GR L 5983; (November, 1953) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-5983 & L-6265; November 28, 1953
Case Parties:
G.R. No. L-5983: BENITO NAHAG, ET ALS., petitioners, vs. HON. ARSENIO ROLDAN, as Presiding Judge of the Court of Industrial Relations, THE COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS and DEE C. CHUAN & SONS, INC., respondents.
G.R. No. L-6265: KAISAHAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA KAHOY SA FILIPINAS, and the 118 movants-intervenors represented by BENITO NAHAG, petitioners, vs. DEE C. CHUAN & SONS, INC., respondent.
FACTS
1. On July 23, 1948, the Court of Industrial Relations (CIR) awarded wage increases, vacation, and sick leave with pay to the laborers of Dee C. Chuan & Sons, Inc., represented by Kaisahan ng mga Manggagawa sa Kahoy sa Filipinas and the CLO. This award was affirmed in toto by the Supreme Court on January 28, 1950.
2. While a motion for reconsideration of the Supreme Court’s affirmance was pending, the company filed a motion dated March 31, 1950, in the CIR seeking modification of both the 1946 and 1948 awards, citing changed conditions such as company losses, a downtrend in the cost of living, and wage reductions in other lumber companies.
3. On July 3, 1950, the Supreme Court denied the motion for reconsideration, and its decision became final and executory on July 6, 1950. The laborers then moved for execution of the judgment in the CIR.
4. The CIR, in an order dated November 24, 1950, declared itself without authority to modify the award for the period during the appeal’s pendency and ordered the issuance of a writ of execution. The company’s petition for certiorari (G.R. No. L-4680) to annul this order was dismissed by the Supreme Court, and the dismissal became final on May 25, 1951.
5. Subsequently, on May 29, 1952, the CIR issued an order giving course to the company’s earlier motion for modification, directing an examination of the company’s books for 1948-1950 to determine the justice and equity of modifying the July 23, 1948 award. This order was issued while the award was already in the process of execution, with amounts due to laborers being computed and discussed in court.
6. The laborers challenged this May 29, 1952, order, arguing the award could no longer be modified.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Industrial Relations may modify an award that has been affirmed by the Supreme Court after an order for the execution of that award has already become final.
RULING
No. The Court annulled and set aside the CIR’s order of May 29, 1952, insofar as it affected or retarded the execution of the July 23, 1948 award for the years 1948, 1949, and 1950.
While Section 17 of Commonwealth Act No. 103 authorizes the CIR to alter or modify an award at any time during its effectiveness, this authority cannot be construed to allow modification after the order for execution of the award has become final, particularly for periods that had already elapsed. To hold otherwise would render litigations between capital and labor endless, a result not contemplated by the law. The CIR cannot act to unravel a final and executory award.