UNITED STATES LINES COMPANY AND JULIO ROXAS, PETITIONERS VS. ASSOCIATED WATCHMEN AND SECURITY UNION (PTWO), NARCISO LIM, APOLINAR BERNARDO, ANIANO SINCUANGCO, PAULINO HINUYANES,…

The United States Lines, Julio Roxas and Tomas Caraveo were
respondents in an unfair labor practice case filed with the Court of
Industrial Relations by the Associated Watchmen and Security Union
(PTWO) and eleven members thereof (Case No. 958-ULP). Alleging that
those eleven union members were employees of the United States Lines
and that they had been dismissed by it, through Port Captain Julio
Roxas and supervisor Tomas Caraveo, by reason of Union activities, the
complaint prayed, among other reliefs, for reinstatement with back
wages and for an order to cease and desist from the unfair labor
practices complained of. In its decision of January 14, 1959 the Court
of Industrial Relations found for the complainants and granted both of
the prayers just stated. The case is now before us upon petition for
review by certiorari filed by the United States Lines and Julio Roxas
Tomias Caraveo did not join the petition.

The essential facts found by respondent court are: Tomas Caraveo was
the operator of the Maligaya Ship Watchmen Agency and at the same time
was the head watchmen of the United States Lines, receiving
compensation from it in that capacity. The eleven complainants below,
respondents herein, were recruited by Caraveo, as operator of the
agency, and rendered guard service on board the vessels of the United
States Lines from 1951 until they went on strike on February 18, 1956.
The strike was declared by herein respondent Associated Watchmen and
Security Union (PTWO), of which the other individual respondents were
members. On February 27, 1956 Caraveo registered the Maligaya Ship
Watchmen Agency in the Department of Labor as a Union, known as the
Maligaya Ship Watchmen Union. On the following April 2 a closed shop
agreement was signed between the agency, represented by Caraveo, and
the said union, represented by Roman Santillan, as president thereof.
(Caraveo was originally elected president of the union, but declined to
assume the position.) The contract provided specifically that the
Maligaya Ship Watchmen Agency “shall hire no other watchmen but members
of the Maligaya Ship Watchmen Union during the entire duration of the
agreement.”

At the time the aforesaid contract was entered into, however, the
watchmen’s strike against the United States Lines had been certified to
the Court of Industrial Relations and was pending there, together with
certification Case No. 328, to determine who should be the proper
bargaining representative of the employees. Subsequently, the eleven
watchmen-respondents reported to the head watchman of the United States
Lines for assignment, but Caraveo, as supervisor and agent of the
company, refused to take them back unless they first joined the
Maligaya Ship Watchman Union. In fact respondent court found that even
before the strike three of these watchmen had been dismissed for union
activities, having affiliated with the Associated Watchmen and Security
Union. After the reinstatement was denied a complaint for unfair labor
practice amended on June 2, 1956, was filed with respondent court.

In its answer to the complaint, the main defense of herein
petitioners is that the eleven watchmen-respondents were not employees
of the United States Lines but of the Maligaya Ship Watchmen Agency,
operated by Tomas Caraveo, and that said petitioners had no authority
to dismiss, and therefore had not dismissed them from their employment
or restrained or coerced them in the exercise of their rights under
Section 37 Republic Act No. 875, nor had petitioners committed any
unfair labor practice against them.

In the petition before us five issues are raised, namely:

“1. Has the Court of Industrial Relations authority
to reverse a finding of fact made by this Honorable Court in a previous
case involving the same issues, the same parties and the same evidence?

“2.
Is it essential for the validity of a collective bargaining agreement
that the collective bargaining” representative of the employees should
first be certified by the Court of Industrial Relations?

“3.
Is it unfair labor practice for an employer to refuse to reinstate
employees who went on strike unless they first become members of the
union which has a collective bargaining agreement with the employer
containing a closed shop provision?

“4. Can the principal in
a contract with an independent contractor be made responsible for
unfair labor practice acts committed by the independent contractor
against said contractor’s employees?

“5. Is the finding of
the Court of Industrial Relations to the effect that the eleven
watchmen were dismissed and refused reinstatement because they went on
strike and refused to join the Maligaya Ship Watchmen Union supported
by substantial evidence in the record?”

The first issue has reference to the following finding of respondent court in the order under review:

“Considering that, the wage rates in the close-shop
agreement and in the Caraveo contract with the United States Lines
(Exh. “L” respondent company, page 178 of the Expediente) are the same
and that the only addition was the close-shop clause; considering
further that the contracting parties in the close-shop agreement,
Caraveo and Santillan are officers of the same union, being the
President and Vice-President respectively; and considering lastly that
Caraveo’s capacity as Operator of the agency and President of the union
is inseparable from his capacity as agent of the company for being
head-watchman and supervisor of the United States Lines, there is
reasonable ground to believe that said closeshop agreement was merely
an underhanded devise to deprive the eleven (11) watchmen, who joined
the striking union, of their jobs. It cannot be valid because the
bargaining representative of the watchmen has yet to be chosen since
the certification Case No. 328 is still pending.

It is true
that on January 23, 1956, the United States Line, through Manager
Harrold D. Carl, executed a contract with the head-watchman Caraveo,
stipulating, among others, that the shop watchman working on board of
each vessel shall be employees of Caravon’s Agency and not of the
respondent’ company (Exh. “1”-United States Lines, pages 178 and 181 of
the Expedients. But, it must be noted that this contract was exceuted
after receipt of a notice of strike dated December 16, 1955 (See page
1.3,. Case No. 10 IPA). The Supreme Court observed in “Case’101′ Phil.,
896:

“‘But no matter how studiously the complaint avoids
stating that the watchmen employed by the steamship agencies are not
their employees, because they are employees of the watchmen agencies,
the stubborn fact remains that the said watchmen’ are ultimately
working for the steamship companies and are ultimately paid for by the
latter”

“Clearly in stipulating with Caraveo that its
watchmen be his employees and not of the company, the United States
Lines wanted fo avoid responsibilities of our labor laws.”

