G.R. No. L-17085 October 31, 1963
LUZON BROKERAGE COMPANY, petitioner, vs. LUZON LABOR UNION, respondent.

FACTS

The case originated from a claim by the Luzon Labor Union for back wages on behalf of employees who rendered service to the U.S. Army in Bataan during World War II. The claimants alleged that before they left Manila in December 1941, company managers Tom Myers and F.H. Myers promised them two to three years of back pay for this service. The Court of Industrial Relations initially awarded the back wages, but its decision revealed it granted the claim primarily because it felt compelled to “give the claimants the benefit of doubt” due to conflicting evidence and the inability of the alleged promisors (one deceased, one insane) to testify.
The Luzon Brokerage Company filed a second motion for reconsideration, arguing the award was erroneous. It also sought to exclude specific claimants, contending that thirty individuals listed had not submitted supporting affidavits and that certain claims were duplicates or not for service in Bataan. The Union opposed the second motion, invoking the rule against omnibus motions.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the claimants sufficiently proved the alleged promise for two to three years of back wages. A secondary issue involves the propriety of the second motion for reconsideration and the validity of claims from specific individuals.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the motion and modified its decision. On the main issue, the Court held that the award of back wages was legally baseless. The burden of proof lay with the claimants to establish the affirmative allegation of a promise by a preponderance of evidence. The lower court’s expressed doubt meant this burden was not met; a finding based on giving the “benefit of the doubt” in a civil case is a reversible error of law. The Court added that a promise in December 1941 for two to three years of pay was implausible, as the widespread belief then was that the war would be short. The promise, if made, logically pertained only to the actual period of service in Bataan.
Consequently, the Court limited the back wages to the period from December 8, 1941, to June 8, 1942 (the fall of Bataan). The Court also ruled the second motion for reconsideration was proper, as the rule on omnibus motions applies to dilatory tactics, not merits-based motions, and the Court has inherent power to amend judgments for justice. On the individual claims, the Court disallowed the claims of thirty claimants who failed to file supporting affidavits (except Martin Feria), as the affidavit constitutes the best evidence of service rendered. It also disallowed claims for Jose Padilla (no affidavit), Pablo Pureza (a duplicate of Pablo Presa), and Alfredo Peraan (whose affidavit showed service in Manila, not Bataan). All claims for incidental expenses were denied.