PHILIPPINE NEWSPAPER GUILD, EVENING NEWS LOCAL, PETITIONER, VS. EVENING NEWS, INC., RESPONDENT.

This is an appeal by way of certiorari by the Philippine Newspaper
Guild, Evening News Local, from a partial decision of the Court of
Industrial Relations dated September 4, 1948, and from its resolution
dated November 2, 1948.

Without reviewing the facts found by the trial court over which
there is controversy, we shall state only the facts which are either
agreed to by both parties or over which there is no dispute, for the
purpose of background, to give an idea of the situation and of the
facts that led to the initiation of these proceedings in the Court of
Industrial Relations and the determination thereof by said Court.

In and before March 1948, Cipriano D. Cid was working as editor in
the Evening News, an afternoon paper published by the Evening News
Incorporated, managed by Ramon Roces. It seems that for one reason or
another, Roces was not fully satisfied with the services of Cid as
editor,—according to Cid, because of his pro-labor activities, but
according to Roces, because Cid was not devoting enough time and
attention to his editorial duties, as a result of which the interests
of the newspaper suffered greatly. Added to this, due to the employment
of an American newspaperman named John Grover in the editorial office,
which Cid vehemently resented, there developed a serious dissension
among the officials and employees of the paper, resulting in the
creation of two warring factions,—one headed by Arcellana and Lagdamao
on .the side of Cid, and the other headed by Aquino on the side of
Grover. The position of Cid was, consequently, rendered precarious and
his continued rendering of editorial services unwanted by, even
intolerable to the respondent and to Roces. Cid and his sympathizers,
particularly some members of the petitioner Philippine Newspaper Guild,
Evening News Local, of which he was the organizer, suspecting a move by
the management to ease him out of his post, took a positive step to
forestall the same.

On March 1, 1948, 24 employees of the Evening News, Inc., almost
all members of the Philippine Newspaper Guild, Evening News Local, and
in its name, addressed a four-point petition or demand (Exhibit A) to
Roces as president and publisher of the respondent, the first, and
possibly the principal point of the petition being a demand for the
retention of Cid as editor of the paper. In the conference had with
Roces and a committee composed of some members of the petitioner, the
former expressed willingness to study the demands, but refused to
consider that one referring to the retention of Cid as editor.
Negotiations dragged on for some months and the petitioners being
dissatisfied with the outcome, or lack of satisfactory results, filed
on July 21, 1948 a new petition signed by 25 employees of the
respondent, reiterating their demands presented on March 1, 1948.

On July 22, 1948, a notice was sent to the management giving notice
that a strike would be declared on or before 10 a.m., July 23, if the
publisher refused to heed the demands made. The next day the announced
strike was carried out.

The Department of Labor intervened, and, subsequently, it certified
the case to the Court of Industrial Relations. In this way,that Court
acquired jurisdiction and took over the case. Conferences were held and
evidence was submitted, specially as regards the status of Cid as
editor of the Evening News, On August 30, 1948, the Court of Industrial
Relations issued an order requiring the strikers, in accordance with
Sec. 19, Commonwealth Act No. 103, to return to work.

At the time of the strike, Cid was not actually working as editor,
for it seems that he was on leave. But from the statements and attitude
of both parties, the trial court realized that the bone of contention
was the status of Cid in the Evening News, Inc., at the time of the
strike,—whether he was still its editor, or whether he had already
severed his connections therewith.

The lower court, in the course of those conferences, proposed the
return of the strikers to work without Cid. Because the strikers were
opposed to this arrangement, the trial court again proposed that they
return to work with Cid as editor, pending determination of his status,
but this proposition was equally opposed by the respondent Evening
News, Inc. For this reason, the order above-mentioned, dated August 30,
1948, requiring the strikers to return to work did hot include Cid,
because, according to the Court, the purpose of the order as
contemplated by Sec. 19 of Commonwealth Act No. 103, was only to
maintain the parties in their status quo during the pendency of an
industrial dispute; since Cid was not one of the strikers, and since he
was not actually working at the time of the strike, he could not very
well be ordered to return to work, or otherwise included in the order.

