G.R. No.

46727 September 27, 1939

PAMBUSCO EMPLOYEES' UNION, INC., petitioner,
vs.
THE COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, composed to Honorables Francisco Zulueta,
Leopoldo
Rovira, and Jose Generoso, and PAMPANGA BUS COMPANY, INC., respondents.
Facts: Pambusco Employees Union on addressing a thirteen-point petition to the
management of Pampanga Bus Co. declared a strike on April 14, 1938. But due to
the timely intervention of Department of Labor, a provisional agreement was
reached of which eight demands were granted while the other five were submitted
to the Court of Industrial Relations (CIR) for settlement. One of these demands was
that the respondent Pampanga Bus Co. pay all the Company affiliated with the
Pambusco Employees Union all the back overtime pay due to them under the law.
Court of Industrial Relations decided inter alia that the claim for back overtime pay
could not be allowed.
In the decision of respondent CIR, it was discovered that prior to the approval of Act
No. 4242 amending the Eight Hour Labor Law, a petition was submitted by drivers
of the company requesting for the retention of the present status with the company
as nearly as possible under the law. The basis of the petition was the
impracticability of the application of the law. It would result to pecuniary loss for
both employer and employee, disruption to the public service and difficulty on the
part of drivers. The Under-Secretary of Labor assured that enforcement in regards to
the said drivers, of the Eight Hour Labor Law was suspended until further
investigation or meetings are held. It was not ascertained if investigations and
hearings were made.
Motion for reconsideration was denied by the CIR en banc.
Issue: whether petitioners were entitled of the benefits of back overtime pay
granted by law when in fact they specifically asked to be exempted from it?
Held: the court held in Kapisanan ng mga Manggagawa sa Pantranco vs.
Pangasinan Transportation Co. that in order for the petitioner to be entitled to the
benefits granted by the law, fulfillment of the mandate of the law is necessary.
Although it is settled that in labor disputes decision must be made with an eye on
the welfare of the working class, in the present case the court finds no justifiable
reason to disturbed the decision of CIR.