G.R. No. L-22970 June 9, 1969
SURIGAO CONSOLIDATED MINING COMPANY, INC. and SURICON EMPLOYEES & LABORERS MUTUAL ASSOCIATION (SELMA), petitioners, vs. PHILIPPINE LAND-AIR-SEA LABOR UNION (PLASLU) and COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, respondents.

FACTS

On April 23, 1951, respondent Philippine Land-Air-Sea Labor Union (PLASLU) filed a petition with the Court of Industrial Relations (CIR) against petitioner Surigao Consolidated Mining Company, Inc. (SURICON), containing various demands for wage increases, overtime pay, holiday pay, leaves, and other benefits for SURICON’s employees and laborers. SURICON answered, alleging that over 90% of its employees were members of petitioner Suricon Employees and Laborers Mutual Association (SELMA), with whom it had an existing collective bargaining contract since November 16, 1949, and that it was already complying with standard wages and conditions. SELMA intervened, praying for the dismissal of PLASLU’s petition and enforcement of its collective bargaining contract. SURICON later filed a motion to dismiss, questioning PLASLU’s capacity to sue as a legitimate labor union and alleging failure to prosecute. During hearings, SURICON presented evidence through its General Superintendent, J.B. Harrison, demonstrating that it had been granting benefits equivalent to or exceeding PLASLU’s demands even prior to the petition’s filing, such as a P2.00 minimum wage (increased to P4.00 by 1953), observance of the Eight-Hour Labor Law, payment of overtime, holiday, and night differentials, grant of vacation and sick leaves, free hospitalization, and housing facilities. At a hearing on February 25, 1954, PLASLU’s counsel, Atty. Emilio Lumontad, moved that the court render its decision “in accordance with the manifestation and evidence of the attorney of the respondent which petitioner hereby adopts as our own.” On March 11, 1954, the CIR issued an order stating that “the demands of the petitioner are hereby granted” and ordering SURICON to pay the money value of the demands from April 23, 1951. SURICON did not appeal this order. Subsequently, the CIR issued orders for the computation of the awards, which were affirmed by the CIR en banc and the Supreme Court. On March 13, 1964, the CIR issued an order approving the examiner’s reports and directing SURICON to deposit P215,819.55, with P172,655.64 to be paid to PLASLU members and P43,163.91 as attorney’s fees to PLASLU’s counsel. SURICON and SELMA filed motions for reconsideration, which were denied on May 5, 1964. SURICON and SELMA appealed, with SURICON contending the March 11, 1954 order was void for lack of due process and that PLASLU had no legal personality, and SELMA contending it was the duly authorized representative of the employees.

ISSUE

The primary issues are: (1) Whether the CIR’s order of March 11, 1954, granting PLASLU’s demands, is valid and binding despite SURICON’s claim of lack of due process and PLASLU’s alleged lack of legal personality; and (2) Whether the subsequent orders for payment, including attorney’s fees, are proper.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the CIR’s order and resolution appealed from, with modification regarding the payment of amounts due to the employees. The Court held that the order of March 11, 1954, was valid and binding. It was issued not only based on SURICON’s evidence and its counsel’s manifestations but also upon PLASLU’s explicit adoption of that evidence as its own, as moved by its counsel in open court. The Court construed the order in light of these circumstances, noting that SURICON had acquiesced to subsequent proceedings for computation without objecting on the grounds now raised. The Court further noted that the CIR en banc resolution of October 12, 1961, stated that the March 11, 1954 order and the implementing order of June 23, 1954, had been affirmed by the CIR en banc and the Supreme Court, and had become final. The Court modified the payment directive, ordering that the amounts due to each employee be paid through whichever duly registered labor union they presently belong to or to the union that has a bargaining contract with SURICON. Costs were imposed against the petitioners.