Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 25 views

    Isaac Peral Bowling Alleys vs. UEWA

    Uploaded by

    Prince Cayabyab
    The Supreme Court of the Philippines affirmed an order from the Court of Industrial Relations that required Isaac Peral Bowling Alleys to pay back wages to four former employees who had been suspended. The Court of Industrial Relations had received evidence on the earnings of the employees during their suspension to deduct from the back wages owed. The Supreme Court upheld the Court of Industrial Relations' jurisdiction and affirmed its order, rejecting the Bowling Alleys' argument that additional earnings should be deducted, as questions of fact could not be raised on appeal by certiorari.

    Copyright:

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

    Isaac Peral Bowling Alleys vs. UEWA

    Uploaded by

    Prince Cayabyab
    25 views3 pages
    The Supreme Court of the Philippines affirmed an order from the Court of Industrial Relations that required Isaac Peral Bowling Alleys to pay back wages to four former employees who had been suspended. The Court of Industrial Relations had received evidence on the earnings of the employees during their suspension to deduct from the back wages owed. The Supreme Court upheld the Court of Industrial Relations' jurisdiction and affirmed its order, rejecting the Bowling Alleys' argument that additional earnings should be deducted, as questions of fact could not be raised on appeal by certiorari.

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court of the Philippines affirmed an order from the Court of Industrial Relations that required Isaac Peral Bowling Alleys to pay back wages to four former employees who had been suspended. The Court of Industrial Relations had received evidence on the earnings of the employees during their suspension to deduct from the back wages owed. The Supreme Court upheld the Court of Industrial Relations' jurisdiction and affirmed its order, rejecting the Bowling Alleys' argument that additional earnings should be deducted, as questions of fact could not be raised on appeal by certiorari.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    25 views3 pages

    Isaac Peral Bowling Alleys vs. UEWA

    Uploaded by

    Prince Cayabyab
    The Supreme Court of the Philippines affirmed an order from the Court of Industrial Relations that required Isaac Peral Bowling Alleys to pay back wages to four former employees who had been suspended. The Court of Industrial Relations had received evidence on the earnings of the employees during their suspension to deduct from the back wages owed. The Supreme Court upheld the Court of Industrial Relations' jurisdiction and affirmed its order, rejecting the Bowling Alleys' argument that additional earnings should be deducted, as questions of fact could not be raised on appeal by certiorari.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 3

    Republic of the Philippines

    SUPREME COURT
    Manila

    EN BANC

    G.R. No. L-15635             May 30, 1961

    ISAAC PERAL BOWLING ALLEYS, petitioner,


    vs.
    UNITED EMPLOYEES WELFARE ASSOCIATION and the COURT OF INDUSTRIAL
    RELATIONS, respondents.

    Felix S. Falgui for petitioner.


    Jose C. Concepcion for respondent Union.
    Vibal C. Magbanua for respondent Court of Industrial Relations.

    CONCEPCION, J.:

    Appeal by certiorari from an order and a resolution of the Court of Industrial Relations.

    On September 30, 1958, we rendered a decision in "United employees Welfare Association vs.
    Isaac Peral Bowling alleys" (L-10327), affirming an order of respondent Court, dated December 9,
    1955, directing the reinstatement of Petronio Veriña, Claro Bordones, Carlos Menodiado and Ramon
    Arevalo, as pinboys of respondent therein, Isaac Peral Bowling Alleys, hereinafter referred to as the
    Bowling Alleys, with back wages from November 11, 1952 to December 22, 1954. Upon motion for
    reconsideration filed by the Bowling Alleys, our aforementioned decision was clarified in a resolution
    of this Court, dated November 5, 1958, reading:

    Acting on the motion for reconsideration filed by respondent in G.R. No. L-10327 (United
    Employees Welfare Association vs. Isaac Peral Bowling Alleys), the Court RESOLVED to
    clarify its decision rendered on September 30, 1958, in the sense that respondent may
    deduct the wages or compensation the four pinboys mentioned therein may have received
    though employment during the period of their suspension from the back wages it has been
    ordered to pay then in the decision. (Emphasis supplied.)

