G.R. No. L-6158. March 11, 1954

This is an appeal by certiorari from a decision of the Court of
Industrial Relations ordering the petitioner Cebu Portland Cement
Company to reinstate Felix V. Valencia to his former position as
general superintendent of the respondent, with full back pay at P1000
a month from November 15, 1950, up to his reinstatement and the
differential salary collectible from May 1, 1949 up to November 16,
1950, with all the privileges and emoluments attached to said position.

The record discloses that on December 31, 1948 respondent Philippine
Land-Air-Sea Labor Union (PLASLU) filed a petition with the Court of
Industrial Relations, docketed as CIR Case No. 341-V and entitled
Philippine Land-Air- Sea Labor Union vs. Cebu Portland Cement Company,
submitting a set of grievances and demands against the therein
respondent, herein petitioner, for decision and settlement by said
court While the said case was pending and on November 20, 1950, said
PLASLU filed an incidental motion in the said case, alleging that
respondent herein Felix V. Valencia was dismissed without just cause on
November 16, 1950 and praying that he be reinstated with an answer
denying that Valencia was dismissed without cause and alleging that he
was retired from the service together with 100 other employees and/or
laborers to promote economy and efficiency in the service in accordance
with the order of the Secretary of Economic Coordination. In that same
answer the cement company questioned the PLASLU’s juridical personality
as a labor union, as well as the jurisdiction of the CIR to take
cognizance of the incidental case. After hearing the merits of the
incidental case the Court of Industrial Relations rendered the decision
appealed from. After a motion for reconsideration filed by the cement
company was denied in banc, it filed the present action for certiorari alleging that (a)
the CIR has no power to take cognizance of the incidental case of
Valencia, firstly, because the PLASLU’s license as a registered labor
union was revoked by the Secretary of Labor on August 25, 1950, and
secondly, because the subject-matter involved in the said incidental
case is not an industrial or agricultural dispute related to the main
case, Valencia belonging to the management group of the petitioner
company; (b) that the court had no power and acted with grave
abuse of discretion, firstly, because it did not state correctly the
facts appearing on record; secondly, because it disregarded the
essential requirements of due process; thirdly, because it did not
weigh the evidence submitted by the petitioner herein before
promulgating its decision; fourthly, because it had no jurisdiction to
consider the claim of a Filipino citizen in the service of a
government-controlled corporation, etc.

The facts giving rise to the incidental case filed by Valencia
against the Cebu Portland Cement Company may be briefly stated as
follows: On or before November 10, 1950, Felix V. Valencia was a
general superintendent of the company with a salary of P12,000 per
annum. He first served with the Cebu Portland Cement Company as
assistant general superintendent from July, 1939 with a salary of
P7,200 per annum. In November, 1947, on recommendation of the general
manager, he was promoted to the position of general superintendent with
compensation at the rate of P9,600 per annum. On May 1, 1949, he got a
promotional appointment with a compensation of P12,000 per annum. On
October 7, October 21, and October 23, the Secretary of Economic
Coordination ordered the general manager of the Cebu Portland Cement
Company to take steps to secure a reduction in the expenses of the
company, in order to enable it to produce cement at a lower cost and
thus reduce its price for the benefit of the public. Pursuant to this
order the manager proposed that the annual salary of the general
superintendent of the plant be reduced to P10,800 and recommended that
Valencia be retired for the good of the service and the assistant
general superintendent take his place as general superintendent. The
Secretary of Economic Coordination approved the proposal and
recommendation and ordered the retirement of Mr. Valencia effective
November 16, 1950. Valencia refused to retire as ordered and so filed
the incidental case.

One of the most important questions raised in this appeal is the
supposed lack of jurisdiction on the part of the Court of Industrial
Relations to consider the incidental case of respondent Valencia, for
the reason that when his claim was presented before the court on
November 16, 1950 the Philippine Land-Air-Sea Labor Union, to which he
belonged, had no longer any personality before the said court, because
its permit to continue as a labor organization had already expired and
the same was not renewed by the Secretary of Labor. In the first place,
it must be remembered that the registration required by Commonwealth
Act No. 103 is not a prerequisite to the right of a labor organization
to appear and litigate a case before the Court of Industrial Relations.
(Kapisanan Timbulan ng mga Manggagawa, 44 Off. Gaz., (1), pp. 182,
184-185.) In the second place, once the Court of Industrial Relations
has acquired jurisdiction over a case under the law of its creation, it
retains that jurisdiction until the case is completely decided,
including all the incidents related thereto. (Manila Hotel Employees
Association vs. Manila Hotel Company and the Court of Industrial Relations^[1] 73 Phil., 374; Mortera, et al. vs. Court of Industrial Relations,^[2] 45 Off. Gaz., (4), p. 1714; and Luzon Brokerage Company vs. Luzon Labor Union,^[3] 48 Off. Gaz., (9), p. 3883.

