G.R. No. L-32915 - SEPTEMBER 1977 - PHILIPPINE JURISPRUDENCE CASE NUMBERCASE TITLE G.R. No. L-32915September 30, 1977 Jose Monteverde, et al. vs. The Hon. Court of Industrial Relations, et al. A.M. No. 415-MJSeptember 9, 1977 Alipio T. Ruiz, Jr. vs. Felifranco Avenido Re: Atty. Jose Sotto BeltranSeptember 9, 1977 (For umauthorized change of Name) A.M. No. 731-MJSeptember 9, 1977 Santiago Rodrigo vs. Sabas Quijano A.M. No. 855-MJSeptember 9, 1977 Ricardo Arrojado vs. Sabas Quijano G.R. No. L-23846September 9, 1977 Go Tek vs. Deportation Board G.R. No. L-27702September 9, 1977 Andrea Budlong vs. Juan Pondoc, et al. G.R. No. L-30414September 9, 1977 People of the Philippines vs. Placido Naba-Unag G.R. No. L-45421September 9, 1977 MDII Supervisors & Confidential Employees Association vs. Presidential Assistant on Legal Affairs G.R. No. L-46240September 9, 1977 Felipe Montemar vs. Ambrosio Geraldez A.M. No. P865September 10, 1977 Marciano Estioko, Sr. vs. Jose B. Cantos A.M. No. 528-MJ.September 12. 1977 Crispina Maturan Candia vs. Judge Alonzo J. Tagabucba G.R. No. L-27078September 12, 1977 Concepcion C. Castillo, et al. vs. Jaime Nerez A.M. No. 486-MJSeptember 13, 1977 Jose Maria Antonio Fernandez vs. Julio Presbitero G.R. No. L-45901September 13, 1977 Blue Green Waters, Inc. vs. Carlos L. Sundiam G.R. No. L-24351September 22,1977 Mercy Almonidovar De Vera vs. Hon. Guillermo S. Santos G.R. No. L-30250September 22, 1977 People of the Philippines vs. Pablo Pilpa G.R. No. L-41106September 22, 1977 Litex Employees Association vs. George A. Eduvala G.R. No. L-43212September 22, 1977 Antonio Pepito vs. Workmen's Compensation Commission G.R. No. L-43687September 22, 1977 Ereneo De La Cruz vs. Workmen's Compensation Commission G.R. No. L-44271September 22, 1977 Florencio Cuyno, Jr. vs. Workmen's Compensation Commission A.M. No. 1777September 27, 1977 Carlos V. Eusebio vs. Niceforo S. Agaton G.R. No. L-30096September 27, 1977 Conrado Singson vs. David Babida G.R. No. L-34463September 27, 1977 Rosalina Tongson vs. Director of Forestry G.R. No. L-40437September 27, 1977 Lourdes Guardacasa Vda. De Legaspi vs. Herminio A. Avendaño G.R. No. L-45875September 27, 1977 Central Textile Mills Employees vs. Ronaldo B. Zamora A.M. No. P-238September 30, 1977 Filemon Quinio vs. Anita Borbolla G.R. No. L-26986September 30, 1977 Carmen Ramos vs. Pangasinan Trans. Co., Inc. G.R. No. L-27473September 30, 1977 Republic of the Philippines vs. Felix A. Caballero G.R. No. L-27696September 30, 1977 Miguel Florentino vs. Salvador Encarnacion, Sr. G.R. No. L-28499September 30, 1977 Victorias Milling Company, Inc. vs. Ong Su G.R. No. L-30593September 30, 1977 Jose T. Pastor vs. Francisco B. Echavez G.R. No. L-32328September 30, 1977 Adriano Maloto Casiano, et al. vs. Felino Maloto G.R. No. L-32715September 30, 1977 National Waterworks and Sewerage Authority vs. NWSA Consolidated Unions G.R. No. L-35146September 30, 1977 Maria Alicia Leuterio vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. L-37650September 30, 1977 Visayan Stevedore Trans'n Co. vs. Court of Industrial Relations G.R. No. L-37907September 30, 1977 National Housing Corporation vs. Workmen's Compensation Commission G.R. No. L-42768September 30, 1977 G.A. Machineries, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. L-43258September 30, 1977 Maria V. Villegas vs. Workmen's Compensation Commission G.R. No. L-44428September 30, 1977 Avelino Baluran vs. Ricardo Y. Navarro The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc. Jose Monteverde, et al. vs. The Hon. Court of Industrial Relations, et al. Alipio T. Ruiz, Jr. vs. Felifranco Avenido (For umauthorized change of Name) Santiago Rodrigo vs. Sabas Quijano Ricardo Arrojado vs. Sabas Quijano Go Tek vs. Deportation Board Andrea Budlong vs. Juan Pondoc, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Placido Naba-Unag MDII Supervisors & Confidential Employees Association vs. Presidential Assistant on Legal Affairs Felipe Montemar vs. Ambrosio Geraldez Marciano Estioko, Sr. vs. Jose B. Cantos Crispina Maturan Candia vs. Judge Alonzo J. Tagabucba Concepcion C. Castillo, et al. vs. Jaime Nerez Jose Maria Antonio Fernandez vs. Julio Presbitero Blue Green Waters, Inc. vs. Carlos L. Sundiam Mercy Almonidovar De Vera vs. Hon. Guillermo S. Santos People of the Philippines vs. Pablo Pilpa Litex Employees Association vs. George A. Eduvala Antonio Pepito vs. Workmen's Compensation Commission Ereneo De La Cruz vs. Workmen's Compensation Commission Florencio Cuyno, Jr. vs. Workmen's Compensation Commission Carlos V. Eusebio vs. Niceforo S. Agaton Conrado Singson vs. David Babida Rosalina Tongson vs. Director of Forestry Lourdes Guardacasa Vda. De Legaspi vs. Herminio A. Avendaño Central Textile Mills Employees vs. Ronaldo B. Zamora Filemon Quinio vs. Anita Borbolla Carmen Ramos vs. Pangasinan Trans. Co., Inc. Republic of the Philippines vs. Felix A. Caballero Miguel Florentino vs. Salvador Encarnacion, Sr. Victorias Milling Company, Inc. vs. Ong Su Jose T. Pastor vs. Francisco B. Echavez Adriano Maloto Casiano, et al. vs. Felino Maloto National Waterworks and Sewerage Authority vs. NWSA Consolidated Unions Maria Alicia Leuterio vs. Court of Appeals Visayan Stevedore Trans'n Co. vs. Court of Industrial Relations National Housing Corporation vs. Workmen's Compensation Commission G.A. Machineries, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals Maria V. Villegas vs. Workmen's Compensation Commission Avelino Baluran vs. Ricardo Y. Navarro The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc.

