G.R. No. L-16037. April 29, 1964
MONCADA BIJON FACTORY, PETITIONER, VS. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS AND UNITED WORKERS UNION, RESPONDENTS.
PADILLA, J.:
Factory, run and operated by Lao Oh Kim, filed with the Court of
Industrial Relations a petition dated 13 May 1953, amended on 11 June
1953, praying for payment of wage differentials and of wages for
overtime work, for improved working conditions in the factory and for
attorney’s fees. They alleged that they had worked more than eight (8)
hours a day during a period of time stated in their petition or from
1946 to 1953 and had received wages less than the minimum wage provided
for by law, and that despite demands by them (petitioners), the
respondent failed and refused to pay the wage differentials and wages
for overtime work and to provide for improved working conditions.
On 28 May 1953, the petitioners asked the Court to order the respondent
to reopen its factory, which was closed on 18 (16) May 1953, to readmit
them to work, and to pay their wages.
On 10 June 1953, the respondent moved for the dismissal of the petition
for lack of jurisdiction of the Court of Industrial Relations over the
subject matter of the petition.
On 11 June 1953, the petitioners asked the Court to hold the respondent
in contempt for closing its rice noodle factory and locking them out
from the factory.
On 15 June 1953 the petitioners objected to the motion to dismiss.
The motion to dismiss was denied on 10 July and the motion for contempt
was amicably settled on 25 March 1955 and dismissed on 28 March 1955.
After a protracted trial, on 21 March 1957, the Court of Industrial
Relations rendered judgment, the dispositive part of which is as
follows:
From this conclusion, however, is excluded without prejudice the eleven
(11) workers who for one reason or another were not presented to
testify. WHEREFORE, the respondent and/or Lao Oh Kim, owner and manager
of the factory, are hereby ordered to pay the forty-seven (47)
petitioners the overtime work rendered by them from the respective
dates of their employment up to the time they ceased work on May 16,
1953 when the factory was closed. The respondents should pay at least
twenty-five per cent (25%) in addition to their base wage or wages as
shown on pages 5, 6, 7 and 8 of this decision prior to the effectivity
of Republic Act No. 602 (August 4, 1951), otherwise known as the
Minimum Wage Law. One year thereafter, the respondents should pay three
pesos (P3.00) a day for every laborer and from August 4, 1952 up to the
closing of the factory on May 16, 1958, four pesos P4.00) a day for
every laborer, the factory having been situated at Moncada, Tarlac.
The Chief Examiner of the Examining Division and/or his assistant is
hereby directed to compute the overtime pay due the petitioners based
on and in accordance with the foregoing directive and thereafter to
render Ms report to the Court for further disposition.
On 2 April 1957, the respondents moved for reconsideration and new trial which was argued before the Court en banc
and after memoranda had been submitted by both parties, Presiding Judge
Jose S. Bautista and Judge Baltazar M. Villanueva voted to affirm the
judgment; Judge Arsenio I. Martinez abstained from voting; and Judge
Juan L. Lanting and Judge Emiliano C, Tabigue dissented. As there was
no judgment on the motion, Judge Amando C. Bugayong, who had been asked
to take part in the voting to break the tie, voted to affirm the
judgment. Hence this petition or appeal by certiorari seasonably taken
to this Court.
The petitioner herein claims that the
respondent Court of Industrial Relations: (1) erred in taking
jurisdiction of the petition filed by the respondent laborers
represented by their Union; and (2) in ordering the payment of back
wages in accordance with the Minimum Wage Law, Republic Act No. 602,
and wages for overtime work from 1946 to 1953, when the petition was
filed on 13 May 1953, for Sections 15 and 17, R.A. No. 602, approved 6
April 1951 and effective from 4 August 1951 as provided for in section
25 thereof, provide:
Sec, 15. (g) In determining when an action is commenced under this
section for the purposes of the statute of limitations, it shall be
considered to be commenced in the case of any individual claimant on
the date when the complaint is filed if he is specifically named as
party plaintiff in the complaint, or if his name did not so appear, on
the subsequent date on which his name is added as a party plaintiff in
such action.
Sec. 17. Statute of Limitation. Any action commenced on or after the
effective date of this Act to enforce any cause of action under this
Act may be commenced within three years after the cause of action
accrued, and every such action shall be forever barred unless commenced
within three years after the cause of action accrued.
As to the jurisdiction of the respondent Court to hear and decide the
petition filed in this case, there seems to be no legal ground or
reason for holding that it Jacks such jurisdiction, because the demand
for improved conditions in the factory, for payment of wages for
overtime work done by the respondent laborers (Eight Hour Labor Law; C.
A. No. 444), and of wage differentials based upon or as provided for in
the Minimum Wage Law (R. A. No. 602), and the refusal by the petitioner
herein to improve the conditions of the factory and to pay such wages,
is an industrial dispute which threatens or is likely to occur between
the laborers, herein respondents, and the employer, herein petitioner
(par. 9 of the amended petition). And although the laborers,
respondents herein, then petitioners, did not ask for reinstatement,
yet the urgent motion filed by them to order the then respondent,
petitioner herein, to reopen its factory which was closed on 18 May
1953 and readmit the laborers, then petitioners, to work in the
factory, which was amicably settled on 25 March 1955 and approved by
the respondent Court on 28 March 1955 is tantamount to a petition for
reinstatement as they were in fact reinstated.
In Manila Railroad Company vs. Court of Industrial Relations, et al., G. R. Nos. L-17871; L-18160; L-18200 and L-18249, 31 January 1964, this Court held:
As the claim and demand for compensation for work done in excess of the
hours prescribed by law, which the employer has refused to pay, is a
dispute that, if it is not settled, might likely be the cause of, or
might lead to, a strike by the workers and employees of the railroad
company who are still in its employ, the respondent Court has
jurisdiction to take cognizance, hear and decide the controversy.
That part of the judgment under review which orders the payment of
unpaid wages for overtime work rendered by the laborers from the
respective dates of their employment up to the time they ceased to work
on 16 May 1953 when the factory was closed, which must be at least
twenty-five per cent of the basic “wage paid at the time, is in
accordance with law, as provided for in C. A. No. 444, which took
effect on 3 June 1939, except the unpaid wages for overtime work
rendered before 13 May 1947, the collection of which is already barred.[1]
As to the payment of wage differentials and of overtime work if
rendered from 4 August 1951, the date when R. A. No. 602 took effect,
or P3.00 a day from such date to 4 August 1952, and P4.00 a day
thereafter, the payment thereof is in accordance with section 3, par. a
(2) of R. A. No. 602.
As to the payment of wage
differentials prior to or before 4 August 1951, the laborers,
respondents herein, cannot collect, for there was no law then fixing
the minimum wage of laborers and employees.
Modified as above stated, the rest of the judgment under review is affirmed, with costs against the petitioner.
Bengzon, C.J., Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Paredes, Dizon, and Makalintal, JJ., concur.
[1] Article 1145, Civil Code.