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