G. LINER AND/OR JOSE DE KEYSER, PETITIONERS, VS. NATIONAL LABOR UNION, EMILIANO SILVA AND COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, RESPONDENTS.

Declared guilty of unfair
labor practice and sentenced on August 18, 1965 by the Court of Industrial
Relations (CIR) en banc to restore respondent Emiliano
Silva to his position as driver with back wages computed from March 5, 1959 to
the date of reinstatement (excluding the period from June 8, 1964 to March 8,
1965), petitioners seek review.

A bus driver of
petitioner G. Liner since 1957, respondent Emiliano Silva joined the “Kapisanan Ng Manggagawa sa G. Liner.” In January of 1959, he started campaign
for membership in the National Labor Union.  A nucleus of the local
chapter of that union amongst
petitioner company’s workers was eventually formed.  Silva and 11 other drivers formally
affiliated with the National Labor Union on February 28, 1959.

When Silva reported for
work on March 5, 1959, he was assigned Bus No. 19, an old and shabby
Chevrolet, good for only 35 seated
passengers.  He felt discriminated
against.  He drove the bus.  He made three trips, drove the bus to the company garage.  He left a written note with the dispatcher.  That note was to the effect that he would complain with the Department
of Labor about an undue change in the condition of his employment.

Having lodged his complaint with the labor authorities, Silva
returned to his work late in the afternoon of that same day, March 5, 1959.  He was to Sign the dispatcher’s book to
enable him to report for work the following day.  The dispatcher for that day did not allow him to sign up, on instructions from
the management.

He was told to see petitioner De Keyser, the com­pany
manager.  Silva saw De Keyser.  The latter exhibited his displeasure for
Silva’s having gone to the Department of Labor. 
De Keyser’s words were:  “Yoh, Silva, are up to a lot of foolishness (‘marami kangkalokohan‘).  You think we don’t know what you have been
doing.”

It developed that right
after Silva left for the Department of Labor on March 5, 1959, one Mrs. Purita de Guia, De Keyser’s
assistant, instructed the conductor assigned to Silva’s bus to accomplish a
written report merely mentioning that the bus went back to the garage at the
instance of the driver at 11:15 a.m., although the bus had no engine
trouble.  There was no mention in the
explanation why the driver did so.  That
report, to all indications, was conceived to justify violation report against
Silva.

Silva made attempts to
resume his work.  He was given the run
around treatment by petitioners.  On
March 15, 1959, letters signed by the company investigator, Jose Macapagal, were sent to Silva and to three other drivers, Brigido Daco, Ramon Sabarillo and Domingo Lacson.  The four were asked to return to work.  But only Sabarillo
and Lacson were taken back.  And this, inspite
of the fact that the four presented themselves in response to the call.  Attempts of Silva and respondent National
Labor Union to procure Silva’s return proved futile.

This precipitated the unfair labor practice com­plaint lodged
with the CIR by its acting prosecutor, Dominador
Cruz, against petitioners.^[1]
With the result indicated at the start of this opinion.

1.       Petitioners ask this
Court to overturn the find­ings of fact heretofore related.  They question, the veracity of respondent
Silva’s court testimony.  They dissected
the evidence.  They would want us to
conclude that the greater weight of evidence is in their favor.

A principle to which this
Court has consistently adhered by frequent pronouncements is that the
findings of fact of CIR will not be disturbed provided substantial evidence
exists in support thereof.^[2]
In appeals from CIR decisions, preponderance of evidence is thus not the issue.^[3]
Since substantial evidence is before us, CIR’s
findings of fact are conclusive upon this Court.

2.       Petitioners next ask
us to overrule the CIR’S resolution for-the payment to Silva of full back
wages.  Two cases they cited, Fernando vs. Angat Labor Union,
L-17896, May 30, 1962, and Sta. Cecilia Sawmills, Inc. vs. Court of Industrial
Relations, L-19273 & L-19273, February 29, 1964.

Neither one nor the other
may be equated with the case at bar.  In Fernando,
the line was sold to Villa Rey Transit, Inc.  The employees were informed of the sale.  They sought reinstatement.  It was there held that, as reinstatement
depended upon the buyer, Fernando should, in equity, be held liable for back
wages only for a period of six months.  In Sta. Cecilia Sawmills, Inc., the company’s liability for back wages was for
three month’s.  Naturally, because the company closed operations due to
business losses.

Itogon–Suyoc Mines, Inc.
vs. Sañgilo–Itogon Workers’
Union, L-24189, August 30, 1968, we
believe, is here con­trolling. 
There, the dismissal of the employees was also because of unfair labor
practice.  They remained dismissed for over ten years.  We there held, as we do now here, that the
employees are entitled to back wages, from the date of their dismissal to their
actual reinstatement.  In the case just
cited, however, we established guidelines to be followed in the computation of
back wages, viz:

“First.  To be
deducted from the back wages accruing to each of the laborers to be reinstated
is the total amount of earnings obtained by him from other employment(s) from
the date of dismissal to the date of reinstatement.  Should the laborer decide that it is
preferable not to return to work, the deduction should be made up to the time
judgment becomes final.  x x x.

Second.  Likewise, in
mitigation of the damages that the dismissed respondents are entitled to,
account should be taken of whether
in the exercise of due diligence respondents might have obtained income from
suitable remunerative employment.”

We see no reason to
depart from the Itogon ruling.

With the observations
just noted, we vote to affirm the judgment under review.

Costs against
petitioners.

SO ORDERED.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Castro, Fernando, and
Capistrano, JJ., concur.

^[1]
Case No. 2011-ULP, entitled “National Labor Union, Complainant, versus
G. Liner and/or Jose De Keyser, Office Manager, Respondents.”

^[2]
Laguna Transportation Employees
Union vs. Laguna Transportation Co., Inc., L-23266, April 25, 1968, citing cases; Cebu Portland Cement Company vs. Cement
Workers Union, L-25032, 25037 & 25038, October 14, 1968.

^[3]
National Fastener Corporation of the Philippines vs. Court of Industrial
Relations, L-15834, January 20, 1961; Laguna
Transportation Employees Union vs. Laguna Transportation Co.,
Inc., supra.