Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 361 views

    026-Manila Hotel Co. v. CIR, 9 SCRA 184

    Uploaded by

    Jopan SJ
    This Supreme Court case involves a petition filed by the Pines Hotel Employees Association before the Court of Industrial Relations seeking additional compensation for overtime work from the Manila Hotel Company. The trial court ruled in favor of the employees. Manila Hotel appealed, arguing that 22 employees included in the claim were not actual employees when the petition was filed. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding that while the 22 employees were not working at the time of filing, they were subsequently reemployed during the case pendency and had ongoing employment relationships with seasonal work. Therefore, their claims fell under the Court of Industrial Relations' jurisdiction.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    026-Manila Hotel Co. v. CIR, 9 SCRA 184

    Uploaded by

    Jopan SJ
    361 views2 pages
    This Supreme Court case involves a petition filed by the Pines Hotel Employees Association before the Court of Industrial Relations seeking additional compensation for overtime work from the Manila Hotel Company. The trial court ruled in favor of the employees. Manila Hotel appealed, arguing that 22 employees included in the claim were not actual employees when the petition was filed. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding that while the 22 employees were not working at the time of filing, they were subsequently reemployed during the case pendency and had ongoing employment relationships with seasonal work. Therefore, their claims fell under the Court of Industrial Relations' jurisdiction.

    Original Description:

    University of Nueva Caceres College of Law Labor Law 1 SY 2015-2016 1st Semester

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This Supreme Court case involves a petition filed by the Pines Hotel Employees Association before the Court of Industrial Relations seeking additional compensation for overtime work from the Manila Hotel Company. The trial court ruled in favor of the employees. Manila Hotel appealed, arguing that 22 employees included in the claim were not actual employees when the petition was filed. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding that while the 22 employees were not working at the time of filing, they were subsequently reemployed during the case pendency and had ongoing employment relationships with seasonal work. Therefore, their claims fell under the Court of Industrial Relations' jurisdiction.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    361 views2 pages

    026-Manila Hotel Co. v. CIR, 9 SCRA 184

    Uploaded by

    Jopan SJ
    This Supreme Court case involves a petition filed by the Pines Hotel Employees Association before the Court of Industrial Relations seeking additional compensation for overtime work from the Manila Hotel Company. The trial court ruled in favor of the employees. Manila Hotel appealed, arguing that 22 employees included in the claim were not actual employees when the petition was filed. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding that while the 22 employees were not working at the time of filing, they were subsequently reemployed during the case pendency and had ongoing employment relationships with seasonal work. Therefore, their claims fell under the Court of Industrial Relations' jurisdiction.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 2

    Manila Hotel Co. v. CIR G.R. No.

    L-18873 1 of 2

    Republic of the Philippines


    SUPREME COURT
    Manila
    EN BANC
    G.R. No. L-18873 September 30, 1963
    MANILA HOTEL COMPANY, petitioner,
    vs.
    COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL., respondents.
    Government Corporate Counsel Simeon M. Gopengco and Trial Attorney Jose S. Gomez for petitioner.
    Gregorio E. Fajardo and Jesus Jaramillo for respondent Union.
    Mariano B. Tuason for respondent Court.

    BAUTISTA ANGELO, J.:


    The Pines Hotel Employees Association filed on February 24, 1960 before the Court of Industrial Relations a
    petition praying, among other things, that its employees who were working at the Pines Hotel be paid additional
    compensation for overtime service rendered due to the exigencies of the business, as well as additional
    compensation for Sunday, legal holiday and nighttime work.
    The Manila Hotel filed its answer denying the material averments of the petition and alleging, among others, that if
    overtime service was rendered the same was not authorized but was rendered voluntarily, for the employees were
    interested in the "tips" offered by the patrons of the hotel.
    Presiding Judge Jose S. Bautista, to whom the petition was assigned, after trial, rendered judgment stating that the
    employees were entitled to the additional compensation demanded, including that for overtime work, because an
    employee who renders overtime service is entitled to compensation even if he rendered it without prior authority. A
    motion for reconsideration was filed on the ground that the order was contrary to law and the evidence, but the
    same was denied by the industrial court en banc.1awphl.nt
    In compliance with the order of the court, the Examining Division of the Court of Industrial Relations submitted a
    report in which it stated that the amount due the employees as additional compensation for overtime and night
    services rendered from January to December 31, 1958 was P32,950.69. The management filed its objection to the
    report on the ground that it included 22 names of employees who were not employees of the Pines Hotel at the time
    the petition was filed so that insofar as said employees are concerned the petition merely involves a money claim
    which comes under the jurisdiction of the regular courts. The trial judge, however, overruled this objection holding
    that, while the 22 employees were actually not in the service at the time of the filing of the petition, they were
    however subsequently employed even during the pendency of the incident, and so their claim comes within the
    jurisdiction of the Court of Industrial Relations. Hence, the present petition for review.
    There is no merit in this appeal it appearing that while it is true that the 22 employees whose claim is objected to
    were not actually in the service at the time the instant petition was filed, they were however, subsequently
    reemployed even while the present incident was pending consideration by the trial court. Moreover, it appears that
    the questioned employees were never separated from the service. Their status is that of regular seasonal employees
    Manila Hotel Co. v. CIR G.R. No. L-18873 2 of 2

    who are called to work from time to time, mostly during summer season. The nature of their relationship with the
    hotel is such that during off season they are temporarily laid off but during summer season they are re-employed,
    or when their services may be needed. They are not strictly speaking separated from the service but are merely
    considered as on leave of absence without pay until they are re-employed. Their employment relationship is never
    severed but only suspended. As such, these employees can be considered as in the regular employment of the hotel.
    WHEREFORE, the order appealed from is affirmed. No costs.
    Bengzon, C.J., Padilla, Labrador, Concepcion, Barrera, Paredes, Dizon, Regala and Makalintal, JJ., concur.
    Reyes, J.B.L., J., took no part.

    You might also like