G.R. No. L-7791; April 19, 1955
LEE TAY and LEE CHAY, INC., petitioner, vs. KAISAHAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA KAHOY SA FILIPINAS, respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Lee Tay and Lee Chay, Inc., operating as “General Sawmill,” encountered financial difficulties, reducing its laborers’ work to three days a week by the end of 1950. A labor dispute with respondent union, Kaisahan ng mga Manggagawa sa Kahoy sa Filipinas, was settled by a court-approved agreement on March 31, 1951. The agreement stipulated that if petitioner sold or leased its business to a third party engaged in the lumber business, the vendee or lessee must employ all laborers under the same terms; otherwise, petitioner would pay gratuities based on weeks of pay according to the laborers’ start years (e.g., 9 weeks for those who started in or before 1946). Petitioner later leased the sawmill to Alaska Lumber Company, which began operations in January 1952 and employed only 18 of petitioner’s former laborers, not all. Of these, three were forced to accept lower pay. As not all laborers were employed, respondent demanded compliance with the gratuity clause. The Court of Industrial Relations (CIR) issued a decision on January 28, 1953, ordering petitioner to pay gratuities, with computation delegated to the Chief of the Examining Division. The CIR also awarded salary differentials to the three laborers who received lower pay. Both parties moved for reconsideration, but the CIR denied them. On December 8, 1953, the Chief Examiner submitted a report (Annex A) computing gratuities based on a six-day work week. Petitioner moved for computation based on three days a week, while respondent moved for seven days; both motions were overruled by the CIR on May 4, 1954. Petitioner appealed, arguing that gratuities should be computed on a three-day week basis and that the salary differentials awarded to the three laborers should be revoked due to waiver.

ISSUE

1. Whether the gratuity should be computed based on a three-day work week or a six-day work week.
2. Whether the award of salary differentials to the three laborers should be revoked.

RULING

1. The gratuity should be computed based on a six-day work week. The agreement provided for a “gratuity,” not “backpay,” and a week of labor is ordinarily understood as six days absent an express contrary agreement. No such agreement existed. Furthermore, the three-day work week condition was part of the first clause of the agreement, applicable only if all laborers were employed by the vendee or lessee. Since this condition did not occur (only 18 were employed), the second clause, introduced by “otherwise,” applied. This second clause contained no reference to a three-day week, supporting a six-day basis.
2. The appeal regarding the salary differentials is dismissed. The award was made in the CIR’s order of January 28, 1953. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration on February 3, 1953, which was denied on August 23, 1953. No appeal was taken until May 24, 1954, over nine months later, making the award final and executory. Thus, the appeal on this point is untimely.
The petition is denied, with costs against petitioner.