ALLIED WORKERS ASSOCIATION OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. INSULAR LUMBER COMPANY, RESPONDENT.

There is no dispute as to the facts. Respondent Insular Lumber
Company (later to be referred to as the Lumber Company) is a domestic
corporation engaged in the lumber business in Fabrica, Negros
Occidental, employing laborers who belong either to the petitioner
Allied Workers Association of the Philippines (later to be referred to
as the Association) or to a rival union known as the United Labor
Union, of which Catalino de los Santos is the President On April 18,
1952, the petitioner Allied Workers Union sent a letter to the
respondent Lumber Company presenting three demands, namely:

(1) The immediate expulsion and dismissal of
Catalino de los Santos, foreman of the Sawmill Department of the
Insular Lumber Company on the ground that he had committed and
continued to commit acts which constitute unfair labor practices, cruel
and detrimental to the members of the petitioner;

(2) The standardization of salaries and wages based on proper job classification and evaluation; and

(3) A general daily increases of P2 in wages and salaries of all the employees and laborers of the company.

According to the memorandum filed on behalf of the Lumber Company
dated January 7,1953, on April 18, 1952, the company replied to the
petition as regards the demand for the expulsion and dismissal of
Catalino de los Santos, saying that the latter had been the foreman of
the sawmill department of the company for many years, had previously
been an active and leading member of the petitioner Association, but
recently had been the President of a rival Union (The United Labor
Union) of which many employees and laborers of the company were
affiliated; that while the accusations made against Catalino might be
well founded the company wanted to say that the United Labor Union had
made more or less similar charges from time to time against several
members of the Association, and that inasmuch as the company had always
followed a strictly neutral attitude as between the two unions, said
company had ignored said complaints; consequently, the company felt
that in order to be fair it should not take the drastic action of
dismissal requested but that if the Association sent proof that
Catalino had been enriching himself at the expense of the laborers
working under him, the company would immediately investigate the matter.

Convinced that the Lumber company refused and failed to grant the
three demands aforementioned, the Association declared a strike in the
afternoon of June 7, 1952. On June 9, 1952, the company sought the
intervention of the Court of Industrial Relations (CIR) by filing a
petition entitled “Insular Lumber Company, petitioner, vs. Allied
Workers Association, respondent, Numbered 705-V”.

On June 14, 1952, while the strike was in progress, the Lumber
company filed an urgent petition in the CIR asking it to order the
strikers back to work. On June 17, 1952, Associate Judge Jose S.
Bautista who was hearing the case issued an order to the laborers and
employees of the Lumber company who were on strike to return to work
pending determination of the demands and issues involved in the case.
Pursuant to said order the striking laborers and employees returned to
work.

Complying with the verbal order of Judge Bautista the Association
presented a specification of charges against Catalino de los Santos,
dated June 16, 1952. According to this specification, Catalino de los
Santos was working as foreman of the sawmill department of the Lumber
company, which sawmill department was the biggest department of the
Lumber company; that ten laborers whose names were listed, working in
said sawmill under Catalino were threatened that if they did not join
the United Labor Union they would be expelled from their jobs or
reported to the Special Policemen of Governor Lacson (presumably of
Negros Occidental) to be manhandled, and said laborers were forced by
Catalino to pay P1 each as entrance fee to said Union against their
will and desire; that Antonio Ablando, a laborer in the sawmill
department under Catalino was promised by the latter a job provided
that in exchange he lent Catalino the sum of P10; that eventually
Ablando was given a job but during the time that he was working with
the Lumber company, Catalino had taken from him the total amount of
P130 allegedly borrowed but never paid, and that Catalino also took one
of Ablando’s pigs worth P30 without paying for the same; that about 458
laborers whose names were listed in the specification and who were
working in the sawmill department under Catalino were threatened that
if they refused to sign their membership and affiliation with the
“Voice of the Poor”, a union being organized by Catalino, they would be
separated from the service; that the Lumber company had been duly
advised of these doings and activities of De los Santos but that the
management had not done anything to protect said laborers who had been
the object of the threats, intimidation and coercion by Catalino, and
that the laborers so mentioned and listed were ready to testify in court

On June 21, 1952, the Lumber company filed a motion stating that as
may be seen from the specification of charges filed by the Association,
the charges against Catalino who was the president of the United Labor
Union, a rival of the Association had nothing to do with the
performance of his duties as an employee of the Lumber company, and
that the charges were motivated by the fact of Catalino’s being
president of the United Labor Union; that there was no law specifying
what are unfair labor practice by rival union leader; that the Lumber
company could not yet act on ex-parte charges; that the Lumber company
was under no obligation to take any part in charges and countercharges
of rival unions; that Catalino should be served a copy of the charges
and given the opportunity to answer the same and make such defenses and
present evidence as he may have, with such counsel as he may select for
all of which the Lumber company could not be held responsible ; that
the other issue involved referring to the demands for standardization
of and increase in wages could be properly discussed and submitted to
the CIR in Manila. The motion concluded with a prayer that the Lumber
company be relieved of any obligation or duty to defend Mr. Catalino de
los Santos against the charges filed by the Association, and that the
CIR dismiss such charges as not a proper issue in the dispute between
the petitioner and respondent with the right of course on the part of
the Association- to present such charges before the proper tribunal.

