MD TRANSIT & TAXI CO., INC., ET AL., PETITIONERS, VS. BIENVENIDO DE GUZMAN, ET AL, RESPONDENTS.

Appeal by certiorari, taken by petitioners MD Transit & Taxi Co.,
Inc., and CAM Transportation, Co., from a decision of the Court of
Industrial Relation directing the reinstatement of complainants
Bienvenido de Guzman, Bernardita Oracion, and Cecilio Cajoles, as
members of the MD-CAM Local 3 (PTWO) as well as the reinstatement of
Bernardita Oracion and Bienvenido de Guzman as employees of the MD
Transit & Taxi Co., Inc., with back wages from October 27 and
November 9, 1958, respectively, and that of Cecilio Cajoles as employee
of CAM Transportation Co., from October 27, 1958, until I actual
reinstatement in all cases, and, likewise, directing the Chief of the
Examining Division of said Court, or his duly authorized
representative, to proceed to the premises of said petitioners and go
over the records thereof “to determine the back wages” of said
“complainants and thereafter to submit a report to the Court for
further disposition.”

Petitioners MD Transit & Taxi Co., Inc. and CAM Transportation Co.
are separate entities engaged in business as common carriers, but under
joint management, which had entered into a collective bargaining
agreement with the MD-CAM Local 3 (PTWO), a labor union composed of
employees of said entities, to which, prior to October 27, 1958,
complainants Bienvenido de Guzman, Cecilio Cajoles and Bernardita
Oracion were rendering services, the first two as drivers, and the last
as conducttress. On October 23, 1958, complainants secured the
signatures of their co-employees to a petition to the Department of
Labor for an auditing of the mutual aid fund of said Union, collected
by its president, Felipe de Guzman. As the auditing requested took
place, said Department found on October 27, 1958, that there was a
shortage of over P22,000.00 in the aforementioned mutual aid fund. The
matter was, accordingly, referred to the City Fiscal of Quezon City for
appropriate action. On the same date, complainants were suspended as
members of the Union by order of said Felipe de Guzman, and several
days later, or on November 9, 1958, they were expelled from the Union
by its Board of Directors. Complainants were, likewise, dismissed by
the petitioners, although the parties do not agree on the date on which
this took place. Hence, complainants brought their case to the Court of
Industrial Relations, an Acting Prosecutor of which subsequently filed
a complaint charging the petitioners, as well as the President, the
Vice-President and the members of the Board of Directors of the Union,
with unfair labor practice.

In their answer, petitioners denied the commission of unfair labor
practice on their part and alleged that complainants’ dismissal was
due: 1) to their absence from work for four (4) consecutive days, in
violation of their collective bargaining contract; and 2) to a
communication of the Union to the petitioners urging the same to
dismiss the complainants pursuant to a closed shop stipulation in said
contract, in view of their expulsion from the Union. The answer filed
by the officers of the latter was substantially of the same tenor.

In due course, the lower court rendered the aforementioned decision in
favor of the complainants, upon the ground that their expulsion from
the Union was illegal it having been effected without previous notice
and hearing, and its true cause being, not their alleged absence from
work, but the complaint by them filed with the Department of Labor for
alleged irregularities in the handling of the mutual aid fund of the
Union, and that complainants were dismissed by the petitioners before
the latter had received the communication, Exhibit 5, of the Union,
asking the petitioners to dismiss the complainants owing to their
aforementioned expulsion from the Union. A reconsideration of said
decision having been denied by the lower court sitting en banc,
the petitioners have interposed the present appeal by certiorari,
contending: 1) that, having acted in compliance with a valid closed
shop provision of the contract above referred to, petitioners cannot be
convicted of the unfair labor practice committed by the Union; and 2)
that the lower court had acted on mere conjectures, and, consequently,
had erred in finding that complainants were dismissed by the
petitioners before the latter had received said letter of the Union,
Exhibit 5. The officers of the Union did not appeal from the aforementioned decision.

We find no merit in this appeal of petitioners herein.

The lower court found that complainants were dismissed before said
Exhibit 5 was received by petitioners herein. Said dismissal could not
have been made, therefore, in pursuance either of the request contained
in said communication or of the closed shop provision of the
aforementioned collective bargaining agreement. Moreover, the lower
court found-and this is amply supported by the evidence on record-that
complainants’ suspension by the President of the Union, their
subsequent expulsion by its Board of Directors, were due to the charges
preferred by said complainants against the officers of the Union, which
led to the discovery of an alleged shortage in its Mutual Aid Fund, and
the reference of the case to the City Fiscal of Quezon City. Thus the
Union was guilty of unfair labor practice under subdivision (b) (2) of
Section 4 of Republic Act No. 875. Necessarily, this was, also, the
reason why complainants were dismissed by the petitioners herein-since
there is no other possible cause for said dismissal, in the light of
the circumstance adverted to, above-thereby committing an unfair labor
practice under subdivision (a) (5) of said Section 4.

With respect to the sufficiency of the evidence in support of the finding that complainants were dismissed by petitioners before
the latter had received the aforementioned Exhibit 5, the record
abundantly shows that complainants were not allowed by agents of
petitioners herein to enter its premises or work for the petitioners,
since November 9, 1958, despite the fact that said communication was not written and sent until November 10, 1958.

Wherefore, with the modification that the backwages of the three (3)
complainants shall begin from November 9, 1958, which is the date of
their, dismissal by the petitioners, the decision appealed from as
hereby affirmed, in all other respects, with costs against the
petitioners.

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