Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-5062 April 29, 1953
MANILA TRADING SUPPL! CO., petitioner,
vs.
MANILA TRADING LA"OR ASSOCIATION, respondent.
Ross, Selph, Carrascoso & Janda for petitioner.
Cipriano Cid for respondent.
RE!ES, J.#
On October 10, 1!0, the Manila "radin# $abor Association, co%posed of &or'ers of
Manila "radin# and (uppl) Co., %ade a de%and upon said co%pan) for increase of
personnel, Christ%as bonus, and other #ratuities and privile#es. As the de%and &as
refused and the *epart%ent of $abor + &hose intervention had been sou#ht b) the
association + failed to effect an a%icable settle%ent, the ,ead of the *epart%ent
certified the dispute to the Court of -ndustrial Relations on October .! and there it &as
doc'eted as case No. !.1/0. "he co%pan), on its part, on that sa%e da) applied to the
Court of -ndustrial Relations for authorit) to la) off !0 laborers due to 1poor business,1
the application bein# doc'eted as Case No. 21!/0 324.
"o resolve the disputes involved in the t&o cases the Court of -ndustrial Relations
conducted various hearin#s bet&een October .5, 1!0, and 6anuar) 17, 1!1. Of their
o&n volition the president and vice/president of the association attended the%selves
fro% &or' for that reason the) after&ards clai%ed that the) &ere entitled to their &a#es.
"he Court of -ndustrial Relations found %erit in the clai%, and at their instance, ordered
the co%pan) to pa) the% their &a#es correspondin# to the da)s the) &ere absent fro%
&or' &hile in attendance at the hearin#s.
Contendin# that the industrial court had no authorit) to issue an order, the co%pan)
as's this Court to have it annuled. Opposin# the petition, the association, on its part,
contends that the order co%es &ithin the broad po&ers of the industrial court in the
settle%ent of disputes bet&een capital and labor.
"he 8uestion presented is &hether the Court of -ndustrial Relations %a) re8uire an
e%plo)er to pa) the &a#es of officers of its e%plo)ees9 labor union &hile attendin# the
hearin# of cases bet&een the e%plo)er and the union. "he 8uestion, it appears, is no
different fro% that decided earl) in the case of 6.P. ,eilbronn Co. vs. National $abor
:nion,
;
<.R. No. $/!1.1. -n that case the plaintiff co%pan) 8uestioned the validit) of an
order the Court of -ndustrial Relations re8uirin# it to pa) the president and the secretar)
of the labor union their salaries correspondin# to the da)s the) attendin# the
conferences and hearin#s before that court. (ettin# aside the said order, &e there said=
>hen in case of stri'es, and accordin# to the C-R even if the stri'e is le#al,
stri'ers %a) not collect their &a#es durin# the da)s the) did not #o to &or', for
the sa%e reasons if not %ore, laborers &ho voluntaril) absent the%selves fro%
&or' to attend the hearin# of a case in &hich the) see' to prove and establish
their de%ands a#ainst the co%pan), the le#alit) and propriet) of &hich
de%ands is not )et 'no&n, should lose their pa) durin# the period of such
absence fro% &or'. "he a#e/old rule #overnin# the relation bet&een labor and
capital or %ana#e%ent and e%plo)ee is that of a 1fair da)9s &a#e for a fair
da)9s labor.1 -f there is no &or' perfor%ed b) the e%plo)ee there can be no
&a#e or pa), unless of course, the laborer &as able, &illin# and read) to &or'
but &as ille#all) loc'ed out, dis%issed or suspended. it is hardl) fair or ?ust for
an e%plo)ee or laborer to fi#ht or liti#ate a#ainst his e%plo)er on the
e%plo)er9s ti%e.
-n a case &here a laborer absents hi%self fro% &or' because of a stri'e or to
attend a conference or hearin# in a case or incident bet&een hi% and his
e%plo)er, he %i#ht see' rei%burse%ent of his &a#es fro% his union &hich had
declared the stri'e or filed the case in the industrial court. Or, in the present
case, he %i#ht have his absence fro% his &or' char#ed a#ainst his vacation
leave. "hree of the 6ustices &ho si#n the present decision believe that the
deductions %ade fro% the &a#e of Ar%ando Oca%po and Protacio ") %i#ht
possibl) be char#e as da%a#es in the case in the event that the said case in
C-R prosecuted in behalf of their union is finall) decided in their favor and
a#ainst the co%pan).
"he respondent association, ho&ever, clai%s that it &as not the one that brou#ht the
cases to the Court of -ndustrial Relations, and the point is %ade that 1 if the laborer &ho
is dra##ed to court is deprived of his &a#es &hile attendin# court hearin#s, he &ould in
effect be denied the opportunit) to defend hi%self and protect his interests and those of
his fello& &or'ers.1 But &hile it is true that it &as the (ecretar) of $abor &ho certified
the dispute involved in case No. !.1/0 to the Court of -ndustrial Relations, the fact
re%ains that the dispute &as initiated b) a de%and fro% the labor association. "he
truth, therefore, is that &hile one of the cases &as filed b) the e%plo)er, the other &as
initiated b) the e%plo)ees. -t %a) be conceded that the e%plo)er is in %ost cases in a
better position to bear the burdens of liti#ation than the e%plo)ees. But as &as said in
the case of J. P. Heilbronn Co. vs. National Labor Union, supra, 1-t is hardl) fair for an
e%plo)ee or laborer to fi#ht or liti#ate a#ainst his e%plo)er on the e%plo)er9s ti%e.1 "he
1
%ost that can be conceded in favor of the clai%ants herein is to have the absences
occasioned b) their attendance at the hearin#s char#ed a#ainst their vacation leave if
the) have an), or as su##ested b) three of the 6ustices &ho si#ned the decision in the
case ?ust cited, to have the &a#es the) failed to earn char#ed as da%a#es in the event
the cases &hose hearin#s the) attended are decided in favor of the association. But the
%a?orit) of the 6ustices %a'e no co%%it%ent on this latter point.
-n vie& of the fore#oin#, the petition for certiorari is #ranted and the order co%plained of
set aside. >ithout pronounce%ent as to costs.
2