G.R. No. L-17086 November 30, 1961
LUZON LABOR UNION, petitioner, vs. LUZON BROKERAGE COMPANY, respondent.

FACTS

The Luzon Labor Union filed a claim with the Court of Industrial Relations (CIR) for back wages on behalf of workers who served the U.S. Army in Bataan during World War II. The union alleged that the company’s manager, F.H. Myers, promised employees continued employment and back pay if they drove company trucks to Bataan for the war effort. The CIR initially dismissed the claims as barred by prescription. On appeal, the Supreme Court reversed, finding the claims had not prescribed, and remanded the case for a new trial to determine the specific amounts due to individual claimants.
Upon remand, the CIR, in a 1959 decision, awarded back pay to 239 claimants who had proven they rendered service in Bataan. However, it denied the claims of 180 other union members who did not go to Bataan, as well as the claims of Daniel Padilla and others whose service in Bataan was not substantiated. The union filed the present petition for review, contesting the denial of these claims.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the Court of Industrial Relations erred in refusing to award back pay to: (1) the 180 claimants who did not go to Bataan, and (2) Daniel Padilla and others whose service in Bataan was not proven.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the CIR decision, denying the claims of both groups. Regarding the 180 claimants who remained in Manila, the Court held their claims were not properly before it. The original petition specifically sought recovery for those “who worked… in Bataan.” The union’s subsequent attempt to amend its petition to include those who stayed in Manila was denied by the CIR, and this denial was never raised in the prior appeal (G.R. No. L-6608). Consequently, the right to pursue these claims was deemed waived. Furthermore, the Supreme Court’s remand order in the prior case was explicitly limited to determining the amounts due to the 239 claimants who served in Bataan, not to adjudicate a new class of claimants.
On the merits, the Court examined the evidence and found it insufficient to prove that Manager Myers made a definite promise to pay employees who did not go to Bataan for the entire war duration. Testimonies indicated only a general hope or expectation of resuming work, not a binding contractual commitment for back pay without service. As for Daniel Padilla and others, the Court declined to reverse the CIR’s factual finding that they did not serve in Bataan, as the Supreme Court is not a trier of facts and found no compelling reason to overturn the lower court’s assessment of the evidence. The decision was affirmed.