OCEANIC AIR PRODUCTS, INC., PETITIONER, VS. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS AND OCEANIC AIR PRODUCTS INCORPORATED EMPLOYEES UNION, RESPONDENTS.

These are two (2) appeals—one (L-18704) by the Oceanic Air
Products, Inc., hereinafter referred to as respondent company, and
another (L-18705) by the Oceanic Air Products Employees Union,
hereinafter referred to as respondent union—from a decision of the
Court of Industrial Relations, in favor of the Oceanic Air Products
Incorporated Employees Union, hereinafter referred to as complainant
union. The dispositive part of said decision reads as follows:

“In view of all the foregoing’ considerations, the management of respondent company is hereby ordered:

1. To cease and desist from practising unfair labor practices against its employees;
2. To disestablish respondent union;
3. To
   reinstate v Jorge de Guia; Nemesio de Guia, Leon Acebar, Bonifacio
   Balignasay, Cosme Laureano, Salvador Gajudo and Domingo Nanong to their
   former or equivalent positions, without prejudice to all benefits
   accruing in their favor during the period of their illegal dismissal;
4. To pay them their back wages from the date of the dismissal until they arc actually reinstated; and
5. To post a copy of this decision in a conspicuous place of the factory
   and remain posted therein for 60 days from the date of receipt of said
   decision.”

The pertinent facts and the issues involved are set forth in said decision, from which we quote:

“Complainant union was organized on April 25, 1958
and registered in the Department of Labor on May 5, 1958 , while
respondent union was organized on May 2, 1958 and registered in the
said office on June 16, 1958 . On June 12, 1958 , complainant union
sent by registered mail a letter (Exh. ‘B-2’) to the president of
respondent company containing several demands for the improvement of
the working conditions of the employees of said company. Management did
not answer said letter of complainant union. On July 3, 1958 , after
Mr. So Han Suy, the production manager, received another copy of the
letter of demands of complainant union, Mr. Narciso Chan, the president
of respondent company dismissed Jorge de Guia, president of complainant
union; Cosme Laureano, vice-president, Domingo Nanong,
secretary-treasurer, Nemesio de Guia, board member; Bonifacio
Balignasay, board member, Leon Acebar and Salvador Gajudo, members of
said union. The other officers, Maximo Benedicto, auditor; Federico
Pineda and Adelaido Zaragoza , board members were not dismissed because
they disaffiliated from complainant union and joined respondent union.

“In their answers, respondent union denied the material allegations of
the prosecutor’s complaint, while respondent company also denied the
material allegations of said complaint, and averred that both Leon
Acebar and Salvador Gajudo would have been dismissed a long time ago
for laziness, insubordination and sleeping1 while on duty but were
given all the chances to reform but continued to do so; that respondent
company admitted the dismissal by its president Narciso Chan on July 3,
1958 of Jorge de Guia, Bonifacio Balignasay, Cosme Laureano, Domingo
Nanong, Nemesio de Guia, Salvador Gajudo and Leon Acebar because the
firm was losing, besides the fact that their services were
unsatisfactory; than two months before July 3, 1958 they were given
warnings to reform themselves and at the same time to look for other
places to go as the firm was losing and at the time of their dismissal
one month separation pay was offered to each and every one of them.

“The issues to be resolved by the Court are:

1. Whether or not the dismissal of the officers and members
   of complainant union was due to their union affiliation and/or union
   activities or for a just cause.
2. Whether or not respondent union is a company dominated or assisted union”.

The lower court decided these issues in the affirmative. Upon
subsequent denial of a reconsideration of the aforementioned decision,
appellants interposed the present appeals, in which they jointly
reiterate that said issues should be resolved in the negative.

