G.R. No. L-17344; April 23, 1962
TALISAY-SILAY MILLING CO., INC., petitioner, vs. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS and TALISAY-SILAY EMPLOYEES AND LABORERS ASSOCIATION (TELA), respondents.

FACTS

The case originated from an illegal strike declared by the respondent Union in December 1952. In June 1953, the Court of Industrial Relations (CIR) ordered the reinstatement of the striking workers but denied them back wages for the strike period. This order was ultimately affirmed by the Supreme Court in 1955. The workers were reinstated in January 1956. Subsequently, the Union moved for the payment of back wages covering the period from the date of the reinstatement order (June 1953) to the date of actual reinstatement (January 1956). The CIR, in an order affirmed by the Supreme Court in a prior related case (G.R. Nos. L-14023 and L-14135), ruled that back wages were due but only from November 10, 1953 (ten days after the company received notice of the denial of its motion for reconsideration of the 1953 order) until January 1956.
The CIR’s chief examiner computed the total back wages at P238,430.84. The Company objected, submitting its own computation which was P68,204.10 less, arguing it was based on the “average pay” method which it claimed was sanctioned by the Supreme Court’s prior decision. The CIR approved the examiner’s report and ordered the Company to deposit the amount. The Company’s motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting this appeal.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Industrial Relations committed a grave abuse of discretion in approving the computation of back wages made by its chief examiner and in rejecting the Company’s alternative computation.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the CIR’s orders and found no merit in the Company’s petition. The Court clarified that its decision in the prior related cases (L-14023 and L-14135) did not mandate the exclusive use of the “employee’s average pay in a given period” method as argued by the Company. That decision merely cited it as an example of a method used in American jurisprudence without rejecting the CIR’s own methodology. The Court had, in fact, affirmed the CIR’s order directing the preparation of the examiner’s report, thereby sanctioning the method to be used.
The examiner’s computation was deemed proper: he first ascertained each laborer’s average daily wage based on the Company’s 1951-1952 payrolls, then determined the actual number of working days during the compensable period (November 1953 to January 1956), and multiplied the two figures. This method was found to be a fair and reasonable implementation of the reinstatement and back wage award. The Company’ objection was therefore unfounded.
Furthermore, the Court dissolved the preliminary injunction it had previously issued in favor of the Company upon the filing of a bond. It held that the Company had no valid ground to prevent execution, and the injunction had unlawfully deprived the workers of their back wages. Consequently, the Court sentenced the surety company to pay legal interest on the P238,430.84 from the date of the injunction until payment, with liability limited to the bond amount of P30,000. The Company was ordered to pay the costs.