AMERICA (MANILA BRANCH), PETITIONER, VS. THE HON. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS AND PHILIPPINE FEDERATION OF LABOR, RESPONDENTS.

This appeal by certiorari under
Rule 44 of the Rules of Court seeks a reversal of the order en banc rendered
by the Court of Industrial Relations on 12 March 1960 setting aside the order
dated 10 September 1959 (Annex 4) that had dismissed the petition for payment
of overtime work done during holidays and Sundays for lack of jurisdiction and
remanding the case to the trial1 Judge for the hearing of evidence (Annex 7,
Case No. 1247-V).

On 30 May 1959, the Philippine
Federation of Labor, a registered labor union hereafter referred to as
Federation, filed a petition with the Court of Industrial Relations praying for
payment of unpaid wages for overtime work done by five members of the
Federation who were security guards of the herein petitioner bank during
Sundays and legal holidays from 1947 to the filing of the petition. (Annex 1).
The petition also alleged that the Federation had requested the management of
the bank for the holding of a conference to lay before it some grievances, such
as unpaid wages for overtime work done by its employees who were members of the
Federation and unfair labor practices in the matter of salary and wage increase
to its employees, but the management of the bank refused to hold such
conference with the representatives of the Federation. The Federation prayed
that the Bank be investigated to find out the violations committed by it under
C. A. No. 444, otherwise known as the Eight-Hour Labor Law, and R.A No. 875:

On 9 June 1959, the then respondent
bank moved for the dismissal of the petition for want of jurisdiction of the
Court of Industrial Relations, citing the rule laid down in the case of Chua
Workers’ Union (NLU) vs. City Automotive Company and Chua Hon. G.R. No. L-11655,
29 April 1959, and for the further reason that of more than 180 employees of
the bank, only five (5) were represented by the Federation (Annex 2). On 20
June 1959,
the Federation objected to the dismissal of its petition, and in support
thereof invoked the rule laid down in NASSCO vs. Almin,
et al., G. R. No. L-9055, 28, November 1958 which held that “even after
the approval of R.A. No. 875, the Court of Industrial Relations has
jurisdiction over disputes involving C.A. No. 444 and the Eight-Hour. Labor
Law” and Gomez vs. North Camarines Lumber Co.,
Inc., 104 Phil., 294, which held that “claim for unpaid overtime wages
dismissed in the Court of First Instance can be resubmitted or refried with the
Court of Industrial Relation” (Annex 3).

On 10 September 1959, the trial
court dismissed the petition on the ground that it “is no longer vested
with the power or jurisdiction to pass on the merits of cases involving claims
for unpaid overtime or wage differentials after the passage and effectivity of Rip. Act No. 875 on 17
June 1953,
(Aguilar vs. Salumbides, G. R. No. L-10124; Mindanao Bus Employees Labor Union (PLUM) vs. The
Mindanao Bus Company, et al., G.R. No. L-9795, both promulgated on 28
December 1957;
PAFLU vs. Tan, 99 Phil., 854; 52 Off. Gaz. 5836; Reyes
vs. Tan, 99 Phil., 880; 52 Off. Gaz. 6187; PAFLU vs. Barot, 99 Phil., 1008;
52 Off. Gaz. 6544, promulgated October
31, 1957).”
The order also held that although the Court had exclusive jurisdiction to try
cases of unfair labor practices as well as of refusal to hold grievance
conference under Sec. 5 (a) and section 4 (a) (4) of R.A. No.
875, yet the petition of the Federation lacks the legal requisites of a formal
complaint under Sec. 5(b) in relation to Sec. 4(a) of the
Republic Act, and. there had been no preliminary investigation conducted by the
prosecution division of the Court. The dismissal of the petition, however, was
without prejudice to the filing of charges of unfair labor acts against the
bank. (Annex 4). On 15 September 1950, the Federation moved for the
reconsideration of the order of dismissal, contending that the order is
contrary to law, and praying for ten (10′) days within which to submit a memorandum
(Annex 5). In its memorandum dated 22 September 1959, the Federation invoked the rule
laid down in the case of Monares vs. CNS
Enterprises, et al., G. R. No. L-117491, 29 May 1958 (Annex 6).

On 12 March
1960, the
respondent Court adopted the resolution appealed from as stated at the outset
of this opinion.

The only point to determine is
whether the respondent Court has jurisdiction over cases involving unpaid
overtime work rendered during Sundays and legal holidays by some members of the
respondent Federation, who from 1947 to the present, have been employed as
security guards by the petitioner bank. The claim for unpaid wages for work
done by the employees during Sundays and legal holidays, if the services had
really been rendered by them and have not been paid by the employer constitutes
and is a grievance that may lead to a strike, because the claimants continue in
the employ of the petitioner bank. Such being the case, the respondent court
has jurisdiction to hear and decide the case.

The order under review is affirmed
without pronouncement as to costs.

Bengzon, C.J., Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L., Barrera, Dizon, and Makalintal, JJ., concur.