Federation of Free Farmers vs. Victorias Milling Company, Inc.

Plantation laborers are entitled to 60% of any increase in planters' participation in sugar milling proceeds, whether the increase arises from the statutory ratio under Section 1 of Republic Act 809 or from subsequent written milling contracts, but the milling central bears no solidary liability for such payment — the obligation rests exclusively on the planters as the laborers' employers, since the law creates no relationship between the central and the plantation laborers and imposes no duty on the central to ensure the planters' compliance with Section 9.

The sugar industry of Negros Occidental was historically dominated by the centrals, which fixed the sharing of milled sugarcane proceeds at 40% for the central and 60% for the planters, with both parties paying their respective laborers at substandard rates. A committee headed by Chief Justice Manuel V. Moran investigated the economic conditions in the industry in 1938 and recommended increased planter participation to ameliorate labor conditions. This led to the enactment of Republic Act 809, the Sugar Act of 1952, which prescribed statutory sharing ratios between millers and planters in the absence of written milling agreements and mandated that 60% of any increase in planter participation be paid to plantation laborers. The Victorias Milling Company, Inc. operated the central in the Victorias Mill District, where the planters and their plantation laborers — represented by the Federation of Free Farmers — became locked in a dispute over the disposition of increased shares under the Act.

Before the passage of Republic Act 809 on June 22, 1952, the Victorias Milling Company, Inc. and the planters of the Victorias Mill District in Negros Occidental operated under 30-year milling agreements executed in 1918, 1919, and 1920, under which the central received 40% and the planters 60% of the proceeds of milled sugarcane. The planters had long demanded an increase in their participation, citing the disparity in profits and the need to improve the conditions of their plantation laborers. The Moran Committee, appointed by President Quezon in 1938, confirmed the inequity and recommended legislative intervention. The Sugar Act of 1952 was the legislative response, prescribing statutory sharing ratios in the absence of written milling agreements and mandating in Section 9 that 60% of any increase in planter participation be paid to plantation laborers, with distribution supervised by the Department of Labor.

The planters' 30-year contracts with Victorias had expired by 1951, and the Manila Court of First Instance so declared in Civil Case No. 16815, a decision affirmed by the Supreme Court in G.R. No. L-6648 on July 25, 1955. Meanwhile, Victorias filed Civil Case No. 22577 challenging the constitutionality of Republic Act 809. While that case was pending, Victorias set aside a 10% annual "reserve" beginning June 22, 1952 as a precautionary measure, should it ultimately be compelled to grant the increase demanded by the planters under Section 1 of the Act. By October 31, 1955, this reserve had accumulated to ₱8,643,472.24.

On March 5, 1956, Victorias and the planters, through a Special Committee of five planters, executed the Amicable Settlement-Compromise Agreement (ASCA), which provided for a 64%-36% sharing between planters and central effective November 1, 1955 to October 31, 1974, and disposed of the accumulated reserve by allocating ₱3,457,388.90 (40%) to the planters and ₱5,186,083.34 (60%) to the laborers. Of the laborers' share, ₱1,186,083.34 was to be distributed in cash under the supervision of the Secretary of Labor, and ₱4,000,000.00 was to be invested in 40,000 shares of Victorias stock, to be held in trust by the Special Committee for the benefit of the laborers. The ASCA was subsequently reproduced in the General Collective Sugar Milling Contract and individual sugar milling contracts. Several parties — including the Secretary of Labor, three individual planters, and six laborers — sought to intervene in Civil Case No. 22577 to challenge the ASCA as violative of Republic Act 809, but their motions were denied, and the Supreme Court dismissed their appeal in G.R. No. L-11218 on November 5, 1956.

Pursuant to the ASCA, Victorias issued the 40,000 shares to the five members of the Special Committee as trustees for the laborers. The shares were subsequently sold, and the proceeds, together with cash and stock dividends, were distributed to the laborers in five phases under the supervision of the Department of Labor, as reflected in Exhibit 23-VICMICO, which showed a total distribution of ₱6,536,741.98 to 474,811 laborers, with ₱180,679.38 remaining undistributed because the corresponding laborers could not be located. From crop year 1955–56 to 1973–74, Victorias regularly paid the planters their full 4% increase under the ASCA, leaving it to the planters to pay their respective laborers the 2.4% share (60% of the 4% increase) mandated by Section 9.

