LUDO & LUYM CORPORATION, petitioner
vs
FERDINAND SAORNIDO and LUDO EMPLOYEES UNION, respondent
GR No. 140960 January 20, 2003
Quisumbing, J.
FACTS:
Petitioner LUDO & LUYM CORPORATION (LUDO for brevity) is a domestic corporation engaged in the manufacture
of coconut oil, corn starch, glucose and related products. It operates a manufacturing plant located at Tupas Street,
Cebu City and a wharf where raw materials and finished products are shipped out.
In the course of its business operations, LUDO engaged the arrastre services of Cresencio Lu Arrastre Services
(CLAS) for the loading and unloading of its finished products at the wharf. Accordingly, several arrastre workers
were deployed by CLAS to perform the services needed by LUDO. These arrastre workers were subsequently
hired, on different dates, as regular rank-and-file employees of LUDO every time the latter needed additional
manpower services. Said employees thereafter joined respondent union, the LUDO Employees Union (LEU),
which acted as the exclusive bargaining agent of the rank-and-file employees.
On April 13, 1992, respondent union entered into a collective bargaining agreement with LUDO which provides
certain benefits to the employees, the amount of which vary according to the length of service rendered by the
availing employee. Thereafter, the union requested LUDO to include in its members’ period of service the time
during which they rendered arrastre services to LUDO through the CLAS so that they could get higher
benefits. LUDO failed to act on the request. Thus, the matter was submitted for voluntary arbitration.
The Voluntary Arbitrator Ruling
In its decision dated April 18, 1997, the Voluntary Arbitrator ruled that: (1) the respondent employees were
engaged in activities necessary and desirable to the business of petitioner, and (2) CLAS is a labor-only contractor
of petitioner. The Voluntary Arbitrator finds the claims meritorious and holds that the said complainants, being
entitled to the CBA benefits during the regular employment, are awarded a) sick leave, b) vacation leave & c)
annual wage and salary increases during such period in the amount of FIVE MILLION SEVEN HUNDRED SEVEN
THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED SIXTY ONE PESOS AND SIXTY ONE CENTAVOS (P5,707,261.61).
The CA Ruling
The Court of Appeals affirmed in toto the decision of the Voluntary Arbitrator.
ISSUE:
Whether or not benefits consisting of salary increases, vacation leave and sick leave benefits are already barred
by prescription
RULING:
The Court held that the petitioner’s contention that the money claim in this case is barred by prescription is
without merit. So is petitioner’s stance that the benefits claimed by the respondents, i.e., sick leave, vacation
leave and 13th-month pay, had already prescribed, considering the three-year period for the institution of
monetary claims. Such determination is a question of fact which must be ascertained based on the evidence,
both oral and documentary, presented by the parties before the Voluntary Arbitrator. In this case, the Voluntary
Arbitrator found that prescription has not as yet set in to bar the respondents claims for the monetary benefits
awarded to them. Basic is the rule that findings of fact of administrative and quasi-judicial bodies, which have
acquired expertise because their jurisdiction is confined to specific matters, are generally accorded not only
great respect but even finality. Here, the Voluntary Arbitrator received the evidence of the parties first-hand.
No compelling reason has been shown for us to diverge from the findings of the Voluntary Arbitrator, especially
since the appellate court affirmed his findings, that it took some time for respondent employees to ventilate
their claims because of the repeated assurances made by the petitioner that it would review the company
records and determine therefrom the validity of the claims, without expressing a categorical denial of their
claims.
Indeed, as the Court of Appeals concluded, under the equitable principle of estoppel, it will be the height of
injustice if we will brush aside the employees claims on a mere technicality, especially when it is petitioners own
action that prevented them from interposing the claims within the prescribed period.
