CINEMA, STAGE & RADIO ENTERTAINMENT FREE WORKERS (FFW), MARCIANO DE CASTRO, BRUNO AZORES AND RUFINA FERNANDEZ, PETITIONERS, VS. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ANGEL GARCHITORENA…

This is a petition to review on certiorari the decision of respondent Court
of Industrial Relations dated March 12, 1962, as well as its resolution en
banc of April 10, 1962, in CIR Case No. 697-ULP.

On June 28, 1955, Acting CIR Prosecutor Adriano filed vzith respondent Court
(on behalf of petitioners Cinema, Stage 6c Radio Entertainment Free Workers
(FFW), Marciano de Castro, Bruno zores, and Rufina Fernandez) a complaint for
unfair labor practice (under Sec. 4(a), pars. 1, 2, and 4, Rep. Act No. 875)
against respondents Angel and Luis Garchitorena alleging, inter alia,
that respondents, by their agents or representatives, engaged in unfair labor
practice by interfering with, restraining, or coercing their employees in the
exercise of their rights under Section 3, Republic Act No. 875, by requiring as
a condition of employment that a person shall not join a labor organization or
shall withdraw from one to which he belongs and by discriminating, as to hire or
tenure of employment,to encourage or discourage membership therefrom; that
shortly after arrival from Spain of respondent Angel Garchitorena, he was
informed that petitioner Union had been organized; that he (Angel) then inquired
who organized the union and was informed that it was petitioners Castro, Azores,
and Fernandez; that on November 16, 1954, respondents Angel and Luis
Garchitorena called a meeting of all employees and, in said meeting, petitioners
were asked why they organized the Union; that upon hearing petitioners’
explanation, he (Angel) became angry and scolded them, speaking ill of unionism
and the bad consequences it will cause to union members; that on July 20, 1954,
one Benito Capulong told petitioner Fernandez that she had submitted a wrong
report the previous night and she (Fernandez) was directed to go to Carlos
Garchitorena for a talk; that when petitioner Fernandez met Capulong at around 5
P.M. of the same day, he (Capulong) told her that nothing was wrong with her
report, but he only wanted petitioners, to dissolve their union and, instead,
organize a management-dominated union for a consideration; that when petitioners
refused the efifer, respondents dismissed them on November 21, 1954; that after
petitioners’ dismissal, they repeatedly demanded reinstatement, but respondents
refused to do so. The petition prayed that judgment be rendered ordering
respondents or their agents and representatives to cease and desist from unfair
labor practice acts and to restore petitioners to their former positions, with
back wages from the time of their dismissal to reinstatement.

Against this petition, respondents (on June 30, 1955) filed a motion to
dismiss, which was duly opposed by petitioners on July 7 and 15, 1955. On
February 13, 1956, respondent Court issued a resolution deferring action on said
motion until after hearing of the case on the merits.

On May 28, 1956, respondents filed their answer to said complaint, alleging
as special defenses that petitioners were managers of respondents’ theaters
(Metro, Mercury, and Dapitan) and, therefore, supervisory employees of
respondents, and that petitioners’ dismissal was for just causes. Respondents
prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.

On March 12, 1962, respondent Court (through Judge Arsenio Martinez) rendered
a decision (adopting the CIR Examiner’s report) exonerating respondents from the
unfair labor practice charge, having found that petitioners’ dismissal by
respondents was for just causes. Respondents were, however, directed to paybto
petitioners their separation pay.

Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration of said decision, but it was
denied by respondent Court, in its resolution en banc of April 10,
1962.^[1] Hence, this petition for
review.

Petitioners in this instance claim that respondent Court “gravely abused” its
discretion and “committed serious errors of law” when it made erroneous
conclusions of law from the facts of the case. Specifically, it is urged that
the real reason for petitioners’ dismissal on November 21, 1954 was their
organization of the union, Cinema, Stage & Radio Entertainment Free
Workers.

The claim is untenable. The records show that petitioners’ dismissal by
respondents, was for just cause, namely, habitual drunkenness (on the part of
petitioner Marciano de Castro), giving free admissions, negligence, and
inefficiency (on the part of petitioner Bruno Azores), and dishonesty, giving
free admissions, and gossipping on duty (on the part of petitioner Rufina
Fernandez), and not due to union activities (See pages 5-9, Decision dated March
12, 1962, Annex “C” of Petition). We are bound by these findings of fact.

