BIG FIVE PRODUCTS WORKERS UNION-CLP, PETITIONER, VS. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, BIG FIVE PRODUCTS AND/OR PAULA RICARO, RESPONDENTS.

Appeal by certiorari, taken by the Big Five Products
Workers Union
CLP, from a resolution of the Court of Industrial Relations, sitting en banc, setting aside decision of one of its Judges and ordering respondents Big Five Products and Paula Ricaro:

“* * * to cease and desist from interfering with,
restraining and coercing their employees in the exercise of their
rights guaranteed under Section 3 of the Act, dismissing an employee
who is about to give testimony under the Act, and discriminating
against the members of the complainant union in regard to hire or
tenure of employment and the terms and conditions of employment
purposely to discourage membership in said union; and * * * to
reinstate Chona Avila, Luisa Escalera, Purificacion Sillos, Macaria
Peregrino and Perlito Palomata, immediately to their former or
substantially equivalent positions without backpay.”

The basic facts are set forth in said resolution from which we quote:

“1. The Big Five Products is engaged in the business of packing vegetable oil under the management of Paula Ricaro.

“2. On November 18, 1956 some of the employees of the Big Five Products
held a meeting for the purpose of organizing a union and, as in fact,
they organized the complainant Big Five Products Workers Union and
elected its officers, namely, Mansueto Martires as president, Chona
Avila as vice-president, Luisa Escalera as secretary, Purificacion
Sillos as treasurer, and Macaria Peregrino as auditor. Said officers
began to solicit signatures for membership in the union from other
employees of the company.

“3. On December 3, 1956, Manager
Paula Ricaro dismissed the aforementioned union officers Chona Avila,
Luisa Escalera, Purificacion Sillos and Macaria Peregrino.

“4. On February 16, 1957, Perlito Palomata was sitting beside Paula
Ricaro in the factory when an old man handed him a subpoena and
requested him to affix in it his signature. Paula advised Palomata not
to testify before the Court, otherwise she would dismiss him from her
job. In spite of this threat, Palomata assured the manager that he
would testify. On February 26, 1957, Palomata was dismissed.

“5. On January 1, 1957, all the union members, including the four
above-named union officers who had been living inside the factory’s
premises since the start of their employment therein, were directed to
leave the factory’s premises and to look for some other place They were
advised that they would be allowed to work only for 3 days in a week
and receive daily wages. In fact, workers not members of the
complainant union were allowed to work every day receiving monthly
salary, while union members were only given 3 days of work, at most, in
a week on daily basis.”

As a consequence, on March 26, 1957, the Big Five Products Workers
Union-CLP instituted this case in the Court of Industrial Relations by
filing a complaint charging said respondents—in the language of the
aforementioned decision—with:

“* * * unfair labor practice acts as set forth and
defined in Section 4(a), (1), (4) and (5) of Republic Act 875, in
having allegedly committed between December, 1956 to February 1957, the
following: by interferring with, restraining and/or coercing its
employees in the exercise of their rights to self-organization
guaranteed under Section 3 of the Act; by discriminating against the
members of complainant union with regards to hire or tenure of
employment and the terms and conditions of their employment; by
dismissing Chona Avila, Luisa Escalera, Purification Sillos and Macaria
Peregrino, because of their union affiliation and/or activities; and
by, likewise, dismissing Perlito Palomata for being about to give
testimony in the preliminary investigation of this case.

“In
answer, respondents denied all the material allegations in the
complaint and averred that the alleged union membership and/or
activities of Chona Avila, Luisa Escalera, Purificacion Sillos and
Macaria Peregrino had nothing to do with their dismissals. It is also
alleged that the dismissal of Perlito Palomata had no connection
whatsoever with his dismissal. Respondents further state that the
dismissals of the aforecited persons were due to valid, sufficient and
justifiable causes.”

In due course, the trial Judge rendered a decision dismissing the
case “for lack of substantial evidence to sustain the charges of
alleged unfair labor practice against herein respondents and for lack
of merit.” However, on motion for reconsideration of petitioner herein,
the Court en banc found that the charges had been duly
established, and, accordingly, issued the resolution above referred to.
This notwithstanding, petitioner Union seeks a review of the
aforementioned resolution, insofar as it denies back pay to Chona
Avila, Luisa Escalera, Purificacion Sillos, Macaria Peregrino and
Perlito Palomata, upon the theory that having found the respondents
guilty of unfair labor practices, by dismissing said employees, owing
to the union activities of the first four and the testimony of the last
for petitioner herein at the preliminary investigation of this case,
despite the advise to the contrary given by respondent Paula Ricaro, as
manager of respondent Big Five Products—which, being supported by
substantial evidence, may not be reviewed in this appeal by
certiorari—the lower court should have, also, awarded back pay to said
dismissed employees.

