G.R. No. L-21348, June 30, 1966
RED V COCONUT PRODUCTS, LTD., petitioner, vs. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, TANGLAW NG PAGGAWA, ALBERTO DELA CRUZ, ET AL., respondents.

FACTS

Red V Coconut Products, Ltd. operates a desiccated coconut factory in Lucena City with several hundred workers, about 800 of whom are members of the Tanglaw ng Paggawa labor union. The company and union entered into collective bargaining agreements on July 15, 1958, and October 5, 1961 (to expire on October 31, 1965). Both agreements provided for shift differentials: 35¢ for the second shift and 55¢ for the third shift. In the factory, workers are divided into two groups: Group A works three 8-hour shifts (4 A.M.-12 noon, 12 noon-8 P.M., 8 P.M.-4 A.M.), and Group B works two 12-hour shifts (4 A.M.-4 P.M. and 4 P.M.-4 A.M.). Group B workers change shift assignments weekly. Under the agreements, differentials were paid as follows: Group A’s 2nd shift received .35, 3rd shift .55; Group B’s 2nd shift (4 P.M.-4 A.M.) received .55.
On January 17, 1962, Tanglaw ng Paggawa and about 300 Group B workers (shellers, parers, counters, haulers) filed a petition in the Court of Industrial Relations (CIR). They claimed that since their night work (4 P.M.-4 A.M.) was equivalent to the combined night work of Group A’s 2nd and 3rd shifts, they should receive a total differential of .90 (.35 + .55) instead of only .55. They sought payment of an additional .35 per night for work from July 15, 1958, to the petition date, totaling approximately P65,228.10. The company moved to dismiss, arguing the CIR lacked jurisdiction as the claim was a simple money claim and involved contract interpretation for regular courts. The CIR denied the motion, ruling the claim was for unpaid overtime pay of employed laborers. After trial, the CIR found the Group B workers were on piece-work basis (thus not entitled to overtime under the Eight-Hour Labor Law) but held their petition for night shift differentials under the collective bargaining agreements meritorious, ordering payment of the deficiency to make their differential .90. The company’s motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting this petition for review.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Industrial Relations had jurisdiction over the petition filed by the Group B workers for shift differential pay.

RULING

Yes, the Court of Industrial Relations had jurisdiction. The petition, while not expressly citing the Eight-Hour Labor Law, alleged the workers were employed by the company and worked 12-hour shifts. This properly characterized the claim as one for overtime pay by still-employed workers, falling within the CIR’s jurisdiction, not as a simple money claim. Jurisdiction, once acquired, continues until final adjudication, and the subsequent evidence at trial that the workers were on piece-work basis did not divest the CIR of jurisdiction. Moreover, while the Eight-Hour Labor Law excludes piece-workers, nothing precludes an agreement to pay them overtime compensation. By agreeing in the collective bargaining agreements to pay shift differentials and actually paying them (though partially), the company effectively applied the law’s objectives to these workers. Additionally, the workers were not strictly piece-workers as contemplated by law because their 12-hour shifts were fixed by the employer, not freely determined by them, thus placing them, for the purpose of recovering the stipulated differentials, within the scope of the law. The CIR’s decision and resolution were affirmed.