LUIS RECATO DY, ET AL., PETITIONERS, VS. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL., RESPONDENTS.

Nemecio Sedano was employed as driver by Oas Victory Rice Mill which
was operated by Ramon Recato Dy, alias Luis Recato Dy and Jose Recato
Dy on January 1, 1946 with a salary of P75.00 a month. He served as
such up to January 15, 1960 when he was dismissed from the service for
the reason that he was about to testify against his employers in a
controversy then pending before the Court of Industrial Relations.
Whereupon, he filed with said court a petition praying for
reinstatement with back wages and for payment of salary differential
and overtime for services rendered on Sundays and legal holidays.

The employers answered the petition denying the main averments
therein and setting up a counterclaim for moral damages and attorney’s
fees.

On June 7, 1960, when the case was called for hearing, the employers
moved to dismiss the petition alleging lack of jurisdiction on the part
of the industrial court, which was in due time objected to by
petitioner. And, on June 24, 1960, the industrial court issued an order
granting the motion to dismiss.

On June 29, 1960, petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, and
acting thereon, the industrial court issued an order reconsidering its
former ruling. This time, in a split decision, the court declared that
it has jurisdiction to act on the case. The affirmative opinion was
penned by Judge Jose S. Bautista, concurred in by Judges Baltazar M.
Villanueva and Amando C. Bugayong. Judge Emiliano B. Tabigne dissented,
concurred in by Judge Arsenio I. Martinez. The dissenting opinion is
based upon the ground that it was not proven (1) that the number of
employees who appear as petitioners complies with the requirement of
the law, and (2) that the case involves a labor dispute that is likely
to cause a strike or lockout between the parties.

The employers interposed the present petition for review.

It is alleged in the petition that the employee has been separated
from the service for no valid cause for which reason he seeks his
reinstatement and prays that he be paid his back wages, including
salary differential and overtime pay for services rendered on Sundays
and legal holidays. Although this claim is traversed by” his employers,
the same furnishes sufficient basis to confer jurisdiction on the Court
of Industrial Relations, for it appears that the claim has relation
with the provisions of the Eight-Hour Labor Law and the Minimum Wage
Law.^[1]

It is true that petitioner has not complied with the requirement of
Section 4 of Commonwealth Act No. 103 that the petition must be filed
by employees whose number is more than 30 and that the labor dispute
alleged therein is likely to cause a strike or lockout arising from
differences as regards wages or conditions of employment, but such
requirement no longer holds true after the enactment of Republic Act
875. The reason is obvious. Since the enactment of said Act, the broad
powers of mediation and conciliation conferred by Commonwealth Act 103
have already been curtailed and limited to those cases we have outlined
in the Paflu vs. Tan case.^[2] In
other words, as long as the dispute has reference to any of the cases
mentioned therein, and petitioner seeks his reinstatement, the
industrial court may act regardless of whether the number of
petitioners is 31 or less or whether the dispute is likely to cause a
strike or lockout. To hold otherwise would be to further curtail the
jurisdiction of the Court of Industrial Relations to an extent which
may defeat the purpose of the Magna Carta to the prejudice of labor.
Thus, in Philippine Wood Products, et al. vs. Court of Industrial
Relations, et al., 112 Phil., 640, wherein a similar issue
was raised, we said: “That the employees be 31 in number for the court
to acquire jurisdiction of their case is not required of those claiming payment for overtime services and minimum wage and seeking reinstatement.” (Italics supplied)

In passing, we may say that the ruling in Mindanao Bus Employees
Union (PLUM) vs. Mindanao Bus Company, G. R. No. L-9795, December 28,
1957, on which the dissenting opinion is predicated, has already been
abandoned in PRISCO vs. CIR, et al., 108 Phil., 134.

Wherefore, the resolution of respondent court dated October 12, 1960, is hereby affirmed, with costs against petitioners.

Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Paredes, and Dizon, JJ., concur.

Padilla, J., concurs in the result.

^[1] Sy Huan vs. Judge Bautista, et al., 112 Phil., 914; PRISCO vs. CIR., 108 Phil., 134.

^[2] 99 Phil., 854; 52 Off. Gaz., 5836.