H.G. HENARES & SONS, PERTITIONER, VS. NATIONAL LABOR UNION, RESPONDENT.

Petition
for certiorari to review the decision of the Court of Industrial
Relations in its Case No. 1914-ULP, finding the herein applicant guilty
of unfair labor practice for having dismissed Pablo Fernandez, one of
its employees, and ordering his reinstatement to the company with back
wages.

Pablo Fernandez was employed by H.G. Henares &
Sons as laboratory assistant in the quality control section whose job
was “to conduct tests on the percentage of solidity of ink and other
products” of the petitioner. His regular working hours were from 7:00
a.m. to 4:00 p.m. daily. On November 24, 1958, Fernandez approached
Francisco Frio, another laboratory assistant working on the night
shift, and arranged to take over the latter’s shift from midnight of
November 25 to 8:00 a.m. of the next day. Francisco Frio, on the other
hand, was to work on Fernandez’ shift from 7:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. of
November 26. The arrangement, which was effected without the company’s
prior approval, was to enable Fernandez to testify, as he did testify,
in the hearing of November 26, 1958, in case No, 1778-ULP of the Court
of Industrial Relations, an unfair labor practice case filed against
the petitioner company on behalf of one of its employees.

The
evidence adduced by the petitioner shows that Conchita Martinez,
Fernandez’ immediate superior, learned of the unauthorised exchange of
shift from Francisco Frio whom she questioned after she allegedly
discovered evidence of poor quality control work on the night shift.
When this fact was brought to the attention of the production manager,
the latter issued a memorandum recommending Fernandez’ discharge from
the company. Both Francisco Frio and Pablo Fernandez were investigated,
but the latter alone was dismissed. Frio was given a suspension term.

The
Industrial Court concluded that there was discriminatory motivation
behind the dismissal of Pablo Fernandez. Contrary to petitioner’s
claim, substantial evidence is not wanting to support said finding of
the court.

The petitioner makes undue emphasis of the fact
that Fernandez took it upon himself to exchange shifts with Francisco
Frio without first securing the previous authorization of the company.
It is hardly convincing, however, to say that this trivial infraction,
if at all, could have really been the immediate cause of Fernandez’
discharge. His action does not by itself show any wanton disregard of
the company’s now apparent stern rule of discipline; on the contrary,
rather than absenting himself on the day he was called to testify
before the Industrial Court in another case against the petitioner
company, which he was free to do, he worked on the night shift the day
before and urged Francisco to take over his day shift on the day of the
trial in order to avoid impairing the normal business operation of the
company. In fact, both Frio and Fernandez performed the same kind of
work in the company; and Fernandez absence, without replacement, would
have placed the quality of the company’s products in greater jeopardy.

There
is testimony to the effect that no prior authorization of the company
is required whenever the exchange of shift takes place because of some
important or urgent missions of the employees, to which the Industrial
Court apparently gave credence. In the case of Fernandez, his
testifying in an unfair labor practice case was certainly an important
task.

Pablo Fernandez, like most employees, had been found
guilty of some other irregularities, it is true, but for said offenses
he was already meted out the corresponding penalties.^[1]
The Usual warning that a repetition of the same offense would subject
the offender to immediate dismissal can not, however, be said to refer
to the alleged malfeasance now in question.

As the records
stand, there is more reason to believe that Pablo Fernandez Was
dismissed from work because of union activities, i.e., in testifying
unfavorably against the petitioner in another unfair labor practice
case then pending in the Industrial Court, it may be noted that
Fernandez is a member of the Board of Directors of the H.G. Henares
& Sons Employees Association, an affiliate of the respondent union,
and that he received the dismissal notice on November 29, 1958, or
barely three days after he testified as aforesaid.

It need
not be stressed by now that the findings of the Court of Industrial
Relations may be reversed only if ‘there is no substantial evidence to
support them. We are not prepared to rule in this case that there was
no such evidence.

The matter of back wages rests within the
sound discretion of the lower court, and no abuse of that discretion
has been shown to warrant our interference with its decision in respect
thereto.

Wherefore, the decision appealed from is affirmed, with costs against the petitioner.

Bengzon, C.J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Barrera, Dizon, and De Leon, JJ., concur.

---

^[1]
See National Fastener Corporation of the Philippines vs. Court of
Industrial Relations, et al., (110 Phil., 623; 59 Off. Gaz., 26 4055)
where this Court likewise refused to consider other irregularities
committed by the dismissed employee, for which he had already been
reprimanded or otherwise punished by the company.