With respect to the first issue, the lower court had the following to say:

“* * * the Court finds that respondent company
incurred losses in 1956, 1957 and 1958; that Mr. Narciso Chan, the
president of respondent company dismissed on July 3, 1958 Jorge de
Guia, president of complainant union; Cosme Laureano, vice-president;
Domingo Nanong, Secretary-treasurer; Nemesio de Guia, board member;
Bonifacio Balignasay, board member; Leon Acebar and Salvador Gajudo,
members of said union after its organization and after it had presented
a letter of demands to the company for the improvement of the working
conditions of the employees therein. Respondent company contends that
the seven complainants mentioned above were dismissed by management
because the company was losing in 1956, 1957 and 1958, besides the fact
that said persons were lazy and disrespectful to their superiors.
Losses suffered by the company may serve as a ground for temporarily
dismissing or laying off its employees. To dismiss its employees
especially the officers and members of a complainant union who are
militant and dynamic after the organization of the same is something
that smacks of unfair labor practice. In labor parlance that is
union-busting. If respondent company dismissed said complainants before
the organization of complainant union, there would have been neither
misgivings nor suspicion as to its ulterior motives. But when its
management dismissed said complainants after the organization of their
union and after they had sent a letter of demands for the improvement
of the working conditions of the employees of the company, that is the
legendary last straw that broke the camel’s back. In fine, respondent
company is guilty of union-busting”.

We are fully in agreement with this conclusion. Suffice it to add,
in this connection, that appellants have not satisfactorily explained
why—if the dismissal of Jorge de Guia, Cosme Laureano, Nemesio de Guia,
Bonifacio Balignasay, Leon Acebar and Salvador Gajudo, was due to
considerations of economy, owning to the losses allegedly sustained by
respondent company since 1956—the reduction of personnel was not
effected until July 3, 1958, after receipt of the demands, made by
complainant union, for the improvement of the working conditions of the
employees of said company; why the latter had chosen the ranking
officers (the president, the vice-president, the secretary-treasurer
and a board member) and members of complainant union as the employees
to be adversely affected by the cut of personnel; and why the company
had spared from the operation thereof precisely the former auditor and
two (2) former members of the board of directors of said complainant
union, who had quit the same and joined respondent union.
Although respondent company would have us believe that Leon Acebar and
Salvador Gajudo had been dismissed for laziness, insubordination and
sleeping while on duty, we note that they were not dismissed until
after the aforementioned demand by complainant union, and that one
Francisco Angco, who had been caught sleeping with the aforementioned
employees, but had subsequently resigned from complainant union and
joined respondent union, was not dismissed by respondent company.
Considering that the issue under consideration depends largely upon the
degree of credence and weight given to the testimonial evidence
introduced by both parties, which the lower court is in a better
position than we are to determine, the aforementioned conclusions of
the lower court should not be disturbed.

As regards the second issue, the record shows: that said Francisco
Angco joined respondent union because So Han Suy, treasurer and,
seemingly, production manager of respondent company, had forced him
to sign therefor a blank form, presumably an application for admission
in respondent union, under pain of dismissal if he did not do so; that
Nemesio de Guia had also been asked by So Han Suy to sign a similar
form; that So Han Suy had urged Angco to go, on June 8, 1958 to the
Ceresco Restaurant, where Angco found, among others, So Han Suy, Ng
Pong Guan, manager of respondent company, its counsel, Attys. Bernardo
Chan and Eliseo P. Legaspi, and Lope de la Cruz president of respondent
union, and the latter’s officers were elected; that Narciso Chan,
president of respondent company, likewise bade Jorge de Guia to attend
said meeting at the Ceresco Restaurant; that no member of respondent
union had been dismissed by respondent company despite its alleged
retrenchment policy; and that, after the dismissal of the
aforementioned officers and members of the complainant union,
respondent company had engaged the services of several laborers. These
facts, taken in relation to those adverted to above, in connection with
the first issue, are sufficient to justify the conclusion of the lower
court to the effect that respondent union is company dominated.

Wherefore, the decision appealed from is hereby affirmed, with
costs against petitioners, Oceanic Air products, Inc. and Oceanic Air
Products Employees Union. It is so ordered.

Bengzon, C.J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador , Reyes, J. B. L., Barrera, Paredes, Dizon, Regala and Makalintal, JJ., concur.