PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE COMPANY, PETITIONER, VS. FREE TELEPHONE WORKERS UNION AND THE COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, RESPONDENTS.

On November 1, 1964
Free Telephone Workers Union de­clared a strike against the Philippine Long
Distance Te­lephone Company to break an impasse over negotiations on a 20-point
demand of the union.  On November 3, 1964 the President of the
Philippines
certified the strike to the Court of Industrial Relations, under Section 10,
Repu­blic Act 875, as one clearly affecting an industry indis­pensable to the
national interest.

After hearing, on November
9, 1964, the Court of In­dustrial Relations rendered a partial
decision in the case (No. 51-IPA). 
Said decision stated that the demand of the union had been reduced to
six points; that of these, the parties have agreed to settle amicably Demand 1
(union security) and Demand 14 (work schedule), and ap­proving said agreement;
that regarding Demand 3 (wage in­creases for the next three-year period), the
Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company is ordered to pay to rank and file
employees numbering 1,345 the amount of P0.16 wage increase per hour counted
from November 9, 1964, the date of said decision, and to run for a period of
one year thereafter, leaving the issue of wage increases for the second and
third years to be determined later; and, that pursuant to Section 19 of
Commonwealth Act 103, as amended, the Free Telephone Workers Union members are or­dered
to return to work immediately and Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company is
ordered to accept them under the same terms and conditions of employment,
while the other unresolved demands are under consideration; and, finally, that during
the pendency of the case there shall  be no strike or lockout.  Under such terms work was re­sumed.

Subsequently, on April
21, 1965, Republic Act 4180 was approved and took effect, raising
the minimum wage to P6.00 a day.  As a
result on May 6, 1965 the
union presen­ted to the company a demand for an automatic wage increase of
P0.25 per hour for all rank and file employees receiv­ing P0.75 per hour, to
implement the new statutory minimum wage. 
Replying thereto the Philippine Long Distance Tele­phone Company stated
that since the wage issue was then pending in the Court of Industrial
Relations, the new mi­nimum wage law’s implementation should be determined by
said court.

On May 17, 1965,
Free Telephone Workers Union filed a notice of strike with the Department of
Labor for alleged refusal to negotiate on its demand for wage adjustment un­der
Republic Act 4180 which allegedly constituted unfair labor practice.  On June 2, 1965 the Philippine Long Dis­tance
Telephone Company filed in the Court of Industrial Relations a petition for
preliminary injunction to enjoin Free Telephone Workers Union from striking,
alleging among other things that Free Telephone Workers Union and Philip­pine
Long Distance Telephone Company had agreed on March 3, 1965 to submit all
further disputes to the Court of In­dustrial Relations and that a strike will
violate the Court of Industrial Relations’ no-strike order of Novem­ber 9, 1964
(partial decision).

On June 3, 1965
Free Telephone Workers Union filed a motion to dismiss said petition for
preliminary injunc­tion alleging that the Court of Industrial Relations had no
jurisdiction to consider it.  Acting in
the said peti­tion for preliminary injunction which was docketed as Case No.
51-IPA[2], the Court of Industrial Relations, on July 6, 1965, issued a temporary restraining order
forbidding the union from striking pending resolution of its motion to dismiss
on the issue of jurisdiction.

On July 7, 1965,
Free Telephone Workers Union filed with the Court of Industrial Relations a
motion for reconsideration of said order. 
And on the same day it declared a strike.  The following day, July 8, 1965, Philippine Long Distance Telephone
Company filed in the Court of Industrial Relations an urgent motion to declare
the latest strike illegal as violative of the
no-strike order of Ju­ly 6, 1965
and the partial decision of November
9, 1964 and praying that the strikers be ordered to return to work
or forfeit their jobs.  Again, Free
Telephone Workers Union, on July 9, 1965,
filed a motion to dismiss said Philip­pine Long Distance Telephone Company’s
urgent motion.  On July 16, 1965 the
Court of Industrial Relations issued an order denying Free Telephone Workers
Union’s motion to dismiss filed on June 3, 1965 for lack of merit; ordering
Free Telephone Workers Union to call off the strike declared on July 7, 1965
and lift its picket lines; or­dering the striking employees to return to work
within three days from receipt of a copy of the order, otherwise Philippine
Long Distance Telephone Company is authorized to replace any of them, “provided,
however, that employees  who
shall have been replaced may be reinstated by the  Court after due hearing and after
establishing good and valid grounds for their failure to return to work as here­in
directed.” It deferred resolution as to the strike’s legality or
illegality.

