Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-11938 May 18, 1962
LA CAMPANA STARCH & COFFEE FACTORY, ET AL., petitioners,
vs.
KAISAHAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA LA CAMPANA (KKM), ET AL., respondents.
Roxas and Roxas for petitioners.
Carlos E. Santiago for respondents.
DIZON, J.:
Sometime in June, 1951, members of the Kaisahan ng mga Manggagawa sa La Campana, a labor union to which were affiliated employees of the La Campana Starch Factory and La Campana Coffee Factory, presented demands for higher wages and more privileges and benefits in connection with their work. Management having refused to grant their demands, the Department of Labor intervened for purposes of conciliation, and having failed to settle the controversy, it certified the dispute to the Court of Industrial Relations on July 17, 1951, where it was docketed as Case No. 584-V.
Claiming that La Campana Starch Factory and the La Campana Coffee Factory were two separate and distinct entities, and that the laborers who presented the demands were only the 14 working in the latter, a motion to dismiss the case was filed by the latter entity on the ground that the CIR had no jurisdiction over the same. The court denied the motion, holding that there was only one management for the two entities with whom the laborers of both dealt regarding their work, ruling, as a consequence, that the filing of the action against both entities was proper and justified. On appeal (G.R. No. L-5677) we affirmed the order, our decision holding that appellants' attempt to make the two factories appear as two separate businesses, when in reality they were but one, was merely a device to defeat the ends of the law.
Upon the return of the case to the CIR, incidental cases involving the same parties arose and were filed before the court as follows:
Case No. 584-V(l) — petition for contempt against the La Campana Starch and Coffee Factory for having employed 21 new laborers in violation of the order of July 21, 1951, filed on July 25, 1951;
Case No. 584-V(2) — petition of La Campana for authority to dismiss Loreto Bernabe, filed on July 25, 1951; .
Case No. 584-V(3) — petition of Union to reinstate Bonifacio Calderon with back pay, filed on August 3, 1951;
Case No. 584-V(5) — petition of Union to reinstate Marcelo Estrada and Exequiel Rapiz with back pay and to punish officials of the company for contempt, filed on February 13, 1952; and
Case No. 584-V(6) — petition of Union for reinstatement of Ibardolasa and seven other member-laborers and to punish the officers of the company for contempt, filed on July 15, 1953.
On May 16, 1956, while all the above cases were pending, Ramon Tantongco, owner and manager of the La Campana Starch Factory and in charge of La Campana Coffee Factory, died, for which reason, on motion of the Kaisahan ng mga Manggagawa sa La Campana, the CIR ordered on June 30, 1956 the inclusion as a party respondent of Ricardo Tantongco, who had been appointed administrator of the estate of said deceased. This administrator, making a special appearance, moved to dismiss the main case as well as the incidental cases, on the ground that they involved claims for money and, in view of the death of Ramon Tantongco, should be filed with the probate court with jurisdiction over his estate, but the court denied the motion in its order of August 23, 1956 (Appendix G of the petition for certiorari).
On November 12, 1956 (not June 12), the court rendered a partial decision in the main case No. 584-V resolving demand No. 10 — the only demand which the parties requested the court to hear and decide — the dispositive portion of which reads as follows:
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the Court finds the management of the respondent La Campana Starch & Coffee Factory guilty of unfair labor practice under Section 5 of Commonwealth Act No. 312, and for having dismissed the said workers and admitted new ones, without first securing authority from this court. Consequently, the respondents are hereby ordered to reinstate Natividad Manahan, Eliodora Wayan, Teofila Malinao, Anastacio Caringal, Trinidad Juntila, Trinidad Estrada and Remedios Refugia, and to pay them their back wages from June 16, 1951 until they are reinstated. Inasmuch as the said workers were paid on piece-rate basis, their back wages should be computed and based on their average wages per week from April to June, 1951.
On February 18, 1957 the CIR issued an order in the six incidental cases directing the management of the respondent companies and/or the administrator of the estate of Ramon Tantongco to reinstate the laborers mentioned therein, with back wages. This order of February 18, 1957, the order of June 30, 1956, for the inclusion of the administrator as additional respondent, and the order denying the petition of the administrator to dismiss said incidental cases, were appealed to this Court by certiorari (G.R. No. L-12355), but the appeal was summarily dismissed by resolution on June 12, 1957.
The order of February 18, 1957 having become executory, the laborers entitled to reinstatement thereunder reported for work on August 28, 1957 but were not admitted by Management. Consequently, they filed on August 30, 1957 a motion for contempt. After a hearing on this motion, the court issued an order on September 30, 1957 requiring the two entities or their manager or the person in charge of their management and the administrator of the estate of Ramon Tantongco, to reinstate the laborers named in the order of February 18, 1957, and to deposit in connection therewith the amount of P65,534.01 to pay their back wages. For refusal or failure to comply with this order of September 30, 1957, the administrator of the estate of Ramon Tantongco was cited for contempt. Said administrator filed a verified petition for a writ of prohibition against the CIR in this connection (G.R. No. L-13119), which we dismissed on September 22, 1959.1äwphï1.ñët
The present appeal by certiorari was filed by La Campana Starch and Coffee Factory and Ricardo Tantongco on February 11, 1957.