About August 31, 1948, however, Cid returned to work as editor and
advised Roces thereof by means of a note Annex “J”, Because Amadeo R.
Dacanay had been designated as acting editor, previously and at the
time of the strike, and because he continued as such acting editor even
after Cid returned to work, there was created a sad situation, if not a
spectacle of two rival editors trying and determined to edit the same
paper, giving conflicting orders and assignments. This naturally led to
extreme and intolerable confusion, the employees not knowing from whom
to receive orders and whom to obey. Because of this situation, the
respondent, thru its counsel Atty. Mariano A. Albert, presented an
urgent petition with the trial court, praying for the issuance of an
order restraining Cid from reporting or attempting to report to work
pending final decision on his actual status. Taking immediate action on
this petition, the Court of Industrial Relations issued an order on
August 31, 1948, directing Cid to desist from assuming the post of
editor of the Evening News or in any manner interfering with the
operation and publication of said paper, pending final determination of
his status.

On September 3, 1948, counsel for the petitioner filed a motion for
reconsideration of the orders of August 30 and August 31, 1948, as
regards the return of Cid to work for the respondent. Without, however,
acting upon and deciding this motion for reconsideration, the Court of
Industrial Relations, through Presiding Judge Arsenio C. Roldan,
promulgated its partial decision of September 4, 1948, finding and
holding that Cid, if he had not resigned, “has been separated from the
Evening News, Incorporated, as editor thereof for just cause.”

A motion for reconsideration of this partial decision was filed by
counsel for petitioner on September 9, 1948, and a reply thereto was
filed by the respondent’s counsel on September 21, 1948. On November 2,
1948, the Court of Industrial Relations promulgated a resolution,
penned by Presiding Judge Arsenio C. Roldan and concurred in by three
other Judges of said Court, with Judge Jose S. Bautista dissenting in a
separate opinion. The majority resolution found and held that “Mr.
Cipriano Cid has resigned and, therefore, severed his connection from
the Evening News, Incorporated.”

As already stated, the petitioner herein is appealing from the
partial decision of September 4, 1948 and the resolution of November 2,
1948.

After a careful study of the case, we are convinced that the issue
involved in this appeal is mainly a question of fact,—whether or not
Cid had really resigned as editor of the respondent, and incidentally,
whether the finding of the Court of Industrial Relations as to the
resignation of Cid has any evidence to support it. In order to shed
more light on the case and the conclusion reached by the lower court,
we permit ourselves to state additional facts, based on portions of the
conflicting evidence presented before the Court of Industrial
Relations, gathered from the pleadings, annexes and arguments now
before us, so as to show that there was considerable and substantial
evidence presented by both parties in support of their respective
theories, and, at the same time, warrant the conclusion that in making
its findings, particularly the separation or resignation of Cid from
the Evening News, Inc., the trial court was guided by evidence, weighed
and based on the credibility of the witnesses giving the same.

In order to better understand the position taken by the parties, it
may be stated that Cid has consistently maintained that Roces wanted to
separate him from the Evening News, Inc., or otherwise brought pressure
upon him to resign, not because of inefficiency or Incompetence as an
editor, but because of his pro-labor activities. The respondent,
however, thru Roces, equally claims that the only purpose and desire of
the management was to have Cid devote his full time and attention to
his duties as editor, but that, because he was unable or refused to do
so, and on the contrary because of his actions and attitude he created
a situation in the editorial staff and in the office whereby friction,
rivalry and confusion ensued to the detriment and damage of the
respondent, Roces tried to find a way to have Cid severe his
connections with the paper, and do so gracefully, without any
reflection on his name or character or any financial disadvantage to
him, and, furthermore, that the pro-labor activities of Cid had nothing
to do whatsoever with the relations between him and Cid.

As early as July or August 1945, Cid was employed by the Evening
News, Inc., as city editor, later promoted to managing editor, and then
to full editor upon the resignation of the incumbent Vicente Albano
Pacis. At the time of his last promotion, Cid was already the president
of the Congress of Labor Organization (CLO), which Cid himself helped
organize. He also organized and became the president of the petitioner
herein, the Philippine Newspaper Guild, Evening News Local. These labor
activities of Cid were well-known to Roces even at the time when the
latter first appointed him as city editor of the Evening News.

