PAGKAKAISANG ITINATAGUYOD NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA ANG TIBAY (PIMA), ELISEO SAMSON, ET AL., PETITIONERS, VS. ANG TIBAY, INCORPORATED, PRUDENCIO TEODORO AND COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELAT…

This is a petition filed by the “Pagkakaisang
Itinataguyod Ng Mga Manggagawa sa Ang
Tibay“, hereafter referred to as the Union, and
some of its members, for a review of the resolution of the Court of Industrial
Relations in banc (in CIR Case No. 1512 -ULP), declar­ing as
illegal the strike staged by the petitioners on November 14, 1957, and
dismissing their complaint for unfair labor practice against the Ang Tibay, Incorporated, to be
referred hereafter as the Company, and its Assistant General Manager.

Petitioners, as complainants in CIR Case No. 1512 -ULP, charged
the Company and its Assistant General Manager of unfair labor prac­tices
allegedly committed as follows:

“4. That on June 26, 1956 complainant sent a letter addressed
to the respondent company for the renewal of a collective bargaining agreement,
entered into by and between the complainant union and the respondent company on
August 6, 1955, and for the enforcement of Article III, Section 3 of the said
collective bargaining agreement, to wit:

‘The Company further agrees to give increase of P0.05 per hour to
those regular hourly workers, who may not have been converted to piece work as
agreed in the next preceding paragraph, effective August 5, 1955.’

“5. That respondents, after the receipt of the above letter, paid
all the workers the P0.05 increase except Jesus Guevarra,
a member of complainant union, who was not fully paid;

“6. That on or about September 6, 1957, complainant sent a letter
asking the respondent company among other things to pay Jesus Guevarra the full amount of his increase, which the
respondents did on September 12, 1957, but dismissed him on the same date;

“7. That after the union requested the respondent company to pay Eliseo Samson, Armando Jacinto, Cornelio Jose, Rafael
Martin, Pampilo Alcantara,
and Baldomero Resurreccion,
their vacation leave in accordance with the said collective bargaining
agreement of August 6, 1955, the said respondent company stopped its operation
in the slipper department on March 16, 1957, which put all the abovementioned
workers, except Armando Jacinto, out of work;

“8. That on or about June
10, 1957, the respondent company summarily dismissed Asuncion Ablaza, for be­ing the secretary and an active member of
the complainant union;

“9. That, finally, in a letter dated September 6, 1957 the
complainant made a last effort to effect satisfactory settlement of all pending
differences between the parties, and due to the action taken by the respond­ents
and their answer dated September 12, 1957, the complainant filed a notice of
strike on September 20, 1957, x  x  x;

“10. That the parties failed to settle satisfactorily all the
issues even after the complainant acceded to the proposals of the Management
for the reinstatement of Jesus Guevarra, which
proposal was subsequently dishonored, and the payment of satisfactory
separation pay to all others, and subsequently, the complainant was constrained
to strike on November 14, 1957;

“11. That in the afternoon of November 15, 1957, complainant
union and respondent company finally agreed to a settlement of all their
differences including the return to work on November 18, 1957 of all the
strikers, x x x;

“12. That on November 18, 1957, when the said strikers
reported for work, the respondents refused to readmit them, unless they
apologize for the strike and to admit that the strike was wrong, which the
strikers refused to do; and

“13. That from the
foregoing, the respondents did engage in and are hereby engaging in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 4(a), sub-paragraphs (1), (4) and
(6) in relation with Section 15 of Republic Act No. 875.”

Respondents, in their
separate answers, denied the allegations of the complaint and contended that
the 5 slipper-makers named in the complaint were hired not by the Company, but
by an independent contractor; that the dismissals of Guevarra
and Ablaza were justified, and that the strike staged
by the complainant was illegal.