On November 9, 1962, the Federation of Free Farmers, representing the plantation laborers, filed a petition with the Court of Agrarian Relations in Bacolod City, alleging that the planters had given the laborers their lawful participation until November 1, 1955 but had ceased to do so thereafter. The petition prayed for the declaration of the applicability of Republic Act 809 starting with crop year 1955–56 and for the payment of the laborers' lawful share from that period onward. The trial court dismissed the petition on December 14, 1970, finding that written milling agreements existed between Victorias and the planters, rendering the Act inapplicable. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the Act remained operative even with written milling agreements providing for increased planter participation, and declared the planters and Victorias jointly and severally liable for the laborers' unpaid share covering both the 1952–1955 and 1955–1974 periods. All four parties — the Federation, the Planters, individual planters Santos and Tirol, and Victorias — filed separate petitions for review with the Supreme Court.

• Federation of Free Farmers (G.R. No. L-41161): The Federation maintained that the phrase "written milling agreements" in Section 1 of Republic Act 809 referred exclusively to agreements existing upon the law's effectivity on June 22, 1952, and not to those executed subsequently. It argued that the purpose of the Act was to fix by law the sharing participation among millers, planters, and laborers, thereby prohibiting milling agreements executed after June 22, 1952 from providing sharing arrangements different from those prescribed in Sections 1 and 9. The Federation further contended that the ASCA and derivative contracts were null and void ab initio for circumventing the Act, and that the planters and Victorias were jointly and severally liable under the law on torts for the laborers' unpaid shares. It also sought exemplary damages and the full 20% attorney's fees stipulated in its contract with counsel.

• Victorias Milling Company, Inc. (G.R. No. L-41222): Victorias argued that it had already paid in full the planters' respective shares in the proceeds of milled sugarcane, and that the Federation had admitted in its initial petition that the laborers had received what was due them for the 1952–53 to 1954–55 crop years. It maintained that there was no factual or legal basis for holding it jointly and severally liable with the planters for the latter's failure to pay their laborers, since the action was not founded on torts but on obligations created by contract or law, under neither of which it could be liable. Victorias further contended that even if the action were deemed based on torts, it had already prescribed, and that the Court of Appeals had no jurisdiction to render judgment concerning the 1952–53 to 1954–55 crop years, as these were not the subject of the Federation's allegations and prayers. It also challenged the constitutionality of Republic Act 809 and the propriety of the action as a class suit.

• Planters, Victorias Mill District (G.R. No. L-43153): The Planters asserted their freedom to stipulate with the central any ratio of sharing they might agree upon, regardless of the ratios in Section 1 of the Sugar Act. They insisted that their respective laborers had already been fully paid what was due them for the 1952–53 to 1954–55 crop years, thereby admitting that Victorias had already paid them the increase agreed upon. They argued that, in any event, the milling company should reimburse them whatever amounts they might be adjudged to pay the laborers. They also challenged the jurisdiction of the Court of Agrarian Relations and the propriety of the action as a class suit.

• Primo Santos and Roberto H. Tirol (G.R. No. L-43369): Santos and Tirol complained that the Court of Appeals ignored their plea of lack of jurisdiction over their persons due to defective service of summons by publication. Santos, being a mere lessee and not the owner of "Hda. Kana-an" and not having signed any milling contract with Victorias, argued that he should not be held jointly and severally liable for acts and contracts in which he had no part. Tirol similarly contended that there was no evidence of their knowledge of or intervention in the custody of the ₱4,000,000 belonging to the laborers.

• Constitutionality of R.A. 809: Whether Republic Act 809, as a social legislation founded on police power and the social welfare mandates of the Constitution, is constitutional.
• Applicability of R.A. 809 Despite Written Milling Agreements: Whether the existence of written milling agreements between the central and the planters, executed subsequent to June 22, 1952, renders Republic Act 809 inapplicable, or whether the Act remains operative where such agreements provide for an increase in planters' participation.
• Validity of the ASCA: Whether the Amicable Settlement-Compromise Agreement and its derivative contracts were executed in circumvention of Republic Act 809 and are therefore void ab initio.
• Solidary Liability of Victorias: Whether Victorias Milling Company, Inc. is jointly and severally liable with the planters for the laborers' unpaid share, on the ground of tort or otherwise.
• Payment for 1952–1955 Crop Years: Whether the laborers had already been paid their share corresponding to the 1952–53 to 1954–55 crop years, or whether the planters and Victorias misappropriated the amount of ₱5,186,083.34 plus accruals.
• Jurisdiction: Whether the Court of Agrarian Relations had jurisdiction over the subject matter of the suit and over the persons of the defendants, including those served summons by publication.
• Class Suit: Whether the action was properly brought as a class suit.
• Exemplary Damages and Attorney's Fees: Whether the laborers are entitled to exemplary damages and to the full 20% attorney's contingent fees stipulated in their contract with counsel.

