UNION OF PHILIPPINE EDUCATION EMPLOYEES (NLU), PETITIONERS, VS. PHILIPPINE EDUCATION CO., INC., AND THE COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, RESPONDENTS.

Petitioning union filed two complaints for unfair labor practice
against respondent company, alleging dismissal of twenty-seven of its employees
for union activities.  Respondent court,
in its decision of January 4, 1965,
ordered the reinstatement of nineteen (19), with back wages.  Of the remaining eight (8), two had died, one
had found employment elsewhere, and one bad retired.  The other four are Ernesto Palaganas, Eduardo Elbanbuena,
Jesus Galang and Maximo
Villa­nueva.  Palaganas
was not ordered reinstated, while Elbanbuena Galang and Villanueva, although reinstated, were not
granted back wages.  The instant petition
for review was filed by the union with respect to these four, the prayer being
for the reinstatement of Palaganas with back wages
and for the award of back wages to the three others.

The burden of petitioner’s argument is that these four employees
were similarly situated as the nineteen who received the full benefits of the
decision, and therefore, must be treated in the same manner.  This is not altogether correct, as the
decision itself reveals.  The court’s
finding with respect to Palaganas is as follows:

“Ernesto Palagana’s case as told by
respondent was a little different. 
Similarly, he was on the payroll of the Company on the off-and-on
basis.  Then he went on a leave of
absence and since then he was unheard of until the respondent ultimately
decided to erase his name in their roster.”

Petitioner points to the case of five of the nineteen employees
ordered reinstated with back wages, who “simply failed to return after the
expiration of their leave of absence,” and contends that the same relief
must be awarded to Palaganas.  There is a demonstrable difference between
their situation and his, for they were working on a regular and continuous
basis; and with respect to Jose Pineda, who was also reinstated despite the
fact that he was working off and on, the Court did not find that he took a
leave of absence and then failed to return thereafter.  In any event,
insofar as Palaganas is concerned, the elimination of
his name from the company’s roster on the ground that he remained unheard from
after his leave of absence expired can hardly be considered as an unfair labor
practice which would justify reinstatement, let alone back wages.

In the case of Eduardo Elbanbuena, his
claim for reinstatement was dismissed “as it appears that he was
reinstated and is still in the service.” The denial of back wages to him,
however, was erroneous.  The court found:  “right now (as of the date of the
decision) Eduardo Elbanbuena is still in the service,
but complainant’s evidence clearly showed that he was laid off.  Probably he was re­called since the
presentation of complainant’s evidence.” It is not disputed that he was
out of work from January 9 to November
3, 1960.  Respondent company
says that for all that appears he might have been on extended leave of absence
with­out pay during that period, and that it was incumbent upon petitioner to
prove otherwise.  To our mind, the
categorical finding of the court that he had been laid off sufficiently rules
out the speculative possibility referred to by respond­ent company.  And if the other regular employees who failed
to return after the expiration of their leaves of absence were granted back
wages, justice dictates that Elbanbuena should be
entitled to the same benefits.

The claim of Jesus Galang and Maximo Villanueva for back wages was correctly dismissed by
the court because “they were not laid off; and (they) have already
returned to work upon the expiration of their leaves of absence and have been
thereafter continuously working in their former positions.” This is a factual finding that is not disputed, nor has evi­dence
of any lay-off of these two employees been brought to our attention.

WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is modified by
ordering the payment of back wages to Eduardo Elban­buena
for the period from January 9 to November
3, 1960, and affirmed in all other respects.  No costs.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, JBL, Dizon, Zaldivar, Sanchez, Ruiz Castro,
Fernando, Capistrano, Teehankee, and Barredo, JJ., concur.