G.R. No. L-16404; October 25, 1960
SAMPAGUITA PICTURES, INC., ET AL., petitioners, vs. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL., respondents.

FACTS

On February 20, 1959, the Sampaguita-Vera Perez Workers’ Union (PLUM) and its members filed a petition with the Court of Industrial Relations (CIR) against Sampaguita Pictures, Inc. The petition sought payment for overtime, Sunday, and holiday work premiums under Commonwealth Act No. 444 (the Eight-Hour Labor Law), alleging repeated unheeded demands. The union had previously submitted several demands, including the overtime claim, on February 6, 1957, and served a notice to strike on February 10, 1957, which remained pending. The company moved to dismiss the case, arguing the CIR lacked jurisdiction because the claim involved fewer than thirty-one employees and was merely a collection suit for overtime pay. The CIR denied the motion, citing a prior case (Monares vs. CNS Enterprises) which held it had jurisdiction over overtime claims coupled with a prayer for reinstatement. The company moved for reconsideration, citing another case (Chua Workers’ Union vs. City Automotive Company) which suggested the CIR lacked jurisdiction over pure overtime claims. The CIR denied reconsideration, prompting the company to file a certiorari petition with the Supreme Court, contending the CIR acted in excess of jurisdiction.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Industrial Relations has jurisdiction over a claim for overtime pay under Commonwealth Act No. 444 filed by a union and its members where the employer-employee relationship still exists and a labor dispute, including a pending notice to strike, is subsisting.

RULING

Yes, the Court of Industrial Relations has jurisdiction. The Supreme Court, citing the clarifying precedent in Price Stabilization Corporation (PRISCO) vs. Court of Industrial Relations, held that the CIR has jurisdiction over all claims arising out of employment, such as those under the Eight-Hour Labor Law, when the employer-employee relationship is still existing or when reinstatement is sought. In this case, the employer-employee relationship not only existed when the petition was filed but continued to exist, and the claim was intertwined with a broader labor dispute evidenced by the pending notice to strike concerning unheeded demands. This brings the case within the purview of the PRISCO ruling. The Court also found the argument regarding the number of employees (being less than thirty-one) immaterial, as the petition was filed by the union together with its members. Accordingly, the orders of the CIR dated October 2, 1959, and November 19, 1959, were affirmed.