Philippine Inter-fashion, Inc. v NLRC case digest

G.R. No. L-59847 October 18, 1982

PHILIPPINES INTER-FASHION, INC., petitioner,
vs.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, SHERIFF'S OFFICE OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, AND NATIONAL FEDERATION OF LABOR UNIONS (NAFLU), respondents.

Facts:

Phil. Inter-fashion, Inc. decided to retrench its employees and selected about 40 employees to be dismissed due to lack of work. The day after the company informed about 20 of the affected employees regarding the plan, around 200 employees went to the Ministry of Labor and talked with then Deputy Minister who advised them to return to their work. They actually returned but did not work. The following day, the workers returned to their work with the return-to-work order but the company did not allow them to work.

Issues:

1. WoN the petitioner must be deemed to have waived its right to pursue the case of illegal strike against the 114 employees who were not reinstated and who pursued their illegal lockout claim against petitioner

2. WoN the said 114 employees are entitled to reinstatement with three months' backwages.

Held:

1. There was no clear and unequivocal waiver on the part of petitioner and on the contrary the record shows that it tenaciously pursued its application for their dismissal.

2. In view of the undisputed findings of illegal strike on the part of the 114 employees and illegal lockout on petitioner's part, both parties are in pari delicto and such situation warrants the restoration of the status quo ante and bringing the parties back to the respective positions before the illegal strike and illegal lockout through the reinstatement of the said 114 employees.

Ratio:

1. The Bisaya case (102 Phil. 438) is inapplicable to the present case. xxx if petitioner really had any intention to pardon the 114 strikers, it would have included them in its motion to withdraw on November 17, 1980. The fact that it did not, but instead continued to pursue the case to the end, simply means that it did not pardon the, 114 strikers.

2. The finding of illegal strike was not disputed. xxx On the other hard, the finding of illegal lockout was likewise not, disputed. xxx The findings show that both petitioner and the 114 strikers are in pari delicto, a situation which warrants the maintenance of the status quo. This means that the contending parties must be brought back to their respective positions before the controversy; that is, before the strike. Therefore, the order reinstating the 114 employees is proper.

PRISCO v CIR case digest

Price Stabilization Corporation vs Court of Industrial Relations and PRISCO’s Worker Union

 (GR No. L-13806, May 23, 1960)

Facts:

PRISCO Worker's Union (the union) filed with the CIR a petition praying that PRISCO beordered to pay its present employees to pay its present employees, claimants-membersof the said Union, (1) their basic pay and at least 25 per cent additional compensation forone hour overtime work they had previously rendered as security guards of petitioner,from April 17, 1953 to January 13, 1954, and (2) the additional compensation of at least25 per cent for the work they have been rendering on Sundays and legal holidays, fromMarch 7, 1954 and on.PRISCO filed an answer denying Union's claim and asserted that such overtime, ifrendered, was not authorized; some claimants that had rendered work in Sundays andlegal holidays had already been paid; and that some claims have been withdrawn.CIR - issued an order requiring petitioner to pay the claimants, members of the Union,their basic pay and 25 percent additional compensation for one hour overtime work theyhad rendered from April 16, 1953 to January 13, 1954 (to the security guards). However,for lack of evidence and some claimants withdrawing their claim for pay for workperformed on Sundays and legal holidays, the court dismissed this second claim.Petitioner filed for motion of reconsideration but was denied (3 voted for denial - 2 votedto set aside the order due to lack of jurisdiction by the court)

Issues:

1) Whether the CIR has jurisdiction over the present claim

2) Whether the CIR correctly applied Articles 1393 and 1396 of the New Civil Code to the case

Held:

CIR decision affirmed

Ratio:

1) In the case of PAFLU vs Tan, the CIR has jurisdiction over cases when: the disputeaffects an industry which is indispensable in the national interest and is so certified by thePresident to the industrial court, when the controversy refers to the minimum wage underthe Minimum Wage Law, when it involves hours of employment under the Eight-HourLabor Law, and when it involves an unfair labor practice. In the case of Detective andProtective Bureau Incorporated vs Felipe Guevarra, et al, the Court held that the CIR has jurisdiction inasmuch as the claimants were all employees at the time of the filing of theirclaims.One significant principle in determining CIR's jurisdiction is that where the employer-employee relationship is still existing or is sought to be reestablished because of its wrongful severance, the CIR has jurisdiction over all claims arising out of, or inconnection with employment. After the termination of the relationship and noreinstatement is sought, such claims become mere money claims, and come within the jurisdiction of the regular courts. In the present case, the claimants are, or at least were,at the time of presenting their claims, actually in the employ of PRISCO, therefore the CIRcorrectly took cognizance of the case.

2) In this case, the security guards who were employed were divided into three shifts of 8hours each. They received a memorandum from the Assistant Chief Security Officer ofPRISCO, directing them to reports for duty 2 hours in advance, until the order wasrevoked after a change of management. Petitioner contends that the said memorandum was issued without authority and they are not bound to pay for the alleged overtime.CIR found that after the enforcement of the memorandum, the guards protested to themanagement and instead of revoking said memorandum on the grounds that it wasunauthorized, General Manager De la Cruz told the guards why it was being enforced,being a was to discipline them and that their work was only light and that 1 hour is of noimportance. CIR held that it amounted to a tacit ratification of the memorandum, andapplying Articles 1393 and 1396 of the New Civil Code, that any defect in thememorandum was corrected by that ratification. Petitioner urges that these articles referto voidable contracts.SC states that a contract of employment exists between parties. When the guards wererequired to render an additional hour work, and complying (non-compliance waspunishable by disciplinary action), a supplemental contractual obligation was created bothunder the terms of the original contract of employment and of the Eight-Hour Labor Law,that such additional work was to be compensated. The memorandum was originallyauthorized and was not illegal to the extent of not being capable of ratification by theGeneral manager. Therefore, the CIR correctly applied Articles 1393 and 1396.Article 1393. Ratification may be effected expressly or tacitly. It is understood that thereis a tacit ratification if, with knowledge of the reason which renders the contract voidableand such reason having ceased, the person who has a right to invoke it should executean act which necessarily implies an intention to waive his right. (1311a)Article 1396. Ratification cleanses the contract from all its defects from the moment it wasconstituted. (1313)

Source: SCRIBD: Published by Ida Chua