    Subsequently, the Bowling Alleys reinstated the pinboys aforementioned. Moreover, in compliance
    with the abovequoted resolution, respondent Court proceeded to receive evidence on the earning of
    said pinboys from November 11, 1952 to December 22, 1954, so that the amount of said earnings
    may be deducted from the back wages they were titled to receive from the Bowling Alleys pursuant
    to our aforementioned decision, as clarified. Subsequently, or on May 25, 1959, respondent Court
    issued an order, pertinent parts of which we quote:

    The evidence presented establishes the facts that:

    1. Petronio Beriña — Through his own admission which as not contradicted by other
    evidence, Beriña worked casually and made a total amount of P40.00 only during the period
    of s suspension, from November 11, 1952 to December 22, 1954.
    2. Claro Bordones — By agreement of the parties, for having undergone military training in
    the Philippine Army for the period covering July 12, 1964 to December 30, 1954, Claro
    Bordones received the total amount of P187.00.

    So, therefore, deducting the amounts received by pinboys Beriña and Bordones during their
    suspension from the amounts that they shall receive from the respondent in accordance with
    the report of the Examiner, dated August 8, 1958, the total amount shall now be:

    1. Carlos Menodiado P2,167.00 P2,167.00


    2. Petronio Beriñas 1,651.69 P40.00 1,611.69
    3. Claro Bordones 1,980.75 187.00 1,793.75
    4. Ramon Arevalo 1,183.70   1,183.70
          Total P6,758.14

    WHEREFORE, the respondent is hereby ordered to deposit with the Court the amount of
    P6,756.14 within five (5) days from receipt of this order for further disposition thereof and, in
    case of failure, the Clerk of Court is hereby directed to issue a writ of execution in
    accordance thereto.

    The Bowling Alleys moved for a consideration of this order, but the motion was denied by a
    resolution of respondent Court sitting en banc. The case is now before us on appeal by certiorari,
    taken by the Bowling Alleys, from said Order of May 25, 1959 and the resolution confirmatory
    thereof. The petition for review by certiorari was given due course insofar only as pinboys Petronio
    Beriña and Claro Bordones are concerned.

    The Bowling Alleys maintains, upon the authority of our decision in Philippine Association of Free
    Labor Unions, et al. vs. Tan, et al., L-9115 (August 31, 1956). Administrator of Hacienda Luisita
    Estate vs. Artermio Alberto, L-12133 (October 31, 1958, and Teodora Donato vs. Phil. Marine
    officers Association, et al., L-12506 (May 18, 1959), that respondent Court had no jurisdiction to
    further hear this case for the purpose of receiving evidence and determining how much backpay is
    due to Petronio Beriña and Claro Bordones. This pretense is devoid of merit, for said decisions refer
    to the jurisdiction of respondent Court under Republic Act No. 875, whereas the evidence in question
    was received and the order appealed from issued upon the authority of Commonwealth Act No. 103,
    as amended. Indeed, the present appeal is but an incident of Case No. 751-V(1) of respondent
    Court, which was commenced on October 10, 1952, or prior to the approval of the Industrial Peace
    Act on June 17, 1953. Having already acquired jurisdiction over the case, said Court retained,
    pursuant to section 27 of Republic Act No. 875, its authority to hear and decide all incidents thereof,
    according to the provisions of Commonwealth Act. No. 103, until all issues therein shall have been
    fully settled and disposed of.

    It is next urged that respondent Court should have deducted from the back wages of Petronio Beriña
    and Claro Bordones the additional sums of P60.00 and P248.00, respectively, which, according to
    the Bowling Alleys, have been earned by said pinboys, during the period aforementioned aside from
    the amounts stated in the order appealed from. Suffice it to say, that the case is before us on appeal
    by certiorari (Commonwealth Act No. 103, section 14) in which questions of fact can not be raised
    (Indias vs. Philippine Iron Mines, L-9987, April 29, 1957; Operators Incorporated vs. Pelagio, L-9182,
    September 12, 1956; Dee C. Chuan & Sons, Inc. vs. Nahag, L-7201 & L-7211, September 22, 1954;
    Atok Big Wedge Mining Co. vs. Atok Big Wedge Mutual Benefit Assn., L-5594, May 15, 1953;
    Favellana vs. Parilea, L-4347, January 31, 1953; H. E. Heacock vs. NLU, et al., 50 O.G. No. 9, 4233;
    Dee C. Chuan vs. CIR, L-2548, Jan. 28, 1950; Kaisahan ng Manggagawa (CLO) vs. CIR, 81 Phil.
    566; Olaivar vs. Meralco, 71 Phil. 503, 505).

    WHEREFORE, the order and the resolution appealed from are hereby affirmed, with costs against
    petitioner Isaac Peral Bowling Alleys. It is so ordered.

    Bengzon, C.J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Paredes, Dizon, De Leon
    and Natividad JJ., concur.

    You might also like