G.R. No.

L-21348 June 30, 1966 differentials were paid to workers, under the 1958 and 1961
contracts, thus:
RED V COCONUT PRODUCTS, LTD., petitioner,
vs. Hours of
COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, TANGLAW NG Differentials
Work
PAGGAWA, ALBERTO DELA CRUZ, ET AL., respondents.
Group A 1st (8
4 A.M. — 12 Noon None
Romeo A. Real for petitioner. — shift Hrs.)
A. V. Villacorta for respondents.
2nd 12 (8
— 8 P.M. .35
BENGZON, J.P., J.: shift Noon Hrs.)
3rd (8
Red V Coconut Products, Ltd. is a corporation with principal office 8 P.M. — 4 A.M. .55
shift Hrs.)
and place of business at Lucena City. It has in that city a
desiccated coconut factory. In said factory, it has several hundred Group B 1st (12
4 A.M. — 4 P.M. None
workers. About 800 of said workers are members of Tanglaw ng — shift Hrs.)
Paggawa labor union.
2nd (12
4 P.M. — 4 A.M. .55
shift Hrs.)
Tanglaw ng Paggawa and Red V Coconut Products, Ltd. entered
into a collective bargaining agreement on July 15, 1958.
Subsequently, however, on October 5, 1961, the aforementioned On January 17, 1962, Tanglaw ng Paggawa and some 300
company and union entered into another collective bargaining workers in the above-stated factory, members of the said union,
agreement, to expire on October 31, 1965. who belong to Group B, filed a petition in the Court of Industrial
Relations. Petitioners therein alleged that the petitioners-workers
The 1958 collective bargaining agreement provided among other are shellers, parers, counters and haulers in the two shifts (Group
things for payment of differentials to night shift workers in the B) consisting of 12 hours each shift, the first shift from 4: 00 A.M.
desiccated coconut factory. 1äw phï1.ñët
to 4: 00 P.M. and the second shift from 4 P.M. to 4 A.M.; that said
workers change shift assignments every week; that,
The 1961 collective bargaining agreement retained the same accordingly, all of them work from 4 A.M. to 4 P.M. (first shift) for
arrangement. It stated: two alternate weeks per month and from 4 P.M. to 4 A.M. (second
shift) likewise for two alternate weeks in a month; that although
The present shift differential will remain in effect, namely, said workers perform work from 4 P.M. to 4 A.M., they receive
35¢ for the second shift and 55¢ for the third Shift. only P.55 differential pay for the corresponding hours of night
work; that their nightwork is equivalent to the nightwork of the 2nd
and 3rd shifts of Group A combined, so that they should receive
In the factory, there are two groups of workers, the three-shift
what the 2nd and 3rd shifts of Group A, combined, receive as
group — let us call it Group A — and the two — shift group —
differential pay, namely, P.90 (P.75 plus P.35); that, therefore,
which we shall call Group B. As observed by the parties thereto,
they are entitled to payment of P.35 more as differential pay, collective bargaining agreements is meritorious because the
since up to the time of the petition, they received only P.55 per company having paid night differentials indiscriminately to the
night as differential pay. night shift workers of Group A and Group B alike, the payments
should be uniform and equal for the night shifts of both groups,
Said additional P.35 was asked by the petitioners-workers of that is, P.90. It therefore ordered payment of the deficiency in
Group B f or work done by them from 4 P.M. to 4 A.M. Their claim said differentials to the workers of Group B.
referred to the time from July 15, 1958 to the date of the petition,
allegedly at P186.90 per sheller, parer, counter and hauler, or a Red V Coconut Products, Ltd. moved for reconsideration of said
total sum of P65,228.10 more or less. decision on January 29, 1963. The Court of Industrial
Relations en banc denied said motion by resolution of February
Respondent company therein filed on January 28, 1962 a motion 25, 1963. And, hence, Red V Coconut Products, Ltd. filed this
to dismiss, stating that the Court of Industrial Relations has no petition for review herein.
jurisdiction over the case for the reason that the claim asserted in
the petition is a simple money claim and that an interpretation of a Petitioner herein contends that the present case involves a mere
contract (the collective bargaining agreement is involved, which money claim over which the Court of Industrial Relations has no
pertains to the regular courts. jurisdiction.1