Manila

FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. L-32915 September 30, 1971

JOSE MONTEVERDE, CRISANTO PRINCIPE, WILFREDO PRINCIPE, PETER BROWN, RAFAEL MARQUEZ and MARIO SARIAO,petitioners,
vs.
THE HONORABLE COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS. FILIPINAS BISCUIT COMPANY and JAMES HUANG, and JUAN G. SISON, JR.,

Antonio B. Abad for petitioners.

Juan G. Sison, Jr. in his own behalf.

FERNANDEZ,J.:

The petitioners pray that the decision of the Court of Industrial Relations in Case No. 3969-ULP dated March 21, 1968 ordering the reinstatement of the petitioners and ordering the Filipinas Biscuit Company (FIBISCO) to pay back wages be reinstated.

Claiming to have been dismissed from work by the Filipinos Biscuit Company (FIBISCO) for organizing a labor union, the petitioners filed a charge of unfair labor practice against the said company and its general manager, James Huang in the Court of Industrial Relations which was docketed as Case No. 3969-ULP in January 1964.1

In their answer dated February 7, 1964, the respondents averred that there has never been an employer-employee relationship between complainants and respondent's.2

After trial on the merits, the Court of Industrial Relations rendered judgment on March 21, 1968 the dispositive part of which reads:

WHEREFORE, respondent Filipinas Biscuit Company, and James Huang, in the latter's capacity as general manager thereof, are declared guilty of unfair labor practice, and are hereby to cease and desist from further committing the acts complained of. Respondent company is further directed to reinstate complainants to their positions before their dismissal with back wages up to actual reinstatement, with all the rights and privileges entertaining thereto.

Consequently, the Chief of the Examining Division of this Court is hereby directed to proceed to the office of respondent company at Far East Bldg., Buendia Avenue, Makati, Rizal, and examine the records of said company pertaining to the computation of the back wages of complainants, and submit his report for further disposition of this Court. In the absence of the records thereof, the back wages of complainants may be computed based on the evidence presented.

