G.R. No. L-21510. June 29, 1968
JOHN I. NEVANS, VICTOR M. NALUS AND LUZON BROKERAGE COMPANY, INC., PETITIONERS, VS. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, LUZON BROKERAGE SUPERVISORS UNION (PTGWO) AND GUILLERMO STA. A…
CONCEPCION, C.J.:
Petition for review on certiorari of a decision and a resolution of the Court
of Industrial Relations, hereinafter referred to as CIR.
At the behest of respondents Guillermo Sta. Ana and the Luzon
Brokerage Supervisors’ Union, on July 3,
1961, a complaint for unfair labor practice was filed with the CIR
against herein petitioners, Luzon Brokerage
Co., Inc. – hereinafter referred to as the Company – its President, John I. Nevans, and its Office Manager, Victor M. Nalus, for having suspended and, soon later, dismissed Sta.
Ana owing, according to respondents, to Sta. Ana’s union activities. Petitioners herein denied the charge and
alleged that Sta. Ana had, together with three (3) other employees of the
Company, been suspended because they were implicated in the losses sustained by
the Company owing to pilferage and that Sta. Ana was later dismissed, after
thorough investigation establishing his complicity in the theft. After appropriate proceedings, a Judge of the
CIR rendered
a decision finding the petitioners guilty as charged and
sentencing them to reinstate him to his former or equivalent position, with
back pay.
Petitioners filed a
motion for reconsideration, and soon thereafter, a supplemental motion
for new trial, on the ground of newly discovered evidence. Upon
denial of these motions by the CIR en banc, the present petition
for review on certiorari was filed by petitioners herein, upon the
ground that the CIR had erred and/or acted with grave abuse of discretion; 1) in denying their aforesaid motion for reconsideration and supplemental motion for new trial; 2) in finding that they
had
committed an unfair labor practice in suspending and
dismissing Sta. Ana; and 3) in finding petitioners Nevans and Nalus
liable
for the payment of Sta. Ana’s
back wages, despite the fact that they had merely acted as agents of the
Company.
The main facts are not
disputed. As set forth in the decision appealed from:
“Guillermo Sta. Ana worked in respondent company from September,
1953 to August 24, 1960. He was head checker of the company before he ceased working
and his salary was P215.00 a month. Two
months after September, 1953 he joined the Luzon Brokerage Employees
association as a member, by 1955 he was appointed
special observer, and by 1957 he became a member of the board of directors of said Association.
When his appointment as head checker was confirmed, he resigned from the Luzon Brokerage Employees Association and joined the Luzon Brokerage Supervisory Union on March
8,
1960. Before he joined the latter, he was Auditor of the former.”
Under Sta. Ana’s supervision, on August 11, 1960, four (4) cases of merchandise were loaded,
in the manila Port Area, on a truck of the Company, driven by Roberto Yumul. One (1) of
the cases was, by order of Sta. Ana, unloaded in front of the offices of the Company in said area. Then, provided with a gate pass, supplied by him, for the three (3) remaining boxes, the
truck
proceeded to and did deliver the
same to the consignee thereof, Shurdut Mill Supply
& Co. – hereinafter referred to as Shurdut – at the Walled City.
Soon thereafter, the
Manila Port Service reported to the
Manila Police Department the alleged theft of one (1) case, containing 5006
Atkins Saw Teeth valued P2,887.28, which turned out to be one of those consigned to Shurdut. In connection therewith, Sta. Ana and Yumul, as well as Eugenio Belarmino and Victor Aloot, truck
helper and “extra” checker of the Company, respectively, were investigated by the police. On August 24, 1960, Sta. Ana received a letter of petitioner Nevans, as President of the Company, advising him that,
“in view of the numerous ramifications of the Shurdut
Case, the Management regrets to inform you that they find it necessary to
suspend you indefinitely, effective Thursday, August 25, 1960, as they feel
that your suspected implication in this case reflects badly on the performance
of your duties and can endanger the good reputation of the Company,” and
that the same would conduct its “own administrative investigation, the
outcome of which will be the deciding factor on what further and permanent
action we would take.” on September 23, 1960, the Management decided to dismiss him
for cause, namely, his “implication
in pilferages on the Shurdut case and the U. S.
Veterans Administration case,” as well as his “other negligences.”
On February 21, 1961,
Sta. Ana brought the matter to the CIR, one of the prosecutors of which filed
therein, on July 3, 1961, a complaint charging petitioners herein with unfair
labor practice, upon the ground that they suspended him on August 24, 1960, on
account of his union activities, and on September 23, 1960, “to stop his
contact with the members of the Luzon Brokerage Association whose members are
employees” of the Company.
The main proof in support
of this charge consisted of Sta. Ana’s testimony. In the language of the decision appealed
from:
“Mr. Guillermo Sta. Ana testified, among others that those who
negotiated the collective bargaining agreement with the company were the president, vice-president, secretary and the auditor
of the Lubrocoem Association; that he was requested by his co-officers,
as auditor of the Association, to attend the negotiation of the union with the
management, and he attended the negotiation two or three times; that he
proposed that the company provide legal assistance to them especially when they commit honest mistakes; that he
suggested that employees who commit
mistakes should not be immediately suspended or dismissed, but should be given
a chance to be heard through their union; that management answered that it was
immaterial to provide legal assistance for it might become a habit on
the part of employees to make mistakes and then they would just depend on the
legal assistance by the company.
