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  night time 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.

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 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 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.

Wherefore, the order appealed from is  affirmed.  No costs.

Bengzon, C. J., Padilla, Labrador, ConcepCion, Barrera, Paredes, Dizon, Regala,  and Makalintal, JJ., concur.