Petitioners contend that the foregoing is a reversal of the finding
of fact made by us in 103 Phil., 920 entitled “Maligaya Ship Watchmen
Company, et al,, vs. Associated Watchmen & Security Union,”
promulgated May 28, 1958. Those cases, as well as G. R. Nos.
L-12208-11, entitled “United States Lines et al., vs.
Associated Watchmen & Security Union,” promulgated May 21, 1958,
arose from the same controversy between the same parties as those
involved in the instant case. In G. R. Nos. L-12208-11 we sustained the
finding of the Court of Industrial Relations—on the ground that it was
supported by substantial evidence—to the effect that the watchmen
involved therein (the same watchmen who are respondents here) were
employees of the United States Lines. The evidence in those cases was
reviewed by this Court and dealt with at length in the decision, and
therefore need not now be reviewed again.

With reference to Cases G. R. Nos. L-12214-17 petitioners maintain
that our finding therein that the Maligaya Ship Watchmen Agency was an
independent contractor, vis-a-vis the United States Lines, insofar as
the contract to recruit watchmen was concerned, was reversed by
respondent court in the instant case. Petitioners specifically point
out the statement by respondent court in the order now appealed that
Tomas Caraveo is “the agent of the said company in the recruitment of
watchmen.” The apparent contradiction is of no decisive importance.
What we said in those four cases was that although a contract existed
between the shipping company and the agency with respect to the
recruitment of watchmen, and therefore in that respect the latter was
acting in the capacity of independent contractor, no such contract was
ever entered into for the guarding of the ship and their cargo.
It was only when the watchmen thus recruited actually rendered guard
service to the United States Lines, which they did under the
supervision of its officers, and received their pay from it, that they
became its employees. After reviewing all the pertinent facts and
circumstances obtaining in those cases we arrived at the conclusion
“that the watchmen agencies-petitioners (among them the Maligaya Ship
Watchmen Agency) are-not and may not be considered independent
contractors insofar as the guarding of the ships and their cargo is
concerned …” This is our finding in the aforementioned cases which is
decisive of the first issue raised by petitioner. It disposes likewise
of the fourth issue which is based on the erroneous premise that the
Maligaya Ship Watchmen Agency is an independent contractor and that
therefore the United States Lines is not the employer of the
watchmen-respondents.

The second and third issues may be dealt with together. In the first
place, the statement of the second issue is misleading. Respondent
court did not say that a certification of the proper bargaining
representative is essential to the validity of a collective bargaining
agreement—referring in this case to the one with the closed-shop
stipulation entered into between the Maligaya Ship Watchmen Agency and
the Maligaya Ship Watchmen Union. What respondent Court stated is that
“it cannot be valid because the bargaining representative by the
watchmen has yet to be chosen since Case No. 328 is still pending.” For
while the certification case was filed on February 21, 1956, the
collective bargaining agreement was entered into only on April 2, 1956.
In any event, it has been held in a number of cases that the
closed-shop provision of such an agreement, assuming it to be valid,
cannot operate retroactively so as to compel those already employed to
join the union favored by the close-shop provision (Local 7, Press
& Printing Free Workers, et al., vs. Tabigne, 110 Phil., 276; Freeman Shirt Manufacturing Co. vs.
CIR. 110 Phil, 962; Findlay Miller Timber Company, L-18217 and 18222,
September 29, 1962; Kapisanan Ng Mga Manggagawa ng Alak (NAFLU) vs.
Hamilton Distillery Company, et al., L-18112, October 30, 1962). The
fact that the watchmen who are respondents here went on strike before
the agreement was entered into did not deprive them of their status as
employees.

On the commission of unfair labor practice acts respondent court’s findings are as follows:

“Thus, on April 18, 1958, when the eleven (11)
watchmen reported to the Head-Watchman of the United States Lines for
assignment, Caraveo, as supervisor and agent of the company, refused to
reinstate them unless they became members of the Maligaya Ship Watchmen
Union. However, Sesinando Villasana, one of the eleven, who applied for
membership in the union, was denied work because he continued as a
complainant in this case (Exhibits “G” and “8”—Caraveo).

Even
before the strike, three (3) watchmen were dismissed because of union
activities. During- the conciliation proceedings in the Department of
Labor, Tomas Caraveo and Capt. Julio Roxas made inquiries about the
union activities of the complainant’s members, with the result that,
Narciso Lim and Paulino Hinojales were dismissed on January 1 and 15,
1956, respectively, because “they were inducing other watchmen to join
their union.” Apolinario Bernardo was dismissed on December 15, 1955.
(t.s.n. page 49 Hearing of October 13, 1956; page 14, Hearing of
January 24, 1957. and pages 30-31, 44, Hearing of February 5, 1957).
The rest were dismissed because they were seen by Caraveo and Roxas In
the picket line (t.s.n. pages 12-13, Hearing of March 19, 1958 and page
7, hearing of May 7, 1958). All the eleven (11) watchmen were members
of the Maligaya Ship Watchmen Union but they required complainant union
and form the picket line during the strike. (Exhs. “I” and “J”;
Exhibits “13-13B”—Caraveo).”

We find no reason to say that the foregoing findings are not supported by substantial evidence so as to justify their reversal.

The decision appealed from is affirmed, with costs.

Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Paredes, Dizon, and Regala, JJ., concur.