MARCELO RUBBER & LATEX PRODUCTS, INCORPORATED, PETITIONER, VS. THE HONORABLE COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, THE UNITED RUBBER WORKERS’ UNION, ALEJANDRA BUENAVENTURA, TIMOTEO GUT…

The
petitioner Marcelo Rubber & Latex Products, Inc. hereinafter
referred to as the Marcelo Rubber, is a domestic corporation with
principal office in Malabon, Rizal, engaged in the manufacture of
rubber shoes and other rubber goods, and has been employing laborers
more than thirty in number who are members of respondent, the United
Rubber Workers’ Union, hereinafter referred to as the Workers’ Union.
Respondent Alejandra Buenaventura, Timoteo Gutierrez and Esperanza
Tiangco are three of said union laborers.

On January 27,
1949, Conrado Pilapil, one of the union workers filed an urgent
petition docketed as case No. 259-V (Annex A) signed by him as
“Chairman of the Negotiating Committee” of the respondent Worker’s
Union, with the Court of Industrial Relations hereafter referred to as
the CIR, alleging among other things that the Marcelo Rubber locked out
its workers in the afternoon of January 25, 1949 after the Marcelo
Rubber had failed to accede to the demands of the Workers’ Union for a
general increase in wages, and praying that the Marcelo Rubber be
ordered to reopen its factory and to readmit its laborers, members of
the union, with pay from January 25th. On January 28, 1949, the Marcelo
Rubber filed its answer with counter-petition (Annex B) denying the
allegations of the urgent petition and stating that what really
happened was that instead of a lockout by the Marcelo Rubber, an
unlawful strike was staged by the laborers on January 25th despite
pleas of the management that it be given a reasonable time to study the
demand for a general increase in wages, filed only that day, and
praying that the petition be dismissed, that the striking laborers be
ordered to return to work, and that the strike be declared unlawful.

On February 1, 1949, the CIR issued an order directing and enjoining
the laborers of the Workers’ Union to return to work at 8:00 a.m. the
following day, February 2nd, and not to strike or walkout of their
employment pending an award or decision by the CIR. The Marcelo Rubber
was likewise ordered to readmit the strikers under the last terms and
conditions existing before the dispute or conflict arose, and that
pending an award or decision it shall refrain from accepting new
laborers and shall not suspend, lay-off or dismiss any of its workers
without express authority of the CIR (Annex C). Pursuant to said order
striking members of the Workers’ Union reported for work on February
2nd, 1949, and were admitted by the Marcelo Rubber.

Towards
the end of February, 1949, one afternoon, respondent Alejandra
Buenaventura was caught by the management ordering a co-worker to buy
for her some food (halo-halo) in violation of factory regulations. It
seems that the day before she had ordered some drinks (soyalac) to be
brought to her which was done. For this she was scolded by the
supervisor and was ordered to go home for a week’s vacation, which
order was considered by Alejandra as a sort of suspension. After a week
she returned to duty but after sometime she stopped working.

Respondent Timoteo Gutierrez was a pre-war laborer of the Marcelo
Rubber with compensation at the rate of P0.50 a day which after
liberation was increased to P4.50 a day. On May 14, 1948 four fingers
of his left hand were cut while in the performance of his duty as a
rollerman. For this injury he was paid P888 by the Marcelo Rubber under
the Workmen’s Compensation Act. He was one of the workers who staged a
strike on January 25, 1949 but returned to work on February 2nd. He
claims that when he reported for work, instead of being given his old
job as watchman at the main gate of the factory compound he was given
the work of a “cargador” such as piling up smoked rubber and carrying
bales thereof; that this strenuous work did not suit his physical
condition causing his injured hand to bleed, and that because the
management refused to return him to his former post, he quit work about
March 3, 1949.

Respondent Esperanza Tiangco, another
employee was one day found absent from her place of work because she
was chatting with and helping another worker in another place. She was
admonished by the management and one of the supervisors told her that
since she was not contented with the wages she was receiving she should
go away. Esperanza took this as an order of dismissal and left the
factory.

