ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 









 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
June-1941 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 47032 June 6, 1941 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. JOSE MIRANDA, ET AL.

    072 Phil 222

  • G.R. Nos. 47038, 47039 & 47040 June 6 1941

    LUIS R. PIMENTEL v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

    072 Phil 227

  • G.R. No. 47260 June 6, 1941 - BISHOP OF NUEVA CACERES v. EUGENIA M. SANTOS, ET AL.

    072 Phil 230

  • G.R. No. 47454 June 6, 1941 - ADRIANO TRINIDAD v. ANDRES S. SIOCHI, ET AL.

    072 Phil 241

  • G.R. No. 47317 June 10, 1941 - SISENANDO ABARRO v. TOMASA DE GUIA

    072 Phil 245

  • G.R. No. 47519 June 10, 1941 - EMILIANO E. GARCIA v. PAZ E. VELASCO

    072 Phil 248

  • G.R. No. 47549 June 10, 1941 - J. BENTON CLAUSEN v. ISABEL CABRERA

    072 Phil 252

  • G.R. Nos. 47646 & 47657 June 10, 1941 - FRANCISCO BALTAZAR v. ANDRES LAYUG, ET AL.

    072 Phil 254

  • G.R. No. 47684 June 10, 1941 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DIONISIO A. MANEJA

    072 Phil 256

  • G.R. No. 47686 June 10, 1941 - COMMONWEALTH OF THE PHIL. v. TEODORO SANDIKO

    072 Phil 258

  • G.R. No. 47689 June 10, 1941 - WILFRIDO MACEDA, ET AL. v. ZOSIMO FERNANDEZ, ET AL.

    072 Phil 261

  • G.R. No. 47694 June 10, 1941 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PATRICIO CALDITO, ET AL.

    072 Phil 263

  • G.R. No. 47756 June 10, 1941 - LUIS OCAMPO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

    072 Phil 268

  • G.R. No. 47762 June 10, 1941 - SILVERIO MORCO v. SALVADOR MUÑOZ

    072 Phil 270

  • G.R. No. 47764 June 10, 1941 - FRANCISCO V. VILLARICA v. CONCEPCION MANIKIS

    072 Phil 272

  • G.R. No. 47770 June 10, 1941 - SILVESTRE GALLANO v. PABLO S. RIVERA, ET AL.

    072 Phil 277

  • G.R. No. 47780 June 10, 1941 - CIRILO ALAFRIZ v. MARIANO NABLE, ET AL.

    072 Phil 278

  • G.R. No. 47789 June 10, 1941 - FE CASTRO DE AGBAYANI v. JUSTICE OF PEACE OF THE CAPITAL OF ILOCOS NORTE, ET AL.

    072 Phil 281

  • G.R. No. 47816 June 10, 1941 - SABINO AGUILOS v. CONRADO BARRIOS, ET AL.

    072 Phil 285

  • G.R. No. 47862 June 10, 1941 - FRANCISCA SIMON v. SINFOROSO TAGOC

    072 Phil 287

  • G.R. No. 47863 June 10, 1941 - JOSE H. JUNQUERA v. JOSE VAÑO, ET AL.

    072 Phil 293

  • G.R. No. 47892 June 10, 1941 - PABLO VALENZUELA v. VALERIO FLORES, ET AL.

    072 Phil 307

  • G.R. No. 48027 June 10, 1941 - EL INTESTADO DE BENITO VALDEZ, ET AL. v. VICENTE ALBERT, ET AL.

    072 Phil 309

  • G.R. No. 47421 June 13, 1941 - IN RE: EL REGISTRADOR DE TITULOS DE NUEVA ECIJA v. EL DIRECTOR DE TERRENOS

    072 Phil 313

  • G.R. No. 47734 June 13, 1941 - EL BANCO NACIONAL FILIPINO v. CORNELIO PINEDA, ET AL.

    072 Phil 316

  • G.R. No. 47738 June 13, 1941 - ALFREDO HIZON MERCADO, ET AL. v. BUENAVENTURA OCAMPO, ET AL.

    072 Phil 318

  • G.R. No. 47799 June 13, 1941 - ELEUTERIO NERI, ET AL. v. IGNACIA AKUTIN, ET AL.

    072 Phil 322

  • G.R. No. 47965 June 13, 1941 - EL DIRECTOR DE TERRENOS v. MARIANO ABACAHIN, ET AL.

    072 Phil 326

  • G.R. No. 47072 June 17, 1941 - EL DIRECTOR DE TERRENOS v. AGUSTIN ACOSTA, ET AL.

    072 Phil 329

  • G.R. No. 47358 June 17, 1941 - MANILA MOTOR CO., INC. v. LA CIUDAD DE MANILA

    072 Phil 336

  • G.R. No. 47432 June 17, 1941 - EUSTAQUIO FULE v. SALVADOR ABAD SANTOS, ET AL.

