VISAYAN BICYCLE MANUFACTURING CO., INC., PETITIONER, VS. NATIONAL LABOR UNION AND COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, RESPONDENTS.

On November 3, 1958, workers in
the Visayan Bicycle Manufacturing Co., Inc. formed the
Visayan Bicycle Employees and Workers Union (VIBEMWU).
Pedro Evangelista was its president. On November 14, 1958, VIBEMWU and the
company signed a collective bargaining agreement. Among other things it provided
for union security, check off, wage increases, fifteen
days vacation leave and fifteen days sick leave.

On February 21, 3959, Pedro
Evangelista was again elected president, for 1959. Felicisimo Rodiel was elected
board member. For the year 1960 VIBEMWU, on December 12, 1959, re-elected Pedro
Evangelista president and elected Fulgencio Besana and Felicisimo Rodiel, vice-president and secretary,
respectively.

On February 27,1960, through its executive board headed by Besana, acting as president, VIBEMWU affiliated with the
National Labor Union (NLU). Subsequently, on March 4, 1960, the Constitution and
By-laws of VIBEMWU were amended. On March 9, 1960, another election was held and
Besana was chosen president thereby replacing
Evangelista.

On March 17, I960, the national
secretary of NLU, by a letter, informed the company of VIBEMWU’s affiliation to NLU, and demanded enforcement of
the collective bar- gaining agreement. The company, however, did not accede to
the demand. Consequently, on April 5, 1960, VIBEMWU filed a notice to
strike.

The Department of Labor’s
Conciliation Service held several hearings on the union’s demands and strike
notice, but the company still refused.

On April 25, 1960, the company
dismissed Besana and Rodiel
after they figured, on the same day, in a fight with two other employees, within
the premises and during working hours. Alleging unfair labor practice, NLU, on
behalf of VIBEMWU, as well as of Besana and Rodiel, filed on May 6, 1960 a complaint against the company
in the Court of Industrial Relations. The company answered it on May 23, 1960.
It stated that the dismissal of Besana and Rodiel was due to violation of a company rule that penalizes
“Inciting or provoking a fight or fighting during working hours or on company
premises.”

The presiding Judge of the Court
of Industrial Relations, after trying the case, rendered a decision on March 3,
1962 in favor of the complainant union. An unfair labor practice, according to
said decision, was committed by the company in dismissing Besana and Rodiel due to their
union activities. The dispositive portion
reads:

“This Court finds substantial
evidence to sustain the charge against respondent Company in violation of
Section 4 (a), paragraphs 1 and 4 of the Industrial Peace Act, and, therefore,
orders respondent Company, its official and/or agents to:

“(1) Cease and desist from
interfering, restraining or coercing its employees in the exercise of their
rights guaranteed by Section 3 of the Act;

“(2) Cease and desist from
discriminating against employees in regard to hire or tenure of employment or
any term or condition of employment to encourage or discourage membership in any
labor organization;

“(3) Reinstate Fulgencio Besana and Felicisimo Rodiel to their former
or equivalent positions in respondents Company with backwages from the time of their dismissals on April 25,
1960, up to the time of their actual reinstatements and with the rights and
privileges formerly appertaining thereto, including
seniority;

“To facilitate the proper payment
of backwages due them, the Chief of the Examining
Division of this Court and/or his duly designated assistant is hereby directed
to examine the payrolls daily time records and other pertinent documents
relative to complainants Besana’s and Rodiel’s services with respondent Company, and to submit a
corresponding report for further disposition.

“So
ordered.”

After receipt of copy of the
decision on March 13, 1962, the company filed on March 15, 1962 a motion for
reconsideration. It contained no argument but reserved the “right” to file
supporting memorandum within ten days from March 18, 1962. A motion, however,
was filed on March 27, 1962, requesting for 15-day extension of time to file the
memorandum.

Adhering to a “no-extension”
policy thereon, the Court of Industrial Relations en banc denied, on
March 28, 1962 the aforesaid motion for extension to file
memorandum

Accordingly, on April 6, 1962, it
further denied the motion for reconsideration.

Following its receipt on
July 6,
1962 of
the last resolution, the company filed this petition for review on
July 16,1962.

Petitioner has raised two issues:
First, did the Court of Industrial Relations abuse its discretion in denying the
motion for extension of time to file memorandum in support of the motion for
reconsideration? Second, did the company’s dismissal of Besana and Rodiel constitute
unfair labor practice?

