THE MANAGEMENT OF EL HOGAR FILIPINO MUTUAL BUILDING EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, ET AL., PETITIONERS, VS. BUILDING EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, ET AL., RESPONDENTS.

On May 7, 1954, the Building Employees Association filed before the
Court of Industrial Relations as complaint for unfair labor practice
against the management of El Hogar Filipino Mutual Building and Loan
Association alleging that two of its employees Arnaldo Buizon and
Justino Legaspi were dismissed from the service because of their union
activities and that the management has refused to bargain collectively
with the complaining labor union.

On May 13, 1954, the management, in its answer, denied that Arnaldo
Buizon and Justino Legaspi were dismissed for their union activities,
alleging that their dismissal was for a just cause and that if the
management declined to bargain collectively with the union, it was
because the union did not represent the majority of the workers of the
company.

After hearing, the industrial court rendered decision holding that
the management is guilty as charged and, among other things, ordered
the reinstatement of Arnaldo Buizon and Justino Legaspi with back pay
from March 16, 1954 until they are reinstated, authorizing the
management to deduct from the back wages of Buizon whatever he might
have earned after his separation it appearing that he was able to find
work elsewhere. Its motion for reconsideration having been denied, the
management brought the case before us for review on a petition for
certiorari.

The pertinent facts of this case are: Arnaldo Buizon and Justino
Legaspi were night guards of petitioner’s edifice known as El Hogar
Filipino Building located in the City of Manila. Buizon started working
as such on March 2, 1953 while Legaspi began on April 23, 1946. As
guards their tours of duty were from 4:00 o’clock p.m. to 12:00 o’clock
midnight for Buizon and from 12:00 o’clock midnight to 8:00 o’clock
a.m. for Legaspi. Their duties included, among others, to guard the
building against any intruder during their respective hours of work.

Before his employment in the company, Buizon worked as guard in the
Compania Maritima, of which Mr. Ramon Fernandez is the president, as
also he is in said company. During his employment in the former
company, as well as in the latter, Buizon had been receiving from Mr.
Fernandez free quarters for himself and his family in addition to one
sack of rice a month. Legaspi in turn was employed in petitioning
company upon recommendation of Servando Bernas, his brother-in-law, who
is chief janitor of the building. During his employment, Legaspi also
worked in the Goodrich International Rubber Company Recapping Plant in
Caloocan, Rizal whose duties there had sometimes overlapped with those
he had with petitioning company. On March 2, 1954, petitioning company
received a letter (Exhibit 1) from Mercantile, Inc., a tenant of long
standing in the building, in (which said tenant complained against the
behavior of both Buizon and Legaspi as night watchmen and stating that
unless the management takes remedial measures to protect its interest
the tenant would file charges against the building administration and
at the same time move out of the building. As soon as this letter was
brought to the attention of Mr. Fernandez, he directed that the same be
taken up during the regular meeting of the board of directors of
petitioning company, which meeting, under its by-laws, fell on March 9,
1954, at about 11:00 o’clock a.m.. In that meeting, the board, after
discussing the case of Buizon and Legaspi, decided to dismiss them
effective on the same day, although they were paid their salaries up to
the 15th of the same month. The meeting took place at about 11:00
o’clock a.m. and Mr. Fernandez personally notified Buizon, who lived
near his residence, of his separation in the afternoon of the same day.
Bernas notified Legaspi of the decision of the board when the former
arrived in his office in the morning of March 11, 1954.

In the afternoon of March 9, 1954, after the board’s meeting
petitioning company received a letter dated March 8, 1954 from the
complaining union wherein, among other things, it demanded that it
conclude a collective bargaining agreement with the union. Mr.
Fernandez, who does not hold office in the El Hogar Filipino Building,
first came to know of this letter two or three days later, through its
building superintendent. This letter was followed by three other
letters wherein the union demanded the reinstatement of Buizon and
Legaspi and, among other things, that the company answer its original
letter within 48 hours from receipt thereof. Having failed to obtain a
satisfactory answer to its demands, the union filed a complaint with
the industrial court for unfair labor practice and, after an ex parte
investigation, the complaint was formalized charging not only the
company but also Mr. Ramon Fernandez and chief janitor Servando Bernas
with unfair labor practice under sections 3 and 4 (a) of Republic Act
875.

After considering the evidence both testimonial and documentary
submitted by both complainant and respondents, the industrial court
made the following conclusion:

“Under the facts and circumstances of this case, the
Court concludes that the respondent has engaged and is engaging in an
unfair labor practice when it discharged Arnaldo Buison and Justino
Legaspi on March 10 and 11, 1954, respectively. It constitutes an act
of discrimination committed by respondent in regard to hire and tenure
of employment of any term or condition of employment to discourage
membership in the Building Employees Association (FFW), in violation of
Section 4(a) (4) of the Act, Because such an act of respondent
interferes, restrains and coerces employees in the exercise of their
rights guaranteed in section 4 (a) (1) thereof. In conformity with the provisions of Section 5 (c)
of the Act, the Court finds that it is necessary to order the
reinstatement of Arnaldo Buison and Justino Legaspi in the service of
respondent with back salaries.”

