G.R. No. L-9182. September 12, 1956

Appeal by  certiorari from the decision of the Court of Industrial Relations in its Case No. 192-ULP,  ordering appellant Operators, Ink. to cease and desist from dismissing its laborers  because of union activities, and  to reinstate petitioners Jose Pelagio and Vicente Lagman to their former or  equivalent positions, with the same privileges as they had before dismissal and with the payment of back wages.

It appears that on February  24, 1954, petitioners Jose Pelagio and  Vicente Lagman filed with the  Industrial Court a petition charging the Operators, Inc. and the American Biscuit  Co. with unfair labor practice, for having dismissed them because of their membership  in  the National Labor  Union.  Operators, Inc. answered denying the  allegations of the petition and claiming that petitioners were dismissed because they had misrepresented that they had technical knowledge in the manufacture of candy and chewing gum and were found, after three months of trial, to be inexperienced and inefficient in said technical work.  The American Biscuit Co., on the other hand, disclaimed liability on the ground  that it had ceased operations  since July, 1953 and that as of October 1,  1953, it had turned over its business operations  to the  Operators, Inc.  In the  course  of the proceedings,  the  charges against the American Biscuit Co. were,  upon petitioners’ motion, dismissed.

After trial, the Court of Industrial Relations found the following facts to have been established: 

“Based on  the records of this  case and the  evidence adduced  by the parties, the Court found that Jose Pelagio was  employed in the American Biscuit Co., Inc. from 1935 to 1941,  before the war, and  then from July 16, 1951 to September,  1953;  that  when the Operators,  Inc. took over the management of  the American Biscuit Co.,  Inc. on October 1, 1953,  Pelagio was taken in its employment until he was  separated from the service on December  12, 1953.’  It was  also found out  that  Pelagio  and Lagman  taught the employees who were  hired by respondent, American  Biscuit  Company, Inc. in 1952  how  to operate  the machineries for making chicklets and bubble  gums; that  the  persons whom they taught  how to handle the machineries were taken later by the Operators, Inc., while they themselves were laid-off.  The Court  further  found that after the elections held in October, 1953, Pelagio was congratulated by Atfcy. Tagle, an officer of the  said companies,  and the latter asked the former  why he accepted such position in the union.  Petitioner, Jose Pelagio, declared further that he is not filing this complaint against the  American Biscuit Co., Inc.,  but against  the  Operators,  Inc. which dismissed him. On this point, the Court hereby approve the withdrawal of the charges of unfair labor practice against the American  Biscuit  Co.,  Inc.   On  the  other hand,  the evidence of the respondent, Operators, Inc. show that Pelagio was separated from the  service because—from what respondent’s  witness,  Wone Gang Yan, has heard from other persons and what he saw in the records of the company—Pelagio did  not show good work in carpentry and is not fit to  work  in the candy factory.  The management  of the Operators, Inc.  did not present  sufficient evidence to justify the dismissal of  the petitioners. 

Upon  the  whole,  this Court finds  that Jose Pelagio is an experienced worker,  taking into  consideration  his  long experience in  the  American  Biscuit Company,  Inc.  and his  daily  wage of P8.00 which is for skilled workers; that he was laid-off immediately after having been  elected president  of the  branch   of  the  National Labor Union in the said company, while the laborers whom he and Lagman taught how to operate the machineries for making chicklets and bubble gums  were retained.  In  the case of N.L.R.B. vs. Luxuray, Inc., 5  CCH  Labor Cases  62, 185, the U.  S.  Circuit Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit,  held that “An  inference of  discrimination  is  justified where  an employee, who was a leader in union activities,  is  discharged and  refused  reinstatement  while juniors  in service were being rehired.”  As regards the testimony of Wone Gang Yan  which  was not of his  own personal knowledge, it may  be  stated that “Mere  uncorroborated hearsay  on rumor does  not constitute  substantial evidence”.  (Consolidated  Edison Co. vs. N. L. R. B., 305 U.  S. 197, at 230, cited in the Law of Labor Union by Dangle and Shriberr page 62).  In short, the witness for the respondent, Operators,  Inc.  has not presented sufficient evidence to substantiate respondent’s defense.  Therefore, the inference  and conclusion of  the  Court from  the  evidence of petitioners are inevitable that Jose Pelagio  and  Vicente  Lagman .were dismissed by the management  of  the Operators, Inc., because  of their membership in the National Labor Union.” (Annex “E”f petition pp. 7-9)

and rendered judgment for petitioner Pelagio and Lagman as above stated.   From said judgment, Operators, Inc.  appealed  by certiorari to  this Court, assigning the following errors:

“I 

That  the Court  erred by committing grave abuse of discretion in holding  by mere inference that the dismissal of petitioners-appellees, Jose Pelagio and Vicente Lagman, was  due to their membership in the National Labor  Union  and not because of inefficiency and lack of skill.  As in truth and  in fact the existence of a local chapter of said union was unknown to respondent-appellant.

II 

That  the Court  erred by committing grave abuse of discretion in not finding  that petitioners-appellees misrepresented themselves as skilled gum and  chicklet makers when in truth  and in fact they are carpenters by occupation.

