Claparols v. Court Of Industrial Relations

MAKASIAR, J.:

A petition for certiorari to set aside the order of respondent Court of Industrial Relations dated May 30, 1969 directing petitioners to pay back wages and bonuses to private respondents as well as its resolution of July 5, 1969 denying the motion for reconsideration of said order in Case No. 32-ULP-Iloilo entitled "Allied Workers' Association, et. al., versus Eduardo Claparols, et. al.."

It appears that on August 6, 1957, a complaint for unfair labor practice was filed by herein private respondent Allied Workers' Association, respondent Demetrio Garlitos and ten (10) respondent workers against herein petitioners on account of the dismissal of respondent workers from petitioner Claparols Steel and Nail Plant. On September 16, 1963, respondent Court rendered its decision finding "Mr. Claparols guilty of union busting and" of having "dismissed said complainants because of their union activities,"

and ordering respondents "(1) To cease and desist from committing unfair labor practices against their employees and laborers; (2) To reinstate said complainants to their former or equivalent jobs, as soon as possible, with back wages from the date of their dismissal up to their actual reinstatement" (p. 12, Decision; p.

27, rec.). A motion to reconsider the above decision was filed by herein petitioners, which respondent Court, sitting en banc, denied in a resolution dated January 27, 1964. On March 30, 1964, counsel for herein respondent workers (complainants in the ULP case) filed a motion for execution of respondent Court's September 16, 1963 decision.

On May 14, 1964, respondent Court, in its order of September 16, 1963, granted execution and directed herein petitioners to reinstate the above complainants to their former or equivalent jobs within five (5) days after receipt of a copy of this order. In order to implement the award of back wages, the Chief of the Examining Division or any of his assistants is hereby directed to proceed to the office of the respondents at Matab-ang, Talisay, Negros Occidental, and examine its payrolls and other pertinent records and compute the back wages of the complainants in accordance with the decision dated September 16, 1963, and, upon termination, to submit his report as soon as possible for further disposition (p. 7, Brief for Respondents, p.

113, rec.). which was reiterated by respondent Court in a subsequent order dated November 10, 1964 (pp. 7-8, Brief for Respondents, p. 113, rec.).

On December 14, 1964, respondent workers were accompanied by the Chief of Police of Talisay, Negros Occidental to the compound of herein petitioner company to report for reinstatement per order of the court. Respondent workers were, however, refused reinstatement by company accountant Francisco Cusi for he had no order from plant owner Eduardo Claparols nor from his lawyer Atty. Plaridel Katalbas, to reinstate respondent workers. Again, on December 15, 1964, respondent workers were accompanied by a police officer to the company compound, but then, they were again refused reinstatement by Cusi on the same ground.ℒαwρhi৷ On January 15, 1965, the CIR Chief Examiner Submitted his report containing three computations, to wit: The first computation covers the period February 1, 1957 to October 31, 1964.

The second is up to and including December 7, 1962, when the corporation stopped operations, while the third is only up to June 30, 1957 when the Claparols Steel and Nail Plant ceased to operate (Annex B, Petition for Review on Certiorari, p. 14, Brief for appellees, p. 113, rec.).

with the explanation that: 6. Since the records of the Claparols Steel Corporation show that it was established on July 1, 1957 succeeding the Claparols Steel and Nail Plant which ceased operations on June 30, 1957, and that the Claparols Steel Corporation stopped operations on December 7, 1962, three (3) computations are presented herein for the consideration of this Honorable Court (p. 2, Report of Examiner, p.

29, rec.). On January 23, 1965, petitioners filed an opposition alleging that under the circumstances presently engulfing the company, petitioner Claparols could not personally reinstate respondent workers; that assuming the workers are entitled to back wages, the same should only be limited to three months pursuant to the court ruling in the case of Sta. Cecilia Sawmills vs. CIR (L-19273-74, February 20, 1964); and that since Claparols Steel Corporation ceased to operate on December 7, 1962, re-employment of respondent workers cannot go beyond December 7, 1962.

