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

G. Liner versus National Labor Union

The Case

This is a petition for review brought by G. Liner and its manager, Jose De Keyser, against the National Labor Union and its member, Emiliano Silva, asking the Supreme Court to overturn a judgment of the Court of Industrial Relations that found them guilty of unfair labor practice and ordered the reinstatement of Silva with back wages. The case matters for two reasons. First, it fixes the standard of review over the factual findings of the Court of Industrial Relations, which is substantial evidence and not preponderance of evidence. Second, it settles the measure of back wages in dismissal cases rooted in unfair labor practice, adopting the guidelines laid down in Itogon-Suyoc Mines versus Sañgilo-Itogon Workers' Union.

Procedural History

An unfair labor practice complaint was lodged with the Court of Industrial Relations by its acting prosecutor, Dominador Cruz, against the petitioners. On August 18, 1965, the Court of Industrial Relations, sitting en banc, declared the petitioners guilty of unfair labor practice and sentenced them to restore 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. The petitioners then sought review before the Supreme Court, which is how the case reached this Court.

Facts

Emiliano Silva had been a bus driver of G. Liner since 1957 and was a member of the Kapisanan Ng Manggagawa sa G. Liner. In January 1959, he began campaigning for membership in the National Labor Union, and a nucleus of the local chapter of that union was eventually formed among the company's workers. Silva and eleven 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 Number 19, an old and shabby Chevrolet good for only thirty-five seated passengers. He felt discriminated against. He drove the bus, made three trips, brought it to the company garage, and left a written note with the dispatcher stating that he would complain to 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 work late that afternoon and was to sign the dispatcher's book so he could report the following day. The dispatcher, on instructions from management, did not allow him to sign up.

Silva was told to see De Keyser, the company manager, who showed his displeasure that Silva had gone to the Department of Labor and told him, in effect, that he was up to a lot of foolishness. It turned out that right after Silva left for the Department of Labor, 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 eleven fifteen in the morning although the bus had no engine trouble, a report conceived to justify a violation report against Silva. Silva made attempts to resume his work but was given the runaround. Letters signed by the company investigator were sent to Silva and three other drivers asking them to return to work, but only two of the four were taken back despite all four presenting themselves. Attempts of Silva and the National Labor Union to procure his return proved futile, and this precipitated the unfair labor practice complaint.

Issues

• Whether or not the findings of fact of the Court of Industrial Relations may be disturbed on appeal where substantial evidence exists in support thereof.
• Whether or not the Court of Industrial Relations correctly ordered the payment to Silva of full back wages from the date of dismissal to actual reinstatement.

Applicable Provisions

The decision does not quote a statute. It applies the settled rule on the review of the factual findings of the Court of Industrial Relations, which the Court states as follows:

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.

This rule bears on the case because it forecloses the petitioners' attempt to have the Court reweigh the evidence and substitute its own conclusion for that of the Court of Industrial Relations.

The Court also applies the guidelines it established in Itogon-Suyoc Mines versus Sañgilo-Itogon Workers' Union for the computation of back wages, quoted verbatim:

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.

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.

These guidelines bear on the case because they govern how the full back wages awarded to Silva are to be computed and mitigated.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the findings of fact of the Court of Industrial Relations will not be disturbed provided substantial evidence exists in support thereof. In appeals from decisions of the Court of Industrial Relations, preponderance of evidence is thus not the issue. Since substantial evidence was before the Court, the findings of fact of the Court of Industrial Relations are conclusive upon the Supreme Court. The petitioners' dissection of the evidence and their claim that the greater weight of evidence was in their favor did not move the Court.

On the second issue, the Court refused to overrule the resolution for the payment to Silva of full back wages. The petitioners had cited Fernando versus Angat Labor Union and Sta. Cecilia Sawmills versus Court of Industrial Relations, but the Court held that neither case could be equated with the case at bar. In Fernando, the line was sold to Villa Rey Transit and reinstatement depended upon the buyer, so the liability for back wages was equitably limited to six months. In Sta. Cecilia Sawmills, the liability was for three months because the company closed operations due to business losses. The Court found Itogon-Suyoc Mines versus Sañgilo-Itogon Workers' Union controlling, because there the dismissal was also due to unfair labor practice and the employees remained dismissed for over ten years. The Court held, as it did there, that the employees are entitled to back wages from the date of their dismissal to their actual reinstatement, subject to the guidelines on deduction of earnings from other employment and mitigation of damages.

Doctrine

First, the findings of fact of the Court of Industrial Relations are conclusive upon the Supreme Court where substantial evidence exists in support thereof; preponderance of evidence is not the issue on appeal from its decisions.

Second, an employee dismissed by reason of unfair labor practice is entitled to back wages from the date of dismissal to actual reinstatement, and this entitlement is not limited to six months or three months as in cases where reinstatement depends on a buyer or where the company closed due to business losses.

Third, in computing back wages, the total amount of earnings obtained by the dismissed employee from other employment from the date of dismissal to the date of reinstatement must be deducted, and account must be taken, in mitigation of damages, of whether in the exercise of due diligence the employee might have obtained income from suitable remunerative employment.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment under review, with costs against the petitioners, and Silva was restored to his position with back wages as ordered, subject to the stated guidelines on computation.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing is that findings of fact of the Court of Industrial Relations are conclusive upon the Supreme Court where substantial evidence supports them, and that a worker dismissed for unfair labor practice recovers back wages from dismissal to actual reinstatement, less earnings from other employment and subject to mitigation. Examiners use this case to test the substantial evidence standard in labor appeals and the correct measure of back wages, especially the distinction from the Fernando and Sta. Cecilia Sawmills rulings.