III 

That  the  Court erred by committing grave abuse of discretion in concluding that petitioners-appellees are skilled gum and chicklet makers  because they are paid  a daily wage of P8  each.

IV. 

The Court erred in holding that the dismissal of petitioners-appellees constitute unfair labor practice.”  (Petition, pp. 3-4)

The appeal has no merit.  The errors assigned by appellant raise only questions of fact.   As correctly pointed out by appellees, only questions of law, which must be distinctly set forth,  may be raised in an appeal by certiorari from a decision, order, or award of the Court of Industrial Relations  (section 6, Republic Act 875; Rule 44, sec. 2); and pursuant to this rule, it has been the constant ruling, of this Court that findings of fact of the Industrial Court are final and not reviewable by us (H.E. Heacock vs. NLU, et aL, 50 Off. Gaz., No. 9, 4233; Dee C. Chuan  vs.  CIR, 85 Phil.,  365; Atok Big Wedge Mining Co. vs. Atok Big Wedge Mutual  Benefit  Assn.,  93 Phil.,  62; Javellana vs. Barilea, 92 Phil., 600;  Kaisahan ng Manggagawa (CLO) vs.  CIR, 81 Phil., 566;  Olaivar vs. Meralco, 71 Phil., 503, 605).

Appellant urges, however, that the Industrial Court committed grave abuse of discretion in finding that petitioners Pelagio and Lagman are skilled workers and  in  holding by  mere  inference that they  were  dismissed because  of union membership.  The decision appealed from shows no such abuse.  The finding that petitioners are skilled workers is based on the testimony of Jose Pelagio, summarized in detail  by the Court  as follows: 

“Jose Pelagio, testifying for  petitioners and  in his own behalf, declared that he  was formerly employed  in the American Biscuit Co., Inc. that he  was employed in this company from 1935 to 1941, and then  from July 16, 1951 to December 11,  1953, and was dismissed on December 12, 1953 by the Operators, Inc. which took over the management of the American Biscuit Co., Inc.;  that he established a branch of the National Labor Union in the  American Biscuit Co., Inc.  and in the Operators,  Inc.  in  November,  1953; that in the election held by the members of the Union in the respondent companies in October, 1953, he was elected president, and Castro vice-president; that he presumed the company had knowledge of his being the president of  the union because after the election he was asked by Atty. Tagle, an officer of respondents, why he accepted such position in the union; that he did not commit any anomaly while  in the service of respondent  companies;  that before the war he performed carpentry work in the American Biscuit  Co., Inc., and when he was not performing carpentry work he was helping the mechanic or helping in making bubble gums; that before he was dismissed on December 12, 1953, his wage was P8.00 a day; that he has not misrepresented his qualifications because he  could demonstrate his ability to perform the work he claimed to know in the presence of anybody; that he was assigned to make chicklets and bubble gums  since he was employed in 1951 by helping in the operation of the machinery;  that he and Vicente Lagman  taught the employees who were hired in  1952 how to handle the machineries; that the persons whom they taught how to operate the machineries were taken by the company later and are  still working in the said company.   He declared  further  that long  before the  death of  Mr. Malone, his companions had no more  work to do, while he still1 has some work, such assorted jobs in the factory,  although the’ factory was not  functioning; that he started with the Operators, Inc.’in October, 1953; that he is not filing this complaint against the American Biscuit  Co., Inc. in view of the fact  that the  Operators,  Inc. took over the management of the former, hence his claim is only against  the latter company which dismissed the petitioners; that it is not easy to handle the machineries because if one does not know how to operate them, he is liable to be hurt or injured, for example, one person’s  finger was caught in  the roller  in  February, 1953, while  another lost a finger; that he has not filed any demands with the respondents companies; that when he was dismissed he was  informed there was no more work for them; that when he was taken by the Operators, Inc., he was  not informed by management that he was  under trial for three months.”  (Annex “E” petition, pp. 3-5)

and which  is not overcome by the hearsay testimony of the only witness for appellant, its president Wone Gang  Yan; while the inference that petitioners were dismissed due to union membership was drawn from  the  established  facts that their dismissal came  close at the heels of  their having become  president and  members, respectively, of the National Labor Union, and that not only had  they been  retained  as workers  from  October  to December 1953, but the workers trained by the two appellees were  retained while the appellees were themselves dismissed; and, as appellant  failed to prove that their  dismissal  was for just cause, the  inference is not  at all  unjustified.   As for  the charge that the lower Court committed grave abuse of discretion  in  granting petitioner Vicente Lagman  the  same relief as that awarded to petitioner Jose Pelagio, notwithstanding Lagman’s failure to take the witness stand, the charge is likewise untenable, for Pelagio testified in behalf  of both himself  and Lagman,  and the latter’s testimony would have been merely corroborative.

The  decision  appealed  from is  affirmed,  with costs against appellant Operators,  Incorporated.  So ordered.

Paras, C. J.,  Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Endeneia, and Felix, JJ. concur.