EN BANC
[G.R. No. L-17085. July 31, 1963.]
LUZON BROKERAGE COMPANY, Petitioner, v. LUZON LABOR UNION, Respondent.
Pelaez & Jalandoni for Petitioner.
Jose W. Diokno for Respondent.
SYLLABUS
1. SUPREME COURT; EVIDENCE; AFFIDAVIT; SUPREME COURT CAN REVIEW AFFIDAVITS. — The Supreme Court ruled that an affidavit is admissible as evidence before the Court of Industrial Relations for the reason that the same is an administrative body. This view, however, does not prevent the Supreme Court from reviewing an affidavit itself for the purpose of determining whether the same justifies a claim for back wages.
R E S O L U T I O N
LABRADOR, J.:
This concerns a motion for reconsideration submitted by petitioner Luzon Brokerage Company.
In the decision rendered by Us in this case we ruled that an affidavit is admissible as evidence before the Court of Industrial Relations for the reason that the same is an administrative body. This view, however, does not prevent us from reviewing an affidavit itself for the purpose of determining whether the same justifies a claim. Consonant with this view we have taken pains to examine the affidavits supporting the claims objected to by petitioner in his motion for reconsideration and we have found that certain claimants have been listed twice in the questioned order of the Court of Industrial Relations, thus:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
No. 16 — Alvia, Nicanor is the same person referred to in No. 11 — Aldea, Nicanor
No. 232 — Verano, Saturnino is the same person referred to in No. 31 — Barano, Saturnino
No. 62 — Dangca, Teodorico is the same person referred to in No. 64 — Dangwa, Teodorico
No. 222 — Tayao, Jose is the same person referred to in No. 65 — Dayao, Jose
No. 75 — Doble, Benito is the same person referred to in No. 135 — Noble, Benito
No. 159 — Pangan, Angel is the same person referred to in No. 160 — Pangan, Manuel
No. 209 — Sansino, Marcelino is the same person referred to in No. 207 — Salimo, Marcelino
No. 219 — Tabita, Francisco is the same person referred to in No. 223 — Tobida, Francisco
No. 134 — Nicolas, Santiago is the same person referred to in No. 210 — Santiago, Nicolas
We have also found, and respondent union itself admits in its answer to the instant motion, that the name of Alfonso Pagayon, has been inadvertently included in the appealed order.
Petitioner also objects to the claim of back pay of Domingo Barcelona. The affidavit of this claimant, Exhibit "A" -58" states that he was sent by one Mr. Tingin to Camp O’Donnell, Tarlac and there his truck was loaded with kitchen utensils and brought to Pangasinan. There the truck was bombed and they returned back to Manila in the month of February, 1942. For these services he claims three months pay amounting to P450 and overtime pay of P302.40.
He also claims backpay from March, 1942 to January, 1945 at the rate of P150.00 for 35 months equivalent to P5,250.00. This claim cannot be approved for the reason that the services do not appear to have been rendered in the province of Bataan and in connection with the order of the manager of the Luzon Brokerage Company for the employees to go to Bataan. The claim for P752.40 should be approved and the claim of P5,250.00 denied.
The dispositive part of our decision is, therefore, hereby amended so as to read as follows: "The petition for certiorari is hereby denied, except that the following claims shall be disallowed:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
No. 11 — Nicanor Aldea, who is the same as Nicanor Alvia;
No. 31 — Saturnino Barrano, who is the same as Saturnino Verano;
No. 65 — Jose Dayao, who is the same as Jose Tayao;
No. 135 — Benito Noble, who is the same as Benito Doble;
No. 160 — Manuel Pangan, who is the same as Angel Pangan;
No. 207 — Marcelino Salimo, who is the same as Marcelino Sansino;
No. 223 — Francisco Tobida, who is the same as Francisco Tabita;
No. 210 — Nicolas Santiago, who is the same as Santiago Nicolas; and
No. 64 — Teodorico Dangwa, who is the same as Teodorico Dangca.
