PHILIPPINE CHARITY SWEEPSTAKES OFFICE, IGNACIO SANTOS-DIAZ, VICENTE G. MARTINEZ, FERNANDO C. SANTICO, MANUEL A. CONCORDIA, AND MIGUEL CANIZARES, PETITIONERS, VS. THE ASSOCIATION…

Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office versus Association of Sweepstakes Staff Personnel and Supervisors

The Case

This is a petition for review on certiorari brought by the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office and its individual officers against the Association of Sweepstakes Staff Personnel and Supervisors, the union known as CUGCO, and its officer Geronimo Quadra. The union had charged the Sweepstakes Office with unfair labor practice before the Court of Industrial Relations: first, for refusing to bargain collectively, and second, for dismissing Quadra because of his union activities. The case matters because the Supreme Court uses it to fix the reach of the discrimination clause of the old Industrial Peace Act. It teaches that an employer may be guilty of unfair labor practice not only by acting against individual employees in hiring or tenure, but by favoring one union over another in the grant of privileges and concessions.

Procedural History

On July twenty second, nineteen sixty five, the Prosecution Division of the Court of Industrial Relations filed the unfair labor practice complaint against the petitioners. The petitioners answered, denying the charges and raising affirmative defenses, among them failure to exhaust administrative remedies and the claim that Quadra was dismissed by the proper authority. After trial, the Court of Industrial Relations rendered judgment finding the petitioners guilty of unfair labor practice, ordering them to cease and desist, and ordering the reinstatement of Quadra with full back wages. The petitioners moved for reconsideration, and the court en banc denied the motion. The petitioners then elevated the case to the Supreme Court by petition for review on certiorari.

Facts

Geronimo Quadra was president of the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Employees Association from the time he organized the union in April nineteen fifty six. As union president and authorized representative, he led many strikes and filed various cases against the Sweepstakes Office. On April twelfth, nineteen sixty one, he appeared before the Court of Industrial Relations in an earlier unfair labor practice case as the authorized representative and principal witness of the union, after the prosecutor handling the case was absent. Another employee lawyer, Francisco Cuevas, also entered his appearance for the union, but he was never charged or disciplined.

For that single appearance, Quadra was charged before the Civil Service Commission with unauthorized practice of law. The Commissioner of Civil Service sustained the charge and found him guilty of misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. On the basis of that decision, the petitioners terminated his employment. The union and Quadra then filed the unfair labor practice case on July twenty second, nineteen sixty five.

Meanwhile, the union had demanded recognition from the Sweepstakes Office, which asked for the union's constitution and by laws, list of membership, and certificate of registration. The union refused to present these documents, and the Office maintained its stand. During the pendency of the recognition question, the Office granted the rival supervisors' association a seat in the grievance and welfare committee and in the Committee on Promotions, and granted that association's number one labor proposal, while denying the same to the complaining union. Later, the Commissioner of Civil Service reconsidered his decision, changing the penalty of dismissal to reprimand with warning, and the Board of Directors reinstated Quadra effective immediately. The Board later promoted him, retroactive to January first, nineteen sixty five. Quadra nonetheless pursued the case, and by the time of the decision he had left the Office and had become a Commissioner of the National Labor Relations Commission.

Issues

• Whether or not the issues arising from the dismissal of Geronimo Quadra, namely his alleged violation of the Civil Service Rules and the sufficiency of the justification for his dismissal, had become moot and academic.
• Whether or not the petitioners committed discrimination under Section 4(a)(4) of Republic Act Number 875, as amended, when they extended privileges and concessions to one labor union to the exclusion of the other.

Applicable Provisions

Section 4(a)(4) of Republic Act Number 875, as amended, the Industrial Peace Act, provides:

It shall be unfair labor practice for an employer: To discriminate in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment to encourage or discourage membership in any labor organization.

This is the provision under which the Court of Industrial Relations found the petitioners guilty, and its scope is the central question of the case.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the questions raised in the first and second assignments of error were moot and academic. The Commissioner of Civil Service had reconsidered his original decision and changed the penalty of dismissal to reprimand with warning, and the Board of Directors had reinstated Quadra effective immediately and later promoted him. The Court noted that Quadra continued with the case long after the petitioners mooted it by their acts, obviously to seek judicial vindication.

On the second issue, the Court found no reason to disturb the finding of the Court of Industrial Relations that the petitioners committed acts of discrimination. The Court held that discriminatory acts under the applicable law are not limited to hiring or tenure but extend to terms and conditions of employment. The discrimination does not have to be against a specific employee or against employees in the general sense that the petitioners wanted the law construed. Citing its earlier ruling in Moncada Bijon Factory versus Court of Industrial Relations, the Court held that an employer can discriminate in favor of a union, even if that union were not company dominated, and that discriminatory acts can be effected against a union itself. Since the Sweepstakes Office extended privileges and concessions to one union while denying the same to the respondent union at a time when neither union had been recognized as sole bargaining representative, the Court of Industrial Relations did not err in finding discrimination within the purview of Section 4(a)(4).

Doctrine

Discrimination as an unfair labor practice is not confined to hiring or tenure. It extends to any term or condition of employment, and it may be committed against a labor union itself, not only against individual employees. An employer who grants privileges and concessions to one union while denying the same to another, at a time when neither has been recognized as the sole bargaining representative, commits discrimination under Section 4(a)(4) of Republic Act Number 875, as amended. The statutory phrase terms and conditions of employment is the textual anchor for this broader reading.

Disposition

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, with no pronouncement on costs, thereby affirming the finding of unfair labor practice and the orders of the Court of Industrial Relations.

Remember This

Memorize this line: discrimination in unfair labor practice may be committed against a union itself, and it is not limited to hiring or tenure but extends to terms and conditions of employment. Examiners use this case to test whether a candidate knows that favoring one union over another, before any recognition, is itself an unfair labor practice.