G.R. No. 17717. July 31, 1963
UBALDO BARON, TEOFILO CANO, LORENZO DE LA CRUZ, MANUEL GUTIERREZ, JULIO PEREZ, ET AL., PETITIONERS VS. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, CHENG BAN YEK & COMPANY, INC. OPERATOR AND …
BARRERA, J.:
of Industrial Relations denying petitioners’ claim for reinstatement
and for an increase in their wages.
The petitioners, eight in number, had been employees of respondent
corporation Cheng Ban Yek & Co., Inc. operator of International Oil
Factory (hereinafter referred to as the Company) for a number of years
even before case No. 252-V, entitled “National Labor Union vs.
International Oil Factory” was filed with the Court of Industrial
Relations. Although the complaint in that case is not before us, it can
be gathered from the records of the present case that the employees
affiliated with the National Labor Union had presented several demands
from the Company, among them the increase of their wages and right to
vacation leave. Before a decision could be rendered therein, the
employees-members of another union, the International Oil Factory
Workers Union (FFW), (hereinafter called the respondent Union), were
allowed some of the concessions being asked in case 252-V without
extending the same privileges to employees not affiliated with said
respondent Union. Among these concessions was the increase of P.50
granted effective January 4, 1949.
On May 11, 1951, the Court of Industrial Relations rendered a
partial decision in that case ordering that such an increase be
extended to all the employees of the respondent Company in order to
avoid discrimination. The Court further decreed that thereafter:
“1. El salario minimo diario sera P5.50 para los obreros y P4.00 para las mijeres; y
2. Todos los que ahora ganan jornales diarios de P5.00 a P7.00 recibiran un aumento de 10%”.
Pursuant to this partial decision, petitioners were granted the P.50 increase effective January 4, 1949 as follows:
Ubaldo Baron Manuel Gutierrez Santiago Gaudinez Primo Zamora Teofilo Cano Lorenzo de la Cruz Julio Perez Sofronio Lomibao
However, when applying the second award that “Todos los que ahora
ganan jornales diarios de P5.00 a P7.00 recibiran un aumento de 10%”,
the Company computed the increase on the basis of the old salaries of
the first four petitioners, Baron, Gutierrez, Gaudinez and Zamora,
excluding the increase of P.50, thus:
Baron Gutierrez Gaudinez Zamora
Claiming that this computation in effect discontinued the general
increase of P.50 ordered by the court beginning January 4, 1949,
because they were given only the 10% increase on their old salaries
starting on May 11, 1951, these four petitioners insisted in their
demands made in Case No. 252-V.
Pending the resolution of this incident, and claiming that the
officers of the respondent Union had been securing signatures on
prepared documents the contents of which were misrepresented to them,
and by virtue of which documents the officers, on April 6, 1957,
entered into an agreement with the Company wherein the awards contained
in the partial decision of May 11, 1951 referred to above, had been
waived, three of the petitioners, (Zamora, Gaudinez and Lomibao), filed
with the court, in Case 252-V, a petition, docketed as Case 252-V(8),
wherein they complained against the illegal practice of their officers,
asking that they be relieved from the effects of such documents signed
by them and announcing their resignation from the respondent Union.
On September 30, 1957, the five other petitioners, Ubaldo Baron,
Lorenzo de la Cruz, Teofilo Cano, Manuel Gutierrez, and Julio Perez,
filed separate manifestations in case No. 252-V, informing the court
that it was only then that they learned of the alleged collective
bargaining agreement between the respondent Union and respondent
Company; that the terms thereof were not agreed upon by the Union
members; and that their signature to certain documents were obtained by
the Union officials, specifically its president, through threat or
misrepresentation. They prayed for the suspension of the enforcement of
said agreement as to them or at least their exclusion therefrom. These
complaints were docketed as case 252-V (11).
Thereafter, or on October 1, 1957, herein petitioners De la Cruz, Baron, Cano, Gutierrez and Perez were required by the president of
respondent Union to explain in 48 hours the reason for the filing of
their said petitions and likewise to appear in a hearing at the Union
headquarters set for October 4, 1957. Allegedly due to petitioners
failure to comply with such directives, the board of directors of the
respondent Union unanimously resolved to expel them from the Union and
asked for their dismissal from employment pursuant to the collective
bargaining agreement of April 6, 1957. Then, the respondent Union
refused to accept petitioners’ monthly Union dues. The respondent
Company, on the other hand, and upon demand of the Union, served
petitioners with separation notices and actually dismissed Lorenzo de
la Cruz on November 22, 1957, petitioners Ubaldo Baron, Teofilo Cano,
and Julio Perez on November 25, 1957; and petitioner Manuel Gutierrez
30 days from receipt of said notice.
In view of these facts and at the instance of petitioners Baron,
Cano, de la Cruz, Perez and Gutierrez, the Prosecutors of the Court of
Industrial Relations instituted unfair labor practice case (Case No.
