Case Digest (G.R. No. L-16038)
Facts:
The case involves Ajax International Corporation as the petitioner and Orencio A. Seguritan as the respondent. The events leading to the case began on April 17, 1959, when Seguritan filed a complaint before the Court of Industrial Relations. He alleged that he was employed by Ajax International Corporation as a janitor-messenger starting May 11, 1949. His regular working hours were from 7:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon and from 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. However, from January 2, 1950, to March 31, 1956, he was required to guard the corporation's main office from 5:00 p.m. to 8:00 a.m. daily, as well as the entire day on Sundays and legal holidays. Subsequently, from October 12, 1956, he was assigned to a newly established branch office in Pasay City, where he continued to perform similar duties, including guarding the office after regular hours until August 31, 1957. Seguritan claimed that despite his repeated demands, the corporation refused to compensate him for his overtime work, w...
Case Digest (G.R. No. L-16038)
Facts:
Employment Details:
- Orencio A. Seguritan was hired by Ajax International Corporation on May 11, 1949, as a janitor-messenger.
- His regular working hours were from 7:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon and from 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.
Additional Duties:
- From January 2, 1950, to March 31, 1956, Seguritan was required to guard the main office of the corporation from 5:00 p.m. to 8:00 a.m. daily after office hours, as well as the entire day and night on Sundays and legal holidays.
- From October 12, 1956, he was assigned to the Pasay City branch office, where he worked as a janitor, messenger, and clerk. After his regular duty ended at 5:00 p.m., he was again tasked to guard the branch office from 5:00 p.m. to 8:00 a.m. daily and during Sundays and legal holidays until August 31, 1957.
Unpaid Overtime:
- Despite repeated demands, the corporation refused to pay Seguritan for his overtime services, which amounted to P15,454.50.
Cessation of Employment:
- Seguritan ceased working with the corporation on May 9, 1958, due to a strike staged by the Ajax Adcom Labor Union, of which he was a member. The strike remained unresolved at the time of the complaint.
Filing of Complaint:
- On April 17, 1959, Seguritan filed a complaint before the Court of Industrial Relations (CIR) seeking payment for his overtime services.
Motion to Dismiss:
- On May 11, 1959, Ajax International Corporation filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the CIR lacked jurisdiction and that the claim was barred by prescription.
- The CIR denied the motion on August 1, 1959, and reaffirmed its decision in a resolution dated September 10, 1959.
Petition for Certiorari:
- Ajax International Corporation filed a petition for certiorari to challenge the CIR's order and resolution.
Issue:
- Whether the Court of Industrial Relations has jurisdiction over Seguritan's claim for overtime pay.
- Whether the claim is barred by prescription.
Ruling:
The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the Court of Industrial Relations, holding that it had jurisdiction over Seguritan's claim. The Court ruled that the employer-employee relationship was still existing or sought to be reestablished due to the pending strike, which brought the claim within the jurisdiction of the CIR.
Ratio:
Jurisdiction of the CIR:
- The Court of Industrial Relations has jurisdiction over claims arising from or connected to employment, such as overtime pay, when the employer-employee relationship is still existing or when reinstatement is sought.
- In this case, Seguritan's employment was interrupted by a strike, and the strike's resolution could potentially lead to his reinstatement. Therefore, the employer-employee relationship was not definitively terminated.
Prescription:
- The issue of prescription was not addressed in detail, as the Court focused on the jurisdictional aspect. However, the Court implied that the claim was not barred by prescription since the CIR had jurisdiction over the matter.
Interwoven Issues:
- The claim for overtime pay was directly connected to the unresolved strike, which was still pending before the CIR. This connection further justified the CIR's jurisdiction over the case.