It seems that because of the suspension or
dismissal of these three workers, and the failure of Marcelo Rubber to
heed and act favorably on the petition of Conrado Pilapil, Annex 1 of
the answer, signed by him as chairman of the Negotiating Committee,
protesting against said alleged unfair labor practice and asking for
their reinstatement, the laborers staged another strike on March 11,
1949. On the same day the Marcelo Rubber filed with the CIR an urgent
motion, Annex D, under the title “United Rubber Workers’ Union,
petitioner vs. Marcelo Rubber & Latex Products, Inc.,
respondent, case No. 259-V(1)” “to declare in contempt of court and for
dismissal of laborers,” alleging that on or about March 11th a group of
members of the Workers’ Union was inciting and urging their fellow
members to declare a strike using threats and intimidation; that as a
result, on that date more than 100 laborers of the Marcelo Rubber,
members of the union did not report for duty either because of fear of
threats or due to sympathy with their fellow members who incited the
strike; that about 21 laborers listed in the petition, among them
Alejandra Buenaventura, Timoteo Gutierrez and Esperanza Tiangco already
mentioned incited the strike, took part therein and picketed the
premises of the Marcelo Rubber, and that about eight laborers also
listed in the petition, among them Francisco Gutierrez, brother of
Timoteo Gutierrez, and Conrado Pilapil, on March 11, 1949 assaulted the
sales superintendent of the Marcelo Rubber without reason or
justifiable cause inflicting bodily injuries on him; and that on March
10, 1949 Simeon Sadile, Jose Mariano and Ruben Flores, three of the 29
laborers listed in the petition as having incited the strike or
assaulted the sales superintendent, committed acts of sabotage on the
plant, equipments and machineries of the Marcelo Rubber by cutting off
the flow of oil to the bearings and by running the machines without oil
causing said bearings to be ruined. In the urgent Motion it was prayed
that the laborers listed therein be declared in contempt of court, and
that the movant be authorized to discharge and dismiss them and that to
employ outsiders to take their places, and also to hire laborers from
outside to take the places of the approximately 100 laborers who did
not report for duty on March 11, 1949.

In view of the urgent
motion above referred to, on March 22, 1949, and under the same case
No. 259-V(1), Servando de los Angeles, allegedly representing the
Workers’ Union as its president and the Marcelo Rubber, represented by
its president and general manager Jose P. Marcelo, entered into a
written agreement entitled “Judicial Compromise” (Annex E) providing
that of the thirty-three laborers listed in the two urgent motions whom
the Marcelo Rubber sought to be declared in contempt of court and to be
dismissed from the service, the twenty-five laborers listed in said
judicial compromise, among them Alejandra Buenaventura, Timoteo
Gutierrez, Esperanza Tiangco and Conrado Pilapil, “be dismissed as they
are hereby agreed to be dismissed from the service without compensation
whatsoever, and that the respondent be authorized to hire outside
laborers in their stead”; that eight other laborers appearing in the
list of the urgent motion be retained in the service subject to the
condition that they are not to receive any pay during the period that
they did not render service; that they report for duty not later than
March 24, 1949, in default of which they would be considered dismissed,
and that said judicial compromise or agreement will not in any manner
affect the main case. The judicial compromise was signed not only by
Servando de los Angeles as president of the Workers’ Union and Jose P.
Marcelo as president and general manager of the Marcelo Rubber but also
by Eduardo P. Caguioa, counsel for the Workers’ Union and Garcia &
Martin by E. Voltaire Garcia, attorneys for respondent.

Acting on this judicial compromise the CIR in an order dated March 25,
1949 (Annex F), “finding said agreement to be just, equitable,
reasonable and not contrary to law, morals and public policy,” approved
the same, said agreement to have the same effect as and to be deemed to
be the decision or award in the premises.

In the meantime
Conrado Pilapil, still signing as chairman of the negotiating committee
of the Workers’ Union filed a petition dated March 9, 1949, docketed as
case No. 259-V(2), Annex “K” (supposedly included in or related to the
main case 259-V), protesting the suspension of Candida (should be
Alejandra) Buenaventura and asking that the Marcelo Rubber be declared
in contempt of court and punished, and ordered to pay Alejandra her
wages during the period of her suspension. In another petition (Annex
L) dated March 28, 1949, and this time docketed as case No. 259-V(4)
Conrado Pilapil again signing as chairman of the negotiating committee
protested the dismissal of Timoteo Gutierrez and Esperanza Tiangco and
asked that the Marcelo Rubber be punished for contempt of court and
ordered to reinstate them. The Marcelo Rubber filed an answer (Annex
M), to these petitions (Annexes K and L) alleging that Alejandra,
Timoteo and Esperanza had already been dismissed from the service of
the company with due authority from the CIR (presumably referring to
the judicial compromise Annex E) which was duly approved by the CIR
(Annex F), and considered as a decision or award in said case. The
answer further alleged that Conrado Pilapil signing the two petitions
lacked the authority to represent the Workers’ Union because he had
already been dismissed from the service of the Marcelo Rubber and
replaced by another laborer with due authority from the CIR, and that
he had likewise been dismissed from the Workers Union, and that he had
been convicted of the offense of physical injuries for assaulting
Eugenio Antonio, the sales superintendent of the Marcelo Rubber.

