NATIONAL LABOR UNION, PETITIONER, VS. ZIP VENETIAN BLIND AND/OR EUSEBIO NAZARIO, GENERAL MANAGER, RESPONDENTS.

Respondent Zip Venetian Blind is a business enterprise engaged in the making
of venetian blinds and bamboo blinds. It is owned and managed by Eusebio
Nazario—hereinafter referred to as respondent—who resides at 4801 Old Sta. Mesa,
Manila, where he has his shop. His sales and administration office is, however,
in Room 222, De Leon Building, Rizal Avenue, Manila. There used to be twenty
(20) shop workers and delivery men in the factory and twenty-six (26) salesmen
and clerks in the sales and administration office.

On April 1, 1956 the twenty (20) factory workers affiliated with the National
Labor Union—hereinafter referred to as NLU—a duly registered labor union, which
is national in character and has two classes of members, namely, individuals and
local unions. Said factory workers of the Zip Venetian Blind belonged to the
first class of members of the NLU. Although they had not formed a local union,
thay called their group as the Zip Manufacturing Laborers Union, with a set of
officers among themselves. Felipe Enriquez was their first president and
Florentino Santos the first vice-president.

Sometime on April 15, 1956, the NLU presented a petition containing a set of
demands. Respondent’s reply thereto being unsatisfactory, the NLU filed, on May
11, 1956, a notice of strike, with the Conciliation Service of the Department of
Labor, in which negotiations between the NLU and respondent were subsequently
held. Meanwhile, or on June 22, 1956, Felipe Enriquez resigned from the
presidency of the factory group and as member of the NLU. Hence, Florentino
Santos took his place as president of said group. On the date last mentioned,
another union, called the Zip Workers Union, composed of the salesmen and clerks
in the sales and administration office, filed its own demands from the
management.

There being two groups demanding a collective bargaining agreement from the
management, the matter of representation was taken up in the conference held in
the Conciliation Service. Respondent wanted to deal with only one union for the
entire employer unit,vwhareas counsel for the NLU wanted that the factory
workers be considered as an appropriate bargaining unit, distinct and separate
from that of the sales-and-office-workers’ unit. As the parties could not agree
thereon, the conciliator suggested two possible solutions—either to hold a
voluntary election among the employees, or to file with the Court of Industrial
Relations a petition for certification election. On June 27, 1956, the parties,
which had not as yet decided on the course of action to be taken, agreed to
resume their negotiations on July 3, 1956.

In the meantime, or on June 28, 1956, respondent had inquired from the Labor
Registration Division of the Department of Labor about the registration of the
Zip Workers Union and the affiliation of the “Zip Venetian Workers”—referring to
the Zip Manufacturing Laborers Union—with the NLU. Said office replied on June
29, 1956 that the Zip Workers Union was registered therein and that the “Zip
Venetian Blind Workers (NLU)” was not. On July 2, 1956, the Conciliation Service
received a letter of respondent stating, inter alia, that he would “stop
* * * further dealings or negotiations with the National Labor Union” because of
said non-registration of “the affiliation of the Zip Venetian Blind personnel
with the NLU.”

On the same date, respondent and the Zip Workers Union executed and signed a
collective bargaining contract with closed-shop provisions as to all employees
and laborers, except department heads and “other supervisory personnel”.
Pursuant thereto, the Zip Workers Union forthwith demanded from respondent the
dismissal of all non-members of said union. Prior thereto, or on June 30, 1956,
five supervisors, namely, Florentino Santos, Benjamin Nebrida, Norberto
Montibon, Antonio Unating and Ricardo Amil, had been demoted to factory workers,
through a memorandum of said respondent to Jose Amador, who was appointed
“Factory Supervisor”. In view of their change of status, said former supervisors
became subject to the closed-shop provisions aforementioned and were included in
the list of personnel whose dismissal was demanded as above stated.

On July 5, 1956, respondent issued another memorandum reading:

“TO ALL ZIP PERSONNEL CONCERNED:

I received a letter from the Zip Workers Union dated July 2, 1956, calling my
attention to the fact that I should comply with the Closed Shop Provisions of
our collective bargaining agreement.

Forty Eight (48) hours upon receipt of this notice, I therefore expect all
the Zip personnel who are not yet members of the Zip Workers Union to join the
said labor union.

After the said period, I shall take the necessary steps to see to it that the
Closed Shop Provisions of our collective bargaining agreement with the Zip
Workers Union is fully complied with by me.”

The conference at the Conciliation Service scheduled on July 3, 1956, was no
longer held. Inasmuch as the 19 shop workers (excluding Enriquez who had
resigned from the group) did not join the Zip Workers Union, on July 7, 1957,
respondent notified them of their dismissal one (1) month from notice. Prior to
the expiration thereof, or on July 20, 1956, their leader, Florentino Santos,
who noticed that respondent’s houseboy was doing odd jobs in the shop, warned
him not to do so, alleging that the workers were on rotation. The next day,
respondent called Santos and dismissed him for alleged interference in the
prerogatives of the management. On August 8, 1956, upon expiration of said
period of one month, the other 18 shop workers were, also, dismissed.

