[ G.R. No. L-11938, May 18, 1962 ]
LA CAMPANA STARCH & COFFEE FACTORY, ET AL., PETITIONERS VS. KAISAHAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA LA CAMPANA [KKM], ET AL., RESPONDENTS.
D E C I S I O N
DIZON, J.:
APPEAL by certiorari to review the decision of the Court of Industrial Relations.
SUMMARY
Demands for higher wages and other fringe benefits were presented by the Kaisahan ng mga Manggagawa sa La Campana in behalf of the 14 employees of La Campana Coffee Factory to the management of La Campana Starch & Coffee Factory. The management refused to grant the demands and after conciliation efforts by the Department of Labor have failed, the dispute was certified to the Court of Industrial Relations. La Campana Starch Factory, claiming to be a separate and distinct entity from La Campana Coffee Factory, moved to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction which motion was denied on the ground that there is only one management for the two factories. La Campana Starch Factory appealed. However, upon the return of the case to the Court of industrial Relations incidental cases arose and filed in the court a quo, During the pendency of the main and incidental cases, the owner and general manager of the factories died resulting in the appointment of Ricardo Tantongco as administrator of the estate of the deceased and his inclusion as party respondent. Thereafter Ricardo Tantongco moved to dismiss the cases alleging lack of jurisdiction saying that the cases involved money claims which shall be proceeded in the probate court. The labor court denied the motion and the denial order became the subject of G. R. No. L-12355 which was summarily dismissed by this Court on June 12, 1957.
Meanwhile, the C.I.R. resolved Demand No. 1.0 in the main case and the incidental cases holding respondents guilty of unfair labor practice and decreed the reinstatement of the employees with back wages. Despite the finality of the labor court's decision, respondents refused to admit the employees and instead interposed this third appeal on the following grounds:
1. The inclusion of Rieitrdo Tantongco as respondent is erroneous;
2. The Court of Industrial Relations lacks jurisdiction over the cases allegedly involving money claims;
3. The partial decision is not enforceable against the Administrator of the estate of Ramon Tantongco and to do so would violate the due process clause;
4. The partial decision is a violation of the existing Collective Bargaining Agreement; and
5. A fifth proposition which was considered by the Court as a corollary to the previous ones. The petition for certiorari was dismissed for lack of merit.
RULING
The 1st, 2nd and 3rd propositions were barred by res judicata, hence no longer the proper subject for review. Of the 4th proposition, the contention of respondents that the Collective Bargaining Agreement with which the court a quo based its decision was altered is a question of fact not reviewable1 by this Court.
Demands for higher wages and other fringe benefits were presented by the Kaisahan ng mga Manggagawa sa La Campana in behalf of the 14 employees of La Campana Coffee Factory to the management of La Campana Starch & Coffee Factory. The management refused to grant the demands and after conciliation efforts by the Department of Labor have failed, the dispute was certified to the Court of Industrial Relations. La Campana Starch Factory, claiming to be a separate and distinct entity from La Campana Coffee Factory, moved to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction which motion was denied on the ground that there is only one management for the two factories. La Campana Starch Factory appealed. However, upon the return of the case to the Court of industrial Relations incidental cases arose and filed in the court a quo, During the pendency of the main and incidental cases, the owner and general manager of the factories died resulting in the appointment of Ricardo Tantongco as administrator of the estate of the deceased and his inclusion as party respondent. Thereafter Ricardo Tantongco moved to dismiss the cases alleging lack of jurisdiction saying that the cases involved money claims which shall be proceeded in the probate court. The labor court denied the motion and the denial order became the subject of G. R. No. L-12355 which was summarily dismissed by this Court on June 12, 1957.
Meanwhile, the C.I.R. resolved Demand No. 1.0 in the main case and the incidental cases holding respondents guilty of unfair labor practice and decreed the reinstatement of the employees with back wages. Despite the finality of the labor court's decision, respondents refused to admit the employees and instead interposed this third appeal on the following grounds:
1. The inclusion of Rieitrdo Tantongco as respondent is erroneous;
2. The Court of Industrial Relations lacks jurisdiction over the cases allegedly involving money claims;
3. The partial decision is not enforceable against the Administrator of the estate of Ramon Tantongco and to do so would violate the due process clause;
4. The partial decision is a violation of the existing Collective Bargaining Agreement; and
5. A fifth proposition which was considered by the Court as a corollary to the previous ones. The petition for certiorari was dismissed for lack of merit.
The 1st, 2nd and 3rd propositions were barred by res judicata, hence no longer the proper subject for review. Of the 4th proposition, the contention of respondents that the Collective Bargaining Agreement with which the court a quo based its decision was altered is a question of fact not reviewable1 by this Court.