The first issue has already been
settled. The denial by the Court of Industrial Relations of a motion to extend
the 10-day period to file arguments in support of a motion for reconsideration,
pursuant to its standing rule against such extension, does not constitute abuse
of discretion.^[1]

Regarding the second issue, the
record shows that on April 25, 1960, Besana and Rodiel were provoked by Saturnino
Reyes and Silvestre Pacia into a pre-arranged fight
pursuant to a strategy of the company designed to provide an apparently lawful
cause for their dismissal. Reyes and Pacia were hired
only within that week.^[2]
Besana and Rodiel were not
shown to have previously figured in similar incidents before or to have violated
company rules and regulations in their many years with the company.^[3] The company did not investigate the
incident, and its manager, Co Hing, admitted that
Besana was dismissed because he was a “hard-headed
leader of the union”. It was this manager who had warned VIBEMWU’s officers responsible for the affiliation that if
they will not withdraw VIBEMWU from the NLU, he would “take steps in order to
dismiss them from work”.

The findings of the Court of
Industrial Relations to the foregoing effect are supported by substantial
evidence. No reason obtains to alter the conclusion that Besana and Rodiel were in reality
dismissed because of their union activities and not because of their violation
of a company rule against fight in the premises or during working hours.
Furthermore, the so-called violation of company rules having been brought about
by the company itself, thru the recent employment of Saturnino Reyes and Silvestre Pacia who provoked the fight as above indicated, the same
cannot be regarded as a ground to punish the aforementioned
employees.

Such being the case, the
dismissal of Besana and Rodiel constituted unfair labor practice under Section 4 (a)
(1) and (4) of Republic Act 873:

‘Sec.
4. Unfair
Labor Practices.—

“(a) It
shall be unfair labor practice for an employer:

“(1) To
interfere with, restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of their rights
guaranteed in section three;”^[4]

* * * * * * *
*

“(4) To discriminate in regard to
hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment to encourage
or discourage membership in any labor organization * *
*”

Rothenberg has this to
say:

* * * If it can he established
that the true and basic inspiration for the employer’s act is derived from the
employee’s union affiliations or activities, the assignment by the employer of
another reason, whatever its semblance or validity, is unavailing. Thus, it has
been held that the facts disclosed that the employer’s acts in discharging
employees were actually prompted by the employer’s improper interest in the
affected employee’s union affiliations and activities, even though the employer
urged that his acts were predicated on economic necessity, desire to give
employment to more needy persons, lack of work, cessation of operations, refusal
to work overtime, refusal of non-union employees to work with union employees,
seasonal lay-off, libelous remarks against management, violation of company
rules (Rothenberg on Labor Relations, pp. 400-401; italics
supplied.)

Since the only reason or basis
for Besana and Rodiel’s
dismissal was in fact their actuation as officers of VIBEMWU, the dismissal is
clearly discriminatory.

It is this inconsiderate act of
power that makes a subordinate a rebel; it is this malicious tactic that forces
labor to dislike management; this unjustifiable conduct that creates a gap
between management and labor; and this attitude that makes the laborer hate the
officials of the company to the detriment of all efforts to harmonize management
and labor for the benefit of both as envisioned by the Industrial Peace Act. So
plain from the record is the bad faith that attended the company’s deliberate
and calculated act of unfair labor practice that we find in the present appeal
an obvious attempt to delay and carry on a pretense which this Court can ill
afford to let go without stern disapproval.

Wherefore, the decision and resolutions
appealed from are hereby affirmed, with treble costs against
petitioner.

So
ordered.

Bengzon, C. J., Bautista Angelo, Reyes,
J.B.L, Barrera, Paredes, Dizon, Regala, Makalintal and Zaldivar, JJ.,concur.

^[1] Luzon Stevedoring Co., Inc. vs.
CIR, L—16682, July 26, 1963; Manila Metal Caps and Tin Cans Manufacturing: Co.,
Inc. vs. CIR, L—17578, July 31, 1963.

^[2] April 19, 1960 and April 18,
1960, respectively.

^[3] Besana
was employed since October 4, 1956; Rodiel, since
November, 1957.

^[4] Sec. 3. Employees Right to
Self-Organization.—Employees shall have the right to self-organization and
to form, join or assist labor organizations of their own choosing for the
purpose of collective bargaining through representatives of their own choosing
and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining
and other mutual aid or protection.* * *”