GR L 2548; (January, 1950) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-2548; January 28, 1950
DEE C. CHUAN & SONS, INC. vs. THE COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.
FACTS
Petitioner Dee C. Chuan & Sons, Inc. appealed a decision of the Court of Industrial Relations (CIR) ordering it to grant a daily wage increase and paid vacation and sick leaves to its employees. The CIR denied the petitioner’s claims for reduction of wages, damages from a strike, and actions against an independent contractor’s laborers. The strike occurred on April 12, 1947, despite a prior CIR judgment dated November 23, 1946, which settled an earlier industrial dispute. The petitioner argued the strike was illegal because it violated the effective period of the prior award and was unjustified.
ISSUE
1. Whether the strike declared by the laborers on April 12, 1947, was illegal or unjustified.
2. Whether the CIR’s award of a wage increase and paid leaves was proper.
3. Whether the petitioner’s claims for damages and against the independent contractor’s laborers should be granted.
RULING
1. The strike was legal and justified. The Supreme Court held that Section 17 of Commonwealth Act No. 103 does not expressly prohibit a strike during the effective duration of a prior CIR award. A strike is not inherently inconsistent with an award, as the CIR retains the power to enforce or modify it. The finding that the strike was justified is a factual determination by the CIR, which the Supreme Court cannot re-examine.
2. The CIR’s award of a wage increase and 15 days each of vacation and sick leave with full pay was affirmed. The grant was based on the petitioner’s financial capacity, a factual finding beyond the Supreme Court’s review. The Court cited precedent upholding the CIR’s authority to grant such leaves to promote worker efficiency and productivity.
3. The petitioner’s claims were denied. The claim for damages from the strike failed because the strike was legal. The claim against Julian Lumanog and his work-contract laborers was overruled because Lumanog was an independent contractor, making his laborers not employees of the petitioner, and thus outside the CIR’s jurisdiction. Furthermore, the legal strike could not be grounds for their discharge.
The appealed decision of the CIR was affirmed.
AI Generated by Armztrong.