PREMIERE PRODUCTIONS, INC., PETITIONER, VS. PHILIPPINE MOVIE PICTURES WORKERS’ ASSOCIATION, RESPONDENT.

On December 3, 1953, in its case No. 598-V (3) the Court of Industrial
Relations, sitting in banc, ordered the Premiere Productions Inc.
to pay the back wages of 44 employees whom this Court had ordered reinstated by
its decision dated March 25, 1953 in G.R. No, L-5621, “Philippine Movie Pictures
Workers’ Association v, Premiere Productions Inc.”

Believing that this Court’s order of reinstatement did not contemplate the
payment of back wages, Premiere Productions perfected an appeal which was
docketed here as G.R. No. L-7338. Pending the appeal, however the Workers’
Association filed in the Industrial Court a motion to require Premiere
(appellant) to deposit with its Clerk -in, accordance with sec. 14 of
Commonwealth Act 103 as amended the amount of salaries due the aforementioned 44
employees. And over Premiere’s vigorous opposition, the motion was granted.

Whereupon this petition for cartiorari was submitted, it being the
petitioners position that the order was wrong: first, because the right to back
wages was pending decision before this Supreme Court, and second, because
petitioner had not been given the opportunity to show tha exact amount due, if
any.

Answering the first contention, respondents cite the provisions of section 14
of Commonwealth Act 103 which reads partly as follows:

“At the expiration of ten days from tha date of the award, order, or
decision, in cases brought under the provisions of section four hereof, Judgment
shall be entered in accordance therewith, unless during said ten days an
aggrieved party shall appeal therefrom to the Supreme Court of the Philippines
by writ of Certiorari as hereinafter provided. The institution of such an appeal
shall not, however, stay the execution of the award, order, or decision sought
to be reviewed, unless for special reasons the Court shall order that execution
be stayed, x x x.”

The petitioner points out in reply that the statute makes reference to
section 4, concerning disputes causing or likely to cause a strike or lockout,
and that here is no strike or danger of strike.

Regarding the second point, petitioner claims that when the motion to deposit
was heard, respondent produced testimony as to the amount of wages due the 44
employees, in accordance with the computation attached to its motion Annex A,
However when it (petitioner) called witnesses -nine of the laid-off employees
themselves – to dispute the Association’s estimate, by showing that said
employees had bean re-employed in the meantime or had performed remunerative
work, the presiding judge sustained the Association’s objective to further
testimony, expressing his opinion that the purpose of the hearing was merely to
order a deposit, not actual payment.

Knowing the distinction, but doubting the equitable effects of the order to
deposit -it deprived one party in the meantime of the use of his money, and at
least P9,000 should not allegedly be deposited because it will not be ultimately
be paid – we gave due course to this petition for review.

However, having recently disposed of the main case G.R. No. L-7338 declaring
that the 44 employees are entitled to back pay, we feel that the questions
raised herein need not be examined for adjudication, It is better in the
interest of justice to dismiss this as a moot case, so that the back-pay award
may be carried out as promptly as possible.

Petition dismissed. No costs.

Padilla, Reyes, Jugo, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, and
Reyes, J.B.L., JJ., concur.