G.R. No. L-20838 July 30, 1965
National Shipyards and Steel Corporation, petitioner, vs. Court of Industrial Relations and Jose Abiday and 38 others, respondents.

FACTS

The National Shipyards and Steel Corporation (NASSCO) is the owner of vessels used in its shipbuilding and repair business. Respondents are crew members of its tugboats. On April 15, 1957, respondents filed a case in the Court of Industrial Relations (CIR), docketed as Case No. 1058-V, claiming overtime compensation. The case was submitted for decision on a stipulation of facts, which stated that petitioners had to work in excess of eight hours a day and/or during Sundays and legal holidays as required by service exigencies, and that they were paid their regular salaries and subsistence allowance without additional overtime compensation. On November 22, 1957, the CIR ordered NASSCO to pay respondents 25% additional compensation for overtime work and directed its examiner to compute the amount based on NASSCO’s logbooks, time sheets, and other records. The examiner submitted reports covering different periods, crediting respondents with overtime work at an average of five hours a day. NASSCO previously challenged the CIR’s jurisdiction and the nature of its order in two separate petitions for certiorari to the Supreme Court (G.R. No. L-13732 and G.R. No. L-13888), both dismissed. On November 25, 1960, respondents filed a petition asking the CIR to direct its examiner to compute overtime pay for the periods 1949-53 and 1958-60, which was granted. The examiner submitted a third report, which the CIR approved in its order of November 27, 1962. NASSCO’s motion for reconsideration was denied en banc, prompting this petition for review.

ISSUE

1. Whether there is evidence to support the examiner’s finding that respondents rendered five hours of overtime service daily during the periods 1949-53 and 1958-60.
2. Whether the Court of Industrial Relations has jurisdiction over the claims of three respondents who had ceased to be employees of NASSCO.

RULING

1. Yes, there is sufficient evidence to support the finding of five hours of daily overtime service. Pedro de Joya, NASSCO’s marine land surveyor, testified that respondents had worked overtime as shown by daily time sheets, payrolls, logbooks, and other pertinent records. He explained that the crew were supposed to work on three 8-hour shifts, but due to manpower assignments (e.g., only two men on deck, two engineers and two oilers in the engine), each member ordinarily worked a minimum of at least 12 hours daily, and sometimes more due to repairs, storms, and other calamities. The Supreme Court found this evidence sufficient and declined to disturb the CIR’s factual finding.
2. Yes, the Court of Industrial Relations has jurisdiction over the claims of the three respondents (Rodolfo Riaza, Gualberto Legaspi, and Mauricio Zulueta). At the time the case was decided by the CIR, these three were actually employees of NASSCO. The first order of the court dated November 22, 1957, granting overtime pay, included them as employees. Although they were no longer employees at the time of the filing of the motion on November 25, 1960, for continuation of the computation, jurisdiction had already attached. Furthermore, the finding that they had worked overtime was a factual finding supported by evidence, which the Supreme Court would not disturb.
The decision of the Court of Industrial Relations was sustained. Costs against the petitioner.