After the presidential elections in 1946, Roces asked Cid to devote
all his time to his editorial work so that the Evening News may become
a first class paper. He even offered to buy Cid’s time with the CLO;
but Cid refused, explaining that he was not being paid by the CLO, and
that, besides, his time with it cannot bet bought. This refusal of Cid
to devote to the Evening News his full or the amount of time wanted by
Roces, prompted the latter to employ one John Grover from the
Associated Press, which, as already stated, caused resentment on the
part of Cid. His resentment mounted when Grover was promoted to general
manager, placing him over Cid’s head.

There is evidence presented by the respondent to the effect that Cid
used to receive many visitors in his editorial office on matters and
business which had no connection whatsoever with the paper; that,
because he did not devote enough time to his editorial duties, the
paper used to come out late, sometimes with poor and slovenly articles
and write-ups, and with errors and mistakes, which proved costly to the
management, and that all this was the real reason why the management
persuaded Cid to leave the paper voluntarily. To upset this theory, the
petitioner presented evidence to show that during the incumbency of Cid
as editor, the Evening News prospered, substantially increased its
circulation, and earned considerable profits for the owners and
publisher, thereby showing that Cid, as editor, was not the
inefficient, careless and disloyal official and employee he was painted
by the management.

There is also evidence to the effect that sometime in October 1947,
Roces invited Cid to lunch with him at a restaurant; that during the
luncheon, Roces told Cid that he was not satisfied with the way the
editorial department of the Evening News was being run and actually
urged him to resign, and that Cid agreed to do so; that Roces later
instructed Fabian, then general manager, to make the necessary
arrangements for Cid’s resignation, the latter to receive two months
salary which was actually paid to him; that on October 22, or 24, 1947,
Cid left, but, on December 22 of the same year he returned to work and
continued with his duties as editor, and that when Fabian reported the
matter to Roces, the latter told him to have patience. According to
Cid, however, he did not agree to resign and that if he left the
office, as he did, It was only to enjoy two months vacation leave with
pay to which he was entitled, and that was the reason why he returned
to work on December 22, 1947.

Shortly after the filing of the aforementioned petition or
four-point demand on March 1, 1948, by the Philippine Newspaper Guild,
Evening News Local, asking, among others, for the retention of Cid as
editor, there was a rumor that Cid was being considered by the
government as its representative to the World Press Conference in
Geneva. According to Roces, Cid admitted to him that he had had a
conference with the President of the Philippines about his going to
Geneva, but that he did not see his way clear to accepting the offer of
the government to send him to Geneva because of financial reasons; that
Roces urged him to accept the offer, telling him that it was a good
opportunity for him to make a graceful exit from the Evening News, at
the same time offering to help him financially; that it was later
agreed upon between the two men that Cid would go to Geneva, continue
receiving his salary of P1,000 a month for a period of three months,
plus P3,000 as gratuity, provided that he would severe his connections
with the Evening News upon his return to the Philippines. Cid actually
went to the conference at Geneva after having received his advance
salary of three months, for March, April and May, 1948. While he was in
New York on his way home from Geneva, Cid asked the Evening News, Inc.
to send him P2,000, which amount was actually sent to and received by
him, and, upon his return to the Philippines, he received P1,000 more.
Two days after his arrival on June 22, 1948, he went to see Roces to
thank him for the financial help given to him. In that meeting, no
mention was made about his separation or resignation from the Evening
News, Inc. He did not come to the office to collect his salary for the
subsequent months; in fact, he did not report for duty until August 31,
1948, when, as already mentioned, the strikers were ordered by the
Court of Industrial Relations to return to work.

