CENTRAL COOPERATIVE EXCHANGE, INC., PETITIONER, VS. LA UNION UNITED WORKERS ASSOCIATION (PLUM), RESPONDENT.

This is an appeal by way of
certiorari from the decision of the Court of Industrial Relations, penned by the
Hon. Baltazar M. Villanueva, in its Case No. 18-ULP,
as well as from the denial of petitioner’s motion for
reconsideration.

The factual background of this
case is not disputed. The petitioner was engaged in tobacco redrying, with its redrying plant
situated in Agoo, La Union. Before it started
operation it purchased lands in the vicinity, some at P0.20 a square meter and
the rest at P0.80. Operations began on June 4,
1956 and
ceased in 1960. The work of its employees and laborers, however, was seasonal.
The first season which started on June 4,
1956
terminated on August 31 of the same year. On August 1, in anticipation of the
cessation of the plant’s operation for that season, the petitioner’s employees
and laborers were served termination papers to take effect on August 31. There
was then no definite policy concerning the procurement of personnel, although
landowners who had sold their lands to the petitioner at P0.20 a square meter
were given the privilege to have their recommendees
work in the plant, while the same privilege was extended to only a few of those
who had sold at P0.80 a square meter.

The following year’s operation of
the plant started in March 1957. In February the central office of the
petitioner in Manila issued a memorandum order
concerning the procurement of personnel. The policy laid down in that memorandum
was to give priority to those recommended by the landowners who had sold their
lands to the petitioner at P0.20 a square meter, then to those recommended by
the FACOMAS (Farmers Cooperative Marketing Associations), and finally to workers
from any source or those recommended by government officials. The validity of
that policy has not been questioned in this case and in fact has been upheld by
the lower court in its decision.

It appears that in June and July
1956 the respondent union campaigned for membership among the laborers in the
petitioner’s redrying plant. On August 26,
1956 the
union officers informed the petitioner that said union had been organized and
then presented a set of demands on September 23, 1956.

When the plant operations started
for the 1957 season a number of union members, among other laborers, who had
worked in 1956 were not rehired, namely: Aurora Padilla, Victor Refuerzo, Isidro Rivera, Alfredo Dalaza, Juan de Vera, Jose Padilla, Antonio Alaot, Juan Cabilitasan, Nicanor Mabalot, Lydia Fronda, Rafael Ordonia, Anacleto Gatchalian, Juan Dalaza, Juan Difuntorum, Ricardo
Alban, Marcela Padilla, Candelario Garcia and Cristino Domondon. As a result of
the petitioner’s failure to reemploy them the union charged it with unfair labor
practice, alleging discrimination by reason of their union membership. In
addition, a special case was made out in connection with Dominador Padilla, who worked as mechanic at P4.00 a day
since April 1956 but was dismissed in July of the same year on charges of having
stolen company properties. He was subsequently cleared of the charges, but was
not rehired for the redrying season of
1957.

On the charge of discrimination
the lower court set forth the following considerations in its decision:

“The CCE and its management
denied having committed unfair labor practice against the members of complainant
union, because all the workers were given termination papers on August 31,
1956. The
claim of the CCE and its management would have been valid if complainant union
did not send a communication to management on August
26, 1956,
informing the same of the formation of complainant union. That was before the
termination of the redrying season of the year 1956.
Said communication served as a notice to management that effective
August 26,
1956, a
labor dispute has already commenced between complainant union and management. On
September 23,
1956,
when complainant union sent the letter of demands to management, that became the
core of the dispute between the former and the latter. The contention of
management that on September 23,
1956
there were no laborers working in the redrying plant
of the CCE is naive, considering that the members of complainant union did not
become members during the off-season, but during the redrying season of 1956. After knowing the officers and
members of complainant union through the latter’s communication of
August 26,
1956 and
a copy of its roster sent to the company, management refused to accept the
workers who were members of complainant union during the redrying season of 1957. To the mind of the Court, such act
was plain discrimination against the members of complainant union because of
their union-affiliation. Management, however, is not to blame for not accepting
union members who were found not fit to work by the physician of the redrying plant of the CCE in 1956, 1957 and 1958. But, as
regards the union members who worked in 1956 and who were not found unfit for
work, management was guilty of discrimination in refusing to readmit them the
following redrying season because of their
union-affiliation. No evidence having been adduced by complainant that all the
persons listed in Exhibit “I” were recommendees of
landowners and were members of complainant union and were refused work in any
redrying season, not all of said persons were victims
of discrimination by management. It should be noted that recommendees of landowners, who were not members of
complainant union, even if they were refused work by management, do not fall
within the jurisdiction of this Court. Likewise, members of complainant union,
who were not recommendees of landowners, even if they
were refused work during any redrying season, are not
victims of discrimination. Therefore, only recommendees of landowners, who were members of complainant
union and were refused work during any redrying
season, not because they were not fit to work, are the victims of
discrimination.”

