PIO LARA,,ET AL., PETITIONERS, VS. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL., RESPONDENTS.

This is a petition to review on certiorari the decision of the Court
of Industrial relations dated September 20, 1952, which, on motion for
reconsideration by the herein petitioners, was confirmed unanimously by
said court in banc, in its resolution dated October 22, 1952, which reads as follows:

“This is a motion for reconsideration of the order of this Court,
dated September 20, 1952, filed by the counsel for the petitioners on
September 29, 1952. After a careful perusal of the evidence as well as
the arguments of both parties, the Court in banc fails to find sufficient justification for altering or modifying the aforesaid order.

“MOTION DENIED.
“Manila, Philippines, October 22, 1952.” (p.7 Rec.)

From the lenghty statement of facts made by the court of industrial
Relations in said order of September 20, 1952, we gather the following
data:

On January 10, 1948, at 3 o’clock on the afternoon, the petitioners,
through the president of their union, Ramon A. Honorico, presented to
the Batangas Transportation Co., respondent herein, a set of demands.
The next day, January, at 8 o’clock in the morning, a strike was
declared by the petitioners, which completely paralized the
transportation business of the Company. On January 13, 1948, the Company
filed a petition with the Court of Industrial Relations, praying, among
other things, that the employees and workers belonging to the union of
the herein petitionersn be ordered to return to work immediately and in
the event of refusal or failure to do so, the Company be authorized to
dismiss them and to hire in their stead other employees in order not to
interrupt the business of the Company, especially that of carrying the
mails. The case was set for hearing on January 15, at 9 o’clock in the
morning. Neither the president nor any member of the board of directors
of the union appeared. The court after taking the testimony of the
manager of the Company, issued an order on the same date requiring the
workers who had walked out in the morning of July 11, to return to work
within forty-eight hours after receipt of said order by the president or
by any responsible official of the union, and authorizing the Company
to employ other persons should the strikers fail to return to work. The
company was likewise ordered to refrain from dismissing any worker
without the previous consent of the Court. The officers of the union
evaded the service of said order. On January 27, 1948, the court issued a
notice hearing for February 2. Although no representative of the union
appeared at said hearing, the court, considering the conciliatory
attitude of the counsel of the Company, extended the period of
forty-eight hours within which the workers should return to work, with
the warning that, should they fail to do so, the order of January 15
would be enforced. The officers of the union again evaded the service of
the new order. Through the intervention of the Governor of batangas, a conference
was scheduleed to be held on February 7 in the premises of the court.
Nothing came out of this conference, and it was reset for February 14,
which also was a failure. Finally, after a prolonged stalling and
dilly-dallying on the part of the petitioners, Pelagio Potencio,
purporting to represent the Company, and Ramon A, honorico, the
president of the BAGONG PAGKAKAISA association, representing the
strikers, entered into an agreement marked exhibit “A” in the record,
which reads as foloows:

“KASUNDUAN

“KAMING mga may lagda sa ibaba nito mga may asawa, may mga sapat na
gulang, ang una ay Dr. POTENCIANO PELAGIO, sa panig ng puhunan, at ang
ikalawa ay G. RAMON A . HONORICO, aaklas, sa pamamagitan ng amin-aming
mga karapatan upang makipagkasundo sa bisa ng kapangyarihan tinataglay
namin sa bawa’t panig ay kami’y nagkasundo ng gaya ng sumusunod:

“UNA, aming pinagkaisahan na magpatuloy na ng operacion ang
BATANGAS TRANSPORTATION COMPANY sa lahat ng kaniyang nasasakupan daan
may pahintulot na ang makikialam ay ang dating mga manggagawa o kawani;

“IKALAWA, aming pinagkaisahan na sa pagpapasukan ng lahat ng mga
kawani at manggagawa ay pansamantalang mapipigil muna sa pagpasok ang
labing pitong (17) kawani ng B.T.Co., na ang mga pangalan ay sumusunod:

1. Gregorio Enriquez	10. Ambrosio G. Fernandez
2. Pio Lara	11. Cornelio Gonzales
3. Ambrosio Comia	12. Luis Olarte
4. domingo de Claro	13. Nicolas Mortera
5. Avelino Umahon	14. Mariano Abiad
6. Sabino Mandigma	15. Francisco Lagrosa
7. Pedro Nangubat	16. Miguel Villafranca
8. domingo Paner	17. Miguel Villafranca
9. Sofio Carandang

“IKATLO, ipinangangako ng panig ng puhunan (Dr. PELAGIO POTENCIANO)
na ang pangsama ntalang pagpipigil, sa labing pitong (17) katao ay sa
loob ng isang (1) bwan ay gagawin niya ang paraan upang ang lahat ng mga
ito ay mabalik sa kanilang mga gawaing dati sa lob ng pagawaan ng B.T.
Co.,;

“IKAPAT, ipinangangako din ng panig ng puhunan na kung sakali at
hindi niya matupad and pagpapabalik sa labing pitong taong ito pagkaraan
ng isang buwan ay may pananagutan siya sa pangulo ng KAP. BAGONG
PAGKAKAISA, RAMON A. HONORICO, sa paghahabol nito;

“IKALIMA, ipinangako din ng panig na puhunan na tutulong siya sa
pagkakakitaan ng gastos ng labing pitong taong ito sa araw araw habang
hindi na nababalik sila sa compania;

“SA KATUNAYAN NG LAHAT NANG ITO AY KAMI’Y NAGLAGDA NG AMING MGA
PANGALAN AT APELLIDO NGAYONG ARAW NA ITO, ABRIL 13, 1948, dito sa
BATANGAS, BATANGAS, sa ibaba ng kasunduang ito.

	(Sgd.) P.A. Potencio
	DR. PELAGIO POTENCIANO
	Puhunan
	(Sgd.) Ramon A. Honorico
	RAMON A. HONORICO
	Pangulo
	Manggagawa
MGA SAKSI:
(Sgd.) FELICIANO LIVESTE	(Sgd.) M.B. VILLAFRANCA”

The herein petitioners afterwards filed a petition asking the Court of
Industrial Relations to order the performance of said agreement. The
Industrial Court denied the petition for the reasons stated in its order
of September 20, 1952, above mentioned. The petitioners filed a motion
for reconsideration which was denied unanimously by the court in banc on October 22.

The fact is that Pelagio Potenciano had not been authorized by the
Company to represent it, nor to enter into such agreement. This is a
finding of fact made by the Court of Industrial Relations which we
cannot review, especially as it appears from the agreement itself which
contains the following paragraphs:

“IKATLO, ipinangangako ng panig ng puhunan (Dr. PELAGIO POTENCIANO)
na ang pangsama ntalang pagpipigil, sa labing pitong (17) katao ay sa
loob ng isang (1) bwan ay gagawin niya ang paraan upang ang lahat ng mga
ito ay mabalik sa kanilang mga gawaing dati sa lob ng pagawaan ng B.T.
Co.,;

“IKAPAT, ipinangangako din ng panig ng puhunan na kung sakali at
hindi niya matupad and pagpapabalik sa labing pitong taong ito pagkaraan
ng isang buwan ay may pananagutan siya sa pangulo ng KAP. BAGONG
PAGKAKAISA, RAMON A. HONORICO, sa paghahabol nito;

There is nothing to show, according to the findings of the Court of
Industrial Relations, that the Company ratrified expressly or impliedly
the unauthorized acts of Potencio.

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the petition is hereby denied with costs against the petitioners.

SO ORDERED.

Paras, C.J., Pablo, Bengzon, Padilla, Reyes, Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, and Reyes, J.B.L., JJ., concur.