As regards his trip to Geneva and the supposed agreement on his
part to resign upon his return to the Philippines, Cid endeavored to
explain that he never agreed to resign from the Evening News, Inc. in
return for the undertaking of Roces to help finance his trip to attend
that conference; that the money he received from the Evening News,
Inc., in connection with said trip, was not exactly or wholly an act of
liberality on the part of the management, because he rendered a
distinct service to the paper by representing It at the conference,
thereby giving publicity and added prestige to the respondent, and
that, in fact, all the time he was attending the conference his name
was carried at the masthead of the Evening News. Roces explained that
it was necessary to keep the name of Cid in the paper so as to make his
status at the conference in Geneva unassailable.

There is also evidence to the effect that on or about July 17,
1948, after Cid had returned to the Philippines, he and Dacanay, then
acting editor of the Evening News, had a talk relative to Cid’s
separation from the Evening News, Inc. Dacanay advised Cid that he was
going to announce his separation from the paper and asked for
suggestions in the write-up which Dacanay had already drafted.
According to Dacanay, Cid gave suggestions which were inserted in the
draft. Later in the day, Cid sent Dacanay a note, Exhibit 20, which
reads as follows:

“Will you please defer for two days, at least the announcement we spoke about this noon.”

The announcement or write-up prepared by Dacanay, however, was
never published because of the strike of the employees of the
respondent which was declared and carried out on July 23, 1948, as
already mentioned.

From all that has been stated, it is clear that there was
considerable evidence before the Court of Industrial Relations to
support the conflicting theories set up and presented by the parties,
as to the resignation or non-resignation, or the separation or
non-separation of Cid from the respondent and the reasons behind it. In
making its finding that Cid had resigned, there could, therefore, be no
basis or foundation for any claim or conclusion that there is no
evidence at all to support said finding of the trial court. Without
reviewing the whole evidence, we are not, naturally, in a position to
say that the finding of the trial court is based on overwhelming or
preponderant evidence. But this we can say, that on the basis of the
facts to be gathered from the decision and resolution appealed from,
including the pleadings and written arguments of both parties, all of
which freely reproduced substantial portions of the testimonies of the
principal witnesses for either party, there is evidence to support the
finding of the Court of Industrial Relations that Cid had resigned. And
this is all that is required in order to uphold any decision or
resolution of the Court of Industrial Relations which is assailed by
any appellant through certiorari proceedings. As long as there is
evidence to support a decision of the industrial court, we may not
revoke or reverse said decision, just because it is not based on
overwhelming or preponderant evidence. This ruling will naturally
resolve against appellant the alleged grave abuse of discretion by the
trial court in finding that Cid had resigned from the Evening News,
Inc. Moreover, we have already ruled, though incidentally, in the case
of Manila Trading & Supply Co. vs. Manila Trading
Laborers’ Association (46 Off. Gaz., L-4874), that where it is alleged
that the Court of Industrial Relations has decided a question of fact
with grave abuse of discretion, a special civil action of certiorari
filed with the Supreme Court would be the proper remedy. Furthermore,
according to law (Rule 44,sec. 2, Rules of Court), only questions of
law may be raised in an appeal from a decision, order or resolution of
the Court of Industrial Relations. (See also:Manila Trading & Supply Co. vs.
Manila Trading Laborers’ Association, supra.; Olaivar vs. Manila
Electric Co., 40 Off. Gaz., 14th Supp., p. 73; and, Leyte Land
Transportation Co., Inc. vs. Leyte Farmers’ & Laborers’
Union, (45 Off. Gaz., 4862.) On this basis alone, we could dismiss the
appeal or affirm the decision or resolution of the Court of Industrial
Relations. But, for the satisfaction of the parties, and without
reviewing the evidence, we have extended ourselves, perhaps unduly, so
as to help In an intelligent understanding and appreciation of this
case.

Before closing, it may be stated that the partial decision of
September 4, 1948, strictly speaking, may not be considered as involved
in the present appeal. The resolution of November 2, 1948, which was
the latest act, finding or conclusion of the trial court, naturally
superseded or reversed a previous contrary finding.

In view of the foregoing, the resolution of the Court of Industrial
Relations of November 2, 1948, is hereby affirmed, with costs.

Moran, C. J., Ozaeta, Pablo, Bengzon, Tuason, and Reyes, JJ., concur.