G.R. No. L-18425; February 27, 1963
NATIONAL LABOR UNION, PRIMO ZAMORA, UBALDO BARRON, TEOPILO CANO, LORENZO DE LA CRUZ, TERESO GAQUIT, MANUEL GUTIERREZ, SANTIAGO GODINEZ, JOSE LUMIBAO, SOFRONIO LUMIBAO, and JULIO PEREZ, petitioners, vs. INTERNATIONAL OIL FACTORY, respondent.

FACTS

In 1951, the Court of Industrial Relations (CIR) decided a labor dispute in favor of the National Labor Union (NLU), ordering the International Oil Factory to grant its workers 15 days of vacation leave per year of continuous, loyal, and satisfactory service, but only “while its financial state permits it.” The decision became final. In 1955, the CIR en banc issued a resolution to implement this award, referring the case to the trial court to receive evidence on the company’s financial condition from 1951 “up to the present” and on the workers’ service. Before evidence could be taken, a new union (FFW) was formed by some workers, which later entered into a 1957 compromise agreement with the Factory for eight days of prospective vacation leave. The Supreme Court later ruled this agreement did not bind the NLU.
After remand, the trial judge ordered an examination of the Factory’s books from 1951 to 1960 to determine its financial capacity. The Factory objected, arguing the examination should be limited to 1951-1955. The CIR en banc agreed with the Factory, modifying the order to cover only up to 1955, citing the Supreme Court’s 1960 decision (G.R. No. L-13845). The NLU appealed.

ISSUE

Whether the examination of the respondent’s financial records to determine its capacity to grant vacation leave should cover the period from 1951 to 1960, or be limited only to 1951-1955.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the NLU, ordering the examination from 1951 to 1960. The Court clarified that the 1955 CIR resolution, which was final and executory, explicitly called for evidence on the company’s financial condition “from the year 1951 up to the present.” The mention of the year 1955 in the Court’s 1960 decision in G.R. No. L-13845 was merely descriptive of the resolution’s date and was not a substantive ruling limiting the period. The sole issue in that prior case was whether the FFW’s compromise agreement bound the NLU, not the temporal scope of the financial examination. Since the workers’ right to vacation leave under the 1951 decision was contingent on the company’s ongoing financial capacity, there was no logical basis to arbitrarily cut off the examination at 1955. To deny the leave after 1955, if the financial condition still permitted it, would be contrary to the award’s conditional nature. The resolution appealed from was set aside, and the trial court’s original order was affirmed.