• Constitutionality of R.A. 809: Yes. Republic Act 809 is constitutional in all aspects material to the cases, having been upheld in Asociacion de Agricultores de Talisay-Silay Inc. vs. Talisay-Silay Milling Co., Inc. as a valid exercise of police power and social welfare legislation.

• Applicability of R.A. 809 Despite Written Milling Agreements: Yes. The Act remains applicable and operative where milling agreements executed subsequent to June 22, 1952 provide any increase in planters' participation; the laborers are entitled to 60% of such increase pursuant to Section 9.

• Validity of the ASCA: Yes, valid. The ASCA and derivative contracts are valid and not in circumvention of Republic Act 809; millers and planters may stipulate sharing ratios different from Section 1, provided that 60% of any increase in planter participation is paid to the laborers.

• Solidary Liability of Victorias: No. Victorias is not jointly and severally liable with the planters; the law creates no relationship between the central and the plantation laborers, and the central's obligation is discharged upon payment to the planters of their stipulated share.

• Payment for 1952–1955 Crop Years: Yes, substantially paid. Based on the Federation's express admission in its pleadings and corroborating evidence, the laborers had already received their share for the 1952–53 to 1954–55 crop years, except for ₱180,679.38 which remained undistributed because the corresponding laborers could not be located.

• Jurisdiction: Yes. The Court of Agrarian Relations had jurisdiction over the subject matter pursuant to Sections 1 and 7 of Republic Act 1267, and over the persons of the planters, including those served by publication, in light of the liberal procedural rules governing agrarian courts and the retroactive application of Presidential Decree 946.

• Class Suit: Yes. The action was properly brought as a class suit, the laborers being so numerous that it was impracticable to bring them all before the court, with the parties actually before the court sufficiently numerous and representative.

• Exemplary Damages and Attorney's Fees: No exemplary damages. The 10% attorney's fees awarded by the Court of Appeals was affirmed as just and adequate.

• Constitutionality of R.A. 809: The constitutionality of Republic Act 809 had already been settled with finality in Asociacion de Agricultores de Talisay-Silay Inc. vs. Talisay-Silay Milling Co., Inc., where the Court upheld the statute as social legislation founded not only on police power but more importantly on the social welfare mandates of the Constitution. The Federation itself acknowledged in its motions for early resolution that the constitutionality and construction of the Act had been set at rest by that decision. The Court found the Court of Appeals' discussion on this point to be well studied and totally correct, being substantially in line with the Talisay-Silay ruling. No new or cogent reasons were advanced to alter this view.

• Applicability of R.A. 809 Despite Written Milling Agreements: The phrase "in the absence of written milling agreements" in Section 1 indicates that the statutory sharing ratios apply only when millers and planters are bound by no such agreements. The Act is both social and economic legislation — Congress could not have intended to prevent millers and planters from agreeing to other sharing proportions, even at the cost of preserving the sugar industry. However, the Act remains operative insofar as Section 9 is concerned: any increase in planter participation, whether obtained under Section 1 or under subsequent milling contracts, is subject to the 60-40 partition between laborers and planters. The increase is deemed granted "under this Act" because it is a result of the Act's compulsive effect. The ASCA's 64%-36% sharing is legal, but the 4% increase enjoyed by the planters is subject to the laborers' 60% share, equivalent to 2.4% of total proceeds, for the entire period from November 1, 1955 to October 31, 1974.

• Validity of the ASCA: The Court of Appeals found no evidence of circumvention in the execution of the ASCA. Central's tactics, while not exactly moral, were standard business procedures — using every possible leverage to obtain the best bargain for profit. The contracts were not in circumvention of the law but in legitimate pursuit of profit. The law does not impose upon the central any duty to yield any part of its participation in favor of the planters' laborers. The ASCA's provision for a 64%-36% sharing is valid; what is required is that 60% of the 4% increase be read into the agreement as belonging to the laborers. The Court affirmed this conclusion, consistent with Talisay-Silay.