On July 17, 1965
Free Telephone Workers Union filed a motion for reconsideration of said
order.  And, mean­while, Free Telephone
Workers Union’s President, Manuel P. Sanchez and Secretary General, Ildefonso L. Abasolo, Jr., issued
directives to strikers to maintain the picket lines stating that those who work
during the strike will be dis­missed from the union.  Said directives were issued with the
knowledge and consent of the 23 members of Free Tele­phone Workers Union’s
legislative council.  Also, Roberto
Abraham, a union member, performed acts of persuading his fellow strikers
not to return to work.

On July 21, 1965
Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company filed a manifestation stating that
in the exercise of its authority under the order of the Court of Industrial
Relations dated July 16, 1965,
it had on that day dis­missed, and was now hiring, replacements of the 26
officers and members aforementioned who induced strikers not to re­turn to
work.  A counter-manifestation was filed
by Free Telephone Workers Union.  And
considering the foregoing manifestation and counter-manifestation as a motion
and opposition, respectively, the Court of Industrial Relations set the incident
for hearing.

And in the meantime, on July
31, 1965, the Court of Industrial Relations en banc
affirmed by resolution the orders of July 6 and 16, 1965, denying Free
Telephone Wor­kers Union’s motion for reconsideration.  On August
11, 1965, Free Telephone Workers Union offered to return to
work.  A sizeable number, however,
including the 26 offi­cers and members aforementioned,*
were not admitted by the company.

Acting on the motion and opposition aforestated,
af­ter hearing, the Court of Industrial Relations on November 4, 1965 ruled
that the partial decision of November 9, 1964 and the orders of July 6 and 16,
1965 were defied by Free Telephone Workers Union President, Manue P. Sanchez, Secretary General Ildefonso
L. Abasolo, Jr., and Treasurer Constantino
V. Pastrana,** and disobeyed by the rest of the 26 employees
named in the manifestation.  Accordingly,
Sanchez, Abasolo, Jr., and Pastrana
were ordered suspended for three months counted from September 9, 1965, the date the
incident was submitted for resolution, the rest of the 26 members were sternly
warned.  Philippine Long Distance
Telephone Company however was directed to reinstate all these employees
except the three above-named who should be reinstated after serving the
period of their suspension, all without back wages.  It expressly did not resolve the issue of the
legality or illegality of the strike of July
7, 1965, deferring its resolution.

On November 10, 1965
Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company and Free Telephone Workers Union filed
motions for reconsideration.  On November 29, 1965 the court of
Industrial Relations en banc denied Philippine Long Distance
Telephone Company and Free Telephone Worker’s Union’s
motions for reconsideration.  And hence,
Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company took the present appeal from the
Court of Industrial Relations order of November
4, 1965 and its resolution en banc of November 29, 1965.

At issue is the question of whether the Court of In­dustrial
Relations erred in ordering the reinstatement of the 26 employees above
mentioned considering that, first, said employees were found to have defied the
Court of Industrial Relations’ no-strike orders; second, that the Court of
Industrial Relations previously authorized the replacement by Philippine Long
Distance Telephone Company of the strikers who failed to return to work in
three after receipt of the July 16, 1965 return-to-work order; and third, the
issue of the strike’s legality or illega­lity is still to be resolved.

The present case involves a labor dispute certified by the
President to the Court of Industrial Relations as affecting an industry
indispensable to the national inte­rest. 
As such, the rule that reinstatement of strikers should not be ordered
where the strike’s legality is still to be resolved, enunciated in Philippine
Can Company v. Court of Industrial Relations, 87 Phil. 9; and Latex
Products v. Court of Industrial Relations, 93 Phil. 1024, does not
apply.  As this Court itself stated in
the Philip­pine Can case: “In such cases, pending determination of
the conflict especially where public interest so requires or when the court
cannot promptly decide the case the strikers are ordered back to work.”
(At p. 16.)

The power to issue a return-to-work order is precisely given to
the Court of Industrial Relations under Section 19 of Commonwealth Act 103 in a
case certified thereto by the President, in which it acts under broad powers
of compulsory arbitration.  (Bachrach Trans. Co v. Rural Transit, G.R. No. L-26764, July 25, 1967).

