ChanRobles Virtual law Library
|
GO TO FULL LIST OF LATEST DECISIONS and RESOLUTIONS
NATIONAL LABOR
UNION,
PRIMO ZAMORA,
G. R. No. L-18425 February 27, 1963 -versus-INTERNATIONAL OIL FACTORY, Respondent.
Appeal from a Resolution
of the Court of Industrial Relations sitting en banc dated
March
23, 1961.
"Segun los principios de derecho social, la concesion de la licencia de vacacion dependa de la situacion economica de la empresa y las exigencias del bien comun. Constando que la compaña margina ganancias, es ineludible la concesion de este privilegio. Que la recurrida, per lo tanto, conceda a sus empleados y obreros quince (15) dias de vacacion por cada año de servicio continuo, fiel y satisfactorio mientras su estado financiero lo permita." An appeal taken from this
Decision by the Factory was dismissed by the Supreme Court for lack of
merit. Meanwhile, or on October 4, 1955, the CIR had issued an order
authorizing
the execution of said Decision during the pendency of the appeal. This
Order was, however, set aside by the CIR sitting en banc in a
Resolution
dated December 5, 1955, which referred the case "to the trial court for
the determination of the question" referred to in the Decision of May
11,
1951.
"Respondent, International Oil Factory, objected to said motion and alleged among others, that the examination should be limited only from 1951 to 1955, because of the collective bargaining agreement entered into by and between the said factory and the International Oil Workers Union (FFW). This allegation of respondent has already been decided by our Supreme Court in G.R. No. L-13845, entitled National Labor Union vs. International Oil Factory, promulgated May 30, 1960, that such agreement is not binding on the National Labor Union. "IN VIEW THEREFORE, the motion of the National Labor Union and Primo Zamora et al., is hereby granted. The Examining Division of this Court is hereby ordered to examine the books of accounts of the International Oil Factory from 1951 up to 1960, inclusive, to determine the financial conditions of the factory, and upon termination, the result thereof will forthwith be submitted to this Court." On Motion for Reconsideration
of the Factory, the CIR sitting en banc, in a Resolution dated
March
23, 1951, modified "the coverage period in the examination of the books
of accounts of the International Oil Factory in the sense that instead
of from 1951 up to 1960, inclusive', it should be from 1951 up to 1955
as decreed by the decision of our Supreme Court promulgated on May 30,
1960". Hence this appeal by certiorari of the NLU.
"And since the concession of said benefit depends upon the economic situation of the company, the respondent company is hereby given the opportunity to prove its financial condition from the year 1951 up to the present; and the petitioner-union, on the other hand, may show that the laborers have rendered continuous, loyal and satisfactory service during the aforesaid period. "WHEREFORE, the Order of October 4, 1955, providing for the execution of the decision is hereby set aside; and the case is referred to the trial court for the determination of the questions above mentioned." Because referring to the Order of the trial Judge of October 4, 1955 [authorizing the execution of the decision of May 11, 1951] and the resolution of the Court of Industrial Relations en banc of December 5, 1955, We said in the statement of facts in G.R. No. L-13845:
The
Court of Industrial
Relations en banc, in its Resolution of March 23, 1961,
concluded
that the coverage of the Resolution of December 5, 1955, did not go
beyond
such year 1955, pursuant to Our decision in said G.R. No. L-13845, and
that consequently, the trial Judge had no right to authorize the
examination
of respondent's records up to 1960.
We
find Ourselves
unable
to sanction this view. To begin with, having become final and executory
before the appeal in G.R. No. L-13845, the CIR Resolution of December
5,
1955 could not have been reviewed or modified by this Court in said
G.R.
No. L-13845. Secondly, the only question for determination therein was
whether the compromise agreement between respondent and the FFW,
approved
on April 12, 1957, was binding upon the NLU and this was decided in the
negative. Thirdly, the period within which the NLU would be entitled to
examine the records of the Factory was not, and could not be put in
issue
or sought to be decided in said G.R. No. L-13845. Fourthly, the
aforementioned
CIR resolution of December 5, 1955, clearly and explicitly declared
that
respondent was thereby "given the opportunity to prove its financial
condition
from the year 1951 up to the present". Obviously the year 1955 was
mentioned
in our decision in G.R. No. L-13845, merely because said resolution was
dated December 5, 1955. Lastly, if - as the CIR had declared in its
Decision
of May 11, 1951, and sought to implement with its resolution of
December
5, 1955 - the right of NLU members to vacation leave was dependent upon
the financial condition of respondent, there was no reason to grant
said
vacation leave up to 1955, only, and deny it thereafter, if the
financial
condition of the Factory still permits it.
|
|