G.R. Nos. L-21610, 21619 and 25767. March 15, 1968
CENTRAL AZUCARERA DON PEDRO, PETITIONER, VS. DON PEDRO SECURITY GUARDS UNION, HON. ARSENIO MARTINEZ, EMILIANO TABIGNE AND AMANDO BUGAYONG, ASSOCIATE JUDGES OF THE COURT OF INDUS…
CASTRO, J.:
Of the three petitions for certiorari at
bar, two (G.R. Nos. L-21610 and L-21619) were interposed by way of
appeal from the majority resolution en banc, dated May 9, 1963, of the Court of Industrial Relations (CIR) denying the separate
motions of the Central Azucarera Don Pedro
(hereinafter referred to as the Central) and the Don Pedro Security Guards
Union (hereinafter referred to as the Union) for reconsideration of the
decision dated December 13, 1962
of the trial court which
adjudged the Central guilty of unfair labor practice consisting of the
discriminatory dismissal of twenty-four Union members and ordered the Central
to reinstate them, with back wages from the date of their dismissal until their
reinstatement, and without loss of seniority rights. The third petition (G.R. No. L-25767) is an appeal by the Union from
the CIR resolution en banc of August 5, 1965 which
denied the Union‘s motion for reconsideration of the trial
court’s order of July 12, 1965 deferring the execution of the aforementioned
judgment of December 13, 1962 “pending resolution of the appeal”.
The antecedent facts are not complicated. In June, 1947 the Central organized its
Security Guards Department, with Mariano H. Cabarrubia
as officer-in-charge, for the primary purpose of maintaining peace and order in
its premises at Nasugbu, Batangas
and providing protection for its properties, officials and employees. More than eight years later, or on September 13,
1955, a
majority of the security guards employed in the Central organized the Union
with the election of its officers.
However, the Union was not registered with the
Department of Labor until November 4, 1955.
On September 21, 1955 Cabarrubia called a meeting of the security guards in order
to verify reports that some of the latter were contemplating to file money
claims against the Central for overtime pay, night compensation and Sunday and
holiday premiums, and also to discover the identities of the prospective
claimants.
On the same day (September
21, 1955), case 1017-V, entitled “Silvestre Alarcos, et al. vs. Central Azucarera
Don Pedro,” was filed with the CIR.
This was an action for collection of overtime pay, night compensation
and separation pay.
The Union alleged that subsequent to the
filing of the claims, the Central started to discriminate against the claimant
security guards. On the other hand, the
Central replied that because some security guards steadfastly refused to join
in the filing of the claims, the claimant guards continuously menaced,
intimidated and harassed the non-claimants, posing a serious problem to the
management.
On October 27, 1955 the claimants
filed a joint request for “indefinite leave of absence without pay effective
1 November 1955”, which was approved by the Central. On December
19, 1955 the
claimants, through Patricio Erni, president of the Union,
advised the Central of their unanimous intention to return to work
“effective January 1, 1956.” On the following day, December 20,
1955, the Central, through its general superintendent Juan Gaspar, informed the
claimants that they were being placed on leave with pay effective January
1, 1956, until further notice. On January
14, 1956 the
Central notified the claimants that their services were terminated effective
upon receipt of notification, and offered them one month’s separation pay.
On January 31, 1956 Acting
Prosecutor Arsenio H. Adriano of the CIR filed a
complaint with the latter court in
behalf of twenty-eight Union
members, charging the Central with discriminatory dismissal of said members, in
violation of section 4(a), sub-paragraphs 1, 4, and 5 of the Industrial Peace
Act (RA 875).
On December 13, 1962, or almost seven years after the institution of the aforementioned
complaint, then Associate Judge Arsenio I. Martinez
(now Presiding Judge) rendered a decision finding the Central guilty of unfair
labor practice, and ordering the latter
“to reinstate to their former
positions with back wages from the time of dismissal until reinstated, without
loss of seniority rights, all the complainants herein, except Juan Lama and Pelagio Dellupac.”
In G.R.
No. L-21610, the petitioner Central (respondent in G.R.
