GR L 5783; (May, 1953) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-5783 May 29, 1953
Manila Trading & Supply Company, petitioner, vs. Manila Trading Labor Association, respondent.
FACTS
The petitioner, Manila Trading & Supply Company, sought a review of a decision by the Court of Industrial Relations dated March 11, 1952, which was reaffirmed on May 28, 1952. The decision granted the respondent union’s demand for a check-off of union dues from the wages of its members and for the payment of gratuity (separation pay) to employees separated from service without just cause, following a modified form of the gratuity awarded to former employees.
ISSUE
1. May an employer be compelled to ‘check-off’ union dues from the wages of an employee when the employer has been authorized to do so by the employee?
2. Has the Court of Industrial Relations the power to order an employer to pay gratuity to an employee who is separated from the service for some reason other than for cause?
RULING
1. On the check-off issue: Yes. The Supreme Court, citing its prior ruling in A.L. Ammen Transportation Co., Inc. vs. Bicol Transportation Employees Mutual Association, et al., held that under the Minimum Wage Law, check-off may be enforced either with the consent of the employer or by written authorization from the employees. When employees duly authorize the check-off in writing, the employer’s consent is unnecessary, and its recognition of the right is obligatory. The Court rejected the petitioner’s argument based on civil law principles of agency, emphasizing that the check-off provision is social legislation aimed at promoting labor welfare and social justice. The New Civil Code supports this by stating that labor contracts are impressed with public interest and must yield to the common good.
2. On the gratuity/separation pay issue: Yes. The Court held that the demand was not strictly for a gratuity but for separation pay, which serves as a means of support for a laborer who loses their livelihood. The Court affirmed the power of the Court of Industrial Relations, based on its general jurisdiction to decide labor disputes, to grant such pay upon separation without just cause, similar to how it grants sick and vacation leave with pay even without express legal provision. This is in line with the beneficent policy extended to government employees and industrial firm laborers, as established in Sta. Mesa Slipways & Engineering Company, Inc. vs. The Court of Industrial Relations.
The petition was denied, without pronouncement as to costs. Justice Montemayor dissented, citing his dissenting opinion in the A.L. Ammen Transportation case.