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

FACTS

This case concerns a motion for reconsideration filed by Luzon Brokerage Company against an order of the Court of Industrial Relations (CIR) awarding back wages to certain employees. The petitioner objected to specific claims listed in the CIR’s order. In its original decision, the Supreme Court had affirmed the general admissibility of affidavits as evidence before the CIR, recognizing its administrative character. However, the Court agreed to re-examine the specific affidavits underlying the claims challenged in the motion for reconsideration to assess their substantive merit.
Upon review, the Court identified several instances of double listing, where the same individual was awarded claims under two different name variations, such as Nicanor Alvia/Nicanor Aldea and Saturnino Verano/Saturnino Barano. Furthermore, the respondent union conceded that one claimant, Alfonso Pagayon, had been inadvertently included in the award. The petitioner also contested the claim of Domingo Barcelona for back pay related to services allegedly rendered during the war.

ISSUE

Whether the specific claims for back wages awarded by the Court of Industrial Relations, as supported by the submitted affidavits, are substantiated and valid.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the motion for reconsideration in part. While reaffirming that affidavits are generally admissible in CIR proceedings, the Court held that such affidavits must still be scrutinized for their probative value to justify the claims made. The examination revealed that the awards for the doubly listed individuals constituted error, as they represented duplicate payments to the same persons. Consequently, the claims under one of each name pair must be disallowed to prevent unjust enrichment.
Regarding Domingo Barcelona’s claim, the Court applied a substantive review of his affidavit. It found that his claimed services—transporting kitchen utensils to Pangasinan after his truck was bombed—were not rendered in Bataan nor in connection with a specific company order for employees to proceed to Bataan, which was the foundational premise for the valid back wage awards. Therefore, his major claim for P5,250.00 in back pay from 1942 to 1945 was without factual basis and was disallowed. However, a smaller component of his claim (P752.40) for three months’ pay and overtime was approved, as it pertained to the initial period of service. The Court amended its dispositive portion to disallow the claims of the doubly listed individuals, Alfonso Pagayon, and the specific back pay claim of Domingo Barcelona.