Notwithstanding that the 26 employees were found to have defied
the partial decision and no-strike orders of the Court of Industrial Relations,
said Court has discre­tion on whether to dismiss them, or suspend them, or re­primand
them.  Firstly, the strike’s legality
issue is still to be resolved; hence, the suspension or replacement plus
reinstatement without back wages is for the pre­sent a reasonable sanction for
the above stated defiance or disobedience. 
And if the strike is later found to be illegal, said employees can still
be dismissed.  For, the meanwhile they
are ordered reinstated because national interest requires that the industry’s
services be not interrupted.  Secondly,
as stated, the Court of Industrial Relations, in a certified case, as this one,
“is granted great breadth of discretion in its quest for a solution to a
labor problem so certified” (Bachrach
case, supra).

At the same time, however, We cannot simply pass over in silence
the acts of plain defiance by Free Telephone Workers Union’s officials of the Court
of Industrial Re­lations’ no-strike orders and return-to-work order.  Such actuations breed industrial unrest and
cut against the philosophy of the Industrial Peace Act.  For said law is premised on the full and
total cooperation of labor and capital. 
And in the present case, management has shown its cooperation; it abided
with the orders of the court; it always informed the court of its actions and
moves.  All other quarters, moreover, did
their functions well, starting from the nation’s President who certified the
dispute to the Court of Industrial Relations. 
Said court, likewise, acted promptly as expected of it under the law,
issuing return-to-work orders, no-strike and no-lockout orders, approved
settlement of some demands and partly de­cided the wage-increase issue, for the
first year.  The record shows that only
labor, because of its leaders, failed to act in the spirit of the Magna Carta of Labor And although the directives of said leaders
to the strik­ers not to return to work, as well as their decision to strike
notwithstanding a no-strike order, are sought to be justified by the pendency of motions for reconsidera­tion, the sense of
defiance, the tendency of disobedience and the plain unreadiness
to cooperate on the part of said, leaders are so deplorably of record that the
same must be strongly condemned.  Said
leaders are therefore enjoined to henceforth strictly abide by court orders
pending reconsideration, not only because orders of the Court of Indus­trial
Relations are as a rule immediately executory, but
also because peace in the industry, which redounds in the end to the welfare of
all, cannot be achieved by unreason­ing defiance of law but only thru the
responsible partner­ship and cooperation of labor and capital under the rule of
law.

As to the reliance by Philippine Long Distance Tele­phone Company
on the Court of Industrial Relations’ autho­rization to hire replacements, said
authorization order dated July 16,
1965 expressly provided that replacements be temporary, that
is, subject to the power of the Court of Industrial Relations to subsequently
order reinstate­ment of replaced employees. 
And thus, Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company’s contention that
it can no longer reinstate the 26 employees in question because it had hired permanent
replacements in their positions by virtue of the Court of Industrial Relations’
authoriza­tion order, is plainly untenable. 
Said order precluded the hiring of permanent replacements.

Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company finally contends that
at any rate it has the power to dismiss the 26 employees in question for
serious misconduct on their part constituting in their having induced strikers
not to return to work in the face of the orders of the Court of Industrial
Relations to the contrary.  Such
contention de­serves no serious consideration because Philippine Long Distance
Telephone Company had admitted that its dismissal of said employees was
pursuant to and under the authority strikers by the Court of Industrial
Relations to replace strikers who failed to return to work.  And consequently said dismissal must be
subject to the conditions provided for in said authority regarding the power of
the Court of Industrial Relations to order their reinstatement.

WHEREFORE, the appealed order and resolution en banc of
the Court of Industrial Relations are hereby affirmed.  No costs.

SO ORDERED.

Concepcion, C.J., on leave.

Reyes, Acting C.J., Dizon, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Sanchez,
Ruiz Castro, Angeles, and Fernando, JJ., concur.

*
Specifically:  Manuel P. Sanchez, Ciriaco Bedaño, Cesar Rebueno, Ildefonso Abasolo, Constantino Pastrana, Angelina Reyes, Benito Delfin,
Gregorio Rufino, Constancio
Talusan, Jr., Eusebio Quinio, Marshal Dizon, Francisco Aquino, Jose de J. Soriano, Jose
de la Tor­re, Emilio Cabrera, Restituto
Pardon, Jesus N. Libres, Paulino
de Jesus, Dolores Montales, Josefa
Sta. Rosa, Asuncion Villanueva, Graciano Pagarigan, Lega­rio de los Reyes, Macario Macaraeg, Ramon Baviera, and
Roberto Abraham.

** Pastrana presided over
an emergency meeting of the union’s legislative council which consented to the
issuance of directives to strikers to remain on strike.