OPERATOR’S INC., PETITIONER, VS. NATIONAL LABOR UNION, RESPONDENT.

This is a petition for review by way of appeal from a decision of the
Court of Industrial Relations penned by Hon. Judge Baltazar M.
Villanueva which dismisses the complaint for unfair labor practice
filed by complainant union against respondent, while on the other hand,
orders the immediate reinstatement of Rosalia Ricohermoso without
backpay to her former position and without loss of rights and
diminution of privileges.

The facts as found by the
industrial court are: Rosalia Ricohermoso was a daily wage worker of
the Operator’s Inc. having been employed by it since January 27, 1954;
that on April 8, 1957, she absented herself from work without first
obtaining permission from the management because she eloped; that on
May 21, 1957, she reported for work but was asked by the manager to
file a new application form so that she could be re-admitted; that
Rosalia Ricohermoso refused to follow the suggestion because she would
be a newcomer and she wanted to be reinstated to her old position; and
that she refused to work since then, whereupon the National Labor
Union, of which Rosalia is a member, filed a complaint for unfair labor
practice against the company alleging, among other things, that Rosalia
was dismissed on May 21, 1957 for being a member of said union and for
having participated in the petition for the removal of respondent’s
forewoman, Florentina Wi.

Respondent corporation answered
the complaint specifically denying the charge of unfair labor practice
and alleging as special defense that because Rosalia absented herself
from work without previous permission on April 8, 1957 and failed to
report for work on the following days, the management considered her to
have abandoned her job thus justifying the company in employing another
worker to replace her.

After trial, the industrial court
found that the evidence of the complainant on the charge of unfair
labor practice is “shadowy and unsubstantial” and dismissed the same.
However, having found that there was no animus of abandonment
on her part but that her absence was merely due to her elopment, and
that if she was not able to continue working it was not because she was
dismissed but because of the requirement that she file a new
application for employment which she refused, the industrial court
ordered her reinstatement without loss of rights and diminution of
privileges as stated in the early part of this decision. Hence the
present appeal.

The errors assigned by petitioner are: (1)
that the lower court erred in holding that the continuous absence of
Rosalia Ricohermoso did not constitute abandonment of her work but was
merely due to her sudden elopement and intervening weakness and
affection; and (2) that the lower court erred in ordering her immediate
reinstatement to her former position without loss of rights and
diminution of privileges.

After finding that the management
has not committed any act of unfair labor practice when it considered
Rosalia as having abandoned her employment for having left the same
without first obtaining permission from the manager as required by a
standing policy of the company, the industrial court made the following
comment:

“The truth of the matter is that
Ricohermoso was required to file an application for employment on that
day because of her absence from April 8, 1957, to May 21, 1957. When
she was absent on those days without previous permission from the
management, she was considered as having abandoned her employment. In
fact she admitted having been absent for those days without obtaining
previous permission from management because she eloped and went to
Apalit, Pampanga. She justified her absences by declaring that after
the elopement she was sick of influenza and small pox. But this is no
justification for violating a standing policy of respondent of which
she herself knew. This policy was that before any employee could take a
leave of absence, he must first secure permission from the management a
day in advance.”

As it would appear,
notwithstanding the conclusion of the court that Rosalia’s absence
without first obtaining the permission of the manager is not a
justification for violating a standing policy of the company because
she eloped with the man she loved, yet it ordered her reinstatement
without backpay, because she did so in response to an overpowering
impulse of love. Thus, the industrial court commented: “As rational
part of creation, we are all subject to the Divine Command that we must
grow and multiply to cover the earth. Hence, we are subjected to the
omnipotent sway of instinctive love and mating for our survival. And to
this universal cycle of life, Rosalia Ricohermoso, like anyone of us,
is no exception.”

With this conclusion we disagree, for it
is inconsistent with the finding that Rosalia left her employment
without previous permission of the manager and stayed away for about
one month and a half contrary to the standing policy of the company
that before leaving she must obtain previous permission. This
requirement is reasonable its purpose being undoubtedly to enable the
management to make the necessary adjustment in order that the work may
not be paralyzed. The court itself found that the elopment of Rosalia
is “no justification for violating a standing policy of respondent
which she herself knew.” But this is not all. When she returned to work
after such long absence the management did not exactly turn her away
but merely required her to file a new application because of its belief
that she had already abandoned her work, another requirement which we
find reasonable, but she refused, and instead she instituted the
present action charging the company with unfair labor practice. Such
attitude is indeed reprehensible and, in our opinion, justifies her
separation from the service.

At this point, we find it
fitting to quote what this Court has said in a similar case: “But much
as we should expand beyond economic orthodoxy, we hold that an employer
cannot legally be compelled to continue with the employment of a person
who admittedly was guilty of misfeasance or malfeasance towards his
employer, and whose continuance in the service of the latter is
patently inimical to his interest. The law in protecting the rights of
the laborer, authorizes neither oppression nor self-destruction of the
employer” (San Miguel Brewery, Inc. vs. National Labor Union, et al., 97 Phil., 378).

Wherefore, the decision appealed from is modified in the sense that
Rosalia Ricohermoso is not entitled to reinstatement. No costs.

Paras, C. J., Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Labrador, Concepcion, and Gutierrez David, JJ., concur.

Barrera, J., reserves his vote.