Case Digest (G.R. No. 233395)
Facts:
Daniel Sanchez et al. sued Harry Lyons Construction, Inc. and related defendants in the Municipal Court of Manila on March 9, 1948 for one month’s advance pay (the “mesada”) allegedly due upon dismissal. The parties later stipulated facts showing that the plaintiffs were commercial employees (warehousemen, carpenter-foreman, and guards) whose contracts did not fix a special term, and that they were dismissed on December 31, 1947 without one month’s prior notice; the contracts also contained an express advance waiver of the benefits of Article 302 of the Code of Commerce. The Municipal Court ruled for plaintiffs, the Court of First Instance of Manila affirmed on the same facts, and defendants appealed to the Supreme Court purely on questions of law.Issues:
- Whether the plaintiffs, employed on monthly and daily bases, were entitled to the benefits of Article 302 of the Code of Commerce.
- If so entitled, whether the plaintiffs’ advance waiver of Article 302 benefits was legal and
Case Digest (G.R. No. 233395)
Facts:
- Origin and parties
- The case originated in the Municipal Court of Manila from a complaint filed on March 9, 1948.
- The plaintiffs and appellees were Daniel Sanchez and others.
- The defendants and appellants were Harry Lyons Construction, Inc. and other defendant(s), including Material Distributors, inc.
- The complaint sought payment of P2,210 plus interest, which plaintiffs claimed as one month advance pay due them.
- Agreed stipulation of facts and Municipal Court judgment
- On April 28, 1948, the parties entered into a stipulation of facts.
- The Municipal Court rendered judgment for the plaintiffs based on the agreed stipulation of facts.
- The defendants filed a motion for reconsideration, which the Municipal Court denied.
- Proceedings before the Court of First Instance
- After denial of reconsideration, the defendants appealed to the Court of First Instance of Manila.
- On appeal, the parties submitted the case upon the same facts agreed upon in the Municipal Court.
- On October 2, 1948, the Court of First Instance of Manila rendered judgment for the plaintiffs.
- Court of First Instance dispositive judgment (as reflected in the record)
- The Court of First Instance ordered Material Distributors, inc. to pay:
- Enrique Ramirez the sum of P360, and
- Juan Ramirez the sum of P250,
- each sum with legal interest from the date of filing of the complaint in the Municipal Court of Manila until full payment.
- The Court of First Instance ordered Harry Lyons Construction, Inc. to pay:
- Daniel Sanchez the sum of P250, and
- Mariano Javier, Venancio Diaz, Esteban Bautista, Faustino Aquillo, Godofredo Diamante, Marcial Lazaro, Ambrosio dela Cruz, and Marcelino Maceda the sum of P150 each,
- each sum with legal interest from the date of filing of the complaint in the Municipal Court of Manila until full payment.
- The Court of First Instance taxed costs by ordering one-half to be paid by Material Distributors, Inc. and the other half by Harry Lyons Construction, Inc.
- The stipulated employment details
- The stipulation of facts provided that the plaintiffs were employed as follows:
- Enrique Ramirez, from 12/16/46, as Warehouseman, salary P450 a month (later reduced to P360, which he received at dismissal).
- Juan Ramirez, same employment dates indicated as “do…”, as Warehouseman, salary P250 a mo.
- Daniel Sanchez, from 7/1/47, as Carpenter-Foreman, salary P250 a mo.
- Mariano Javier, as Guard, salary 5 a day.
- Venancio Diaz, as Guard, salary 5 a day.
- Esteban Bautista, as Guard, salary 5 a day.
- Faustino Aquillo, as Guard, salary 5 a day.
- Godofredo Diamante, as Guard, salary 5 a day.
- Marcial Lazaro, as Guard, salary 5 a day.
- Ambrosio de la Cruz, as Guard, salary 5 a day.
- Marcelino Maceda, as Guard, salary 5 a day.
- The stipulation stated that the positions and salaries were “as per contracts of employment,” copies of which were attached to defendants’ answer marked Exhibits 1 to 11 inclusive.
- Contract terms and dismissal event
- The stipulation included the contractual agreement that employment may be terminated at any time without previous notice.
- The stipulation further stated that salary and wages would be computed and paid up to the date of termination.
- The plaintiffs expressly waived the bene...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Entitlement to one-month advance pay under Article 302 of the Code of Commerce
- Whether plaintiffs, including those paid on a monthly basis and those paid on a daily basis, were entitled to the benefits of Article 302 of the Code of Commerce.
- Validity of advance waiver of Article 302 benefits
- Whether plaintiffs’ waiver, made in the contracts of employment in advance, of the benefits...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)