• Solidary Liability of Victorias: From the inception of the sugar industry, centrals have never had any privity with plantation laborers — each party dealt with and paid its own laborers. Republic Act 809 creates no relationship between the laborers of the planters and the centrals. Section 9 unequivocally provides that 60% of any increase "shall be divided between the planter and his laborer," and that distribution "shall be made under the supervision of the Department of Labor." The central's only obligation is to give the planters their share of proceeds, which includes the portion pertaining to the laborers. Once this is done, the central is out of the picture. Under no principle of law or equity can the central be made liable for the planters' failure to pay their laborers. Article 1207 of the Civil Code provides that solidary liability exists only when the obligation expressly so states, or when the law or the nature of the obligation requires solidarity — none of which obtains here. The Court of Appeals' holding of solidary liability based on tort was a non sequitur and an utterly baseless legal conclusion, especially given its own finding that Victorias committed no circumvention of the law.

• Payment for 1952–1955 Crop Years: The Federation's original and amended petitions expressly admitted that "respondent planters gave petitioners-laborers the latter's lawful participation in the sugar production as well as in the by-products and derivatives thereof and continued to give the same until November 1, 1955." Under Section 2, Rule 129 of the Rules of Court, judicial admissions do not require proof and cannot be contradicted unless previously shown to have been made through palpable mistake. No allegation of mistake was made; the Federation merely attempted to reinterpret the word "gave" in its reply brief, nearly ten years after filing its petition, as meaning that the amount had merely been "set aside." This belated explanation was unsupported by any evidence and was made only by way of argument. The testimony of the Federation's own witness, Felipe de Guia of the Department of Labor, confirmed that distributions totaling ₱6,536,741.98 were made to 474,811 laborers in five phases, with only ₱180,679.38 remaining undistributed because the corresponding laborers could not be located. Exhibit 23-VICMICO, which summarized these distributions, was improperly ruled inadmissible as secondary evidence by the Court of Appeals, since the witness explained that the original records were too voluminous to bring to court. Not a single laborer was presented at the trial to deny receipt of his due share. The Court therefore held that the laborers had already been paid their share for the 1952–1955 period, except for ₱180,679.38.

• Jurisdiction: Sections 1 and 7 of Republic Act 1267, which created the Court of Agrarian Relations, contemplated the transfer of all controversies involving agricultural laborers, including those referring to the employer-employee relationship between sugar planters and their plantation workers. The Court of Agrarian Relations therefore had jurisdiction over the subject matter. As to jurisdiction over the persons of the planters, the manifestation of counsel at the hearing of December 14, 1967 — that he represented all planters in the district, including those not present — was understood as assuming representation of all planters with due authority. Moreover, under Presidential Decree 946, which reorganized the Courts of Agrarian Relations and under which technical rules have hardly any force, the acquisition of jurisdiction over the persons of defendants — being an adjective matter — may be given retroactive effect.

• Class Suit: The number of laborers involved was so great that it was a matter of common knowledge that the subject matter was of common or general interest to persons too numerous to bring all before the court. The parties actually before the trial court were sufficiently numerous and representative, satisfying the requirements of Section 12, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court.

• Exemplary Damages and Attorney's Fees: Exemplary damages were not warranted. For the ₱180,679.38 unpaid balance, the Federation's own witness explained that the corresponding laborers could not be located — hardly a basis for exemplary damages. As for the 2.4% unpaid share from 1955–56 to 1973–74, the legal provision mandating such payment may not be readily understood by everyone in the same sense construed by the Court, since Section 9 uses the phrase "under this Act," which could plausibly be read as limited to increases under Section 1. Since the laborers' entitlement to the 2.4% rests on the Court's liberal construction rather than on a clear statutory mandate, exemplary damages could not be awarded "as a matter of right" under Article 2233 of the Civil Code. Nor were moral, temperate, or compensatory damages warranted, which under Article 2234 is a prerequisite for considering exemplary damages. The 10% attorney's fees awarded by the Court of Appeals was affirmed as just and adequate, the Court sharing the appellate court's conclusion that the stipulated 20% was excessive.

