MONCADA BIJON FACTORY AND/OR LAO OH KIM, YU GUAT AND SOTERO BERNAL, PETITIONERS, VS. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS AND MONCADA UNITED WORKERS UNION, RESPONDENTS.

In a complaint filed on October 12, 1956, as amended on October 4,
1957, the Moncada United Workers Union, hereafter referred to as
respondent union, prayed that the Moncada Bijon Factory and/or Lao Oh
Kim, Yu Guat and Sotero Bernal be held guilty of unfair labor practices
and sentenced to reinstate certain dismissed or laid-off employees who
are members of said union, and that the Rising Labor Union—whose
members are, also, employees of said factory—be declared company
dominated and, hence, ordered dissolved. After due trial, the Court of
Industrial Relations rendered a decision, which was affirmed by the
Court en banc, granting the first prayer, but denying the second.
Hence, this appeal by certiorari taken by the factory and/or Lao Oh
Kim, Yu Guat and Sotero Bernal.

Admittedly, Lao Oh Kim owned the Moncada Bijon Factory, which is
operated in Moncada, Tarlac. On May 13, 1953, respondent union, whose
members are employees and laborers of said factory, filed with the
Court of Industrial Relations Case No. 869-V against Lao Oh Kim, for
overtime services allegedly rendered by them. Soon thereafter, the
factory seemingly suspended operations. Then on February 17, 1954, Lao
Oh Kim secured permission from the Court to sell the factory, subject
to the condition that the deed of conveyance would be submitted to said
Court for approval and that, should the factory resume operations, the
laid-off laborers who were members of respondent union would be given
preference by the new owner, purchaser or operator. A month later, or
on March 19, 1954, Lao Oh Kim filed with the Court a statement to the
effect that, on February 26, 1954, he had executed, in favor of Teofilo
Limcaco, a deed of lease of, with option to purchase, said factory.
Subsequently, an amicable settlement was reached on March 25, 1955,
between respondent union on the one hand, and Lao Oh Kim and Limcaco on
the other, whereby Lao Oh Kim and Limcaco undertook to reinstate the
dismissed workers.

Meanwhile, or on May 13, 1954, respondent union had filed unfair
laborer practice case No. 220-ULP against the factory and Teofilo
Limcaco, as well as Chan It and Rufino Benitez. In due course, decision
was rendered thereon on October 24, 1954, which was affirmed by the
Court en banc, finding Rufino Benitez, a labor contractor
engaged by Teofilo Limcaco, guilty of the unfair labor practices
charged therein and sentencing him to reinstate the dismissed workers.

On or about July 10,1956, Lao Oh Kim called the factory workers to a
meeting, in which he asked them to resign from respondent union, to
forego their overtime claims and to revert to their former working
hours (from 3:00 a.m. to 7:30 p.m.), but the members of said union
rejected the request. Four (4) days later, the factory suspended its
operations. Presently, or on July 25, 1956, Lao Oh Kim executed a deed
purporting to convey the factory to Yu Guat. When the factory resumed
operations on August 6, 1956, the members of respondent union reported
for work, but—according to the evidence introduced by respondent
union—they were not readmitted, although those who had resigned from
the union were admitted. Respondent union tried to prove that the
alleged sale to Yu Guat who was Lao Oh Kim’s former agent in the
purchase and delivery of palay to his (Lao Oh Kim’s) rice mill, was
simulated and a deyise resorted to merely to get rid of the
recalcitrant employees who were members of said union. Upon the other
hand, petitioners herein introduced testimonial evidence to the
contrary, but the lower court gave no credence to said evidence and
accepted as true the version of respondent union, and we think,
correctly, in the light of the facts and circumstances surrounding the
case. In any event, the conclusion reached by the lower court on this
point is beyond our power of review on appeal by certiorari, involving,
as it does, a question of fact and there being competent evidence in
support of said conclusion.

It is urged that the finding of unfair labor practices on the part
of petitioners herein is inconsistent with the conclusion of the lower
court to the effect that the Rising Labor Union is not company
dominated. No such inconsistency exists, for an employer can
discriminate in favor of a union, even if it were not company dominated.

WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby affirmed, with costs against petitioners herein. It is so ordered.

Bengzon, C.J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Barrera, Paredes, Dizon, and De Leon, JJ., concur.