G.R. No. L-22971 - JANUARY 1967 - PHILIPPINE JURISPRUDENCE CASE NUMBERCASE TITLE G.R. No. L-22971January 31, 1967 Compañia Maritima, et al. vs. Allied Free Workers' Union, et al. G.R. No. L-22951-52January 31, 1967 Allied Free Workers' Union vs. Compañia Maritima, et al. G.R. No. L-22628January 31, 1967 National Shipyards and Steel Corporation vs. Workmen's Compensation Commission, et al. G.R. No. L-21171January 31, 1967 Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Victorias Milling Co., Inc., et al. G.R. No. L-20266January 31, 1967 Commissioner of Customs vs. Gaudencio Cloribel, et al. G.R. No. L-19796January 31, 1967 Filemon Lavira vs. Fortunato de Leon, et al. G.R. No. L-19547January 31, 1967 Serapio Dauan vs. Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources, et al. G.R. No. L-19487January 31, 1967 Rosario Darang vs. Pedro Ty Belizar, et al. G.R. No. L-19086January 31, 1967 Antonio G. Guerrero, et al. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue G.R. No. L-19074January 31, 1967 Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Antonio G. Guerrero, et al. G.R. No. L-17915January 31, 1967 Teodoro M. Castro vs. Amado del Rosario, et al. G.R. No. L-24252January 30, 1967 In re: Zita Ngo Burca Zita Ngo Burca vs. Republic of the Philippines G.R. No. L-21720January 30, 1967 IFC Service Leasing and Acceptance Corp. vs. Venancio Nera G.R. No. L-19785January 30, 1967 Meralco Workers Union vs. Nicasio Yatco, et al. G.R. No. L-19703January 30, 1967 Consuelo V. Calo, et al. vs. Bislig Industries, Inc., et al. G.R. No. L-19455-56January 30, 1967 Rufino Martinez, et al. vs. Maquinistas, et al. G.R. No. L-19277January 30, 1967 Mindanao Motors Corporation vs. Bessire Housing Corporation, et al. G.R. No. L-18584January 30, 1967 Lo Chi, et al. vs. Honorato J. de Leon, et al. G.R. No. L-18584January 30, 1967 Red Line Transportation Co., Inc., et al. vs. Matias Santo Tomas G.R. No. L-23036January 27, 1967 Beatriz Salon, et al. vs. Fortunata Figuracion, et al. G.R. No. L-22979January 27, 1967 Rheem of the Philippines, Inc., et al. vs. Zoilo R. Ferrer, et al. G.R. No. L-22491January 27, 1967 Domingo Ang vs. American Steamship Agencies, Inc. G.R. No. L-20570January 27, 1967 Estefania Vda. de Miranda, et al. vs. Macapaton Abbas, et al. G.R. No. L-25907January 25, 1967 Isabello Lloren vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. L-24418January 25, 1967 Alejandro Ferrer, et al. vs. Rufino Hechanova, et al. G.R. No. L-19272January 25, 1967 Jaime Hernandez vs. Delfin Albano, et al. G.R. No. L-17818January 25, 1967 Tirso T. Reyes vs. Lucia Milagros Barretto-Datu G.R. No. L-21918January 24, 1967 Martin B. Austria vs. Auditor General G.R. No. L-18686January 24, 1967 Cesario M. Clemente vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. L-20976January 23, 1967 Hanover Insurance Company vs. Manila Port Service, et al. G.R. No. L-20583January 23, 1967 Republic vs. Security Credit and Acceptance Corporation, et al. G.R. No. L-19735January 23, 1967 Trinidad Yaptangco Vda. de Tizon vs. Domingo Cabañgon, et al. G.R. No. L-18164January 23, 1967 William F. Gemperle vs. Helen Schenker, et al. G.R. No. L-27028January 18, 1967 Antonio J. Villegas vs. Claudio Teehankee G.R. No. L-18276January 12, 1967 C. N. Hodges vs. Municipal Board of the City of Iloilo, et al. G.R. No. L-25181January 11, 1967 Auyong Hian vs. Court of Tax Appeals, et al. G.R. No. L-23033January 5, 1967 Lua Kian vs. Manila Railroad Company, et al. G.R. No. L-19988January 5, 1967 Government Service Insurance System vs. Pedro Olase, et al. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc. Compañia Maritima, et al. vs. Allied Free Workers' Union, et al. Allied Free Workers' Union vs. Compañia Maritima, et al. National Shipyards and Steel Corporation vs. Workmen's Compensation Commission, et al. Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Victorias Milling Co., Inc., et al. Commissioner of Customs vs. Gaudencio Cloribel, et al. Filemon Lavira vs. Fortunato de Leon, et al. Serapio Dauan vs. Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources, et al. Rosario Darang vs. Pedro Ty Belizar, et al. Antonio G. Guerrero, et al. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Antonio G. Guerrero, et al. Teodoro M. Castro vs. Amado del Rosario, et al. In re: Zita Ngo Burca Zita Ngo Burca vs. Republic of the Philippines IFC Service Leasing and Acceptance Corp. vs. Venancio Nera Meralco Workers Union vs. Nicasio Yatco, et al. Consuelo V. Calo, et al. vs. Bislig Industries, Inc., et al. Rufino Martinez, et al. vs. Maquinistas, et al. Mindanao Motors Corporation vs. Bessire Housing Corporation, et al. Lo Chi, et al. vs. Honorato J. de Leon, et al. Red Line Transportation Co., Inc., et al. vs. Matias Santo Tomas Beatriz Salon, et al. vs. Fortunata Figuracion, et al. Rheem of the Philippines, Inc., et al. vs. Zoilo R. Ferrer, et al. Domingo Ang vs. American Steamship Agencies, Inc. Estefania Vda. de Miranda, et al. vs. Macapaton Abbas, et al. Isabello Lloren vs. Court of Appeals, et al. Alejandro Ferrer, et al. vs. Rufino Hechanova, et al. Jaime Hernandez vs. Delfin Albano, et al. Tirso T. Reyes vs. Lucia Milagros Barretto-Datu Martin B. Austria vs. Auditor General Cesario M. Clemente vs. Court of Appeals, et al. Hanover Insurance Company vs. Manila Port Service, et al. Republic vs. Security Credit and Acceptance Corporation, et al. Trinidad Yaptangco Vda. de Tizon vs. Domingo Cabañgon, et al. William F. Gemperle vs. Helen Schenker, et al. Antonio J. Villegas vs. Claudio Teehankee C. N. Hodges vs. Municipal Board of the City of Iloilo, et al. Auyong Hian vs. Court of Tax Appeals, et al. Lua Kian vs. Manila Railroad Company, et al. Government Service Insurance System vs. Pedro Olase, et al. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc.