It is also claimed that the Court of Industrial Relations has no
jurisdiction over the case of the dismissal or separation of Valencia,
because the dispute involved between him and the Cebu Portland Cement
Company is not an industrial dispute which is causing or likely to
cause a strike or a lockout, and the number of employees or laborers
involved does not exceed 30. In answer to this contention it must be
noted that the original case was instituted by the Philippine
Land-Air-Sea Labor Union (PLASLU) and the circumstances required by law
for the case to be submitted to the Court of Industrial Relations, as
required by section 4 of Commonwealth Act No. 103, were then present.
While this original action was pending, the incidental case of
Valencia, a member of the PLASLU, arose and the power of the court to
take cognizance thereof is recognized in Section 1 of said Commonwealth
Act No. 103 as a dismissal of an employee during the pendency of the
proceedings in the original case.

It is also contended that the position of general superintendent
held by Valencia, which is, next in importance to that of general
manager with respect to the operation of the company’s plant, is not
that of an employee, as Valencia represented the management of the
company and his dismissal was a case involving a member of the
management and not an employee, and, therefore, not an industrial
dispute. In a general sense an “employee” is one who renders service
for another for wages or salary, and that in this sense a person
employed to superintend, with power to employ and discharge men and
generally to represent the principal is an ’employee.’” (Shields vs. W.
R. Grace & Co., 179 p. 265, 271, quoted in 14 Words and Phrases
360.) It is true that in the case between the PLASLU and the Cebu
Portland Cement Company, Valencia actually represented the management
in the dispute arising between the Cebu Portland Cement Company,
employer, and the union of the laborers, employees. But in the
incidental case at bar, we are not concerned with said relation between
the PLASLU and the Cebu Portland Cement Company, but we are with that
of Valencia, employee, on one side, as against the Cebu Portland Cement
Company, employer, on the other. It has been said that while a
superintendent who has the power to appoint and discharge may be
considered as part of the management, in the dispute that arises
between it and the laborers, said superintendent is an employee in his
own relation to the capitalist or owner of the business, in this case,
the Cebu Portland Cement Company.

“A foreman in his. relation to his employer, is an
employee, while in his relation to the laborers under him he is the
representative of the employer and within the definition of section
2(2) of the Act. Nothing in the Act excepts foremen from its benefits
nor from protection against discrimination nor unfair labor practices
of the master. (NLRB vs. Skinner and Kennedy Stationary Co., 113 Fed.
2d., 667.)

“His interest properly may be adverse to that of
the employer when it comes to fixing his own wages, hours, seniority
rights or working conditions. He does not lose his right to serve
himself in those respects because he serves his master in others. * *
*.” (330 U. S. 485.)

Valencia was, in the case of his dismissal by the Cebu Portland
Cement Company, an employee not a part of the management, and his case
properly falls under the category of an industrial dispute falling
under the jurisdiction of the Court of Industrial Relations. And the
fact that his position was among the highest in a government enterprise
did not change the nature of his case or his relation to his employer.

Let us now consider the merits of the arguments submitted by
petitioner in justification of Valencia’s separation. It is claimed
that this was made in the interest of economy and efficiency. There is
no question that the position of general superintendent was not
abolished; its salary was reduced only, from P12,000 to P10,800 per
annum. That of assistant general superintendent, which carried a salary
of P6,000 and which was held by one Ocampo, was suppressed. Instead of
retiring Ocampo, whose position was abolished, Valencia was retired,
even as his position was retained, and Ocampo promoted to take his
(Valencia’s) position. As Valencia’s position was not abolished or
suppressed, Valencia should not have been separated by retirement; it
should have been Ocampo who should have been retired because of the
abolition of his own position. Petitioner’s argument in effect is as
follows: that there is economy if Valencia is separated and Ocampo
retained, but none if Ocampo, whose position is abolished, is retained
and Valencia dismissed. The absurdity of the contention is evident; it
is its own refutation. Reasons of economy may have justified the
reduction of Valencia’s salary, but certainly not his separation.
Evidently, the reduction was merely the opportune occasion for a
dismissal without cause.

Was the dismissal in the interest of efficiency? The CIR found that
Valencia’s efficiency is shown by the greater amount of production
obtained during his incumbency. Even the petitioner admits that there
is no charge of inefficiency. (See Brief for the Petitioner, p. 89.)
But the separation was recommended “for the good of the service,”
implying that there were valid reasons therefor. None appear in the
record. On the other hand, the evidence submitted prove Valencia’s
efficiency. Even if there were reasons therefor, which were not
disclosed, the separation would still be illegal because no charges of
any kind whatsoever appear to have been filed against him and neither
does any opportunity appear to have been given him to answer them or to
defend himself against them.

The above considerations cover the most important points raised in
this appeal; it would be unprofitable to answer all the other
arguments, most of which are high-sounding claims without foundation in
fact and in law. Suffice it for us to state that we have carefully
examined the record and we find no reason or ground to disturb the
findings of fact and conclusions of law contained in the judgment. The
findings of fact are based on the testimonial and documentary evidence
submitted. The claim that the facts appearing in the record are not
stated, or that the requirements of due process of law have been
ignored find no support in the record, it appearing that every
opportunity was afforded petitioner to present its side.

The judgment is, therefore, hereby affirmed, with costs.

So ordered.

Paras, C.J., Pablo, Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Reyes, Jugo and Bautista Angelo, JJ., concur.

---

^[1] 73 Phil., 374.     ^[2] 79 Phil., 345.     ^[3] 83 Phil., 801.