G.R. No. 24314 September 28, 1970 MANILA HOTEL COMPANY, petitioner, vs. PINES HOTEL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION and COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS FACTS
On July 22, 1963 the respondent Pines Hotel Employees Association (PHEA) applied to the CIR for an order that would require the petitioner herein to pay PHEA members in the petitioner's employ the benefits due them under R.A. 1880 That any employee or laborer now in the employment of the government who shall suffer a reduction of his weekly or daily wage or compensation because of a reduction of the number of days or hours of labor in a week In opposition, the MHC replied that the demand of the PHEA had already been settled under the terms of an agreement, entitled "Settlement of Grievance," which the parties entered into on February 9, 1962 as a supplement to their "Collective Bargaining Agreement The MHC, however, interposed an objection with reference that the employees referred to therein are not entitled under the terms of the "Settlement of Grievance"to any automatic salary increases because to qualify thereunder an employee must have been in its service for at least six (6) months prior to July 1, 1957 The PHEA however, countered that this 6-month period refers to the time prior to February 9, 1962, the date of the execution of the "Settlement of Grievance," and not to the time prior to July 1, 1957
ISSUE WHETHER OR NOT the employees are not entitled under the terms of the "Settlement of Grievance" to any automatic salary increases because to qualify must have been in its service for at least six (6) months prior to July 1, 1957.entitled to the benefits of Republic Act 1880 after the effectivity of the law on July 1, 1957 HELD YES.These strictures are clearly mandatory for the employer, who would naturally be reluctant or even apprehensive in asserting a claim which may cause them the loss of their livelihood. It is this Court's solemn duty to apply the full import and intendment of the law. R.A. 1880 was enacted for the benefit of the laboring masses of our society. Thus, it not only limits the hours of labor per day and per week, but as well provides that
automatic salary increases shall be enjoyed by those who, as a result of the operation of the law, stood to suffer a reduction in pay because of the reduction of the number of hours of work.
G.R. No. L-69870 November 29, 1988 NATIONAL SERVICE CORPORATION (NASECO) AND ARTURO L. PEREZ, petitioners, vs. THE HONORABLE THIRD DIVISION, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, MINISTRY OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT, MANILA AND EUGENIA C. CREDO, respondents. FACTS: Respondent National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), to which the petitioners appealed, rendered a decision directing NASECO to reinstate Credo to her former position, or substantially equivalent position, with six (6) months' backwages and without loss of seniority rights and other privileges appertaining thereto. In NASECO's comment in G.R. No. 70295, it is belatedly argued that the NLRC has no jurisdiction to order Credo's reinstatement. NASECO claims that, as a government corporation (by virtue of its being a subsidiary of the National Investment and Development Corporation (NIDC), a subsidiary wholly owned by the Philippine National Bank (PNB), which in turn is a government owned corporation), the terms and conditions of employment of its employees are governed by the Civil Service Law, rules and regulations.
ISSUE:
Whether the NLRC has jurisdiction to order Credo’s reinstatement.
HELD:
On the premise that it is the 1987 Constitution that governs the instant case because it is the Constitution in place at the time of decision thereof, the NLRC has jurisdiction to accord relief to the parties. As an admitted subsidiary of the NIDC, in turn a subsidiary of the PNB, the NASECO is a government-owned or controlled corporation without original charter.
G.R. No. L-64313 January 17, 1985 NATIONAL HOUSING CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. BENJAMIN JUCO AND THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, respondents. FACTS
For being declared guilty of stealing scrap iron owned by petitioner, private respondent was terminated
He filed a complaint with Respondent court and Petitioner replied stating that the respondent court is without jurisdiction as Petitioner Corporation is a government owned corporation and the grounds for dismissal were for valid reasons.
Respondent court however, despite past decisions decided in favor of the private respondent.
