Case Digest (G.R. No. L-7791)
Facts:
Lee Tay & Lee Chay, Inc. v. Kaisahan ng mga Manggagawa sa Kahoy sa Pilipinas, G.R. No. L-7791, April 19, 1955, the Supreme Court En Banc, Labrador, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner is a corporation doing business as "General Sawmill"; respondent is a labor union whose members worked for petitioner. Petitioner’s sawmill experienced financial decline after establishment in 1946, and by late 1950 laborers’ work had been cut to three days a week. A labor dispute arising from those circumstances was docketed in the Court of Industrial Relations as Case No. 373‑V.
On March 31, 1951 the parties entered into a court‑approved settlement. The contract provided that if petitioner sold or leased its lumber business to a third party the vendee/lessee should employ all the laborers under the same terms as at the temporary closing; if the vendee/lessee did not engage the lumber business or did not employ all laborers, petitioner agreed to pay gratuities according to a schedule (9, 8, or 7 weeks’ pay depending on year of hire). After the settlement petitioner leased the sawmill to the Alaska Lumber Company; when operations resumed in January 1952 only 18 of petitioner’s former laborers were rehired and some new workers were engaged. Three of the rehired laborers accepted lower pay and were later allowed differential pay by the CIR.
The Court of Industrial Relations, by decision of January 28, 1953, ordered petitioner to pay the contractual gratuities except for those satisfied with their new employment; computation of the gratuities was to be made by the Chief of the Examining Division with participation by both parties’ representatives. Petitioner sought reconsideration, which the CIR denied. The Chief Examiner’s report of December 8, 1953 (Annex A) fixed the annuities on the basis of six labor days per week; petitioner moved to compute on a three‑day week basis, respondent moved for seven days, and the CIR denied both motions in an order dated May 4, 1954. Petitioner filed a petition in the Supreme Court on May 24, 1954 challenging (1) the six‑day computation of gratuity (it argued for three...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Is petitioner’s challenge to the CIR’s award of salary differentials to three laborers barred as final and executory for failure to timely appeal from the denial of reconsideration?
- Should the contractual gratuities be computed on the basis of three labor days a week (the reduced schedule in effect at closing) or on the ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)