14 Pan American Airways v. Pan American Employees Association (1961)

of 2
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
  Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT ManilaEN BANC G.R. No. L-16275 February 23, 1961PN MER!CN ORL# !R $S S$STEM %P&!L!PP!NES',  petitioner, vs. PN MER!CN EMPLO$EES SSOC!T!ON,  respondent. Ross, Selph and Carrascoso for petitioner.Jose Espinas for respondent. RE$ES, (.).L., J  .*  Appeal by certiorari   from the decision of the Court of Industrial Relations in Case No. ! #$ dated %ctober !, & &, and its resolution en banc   denyin' the motion for reconsideration filed by the petitioner herein. (he dispositive portion of the appealed decision reads) .*+ERE%RE, the Court orders the Chief of the E-aminin' ivision or his representative to compute the overtime compensation due the aforesaid fourteen /01 aircraft mechanic and the t2o employees from the Communication epartment based on the time sheet of said employees from ebruary 34 & 3 up to and includin' 5uly  ,& 6 and to submit his report 2ithin 4! days for further disposition by the Court7 and thecompany shall sho2 to the Court E-aminer such time sheets an other documents that may be necessary in the aforesaid computation7 and t2o /31 representatives for the company and t2o /31 representatives for the union shall be chosen to help the Court E-aminer in said computation. (he company is also ordered to permanently adopt the strai'ht 6#hour shift inclusive of meal period 2hich is mutually beneficial to the parties. 8% %RERE.In this appeal, petitioner advances five proposition 2hich, briefly, are as follo2s) /1 the Industrial Court has no 9urisdiction to order the payment of overtime compensation, it bein' a mere monetary claim co'ni:able by re'ular courts7 /31 the findin' that the one#hour meal period should be considered overtime 2or; /deductin'  minutes as time allotted for eatin'1 is not supported by substantial evidence7 /41 the court belo2 had no authority to dele'ate its 9udicial functions by orderin' the Chief of the E-aminin' ivision or his representative to compute the overtime pay7 /01 the findin' that there 2asno a'reement to 2ithdra2 Case No. ! #$ in consideration of the 2a'e increases in the Collective Bar'ainin' Contract /E-h. <A<1 is not supported by substantial evidence7 and / 1 the court belo2 had no authority to order the company to adopt a strai'ht 6#hour shift inclusive  of meal period. %n the issue of 9urisdiction over claims for overtime pay, 2e have since definitely ruled in a recent decisions that the Industrial Court may properly ta;e co'ni:ance of such cases if, at the time of the petition, the complainants 2ere still in the service of the employer, or, havin' been separated from such service, should as; for reinstatement7 other2ise, such claims should be brou'ht before the re'ular courts /NA88C% v. CIR, etal., =#4666, April 3&, &>!7 RI8C% v. CIR, et al., =#46!>, May 34, &>!7 Board of =i?uidators, et al. vs. CIR, et al., =# 06 , May 34, &>!7 8ta. Cecilia, 8a2mills Co. vs. CIR, =#03 0 @ =#03 , May 3, &>!7 A9a- International Corp. v. 8e'uritan, =#>!46, %ctober 3 , &>!7 8ampa'uita Pictures, Inc., et al. vs. CIR, =#>0!0, %ctober 3 , &>!1. 8ince, in the instant case there is no ?uestion that the employees claimin' overtime compensation 2ere still in the service of the company 2hen the case 2as filed,the 9urisdiction of the Court of Industrial Relations cannot be assailed. In fact, since it is not pretended that, thereafter, the complainants 2ere dischar'ed or other2ise terminated their relationship 2ith the company for any reason, all of said complainants could still be 2ith the company up to the present. Petitioner herein claims that the one#hour meal period should not be considered as overtime 2or; /after deductin'  minutes1, because the evidence sho2ed that complainants could rest completely, and 2ere not in any manner under the control of the company durin' that period. (he court belo2 found, on the contrary, that durin' the so called meal period, the mechanics 2ere re?uired to stand by for emer'ency 2or;7 that if they happened not to be available 2hen called, they 2ere reprimanded by the leadman7 that as in fact it happened on many occasions, the mechanics had been called from their meals or told to hurry Employees Association up eatin' to perform 2or;durin' this period. ar from bein' unsupported by substantial evidence, the record clearly confirms the above factual findin's of the Industrial Court. 8imilarly, this Court is satisfied 2ith the findin' that there 2as no a'reement to 2ithdra2Case No. ! #$ in consideration of the 2a'e increases obtained by the, union and set forth in the Collective Bar'ainin' A'reement E-hibit <A<. As reasoned out by the court belo2, such alle'ed a'reement 2ould have been incorporated in the contract if it e-isted. (he fact that the union filed a motion to dismiss 2ithout pre9udice, after the Collective Bar'ainin' Contract had been si'ned, did not necessarily mean that it had a'reed to 2ithdra2 the case in consideration of the 2a'e increases. (he motion itself /Anne- <B<, Petition for Certiorari  1 2as e-pressly based on an understandin' that the 1  company 2ould <formulate a schedule of 2or; 2hich shall be in consonance 2ith C. A. 000<. All in all, there is substantial evidence in the record to support the findin' of the court belo2 that no such a'reement 2as made. It is ne-t contended that in orderin' the Chief of the E-aminin' ivision or his representative to compute the compensation due, the Industrial Court unduly dele'ated its 9udicial functions and thereby rendered an incomplete decision. *e do not believe so. Computation of the overtime pay involves a mechanical function, at most. And the report 2ould still have to be submitted to the Industrial Court for its approval, by the veryterms of the order itself. (hat there 2as no specification of the amount of overtime pay in the decision did not ma;e it incomplete, since this matter 2ould necessarily be made clear enou'h in the implementation of the decision /see Malate (a-icab @ ara'e, Inc. vs. CIR, et al., =#66, May , & >1. (he Industrial Courts order for permanent adoption of a strai'ht 6#hour shift includin' the meal period 2as but a conse?uence of its findin' that the meal hour 2as not one of complete rest, but 2as actually a 2or; hour, since for its duration, the laborers had to beon ready call. %f course, if the Company practices in this re'ard should be modified to afford the mechanics a real rest durin' that hour /f. e-., by installin' an entirely different emer'ency cre2, or any similar arran'ement1, then the modification of this part of the decision may be sou'ht from the Court belo2. As thin's no2 stand, 2e see no 2arrant for alterin' the decision. (he 9ud'ment appealed from is affirmed. Costs a'ainst appellant. Bengzon, Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion , Barrera, Paredes and izon,JJ.,  concur. 2

As analysis

Jul 27, 2017


Jul 27, 2017
Related Search
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks

We need your sign to support Project to invent "SMART AND CONTROLLABLE REFLECTIVE BALLOONS" to cover the Sun and Save Our Earth.

More details...

Sign Now!

We are very appreciated for your Prompt Action!