ISSUE
Whether or not employees of petitioner are covered by the labor code or by laws and regulations governing the civil service. HELD Petitioner is government owned as it never had any private stockholders. The 1935 constitution section 1 article 12 states that A civil service embracing all branches and subdivisions of the government shall be provided by law . While the amendment in section 1 article 12b of the 1973 constitution states that the civil service embraces every branch, agency, subdivision and instrumentality of the government including every government owned or controlled corporation. Clearly, the inclusion of government owner or controlled corporation carries out a message that the coverage is broad and all embracing. Furthermore ,PD 807 sec.56 implements the said provision. IN addition to this ,The Labor code states that the mentioned corporations shall be governed by the Civil Service Law
G.R. No. L-21465
March 31, 1966
INDUSTRIAL-COMMERCIAL-AGRICULTURAL WORKERS' ORGANIZATION (ICAWO), petitioner-appellant, vs. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, CENTRAL AZUCARERA DE PILAR and/or ANTONIO BELZARENA as Manager, CENTRAL AZUCARERA DE PILAR ALLIED WORKERS ASSOCIATION (CAPAWA), respondents-appellees. FACTS
On 9 February 1956, the petitioner, Industrial-Commercial-Agricultural Workers' Organization (hereinafter referred to as the "ICAWO"), declared a strike against the respondent Central Azucarera de Pilar. The strike was
amicably settled the following day, and among the provisions of the "Amicable Settlement Among the strikers were 101 seasonal workers, some of whom have worked as such for the company since pre-war years. A petition for Certification Election will be filed by the ICAWO in view of the other labor union, CAPAWA, with whom the company has an existing collective bargaining contract, a union which is considered by the ICAWO as a company union. On the opening of the milling season for the year 1956-1957, the respondent company refused to re-admit these 101 seasonal workers of the ICAWO on the ground that it was precluded by the closed-shop clause in its collective bargaining agreement with the CAPAWA Thus, on 8 May 1958, the ICAWO filed an unfair labor practice charge against the company. The Court of Industrial Relations, in its decision dated 27 November 1961, ordered the reinstatement, with back wages, of these laborers; but on a motion for reconsideration, the said court, en banc, reversed the said decision in its resolution dated 13 August 1962.
ISSUE Whether or not the laborers who are dismissed are entitled for reinstatement, with back wages Whether or not the company is guilty unfair labor practice. HELD YES, the court directed to order the reinstatement of the 101 seasonal workers to their former positions in the respondent sugar milling company. With regard to the petitioners' claim for back pay, this matter should be threshed out in the court below where the parties must be given opportunity to submit evidence to prove or disprove the employer's good faith as well as the amounts that petitioners have earned or should have earned during their wrongful lay off, such amounts being deductible from the back pay. NO, in filing the unfair labor practice complaint on 8 May 1958, the petitioner union, under the circumstances, did not incur laches, because there was no work for these seasonal workers during the off-season, from March to October.
G.R. No. L-30592 February 25, 1982 PHILIPPINE FISHING BOAT OFFICERS AND ENGINEERS UNION, SAMAHAN NG MANGDARAGAT SA FILIPINAS, FRANCISCO VISAYAS AND AMBROCIO BERGADO, petitioners, vs.
COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, SAN DIEGO FISHERY ENTERPRISES, INC., BARTOLOME A. SAN DIEGO AND ANATOLIO LLIDO, respondents. FACTS
Respondent San Diego Fishery Enterprises, Inc. is a domestic corporation engaged in deep-sea fishing and respondents Bartolome A. San Diego and Anatolio Llido are the manager and an employee thereof while petitioners Philippine Fishing Boat Officers and Engineers Union and Samahan ng Mangdaragat sa Filipinas are duly registered labor unions. Petitioners Francisco Visayas and Ambrocio Bergado were the President and Treasurer, respectively, of the first named union. On charges instituted by herein petitioners, the prosecution staff of respondent court, after conducting a preliminary investigation filed a complaint for unfair labor practices against the respondents The complaint shows that petitioners unions sent letters of demands and proposals to respondent corporationbut respondent corporation failed to answer the said letters within the reglementary period as provided for in Section 14 of Republic Act No. 875 and also refused to talk with representatives of petitioners- unions Respondents denied all the substantial allegations of the complaint Respondents likewise denied that petitioners Visayas and Bergado were employees of the corporation. Respondent San Diego allegedly called into his office petitioners Visayas and Bergado and interrogated, coerced and required them to resign from their union and to cooperate with the company by joining the union being organized by respondents San Diego and Llido. When they refused to heed the demands of the management, Visayas and Bergado were dismissed. Respondent corporation in turn tried to establish its defense that there is no employer-employee relationship between petitioners Visayas and Bergado and the company. It was shown that at the time of the dismissal of said petitioners Visayas and Bergado, respondent San Diego was not the general manager of the corporation. The power to hire and dismiss employees was then exercised by Enrique Diaz, who approved or disapproved contracts of employment as acting general manager of Respondent Corporation.
ISSUE Whether or not there is an (1).employee –employer exists between the petitioner and respondent and (2)the dismissal of the Petitioner employee is illegal.
HELD Yes the fact that the hiring and dismissal of employees was exercised by Enrique Diaz, the acting general manager of respondent corporation, does not alter the employer-employee relationship between the parties and mean that he personally was the employer. It is obvious that respondent corporation is the statutory employer of petitioners. 6 The intervention of Enrique Diaz, in this case, was merely that of an agent or intermediary between the owner of the fishing boat and the members of its crew. Yes Respondent court thus ruled that since respondent San Diego was not, at the time of petitioners' dismissal, the general manager and president of Respondent Corporation but merely a stockholder, he had no power to hire and dismiss employees and any act imputed to him, even if assumed to be true, could not bind the corporation. Whatever be the case, the Court has found the dismissal of petitioners to be unjustified, and it is not San Diego nor Diaz who are herein held personally liable but respondent corporation itself as the employer.
