G.R. No. L-29356 October 27, 1975
DAVAO FREE WORKERS FRONT, et al., petitioners, vs. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, 7-UP BOTTLING COMPANY OF THE PHILIPPINES, et al., respondents.

FACTS

This case involves a Motion for Clarification filed by respondent 7-UP Bottling Co. regarding the Court’s prior decision ordering the payment of “full backwages” to nine dismissed employees and “strike duration pay” to striking union members, all awarded “without deduction or qualification.” The dispute centers on the proper rate for computing these monetary awards covering a period exceeding seventeen years from the dismissals in 1957. Petitioners argue that the computation should include not only the basic wages at the time of dismissal but also all subsequent benefits, bonuses, and general increases granted to other employees. Respondent contends that payment should be based solely on the wage rate actually being paid at the time of the employees’ dismissal or the commencement of the strike.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the awarded “full backwages” and “strike duration pay,” granted without deduction or qualification, should be computed at the wage rate at the time of dismissal/strike or at an increased rate accounting for subsequent wage adjustments and benefits given to other employees.

RULING

The Supreme Court clarified that the computation must be based on the rate the petitioners were actually receiving at the time of their dismissal and the strike. The Court emphasized that the phrase “without deduction and qualification” in its judgment was clear and unambiguous. It meant the awarded backwages were to be fixed as of the time of dismissal or strike, without any deductions for earnings the workers might have obtained elsewhere during their lay-off. Crucially, it also meant the award was “unqualified,” i.e., not subject to increase based on subsequent wage hikes or benefits received by co-workers who continued employment. This interpretation aligns with the judgment’s objective to avoid protracted post-judgment hearings to prove or disprove interim earnings or comparative wage increases, which would cause further prejudice and delay to the workers. The Court noted that the judgment could not have intended to include subsequent benefits, especially since the respondent had closed the Davao plant, and there were no comparable co-workers who continued working there. The Court further clarified that if any awarded worker died before the finality of judgment or the end of the strike period, their heirs would be entitled to payment only up to the date of death, as wages can only be earned while alive. The Court directed immediate payment through the National Labor Relations Commission to fulfill the judgment’s intent of providing expedited relief.