— ARRASTRE AND STEVEDORINGCONTRACT—

KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS:

ThisCONTRACTmade and executed this 11th day of August, 1952, in the City of Iligan, Philippines, by and between the COMPAÑIAMARITIMAIligan Branch, represented by its Branch Manager in Iligan City, and the ALLIED FREE WORKERS' UNION, a duly authorized labor union, represented by its President:

WITNESSETH.

1. That the CompañiaMARITIMAhereby engage the services of the Allied Free Workers' Union to do and perform all the work of stevedoring and arrastre services of all its vessels or boats calling in the port of Iligan City, beginning August 12, 1952.

2. That the CompañiaMARITIMAshall not be liable for the payment of the services rendered by the Allied Free Workers' Union, for the loading, unloading and deliveries of cargoes as same is payable by the owners and consignees of cargoes, as it has been the practice in the port of Iligan City.

3. That the Allied Free Workers' Union shall be responsible for the damages that may be caused to the cargoes in the course of their handling.

4. That thisCONTRACTis good and valid for a period of one (1) month from August 12, 1952, but same may be renewed by agreement of the parties; however CompañiaMARITIMAreserves the right to revoke thisCONTRACTeven before the expiration of the term, if and when the Allied Free Workers' Unionfails to render good service.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we hereunto sign this presents in the City of Iligan, Philippines, this 11th day of August, 1952.

(SGD) SALVADOR T. LLUCH President Allied Free Workers' Union Iligan City

(SGD) JOSE C. TEVES Branch Manager Compañia Maritima Iligan City

SIGNED IN THE PRESENCE OF:

1. (SGD) JOSE CUETO

2. (SGD) SERGIO OBACH.

IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING CIRCUMSTANCES, the complaint of the union for unfair labor practices against the CompañiaMARITIMAand/or its agent Jose C. Teves and the Iligan Stevedoring Union and/or Sergio Obach is hereby dismissed for lack of substantial evidence and merit.