It appears, however, that the two workers abovementioned were
separated from the service not because of their union activities but
because they committed, certain acts of misconduct which rendered them
unfit to continue in the service of petitioning company, their
positions being confidential in nature. Thus, the evidence shows that
Legaspi committed the following acts of misconduct: In a complaint
lodged by Mercantile, Inc. on March 2, 1954 with the management, said
entity being a tenant of good standing in the building, he was charged
with stubborn behavior, discourtesy and uncooperative service, chasing
employees with a piece of wood and sleeping on a cot placed on a
corridor while on duty, immorality in having cohabited with one Gloria
Vargas through misrepresentation and deceit resulting in the birth of a
child to said woman, series of robberies during nighttime in which
several tenants of the building were victims, misrepresentation in
claiming that he was only an extra worker in Goodrich International
Rubber Company during the time he was employed as a watchman when the
truth was that he was a regular recap moldman in said rubber company,
his time of duty in both firms frequently overlapping and conflicting,
and that he had a bad character as testified to by his immediate
superiors. The above acts appear to be supported by substantial
evidence, portions of which may be mentioned: The testimony of A.
Hileman, administrative assistant of Mercantile, Inc., and his letter
to the management marked Exhibit 1. Because of its direct bearing on
the conduct of Legaspi, we are quoting the contents of said letter
hereinbelow:

“We wish to call your attention on the stubborn
behavior of your night watchman and the discourteous, uncooperative
services we are getting. We have endured this in mute silence for the
past month hoping for a change in their attitude eventually. But no
matter how friendly we tried to get with them, it availed us nothing.
Hence, we believe that it is high time that we present the situation to
you and have it straightened out.

“We call your attention
particularly to your night guard by the name of ‘Tinio’. He put up a
sleeping cot in the corridor of the ground floor and sleeps during his
watch. And for somebody who has to leave the building during his shift
will have to wake him up gently for about half an hour, as if he was
asking the guard a favor.

“Sometimes he wakes up cursing and
mumbling and opens tire door but at other times he just would not wake
up and the poor employee forces himself to sleep in the office. At one
time, he refused to let our supervisors out to take some refreshments.
In another instance he even chased a group of our employees with a
piece of wood because they did not ‘beg’ him to open, the door and
probably because a beautiful dream was interrupted. This is just to
give you an example of the kind of service we get from your night
watchmen.

“We are contemplating on filing charges against
this particular guard and the Administration, but in the meantime we
would like to give you a chance of straightening this out yourself to
avoid embarrassment and ill-feelings. But in the event that no action
has been taken in this regard, please do not take it ill of us if we
transfer ourselves to another building and file charges against you.

“Trusting that this letter will merit the intention for which it was written, we remain.”

In addition, we wish to mention the robberies that some of the
tenants of the building have reported to the management, in connection
with which they lost money and property and as to which the only ones
to be blamed were the two watchmen. We refer to the robberies reported
by tenants Benita Lamagna, C. S. Hipolito, McDonally and one Herrera,
which were committed sometime in February, 1953. The industrial court
did not give importance to these incidents simply because the supposed
victims did not press their complaint nor take the matter to court.

With regard to Buizon, we have the charges, contained in the letter
of Mercantile, Inc. which equally apply to him as watchman, the series
of robberies committed in the building, and the negligence committed by
him in the performance of his duties wherein Mr. Ramon Fernandez
himself, president of the company, took a direct part in its detection
in connection with the withdrawal of a box from the building by an
outsider without having been detected by Buizon. It should be here
noted that Buizon was formerly an employee of Compania Maritima, of
which Mr. Fernandez was the president, and was merely taken by Mr.
Fernandez to the El Hogar Filipino Building to work as guard, giving
him and his family free quarters in addition to one sack of rice a
month. Mr. Fernandez, therefore, is the last mail to cause him
prejudice were it not for the bitter fact that he betrayed his
confidence and rendered himself unfit to continue holding that
confidential position.

Moreover, it cannot be true what is claimed by the union that the
two workers were separated because they affiliated with that union or
because of the demands for better working conditions submitted by the
union to the company, because it appears that the meeting of the board
of directors of petitioning company took place in the morning of March
9, 1954 at which the board decided to dismiss the two workers after
deliberating on the complaints of the tenants against them and other
irregularities committed by them in the past, whereas the demand of the
union was received by the company only in the afternoon of the same
day. This fact was admitted by Buizon himself who said that Mr.
Fernandez and other officials of the company only came to know that he
was a member of the union when the latter submitted its demands. This
is also borne out by the testimony of Mr. Fernandez of whose veracity
this Court has no reason to doubt.

Considering the circumstances above pointed out, we cannot but
consider and give full effect in this case what this Court has observed
in connection with the right of an employer to protect his interest
against his unworthy employees in order to save it from destruction. We
said: “But much as we should expand beyond economic orthodoxy, we hold
that an employer cannot legally be compelled to continue with the
employment of a person who admittedly was guilty of misfeasance or
malfeasance towards his employer, and whose continuance in the service
of the latter is patently inimical to his interest. The law in
protecting the rights of the laborer, authorizes neither oppression nor
self-destruction of the employer.” (San Miguel Brewery, vs. The National Labor Union, et al., 97 Phil., 378).

The claim of the union that the company declined to give it
recognition or to entertain its demand for collective bargaining,
cannot also be entertained, it appearing that it does not represent the
majority of the employees of the company. It appears that there were
only 10 employees or workers in that company, 2 watchmen, 2 drivers, 1
mechanic, and 5 houseboys. The demand for collective bargaining was
made by the union only in behalf of Buizon, Legaspi, Catangay, Gapuz,
Diocera and Froilan, but since Buizon and Legaspi have already been
separated and Froilan appears to have resigned, it results that only
three remain. These three cannot certainly represent the union in a
collective bargaining agreement. They do not represent the necessary
majority.

Wherefore, the decision appealed from is reversed, without pronouncement as to costs. Complaint is dismissed.

Paras, C. J., Bengzon, Montemayor, Labrador, Reyes, J. B. L., Barrera, and Gutierrez David, JJ., concur.
Concepcion, J., reserves his vote.