G.R. No. L-13888. April 29, 1960.
NATIONAL SHIPYARD AND STEEL CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL., respondents.

FACTS

On April 15, 1957, Jose Abiday and 38 other employees of the National Shipyard and Steel Corporation (NASSCO) filed a petition with the Court of Industrial Relations (CIR) for additional compensation for overtime services rendered. They alleged they were required to work on Sundays, legal holidays, at nighttime, and more than eight hours a day without receiving extra wages. NASSCO resisted the claim and challenged the CIR’s jurisdiction. After trial, the CIR issued an order on November 22, 1957, requiring NASSCO to pay additional compensation and directing its Examiner to compute the amounts due. NASSCO’s motion for reconsideration was denied. On February 14, 1958, the Court Examiner rendered a partial report, which the CIR approved and ordered executed. NASSCO filed a petition for review (G.R. No. L-13732) with the Supreme Court, raising the issue of the CIR’s jurisdiction over money claims for unpaid overtime compensation after the effectivity of the Industrial Peace Act ( Republic Act No. 875 ). The Supreme Court dismissed that petition for lack of merit on April 11, 1958, and a motion for reconsideration failed. Subsequently, on May 16, 1958, the Court Examiner presented another partial report. NASSCO filed an opposition, but the CIR overruled it for being filed beyond the five-day period provided by its Rules, because the matter had been practically approved by the Supreme Court’s dismissal of G.R. No. L-13732, and because the opposition lacked valid foundation. NASSCO then filed this new petition for certiorari (G.R. No. L-13888), again raising the question of the CIR’s jurisdiction and alleging that its opposition was set aside pursuant to a non-existing or illegal Rule of the CIR.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Industrial Relations has jurisdiction to take cognizance of monetary claims for overtime work.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the order of the CIR. The Court held that the controversy between the 39 employees and NASSCO over payment for overtime work, including work on Sundays, legal holidays, and at nighttime, is properly within the scope of the CIR’s powers. It is practically a labor dispute that may lead to conflict between the employees and management. The Court further noted that the principal issue of jurisdiction had already been raised and resolved in the previous case between the same parties arising from the same controversy (G.R. No. L-13732). The Supreme Court’s resolution dismissing that petition for lack of merit had become final and is the law of the case; therefore, the implementation of the order upheld therein may not be blocked by this second petition. The Court also clarified that if the claimants were no longer employees of NASSCO and were not insisting on reinstatement, their claim would become a simple monetary demand cognizable by the regular courts.