Case Digest (G.R. No. L-29068)
Case Digest (G.R. No. L-29068)
Facts:
East Asiatic Company, Ltd., E. Jakobsen, P. Sorensen and K. R. Nielsen v. Court of Industrial Relations, The East Asiatic Co. Employees Union (PTUC) and Soledad A. Dizon, G.R. No. L-29068, August 31, 1971, the Supreme Court En Banc, Barredo, J., writing for the Court.Respondent Soledad A. Dizon was employed by petitioner East Asiatic Company, Ltd. from February 8, 1951 until her dismissal effective September 1, 1958. She filed an unfair labor practice charge with the Court of Industrial Relations (CIR) (Case No. 1796-ULP). On February 10, 1960 the CIR ordered her reinstated with back wages "from September 1, 1958 until actually reinstated" and other attendant rights; that judgment was affirmed by the Supreme Court on April 30, 1966 in G.R. No. L-17037.
Before the lower court could execute the judgment petitioners manifested willingness to reinstate Dizon at her former salary; Dizon counter‑manifested that she would accept reinstatement only with salary adjustments reflecting general wage increases (1958–1965). On June 8, 1966 Dizon filed a motion to compute backwages. The CIR Examiner inspected records and, by report dated March 2, 1967, computed backwages of P30,090.00 for the period to February 28, 1967 but also reported alleged outside earnings of P42,881.44 (P6,691.44 in the Philippines and P36,190.00 computed from U.S. dollar earnings at P3.90/$1).
Judge Emiliano C. Tabigne, on May 12, 1967, approved the Examiner’s P30,090.00 but disallowed the alleged outside earnings for lack of competent proof and for being outside the court’s jurisdiction. Petitioners moved for reconsideration; the CIR en banc resolved the motion on June 27, 1967 by a divided vote: Associate Judge Tabigne, with Presiding Judge Arsenio I. Martinez, denied the motion; Associate Judge Amando C. Bugayong (concurring in result by Judges Paredes and Salvador) would have modified the order to deny reinstatement and backwages from the time Dizon left for the United States. The en banc disposition prompted petitioners to file a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court (appeal by way of petition for certiorari) attacking the CIR order and en banc resolution.
Issues:
- Did the Court of Industrial Relations err in disallowing petitioners’ proof of respondent Dizon’s alleged earnings elsewhere and thereby refusing deductions from her computed backwages?
- Did respondent Dizon waive her right to reinstatement by leaving for the United States and failing to report for work when offered reinstatement?
- Was the CIR correct in denying Dizon fringe benefits and general wage increases for the lay‑off period for lack of evidence?
- Was the Examiner correct in converting Dizon’s U.S. dollar earnings to pesos at the prevailing exchange rate when treating such earnings as a basis for deduction?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)