The Court of Industrial Relations denied said motion by resolution It is exiomatic that to determine the issue of jurisdiction resort is
of February 17, 1962 ruling that the claim is for unpaid overtime to be made to the allegations in the petition or complaint.2 The
pay of laborers still employed by the company. Said court likewise petition for shift differential in the present case, it is true, did not
denied a motion for reconsideration of the resolution. Red V expressly mention the Eight-Hour Labor Law. Nonetheless, it
Coconut Products, Ltd. filed its answer on May 2, 1962. clearly asserted that (1) petitioners-laborers "are working in the
Red V Coconut Products, Ltd." and (2) they "work in two (2) shifts
In the meanwhile, on April 25, 1962, Tanglaw ng Paggawa filed (Blue and Red shifts) consisting of approximately 12 hours each
with the Court of Industrial Relations a new and independent shift." Accordingly, from the said allegations, it is proper to regard
petition alleging unfair labor practice against Red V Coconut the petition, as the Court of Industrial Relations did, as one for
Products, Ltd. (CIR Case No. 3150 ULP). It was asserted therein overtime pay by workers still employed by the company. As such
that the company refused to grant 15 days leave with pay to the it falls within the jurisdiction of the Court of Industrial Relations.
members of the union in violation of the 1961 collective For the same is in effect an assertion not of a simple money claim
bargaining agreement. but, as respondent court rightly held, of a claim for overtime pay
by workers who are employees of the company.3
The Court of Industrial Relations, on January 19, 1963 after trial,
rendered its decision on the petition for differential pay (CIR Case During the trial, as stated, evidence was adduced to the effect
No. 1642-V). It found therein that the petitioners-workers are that the aforesaid petitioners-workers were engaged on a piece-
engaged on pakiao or piece-work basis, and, therefore, are not work basis. The same, however, does not appear from the
entitled to overtime pay under the Eight-Hour Labor Law (Sec. 2, petition or complaint filed with the respondent court. It therefore
CA 444); that their petition for night shift differentials based on the cannot affect its jurisdiction over the case, which was already
acquired. For jurisdiction, once acquired, continues until final work under the night shift, said laborers should be deemed pro
adjudication of the litigation.4 tanto or to that extent within the scope of the afore-stated law.

Furthermore, although the Eight-Hour Labor Law provides that it Wherefore, the decision and resolution of the Court of Industrial
does not cover those workers who prefer to be paid on piece- Relations under review are affirmed. So ordered.
work basis (Sec. 2, CA 444), nothing in said law precludes an
agreement for the payment of overtime compensation to piece-
workers. And in agreeing to the provision for payment of shift
differentials to the petitioners-workers aforementioned, in the
bargaining agreement, as well as in actually paying to them said
differentials, though not in full, the company in effect freely
adhered to an application and implementation of the Eight-Hour
Labor Law, or its objectives, to said workers. It should be
observed that while the provision in the bargaining agreements
speaks of shift differentials for the "second shift" and the "third
shift" and Group B has no third shift, said Group B has a second
shift, which performs work equivalent to that of the corresponding
shifts of Group A. It follows that respondent court did not err in
ordering the company to pay the full and equivalent amount of
said differentials (P.90) corresponding, under the bargaining
agreements, to the workers who performed 12 hours of work,
from 4 P.M. to 4 A.M.

And, finally, the laborers in question are not strictly under the full
concept of piece-workers as contemplated by law for the reason
that their hours of work — that is, 12 hours per shift — are fixed
by the employer. As ruled by this Court in Lara v. Del Rosario, 94
Phil. 780, 781-782, the philosophy underlying the exclusion of
piece workers from the Eight-Hour Labor Law is that said workers
are paid depending upon the work they do "irrespective of the
amount of time employed" in doing said work. Such freedom as to
hours of work does not obtain in the case of the laborers herein
involved, since they are assigned by the employer to work in two
shifts for 12 hours each shift. Thus it cannot be said that for all
purposes these workers fall outside the law requiring payment of
compensation for work done in excess of eight hours. At least for
the purpose of recovering the full differential pay stipulated in the
bargaining agreement as due to laborers who perform 12 hours of