-498—ULP) against the respondent Union, for its refusal to accept their
Union dues and the respondent Company for dismissing them from their
work.
In its answer to the complaint in the unfair labor case, respondent
Company claimed that petitioners’ dismissal was in compliance with the
collective bargaining agreement entered into between the company and
the respondent Union. For its part, the Union contended that the fact
that they were no longer union; members, they having been expelled
therefrom for justifiable cause, and its recommendation for their
dismissal from the employ of the Company was in consonance with the
collective bargaining agreement.
After due hearing of the three cases [Nos. 1498-ULP, 252-V(8) and
252—V(11)] in a joint trial, the Court of Industrial Relations, on June
30, 1960, rendered a decision making a finding that the expulsion of 4
petitioners De la Cruz, Baron, Cano, Perez and Gutierrez from the Union
was effected without due process as the petitioners were not duly
notified, and was illegal, in that under the constitution and by-laws
of said union, the Board of Directors has no authority to dismiss or
expel members therefrom. Consequently, the respondent union was ordered
to admit petitioners again to membership, and the respondent Company to
reinstate them to their former positions without back wages. With
respect to their claim for salary increases under the terms of the
award of May 11, 1951, it was held that the same had been complied
with, inasmuch as the minimum wages fixed therein had been observed by
the Company. The matter of vacation leave also granted in said decision
of May 11, 1951 and being claimed by petitioners in Cases 252-V(8) and
252-V(11) was made subject to further consideration in the main case
(Case No. 252-V). This decision, however, was modified by resolution of
the court en banc, of October 25, 1960, by recommending the
petitioners herein to be given a mere priority right to reemployment,
should vacancies or new employment opportunities occur, instead of
being reinstated without wages as originally decreed. From these
decision and resolution, petitioners came to this Court by way of the
instant petition for review.
As stated heretofore, petitioners Baron, Gutierrez, Gaudinez and
Zamora claim that their salaries of P5.50, P5.50 P5.50 and P6.60 being
paid them since May 11, 1951 are not in accordance with the award made
in the partial decision of that date because the 10% increase was
computed on their old salaries without regard to the P. 50 in crease
decreed effective January 4, 1949. This contention is correct as it is
to be noted that the partial decision of May 11, 1951 contains two
awards: (1) the P.50 general increase effective January 4, 1949 which
raised the salaries of the four petitioners to P5.50 for Baron,
Gutierrez and Gaudinez, and P6.50 for Zamora. In other words, pursuant
to the partial decision, their salaries on May 11, 1951 should have
been P5.50 and P6.50. But in addition to this general increase, there
was also the 10% increase of those receiving between P5.50 and P7.00 as
of May 11. Consequently, these petitioners were entitled to 10% of
P5.50 or P.55 or a total of P6.05 for Baron, Gutierrez and Gaudinez,
and 10% of P6.50 or P.65 or a total of P7.15 for Zamora. It should be
recalled that the P.50 increase was extended to these petitioners
effective January 4, 1949 in order to correct a previous
discrimination. To follow the Company’s computation of the 10% on the
basis of their old discriminated salaries would in effect revive the
discrimination sought to be avoided as it results in the discontinuance
of the P.50 increase, petitioners getting only the 10% increase over
their old salaries of P5.50 and P6.00. We find therefore that
petitioners Baron, Gutierrez and Gaudinez are each entitled to P6.05
wage, and Zamora; to P7.15 wage beginning May 11, 1951.
With respect to the contention of petitioners Primo Zamora, Sofronio
Lomibao and Santiago Gaudinez that they should not be bound by the
terms of the collective bargaining agreement in view of their petitions
for exclusion [Case 252-V(8)], we note that no finding is made by the
lower court. This matter should further be determined in the same
manner that the claim for vacation leave was made subject to further
consideration in the main case No. 252-V. So also the suspension of the
effect of the bargaining agreement of April 6, 1957, requested in Case
No. 252-V (11).
The ruling of the lower court granting to petitioners De la Cruz,
Baron, Cano, Perez, and Gutierrez only a mere priority right to
reinstatement, instead of right to re-instatement without backpay, is,
under the circumstances, correct. Taking into account the fact that the
Company was found to have acted in good faith in dismissing said
petitioners upon petition of the respondent Union pursuant to the
collective bargaining agreement, and that permanent replacements to
their former positions have already been made, which finding we are not
here authorized to review, there is no reason for us to disturb the
judgment of the lower court on this point.
Wherefore, modified as hereinabove indicated, the decision and
resolution sought to be reviewed are hereby affirmed, without costs. So
ordered.
Bengzon, C. J., Padilla, Bautista Angela, Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L., Paredes, Dizon, Regala, and Makalintal, JJ., concur.