In pursuance of the provisions of Section 12 of Republic Act 875 and the Rules of this court on certification election, the Honorable, the Secretary of Labor or any of his authorized representative is hereby requested to conduct certification election among all the workers and/or stevedores working in the wharf of Iligan City who are performing stevedoring and arrastre service aboard CompañiaMARITIMAvessels docking at Iligan City port in order to determine their representative for collective bargaining with the employer, whether their desire to be represented by the petitioner Allied Free Workers Union or neither [sic]; and upon termination of the said election, the result thereof shall forthwith be submitted to this court for further consideration. The union present payroll may be utilized in determining the qualified voters, with the exclusion of all supervisors.

SO ORDERED.

7.... The petitioner union operated as a labor contractor under the so-called "cabo" system; and as such it has a complete set of officers and office personnel (Exhs. "F" and "F-1") and its organizational structure includes the following: General President, with the following under him — one vice-president, legal counsel, general treasurer, general manager and the board of directors. Under the general manager is the secretary, the auditor, and the office staff composing of the general foreman, general checker, general timekeeper, and the respective subordinates like assistant foreman, capataz, assistant general checker, field checker, office timekeeper, and field timekeeperall appointed by the general manager of the union and are paid in accordance with the union payroll exclusively prepared by the union in the office. (See t.s.n. pp. 32-36, June 9, 1960; pp. 78-80, February 16, 1961; pp. 26-28, August 9, 1960).The payrolls where laborers are listed and paid were prepared by the union itself without the intervention or control of the respondent company and/or its agent at Iligan City. The respondent never had any knowledge of the individual names of laborers and/or workers listed in the union payroll or in their roster of membership.

8.The union engaged the services of their members in undertaking the work of arrastre and stevedoringeither to haul shippers' goods from their warehouses in Iligan City to theMARITIMAboat or from the boat to the different consignees.The charges for such service were known by the union and collected by them through their bill collector. This is shown by the preparation of the union forms known as "conduci" or delivery receipts. These "conduci" or receipts contain informations as to the number and/or volume of cargoes handled by the union, the invoice number, the name of the vessel and the number of bills of lading covering the cargoes to be delivered. Those delivery receipts are different and separate from the bills of lading and delivery receipts issued by the company to the consignees or shippers. Cargoes carried from the warehouses to the boat or from the boat to the consignees were always accompanied by the union checker who hand-carry the "conduci".Once goods are delivered to their destination the union through its bill collectors prepare the bills of collection and the charges thereon are collected by the union bill collectors who are employees of the union and not of the respondent. The respondent had no intervention whatsoever in the collection of those charges as the same are clearly indicated and described in the laborCONTRACT, Exhibit "A". There were, however, instances when the respondents were requested to help the union in the collection of charges for services rendered by members of the union when fertilizers and gasoline drums were loaded aboard the CompañiaMARITIMAboats. This was necessary in order to facilitate the collection of freight and handling charges from the government for auditing purposes. When cargoes are to be loaded, the shipper usually notifies the petitioner union when to load their cargoes aboard CompañiaMARITIMAboats calling in the port of Iligan City; and when a boat docks in said port, the union undertakes to haul the said shipper's goods to the boat.In doing this work, the union employs their own trucks or other vehicles or conveyance from shipper's warehouse to the boat or vice-versa. The respondent has no truck of any kind for the service of hauling cargoes because such service is included in the CONTRACT executed between the parties.(See Exh. "A").

9.The union members who were hired by the union to perform arrastre and stevedoring work on respondents' vessels at Iligan port were being supervised and controlled by the general foreman of the petitioner union or by any union assistant or capataz responsible for the execution of the labor CONTRACTwhen performing arrastre and/or stevedoring work aboard vessels of the CompañiaMARITIMAdocking at Iligan City. The foreman assigned their laborers to perform the required work aboard vessels of the respondent. For instance, when a boat arrives, the general foreman requests the cargo report from the chief mate of the vessel in order to determine where the cargoes are located in the hold of the boat and to know the destination of these cargoes.All the laborers and/or workers hired for said work are union members and are only responsible to their immediate chief who are officers and/or employees of the union. The respondent firm have their own separate representatives like checkers who extend aid to the union officers and members in checking the different cargoes unloaded or loaded aboard vessels of the CompañiaMARITIMA.There were no instances where offices and employees of the respondent Compañia MARITIMA and/or its agent had interferred in the giving of instructions to the laborers performing the arrastre and/or stevedoring work either aboard vessels or at the wharf of Iligan City. As contractor, the union does not receive instructions as to what to do, how to do, and works without specific instructions. They have no fixed hours of work required by the MARITIMA.