• Freedom of Contract Under Social Legislation — Republic Act 809, while social legislation, does not deprive millers and planters of the right to enter into written milling agreements stipulating sharing ratios different from those prescribed in Section 1. The statutory ratios apply only "in the absence of written milling agreements." However, any increase in planter participation — whether obtained under Section 1 or under subsequent milling contracts — is subject to Section 9's mandate that 60% thereof be paid to plantation laborers. The increase is deemed granted "under this Act" because it results from the Act's compulsive effect. This doctrine was established in Asociacion de Agricultores de Talisay-Silay Inc. vs. Talisay-Silay Milling Co., Inc. and reaffirmed in these cases.

• Judicial Admissions Are Conclusive — Admissions made by parties in their pleadings do not require proof and cannot be contradicted unless previously shown to have been made through palpable mistake. A party cannot subsequently take a position contradictory to or inconsistent with its pleadings. A belated attempt to reinterpret clear and unmistakable language in a reply brief, without any allegation of mistake and unsupported by evidence, does not relieve a party of the effect of its admission. This principle applies even in proceedings before agrarian courts where technical rules are applied only secondarily, because admissions are founded on reason and the common sense and experience of mankind, not merely on technical rules of evidence.

• Solidary Liability Requires Express Stipulation or Legal/Natural Necessity — Under Article 1207 of the Civil Code, solidary liability exists only when the obligation expressly so states, or when the law or the nature of the obligation requires solidarity. Republic Act 809 imposes no solidary liability on the central for the planters' obligation to pay their laborers under Section 9. The central's obligation is discharged upon payment to the planters of their stipulated share; thereafter, the matter of paying the laborers becomes exclusively the concern of the planters, the laborers, and the Department of Labor. The planters, however, having always acted in concert as a single unit, are jointly and severally liable among themselves for the whole amount due all the laborers.

• No Tort Liability Without Unlawful Act — Under Article 20 of the Civil Code, liability requires that the person acted "contrary to law, wilfully or negligently caus[ing] damage to another." Under Article 2176 (quasi-delict), there must be an unlawful act or omission amounting to fault or negligence. A central that faithfully complies with its obligation under the law and its milling contracts by paying the planters their full stipulated share commits no unlawful act and cannot be held liable in tort for the planters' subsequent failure to pay their laborers.

• "Under no principle of law or equity can We impose on the central — here VICTORIAS — any liability to the plantation laborers, should any of their respective planters-employers fail to pay their legal share." — This passage articulates the ratio decidendi on the central's non-liability: the law creates no relationship between the central and the plantation laborers, and the central's obligation is fully discharged upon payment to the planters.

• "It is a fundamental principle that judgments must conform to both the pleadings and the proof, and must be in accordance with the theory of the action upon which the pleadings were framed and the case was tried; that a party can no more succeed upon a case proved, but not alleged, than upon one alleged but not proved." — Quoted from Ramon vs. Ortuzar in the Planters' brief and adopted by the Court, this passage underscores the binding force of the Federation's judicial admission and the principle that courts cannot adjudicate matters outside the issues raised by the pleadings.

• "Injustice to the more affluent and fortunate sectors of society cannot be less condemnable and reprehensible, and should be avoided as much as injustice to labor and the poor." — This passage reflects the Court's reasoning that the liberal application of procedural and evidentiary rules in favor of labor, mandated by agrarian court laws and constitutional social justice provisions, does not authorize courts to disregard admissions and evidence that establish the truth, even where the truth favors employers.

• "any increase given to the planters by any central after the passage of the Act cannot be viewed in any way than that which has been induced or forced to be done on account of the compulsive effect of the various related provisions of the Act. Virtually, therefore, any such increase should be deemed as an 'increase — under this Act', since it is a result of its operation." — This passage defines the Court's construction of the phrase "under this Act" in Section 9, which is the doctrinal basis for holding that the laborers' 60% share applies to increases granted under subsequent milling contracts, not only under Section 1.

• Asociacion de Agricultores de Talisay-Silay Inc. vs. Talisay-Silay Milling Co., Inc., 88 SCRA 294; 89 SCRA 311 (resolution on motion for reconsideration) — Controlling precedent. The Court upheld the constitutionality of Republic Act 809 and ruled that the Act does not deprive millers and planters of the right to enter into written milling agreements with sharing ratios different from Section 1, provided that 60% of any increase in planter participation is paid to the laborers. The Court in the instant cases expressly adopted and reaffirmed the Talisay-Silay rulings as settled juridical premises.

