Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • GR No. L-18873, Sep 30, 1963 Manila Hotel V Court of Industrial Relations Facts

    Uploaded by

    Yong Yong
    24 views2 pages
    The Manila Hotel Employees Association filed a petition with the Court of Industrial Relations requesting additional compensation for overtime work and work on Sundays, holidays and at night for employees of the Pines Hotel. The Pines Hotel denied the claims. The court ruled the employees were entitled to additional compensation. For 22 seasonal employees who were not working when the petition was filed but were rehired during the case, the court also found they were entitled to compensation, as their status was that of regular seasonal employees who were temporarily laid off but not truly separated from their employment. The Supreme Court upheld this decision, finding the 22 employees could be considered part of the regular employment.

    Original Description:

    Digst

    Original Title

    Digst

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The Manila Hotel Employees Association filed a petition with the Court of Industrial Relations requesting additional compensation for overtime work and work on Sundays, holidays and at night for employees of the Pines Hotel. The Pines Hotel denied the claims. The court ruled the employees were entitled to additional compensation. For 22 seasonal employees who were not working when the petition was filed but were rehired during the case, the court also found they were entitled to compensation, as their status was that of regular seasonal employees who were temporarily laid off but not truly separated from their employment. The Supreme Court upheld this decision, finding the 22 employees could be considered part of the regular employment.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    24 views2 pages

    GR No. L-18873, Sep 30, 1963 Manila Hotel V Court of Industrial Relations Facts

    Uploaded by

    Yong Yong
    The Manila Hotel Employees Association filed a petition with the Court of Industrial Relations requesting additional compensation for overtime work and work on Sundays, holidays and at night for employees of the Pines Hotel. The Pines Hotel denied the claims. The court ruled the employees were entitled to additional compensation. For 22 seasonal employees who were not working when the petition was filed but were rehired during the case, the court also found they were entitled to compensation, as their status was that of regular seasonal employees who were temporarily laid off but not truly separated from their employment. The Supreme Court upheld this decision, finding the 22 employees could be considered part of the regular employment.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    GR No.

    L-18873, Sep 30, 1963

    MANILA HOTEL v COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

    FACTS:

    The Pines Hotel Employees Association filed before the Court of Industrial Relations
    a petition praying that its employees who were working at the Pines Hotel be paid
    additional compensation for overtime service rendered due to the exigencies of the
    business, as well as additional compensation for Sunday, legal holiday and night time
    work.
    The Manila Hotel filed its answer denying the material
    averments of the petition and alleging that if overtime service was rendered, the
    same was not authorized but was rendered voluntarily, for the employees were
    interested in the "tips" offered by the patrons of the hotel.
    Presiding Judge Jose S. Bautista, to whom the petition was assigned, after trial,
    rendered judgment stating that the employees were entitled to the additional
    compensation demanded, including that for overtime work, because an employee
    who renders overtime service is entitled to compensation even if he rendered it
    without prior authority.
    A motion for reconsideration was filed on the ground that the order was contrary to law
    and the evidence, but the same was denied by the industrial court.
    In compliance with the order of the court, the Examining Division of the Court of
    Industrial Relations submitted a report in which it stated that the amount due the
    employees as additional compensation for overtime and night
    services rendered from January to December 31, 1958 was P32,950.69. The
    management filed its objection to the report on the ground that it included 22 names
    of employees who were not employees of the Pines Hotel at the time
    the petition was filed so that insofar as said employees are concerned the petition
    merely involves a money claim which comes under the jurisdiction of the
    regular courts.
    The trial judge, however, overruled this objection holding that, while the 22
    employees were actually not in the service at the time of the filing of the petition, they
    were however subsequently employed even during the pendency of the incident, and
    so their claim comes within the jurisdiction of the Court of Industrial Relations. Hence
    the present petition for review.
    ISSUE:
    WON the 22 seasonal employees are entitled to the additional compensation for
    overtime service rendered as well as additional compensation for Sunday, legal
    holiday and night time work

    RULING:
    Yes, the 22 employees can be considered as in the regular employment of the
    hotel.
    There is no merit in this appeal it appearing that while it is true that the 22 employees
    whose claim is objected to were not actually in the service at the time the instant
    petition was filed, they were however subsequently reemployed even while the
    present incident was pending consideration by the trial court. Moreover, it appears
    that the questioned employees were never separated from the service. Their
    status is that of regular seasonal employees who are called to work from time to
    time, mostly during summer season. The nature of their relationship with the hotel is
    such that during off season they are temporarily laid off but during summer season
    they are re-employed, or when their services may be needed. They are not
    strictly speaking separated from the services but are: merely considered as on leave
    of absence without pay until they are re-employed. Their employment relationship is
    never severed but only suspended. As such, these employees can be considered as
    in the regular employment of the hotel.

    You might also like