The first proposition submitted in the petition for certiorari is to the effect that the order of the CIR of June 30, 1956 (Exhibit E attached thereto) ordering the inclusion, as respondent in all the cases mentioned heretofore, of Ricardo Tantongco, in his capacity as administrator of the estate of the deceased Ramon Tantongco, is erroneous. This issue was already raised and decided in G.R. No. L-12355. In our decision in G.R. No. L-13119 entitled Ricardo Tantongco, petitioner, vs. Kaisahan ng mga Manggagawa sa La Campana, et al., respondents, we said, inter alia:
This order of February 18, 1957, as well as the order directing the inclusion of the administrator of the estate of Ramon Tantongco as additional respondent in the incidental cases, and the order denying the petition of the administrator to dismiss said incidental cases were appealed to this tribunal (G.R. No. L-12355) through certiorari. The appeal, however, was summarily dismissed by this Court in its resolution of June 12, 1957, as follows:
"This Court, deliberating upon the allegations of the petition filed in case L-12355 (La Campana Starch & Coffee Factory, et al. vs. Kaisahan ng mga Manggagawa sa La Campana, KKM, et al.) for review on certiorari of the decision of the Court of industrial Relations referred to therein, and finding that there is no merit in the petition, RESOLVES TO DISMISS the same."
. . .; that after the death of Ramon these two entities continued to exist and to operate under the management of petitioner and that consequently he is the proper person and official to which the orders of the CIR are addressed and who is in duty bound to comply with the same.
In their second proposition petitioners assail the order of August 23, 1956 (Appendix D of their Petition), denying the petition of Ricardo Tantongco for the dismissal of the main case No. 584-V and of the incidental case Nos. 584-V(1-6) on the ground that they all involved claims for money and were outside of the jurisdiction of the CIR. This question is also res judicata. In G.R. No. L-13119 already mentioned before we said among other things:
Petitioner contends that upon the death of Ramon Tantongco, the claims of the laborers should have been dismissed and that said claims should have been filed with the probate court having jurisdiction over the administration proceedings of the estate of Ramon Tantongco, pursuant to the provisions of Rule 3, Section 21 of the Rules of Court, and that the failure to file said claims with the administrator forever barred said claims as provided in Rule 87, Section 5 of the Rules of Court, especially after the assets of the estate had been distributed among the heirs, and petitioner had ceased to be the administrator of the estate. As already stated, this same question was raised by petitioner in G.R. No. L-12355, entitled "La Campana Starch and Coffee Factory and Ricardo Tantongco, etc. vs. Kaisahan ng mga Manggagawa as La Campana (KKM)", which, as already stated, was summarily dismissed by this Court in a resolution dated June 12, 1957. Consequently, said question may not again be raised in the present case.
. . . . Moreover, the money claims of the laborers were merely incidental to their demands for reinstatement for having been unjustly dismissed, and for better working condition,
In their third proposition petitioners contend that the partial decision of November 12, 1956 is not enforceable against the Administrator of the Estate of Ramon Tantongco who was only made a party respondent on June 30, 1956, because to do so would be in violation of the due process clause. Again, this question is res judicata, we having declared in G.R. No. L-13119 that said administrator is the proper person and official in duty bound to comply with the orders issued by the CIR in these cases.
In the fourth proposition submitted in their petition, petitioners contend that the partial decision mentioned heretofore is contrary to an existing written contract of collective bargaining between La Campana Starch and Coffee Factory, on the one hand, and the Labor Union at first known as PLOW and later as CLAP, on the other, and is therefore destructive of said parties' freedom to enter into a collective bargaining contract. In this connection the contention of respondents is that the contract relied upon by petitioners, attached as Annex P to their petition is not the true agreement between the parties, the true Agreement being the one submitted to the CIR as Exhibit D, a certified copy of which is attached as Annex 2 to the answer of the respondent Union filed in this case; that the phrase "closed shop and open union" appearing in Appendix P of the petition under consideration does not appear in the original contract, as shown by a copy thereof attached as Annex 2 to said answer.
When the CIR resolved the motion to dismiss mentioned heretofore, filed by La Campana Starch & Coffee Factory, in which the same question was invoked as one of the grounds for dismissal, the CIR held that said particular ground did not appear to be indubitable. There is nothing in the record of the present case to show that, after the hearing held in connection with Demand No. 10, this ground had been established beyond doubt. Besides, it is obvious that the issue under consideration involves a question of fact, namely, whether the contract has been altered or not — a question not now reviewable.
The last proposition submitted in the petition for certiorari, as well as the one invoked in the supplemental petition, are mere corollaries of the previous ones and must be deemed to have been resolved by what has been said heretofore.
WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari under consideration being without merit, the same is dismissed, with costs.
Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera and Parades, JJ., concur.
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
