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 from the corporation’s records. NASSCO’s motion for reconsideration was denied. Following a partial report from the Court Examiner on February 14, 1958, which the CIR approved, NASSCO filed a petition for review (G.R. No. L-13732) with the Supreme Court, raising the issue of the CIR’s jurisdiction over such monetary claims 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. After this dismissal, the Court Examiner submitted another partial report on May 16, 1958. NASSCO filed an opposition, which the CIR overruled for being filed beyond the five-day period under its Rules, because the matter was deemed practically approved by the Supreme Court’s dismissal of G.R. No. L-13732, and because the opposition lacked valid foundation. NASSCO then filed the present petition for certiorari (G.R. No. L-13888), again raising the question of the CIR’s jurisdiction and contesting the application of the five-day rule.

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 CIR has jurisdiction over the controversy. 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), wherein the Supreme Court ruled that NASSCO’s position lacked merit. That resolution became final and is now the law of the case; therefore, its implementation cannot be blocked by this second petition. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the controversy between the 39 employees and NASSCO over payment for overtime work, including Sundays, legal holidays, and nighttime, is properly within the scope of the CIR’s powers as it is practically a labor dispute that may lead to conflict between the employees and management. The Court distinguished that if the claimants were no longer employees and were not seeking reinstatement, their claim would be a simple monetary demand cognizable by the regular courts.