Then, a manifestation (Annex G) dated March 23, 1949, was filed with
the CIR in the same case No. 259-V(1) signed by Conrado Pilapil and
about 43 other laborers, alleging that the agreement or judicial
compromise above referred to was entered into by Servando de los
Angeles and Atty. Eduardo P. Caguioa without the knowledge and consent
of the laborers; that they had no right or personality to act for or in
behalf of the members of the Union, particularly the signers of the
manifestation; that the agreement particularly that part referring to
the dismissal of 25 laborers greatly affected the signers of the
manifestation; “that the industrial dispute between the petitioner
(Workers’ Union) and the respondent (Marcelo Rubber) had been entrusted
for prosecution by the petitioner union in a Negotiating Committee”
composed of Conrado Pilapil, Servando de los Angeles and four other
workers, and that Conrado Pilapil was made chairman of said committee,
and that the Negotiating Committee had contracted the services of Atty.
Carlos V. Santiago who had been representing the Union in all judicial
proceedings from the beginning, and that the signers of the
manifestation were not in conformity with the agreement or judicial
compromise. The signers of the manifestation asked that said judicial
compromise be disapproved and that they be given a day in court to
present their side of the case. It is not known when said manifestation
was filed with the CIR, but the fact is that as already said, the CIR
approved the judicial compromise.

On March 28, 1949, Jose P.
Marcelo representing the Marcelo Rubber and Servando de los Angeles
representing the Workers’ Union signed a written agreement (Annex I)
bearing case No. 259-V of the original case, embodying numerous terms
and conditions such as preferential shop, union fees, wages, overtime
pay, sick and vacation leave, maternity leave, schedule of wages, etc.
The agreement which is supposed and was intended to be a complete
settlement of the dispute between the Workers’ Union and the Marcelo
Rubber which arose in January 1949, and culminated in the strike staged
by the workers on January 25th, of the same year contained a prayer
that the original case No. 259-V be decided on the basis of said
agreement. On July 6, 1949, the CIR in an order of the same date (Annex
J) found the contents of the agreement to be reasonable and in
accordance with law, except paragraph 8 which contravened the 8-hour
labor law, and subparagraph E of paragraph 15 for being unjust and
discriminatory and with said exceptions, approved the agreement, the
same to have the same effect and to be deemed as a decision or award in
the premises.

Almost two years later, on March 28, 1951, the
CIR through Associate Judge Modesto Castillo rendered a decision in the
two cases 259-V(2) and 259-V(4) regarding the protested suspension and
dismissal of Alejandra Buenaventura, Timoteo Gutierrez and Esperanza
Tiangco, making findings and rulings to the effect that Jose P.
Marcelo, President and General Manager of the Marcelo Rubber had never
ordered the dismissal or suspension of Alejandra Buenaventura; that the
order of one of the supervisors or superintendents for Alejandra to
take one week vacation which is equivalent to a suspension, was unjust
and unreasonable, and so she should be paid her wages during said
period of suspension; that as regards Timoteo Gutierrez, he had been
subjected to unjust treatment by the company because he should not have
been removed from his post as watchman and given the work of a cargador
and he should be reinstated; and that with respect to Esperanza
Tiangco, although she was found absent from her place of work, a
dismissal was not commensurate with the offense committed by her and
that she should have been merely admonished. In case No. 259-V(2) the
CIR ordered the Marcelo Rubber to pay Alejandra Buenaventura her wages
during the period of her suspension consisting of six working days, and
to reinstate her in the service in case No. 259-V(4) the CIR ordered
the Marcelo Rubber to pay Timoteo Gutierrez his wages corresponding to
the period from March 4 to 10, 1949, because he was unjustly discharged
from the service, and to reinstate him forthwith to his former position
as watchman; and finally, to reinstate Esperanza Tiangco forthwith in
the company’s service and to the same position she was occupying before
the strike of January 25, 1949. The decision ends with the following
paragraph:

“The order to reinstate Alejandra
Buenaventura, Timoteo Gutierrez, and Esperanza Tiangco shall be without
prejudice to deciding later on whether they are entitled or not to back
wages which is dependent upon the issue of whether the alleged second
strike on March 11, 1949, is legal or illegal. This aspect of the case
is one of the issues in case 259-V(1) in which the manifestation of
Alejandra Buenaventura, et als., dated March 23, 1949, is still pending
hearing by the court.”

