G.R. No. L-7296; April 30, 1955
PHILIPPINE LAND-AIR-SEA LABOR UNION (PLASLU), petitioner, vs. CEBU PORTLAND CEMENT COMPANY AND THE COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, respondents.

FACTS

This case involves the execution of a prior decision of the Court of Industrial Relations (CIR) which granted concessions to the petitioner union, including (a) a wage increase, (h) an increase in the contract price for hauling coal, and (f) an award of 15 days vacation leave and 15 days sick leave with pay. After this Court affirmed the awards, the petitioner filed a motion in the CIR for the respondent company to deposit differential salaries and wages related to demands (a) and (h). The CIR granted this motion and ordered its examiner to determine the money value of the awarded rights, benefits, and privileges specifically concerning demands (a) and (h). Based on a partial report from the examiner stating a total of P413,073.62, the CIR, on August 11, 1952, ordered the company to deposit that amount. However, the CIR later discovered that the examiner’s report erroneously included the money value of accrued vacation and sick leave (pertaining to demand (f)), which was not covered by the execution motion or the specific deposit order. Consequently, on May 12, 1953, the CIR modified its August 1952 order, limiting the required deposit to P19,510.84 (the correct value for demands (a) and (h)) and excluding P393,562.78 representing the leave benefits. The petitioner union challenges this modification, arguing the original deposit order had become final and executory.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Industrial Relations exceeded its jurisdiction or committed grave abuse of discretion in modifying its August 11, 1952 order, which directed the deposit of P413,073.62, to require a deposit of only P19,510.84.

RULING

The petition is denied. The Court of Industrial Relations did not exceed its jurisdiction or commit grave abuse of discretion. The August 11, 1952 order was not a final judgment determinative of the rights of the parties but was merely an interlocutory order preparatory to execution. It was subject to modification by the CIR under its inherent powers to correct errors and prevent injustice. The modification was justified because the original order was based on a mistaken belief, induced by the examiner’s erroneous report and the petitioner’s motion, that the P413,073.62 represented only the amounts due under demands (a) and (h). In reality, the report improperly included the money value of vacation and sick leave (demand (f)), which was not subject to commutation and payment under the award and was not demanded in the execution motion. The CIR correctly rectified its own error to conform to law and justice. No rights can be founded on a mistake by the court or its employees.