G.R. Nos. L-9797 and L-9834; November 29, 1957
PRICE STABILIZATION CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ISAAC CHAVEZ, JUAN B. PLOPENIO, GLICERO F. ACOSTA, REMEGIO M. KALALANG, VICENTE BADILLO and FORTUNATO SEVILLA, JR., respondents. and PRICE STABILIZATION CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS and PRISCO WORKERS UNION ET AL., respondents.

FACTS

In G.R. No. L-9834, the PRISCO Workers Union filed a petition with the Court of Industrial Relations (CIR) praying for various concessions from the Price Stabilization Corporation (PRISCO), including a 25% general salary increase, payment for work on Sundays and legal holidays since 1946, overtime pay, night differential, check-off of union dues, job security, and standardization of security guards’ salaries. PRISCO, in its answer, claimed it could not grant many demands due to poor financial condition, asserted that some benefits like additional compensation for Sunday/holiday and overtime work were already granted starting June 8, 1951, and invoked that as a government-owned corporation, its employees were subject to civil service rules and its budget required approval by the Office of Economic Coordination. The CIR rendered a partial decision on August 25, 1953, ordering PRISCO to pay 25% additional compensation for unpaid overtime and Sunday/holiday work starting June 8, 1951. Later, on June 10, 1955, the CIR rendered judgment denying the 25% general increase and payment of back overtime from 1946 to June 1951, but granting check-off of union dues, job security, making security guards permanent, 25% additional compensation for Sunday/holiday work from August 1946 to June 1951, and 25% additional compensation for night work effective August 1946. PRISCO’s motion for reconsideration was denied.
In G.R. No. L-9797, individual employees (Chavez, et al.) filed a petition for intervention and partial reopening in the same CIR case, seeking to be included in the benefits of the partial decision of August 25, 1953. The CIR allowed the intervention and, on June 22, 1955, ordered PRISCO to pay the intervenors compensation for overtime and Sunday/holiday work as provided in the partial decision, subject to deduction of meal allowances previously paid. PRISCO’s motion for reconsideration was denied.

ISSUE

The primary legal issue is whether the Court of Industrial Relations had jurisdiction to entertain the claims and grant the monetary awards (for overtime, holiday, and night work) against the Price Stabilization Corporation, a government-owned and controlled corporation.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled that the Court of Industrial Relations had no jurisdiction over the case. The Court held that PRISCO is a government-owned and controlled corporation whose employees are subject to the Civil Service Law and regulations. As such, the terms and conditions of employment of its employees, including hours of work and compensation, are governed by the Revised Administrative Code and civil service rules, not by the Eight-Hour Labor Law ( Commonwealth Act No. 444 ) or the jurisdiction of the Court of Industrial Relations under Commonwealth Act No. 103 . The claims for overtime, holiday, and night differential pay are matters falling within the ambit of civil service regulations and the authority of the Commissioner of Civil Service, not the industrial court. Therefore, the orders and judgment of the Court of Industrial Relations were set aside for lack of jurisdiction.