GR L 5121; (January, 1953) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-5121; January 30, 1953
J.P. HEILBRONN CO., petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR UNION, respondent.
FACTS
On July 12, 1948, the Secretary of Labor certified a labor dispute between the National Labor Union and the J.P. Heilbronn Co. to the Court of Industrial Relations (CIR), docketed as Case No. 160-V. During the hearings, Armando Ocampo and Protacio Ty, officers of the local union affiliated with the National Labor Union, attended conferences and hearings, sometimes assisting their lawyer. Subsequently, the Labor Union filed a motion praying the CIR to order the Company to reimburse Ocampo and Ty the amounts deducted from their salaries (P88 and P64.65, respectively) for their absences while attending these proceedings. The CIR, through Associate Judge V. Jimenez Yanson, granted the motion despite the Company’s opposition. After the CIR in banc denied the Company’s motion for reconsideration, the Company appealed to the Supreme Court.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Industrial Relations erred in ordering the Company to reimburse the salaries deducted from the two union officers for their absences from work to attend labor dispute proceedings.
RULING
The Supreme Court set aside the order of the CIR. The Court held that the age-old rule governing labor relations is “a fair day’s wage for a fair day’s labor.” If no work is performed, there can be no wage or pay, unless the laborer was able, willing, and ready to work but was illegally locked out, dismissed, or suspended. The Court found the CIR’s order inconsistent with its own prior rulings, such as in San Miguel Brewery, Inc. vs. National Union and Federation Obrera de Filipinas (FOF) vs. Philippine Rubber Projects Co., Inc., where it denied payment of wages to strikers for days not worked, even during legal strikes. By analogy, laborers who voluntarily absent themselves from work to attend hearings in a case against their employer should not be paid for that period. The Court stated it is not fair or just for an employee to litigate against his employer on the employer’s time. The union officers could seek reimbursement from their union, charge the absence to vacation leave, or possibly have the deductions charged as damages if the union’s case is ultimately decided in their favor. The appealed order was set aside.