G.R. No. L-14613, November 30, 1962
PRICE STABILIZATION CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS and PRISCO WORKERS’ UNION, ET AL., respondents.

FACTS

On March 18, 1953, the PRISCO Workers’ Union, representing 58 security guards, filed a multi-point demand with the Court of Industrial Relations (CIR) against the Price Stabilization Corporation (PRISCO). The demands included claims for overtime, holiday, and night differential pay dating back to 1946. The CIR rendered a partial decision in August 1953, ordering payment for certain periods, which was later extended to other PRISCO workers not originally named as petitioners, a ruling affirmed by the Supreme Court in G.R. No. L-9288. Subsequently, the CIR, in a June 10, 1955 decision, granted the claims for back pay from August 1946 to June 7, 1951, which was also affirmed by the Supreme Court in G.R. No. L-9834.
Upon finality of that decision, the Union filed a motion for computation and for the inclusion of 522 additional PRISCO workers to receive the awarded benefits. PRISCO opposed this motion, arguing it constituted a new action. PRISCO contended that this “new” action, filed in 1958, should be governed by Republic Act No. 875 (the Industrial Peace Act), which allegedly stripped the CIR of jurisdiction over such monetary claims, and by Republic Act No. 1993 , which imposed a three-year statute of limitations that would bar the pre-1951 claims.

ISSUE

Whether the Union’s motion for the inclusion of 522 other workers was a new and independent action subject to Republic Acts Nos. 875 and 1993, or merely an incidental proceeding of the original case filed in 1953.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the CIR’s order including the 522 workers. The Court held that the motion was not a new action but a mere incident of the original case (CIR Case No. 840-V) instituted in March 1953. The legal logic rests on the continuing jurisdiction and broad authority of the CIR under Commonwealth Act No. 103 . Sections 7 and 17 of this law endowed the CIR with plenary power to amend its orders and retain control over cases to serve substantive justice, allowing it to extend benefits to all workers similarly situated, not just the original petitioners. Since the main case was filed before the effectivity of both Republic Act No. 875 (June 1953) and Republic Act No. 1993 (June 1957), those laws did not apply. The Court emphasized that the claims for the 522 workers arose from the same cause of action—the 1953 petition—and their inclusion was merely procedural to identify all beneficiaries of the final judgment. Republic Act No. 1993 ’s statute of limitations explicitly exempted actions already commenced, such as this one. Therefore, the CIR correctly exercised its jurisdiction in granting the motion.