LUZON LABOR UNION, PETITIONER, VS. LUZON BROKERAGE COMPANY, RESPONDENT.

This is an appeal by certiorari from a decision of the Court of
Industrial Relations, denying the claim for backpay of 425 employees
and laborers of the respondent company, who were sent to Bataan at the
outbreak of the last war together with the company trucks commandeered
by the U.S. Army, there to work as drivers, mechanics, checkers, truck
helpers, and laborers (cargadores).

Premised on the hypothesis that the claimants, though made to work
for the U. S. Army in December, 1941, nevertheless continued to be in
the employ of the company for the duration of the war, the claim was,
in addition, founded on a specific promise that they would be given two
or three years backpay at war’s end, the promise; having been allegedly
made by F.H. Myers, president and general manager of the company, and
his son T.O. Myers, as an inducement for the men to go to Bataan and
brave the perils of war there, and reiterated in 1945 as an inducement
for some of the men to give testimony that should enable the company to
recover the value of its trucks from the U.S. Army.

The company denied liability for the claims, alleging that such of
the claimants as went to Bataan did so by order of the U.S. Army, that
no promise of backpay was ever made of them, and that in any event the
claim had already prescribed. After hearing, the court found that such
promise was really made by F.H. Myers; that relying on such promise,
the claimants went to Bataan and rendered service to the U.S. Army (in
connection with the transportation of war materials); and that, as the
promise was thus accepted, “there was a meeting of the minds between
the claimants and the company and consequently the contract of
employment existed.” The court, however, denied the claim for backpay
on the ground of prescription, but awarded a separation pay equivalent
to one month’s salary to eight of the claimants on the theory that
these, notwithstanding their temporary employment by the Army, had
remained in the service of the company. The other claimants were not
given this award because of earlier separation from the service of the
company or for failure of proof.

After going over the record, we find that the ruling below that
claimants’ action has already prescribed cannot be sustained. Aside
from the fact appearing from its articles of incorporation that the
company was owned principally by Americans and could therefore be
regarded as an enemy corporation (Filipinas Compañia de Seguros vs. Christern, Huenefeld & Co., Inc., G.R. No. L-2294, promulgated May 25, 1951; S. David Winship vs.
Philippine Trust Company, G.R. No. L-3869, promulgated January 31,
1952) so that the claimants were not at liberty to sue it during the
Japanese occupation, there is the further consideration that for the
claimants to assert their claim in court they would have to divulge
that they had gone to Bataan and helped the U.S. Army transport its war
materials, and such revelation would have exposed them to Japanese
reprisal. Moreover, it would seem that myers’ promise contemplated
payment at war’s end since the backpay was to be for two or three years.

In our opinion the claim for backpay has not prescribed and the
lower court should, therefore, not have limited recovery to one month’s
separation pay. But while we have come to this general conclusion, we
are not in a position to make specific awards for that will have to be
determined for each of the 425 claimants and the evidence of record for
that purpose would appear to be incomplete because of the denial of a
motion for new trial for the presentation of that evidence for most of
the claimants. Such being the case, we think that justice would be
better served if a new trial were ordered.

The objection to this appeal being too late has been considered but found to be without substantial merit.

Wherefore, the decision complained of is set aside and the case
remanded to the court below for new trial. In the new trial the lower
court shall be at liberty to decide the question of whether, as
insinuated, some claimants have really waived appeal by asking for a
writ of execution or receiving the amounts awarded.So ordered.No costs.

Paras, C.J., Pablo, Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Jugo, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, and Reyes, J.B.L., JJ., concur.