MANILA METAL CAPS AND TIN CANS MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC., PETITIONER, VS. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS AND MANILA METAL CAPS AND TIN CANS LABOR UNION (PAFLU), RESPONDENTS.

On September 23, 1957, the Manila Metal Caps and Tin
Cans Labor Union (Union for short), filed a complaint,
averring therein that sometime on September 5, 1957, Joseph Ting, asked Fred Cordero, an employee of petitioner
company, if they have organized a union; and when Cordero answered in the affirmative and that he was the
president of the Union, Joseph Ting dismissed him; and
that on September 16, 1957, Joseph Ting gathered all the
employees and asked them who the members of the Union
were; and that the twelve^[1] who acknowledged their membership, were likewise immediately dismissed. The Union
prayed that the Company be declared guilty of Unfair
Labor Practice and ordered to (1) cease and desist from
such unfair labor practice; reinstate the thirteen (13)
employees, with back wages from the dates of dismissal, until reinstatement. Respondent denied that the persons
named in the complaint were ever its employees and that
Joseph Ting, was connected with the management of the
company, although he was the son of the President and
General Manager Ting Ting Chiang.

The case was heard and three (3) of the thirteen alleged
employees testified that they had been employed with the
company since 1953, in various capacities. Fred Cordero
declared that he was a laborer of the company since 1953,
and was paid a daily wage of P1.50; that after serving
for three (3) months, he was made a machine operator
at P3.50 a day and later, up to the time of his dismissal,
he worked on the pakiao system; that he worked six (6)
days a week and sometimes during Sundays; that he and
his co-worker, collected their wages, thru one of their
companions, Melecio Morales, who signed for them, and
were paid by Joseph Ting; that he was the President of
the Union in petitioner’s company and that upon learning
of his (Cordero’s) affiliation with the Union, he and other
employees who joined said union, were dismissed.

In addition to the facts stated by Cordero, Melecio
Morales declared that upon their dismissal (after the company had come to know of their union affiliation), the
PAFLU requested for their readmission to work, but the
company refused. Federico Capallar told the Court that
he was employed with the company since February, 1957;
and that he and twelve (12) others were dismissed by
Joseph Ting, after knowing of their affiliation with complainant union.

On the part of the petitioner company, Jose Gonzales,
general foreman thereof, declared that during his stint
with the company since 1952, up to the hearing of the
case at bar, not one of the thirteen (13) persons mentioned
had worked with said company; that all persons employed
by the petitioner company were made to sign weekly payrolls and daily time records; that the names of said thirteen

(13) persons did not appear in any of the payrolls of the
company or daily time records for the whole duration of
their supposed employment; that Jose Ting was not the
manager nor had he any connection with the management
of the company and that the company did not undertake
any pakiao work.

Antonio Cunanan, Jr., corroborated Gonzales. The testimonies of Romeo Oreta, Jose Huyo and Lorenzo Ronquillo
ran along the same line as those of Gonzales and Cunanan.

Joseph Ting testified that he was a senior student of the
Mapua Institute of Technology, at the time; that Ting
Ting Chiang, his father, was the President and General
Manager of petitioner corporation; that he did not know
anyone of the 13 claimants and that he was not in any
way connected with the management of petitioner company.

Ting Ting Chiang, the President and General Manager
of petitioner company, declared that the thirteen (13)
claimants were not at all employed by his company; that
he had not dismissed any employee in September, 1957,
for alleged union activities; that sometime in 1957, Cordero
and some companions presented themselves at the factory
asking for job; that he told them he not even have
enough materials for his employees to work on; that a
week later, Cordero’s companions came back asking that
they be taken in as workers, and when they were again
refused, they threatened to make trouble; that thereafter,
the claimants sent a letter, informing the company that
they had a union; that not long afterwards, the petitioner
received a complaint from the CIR and that all his
employees signed their respective time cards and the
payrolls when they were paid their wages.

Counsel for respondent Union presented three more of
the supposed dismissed members, as rebuttal witnesses:
Emilio Necio, Nemesio Morales and Fructuso Pesic. They
testified that Joseph Ting and Ting Ting Chiang made

them sign the payrolls and paid their wages. Petitioner
presented Gonzales, who affirmed once more the fact that
not one of the claimants, including the three (3) rebuttal
witnesses had been employed by the company. Petitioner
also presented its weekly payrolls for the whole year of
1957, and in them, the names of the claimants did not
appear.

CIR Judge Villanueva rendered judgment, ordering respondents :

“1. To cease and desist from dismissing their employees due
to their union affiliation;

2. To reinstate with back wages (from September 16, 1957 until
their actual reinstatement) Emilio Nesio and Fructuso Pesic to
their former or equivalent position, without prejudice to their
seniority or other rights and privileges accruing in their favor;
and, * * *

A motion for reconsideration of the above judgment was
presented by counsel, claiming that the same is not in
accord with the evidence on record and reasoned out that
if the time cards and payrolls supposedly signed by Necio
and Pesic were not presented, it was because it was physically impossible to produce non-existing time cards and
payrolls, since the two never signed any, as they have
never been employed by petitioner. The Union also presented a motion for Reconsideration.

On June 17, 1960, an appearance was entered by a new
counsel and on the same date a “Motion for Extension
of Time to File Memorandum” in support of respondent’s
motion for reconsideration was presented. The motion
for extension was denied on June 18, 1960, because of the
“no extension policy” of the CIR.

