Title
Manila Hotel Co. vs. Court of Industrial Relations
Case
G.R. No. L-30139
Decision Date
Sep 28, 1972
Pines Hotel employees filed unfair labor practice claims over discriminatory Christmas bonuses and salary adjustments. Post-sale, abrupt terminations led to CIR-ordered gratuity payments, upheld by the Supreme Court.

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-30139)

Case Background and Initial Complaints

The initial case originated from a charge of unfair labor practices filed by the respondent union against the petitioner. The issues evolved from the abrupt termination of employment due to the sale of the Pines Hotel, along with allegations of discrimination related to the distribution of a Christmas bonus and salary adjustments pursuant to the Minimum Wage Law, Republic Act No. 4180.

Findings of the Court of Industrial Relations

Upon review, the Court of Industrial Relations found the petitioner guilty of unfair labor practices on two counts: first, for discrimination in the grant of Christmas bonuses in 1965, and second, for failing to adjust salaries in compliance with the new minimum wage laws. The court ordered the Manila Hotel Company to cease and desist from these practices, implement salary adjustments, and distribute bonuses in a manner similar to prior years.

Appeal and Dispute Over Terminations

During the pendency of the initial case, the 86 employees received notices of termination on the same day the hotel was sold. Responding to this, the union filed an urgent petition to restrain the implementation of these termination notices. The industrial court recognized this petition as a supplemental case to the original unfair labor dispute.

Settlement and Gratuity Payment

In subsequent conferences, the petitioner agreed to pay retirement gratuities to the employees, which led to the union lifting its picket lines. The petitioner deposited a total of P100,000 with the court for the purpose of covering gratuity payments, agreeing to provide retirement benefits based on length of service.

Court Orders and Gratuity Scheme

The court details specific payments to various groups of employees based on their respective years of service. Sixteen employees with over 20 years of service were entitled to higher gratuity amounts, while others with less time were entitled to one month’s salary for each year worked, capped at twelve months. The total obligations of the petitioner established a clear framework for determining the amounts due to the employees.

Jurisdiction and Procedural Matters

In their appeals, the petitioner raised jurisdictional issues, arguing that the industrial court did not have authority over the case due to the absence of an employer-employee relationship following the sale of th

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.