Petitioners, however, insist that respondent’Court failed to consider the
following facts, tending to show that their dismissal was due to union
activities: (1) their unwarranted transfer to theaters other than those they
were assigned to, after they organized the union in June, 1954; (2) their
scolding by respondent Angel Garchitorena for their union activities; (3) their
simultaneous dismissal on November 21, 1954, despite the fact that the causes of
their dismissal were different; (4) they were not held responsible or
reprimanded by respondents when said causes of dismissal occurred; and (5) they
were offered one-month separation pay, despite the fact that their dismissal was
for just cause.

As to No. (1), respondents’ evidence show that said transfer of petitioners
to other theaters were routine in nature and part of respondents’ policy “to
avoid connivance among the employees”. In fact, petitioner Azores admitted that
the reason for the transfer of his co-petitioner De Castro to another theater
was that he was “under observation”, pursuant to an understanding with
respondents. As to petitioner Azores, he cannot attribute his transfer to union
activities, because he admitted that he joined the union in July, 1954, whereas
he was transferred to another theater in May, 1954, or 2 months before he
allegedly joined the union.

In respect of No. (2), it is not true that respondent Angel Garchitorena
scolded petitioners for their union activities. Notice the following testimony
of respondent Luis Garchitorena:

“Q. Do you remember calling a meeting of your employees on November 16,
1954?

“A. Meetings are called to improve the relation between management and
employees. On that occasion, a meeting was called for the purpose of greeting my
old man who has just arrived from Spain. My old man had gone on a surveying trip
abroad and, naturally, he wanted to hear any new development that happened while
he was away. It was during this meeting precisely that Mr. Florentino Aguilar
stood up and told my father what he thought of the union feeing organized by
Messrs. Bruno Azores and Marciano de Castro and Miss Rufina Fernandez, to which
my old man answered.—”I have nothing against the union. A union can be compared
to a concrete wall if the purpose of the members and its organizers is to
improve the welfare of its constituents. But if the purpose of its organizers is
to hide their faults and dishonesty behind the cloak of unionism, then the union
turns to be weak ‘sawali’ wall. And he also added that depending upon the
purpose and intention of the organization, the union could live through the
golden bridge, but if the purpose was tea hide behind a union all faults and
dishonesty, it would turn out to be a rickety bamboo bridge.

“Q. Miss Dolores Azores also testified that in that meeting of November |6,
1954, your father, Don Angel Garchitorena, was angry at the union
members—meaning the members of the complainant union, is that true or not?

“A. That is not true, he was not angry at them.”

The above testimony of respondent Luis Garchitorena was confirmed and
corroborated by witnesses Benito Capulong and Florentino Aguilar.

With regard to No. (3), it is noted that while the aforementioned causes of
dismissal were taking place, respondent Angel Garchitorena, father of respondent
Luis Garchitorena was in Spain to attend to his sick wife, and he (Luis) had
specific instructions not to make any dismissal until his (Angel’s) arrival. In
fact, petitioners were dismissed by respondent Angel Garchitorena himself on his
arrival from Spain. There is evidence to show that petitioners were under
observation and investigation for various anomalies they have committed since
the beginning and middle of the year 1953; that respondents’ intention to
dismiss petitioners was contemplated way back in 1954; and that the reason fehy
petitioners’ dismissal was effected only in November, 1954 was that respondent
Angel Garchitorena was then in Spain and respondent Luis Garchitorena was
instructed not to dismiss petitioners until his (Angel’s) arrival from
Spain.

As to No. (4), there is nothing on record to indicate that petitioners were
not held responsible or reprimanded by respondents for their bad actuations. As
a matter of fact, they were dismissed because of such actuations.

Lastly, as to No. (5), suffice it to state that respondent Court did find
that the money received by petitioners were not separation pay, but Christmas
bonus.

Petitioners’ citation of Rothenberg on Labor Relations (pp. 415-416), is
based on the presumption that the dismissal of an employee was motivated fay 2
causes, one being; a just cause, and the other being the anti-union cause. This
situation is inapplicable to the instant case, since it has been found by
respondent Court that herein petitioners were dismissed not for an anti-union
cause, but for just causes—causes which no employer would ever retain an
employee.

WHEREFORE, finding no error in the decision and resolution appealed
from, the same are hereby affirmed, with costs against the petitioners.

SO ORDERED.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Regala, Bengzon,
J.P., Zaldivar and Sanchez, JJ., concur.

---

^[1] Judges Villanueva and Tabigne
concurred with ponente Judge Martinez. Judge Bugayong wrote a separate
concurring and dissenting opinion. Judge Bautista dissented.