On July 12, 1960, the respondent court promulgated a
resolution, to wit—

“This is a motion filed by counsel for the complainants for the
reconsideration of the Decision of the Trial Court dated May 31,

I960. After due perusal of the evidence as well as the arguments
in support of said motion, the Court en bane fails to find sufficient
justification for altering or modifying the aforesaid decision. motion
denied. Respondent counsel’s memorandum in support of its motion
for reconsideration dated June 24, 1960 having been filed beyond
the ten (10) day reglementary period as prescribed by the rules
of the Court, let said respondents motion for reconsideration dated June 7, 1960 be as it is hereby DISMISSED.”

A petition to review the decision and the above Resolution was interposed by the company. Respondents Court
and Union filed separate Answers, contending that the :
decision and resolution complained of should not be
reviewed by this Court, principally because the petition
assails a finding of facts.

Petitioner alleges that the respondent Court erred in dismissing its motion for reconsideration, on the sole
ground that the memorandum in support thereof, was filed beyond the 10 day reglementary period prescribed by the :
Rules of said Court. It is argued that the motion for
reconsideration having been filed on time, the fact that the
memorandum was filed out of time, would not justify said
court, for that reason alone, in dismissing the said motion,
in the supposition that the motion is not pro-forma, and
already contains arguments. The contention is partly
wrong, and partly correct. It is partly wrong because
the motion was dismissed or denied due to the fact that
the arguments contained therein were not deemed meritorious by the court en banc. In other words, the respondent court considered the motion as not pro forma and
concluded that the grounds thereof lacked merits.
That is manifest from the court’s resolution, stating—

“* * * After due perusal of the evidence as well as the
arguments in support of said motion, the Court en banc fails to find
sufficient justification for altering or modifying the aforesaid decision. Motion denied. * * *”.

The argument correct because the filing of the
late memorandum was not the sole reason for the denial

or dismissal of the motion for reconsideration. In fact,
from the tenor of the dismissal order, the memorandum
was not taken into account, at all. This is evident from
the following portion of the resolution—

“Respondents counsel’s memorandum in support of its
motion for reconsideration dated June 24, 1960, having been filed
beyond the ten (10) day reglementary period as prescribed by
the Rules of Court, let said respondent’s motion fox reconsideration
dated June 7, 1960 be, as it is hereby dismissed.

And even if this were the only ground for dismissal, it
would seem that the said dismissal was correct, just the
same, because the no-extension policy or rule of the rules
of the CIR, in the case of motion for reconsideration and
the filing of the memorandum supporting its arguments
(sees. 15, 16 & 17, CIR), must be observed, otherwise the
motion for reconsideration and supporting arguments may
be dismissed (Luzon Stev. vs. CIR, G.R. No. L-16682, July 1963,
citing Bien, et al., vs. Castillo, et al., G.R. No. L-7428, May 24,
1955).

It
is contended that respondent court erred in finding that two of
thirteen persons claimed by respondent labor union as employees of the
petitioner Company were such employees, the finding not having been
supported by substantial evidence. The petitioner, however, failed to
satisfactorily show that the decision of the respondent Court is not
supported by substantial evidence, as far as the two employees, Emilio
Necio and Fructoso Pesic, are concerned. The record reveals that they
had been employed in respondent company, and while therein, they were
made to fill their time records and sign payrolls. Of course, and for
obvious reasons, the petitioner company, despite the requirements of
the respondent Court, did not want to produce the said time records and
payrolls, claimed to have been signed by Pesic and Necio, during the
time of their employment. Pesic even identified his former co-workers
among respondent’s witnesses-Gonzales, Cunanan and Oreta. If these
employees were not really employed by the petitioner, they would not
have gone to court to claim their wages. Pesic described his work as
cutting wires, metal sheets, drilling, filing, bending handles and
operated machine at the west central aisle of the factory and another
machine at the southeastern portion near the main door, both
machineries having been indicated by him during the ocular inspection.
Necio stated that he worked in the company as a sprayman. The
respondent Court believed their testimony and We find no plausible
reason to disregard the findings of the said Court, as far as the
credibility of the claimants-witnesses, is concerned. True it is that
petitioner had offered its general foreman Gonzales, two managers and
four laborers, to testify, but their interest in the outcome of the
case in favor of the petitioner, stands out in bold relief. Moreover,
and as appropriately commented by the respondent Court, their
testimonies “were molded in one pattern of denying that complainant
union’s members had never been employed in respondent company, and such
denial was so uniform that the court was kept wondering as to the
probability of the facts stated by them.” As long as there is evidence
to support a decision of the Industrial Court, We may not revoke or
reverse it just because it is not based on over- whelming or
preponderant evidence (Phil. Newspaper Guild vs. Evening News, Inc., 86 Phil. 303).

In view hereof, the writ is denied, the judgment appealed from is affirmed. Costs on the petitioner.

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

---

^[1]
Fructuoso Pesic y Arena, Francisco Pelle, Antonio Leoncio, Adolfo
Bangcaya, Federico Catap y Garcia, Emilio Necio, Manuel Diamsin, Manuel
Noble, Melecio Morales, Federico Capallar, Cornelio Landong, Vicente
Belan.