Said court maintains that it should not have been made party in
this appeal by certiorari, and that, at any rate, it has the authority
to order “reinstatement without back wages. Respondents Big Five
Products and Paula Ricaro, in turn, filed a motion to dismiss the
petition for certiorari upon the ground that the same does not raise
any question of law or allege abuse of discretion on the part of the
lower court. For obvious reasons, we deferred action on this motion for
dismissal until the determination of the case on the merit. Thereupon,
said respondents filed their answer maintaining that the discretion of
the lower court to order reinstatement without back pay has been upheld
in several cases, citing National Labor Union vs. Zip Venetian
Blind, et al., L-15827-16828 (May 31, 1961),. which, in turn, relied
upon Union of Philippine Education Employees vs. Philippine Education Co., 91 Phil., 93 ( March 31, 1952 ), Antamok Goldfields Mining Co. vs. CIR (70 Phil., 340), and United Employees Welfare Association vs.
Isaac Peral Bowling Alleys, 104 Phil., 640 (September 30, 1958), aside
from section 5, paragraph (c), of Republic Act No. 875. In fact, said
view was reiterated in Dinglasan vs. National Labor Union, 106 Phil., 671 ( November 28, 1959 ), Confederated Sons of Labor vs. Anakan Lumber Company, 107 Phil., 915 ( April 29, 1960 ), and Freeman Shirt Manufacturing Co., Inc. vs. CIR, 110 – Phil., 962 ( January 28, 1961 ).

It should be noted, however, that the employees or laborers
involved in the foregoing cases were dismissed by their respective
employers under the belief in good faith that a closed-shop
provision in their corresponding collective bargaining contracts
applied to all laborers and/or employees without distinction—regardless
of whether they were already working for the employer when the
agreement was entered into or were engaged subsequently thereto—and,
consequently, gave the employer no other choice, which this Court found
to be erroneous, said provision being prospective in its operation and,
as such, applicable only to those who began to work for the employers
after the execution of said contracts, not to the aforementioned
employees or laborers, they being already in the employer’s service
prior thereto. In other words, there were in said cases explicit
findings on the existence of a fact—good faith on the part of the
employer—which was considered sufficient to warrant exemption from the
payment of back wages, despite the reinstatements therein decreed.

Such, however, is not the situation obtaining in the case at bar.
The resolution appealed from does not mention any fact which may
justify the granting of a similar exemption to respondents herein. What
is more, the Court of Industrial Relations en banc found that
said respondents had dismissed Chona Avila, Luisa Escalera,
Purificacion Sillos, Macaria Peregrino and Perlito Palomata, because
the latter had testified for petitioner herein at the preliminary
investigation of this case, and the first four had engaged in union
activities, and that respondents are, therefore, guilty of unfair labor
practices with malice aforethought. Although Section 5, paragraph (c),
of Republic Act No. 875 empowers the Court of Industrial Relations to
order the employer convicted of unfair labor practices to reinstate the
victims thereof “with or without back pay,” this authority must be
availed of in accordance with the dictates of justice, reason and
equity. And, even
if said legal provision were deemed to confer discretion, the same is
neither unlimited, nor arbitrary, capricious, inquisitorial or
oppressive in nature, but a sound, legal discretion, limited by the
evident purpose of the law (Mechem, Public Officers, ser. 513, p. 337;
Lamb vs. Phipps, 22 Phil. 540; Araneta vs. Rodas, 81 Phil. 506; panada vs. Cuenco, L-10520, February 28, 1957 ; Wilson vs.
Eureka City, 173 U.S. 32; Yick Wo vs. Hopkins, 188 U.S. 356), which, in
the Industrial Peace Act (R.A. No. 875), is to assure the freedom of
laborers and employees to engage in union activities, by prohibiting
the performance of acts constituting unfair labor practices.

Hence, under conditions analogous to those existing in the present
case, this Court has ordered the reinstatement with full back pay of
the laborers and/or employees adversely affected by unfair labor
practices in Compania Maritima vs. United Seamen’s Union of the Philippines 104 Phil., 7 ( June 20, 1958 ), Talisay-Silay Milling Co., Inc. vs. CIR, 106 Phil., 1081 (January 30, 1960) Velez vs. PAV Watchmen’s Union , 107 Phil., 689 ( April 27, 1960 ), Cano vs. CIR, 109 Phil., 1086 ( October 31, 1960 ), Henares & Sons vs.
National Labor Union, G.R. No. L-17535 (December 28, 1961), Allied
Workers Association of the Philippine (AWA) San Carlos Chapter vs.
Philippine Land-Sea-Air Labor Union (PLASLU) et al., G.R. No.
L-15447-48 (January 31, 1962), and MD Transit & Taxi Co., Inc. vs.
De Guzman, No. L-18810 (April 23, 1963). We find no plausible reason to
depart from the view adhered to in these cases, which is fully in
accord with the spirit and purpose of the Industrial Peace Act.

Wherefore, the resolution appealed from should be as it is hereby modified, in the sense that the reinstatement therein
ordered shall be with full back pay, and, in all other respects, said
resolution is hereby affirmed, with costs against respondents Big Five
Products and Paula Ricaro. It is so ordered.

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

 

EXCERPT FROM THE MINUTES OP SEPTEMBER 19, 1963

“Wherefore, the resolution appealed from should be as it is hereby
modified, in the sense that the reinstatement therein ordered shall be
with full back pay, and that the Union members who were the object of
the discrimination in regard to the terms and conditions of employment
by reason of their union activities shall be paid to them in
consequence of the discrimination and the compensation they would have
received had no such discrimination taken place, it being understood,
however, that whatever earnings the dismissed employees and those
discriminated against may have received from other employments during
the period of their dismissal and of said discrimination, shall be
deducted from their back pay and differential pay respectively, for
which reason the case is remanded to the Court of Industrial Relations
for the reception of evidence on, and the determination of, the amounts
due to the Union members concerned. In all other respects, said
resolution is hereby affirmed, with costs against respondents Big Five
Products and Paula Ricaro.

Resolution of the Court of Industrial Relations further modified.