EN BANC
[G.R. Nos. 47544 & 47611. December 19, 1940. ]
MINDANAO BUS COMPANY, Petitioners, v. MINDANAO BUS COMPANY EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, Respondent.
Alvear & Agrava for Petitioner.
No appearance for Respondents.
SYLLABUS
1. EMPLOYERS AND EMPLOYEES; COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS; SECTION 4 OF COMMONWEALTH ACT No. 103. — Held, That the Court of Industrial Relations, under section 4 of Commonwealth Act No. 103, i8 invested with legal authority to abolish the "kilometraje" system employed by the petitioner in computing the wages of its operation employees.
2. ID.; ID.; POWER TO DETERMINE MINIMUM WAGES. — The power of the court to determine minimum wages in connection with an industrial dispute which it may take cognizance of under the provisions of section 4 of Commonwealth Act No. 103, is no longer one of first impression, having been raised and set at rest in International Hardwood and Veneer Company v. Pañgil Federation of Labor (G. R. No. 47178).
3. ID.; ID.; REINSTATEMENT OF EMPLOYEES. — On the question raised with reference to the reinstatement of inspectors M, S and S, of driver C. P., our observations in Manila Trading & Supply CO. v. Zulueta (G. R. No. 46853); Manila Trading & Supply CO. v. Philippine Labor Union (G. R. No. 47233); Manila Electric Co. v. National Labor Union, Inc. (G. R. No. 47279); and Jacinto V8. Standard-Vacuum Oil Co. (G. R. No. 47425), are here reiterated.
4. ID.; ID.; ID.; CASE AT BAR. — In the present case, it appears that inspectors I. M., M. S. and P. S. were dismissed for their alleged disloyalty to the company management. On the other hand, driver C. P. was discharged for recklessness in connection with the damages suffered by his bus when he attempted to cross a swollen stream. In its resolution of July 11, 1940, the Court of Industrial Relations found that the accident met by driver C. P. was due to causes seemingly fortuitous and which cannot be ascribed to recklessness on his part, that the testimony of C. W. O., president of the petitioner company, on the alleged disloyalty of inspectors M, S and S was totally uncorroborated, that these inspectors deny having been questioned by O about any discontent among the employees, that the duty to make report on this matter devolved more on the managers and his supervisory agents than on the inspectors, and that these inspectors were not discharged immediately but only after their refusal to accede to the demand of O to convince the strikers to return to their work. The findings of the Court of Industrial Relations are conclusive and will not be disturbed in the absence of a showing that it has abused its discretion. (Central Azucarera de Tarlac v. Court of Industrial Relations, G. R. No. 46843.)
2. ID.; ID.; POWER TO DETERMINE MINIMUM WAGES. — The power of the court to determine minimum wages in connection with an industrial dispute which it may take cognizance of under the provisions of section 4 of Commonwealth Act No. 103, is no longer one of first impression, having been raised and set at rest in International Hardwood and Veneer Company v. Pañgil Federation of Labor (G. R. No. 47178).
3. ID.; ID.; REINSTATEMENT OF EMPLOYEES. — On the question raised with reference to the reinstatement of inspectors M, S and S, of driver C. P., our observations in Manila Trading & Supply CO. v. Zulueta (G. R. No. 46853); Manila Trading & Supply CO. v. Philippine Labor Union (G. R. No. 47233); Manila Electric Co. v. National Labor Union, Inc. (G. R. No. 47279); and Jacinto V8. Standard-Vacuum Oil Co. (G. R. No. 47425), are here reiterated.
4. ID.; ID.; ID.; CASE AT BAR. — In the present case, it appears that inspectors I. M., M. S. and P. S. were dismissed for their alleged disloyalty to the company management. On the other hand, driver C. P. was discharged for recklessness in connection with the damages suffered by his bus when he attempted to cross a swollen stream. In its resolution of July 11, 1940, the Court of Industrial Relations found that the accident met by driver C. P. was due to causes seemingly fortuitous and which cannot be ascribed to recklessness on his part, that the testimony of C. W. O., president of the petitioner company, on the alleged disloyalty of inspectors M, S and S was totally uncorroborated, that these inspectors deny having been questioned by O about any discontent among the employees, that the duty to make report on this matter devolved more on the managers and his supervisory agents than on the inspectors, and that these inspectors were not discharged immediately but only after their refusal to accede to the demand of O to convince the strikers to return to their work. The findings of the Court of Industrial Relations are conclusive and will not be disturbed in the absence of a showing that it has abused its discretion. (Central Azucarera de Tarlac v. Court of Industrial Relations, G. R. No. 46843.)
D E C I S I O N
LAUREL, J.:
The above-entitled cases are petitions for certiorari, the first, to review the "decision complementaria" dated May 4, 1940, and the resolution in banc of July 11, 1940, of the Court of Industrial Relations; the second, to review the decision adicional" dated May 31, 1940, and the resolution in banc of June 19, 1940. or
