G.R. No. L-18930 February 28, 1967
PHILIPPINE SUGAR INSTITUTE, petitioner, vs. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS and INSUREFCO & PAPER PULP PROJECT WORKER’S UNION, respondents.

FACTS

On June 11, 1949, the Insular Refining Corporation (INSUREFCO), predecessor of the Philippine Sugar Institute (PHILSUGIN), and the respondent Union entered into a partial agreement granting workers vacation leave, sick leave, and overtime/night differential pay. This agreement was approved by the Court of Industrial Relations (CIR). However, it was not applied to 26 members of the PHILSUGIN’s police force who were Union members. On May 21, 1951, the Union filed a petition for extra compensation for these policemen. While pending, 17 policemen accepted a separate offer from PHILSUGIN granting them certain differentials, approved by the CIR on December 11, 1951. Six policemen (Sabas Camacho, Leopoldo Lanuza, Marcos Rarang, Alfredo Abaño, Martiniano Abuton, and Margarito Villamor) refused this offer and pressed their petition. On August 2, 1954, the CIR ordered PHILSUGIN to pay these six policemen 25% and 50% additional compensation for night work and 25% for work on Sundays and legal holidays from March 22, 1949, plus all privileges and facilities they enjoyed at the time of the June 20, 1949 award. Prior to this judgment, on March 31, 1954, these six policemen were laid off, receiving separation pay and accumulated leave pay. When INSUREFCO resumed operations on October 11, 1954, four of them (Rarang, Abaño, Abuton, and Villamor) were not reinstated. They filed a petition for reinstatement. On December 9, 1957, the CIR ordered their reinstatement with back wages from October 11, 1954. This judgment was affirmed by the Supreme Court on September 29, 1960, and the four were reinstated on November 29, 1960 and paid back wages. On December 19, 1960, the Union filed a “Petition for execution of judgment re privileges, facilities,” claiming the four policemen were entitled to the privileges and facilities mentioned in the August 2, 1954 judgment (including two extra days leave per month, free uniforms, shoes, helmets) for the period they were laid off (October 11, 1954 to November 7, 1960) and currently. On July 31, 1961, the CIR ordered PHILSUGIN to grant these privileges/facilities or their money value for that period, to continue granting the two days leave monthly from November 7, 1960, and to credit them with 180 days of vacation and sick leave for the layoff period. PHILSUGIN’s motion for reconsideration was denied on September 7, 1961. PHILSUGIN filed this certiorari petition to set aside these orders.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Industrial Relations acted with grave abuse of discretion in issuing its orders dated July 31, 1961 and September 7, 1961, which granted the policemen’s claim for privileges, facilities, and leave benefits for the period they were illegally laid off.

RULING

The Supreme Court partially granted the petition. It modified the CIR’s order by deleting the award for shoes, khaki suitings, helmets, and ponchos (or their money value) for the period from October 11, 1954 to November 7, 1960, but affirmed the order in all other respects. The Court held:
1. On procedural grounds, the CIR did not err in disregarding technical rules. Section 14 of the CIR Rules does not prescribe a period for filing an opposition to a motion to dismiss, and Section 20 allows the CIR to act according to justice and equity without regard to technicalities. The CIR’s denial of the motion to dismiss without a hearing was proper as the grounds alleged (failure to state a cause of action) were not indubitable.
2. The policemen were not entitled to the money value of the uniforms and equipment (shoes, khaki, helmets) for the layoff period. These items were intended for actual use while rendering service. Since they did not work during that period, they had no use for them, and granting their money value would constitute unjust enrichment.
3. The policemen were entitled to the two days monthly leave with pay for the layoff period. The CIR’s August 2, 1954 judgment awarded them “all the privileges and facilities hitherto enjoyed by them,” which included this leave benefit. This award became final and executory. The subsequent December 9, 1957 reinstatement order did not revoke this prior final judgment. The claim for this leave benefit was a mere implementation or execution of the final August 2, 1954 judgment.
4. The policemen were entitled to accumulate vacation and sick leave for the layoff period. The law provides that such leaves are cumulative. Their illegal separation was not due to their own fault or voluntary resignation. They would have earned these leaves had they not been discriminatorily laid off. Denying them these benefits because they received back wages without working would be against reason and logic.