Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-21348 June 30, 1966
RED V COCONUT PRODUCTS, LTD., petitioner,
vs.
COURT O !NDUSTR!"L REL"T!ONS, T"NGL"# NG P"GG"#", "L$ERTO DEL"
CRU%, ET "L., respondents.
Romeo A. Real for petitioner.
A. V. Villacorta for respondents.
$ENG%ON, J.P., J.:
Red V Coconut Products, Ltd. is a corporation with principal office and place of
business at Lucena Cit. !t has in that cit a desiccated coconut factor. !n said factor, it
has several hundred wor"ers. About #$$ of said wor"ers are %e%bers of Tanglaw ng
Paggawa labor union.
Tanglaw ng Paggawa and Red V Coconut Products, Ltd. entered into a collective
bar&ainin& a&ree%ent on 'ul (), (*)#. +ubse,uentl, however, on -ctober ), (*.(,
the afore%entioned co%pan and union entered into another collective bar&ainin&
a&ree%ent, to e/pire on -ctober 0(, (*.).
1he (*)# collective bar&ainin& a&ree%ent provided a%on& other thin&s for pa%ent of
differentials to night shift workers in the desiccated coconut factor.1wph1.t
1he (*.( collective bar&ainin& a&ree%ent retained the sa%e arran&e%ent. !t stated2
1he present shift differential will re%ain in effect, na%el, 0)3 for the second shift and
))3 for the third +hift.
In the factory, there are two groups of workers, the three-shift
group let us call it Group A and the two shift group
which we shall call Group B. As observed by the parties
thereto, diferentials were paid to workers, under the !"# and
!$ contracts, thus%
&ou'( o) #o'* D+))e'en,+-.(
4roup A 5 (st shift 6 A.M. 5 (7 Noon 8# 9rs.: None
7nd shift (7 Noon 5 # P.M. 8# 9rs.: .0)
0rd shift # P.M. 5 6 A.M. 8# 9rs.: .))
4roup B 5 (st shift 6 A.M. 5 6 P.M. 8(7 9rs.: None
7nd shift 6 P.M. 5 6 A.M. 8(7 9rs.: .))
-n 'anuar (;, (*.7, Tanglaw ng Paggawa and so%e 0$$ wor"ers in the above<stated
factor, %e%bers of the said union, who belon& to 4roup B, filed a petition in the Court
of !ndustrial Relations. Petitioners therein alle&ed that the petitioners<wor"ers are
shellers, parers, counters and haulers in the two shifts 84roup B: consistin& of (7 hours
each shift, the first shift fro% 62 $$ A.M. to 62 $$ P.M. and the second shift fro% 6 P.M. to
6 A.M.= that said wor"ers chan&e shift assi&n%ents ever wee"= that, accordin&l, all of
them wor" fro% 6 A.M. to 6 P.M. 8first shift: for two alternate wee"s per %onth and fro%
6 P.M. to 6 A.M. 8second shift: li"ewise for two alternate wee"s in a %onth= that althou&h
said wor"ers perfor% wor" fro% 6 P.M. to 6 A.M., the receive onl P.)) differential pa
for the correspondin& hours of ni&ht wor"= that their ni&htwor" is e,uivalent to the
ni&htwor" of the 7nd and 0rd shifts of 4roup A co%bined, so that the should receive
what the 7nd and 0rd shifts of 4roup A, co%bined, receive as differential pa, na%el,
P.*$ 8P.;) plus P.0):= that, therefore, the are entitled to pa%ent of P.0) %ore as
differential pa, since up to the ti%e of the petition, the received onl P.)) per ni&ht as
differential pa.
+aid additional P.0) was as"ed b the petitioners<wor"ers of 4roup B f or wor" done b
the% fro% 6 P.M. to 6 A.M. 1heir clai% referred to the ti%e fro% 'ul (), (*)# to the
date of the petition, alle&edl at P(#..*$ per sheller, parer, counter and hauler, or a total
su% of P.),77#.($ %ore or less.
Respondent co%pan therein filed on 'anuar 7#, (*.7 a %otion to dis%iss, statin& that
the Court of !ndustrial Relations has no >urisdiction over the case for the reason that the
clai% asserted in the petition is a si%ple %one clai% and that an interpretation of a
contract 8the collective bar&ainin& a&ree%ent is involved, which pertains to the re&ular
courts.

1he Court of !ndustrial Relations denied said %otion b resolution of ?ebruar (;, (*.7
rulin& that the clai% is for unpaid overti%e pa of laborers still employed b the
co%pan. +aid court li"ewise denied a %otion for reconsideration of the resolution. Red
V Coconut Products, Ltd. filed its answer on Ma 7, (*.7.
!n the %eanwhile, on April 7), (*.7, Tanglaw ng Paggawa filed with the Court of
!ndustrial Relations a new and independent petition alleging nfair la!or practice
against Red V "ocont Prodcts# $td. 8C!R Case No. 0()$ @LP:. !t was asserted
therein that the co%pan refused to &rant () das leave with pa to the %e%bers of the
union in violation of the (*.( collective bar&ainin& a&ree%ent.
