GR L 5206; (April, 1953) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-5206; April 29, 1953
CALTEX (PHILIPPINES), INC., petitioner, vs. PHILIPPINE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS, CALTEX CHAPTER, respondent.
FACTS
The Philippine Labor Organizations, Caltex Chapter, made several demands upon Caltex (Philippines), Inc. in February 1950. The Court of Industrial Relations (CIR) ordered Caltex to pay a one-year gratuity to eleven prewar female employees who were not readmitted after liberation, matching a gratuity given to prewar male employees. Caltex moved for reconsideration, arguing that the gratuity was paid pursuant to a 1949 stipulation approved by the CIR, which provided for an ex gratia rehabilitation allowance to “present employees and laborers who were in its employ prior to the last war.” Caltex contended the payment was made only to prewar male employees who were working for the company at the time the gratuity was given on July 16, 1949, a condition not met by the eleven female employees. The CIR denied the motion, prompting this review.
ISSUE
Whether the eleven prewar female employees, who were not in the employ of Caltex at the time the gratuity was distributed, are entitled, on grounds of equity, to the same one-year gratuity given to prewar male employees who were working for the company at that time.
RULING
No. The appealed order of the CIR is set aside. The Supreme Court held that, as a matter of legal principle, prewar employees have no right to backpay for the period when they rendered no service. While equity and the constitutional duty to protect labor, especially women, could justify extending the same gratuity to prewar female employees if conditions were identical, the material conditions here were different. The male beneficiaries were actual employees of Caltex on July 16, 1949, when the gratuity was granted, a condition intended to induce better service and improve morale among current workers. The female claimants were not employees at that time. The record did not support an allegation that they were refused reemployment; the CIR’s statement that they were not “reinstated” did not constitute a finding of demand-and-refusal. Their claim was based solely on the male employees having received the gratuity, not on a denial of reinstatement. Since there was no legal foundation for the claim and no unfairness or identical conditions to invoke equity, the order for payment was unjustified. Courts cannot distribute charities at the expense of property owners without legal or equitable basis.