SO ORDERED.

Manila, Philippines, March 21, 1968.

(Sgd.) ARSENIO I. MARTINEZ Presiding Judge3

The FIBISCO filed a motion for reconsideration of the judgment of March 21, 1968 with the CIR. Pending resolution of said motion, Atty. Juan G. Sison, Jr., counsel of petitioners, filed two motions dated July 24, 1968 seeking the dismissal of the case of unfair labor practice "intotoand with prejudice" on the ground that "After considering the circumstances surrounding this case and considering that all of the complainants are engaged in substantial employment, complainants or any of them are not interested in being reinstated to respondent Company or working for the respondents in this case.4

In a resolutionen bancdated August 14, 1968, the CIR dismissed the case and declared it closed and terminated on the basis of the motion of Atty. Juan G. Sison, Jr., counsel for the petitioners.5

Petitioners allege that the CIR dismissed the case for unfair labor practice "without notifying and/or summoning petitioners to affirm the truth of Sison's allegations and/or authority to compromise the case."6

The petitioners engaged the services of another lawyer when they could not find Atty. Juan G. Sison, Jr. to effect the execution of the decision of the CIR of March 21, 1968. Through the new counsel, the petitioners filed a petition dated June 23, 1969 to execute the decision.7it is alleged that without summoning and/or investigating the petitioners, the CIR denied the motion for execution in an order dated July 17, 1970.8The petitioners filed on July 23, 1970 a motion for reconsideration of the order dated July 17, 1970. The Court of Industrial Relations denied the petitioners' motion for reconsideration in a resolutionen bancdated September 11, 1970.9Judge Amando C. Bugayong disc noted and voted to lift the resolutionen bancdismissing and terminating the case and to restore the decision of the CIR of March 21, 1968.10

The main issue is whether or not the Court of Industrial Relations correctly dismissed the case for unfair labor practice after it had rendered a decision dated March 21, 1968 on the motion of Atty. Juan G. Sison, Jr., counsel of the petitioners, without inquiring into the authority of the lawyer to ask for the dismissal of the case,

It was stated in the dissenting opinion of Judge Amando C. Bugayong that nowhere in the minutes of the hearing of July 23, 1969 does it appear that the complainants have admitted in open court that they had authorized their counsel, Atty. Juan G. Sison, Jr., to enter into a settlement with the FIBISCO. All that is recorded in the minutes is the request for the sending of a notice of hearing to Atty. Juan G. Sison, Jr. both at his known address at Rm. 313 de Leon Bldg., Rizal Avenue, Manila and at 745 Dos Castillas, Sampaloc, Manila.11

It is elementary that lawyers "cannot, without special authority, compromise their chent's litigation, or receive anything in discharge of a client's claim but the full amount in cash."12

It is clear that the Court of Industrial Relations erred in dismissing the case on the motion of Atty. Juan G. Sison, Jr. alone without inquiring into his authority. The Court of Industrial Relations did not even bother to find out what kind of settlement was entered into between Atty. Juan G. Sison, Jr. and the FIBISCO.

The petitioners deny having authorized Atty. Juan G. Sison, Jr. to settle their litigation with FIBISCO. Hence, even if there was an agreement between Atty. Juan G. Sison, Jr. and FIBISCO, such settlement would be void.ℒαwρhi৷

To avoid protracted delay in the execution of the award for backwages, the Court applies the precedent set inMercury Drug Co. vs. CIR,13followed in subsequent cases, of fixing the amount of backwages to a just and reasonable level without qualification or deduction so as to avoid protracted delay in the execution of the award for backwages due to extended hearings and unavoidable delays and difficulties encountered in determining the earnings of the laid off and the employers from submitting counterproofs.14Under I as the circumstances of this case, the Court fixes just and reasonable the backwages of the complainants at three (3) years without qualification and deduction.

WHEREFORE, the resolution of the Court of Industrial Relations dated August 14, 1968 dismissing Case No. 3969-ULP and declaring it terminated is hereby set aside and the decision of said court dated March 21, 1968 is reinstated and the same is ordered to be executed, with costs against the private respondents. The respondent Filipinas Biscuit Company (FIBISCO) is ordered to pay the petitioners backwages for three (3) years without qualification and deduction. This decision is immediately executory.

SO ORDERED.

Teehankee (Chairman), Makasiar, Muñoz Palma, Martin and Guerrero, JJ., concur.

Footnotes