Title
William Lines, Inc. vs. Lopez
Case
G.R. No. L-33013
Decision Date
Mar 28, 1980
Eugenio Lopez, a storekeeper, filed claims for overtime, reinstatement, and salary differentials after lawful termination with separation pay. CIR ruled in his favor, but SC modified, denying reinstatement and limiting overtime claims to a three-year prescriptive period.

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-33013)

Factual Background

Eugenio Lopez was employed by William Lines, Inc. on May 5, 1947, initially serving as a storekeeper on the M/V Luzon with a monthly salary of P122.00. Over the years, he was assigned to various vessels and was ultimately dismissed on October 13, 1962, when the M/V Davao was drydocked. Following his dismissal, he received a separation pay of P1,586.00. A year and a half later, on March 17, 1964, Lopez petitioned the Court of Industrial Relations (CIR) for the recovery of salary differentials, premium pay for working on Sundays and holidays, and overtime compensation, as well as for reinstatement.

Procedural History

William Lines, Inc. challenged the CIR's jurisdiction over Lopez's claims, contending that the CIR could only hear cases where an employer-employee relationship existed or where the employee sought reinstatement based on illegal or wrongful termination. They filed a motion to dismiss on these grounds, which the CIR denied, instructing the petitioners to respond to the claims. Subsequently, the CIR ordered the shipping company to reinstate Lopez and pay him additional overtime compensation based on its findings.

Jurisdictional Issues

The petitioners argued that since the employer-employee relationship had ended, the CIR did not have jurisdiction over Lopez's claims. They relied on precedent which states that the presence of an ongoing employer-employee relationship or a valid claim for reinstatement is necessary for the CIR to have jurisdiction. They asserted that Lopez's dismissal was lawful and he had not proven any wrongful termination.

Findings on Dismissal and Reinstatement

The CIR found that Lopez’s termination was not illegal, primarily because he received his severance pay and did not provide evidence to support a claim of wrongful dismissal, which placed the burden of proof on him to refute the lawful grounds for his termination. Consequently, the CIR's order to reinstate him was deemed erroneous due to the absence of evidence proving an illegal dismissal.

Claims for Overtime Compensation

Regarding Lopez’s claims for overtime compensation, the CIR determined that he had worked an average of no less than ten hours daily, which exceeded the standard eight-hour workday under the Eight-Hour Labor Law. However, the CIR limited the recovery of overtime pay to the period within three years before the filing of his claim. It concluded that Lopez was entitled to overtime compensation for hours worked beyond the reg

...continue reading

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