G.R. No. L-21696. February 25, 1967
VISAYAN STEVEDORE TRANSPORTATION COMPANY (VISTRANCO) AND RAFAEL XAUDARO, PETITIONERS, VS. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, UNITED WORKERS’ & FARMERS’ ASSOCIATION (UWFA), VENANCIO…
CONCEPCION, C.J.:
Appeal by certiorari, taken by the Visayan
Stevedoring Transportation Co. – hereinafter referred to as the Company – and
Rafael Xaudaro, from an order of the Court of Industrial
Relations, the dispositive part of which reads:
“The Court, finding respondents guilty of unfair labor
practice as charged, directs them to cease and desist from such unfair labor
practice and to reinstate the complainants, with back wages from the date they
were laid off until reinstated.”
The Company is engaged in the loading and unloading of vessels,
with a branch office in Hinigaran, Negros Occidental, under the management of said Rafael Xaudaro. Its workers
are supplied by the United Workers and Farmers Association, a labor
organization – hereinafter referred to as UWFA – whose men (affiliated to
various labor unions) have regularly worked as laborers of the Company during
every milling season since immediately after World War II up to the milling
season immediately preceding November 11, 1955, when the Company refused to
engage the services of Venancio Dano-og,
Buenaventura Agarcio and 137 other persons named in
the complaint filed in case No. 62-ULP-Cebu of the Court of Industrial
Relations – and hereinafter referred to
as the Complainants – owing, they claim, to their union activities. At the behest of the UWFA and the
Complainants, a complaint for unfair labor practice was, accordingly, filed
against the Company and Xaudaro with the Court of
Industrial Relations – hereinafter referred to as the CIR – in which it was
docketed as Case No. 62-ULP-Cebu. In due
course, its Presiding Judge issued the order appealed from, which was affirmed
by the CIR sitting en banc.
Hence this petition for review by certiorari.
The issues raised in this appeal, are (1) whether there is
employer-employee relationship between the Company and the Complainants; (2)
whether the Company has been guilty of unfair labor practice; and (3) whether
the order of reinstatement of Complainants, with backpay,
is a reversible error.
With respect to the first question, the Company maintains that it
had never had an employer-employee relationship with the Complainants, the
latter’s services having allegedly been engaged by the UWFA, not by the
Company, and that, in any event, whatever contractual relation there may have
been between the Company and the Complainants had ceased at the end of each
milling season, so that the Company can not be guilty of unfair labor practice
in refusing to renew said relation at the beginning of the milling season in
November, 1955.
This pretense is untenable.
Although Complainants, through the labor union to which they belong,
form part of UWFA, there was no independent contract between the latter, as an
organization, and the Company. After
the first milling season subsequently to the liberation of the Philippines,
Complainants merely reported for work, at the beginning of each succeeding
milling season, and their services were invariably availed of by the Company,
although an officer of the UWFA or union concerned determined the laborers who
would work at a given time, following a rotation system arranged therefor.
In the performance of their duties, Complainants worked, however,
under the direction and control of the officers of the Company, whose
paymaster, or disbursing officer paid the corresponding compensation directly
to said Complainants, who, in turn, acknowledged receipt in payrolls of the
Company. We have already held that
laborers working under these conditions are employees of the Company,[1]
in the same manner as watchmen or security guards furnished, under similar
circumstances, by watchmen or security agencies,[2]
inasmuch as the agencies and/or labor organizations involved therein merely
performed the role of a representative or agent of the employer in the
recruitment of men needed for the operation of the latter’s business.[3]
As regards the alleged termination of employer-employee
relationship between the Company and the Complainants at the conclusion of each
milling season, it is, likewise, settled that the workers concerned are
considered, not separated from the service, but, merely on leave of
absence, without pay, during the off-season, their employer-employee
relationship being merely deemed suspended, not severed, in the meanwhile.[4]
Referring to the unfair labor practice charge against the
Company, we find, with the CIR, that said charge is substantially borne out by
the evidence of record, it appearing that the workers not admitted to work
beginning from November, 1955, were precisely those belonging to the UWFA, and
that Xaudaro, the Company branch Manager, had told
them point blank that severance of their connection with the UWFA was the
remedy, if they wanted to continue working with the Company.
As to the payment of back wages, the law[5]
explicitly vests in the CIR discretion to order the reinstatement with back pay
of laborers dismissed due to union activities, and the record does not disclose
any cogent reason to warrant interference with the action taken by said Court.[6]
WHEREFORE, the order and resolution appealed from are
hereby affirmed, with costs against petitioners herein.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Reyes, Dizon, Regala,
Makalintal, Bengzon, Zaldivar, Sanches, and Castro, JJ., concur.
[1]
ICAWO v. CIR, G.R. No. L-21465 (March 31, 1966); Manila Hotel Co. v.
CIR, G.R. No. L-18873 (September 30, 1963).
[2]
Velez v. PAV Watchmen’s Union,
G.R. No. L-12639, April 27, 1960; U.S.
Lines v. Associated Watchmen &
Security Union, G.R. No. L-12208-11, May 21, 1958.
[3]
Madrigal Shipping Co. v. WCC, G.R. No. L-17495, June 29, 1962; Asia Steel Corp. v. WCC, G.R. No. L-7636, June 27, 1955; Mansal
v. Gocheco
Lumber Co., G.R. No. L-8017, April 30,
1955; Flores v. Compañia
Maritima, 57 Phil., 905, 908.
[4]
Manila Hotel Co. v. CIR, supra; ICAWO v. CIR, supra.
[5]
“x x x If, after
investigation, the Court shall be of the opinion that any person named in the
complaint has engaged in or is engaging in any unfair labor practice, then the
Court shall state its findings of fact and shall issue and cause to be served
on such person an order requiring such person to cease and desist from such
unfair labor practice and take such affirmative action as will effectuate the
policies of this Act, including (but not limited to) reinstatement of employees
with or without back pay and including rights of the employees prior to
dismissal including seniority x x x.”
[6]
Compañia Maritima v.
United Seaman’s Union of the Philippines,
G.R. No. L-9923, June 20, 1958;
Talisay-Silay Milling Co., Inc. v. CIR, G.R.
No. L-10423, January 20, 1960;
Caño v. CIR, G.R. No. L-15594, October 31, 1960; Henares Sons v. National Labor Union, G.R. No. L-17535,
December 28, 1960; Allied
Workers Association of the Philippines
(AWA) San Carlos Chapter v.
Philippine Land Sea
Air Labor Union (PLASLU) et al. G.R. No. L-15447-8, January 31, 1962; MP Transit & Taxi Co., Inc.
v. De Guzman, G.R. No. L-18810, April
23, 1963; and Big Five Products Workers Union
v. CIR, G.R. No. L-17600, July
31, 1963.