10. While cargoes were in transit either from the warehouse to the boat or from the boat to the different consignees, any losses or damages caused with the said cargoes were charged to the account of the union; and the union likewise imposed the penalty or fine to any employee who caused or committed the damages to cargoes in transit.Other disciplinary measures imposed on laborers performing the said work were exercised by the general foreman of the union who has blanket authority from the union general manager to exercise disciplinary control over their members who were assigned to perform the work in a group of laborers assigned by the union to perform loading or unloading cargoes when a Compañia MARITIMA boat docked at Iligan City. The respondents have not at any time interferred in the imposition of disciplinary action upon the laborers who are members of the union. In one instance, under this situation, the president of the union himself dismissed one inefficient laborer found to have been performing inefficient service at the time(t.s.n. pp. 17-18, February 15, 1961).

x x x           x x x           x x x

13. Erring laborers and/or workers who are affiliates of the union were directly responsible to the union and never to the respondent.Respondent cannot, therefore, discipline and/or dismiss these erring workers of the union. (Emphasis supplied)

From the foregoing circumstances and findings, the Court is of the opinion that no substantial evidence has been presented to sustain the charge of unfair labor practice acts as alleged to have been committed by herein respondent.The Court finds no interference in the union activities, if any, of the members of the Allied Free Workers Union as these persons engaged in the stevedoring and arrastre service were employed by the Allied Free Workers Union as independent contractor subject to the terms and conditions of their then existing labor CONTRACT Exhibit "A". To construe theCONTRACTotherwise would tend to disregard the rights and privileges of the parties intended by them in theirCONTRACT. (Exhibit "A"). This Court believes that it may not interfere in the implementation of the said laborCONTRACTin the absence of abuse by one party to the prejudice of the other. ...

Further, the Court finds that the petitioner, aside from its labor CONTRACT (See Exhibit "A") with the respondent Compañia MARITIMA also has other labor contracts with other shipping firms on the stevedoring and arrastre work; and that this CONTRACT obligated the petitioner as an independent labor contractor to undertake the arrastre and stevedoring service on Compañia MARITIMA boats docking at Iligan City Port. The petitioner is an independentcontractoras defined in theCONTRACTExhibit "A" and in the evidence submitted by the parties. "An independentcontractoris one who, in rendering services, exercises an independent employment or occupation and represents the will of his employer only as to the results of his work and not as to the means whereby it is accomplished; one who exercising an independent employment, contracts to do a piece of work according to his own methods, without being subject to the control of his employer except as to the result of his work; and who engaged to perform a certain service for another, according to his own manner and methods, free from the control and direction of his employer in all matters connected with the performance of the service except as to the result of the work." (see 56 C.J.S. pp. 41-43; Cruz, et al. vs. Manila Hotel et al., G.R. No. L-9110, April 30, 1957).These factors were present in the relation of the parties as described in their CONTRACT Exhibit "A".

x x x           x x x           x x x

InViaña vs. Al Lagadan et al.,G.R. No. L-8967, May 31, 1956, the Supreme Court states the rule as follows.

The clear implication of the decision of the Supreme Court is that if the defendant has no power of control — which, according to the Supreme Court, is the "most important element" — there is no employer-employee relationship. (Emphasis supplied)

18.There is no showing that this new union, the Iligan Stevedoring Union, was organized with the help of the branch manager Jose C. Teves. The organizer of the union like Messrs. Sergio Obach, Labayos and Atty. Obach and their colleagues have never sought the intervention, help or aid of the respondent CompañiaMARITIMAor its branch manager Teves in the formation and/or organization of the said Iligan Stevedoring Union. It appears that these people have had previous knowledge and experience in handling stevedoring and in the arrastre service prior to the employment of the Allied Free Workers Union in the Iligan port.The charge of union interference and domination finds no support from the evidence. (Emphasis supplied)

21.The evidence does not show substantially any act of interference in the union membership or activities of the petitioner union. The rescission of their CONTRACT is not a union interference contemplated in the law.

