G.R. No. L-21663 March 31, 1966
MANILA CORDAGE COMPANY, petitioner, vs. FERNANDO VIBAR, ET AL., respondents.

FACTS

A labor dispute between petitioner Manila Cordage Company and the Manila Cordage Workers Union led to a strike on August 19, 1949. The Court of Industrial Relations (CIR), in Case No. 349-V(1), declared the strike “highly unjustified and unreasonable” in an order dated September 16, 1949. Instead of ordering the dismissal of the strikers, the CIR, as an act of “grace,” ordered them to return to work within two days from receipt of the order, failing which the company was authorized to replace them. The order was received on September 17, 1949. On October 27, 1958, respondents (among the 1949 strikers) filed a complaint (Case No. 1122-V) alleging they offered to return to work but were refused admission by the company. They sought reinstatement, back wages, and other benefits. The CIR, in a decision dated April 20, 1963, denied most claims but awarded respondents “full backwages from September 20, 1949 up to the period when their replacements were hired but not to exceed a period of thirty (30) days.” Petitioner appealed this award.

ISSUE

1. Whether the CIR retained jurisdiction to amend its 1949 return-to-work order after nine years and award back wages.
2. Whether the respondents’ action to enforce the return-to-work order was filed within a reasonable time.
3. Whether the respondents complied with the two-day ultimatum to return to work, thereby entitling them to the awarded back wages.

RULING

1. Yes, the CIR retained jurisdiction. Under Sections 7 and 17 of Commonwealth Act No. 103, the CIR has continuing control and the power to modify its decisions, orders, and awards even after finality to accord substantial justice. This power was not affected by the Industrial Peace Act. The CIR retained jurisdiction over the original case to determine compliance with the condition (returning within two days) of its 1949 order.
2. Yes, the action was filed within a reasonable time. The respondents’ action was not a new action for reinstatement but an action to enforce a pre-existing right established in the 1949 order. The one-year rule for filing reinstatement actions cited in Gutierrez vs. Bachrach Motor Co. does not apply to this enforcement action.
3. No, the respondents did not comply with the two-day ultimatum and are not entitled to back wages. The evidence contradicts the CIR’s finding that respondents returned to work within the two-day period. The record shows: (a) On September 27, 1949, petitioner sought an injunction against respondents for intimidating other strikers, indicating they had not returned to work; (b) On November 5, 1949, the union sought clarification on whether a motion for reconsideration suspended the two-day period, which would be unnecessary if they had already returned; (c) Respondents’ own bill of particulars stated they tried to return “sometime in October, 1949,” not within the two-day period ending September 19, 1949. By defying the court order and continuing their unlawful strike, respondents forfeited the act of grace. Petitioner had the right to replace them and should not be penalized with back wages. The award of back wages was reversed.