SAN PABLO OIL FACTORY, INC., PETITIONER, VS. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS AND KAPATIRANG MANGGAGAWA ASSOCIATION (NLU), RESPONDENTS.

Petitioner San Pablo Oil Factory, Inc. – hereinafter referred to
as the Factory – seeks the review of an order of the Court of Industrial
Relations – hereinafter refer­red to as
the CIR.

In a decision rendered, on April 30, 1963, in G. R. No. L-18270, entitled “San
Pablo Oil Factory, Inc. and Werner P. Schetelig vs. Court of Industrial
Relations and Kapatirang Manggagawa Association (NLU)”, the Supreme Court
affirmed a resolution of the CIR sitting en banc, in ULP
Case No. 1350, finding the Factory guilty of dis­criminatory lockout and
directing it to reinstate the workers concerned^[1]
with “back wages corresponding to the period of their unemployment as a
result” of said lock­out.  On August
29, 1963, the Kapatirang Manggagawa Associa­tion (NLU) – hereinafter referred
to as the Union – which was the petitioner in said unfair labor practice case
and of which the aforementioned workers were members – moved for the execution
of the aforementioned resolution, insofar as it directed the payment of back
wages.  Acting on this motion, on October
9, 1963, Judge Tabigne of the CIR ordered its Examiner and Economist to
determine and compute said back wages, “using as a basis x x x the wages
actual­ly earned by other employees and/or workers, doing the same kind of
work, who have not been dismissed”. 
On motion for reconsideration, filed by the Union, on January 23, 1964,
the CIR en banc, with Judge Tabigne dissenting, set aside his
aforesaid order, and directed that the back wages in question be computed on
the basis of “any sum which they (the employees and/or laborers involved)
should have earn­ed had they not been dismissed”, because “what other
work­ers received in that abnormal operation is immaterial.”

In pursuance of this resolution, the CIR Chief Exami­ner reported
that – based upon the basic wage per day of the workers concerned immediately
prior to their lockout, multiplied by the 85-working days from May 27 to
September 8, 1957 – which was the duration of the lockout – the ag­gregate
amount due to them was P54,132.25.  The
Factory having objected to this report, Judge Tabigne ordered the CIR Examiner,
on November 9, 1964, to examine the produc­tion records of the Factory
“for the purpose of determin­ing the total number of days during the
period” aforemen­tioned, “when the Factory actually operated and
milled.” Soon thereafter, the examiner reported that the Factory had
“actually operated and milled and produced oil and copra cake for a total
of 39 days”.  This notwithstand­ing,
Judge Tabigne, acting in compliance with the reso­lution of the CIR en banc,
dated January 23, 1964, adopt­ed the 85 calendar working days as the basis for
the com­putation of the back wages in question, and, after deduct­ing the
amounts sought to be collected by some laborers who had not been locked out,
and the earnings of other laborers during the lay-off period, ordered the
Factory to deposit with the CIR the sum of P50,790.20.  On motion for reconsideration of the Factory,
this order was affirm­ed by the CIR en banc.

Hence this appeal, in which the only question raised is whether
the aforementioned back wages should be comput­ed on the basis of the working
days – that is to say, excluding legal holidays – during the period of the
lockout, as contended by the Union, or should be limited to the thirty-nine
(39) days in which the Factory was actually in operation, during the same
period.

It is obvious to us that the latter alternative is the correct
one.  Indeed, even if there had been no
lock­out, the laborers in question could not have possibly work­ed when the
Factory was not in actual operation. 
They could not have earned any wages except for the days of said actual
operation, it being seemingly conceded that they had no month­ly salary, but
were paid a daily wage for services actually rendered.  And, it being undisputed that the Factory was
not actually operated and did not mill except during the afore­mentioned
thirty-nine (39) days, the order and the resolu­tion appealed from and the
aggregate amount of the award should be, respectively, modified and reduced,
accordingly.

With this modification, said order and resolution are
hereby affirmed, in all other respects, without special pro­nouncement as to
costs.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Regala, Makalintal, Bengzon, Zaldivar, Sanchez,
and Castro, JJ., concur.

^[1]
Numbering 114.