A reply to petitioner's opposition was filed by respondent workers, alleging among others, that Claparols Steel and Nail Plant and Claparols Steel and Nail Corporation are one and the same corporation controlled by petitioner Claparols, with the latter corporation succeeding the former. On November 28, 1966, after conducting a series of hearings on the report of the examiner, respondent Court issued an order, the dispositive portion of which reads:

WHEREFORE, the Report of the. Examiner filed on January 15, 1965, is hereby approved subject to the foregoing findings and dispositions. Consequently, the Corporation Auditing Examiner is directed to recompute the back wages of complainants Demetrio Garlitos and Alfredo Ongsuco on the basis of P200.00 and P270.00 a month, respectively; to compute those of complainant Ignacio Quioyo as aforesaid; to compute the deductible earnings of complainants Ongsuco, Jorge Semillano and Garlitos, as found in the body of this order; and to compute the bonuses of each and every complainant, except Honorato Quioyo. Thereafter, as soon as possible, the Examiner should submit a report in compliance herewith of the Court's further disposition (p. 24, Brief for Respondents, p. 113, rec.). On December 7, 1966, a motion for reconsideration was filed by petitioner, assailing respondent Court's ruling that (1) the ruling in the case of Sta. Cecilia Sawmills Inc. CIR, et. al, does not apply in the case at bar; and (2) that bonus should be included in the recoverable wages. On December 14, 1966, a counter-opposition was filed by private respondents alleging that petitioners' motion for reconsideration was pro forma, it not making express reference to the testimony or documentary evidence or to the provision of law alleged to be contrary to such findings or conclusions of respondent Court. On February 8, 1967, respondent Court of Industrial Relations dismissed petitioners' motion for reconsideration for being pro forma. Whereupon, petitioners filed a petition for certiorari with this COURT in G.R. No. L-27272 to set aside the November 28, 1966 order of respondent Court, as well as its February 8, 1967 resolution. Petitioners assigned therein as errors of law the very same assignment of errors it raises in the present case, to wit: I THE RESPONDENT COURT ERRED AND/OR ACTED WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION, AMOUNTING TO LACK OF JURISDICTION, IN HOLDING IN THE ORDER UNDER REVIEW THAT BONUSES SHOULD BE PAID TO THE RESPONDENT WORKERS DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE SAME WAS NOT ADJUDICATED IN ITS ORIGINAL DECISION. II THE RESPONDENT COURT ERRED AND/OR ACTED WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION, AMOUNTING TO LACK OF JURISDICTION, IN NOT APPLYING THE DOCTRINE LAID DOWN BY THIS HONORABLE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF "STA. CECILIA SAWMILLS, INC. VS. C.I.R., ET. AL.," G.R. No. L-19273-74, PROMULGATED ON FEBRUARY 29, 1964 (pp. 10-11, rec.). On April 27, 1967, the Supreme Court denied petitioners' petition for certiorari(p. 77, rec. of L-27272), which was reiterated on May 19, 1967 (p. 27, Respondent's Brief, p. 113, rec.; p. 81, rec. of L-27272). On May 3, 1967, private respondents moved to have the workers' back wages properly recomputed. A motion to the same end was reiterated by private respondents on June 14, 1967. On July 13, 1967, respondent Court directed a recomputation of the back wages of respondent workers in accordance with its order dated November 28, 1966. The said order in part reads: WHEREFORE, the Chief Auditing Examiner of the Court or any of his assistants, is hereby directed to recompute the back wages of the workers involved in this case in accordance with the Order of November 28, 1966 within 20 days from receipt of a copy of this Order (p. 28, Brief for Respondents, p. 113, rec.). Then on March 21, 1968, the Chief Examiner came out with his report, the disputed portion of which (regarding bonuses) reads: x x x x x x x x x 4. The yearly bonuses of the employees and laborers of respondent corporation are given on the following basis: Basic Additional: a. For every dependent 1% of monthly salary b. For every dependent in elementary grade 2% of monthly salary c. For every dependent in high school 3% of monthly salary d. For every dependent in college 5% of monthly salary x x x x x x x x x 7. The computed ... bonuses after deducting the earnings elsewhere of Messrs. Ongsuco, Garlitos and Semillano are as follows: Name x x x Bonuses x x x 1. Alfredo Ongsuco P1,620.00 2. Demetrio Garlitos 1,200.00 3. Ignacio Quioyo 455.23 4. Aser Abancio 461.00 5. Ludovico Belopeños 752.05 6. Salvador Doroteo 714.70 7. Rosendo Espinosa 1,075.40 8. Gaudencio Quioyo 1,167.92 9. Jorge Semillano 1,212.08 10. Maximo Quioyo 449.41