GR L 26932; (March, 1969) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-26932 March 28, 1969
RUPERTO SANCHEZ, doing business under the name and style of PRESERVER SHOE COMPANY and MODESTO SANCHEZ, petitioners, vs. THE COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, PRESERVER SHOE WORKERS’ UNION-NAFLU, FRANCISCO TORRIGOZA and 42 OTHER MEMBERS OF PRESERVER SHOE WORKERS’ UNION-NAFLU, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioners were ordered by the Supreme Court, affirming a decision of the Court of Industrial Relations (CIR), to reinstate workers and pay them back wages from May 18, 1958, due to unfair labor practice. After the decision became final, the CIR enforced it. However, reinstatement was not effected because the Preserver Shoe Company ceased operations on November 2, 1963. Back pay of P49,774.11 was paid to the employees, except for ten persons whose names did not appear in the payrolls and time cards examined. These ten employees later filed a motion with the CIR seeking computation of their back wages. Petitioners opposed, arguing full compliance with the decision, that three of the ten were specifically excluded due to convictions for crimes against petitioners, and that back wages should not extend beyond November 2, 1963, when the business closed. The CIR, on September 27, 1966, ordered the computation of back wages for seven of these employees from May 21, 1958, to November 2, 1963, and dismissed the claims of the three convicted individuals. Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration was denied on November 3, 1966, leading to this petition for review.
ISSUE
Whether the CIR committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing its order of September 27, 1966, directing the computation of back wages for the seven claimants.
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition and affirmed the challenged order of the CIR. The Court held:
1. The CIR did not reverse its previous orders. The original decision mandated reinstatement with back pay from May 18, 1958, until reinstatement. The ten claimants were initially excluded from computation solely because their names were not in the examined payrolls, not because their claims were adjudicated on the merits. The CIR’s power to alter, modify, or reopen any question involved in an award is to be liberally construed to effectuate its purpose.
2. The CIR did not err in computing back wages only until November 2, 1963. The cessation of business operations on that date was admitted by petitioners. Back wages are payable only until the date the employer can no longer reinstate due to valid closure, not indefinitely.
3. The CIR’s factual findings based on the evidence presented, including the testimony of only two of the seven claimants, are conclusive. The CIR is not bound by technical rules of legal evidence and may inform itself in a just and equitable manner. The quality, not the quantity, of witnesses is paramount. No grave abuse of discretion was shown to warrant reversal.