With particular reference to
Dominador Padilla the court held that his dismissal
was motivated by his union activities. Upon these considerations the lower court
rendered its judgment ordering the petitioner to pay him back wages from the
date of dismissal up to the 1959 redrying season,
without reinstatement, and to pay the other laborers aforenamed their back wages from the redrying season “that they were refused work until the 1959
redrying season, also without
reinstatement.

The issue of discrimination, as
held by the lower court, hinges on three factors: (1) that the laborers
concerned were members of the respondent union; (2) that they were recommendees of landowners; and (3) that the failure of the
petitioner to reemploy them in 1957 was due to their union
membership.

The first factor is not controverted. The truth of the second and the third,
however, is assailed by the petitioner on the ground that there is no evidence
whatsoever to support them. A corollary element should be considered, which is
that all workers and employees of the petitioner, except a skeleton force, were
served termination papers on August 1,
1956 to
take effect August 31,
1956,
since that was the end of the 1956 re-drying season. There is no suggestion that
the action thus taken constituted unfair labor practice; it was done in the
ordinary course of business. The rehiring for the 1957 season was therefore in
the nature of new employment, as to which the petitioner laid down a system of
priorities. This was embodied in a memorandum (Exh. 2)
which provides:

“1. Legitimate landowners who
sold their lands to the CCE at F0.20 a square meter shall be first priority in
the employment of their immediate descendants and ascendants, or the brothers
and sisters of his wife or husband, provided a total number for each landowner
shall not exceed three.

“In the event a landowner who
sold their land at P0.20 a square meter has no relative within the degree above
stated, he can recommend two aside from
himself.”

The record does not show, and
indeed the decision itself under review does not state, that the laborers who
were adjudged entitled to back wages were recommendees
of landowners who had sold their lands to the petitioner at P0.20 and therefore
had the priority prescribed for reemployment. All that the lower court found was
that they had been recommended by landowners. Even this finding is not supported
by substantial evidence in the record; and much less is there evidence that
those laborers were recommendees of landowners who had
sold their lands to the petitioner at P0.20 a square meter. The burden of proof
in this regard was upon the respondent union if it was to make out a case of
discrimination and unfair labor practice. It may be gathered from the decision
under review that there were other laborers during the redrying season of 1956 not affiliated to the respondent
union who were similarly not hired for the season of 1957. If that was so, it is
difficult to understand how discrimination can be inferred in respect to those
who belonged to the union on the ground of their union membership. There are no
circumstances cited by the lower court or by the respondent in its answer to the
petition which would reveal in what particular manner the union members had been
discriminated against. There are no figures as to how many persons had been
recommended for reemployment, who recommended each of them, how many in each
class of recommendees were accepted and how many were
rejected, and reason for their rejection. It is not enough to show that certain
laborers were members of the union and that they were not hired for the season
of 1957 in order that a conclusion of unfair labor practice may be
justified.

Going back to the case of Dominador Padilla, he was dismissed in July 1956 because he
was charged with having stolen company properties. He was subsequently cleared,
although according to the petitioner the charge was dismissed when it was found
that the properties stolen belonged to the ACCFA and not to the petitioner. But
this point is neither here nor there. For the question is whether or not the
petitioner’s failure to rehire him in 1957 was due to his union activities.
Padilla testified that he had been recommended to the petitioner by his parents
who had sold land to the petitioner at P0.20 a square meter, and on that basis
the lower court declared that he was entitled to priority for the redrying season of 1957. The court committed an error here
in giving credence to Padilla’s testimony over the recitals in the deed of sale
itself (Exh. 1), wherein it appears that the purchase
price of the land was P0.80 a square meter. If he was not given preference in
the procurement of laborers for the petitioner’s redrying season in 1957, it was pursuant to the policy laid
down by the petitioner, his union activities being merely
coincidental.

In any event, at the start of the
redrying season of 1957 the petitioner had no contract
with the respondent union concerning the hiring of laborers. The recruitment of
new personnel had nothing to do with the season of 1956, at the end of which
those who worked during that season were duly separated. The petitioner was free
to establish a system of priorities for that purpose, and we do not see how its
adherence to that system could constitute unfair labor practice against those
who were not hired so as to entitle them to back wages not only for 1957 but
even up to 1959.

The judgment appealed from is
therefore reversed and set aside, with costs.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J. B. L., Dizon, Regala, Bengzon, J. P., Zaldivar,
Sanchez
and Ruiz Castro, JJ.,
concur.

Barrera, J., on leave.