G.R. No. L-17085. January 31, 1963. LUZON BROKERAGE COMPANY, petitioner, vs. LUZON LABOR UNION, respondent.
FACTS:

This case is a sequel to G.R. No. L-6608. In the original case, 425 employees of Luzon Brokerage Company sought recovery of back pay for services rendered in Bataan under U.S. Army direction during the war, based on a promise of payment by the company’s manager. The Court of Industrial Relations (CIR) recognized the employment contract but dismissed the claims due to prescription. On appeal, this Court reversed, holding the action had not prescribed, and remanded the case for a new trial specifically to determine the individual amounts due to each claimant, as the CIR had not made specific awards.
In the remanded proceedings (the instant case), the CIR limited the new trial to receiving evidence on the specific amounts claimable. It ultimately found only 239 of the original claimants entitled to back pay, overtime, and incidental expenses, totaling approximately P1,500,000, based on their affidavits and supporting witness testimonies. Luzon Brokerage Company now assails this decision via certiorari.

ISSUE

The primary issues are: (1) whether the CIR erred in limiting the new trial to the quantification of awards without re-litigating the existence of the claimants’ right to back pay; (2) whether the awards are supported by substantial evidence; and (3) whether the claims are barred by prescription, prior receipt of U.S. Army pay, receipt of separation pay, or lack of CIR jurisdiction.

RULING

The petition is denied. The Supreme Court affirmed the CIR decision. On the first issue, the Court held the CIR correctly limited the new trial’s scope. The remand in G.R. No. L-6608 was ordered precisely because this Court had already upheld the existence of a cause of action—the employment contract and promise to pay—and had only reversed on the prescription ground. The remand’s sole purpose was to ascertain the specific amounts due, not to re-open the settled issue of liability.
On the second issue, the awards are supported by substantial evidence. Petitioner’s claim that awards rested solely on unproven affidavits is unfounded. The CIR decision explicitly relied on the testimonies of 24 credible witnesses who identified the 239 claimants as having been sent to Bataan. The Court noted that even for claimants identified by six discredited witnesses, the CIR found they were also identified by other credible witnesses. The fact that some claimants received pay from the U.S. Army for specific days worked does not negate the company’s separate promise to pay their wages for the entire period of service in Bataan.
On the remaining issues, the Court found no merit. Separation pay is distinct from back wages and does not constitute a waiver of the latter. The prescription defense was conclusively resolved against the petitioner in G.R. No. L-6608. Finally, the CIR’s jurisdiction over these money claims was settled in G.R. No. L-9446, as they arose from an employer-employee relationship and are potential sources of industrial dispute.