After due hearing, the Industrial Court rendered a decision
finding that the dismissal of Jesus Guevarra and
Asuncion Ablaza were justified and were not motivated
by their union activities; and the same could be said of the refusal to grant
vacation and sick leave to the 5 extra slipper-makers; that the declaration of
the strike on November 14, 1957 was unjustified and illegal, since the parties
were at the time practically agreed on the terms suggested by the conciliator,
and the employer had virtually conceded the demands of the strikers, and that
the strike was staged in violation of the collective bargaining agreement,
without following the Grievance Machinery therein provided.  The decision also found that the respondent
employer had taken back the strikers, excepting only those who refused to sign
a pledge not to damage company property and not to go after those union members
who did not join the strike.  And,
finding that the charges of unfair labor practice had not been proved, the
Court of Industrial Relations in banc concluded that it could
only dismiss the complaint and had no jurisdiction to order the reinstatement
of the complainant strikers.  Hence, the
latter, through the Union, instituted the present
appeal.

The issue now being stressed by petitioner, that the strike was
precipitated by the violation by the Company of the provision of the collective
bargaining agreement against summary dismissal is actually a change of theory
in the Court below.

It must be remembered that the action instituted by petitioners
in the lower court was for unfair labor practices against the employer; the proceedings therein must have been
conducted pursuant to Section 5, paragraphs (b), (c), and (d) of Republic 875;
and that, after hearing, judgment was rendered by the trial Judge and later by
the court in banc to the effect that the complaint was not
proved.  Properly, therefore, the issue
in this case should hinge on the correctness of the ruling of the lower court
exonerating the Company from the charges of unfair labor practice.  In this connection, even assuming, as
petitioners now assert, that the dismissals at least of Union-member Guevarra and Union-official Ablaza
were effected by the Company without prior investigation, as called for in
Section 2, Article VIII of the collective bargaining contract, such breach of
the terms of the agreement by the employer did not constitute in itself an
unfair labor practice under Section 4(a) of Republic Act 875.  As repeatedly held by this Court,^[1] the violation by the employer of the
obligations imposed upon him by the collective bargaining agreement may be
redressed, not in the Court of Industrial Relations, but in the regular courts,
not unlike an ordinary obligation or contract.

As to the charge of discrimination in the readmission of the
strikers, it may be pointed out that under the Industrial Peace Act, to
constitute an unfair labor practice, the discrimination committed by the
employer must be in regard to the “hire or tenure of employment or any
term or condition of employment to encourage or discourage membership in any
labor organization.” The exaction, by the Company, from the strikers
returning to work, of a promise not to destroy company property and not to
commit acts of reprisal against the Union-members who did not participate in
the strike, cannot be considered as intended to encourage or discourage
Union-membership.  Taking the
circumstances surrounding the prescribing of that condition, the requirement by
the Company is actually an act of self-preservation and designed to insure the
maintenance of peace and order in the Company premises.

In view of the fact that, as found by the court below, the
charges of unfair labor practices were not substantiated, which finding we now
have no reason to disturb, the ruling of the respondent court in banc,
dismissing the complaint (without provision as to reinstatement of the
strikers) is proper.  The Industrial
Court indeed did not possess authority to order
the reinstatement of the strikers after the latter had failed to prove the
unfair labor practice charges against the employer.^[2]

WHEREFORE, the resolution of the Court of Industrial
Relations in banc appealed from is hereby affirmed, with costs
against the petitioners.

SO ORDERED.

Concepcion, C.J., Dizon,
Regala, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P., Zaldivar, Sanchez,
and Castro, JJ., concur.

^[1]
See Malaya Workers Union (PAFLU),
et al. vs. Court of Industrial Relations, et al., G. R. Nos. L-17880-81,
April 23, 1963; Baguio Gold Mining Co. vs. Tabisola,
et al., G. R. No. L-15265, April 27,
1962; Cagalwan vs. Customs
Canteen, et al., G. R. No. L-­16031, Oct.
31, 1961; National Labor Union vs. Insular-Yebana Tobacco Corp., G. R. No. L-15363, July 31, 1961.

^[2]
Malaya Workers Union (PAFLU), et al. vs.
CIR, et al., supra.