G.R. No. L-15635; May 30, 1961
ISAAC PERAL BOWLING ALLEYS, petitioner, vs. UNITED EMPLOYEES WELFARE ASSOCIATION and the COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, respondents.

FACTS

This case is an appeal from an order of the Court of Industrial Relations (CIR) concerning the computation of back wages for four illegally dismissed pinboys. In a prior decision (G.R. No. L-10327), the Supreme Court affirmed a CIR order for their reinstatement with back wages from November 11, 1952, to December 22, 1954. A subsequent Supreme Court resolution clarified that the employer, Isaac Peral Bowling Alleys, could deduct from these back wages any earnings the pinboys received from other employment during that suspension period. The pinboys were reinstated, and the CIR then conducted a hearing to determine the amounts to be deducted based on their interim earnings.
The CIR’s order of May 25, 1959, found that pinboy Petronio Beriña earned only P40.00 casually during the entire period, and Claro Bordones received P187.00 from military training. After these deductions, the CIR ordered the Bowling Alleys to pay a total of P6,756.14 in back wages. The Bowling Alleys moved for reconsideration, arguing that Beriña and Bordones had earned additional sums (P60 and P248, respectively) that should also be deducted. The CIR en banc denied the motion.

ISSUE

The primary issues are: (1) whether the CIR retained jurisdiction to hear evidence and compute the back wages after the Supreme Court’s final decision; and (2) whether the Bowling Alleys can raise, in this certiorari proceeding, the factual question that the pinboys earned more than the amounts found by the CIR.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the CIR’s order. On the jurisdictional issue, the Court held that the CIR properly retained authority under Commonwealth Act No. 103 . The original unfair labor practice case (CIR Case No. 751-V[1]) was instituted in October 1952, before the effectivity of the Industrial Peace Act ( Republic Act No. 875 ). Under Section 27 of RA 875, the CIR retained jurisdiction over pending cases until all issues were fully settled, to be decided under the provisions of Commonwealth Act No. 103 . Therefore, the CIR had the continuing jurisdiction to implement the Supreme Court’s decision by receiving evidence to determine the proper deductible interim earnings, making its order a valid incident of the original case.
On the second issue, the Court ruled that the appeal, taken under Section 14 of Commonwealth Act No. 103 , is a review by certiorari where questions of fact cannot be raised. The Bowling Alleys’ claim that Beriña and Bordones earned additional wages beyond the P40 and P187 found by the CIR involves a factual determination. The Supreme Court emphasized that in such certiorari proceedings, it is not a trier of facts and must generally rely on the factual findings of the CIR, provided they are supported by evidence. Since the Bowling Alleys sought to challenge these factual conclusions, their argument was not permissible in this appellate mode. The order and resolution of the CIR were thus affirmed.