Case Digest (G.R. No. L-21669)
Facts:
Philippine Refining Company, Inc. v. Gregorio Flores, et al., G.R. No. L-21669. June 30, 1971, the Supreme Court En Banc, Makalintal, J., writing for the Court. This is an appeal by certiorari from the resolution of the Court of Industrial Relations (CIR) en banc dated May 17, 1963, which denied the petitioner’s motion for reconsideration of the trial Court’s decision dated April 19, 1963.The respondents below (private respondents here) were former employees of Philippine Refining Company, Inc. and members of the company union who had participated in labor disputes in 1945–1947 that produced CIR Cases Nos. 4‑V and 32‑V. For participating in what was declared an illegal strike on April 30, 1947, they were dismissed as of that date. In the 1947 CIR en banc resolution (Case No. 32‑V, decision dated January 24, 1947 and clarified May 9, 1947) the CIR directed the Company to grant two weeks (14 days) vacation leave with pay to laborers who had rendered at least one year of continuous and faithful service, and stated nothing in the decision “shall prohibit the company from converting and giving ... the equivalent in cash” of such vacation leave.
On December 28, 1956, Gregorio Flores and 110 others filed a petition (docketed CIR Case No. 1042‑V) asserting, inter alia, entitlement to reinstatement, accumulated vacation leave with pay (or its cash equivalent), backpay for the Japanese occupation, unpaid salaries and overtime, gratuity, and separation pay; the petition later was amended to add 132 claimants. The Company moved to dismiss; the trial Court in an order dated February 13, 1958 held the motion in abeyance and treated the petition as an action to enforce or continue the earlier cases.
After trial and memoranda, the CIR trial division in its April 19, 1963 decision denied claims for reinstatement, backpay, overtime, gratuity and separation pay, but ordered computation and payment of the money value of the fourteen (14) days vacation leave to petitioners who were entitled. The trial Court interpreted the 1947 award as permitting commutation into cash and held prescription did not bar enforcement because Article 1144 of the Civil Code gives a ten‑year period from entry of judgment. The CIR en banc denied the Company’s motion for reconsideration on May 17, 1963. The Company then brought the present certiorari appeal to the Supreme Court challenging jurisdiction (under Section 23, Commonwealth Act No. 103, as amended by Commo...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Does the Court of Industrial Relations have jurisdiction to enforce its 1947 judgment regarding vacation leave more than five years after entry, or is enforcement barred by Section 23 of Commonwealth Act No. 103 as amended and Section 6, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court?
- May the CIR exercise jurisdiction to enforce a mere money claim (cash equivalent of vacation leave) where the claimants are no longer employed by the Company?
- Can the CIR modify or alter its 1947 award outside the three‑year period provided by Section 17 of Commonwealth Act No. 103?
- Is the claim for non‑commutable and non‑cumulative vacation leave, or its cash equivalent, barred by laches under the circumstances of t...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)