CEBU PORTLAND CEMENT COMPANY, PETITIONER, VS. MAXIMO S. SAVELLANO, SR., ET AL., RESPONDENTS.

Petition for review of an order of execution of the Court of Industrial
Relations, in its Case No. 68-V, directing the herein petitioner, Cebu
Portland Cement Company, to pay to the herein respondent, Maximo J.
Savellano, the sum of P6,300 representing salary differential of back
wages corresponding to the period from 1 October 1951 to 31 December
1956. The said order of execution was issued in pursuance of an order
on 2 September 1955, the dispositive portion of which reads:

“Wherefore, it is hereby ordered—(a) That the Cebu Portland Cement
Company shall reinstate Maximo J. Savellano, Leon P. Pelae, Galico
Sotto, Ecilio Castillo, Pablo Castillo, and Pablo K. Barrios in the
services, of the Company, with back salaries and wages from November
16, 1950 up to the date of their reinstatement. * * *.”

This order of reinstatement is not in controversy.

During the pendency of the case, the petitioner company and employees
for the fiscal year 1951-1952 budget, and when the Savellano case was
terminated, the company complied with the order of 2 September 1955 by
reinstating respondent Savellano on 14 March 1956 and paying his back
salaries at the rate of P9,600 per annum, which was his salary as
second assistant general manager at the time of his illegal dismissal.
However, he was refused the benefit of the whole-scale and general
increases which were given to the other officials and employees of the
company including personnel in the Administrative Department where
Savellano was connected before his illegal dismissal, as well as
Savellano’s former co-petitioners in the labor court, namely, Emilio
Castillo, Pablo Castillo, and Pablo Briones (or Barrios).

The claim of Savellano starts from 1 October 1951, because it was on
this date that the salary of the first assistant general manager,
Mamerto de Jesus, who formerly received the same salary as Savellano,
P9,600 per annum, was raised under, and in implementation of the
whole-scale and general increases granted by the company.

The petitioner company assigns two errors allegedly committed by the
industrial court in ordering the payment of the respondent’s salary
differential, namely: (1) that when the company reinstated the
respondent and paid him his back salaries based at the same rate he was
receiving at the time of his improper dismissal the employer had
satisfied the order of 2 September 1955; and (2) that the court had no
jurisdiction to grant salary increase to the respondent.

Under the first assignment of error, the petitioner company argues that “backpay”, as explained in Donato vs.
Philippine Marine Officers Association, et al., L-12506, 18 May 1959,
is “what an employee has lost in the way of wages by reason of his
dismissal”, which it contends, “cannot be more neither can it be less.”
Citing also the case of Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office vs.
Alandy, 109 Phil., 1058, the company continues: “An increase in an
appropriation or salary should not automatically entitle the holder of
the position to the increased salary.”

Under the second
assignment of error, the company simply states that the grant of salary
increase to an employee is not, under the existing laws and
jurisprudence, within the limited jurisprudence of the labor court.

The foregoing arguments discount the fact that the company not only
appropriated but also granted whole-scale general increases to its
officials and employees, irrespective of individual merit, efficiency
or qualification, during the pendency of the case. Considering this
essential fact, brought about by the company’s own doing, the
respondent, did lose by way of salaries, during and by reason of his
unlawful dismissal, what he would have received at his old rate as well
as what he would have received at the corresponding increased rate.
Since the back salaries actually paid him by the company are only on
the basis of old rate, the employer has failed to satisfy the judgment
in full.

The court a quo, in ordering execution for the salary differential, was
not assuming, and did not assume, jurisdiction to grant salary increase
to the respondent, Ibut was enforcing the company’s own act of granting
the whole-scale and general increases, without unjustified
discrimination against a particular employee.

It is argued that the grant of salary increases is discretionary upon
the appointing power. Indeed, it is, and the company did exercise that
discretion by granting the general increases. It cannot now pretend
that it intended to except the respondent from the benefits extended en
masse to its officials and employees. Otherwise, Savellano would be
prejudiced through his illegal dismissal, and such result the company
had no right to cause, and the labor court had power to prevent.

Finding no error in the order under review, the same is hereby affirmed, with costs against the petitioner.

Bengzon, C.J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Barrera, Paredes, Dizon, and Makalintal, JJ., concur.