Nos. L-21619 and L-25767) challenges the said decision of the CIR on the following grounds, inter alia:
1.
Sub-paragraph 5 of section 4(a), Republic Act 875, refers only to the dismissal of an employee on account of
unfair labor practice charges filed by him or testimony given therein, but does not cover his dismissal
in consequence of his having filed a mere claim for overtime pay, night
compensation and separation pay, which has nothing to do with or does not arise from his union membership or activities;
2.
The three respondent judges of the CIR abused
their discretion in finding that
the filing of CIR case 1017-V by
the claimant guards was related to their right of self-organization,
considering the absence of substantial evidence in support of such finding;
3. There
is clear proof in the record that the claimant guards were dismissed, not only
to avoid bloodshed between their group and the non-claimant guards, but also
because the management had lost confidence in them, and not because they had
filed CIR case 1017-V or because they had organized a joined a
labor union, for at the time of their dismissal the Central did not know about
the existence of the Union; and
4. Assuming arguendo that
their dismissal was unjustified, the respondent judges of the CIR seriously
erred in failing to order the deduction from the back wages awarded the
earnings pending litigation from their other employments or occupations, and
also in failing to limit the back wages awarded to the period from the date of
dismissal to the submission of the case for decision by the trial court,
considering that although the case was submitted for adjudication as early as
June 18, 1960, the trial court did not render its decision
until almost two and a half years later.
In G.R. No. L–21619, the petitioner Union
alleges that the respondent CIR erred and committed grave abuse of discretion
in denying the reinstatement of security guards Pelagio
Dellupac and Juan Lama who are similarly situated as
the twenty-four security guards who were ordered reinstated with back
wages. The Union
also contends that the CIR erred and committed grave abuse of discretion in
refusing to clarify the phrase “without loss of seniority rights”, as
used by the trial court in its decision of December 13, 1962, for the better understanding and
guidance of the parties.
In G.R. No. L-25767, the petitioner Union claims that the order of the trial
court of July 12, 1965 and the
resolution of the CIR en banc of August 5, 1965 which deferred action on the motion for execution with respect to the
reinstatement of the twenty-four security guards pursuant to the decision of
the trial court of December 13, 1962, “pending resolution of the
appeal,” are contrary to law, in view of the mandatory and express
provision of section 6 of the
Industrial Peace Act) to the effect that an “appeal shall not stay the
order of the Court and the person or persons named in the Court order shall
meanwhile obey said order.” The Central asks for the dismissal of the
petition, contending that the cited portion of section 6 is merely permissive, and that considering the intrinsic
nature of the work of a security guard, to insist on reinstatement of the
dismissed security guards pending final resolution of the case is tantamount to
compelling the Central to repose trust and confidence in the very employees it
dismissed for lack of confidence.
Pending resolution by this Court of the aforementioned three
petitions, the respective petitioners on January 31, 1968 simultaneously filed separate motions
to withdraw the petitions, on the principal ground that the Central and the Union,
at the instance of the latter, have arrived at an amicable settlement. The said motions aver that
1. All
the Union members concerned are now engaged in gainful occupations elsewhere
and have manifested their intention not to be reinstated to their former
positions in the Central;
2.
The amicable settlement will preserve industrial
peace in the Central and enhance the job opportunities of all the persons
involved;
3.
In view of the Union members’ manifestation not
to return to their former positions, further dissension and conflict between
the two groups would be avoided, and industrial
peace and stability would be achieved in the Central; and
4.
With the amicable settlement, the persons now
occupying the positions formerly held by the Union members concerned need not
be laid off in order to give way to the latter in the event of a decision
adverse to the Central, thereby preserving total job opportunities for all.
Verily, the amicable settlement reached by the parties has
rendered the three cases at bar moot and academic.
ACCORDINGLY, the petitions for certiorari in these three cases.
(G.R. Nos. L-21610, L-21619 and L-25767) are hereby dismissed, without
pronouncement as to costs.
Reyes, Acting C.J., Dizon, Makalintal, Bengson, Zaldivar, Sanchez, Angeles, and
Fernando, JJ., concur.
Concepcion, C.J., on leave.