x x x           x x x           x x x

x x xFurther, the Court is satisfied that there is no act or acts of discrimination as claimed by herein petitioner to have been committed by the respondent firm or its branch manager Teves. Evidence is clear that Teves, in representation of the principal, the respondent CompañiaMARITIMA, has also acted, in good faith in implementing the provisions of their existentCONTRACT(Exhibit "A"), and when he advised the union of the rescission of the saidCONTRACTeffective August 31, 1954, he did so in the concept that the employer firm may so terminate their contract pursuant to paragraph 4 of Exhibit "A" which at the time was the law controlling between them. ... (Emphasis supplied)

11. During the first month of the existence of the laborCONTRACTExhibit 'A', the petitioner union rendered satisfactory service. Under this situation, the CompañiaMARITIMA's representative at Iligan City was authorized to renew verbally with the extension of theCONTRACTExhibit "A" from month to month basis after the first month of its expiration.This situation of harmony lasted up to the latter part of 1953 when the Compañia MARITIMA and its branch manager agent complained to the union of the unsatisfactory service of the union laborers hired to load and unload cargoes aboard Compañia MARITIMA boats. This deteriorating situation was admitted as a fact by the union president(See Exhs. "3", "3-A" and "3-B"; See also t.s.n. pp. 65-66, August 9, 1960).

12.There was a showing that the laborers employed by the union were inefficient in performing their jobs, and the business of the respondent company in Iligan City suffered adversely during the year 1954; and this was due to the fact that respondents' vessels were forced to leave cargoes behind in order not to disrupt the schedule of departures. The Union laborers were slow in loading and/or unloading freight from which the respondent Compañia MARITIMA secured its income and/or profits.At times, cargoes were left behind because of the union's failure to load them before vessel's departure. In order to solve this inefficiency of the complaining union, the branch manager of the CompañiaMARITIMAwas forced to hire extra laborers from among 'stand-by' workers not affiliated to any union for the purpose of helping in the stevedoring and arrastre work on their vessels because, at that time, the union was not performing and/or rendering efficient service in the loading and unloading of cargoes. ...

x x x           x x x           x x x

14.Because of the deterioration of the Service rendered to the respondent, the branch manager of the respondent Compañia MARITIMA informed the union of its intention to rescind the CONTRACT Exhibit "A" because the company had been suffering losses for such inefficient service.(See Exhibit "N").

Respondent Teves reported to theMARITIMA's head office on the financial losses of the company in its operations. (See Exhibits 'Y', 'Y-1' to 'X-5').

15. On August 24, 1954, branch manager Jose C. Teves of the Iligan CityMARITIMABranch, wrote the petitioner union informing them of the termination of theirCONTRACT, Exhibit "A". (See Exhibit "N").This step was taken after the company found the union lagging behind their work under the CONTRACT , so much so that MARITIMA boats have to leave on schedule without loading cargoes already contacted to be transported. (Emphasis supplied)

20.After the rescission of the CONTRACT Exhibit "A" on August 31, 1954, the Allied Free Workers Union and its members were working or performing the work of arrastre and stevedoring service aboard 'vessels of the Compañia MARITIMA docking at Iligan City port under the 'cabo system' then prevailing in that teritory; and the customs and conditions then prevailing were observed by the parties without resorting to the conditions of the former labor contractExhibit "A". (Emphasis supplied)

4. That prior to the execution of Exhibit "A", the arrastre and stevedoring work was performed by the Iligan Wharf Laborers Union headed by one Raymundo Labayos under a verbal agreement similar to the nature and contents of Exhibit "A"; and this work continued from 1949 to 1952.

5.Under the oral CONTRACT , the Iligan Laborers Union acting as an independent labor contractor engaged [in] the services of its members as laborers to perform the contract work of arrastre and stevedoring service aboard vessels of the Compañia MARITIMA calling and docking at Iligan City; and for the services therein rendered the union charged shippers and/or consignees in accordance with the consignment or place, and the proceeds thereof shall be shared by the union members in accordance with the union's internal rules and regulations. This system of work is locally known as the 'cabo system'. The laborers who are members of the union and hired for the arrastre and stevedoring work were paid on union payrolls and the Compañia MARITIMA has had nothing to do with the preparation of the same.

