GR L 4877; (February, 1952) (2) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-4877; February 26, 1952
LAND SETTLEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. CALEDONIA PILE WORKER’S UNION, REPAIR SHOP WORKER’S UNION and CARLOS RAMOS, respondents.
FACTS
The Caledonia Pile Worker’s Union and Repair Shop Worker’s Union, representing employees and laborers of the Machinery Company (MED-NDC), filed a petition (Case No. 220-V) with the Court of Industrial Relations (CIR) on November 6, 1948, demanding a general wage increase. On November 4, 1949, the CIR rendered a decision granting specified wage increases to the employees and laborers of MED-NDC. Subsequently, MED-NDC was dissolved and succeeded by the Land Settlement and Development Corporation (LASEDECO). On March 13, 1951, the parties submitted a stipulation of facts to the CIR, seeking clarification on whether the wage increases applied to provincial employees who worked in MED-NDC’s tractor pools. Before the CIR ruled on this, Carlos Ramos, a retired provincial employee from Bataan, filed a motion claiming payment of wage differentials under the decision. LASEDECO objected, arguing Ramos was not covered as he worked in the provinces. The CIR issued orders declaring that the wage increases applied to all employees, whether in Manila or the provinces, and directed LASEDECO to pay Ramos. LASEDECO’s motions for reconsideration were denied, prompting this petition for review.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Industrial Relations had the authority to apply its decision in the main case (Case No. 220-V) to provincial employees and laborers of LASEDECO who were not direct parties to the original petition.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition, upholding the CIR’s authority. The Court held that:
1. The CIR’s decision, once it legally takes cognizance of a case, may encompass employees and workers beyond those who directly initiated the demands or participated in strikes. This is supported by precedent (Parsons Hardware Inc. vs. Court of Industrial Relations, 73 Phil. 481; Leyte Land Transportation Company Inc. vs. Leyte Farmers and Laborers Union, 80 Phil., 842). Limiting benefits only to striking workers would incentivize strikes, contrary to the law’s aim of preventing labor unrest and encouraging peaceful resolution.
2. The evidence in the record of Case No. 220-V sufficiently established that the Caledonia Pile, Repair Shop, and Provincial Tractor Pools were interrelated operations. Provincial employees depended on Manila-based units for supplies and repairs, and some provincial workers participated in strikes or picketing. Their economic conditions, including provisional assignments and family maintenance in Manila, justified their inclusion in the wage increases.
3. LASEDECO’s conduct indicated it understood the decision to cover provincial employees, as it paid some provincial workers at the new rates and jointly sought clarification from the CIR. This estopped LASEDECO from challenging the sufficiency of evidence or the CIR’s authority.
4. The CIR’s orders were merely a reiteration of its final and executory decision, not a modification. Thus, the petition was also untimely.
Costs were imposed on LASEDECO.