SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM, PETITIONER, VS. SSS SUPERVISORS’ UNION CUGCO AND COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, RESPONDENTS.

This Petition seeks to
review on Certiorari the Orders of respondent Court of Industrial
Relations (CIR) on the issue of whether or not petitioner Social Security
System (SSS) may be held liable for the payment of wages of members of
respondent Union who admittedly did not work during the 17-day strike declared
in 1968 by the rank and file Union (the Philippine Association of Free Labor
Unions [PAFLU]).

For a brief factual
background, it should be stated that the instant case is an offshoot of Case
No. 46-IPA (49) certified to the CIR by the President of the Philippines for compulsory arbitration of a labor
dispute between the SSS and the PAFLU concerning the interpretation of certain
provisions of their Collective Bargaining Agreement.  The PAFLU had staged a strike in defiance of
the CIR Order of August 29, 1968 “enjoining the parties, for the sake of
industrial peace x x x to
maintain the status quo – the Union not to declare
any strike and the Management not to dis­miss nor suspend any of its
employees nor to declare any lockout.” On 3 September 1968, in that same case, the SSS filed an Urgent
Petition to declare the strike illegal.

On 26 September 1968,
respondent Union (the SSS Supervisors’ Union) filed a Motion for Intervention
in the said case averring, inter alia, that it had not participated in the strike; that its members wanted to
report for work but were prevented by the picketers from entering the work
premises; that under the circumstances, they were entitled to their salaries
corres­ponding to the duration of the strike, which could be deducted from the
accrued leave credits of their mem­bers.

The SSS had no objection to the intervention sought but opposed
the demand for the payment of salaries pertaining to the entire period of the
strike.

In its Order of 12 March
1969, intervention was allowed by respondent Court, and pending
resolution of the claim for salaries, the SSS was directed to pay the same,
chargeable in the meantime to the accrued leave credits of the members^[1]
pending the determination of the question of the illegality of the strike.  Reconsideration of that Order sought by the
SSS was denied on 6 November 1969.

On 24 November 1969,
respondent Court issued an Order^[2]
directing the CIR Examining Division to compute immediately the money
equivalent of the salaries of the members of respondent Union
as well as the sala­ries of those employees who were not members of the
striking Union (PAFLU) and to deposit the amount computed, for further
disposition.

The SSS challenged on Certiorari the said Orders before
this Court (G.R. No. L-31234), particularly the order to deposit, grounded on
the overlapping membership in the two Unions and the impossibility of com­pliance.  We denied the Petition on 2 December 1969 and the proceedings
below were resumed.

Upon a joint Motion for clarification of its Order of 24 November 1969, respondent Court,
through Judge Joaquin M. Salvador,
issued the Order of 3 March 1970, ordering the payment of salaries of the
members of respondent Union during the strike period, but not to be
chargeable to accrued leave credits.  The
reasons given were that this Court had already declared the strike premature,
and that the members of respondent Union had
not participated in the strike and had actually manifested their desire to work
but could not cross the heavy picket lines during the height of the strike.

The SSS moved to
reconsider the Order of 3 March 1970 arguing that since respondent Union members
actually rendered no service at all during the strike, they were not entitled
to the payment of salaries.  Respondent
Court, en banc, denied reconsideration on 25 March 1970 for lack of sufficient justification.

Contending that the Industrial Court had no authority to issue the Order dated 3 March
1970 and its
Resolution en banc dated
25 March 1970,
petitioner asks this Tribunal to have them annulled.

We find for the petitioner based on the
equitable tenet of a “fair day’s wage for a fair day’s labor”.

“The age-old rule
governing the relation between labor and capital or management and
employee is that of a ‘fair day’s wage for a fair day’s labor.’ If there is no
work performed by the employee there can be no wage or pay, unless of course
the laborer was able, willing and ready to work but was illegally locked out,
dismissed or suspended.  It is hardly
fair or just for an employee or laborer to fight or litigate against his
employer on the employer’s time.”^[3]

In this case, the failure
to work on the part of the members of respondent Union was due to circumstances not attributable to
themselves.  But neither should the
burden of the economic loss suffered by them be shifted to their employer, the
SSS, which was equally faultless, considering that the situation was not a
direct conse­quence of the employer’s lockout or unfair labor practice.  Under the circumstances, it is but fair that
each party must bear his own loss.

“Considering, therefore, that the parties had no hand or
participation in the situation they were in, and that the stoppage of the work
was not the direct consequence of the company’s lockout or unfair labor
practice, ‘the economic loss should not be shifted to the employer’.  Justice and equity demand that each must have
to bear its own loss, thus placing the parties in equal footing where none
should profit from the other there being no fault of either.”^[4]

WHEREFORE, we
hereby set aside respondent Court’s Order dated 3 March 1970 as affirmed by its Resolution en banc dated 25
March 1970, without pronouncement as to costs.

SO ORDERED.

Plana, Vasquez, Relova,
and Gutierrez, Jr., JJ., concur.

Teehankee, (Chairman), J., on official leave.

^[1]
p. 20, Rollo.

^[2]
p. 21, ibid.

^[3]
J. P. Heilbronn Co. vs. National Labor Union,
92 Phil. 577 (1953).

^[4]
Pan American World Airways, Inc. vs. CIR, et al., 17
SCRA 821 (1966).