• Santos vs. C.I.R., 3 SCRA 759 — Cited to support the holding that the Court of Agrarian Relations had jurisdiction over controversies involving agricultural laborers, including the employer-employee relationship between sugar planters and their plantation workers, pursuant to Republic Act 1267.

• Aguilos vs. Sepulveda, 53 SCRA 269 — Cited in support of the holding that the persons of all the planters in the Victorias Mill District had been properly placed within the jurisdiction of the trial court.

• Schenker vs. Gemperk, L-16449, August 31, 1962, 5 SCRA 1042 — Cited by the Court of Appeals for the proposition that a general prayer is broad enough to justify extension of a remedy different from or together with the specific remedy sought. The Supreme Court noted this citation but found it inapplicable to the extent that the remedy extended was inconsistent with the specific allegations and admissions in the petition.

• Section 1, Republic Act 809 (Sugar Act of 1952) — Prescribes the statutory sharing ratios between planters and millers in the absence of written milling agreements, ranging from 60%-40% for districts producing up to 400,000 piculs to 70%-30% for districts producing over 1,200,000 piculs. Applied to determine that the Victorias Mill District, producing over 1,200,000 piculs, would have a 70%-30% ratio in the absence of written milling agreements, giving the planters a 10% increase over their previous 60% participation.

• Section 9, Republic Act 809 (Sugar Act of 1952) — Provides that 60% of any increase in planter participation "under this Act and above their present share" shall go to the plantation laborers and 40% to the planters, with distribution to be made under the supervision of the Department of Labor. Applied to hold that the laborers are entitled to 60% of the 4% increase granted to the planters under the ASCA (equivalent to 2.4% of total proceeds), since any increase obtained after the Act's passage is deemed granted "under this Act" by reason of its compulsive effect.

• Article 1207, Civil Code — Provides that solidary liability exists only when the obligation expressly so states, or when the law or the nature of the obligation requires solidarity. Applied to hold that Victorias is not solidarily liable with the planters, since Republic Act 809 does not expressly or impliedly impose such liability on the central, and the nature of the obligation — the planters paying their own laborers — does not require solidarity with the central.

• Article 2194, Civil Code — Provides that the responsibility of two or more persons who are liable for a quasi-delict is solidary. Discussed but found inapplicable, since neither the planters nor Victorias committed any quasi-delict or tortious act.

• Articles 20 and 21, Civil Code — Article 20 provides that every person who, contrary to law, wilfully or negligently causes damage to another shall indemnify the latter. Discussed to clarify that these articles create sources of obligation distinct from quasi-delict and require that the person acted "contrary to law." Found inapplicable to Victorias, which committed no act contrary to law.

• Section 2, Rule 129, Rules of Court — Provides that judicial admissions made by parties in their pleadings or in the course of trial do not require proof and cannot be contradicted unless previously shown to have been made through palpable mistake. Applied to hold that the Federation's admission in its petition that the planters "gave" the laborers their lawful participation until November 1, 1955 was conclusive, there being no allegation of palpable mistake.

• Sections 1 and 7, Republic Act 1267 — Created the Court of Agrarian Relations and vested it with original and exclusive jurisdiction over all controversies involving relationships established by law which determine the varying rights of persons in the cultivation and use of agricultural land. Applied to uphold the trial court's jurisdiction over the subject matter of the suit.

• Section 16, Presidential Decree 946 — Reorganized the Courts of Agrarian Relations and provided that technical rules have hardly any force or applicability. Applied retroactively to uphold the trial court's acquisition of jurisdiction over the persons of the planters, including those served summons by publication.

• Articles 2233 and 2234, Civil Code — Article 2233 provides that exemplary damages may be awarded when the defendant acted in a wanton, fraudulent, reckless, oppressive, or malevolent manner. Article 2234 requires that the plaintiff show entitlement to moral, temperate, or compensatory damages before the court may consider exemplary damages. Applied to deny the Federation's claim for exemplary damages.

Concepcion, Jr., Fernandez, Guerrero, Abad Santos, De Castro, and Melencio-Herrera, JJ., concurred. Fernando, C.J., concurred in the result.

• Makasiar, J. — Dissented on the ground that the Court of Appeals' decision should be entirely affirmed, which would include maintaining the joint and several liability of Victorias Milling Company, Inc. with the planters for all amounts adjudged due to the laborers.

Teehankee and Aquino, JJ., took no part.