Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 844 views

    Case 32 - Manila Hotel Vs Cir

    Uploaded by

    Claire Caceres
    This document summarizes a labor dispute between the Manila Hotel Company and the Court of Industrial Relations. The Court of Industrial Relations ruled that hotel employees were entitled to overtime pay, even if the overtime was performed without authorization. When determining the amount owed, the report included claims from 22 employees who were not working at the time the petition was filed. However, the court upheld their claims as well, ruling that while they were not employed at the time of filing, they were rehired during the pending proceedings and had an ongoing employment relationship with seasonal breaks, so they fell under the court's jurisdiction.

    Copyright:

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

    Case 32 - Manila Hotel Vs Cir

    Uploaded by

    Claire Caceres
    844 views1 page
    This document summarizes a labor dispute between the Manila Hotel Company and the Court of Industrial Relations. The Court of Industrial Relations ruled that hotel employees were entitled to overtime pay, even if the overtime was performed without authorization. When determining the amount owed, the report included claims from 22 employees who were not working at the time the petition was filed. However, the court upheld their claims as well, ruling that while they were not employed at the time of filing, they were rehired during the pending proceedings and had an ongoing employment relationship with seasonal breaks, so they fell under the court's jurisdiction.

    Original Description:

    Case 32 - Manila Hotel vs Cir

    Original Title

    Case 32 - Manila Hotel vs Cir

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document summarizes a labor dispute between the Manila Hotel Company and the Court of Industrial Relations. The Court of Industrial Relations ruled that hotel employees were entitled to overtime pay, even if the overtime was performed without authorization. When determining the amount owed, the report included claims from 22 employees who were not working at the time the petition was filed. However, the court upheld their claims as well, ruling that while they were not employed at the time of filing, they were rehired during the pending proceedings and had an ongoing employment relationship with seasonal breaks, so they fell under the court's jurisdiction.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    844 views1 page

    Case 32 - Manila Hotel Vs Cir

    Uploaded by

    Claire Caceres
    This document summarizes a labor dispute between the Manila Hotel Company and the Court of Industrial Relations. The Court of Industrial Relations ruled that hotel employees were entitled to overtime pay, even if the overtime was performed without authorization. When determining the amount owed, the report included claims from 22 employees who were not working at the time the petition was filed. However, the court upheld their claims as well, ruling that while they were not employed at the time of filing, they were rehired during the pending proceedings and had an ongoing employment relationship with seasonal breaks, so they fell under the court's jurisdiction.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Frances Claire R. Caceres Case No.

    32
    Labor I - Block A

    MANILA HOTEL COMPANY vs. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS


    G.R. No. L-18873 September 30, 1963

    FACTS:

    A petition before the Court of Industrial Relations was filed by the Pines Hotel
    Employees Association praying, among other things, that its employees who were working at
    the Pines Hotel be paid additional compensation for overtime services rendered due to the
    exigencies of the business, as well as additional compensation for Sunday, legal holiday and
    night time work. The Manila Hotel in its answer denied the material averments of the petition
    and alleged that if overtime services rendered were unauthorized and voluntary for the
    employees were interested in the tips offered by the patrons of the hotel.

    After the trial, judgment was promulgated in favor of the employees for they were
    entitled to compensation, including that for overtime work even if he rendered such service
    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.

    In compliance with the order of the court, the Examining Division submitted a report in
    which it stated the amount due to the employees. The management filed its objection for the
    report included 22 names of employees who were not employees of the Pines Hotel at the time
    the petition was filed. 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 during the pendency of the incident, and so their claims
    comes within the jurisdiction of the Court of Industrial Relations.

    ISSUE:

    Are the 22 employees listed in the report entitled to the money claims even if their
    names are not included in the list during the petition was filed?

    RULING:

    Yes. While it is true that the 22 employees whose claim is objected to were not actually in
    their service at the time the instant petition was filed, they were however subsequently re-
    employed 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 who are called to work from time to time,
    mostly during summer season. They are not strictly speaking separated from the services 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.

    You might also like