The Marcelo Rubber moved for
reconsideration and new trial (Annex O) which motion was opposed (Annex
Q) by the Workers’ Union. However, the Workers’ Union also filed a
motion for reconsideration of that portion of the decision which says
that the payment of back wages to the workers ordered to be reinstated
would depend upon the legality or illegality of the second strike on
March 11, 1949.

Acting upon these motions for reconsideration the CIR en banc
rendered a resolution (Annex S) dated May 3, 1952, modifying the
decision of March 28, 1951, ruling that Alejandra’s reinstatement may
not be ordered for the present it appearing that after her suspension
of one week during the latter part of February, 1949, she worked three
days and there is no showing that she was again suspended or dismissed
before the strike of March 11, 1949; but that the reinstatement of
Timoteo Gutierrez and Esperanza Tiangco in the service of the Marcelo
Rubber should stand, pending whatever decision the CIR may render on
the legality or illegality of the strike on March 11, 1949 which was
indirectly raised as an issue in the incidental case 259-V(1) as a
consequence of the so-called Manifestation (Annex G). Presiding Judge
Roldan and Associate Judges Castillo and Yanson signed the resolution.
Judge Bautista took no part. Judge Lanting in a dissenting opinion
disagreed with the majority. We reproduce his dissenting opinion
consisting of three paragraphs, which explains his stand.

“The
issue regarding the dismissal or reinstatement of Alejandra
Buenaventura, Timoteo Gutierrez and Esperanza Tiangco cannot properly
be decided before the question of legality of the strike in this case
is raised by the respondent and the question of whether the so-called
‘judicial compromise’, as approved by this court, whereby the
petitioning union agreed to the dismissal of the above-named three
workers, among others, are determined. The agreement was approved and
given the effect of a ‘decision or award in the premises’ by the order
of this court dated March 25, 1949. According to the ‘Entry of
Judgment’ made by the clerk of court, the afore-mentioned order became
final and executory on April 7, 1949.

“The decision of the Judge a quo
of March 28, 1951, the reconsideration of which is now being sought by
both parties, leaves open and does not decide the question of legality
of the strike and the question of whether the agreement of the parties
as approved by the court in an order which has become final and
executory does or does not bind the three workers concerned. The same
decision admits that the complete determination of the issues in the
present case depends partly, if not wholly, on the outcome of the two
questions just mentioned.

“I am, therefore, constrained to
reserve my opinion as to whether or not the three workers concerned are
entitled to reinstatement, and if so, whether they are entitled to
backpay. In the meantime, I consider their reinstatement premature.”

Involving as they do, questions of fact, we accept the findings of the
CIR regarding the impropriety of the suspension or dismissal of
Alexandra, Timoteo and Esperanza, and although we also agree that under
ordinary circumstances they should be reinstated, we are inclined to
agree with Judge Lanting that their reinstatement at this time is
rather premature. Should the CIR later find that to settle the dispute
between the Workers’ Union and the Marcelo Rubber, Servando de los
Angeles though President of the Workers’ Union had no right to
represent it in a collective bargaining agreement with the Marcelo
Rubber because said representation was lodged in the Negotiating
Committee headed by Conrado Pilapil, then said judicial compromise
would be ineffective and the CIR might yet withdraw its approval of the
same and perhaps set aside its order Annex F. In such a case, the
reinstatement of the three laborers in question be in order. If,
however, as claimed by Servando los Angeles, he was the lawfully
authorized representative of the Workers’ Union and had the right to
enter into the judicial compromise; that Conrado Pilapil was no longer
a representative of the Workers’ Union because he had not only been
dismissed from the service of the Marcelo Rubber but also from the
Workers’ Union, then the judicial compromise was a valid agreement
between the Workers’ Union and the Marcelo Rubber, was given the effect
of an award or judgment by the CIR, and what is more by its terms the
three laborers in question had been properly and legally dismissed and
other workers were lawfully appointed to their respective places. In
such a case, the reinstatement now being ordered by the majority would
be without basis.

In view of the foregoing, the decision of March 28, 1951 as
modified by the resolution of May 3, 1952 appealed from is hereby
modified to the effect that the reinstatement of Alejandra
Buenaventura, Timoteo Gutierrez and Esperanza Tiangco be held in
abeyance and be made to depend not so much on the legality or
illegality of the strike, but rather on whether or not the Judicial
Compromise between the Workers’ Union and the Marcelo Rubber, approved
by the CIR, was properly entered into, particularly, whether it was
entered into with due and lawful representation of the Workers’ Union
by Servando de los Angeles. It is suggested that the CIR take the
necessary steps to arrive at an early decision of said issue. No
pronouncement as to costs.

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