GR L 5062; (April, 1953) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-5062, April 29, 1953
Manila Trading & Supply Co., petitioner, vs. Manila Trading Labor Association, respondent.
FACTS
On October 10, 1950, the Manila Trading Labor Association (a labor union of the company’s workers) made demands upon the Manila Trading and Supply Co. for increased personnel, Christmas bonus, and other benefits. The company refused the demand. After the Department of Labor failed to settle the dispute, the Secretary of Labor certified it to the Court of Industrial Relations (CIR), docketed as Case No. 521-V. Separately, on the same day, the company applied to the CIR for authority to lay off 50 workers due to “poor business,” docketed as Case No. 415-V (4). During the hearings for these cases, the president and vice-president of the association voluntarily absented themselves from work to attend. They later claimed entitlement to their wages for those days. The CIR found merit in their claim and ordered the company to pay them their corresponding wages. The company contests this order, arguing the CIR had no authority to issue it.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Industrial Relations may require an employer to pay the wages of officers of its employees’ labor union for days they voluntarily absent themselves from work to attend hearings of cases between the employer and the union.
RULING
No. The petition for certiorari is granted and the CIR’s order is set aside. The Supreme Court, citing its earlier decision in J.P. Heilbronn Co. vs. National Labor Union, ruled that employees who voluntarily absent themselves from work to attend court hearings in a case where they are litigating against their employer are not entitled to pay for those days. The foundational principle is “a fair day’s wage for a fair day’s labor.” No wage is due if no work is performed, absent an illegal lockout, dismissal, or suspension. It is not fair for an employee to litigate against the employer on the employer’s time. The Court noted that while the dispute in one case was certified by the Secretary of Labor, it was initiated by the union’s demand. The suggested alternatives are for the employees to charge such absences against any vacation leave or, as suggested by some Justices (without a majority commitment), for the lost wages to possibly be charged as damages if the cases are ultimately decided in the union’s favor.