“Mr. Guillermo Sta. Ana also declared that in July, 1957, he
was verbally authorized by the president of the company, Mr. T. K. Norton, to hire ten
extra man for the job of checker; that Mr. Nalus
recommended to Mr. Ponce the
appointment of Eraño Nepomuceno;
that those who were qualified were hired while those who were not qualified,
including Eraño Nepomuceno,
were not hired; that Eraño Nepomuceno
was disqualified upon recommendation of the regular checker through him; that
when Mr. Nalus heard about It, he telephoned him and told him that if Eraño Nepomuceno would not be
hired, he was going to use his influence to dismiss all the ten checkers that he had hired, and then Mr. Nalus
told him that he would put him down; that after July, 1957, he and Mr. Nalus were not in good terms anymore because of Nepomuceno’s case.
“Mr. Sta. Ana also stated that after the death of his supervisor, Mr. Felipe Badillo,
he was recommended by Mr. Capili to the
position of acting head checker at Pier 3; that after five months as head checker,
he was called up by telephone by the operations
manager, Mr. Capili, concerning the pilferage
in the pier; that he was given
an indefinite suspension on August 24, 1960; that he was given a memorandum of Mr. Nalus to submit to a lie-detector test; that he was not
informed of the result of the lie-detector test to which he submitted himself.
x x x x x x x x x x “
The question for our determination is whether the foregoing evidence substantially supports the
following conclusion, made in said decision:
“The first paragraph of the foregoing facts tends to prove the
veracity of the testimony of Mr. Guillermo Sta. Ana concerning his union
activities, and the second paragraph tends to prove the truth of the statement
of Mr. Sta. Ana that his dismissal, on account of his union activities, had
something to do with his rejection of the recommendee (Eraño Nepomuceno) of Mr. Victor Nalus to become one of the checkers of the company. The third paragraph shows the bias of Mr.
Victor Nalus in not showing to Mr. Sta. Ana the result of the lie-detector test to which the latter
had submitted himself at the request of the former.
“Upon the whole, it appears that the dismissal of Mr.
Guillermo Sta. Ana from the service of
respondent company was due to his union
activities. In other words, the
allegations in the Complaint are supported with substantial evidence….”
We note that Sta.
Ana did not testify that, either his suspension, or his dismissal, was prompted
by his union activities. Indeed, these activities began since November 1953,
when he joined the Luzon Brokerage Employees Union. Said activities must have been manifest
since, at least, 1955, when the Union appointed him as
its special observer. What is more, in 1957, he became a member of
the Union’s Board of Directors. Yet, it
is not even suggested that petitioners had shown any animosity or bias
against him, on account of his union activities, during these four (4) years.
Sta. Ana claims that in 1957, he had an
incident with the office manager, petitioner Victor Nalus,
because he (Sta. Ana) did not appoint Eraño Nepomuceno, a recommendee of Nalus, as checker, upon the ground of lack of the requisite
qualifications. Sta. Ana testified that Nalus phoned him and said that, if Nepomuceno
would not be hired, he (Nalus) would put him (Sta.
Ana) down, apart from using his (Nalus‘) influence to
dismiss the checkers appointed by Sta. Ana, and that, since 1957, he was
“not in good terms” with Nalus.
This alleged resentment
or ill-feeling was generated, however, not by Sta. Ana’s union
activities, but, by his failure to accommodate a recommendee of Nalus. There is,
moreover, nothing in the record to indicate that Sta. Ana’s action in connection therewith had any
connection whatsoever with his aforementioned activities. Neither does it suggest that either Nalus or the other
petitioners herein had been thereby induced to take any adverse action against Sta.
Ana.
On the contrary, on September 19, 1959, Nalus
appointed Sta. Ana “as Acting
Head Checker for a trial period of six months,
effective retroactively on September 1, 1959,” with a raise of P25
in his monthly salary. Nalus further advised Sta. Ana, that
“if your services are found satisfactory x x x the management
may consider confirming your permanent appointment as Head Checker with an
upward revision in your salary.” Nalus even added: We
appreciate the satisfactory work you have been doing and trust you will continue to serve the Company
faithfully.” In fact, on March 4, 1960, Nalus issued the corresponding “Notification of personnel
action,” to the effect that Sta.
Ana had been permanently appointed as Head Checker,
with another increase in pay,
this time a substantial one,
from P165 to P215 a month.
