Case Digest (G.R. No. L-4393)
Facts:
C. E. Church, Joseph Abelow and K. H. Hemady, doing business under the name and style of Church and Company v. La Union Labor Union and Judges of the Court of Industrial Relations, G.R. No. L-4393, April 28, 1952, the Supreme Court, Bautista Angelo, J., writing for the Court.Petitioners operated a repair, overhaul and surplus-equipment business at the Signal Depot in San Fernando, La Union. Respondent La Union Labor Union was the authorized collective bargaining agency of over fifty employees of the petitioners. On December 16, 1948, the unionized employees (except the security guards) struck to collect unpaid wages and salaries; after representations by the union the arrears were paid on December 28, 1948, but the employees were not reinstated.
On December 29, 1948, petitioners discovered thefts from their San Fernando bodega, including a generator, and discharged the security guards for failing to report the pilferages; petitioners hired new guards and instructed management to re-admit only a skeleton force pending Constabulary investigation. The union filed a petition with the Court of Industrial Relations (CIR) demanding reinstatement of the strikers and the discharged guards and payment of wages for the period of lay-off and suspension. In its answer (Feb. 2, 1949) petitioners asserted that the guards were fired for cause, that losses constrained limited operations and hiring, and that re-employing the guards would prejudice the company.
After trial, the CIR (Presiding Judge Arsenio Roldan) rendered decision on April 3, 1950 ordering reinstatement of the workers and security guards, or, if reinstatement could not be effected, payment of one month’s separation pay. The decision became final when petitioners’ counsel failed to perfect appeal in time. Petitioners filed an original petition for a writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court while the union sought execution of the CIR award.
On June 10, 1950 the CIR denied execution but required petitioners to post a P10,000 bond; petitioners sought reduction of the bond. The Supreme Court dismissed petitioners’ certiorari petition for lack of merit. Petitioners’ subsequent motions with the CIR were opposed by the union, which, on learning that petitioners planned to close the San Fernando depot and resume operations in Manila, asked the CIR to clarify the award to protect the laborers’ interests. After rehearing, the CIR amended its April 3 award by resolution (dated September 20, 1950 in the petition) to add a clause di...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Industrial Relations have power to amend its April 3, 1950 award after it had become final and executory?
- Did the CIR commit grave abuse of discretion or deny petitioners equal protection by giving employees the absolute choice of reinstatement in Manila or one month separation pay?
- Was the CIR’s order to pay one month separation pay improper insofar as it applied irrespective of whet...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)