Hence, the NLU preferred against the Zip Venetian Blind two (2) charges of
unfair labor practice—one, filed on July 26, 1956, for the dismissal of
Florentino Santos on July 21, 1956, allegedly on account of his union activities
(Case No. 1028-ULP); and another, filed on August 8, 1956, for the dismissal,
allegedly for the same reason of the 18 factory workers (Case No. 1041-ULP).
After the preliminary investigation prescribed in Republic Act No. 875, the
corresponding complaint for unfair labor practice was filed against the “Zip
Venetian Blind and/or its manager, Eusebio Nazario”.

In due course, on March 10, 1959, the Court of Industrial Relations issued an
order holding that closed-shop agreements, like the one involved in this case,
have “only prospective effect and cannot adversely affect members of another
union, more so when this union has even participated in a certification election
against the union that has secured, as a consequence of the election, a
collective bargaining contract with closed-shop,” and that, consequently, the
shop workers had been illegally dismissed, although in the belief in good faith
on the part of respondent, that said dismissal was required by the closed-shop
provisions of the collective bargaining contract with the Zip Workers Union, and
ordering the reinstatement of said workers, without back pay. The dispositive
part of said order reads:

“In view of the foregoing, the Court hereby orders, as a remedy to effectuate
the policies of the Magna Charta of Labor, the immediate reinstatement of the
nineteen (19) laborers who were dismissed on July 21 and August 8, 1956 without
back wages. Considering that the contract shall endure for a period of three (3)
years from July 2, 1956 or barely a few months hereafter, it would be well if
the parties, notwithstanding the automatic clause in the contract, agree to hold
an election, whether voluntary or through legal processes prescribed therefor,
to determine the real majority in the appropriate bargaining unit or units.
Meanwhile, the Court considers the closed-shop provision in the contract dated
July 2, 1956 to be invalid insofar as the nineteen (19) dismissed laborers are
concerned.”

A reconsideration of this order having been denied in a resolution of the
Court en banc, the NLU interposed the present appeal by certiorari, upon
the ground that the lower court erred in disallowing the claim of the 19 factory
workers for wages, based upon respondent’s alleged good faith in dismissing
them. The NLU, in effect, assails this good faith on the part of respondent, but
the pronouncement of the lower court thereon is a finding of fact, which we
cannot review on appeal by certiorari (Sec. 6, Rep. Act No. 875; Indias
vs. Phil. Iron Mines, 101 Phil., 297; 54 Off. Gaz., [6] 1817; Operators,
Inc. vs. Pelagio, 99 Phil., 893; 52 Off. Gaz., [17] 7268; Dee C. Chuan
& Sons, Inc. vs. Nahag, 95 Phil., 837; Atok Big Wedge Mining Co.
vs. Atok Big Wedge Mutual Benefit Assn., 93 Phil., 62; Javellana
vs. Barilea, 92 Phil., 600; H.E. Heacock vs. NLU, et al., 95
Phil., 553; 50 Off. Gaz., [9] 4233; Dee C. Chuan vs. CIR, 85 Phil., 365;
47 Off. Gaz., 3476; Kaisahan ng Manggagawa (CLO) vs. CIR, 81 Phil., 566;
Olaivar vs. Meralco, 71 Phil., 503, 505). Besides, said finding depends
upon the credibility and weight of the evidence thereon, which the lower court
is in a better position than we are to determine. Again, the collective
bargaining contract in question explicitly provided in section 3 of Article II
thereof:

“The EMPLOYER further agrees not to maintain in its employ any laborer or
employee who is not a member of the UNION.”

This stipulation, on its face applied to persons already in respondent’s
service at the time of the making of the contract. Hence, respondent may have
really believed that it was found thereunder to dismiss all laborers and
employees who were not members of the Zip Workers Union. It could not reasonably
be expected to anticipate that the courts would hold otherwise.

Lastly, in Confederated Sons of Labor vs. Anakan Lumber Co., et al.,
L-12503 (April 29, 1960), under conditions analogous to those obtaining in the
case at bar, although the intent to have a closed-shop in the latter is clearer,
we uphold the finding of good faith on the part of the employer, as well as the
denial of back pay.

For this reason, and because the court is vested by law with discretion to
award or not to award back pay (Union Phil. Education Employees vs. Phil.
Education Co., 91 Phil., 93; Antamok Goldfields Mining Co. vs. CIR, et
al., 70 Phil., 346; United Employees Welfare Assn. vs. Isaac Peral
Bowling Alleys, 104 Phil., 640; 56 Off. Gaz., [42] 6469; Velez vs. PAV
Watchmen’s Union and CIR, 107 Phil., 689; 58 Off. Gaz., 1309; National Fastener
Corp. vs. CIR, et al., 110 Phil., 623; 59 Off. Gaz., [26] 4055; Sec.
5[c], Rep. Act No. 875), the order and the resolution appealed from are hereby
affirmed, without costs.

Bengzon, C.J., Padilla, Labrador, Paredes, Dizon,
De Leon, and Natividad, JJ., concur.