CONSOLIDATED PHILIPPINES, INC., PETITIONER-APPELLANT, VS. DARIMICO EMPLOYEES UNION-FUR, RESPONDENT-APPELLEE.

Consolidated Philippines, Inc. appealed from the decision of the
Court of First Instance of Rizal, Pasay
City Branch III dated June 30, 1969, holding that the Christmas bonus, provided
for in the collective bargaining agreement, which was executed between the
corporation and Darimico Employees Union-FUR, should
be spread through the twelve months of the calendar year for the purpose of
computing the overtime pay of the regular employees.

Inasmuch as the appeal is based on undisputed facts in an action
for declaratory relief, involving the interpretation of articles IX, XI and
XVII of the collective bargaining agreement, that appeal raises a question of
law (Sec. 2, Rule 42, Rules of Court; Cunanan vs. Lazatin, 74 Phil. 719, 724; Joaquin vs. Navarro, 93 Phil.
257, 269-270).

The corporation’s contention is that the Christmas bonus of
thirty days, which is paid sometime before Christmas day, should be included in
the computation of the overtime pay only in the month of December because (1)
that bonus is paid in December; (2) the payment of wages is required by law and
under the collective bargaining agreement to be made at least twice a month,
and not on a yearly basis, and (3) if the union’ s interpretation is followed,
a big amount of overtime pay would have to be paid by the employer.

The trial court, upholding the union’s contention, ruled that
since the worker’ s regular pay includes the incentive
bonus, the Christmas bonus should be regarded as part of the regular salary or
wage and should be apportioned and added to the monthly compensation as a basis
for computing the overtime pay.

The union did not file any brief. 
The case was submitted for decision on October 10, 1967.

Pursuant to this Court’s resolution of March 31, 1977, appellant
corporation filed a manifestation dated May 5, 1977, stating that from 1965 to
1976 the Christmas bonus was spread through the twelve months of the year for
the purpose of compu­ting the overtime pay.

Appellant’s counsel, Atty. Rodolfo L. Dizon,
disclosed in that manifestation that the corporation was dissolved on November 16, 1976.  It had ceased to operate and all its
employees were given their corresponding separation pay.  Appellee union’s
counsel did not comply with the aforementioned resolution.

It is evident that those supervening facts have rendered the
instant appeal moot and academic (Velasco vs. Rosenberg, 29 Phil. 212).

WHEREFORE, this case is dismissed.  No costs.

SO ORDERED.

Fernando, (Chairman), Barredo, and Antonio, JJ., concur.

Concepcion, Jr., J., on leave.

Martin, J., designated to sit
in the Second Division.