1he Court of !ndustrial Relations, on 'anuar (*, (*.0 after trial, rendered its decision
on the petition for differential pa 8C!R Case No. (.67<V:. !t found therein that the
petitioners<wor"ers are en&a&ed on pakiao or piece<wor" basis, and, therefore, are not
entitled to overti%e pa under the Ei&ht<9our Labor Law 8+ec. 7, CA 666:= that their
petition for ni&ht shift differentials based on the collective bar&ainin& a&ree%ents is
%eritorious because the co%pan havin& paid ni&ht differentials indiscri%inatel to the
ni&ht shift wor"ers of 4roup A and 4roup B ali"e, the pa%ents should be unifor% and
e,ual for the ni&ht shifts of both &roups, that is, P.*$. !t therefore ordered pa%ent of
the deficienc in said differentials to the wor"ers of 4roup B.
Red V Coconut Products, Ltd. %oved for reconsideration of said decision on 'anuar
7*, (*.0. 1he Court of !ndustrial Relations en !anc denied said %otion b resolution of
?ebruar 7), (*.0. And, hence, Red V Coconut Products, Ltd. filed this petition for
review herein.
Petitioner herein contends that the present case involves a %ere %one clai% over
which the Court of !ndustrial Relations has no >urisdiction.
(
!t is e/io%atic that to deter%ine the issue of >urisdiction resort is to be %ade to the
alle&ations in the petition or co%plaint.
7
1he petition for shift differential in the present
case, it is true, did not e/pressl %ention the Ei&ht<9our Labor Law. Nonetheless, it
clearl asserted that 8(: petitioners<laborers Aare working in the Red V Coconut
Products, Ltd.A and 87: the Awor" in two 87: shifts 8Blue and Red shifts: consistin& of
appro/i%atel 1% hors each shift.A Accordin&l, fro% the said alle&ations, it is proper to
re&ard the petition, as the Court of !ndustrial Relations did, as one for overti%e pa b
wor"ers still e%ploed b the co%pan. As such it falls within the >urisdiction of the
Court of !ndustrial Relations. ?or the sa%e is in effect an assertion not of a si%ple
%one clai% but, as respondent court ri&htl held, of a clai% for overti%e pa b
wor"ers who are e%ploees of the co%pan.
0
Burin& the trial, as stated, evidence was adduced to the effect that the aforesaid
petitioners<wor"ers were en&a&ed on a piece<wor" basis. 1he sa%e, however, does not
appear fro% the petition or co%plaint filed with the respondent court. !t therefore cannot
affect its >urisdiction over the case, which was alread ac,uired. ?or >urisdiction, once
ac,uired, continues until final ad>udication of the liti&ation.
6
?urther%ore, althou&h the Ei&ht<9our Labor Law provides that it does not cover those
wor"ers who prefer to be paid on piece<wor" basis 8+ec. 7, CA 666:, nothin& in said law
precludes an a&ree%ent for the pa%ent of overti%e co%pensation to piece<wor"ers.
And in a&reein& to the provision for pa%ent of shift differentials to the petitioners<
wor"ers afore%entioned, in the bar&ainin& a&ree%ent, as well as in actally paying to
the% said differentials, thou&h not in full, the co%pan in effect freely adhered to an
application and i%ple%entation of the Ei&ht<9our Labor Law, or its ob>ectives, to said
wor"ers. !t should be observed that while the provision in the bar&ainin& a&ree%ents
spea"s of shift differentials for the Asecond shiftA and the Athird shiftA and 4roup B has
no third shift, said 4roup B has a second shift, which perfor%s wor" e,uivalent to that of
the correspondin& shifts of 4roup A. !t follows that respondent court did not err in
orderin& the co%pan to pa the full and e,uivalent a%ount of said differentials 8P.*$:
correspondin&, under the bar&ainin& a&ree%ents, to the wor"ers who perfor%ed (7
hours of wor", fro% 6 P.M. to 6 A.M.
And, finall, the laborers in ,uestion are not strictl under the full concept of piece<
wor"ers as conte%plated b law for the reason that their hours of wor" 5 that is, (7
hours per shift 5 are fi/ed b the e%ploer. As ruled b this Court in $ara &. 'el
Rosario, *6 Phil. ;#$, ;#(<;#7, the philosoph underlin& the e/clusion of piece
wor"ers fro% the Ei&ht<9our Labor Law is that said wor"ers are paid dependin& upon
the wor" the do Airrespecti&e of the amont of time employedA in doin& said wor". +uch
freedo% as to hours of wor" does not obtain in the case of the laborers herein involved,
since the are assi&ned b the e%ploer to wor" in two shifts for (7 hours each shift.
1hus it cannot be said that for all prposes these wor"ers fall outside the law re,uirin&
pa%ent of co%pensation for wor" done in e/cess of ei&ht hours. At least for the
purpose of recoverin& the full differential pa stipulated in the bar&ainin& a&ree%ent as
due to laborers who perfor% 1% hors of work under the ni&ht shift, said laborers should
be dee%ed pro tanto or to that e/tent within the scope of the afore<stated law.
Cherefore, the decision and resolution of the Court of !ndustrial Relations under review
are affir%ed. +o ordered.
"oncepcion# ".(.# Reyes# (.).$.# )arrera# 'i*on# Regala# +akalintal# ,aldi&ar and
-anche*# ((.# concr.
&
'