6. Because of unsatisfactory service rendered by the Iligan Wharf Labor Union headed by Labayos, the CompañiaMARITIMAthrough its agent in Iligan City cancelled their oral contractor and entered into a new contractor, Exhibit "A" with the Allied Free Workers Union (PLUM) now petitioner in this case. The terms and conditions of the same continued and was similar to the oral contractor entered into with the union headed by Labayos. ...

7. The cancellation of the oral contract with the Iligan Wharf Labor Union headed by Labayos was due to the inefficient service rendered by the said union. The labor contract entered into by the petitioner herein (Exh. "A") was negotiated through the intervention of Messrs. Salvador Lluch, Mariano Ll Badelles, Laurentino Ll. Badelles, Nicanor T. Halivas and Raymundo Labayos.The contract was prepared by their legal panel and after several negotiations, respondent Teves reluctantly signed the said written contract with the union with the assurance however that the same arrange previously had with the former union regarding the performance and execution of the arrastre and stevedoring contract be followed in accordance with the custom of such kind of work at Iligan City.The petitioner union, operated as a labor contractor under the so-called "cabor" system; ... (Emphasis supplied)

x x x The general right to make a contract in relation to one's business is an essential part of the liberty of the citizens protected by the due process clause of the constitution. The right of a laborer to sell his labor to such person as he may choose is, in its essence, the same as the right of an employer to purchase labor from any person whom it chooses. The employer and the employee have thus an equality of right guaranteed by the constitution. 'If the employer can compel the employee to work against the latter's will, this is servitude. If the employee can compel the employer to give him work against the employer's will, this is oppression (Emphasis supplied) .

¹Dated February 4, 1964.

²Short for CompañiaMARITIMAand Manager Jose C. Teves.

³Short for Allied Free Workers' Union (PLUM).

⁴Short for the arrastre and stevedoring contract.

⁵See Annex "B" of Petition in L-22951-52.

⁶CIR Case No. 175-MC.

⁷CIR Case No. 426-ULP.

⁸Subsequently, this union was dissolved and its registration cancelled because of its failure to carry out its agreement withMARITIMA.

⁹Civil Case No. 577 in the Court of First Instance of Lanao del Norte.

¹⁰Allied Free Workers' Union (PLUM) vs. Judge Apostol, G.R. No L- 8876, Oct. 31, 1957.

¹¹We finally declared the preliminary injunction issued by the Court of First Instance as invalid. (Decision of Supreme Court in L-8876, Oct. 31, 1957).

¹²CFI of Lanao del Norte has since been ordered by this Court in L-19651 to proceed considering these steps taken to appeal its decision. See infra, Note 15.

¹³Allied Free Workers' Union (PLUM) vs. Hon. Estipona, G.R. No. L-17934. Our decision was promulgated on Dec. 28, 1961, where We set aside the said order of January 6, 1961.

¹⁴Allied Free Workers' Union (PLUM) vs. Hon. Estipona, G.R. No. L-19651, June 30, 1966.

¹⁵In L-19651, We held the orders of March 24 and 31, 1962 as invalid because the decisions of January 11, 1961 and December 5, 1960 were the same, and We also ordered the Court of First Instance to proceed to the hearing for the approval of theAFWUappeal.

^*Samerolloas L-22952.

¹⁶Sec. 13, Rep. Act No. 875.

¹⁷Cruz vs. Manila Hotel, G.R. No. L-9110, April 30, 1957.

¹⁸Cruz vs. Manila Hotel, supra, see also Chuan & Sons vs. CIR, 85 Phil. 365.

¹⁹Viaña vs. Al Lagadan G.R. No. L-8967, May 31, 1956; 99 Phil. 408.

²⁰See. 2(c), Rep. Act No. 875.

²¹Petition in L-22951-52, p. 14.

²²Art. 1306, Civil Code of the Philippines.

²³Taylor vs. Uy Tieng, 43 Phil. 873.

²⁴G.R. Nos. L-18704-05, January 31, 1963..

^**Same rollo as L-22951.

²⁵Fernandez & Quiason, Law of Labor Relations, 1963 ed., pp. 43-48.

²⁶68 Phil. 541, 543.

²⁷Secs 12(2) and 13, Rep. Act No. 875.

²⁸Sec 12(b), Rep. Act No. 875.

²⁹G.R. No L-11606, February 28, 1959.