PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE COMPANY, PETITIONER, VS. FREE TELEPHONE WORKERS’ UNION (PAFLU) AND COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, RESPONDENTS.

Appeal by certiorari
from a resolution of the Court of Industrial Relations (CIR) dated January 27, 1964, ordering the
reinstatement of Rosario Badillo, a switchboard
operator dismissed by the petitioner Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company
(PLDT).

On February 15, 1960,
the PLDT dismissed two switchboard operators, Rosario Badillo
and Sally H. Lim, who were found guilty by the Company of chatting through
their trunklines concerning private matters for about
fourteen minutes while both were on duty on February 10, 1960. 
The conversation centered principally on a sum of money which Badillo wanted to borrow from Lim.

About five months thereafter, or more precisely on July 6, 1960, the respondent Free
Telephone Workers’ Union, of which the two operators
were members, staged a strike.  This
strike was subsequently certified to the CIR by the President of the Philippines
as involving an industry indispensable to the national interest.  Among the various demands of the Union
was the reinstatement of several employees (including the two aforementioned
operators).

After hearing this particular phase of the labor dispute, the CIR
affirmed the dismissal of Lim on the basis of her several past infractions of
Company rules.

Reinstatement of Badillo was, however,
ordered, for the following reason:

“The February 10,
1960 incident does not seem to be of her own
making.  Feminine curiosity seems to be
the motivation of her taking the opportunity to converse with Sally H.
Lim.  This Court is of the opinion that
she be given another opportunity, and in doing so, it
will lessen the tension in the labor dispute in question.”

The PLDT’s
motion for partial reconsideration was denied.

The PLDT now questions the CIR’s
jurisdiction over this particular demand of the respondent Union; additionally,
the PLDT contends that the said demand is barred by laches,
and that the dismissal of Badillo was justified
considering that the February 10, 1960 incident was not the only nor the first
instance of violation by her of Company regulations.

We find no merit in the petitioner Company’s contentions.

1.  On the issue of
jurisdiction, it will be noted that the labor dispute was certified by the
President to the CIR, and, as found by the said court, the termination of the
services of Ladino and Lim was “one of the causes of the labor dispute in
question, resulting in its certification by the President of the Philippines.”
We find no reason to disturb the CIR’s assumption of
jurisdiction over this aspect of the labor dispute.  The court was in a better position to
determine, after due investigation, whether in fact the reinstatement demand of
the Union formed an important part of the labor dispute
so that such demand plus the other issues occasioned and precipitated the
strike.

2.  On the question of laches, it is our view that Badillo
did not sleep on her rights.  Our
examination of the record does not disclose that Badillo
had intended to abandon her claim for reinstatement.  The mere lapse of time – five months in this
case – that, the PLDT argues, bars her now from asserting her claim, is not by
itself sufficient to prove that laches had supervened, Since Badillo
was then a member of the respondent Union, it is more in line with reason and
the presumption of our labor laws to assume, there being no proof to the
contrary, that in the intervening period after her dismissal and before the
Union went on strike, she had sought the assistance of the latter about her
case, and it would appear that the Union, believing in the reasonableness of
her claim, pressed the demand of her reinstatement as well as that of her other
co-employees.

3.  The final point sought to
be made by the PLDT is that Badillo’s various
infractions of Company rules justified her dismissal.

It is true that in January, 1956, while on seafront duty, Ladino
was found to have breached Company regulations, specially those referring to
the prohibition against conversing on private matters with fellow operators or
with subscribers, or listening in on subscribers’ conversations; and that in
October, 1958 a subscriber had complained against her for discourtesy.

Badillo, however, has already been
meted out penalties corresponding to these previous infractions:  the first with suspension of five days, and
the second with a reprimand.^[1]

Hence, resolution of the question of Badillo’s
dismissal should be confined to the consideration of its immediate and direct
cause, and to the legal effects thereon of the events that transpired
thereafter.

It is not controverted that on February 10, 1960 Badillo
violated the Company’s rule prohibiting switchboard operators from engaging in
private conversation while on duty.  The
issue of her dismissal went to the CIR as part of a labor dispute certified by
the President under section 10 of R.A. 875. 
Unlike the other issues in the certified dispute, however, the issue of
the reinstatement of Badillo and Lim had reached an
impasse in the sense that both parties were unwilling to budge an inch from the
respective positions they had taken. 
This development left the CIR with no other recourse but to invoke and
exercise its powers under the law to effect an
affirmative solution that will end one of the causes of industrial unrest in
the Company’s premises.

The CIR affirmed the dismissal of Lim, but absolved Badillo from the same penalty because, apart from what the
court a quo believed to be the unfairness of that penalty,
“the reinstatement of Badillo will lessen the
tension in the labor dispute in question.” Bearing in mind that, for the
purpose of cutting the tendons of industrial unrest, an
amplitude of discretionary power has been bestowed by law upon the CIR
in a certified labor dispute, we are of the considered opinion that the said
tribunal did not exceed its jurisdiction in issuing its order of January 27, 1964.

This Court, however, cannot dismiss as frivolous or inconsequential
the Company’s assertion that it acted in the manner it did in its bona fide
belief that the totality of Badillo’s various infractions
of Company rules justified her dismissal.  In view thereof, we uphold the decision of the
CIR to the effect that although Badillo is entitled
to reinstatement, she should not be awarded back wages or any other pecuniary
compensation for the period from February
15, 1960 (the date of her dismissal) to the date of her
reinstatement.

ACCORDINGLY, modified in the sense that the reinstatement
of Badillo shall take effect on July 21, 1964, when the CIR en banc
denied the PLDT’s motion for reconsideration, the
judgment a quo is affirmed. No pronouncement as to costs.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Fernando, Teehankee, Barredo, Villamor, and Makasiar, JJ., concur.

^[1]
See National Fastener Corp. vs. C.I.R., 1 SCRA 18 (1961), and Henares and Sons vs. Nat’l Labor Union, 3 SCRA 766
(1961), where this Court likewise refused to consider past violations of
company rules for which an employee had already been reprimanded or otherwise
punished by the company.