These two (2) promotions in status and in pay, and the
circumstances surrounding the same,
strongly tend to show that the alleged incident between Sta. Ana and Nalus, way back in 1957, had not so hurt the latter, as to
have left a wound still unhealed three (3) years later, and impelled him –
taking advantage of the pilferage that took place on August 11, 1960 – to
suspend and then dismiss Sta. Ana in August
and September, respectively, of the same year, on account of the union
activities in which he had been engaged for the past seven (7) years. In fact, there is neither
direct nor indirect evidence that the ultimate cause of the disciplinary
action taken against Sta. Ana was his
union activities. The failure of the Company to inform Sta. Ana
of the result of the lie-detector test, to which he had submitted, does
not and can not show the alleged bias
of Nalus, there being no proof or claim that Sta. Ana
had so much as asked or inquired about it.
In short, the conclusion of the CIR on the cause of his
dismissal is
based, therefore, on pure and simple speculation, justified, neither by
the events preceding August 11, 1960, nor by those that took place thereafter.
Indeed, it is not disputed
that out of four (4) cases of
goods picked up from the Manila Port area, on August 11, 1960, one (1) was unloaded by
order of Sta. Ana, in front of the offices of the Company, and the other three
(3) were delivered to the consignee thereof.
The Manila Port Detachment, the Manila Police Department and the Company
were under the impression that: the unloaded case had been stolen. Having taken
part in the process of taking said four (4) cases and delivering three (3) of
them to the consignee, Eugenia Belarmino, Victorino Aloot, Roberto Yumul and respondent Sta. Ana, truck helper, extra
checker, driver and head
checker, respectively, of the Company, were investigated.
The first three (3) made written statements to the Manila Police
Department. Belarmino declared that, on August
11, 1960, four (4) cases were loaded on a truck of the Company (at the Manila
Port Area); that one (1) of said cases
was unloaded by Sta. Ana in front of the offices of the Company (in said
area); that, after securing a gate pass for the three (3) remaining cases, the same
were delivered to Shurdut, in “Intramuros“; and that, on August 12, 1960, Yumul gave him P10.00 out of P20.00 allegedly given to him
(Yumul) by Sta. Ana.
Aloot stated that Sta. Ana had ordered the loading
of said four (4) cases and then bade him
to secure a gate pass for only three (3) cases.
Yumul, in turn, affirmed that, after said four (4) cases had been loaded on his
truck, he drove the same to the place in front of the offices of the Company,
where Sta. Ana ordered him to unload
one (1) case; that, after obtaining a gate pass for three (3) cases, he, together with Aloot
and Belarmino, delivered the same to Shurdut; that the next day, Sta. Ana handed him P20, half of which he gave to Belarmino; and that he, later, learned that the case left in front of the Company premises had
been taken out (of the Manila Port Area) and that the money given to him was his
share of the sale thereof.
Upon the other hand, Sta. Ana refused to make any written statement, despite the unfavorable implications of the statements made by Belarmino, Aloot and Yumul.
The CIR was seemingly
under the impression that petitioners had committed an unfair labor practice
because they did not prove satisfactorily that the aforementioned case of
merchandise had been stolen by Sta. Ana.
Our point of inquiry, however, is not whether Sta. Ana is guilty of theft, but, petitioners’ motive
in suspending and then dismissing him.
And, since there is neither direct nor strong circumstantial evidence
thereon, the issue boils down to what was in
all probability, the main cause for said suspension and dismissal.
Under the circumstances adverted to above, petitioners had reasonable grounds to believe, if not to
entertain the moral conviction, that Sta. Ana was the person mainly responsible for the
disappearance of the case of goods consigned to Shurdut
and not delivered thereto, and
for which the Company would have
to indemnify Shurdut in the sum of P2,469.45, or, at least, that the nature of his
participation therein rendered him absolutely unworthy of the trust and confidence demanded by his position as head checker, and that,
accordingly, he should be dismissed,
not only to punish him and as a deterrent to similar behaviour of other employees,
but, also, to protect the reputation of the Company.
As a matter of fact, the investigator of the Manila Police Department
concluded that:
“Gleaned from the foregoing facts, it is obvious that
Guillermo Sta. Ana holds the key to the mysterious disappearance of the missing
case. While it is true that the others
shared him with the proceeds of the loot although comparatively in a very small way, yet it is clear that they acted only upon his (Sta. Ana) direction. Besides, it has been established that Sta. Ana
was the one responsible for leaving behind the one (1) missing box
and as Yumul said, he “just learned that the one
box which was ordered left, was
taken out by them and the money was my share from the sale”.
x x x x
x x x x x “
and expressed the
conviction that Sta. Ana is “all behind the
crime”.
It is true that the written statements of Belarmino, Aloot and Yumul, and the report of the police investigator were not sought to be introduced in evidence until after the
rendition of the decision of the
trial Judge, although before the action taken by the CIR en banc. This
was due, however, to the fact that said report, with the statements forming part thereof, had not
been submitted until sometime after petitioners had completed the presentation
of their evidence before the CIR hearing officer. At any rate, petitioner Nalus
had testified on the investigations made and the “implications” of
the facts disclosed in the course thereof.
WHEREFORE, the decision and the resolution appealed from are hereby
reversed and judgment shall be entered
dismissing the complaint for unfair labor practice against
petitioner herein, without costs.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Sanchez,
Castro, Angeles, and Fernando, JJ., concur.