No. 148 — Alfonso Pagayon, whose name has been inadvertently included in the list of awardees, and
No. 30 — Domingo Barcelona, whose services do not appear to have been rendered in the province of Bataan."cralaw virtua1aw library
So ordered.
Bengzon, C.J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Dizon, Paredes, Regala and Makalintal, JJ., concur.
Footnote
* Editor’s Note: See main decision in 7 SCRA 116.
In the decision rendered by Us in this case we ruled that an affidavit is admissible as evidence before the Court of Industrial Relations for the reason that the same is an administrative body. This view, however, does not prevent us from reviewing an affidavit itself for the purpose of determining whether the same justifies a claim. Consonant with this view we have taken pains to examine the affidavits supporting the claims objected to by petitioner in his motion for reconsideration and we have found that certain claimants have been listed twice in the questioned order of the Court of Industrial Relations, thus:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
No. 16 — Alvia, Nicanor is the same person referred to in No. 11 — Aldea, Nicanor
No. 232 — Verano, Saturnino is the same person referred to in No. 31 — Barano, Saturnino
No. 62 — Dangca, Teodorico is the same person referred to in No. 64 — Dangwa, Teodorico
No. 222 — Tayao, Jose is the same person referred to in No. 65 — Dayao, Jose
No. 75 — Doble, Benito is the same person referred to in No. 135 — Noble, Benito
No. 159 — Pangan, Angel is the same person referred to in No. 160 — Pangan, Manuel
No. 209 — Sansino, Marcelino is the same person referred to in No. 207 — Salimo, Marcelino
No. 219 — Tabita, Francisco is the same person referred to in No. 223 — Tobida, Francisco
No. 134 — Nicolas, Santiago is the same person referred to in No. 210 — Santiago, Nicolas
We have also found, and respondent union itself admits in its answer to the instant motion, that the name of Alfonso Pagayon, has been inadvertently included in the appealed order.
Petitioner also objects to the claim of back pay of Domingo Barcelona. The affidavit of this claimant, Exhibit "A" -58" states that he was sent by one Mr. Tingin to Camp O’Donnell, Tarlac and there his truck was loaded with kitchen utensils and brought to Pangasinan. There the truck was bombed and they returned back to Manila in the month of February, 1942. For these services he claims three months pay amounting to P450 and overtime pay of P302.40.
He also claims backpay from March, 1942 to January, 1945 at the rate of P150.00 for 35 months equivalent to P5,250.00. This claim cannot be approved for the reason that the services do not appear to have been rendered in the province of Bataan and in connection with the order of the manager of the Luzon Brokerage Company for the employees to go to Bataan. The claim for P752.40 should be approved and the claim of P5,250.00 denied.
The dispositive part of our decision is, therefore, hereby amended so as to read as follows: "The petition for certiorari is hereby denied, except that the following claims shall be disallowed:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
No. 11 — Nicanor Aldea, who is the same as Nicanor Alvia;
No. 31 — Saturnino Barrano, who is the same as Saturnino Verano;
No. 65 — Jose Dayao, who is the same as Jose Tayao;
No. 135 — Benito Noble, who is the same as Benito Doble;
No. 160 — Manuel Pangan, who is the same as Angel Pangan;
No. 207 — Marcelino Salimo, who is the same as Marcelino Sansino;
No. 223 — Francisco Tobida, who is the same as Francisco Tabita;
No. 210 — Nicolas Santiago, who is the same as Santiago Nicolas; and
No. 64 — Teodorico Dangwa, who is the same as Teodorico Dangca.
No. 148 — Alfonso Pagayon, whose name has been inadvertently included in the list of awardees, and
No. 30 — Domingo Barcelona, whose services do not appear to have been rendered in the province of Bataan."cralaw virtua1aw library
So ordered.
Bengzon, C.J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Dizon, Paredes, Regala and Makalintal, JJ., concur.
Footnote
* Editor’s Note: See main decision in 7 SCRA 116.