Acting upon this motion of the Lumber company Judge Bautista issued
an order dated June 28, 1952 holding that according to the
specification of charges filed by the Association against Catalino de
los Santos, it was clear that the charges were filed against him as
President of a rival union for unfair labor practices and in no manner
affected the Lumber company, as the dispute was between two rival
union; however, considering that the said charges against Catalino
might involve the lumber company if not solved in time, the court (CIR)
would proceed to investigate said charges, “but in so doing it shall
relieve the petitioner Lumber company of the obligation or duty to
defend Mr. De los Santos.” The order required Catalino to be-‘notified
of the same and of the date of hearing of the charges against him in
Bacolod City. As to the other demands, namely, standardization of
salaries and general increase of wages, the hearing was ordered held in
Manila.

The Association filed a motion for reconsideration of the above
referred order of June 28, 1952. On said motion for reconsideration the
CIR acted in banc and Judge Bautista with the concurrence of
Associate Judges Castillo and Yanson ruled that the court failed to
find sufficient reasons for altering or modifying said order. However,
Presiding Judge Roldan and Associate Judge Lanting dissented in
separate opinions. The Association is now appealing to this Court from
the said order.

We cannot agree to the order appealed from stating that the charges
against Catalino de los Santos were made against him as president of a
rival labor union and in no manner affected the Lumber company. It will
be remembered that Catalino in allegedly making the threats and putting
pressure upon the laborers working under him so acted while he was
working as foreman of the Lumber company, exercising the functions and
authority of an important employee or official of the Company.
Furthermore, if he so acted with the knowledge and consent of the
company, the parties to this case and the Court wants to know and have
the right to know. We are more inclined to agree with Presiding Judge
Roldan in his dissent that under the circumstances the Lumber company
should take direct interest in the case, deny or meet the charges for
the reason that its good name is involved; that the continued
employment of Catalino would in no way solve the industrial conflict
between the parties to the case, and that unless the Lumber company
could show that the acts of Catalino complained of, if proven, were
individual acts without the authority of the Company, or if authorized,
were exceeded, the Company could not escape blame, and that Catalino as
foreman exercised to a limited extent managerial functions as a resuit
of which his acts as an agent may be considered as the acts of his
principal. We also agree with Judge Lanting in his dissent that if it
were true as claimed in the order appealed from that the charges
against Catalino in no manner affected the lumber company but involved
only two rival unions, then the CIR lacked jurisdiction over the
subject matter because there was no employer-employee relationship
involved; that as a foreman Catalino by his position must have had
certain supervisory, if not managerial functions; that when he indulged
in the anti-labor practices attributed to him there was the likelihood
that he was acting for the Company, and that said Company has the
burden of proof to show why it should be exempt from blames for the
acts of Catalino, and that even if it was proven that the company did
not know of such acts, still it could be compelled to discharge
Catalino in order to remove a sure cause of dissension in the Company.

In conclusion, we are of the opinion that the charges. against
Catalino de los Santos affect and involved the Lumber company. It would
appear that as foreman of the saw-mill department employing hundreds of
laborers he had the right to employ and discharge laborers or at least
the authority to recommend their employment and discharge. Naturally,
with such authority, and the laborers knowing it, his urging them to
join a certain labor union under threat of dismissal and his requests
for loans even when not repaid, could not well be ignored or rejected
by them. Of course, as the order appealed from states, the Lumber
company cannot be compelled to defend Catalino de los Santos; but that
the company should be vitally interested in the investigation against
Catalino, there is no doubt. The company is a party to the case.
Whether it wants to take part in the investigation and hearing, that is
its affair, but it will naturally be bound by any finding and decision
of the CIR based on said investigation and hearing. With this
understanding and with the consequent modification of the order
appealed from, the same is hereby affirmed. No costs.

Paras, C. J., Pablo, Bengzon, Padilla, Reyes, Jugo, Bautista Angelo, and Labrador, JJ., concur.