    072 Phil 339

  • G.R. No. 47542 June 17, 1941 - LA FABRICA DE CERVEZA DE SAN MIGUEL v. ESTEBAN C. ESPIRITU

    072 Phil 344

  • G.R. No. 47570 June 17, 1941 - IN RE: EL REGISTRADOR DE TITULOS DE PAMPANGA v. ALFREDO HIZON MERCADO

    072 Phil 353

  • G.R. No. 47580 June 17, 1941 - SIMEON MANDAC v. COURT OF APPEALS

    072 Phil 357

  • G.R. No. 47587 June 17, 1941 - VICENTE DIAZ v. A. L. YATCO

    072 Phil 360

  • G.R. No. 47660 June 17, 1941 - VISAYAN SURETY & INSURANCE CORPORATION v. VICENTE VERSOZA

    072 Phil 362

  • G.R. Nos. 47678 & 47679 June 17, 1941 - EL HOGAR FILIPINO, ET AL. v. ISIDORO DE SANTOS, ET AL.

    072 Phil 368

  • G.R. No. 47724 June 17, 1941 - HERMENEGILDO DEVEZA v. MANUEL RUIZ RUILOBA

    072 Phil 372

  • G.R. No. 47745 June 17, 1941 - JOSE OLIVER SUCCESSORS v. MARIAÑO NABLE, ET AL.

    072 Phil 376

  • G.R. No. 47771 June 17, 1941 - PACIFIC COMMERCIAL CO. v. GRACIANO DE LA RAMA

    072 Phil 380

  • G.R. No. 47837 June 17, 1941 - SEGUNDO GARCIA v. EL DIRECTOR DE TERRENOS

    072 Phil 385

  • G.R. No. 47848 June 17, 1941 - BONIFACIO DANGALAN v. DOMINGO MARTICIO, ET AL.

    072 Phil 388

  • G.R. No. 47889 June 17, 1941 - ANDRES JARDIN, ET AL. v. SEVERINA VILLAMAYOR

    072 Phil 392

  • G.R. No. 47972 June 17, 1941 - A. K. SPIELBERGER v. L. R. NIELSON

    072 Phil 396

  • G.R. No. 47538 June 20, 1941 - GONZALO PUYAT & SONS, INC. v. ARCO AMUSEMENT CO.

    072 Phil 402

  • G.R. No. 47588 June 20, 1941 - JOSE L. LIWANAG v. TOLARAM MENGHRAJ, ET AL.

    072 Phil 410

  • G.R. No. 47601 June 20, 1941 - EDUARDO C. GUICO v. NICASIO SAN PEDRO, ET AL.

    072 Phil 415

  • G.R. No. 47683 June 20, 1941 - EL GOBIERNO DE LAS ISLAS FILIPINAS v. CONSOLACION M. GOMEZ, ET AL.

    072 Phil 420

  • G.R. No. 47726 June 20, 1941 - MONTE DE PIEDAD, ET AL. v. VICTORINO DANGOY

    072 Phil 428

  • G.R. No. 47797 June 20, 1941 - JOSEFA LABOT v. EDUVIGES LIBRADA

    072 Phil 433

  • G.R. No. 47819 June 20, 1941 - LEONARDO GUISON v. LA CIUDAD DE MANILA

    072 Phil 437

  • G.R. No. 48100 June 20, 1941 - FLORENCIO PELOBELLO v. GREGORIO PALATINO

    072 Phil 441

  • G.R. No. 46966 June 24, 1941 - EL GOBIERNO DE FILIPINAS v. CHUNG LIU & COMPANY

    072 Phil 450

  • G.R. No. 47058 June 27, 1941 - PHILIPPINE RAILWAY CO. v. ASTURIAS SUGAR CENTRAL

    072 Phil 454

  • G.R. No. 47189 June 27, 1941 - A. L. AMMEN TRANS. CO. v. LA COMISION DE SERVICIOS PUBLICOS

    072 Phil 459

  • G.R. No. 47226 June 27, 1941 - PEDRO DE JESUS v. GUAN BEE CO.

    072 Phil 464

  • G.R. No. 47338 June 27, 1941 - FRANCISCO EGMIDIO v. LEON REGALADO, ET AL.

    072 Phil 479

  • G.R. No. 47354 June 27, 1941 - EL OPISPO CATOLICO ROMANO DE NUEVA SEGOVIA v. EL MUNICIPIO DE SANTA CATALINA

    072 Phil 482

  • G.R. No. 47380 June 27, 1941 - ZACARIAS DE SADUESTE v. MUNICIPALITY OF SURIGAO

    072 Phil 485

  • G.R. No. 47409 June 27, 1941 - ANGEL P. MIGUEL v. ARSENIO P. DIZON, ET AL.

    072 Phil 488

  • G.R. No. 47411 June 27, 1941 - J. A. WOLFSON v. MANILA STOCK EXCHANGE

    072 Phil 492

  • G.R. No. 47465 June 27, 1941 - VICENTE DIAZ v. POPULAR LABOR UNION OF CAIBIRAN

    072 Phil 502

  • G.R. No. 47501 June 27, 1941 - FELIX B. BAUTISTA, ET AL. v. GABRIEL LASAM, ET AL.

    072 Phil 506

  • G.R. No. 47517 June 27, 1941 - IDONAH SLADE PERKINS v. MAMERTO ROXAS, ET AL.

    072 Phil 514

  • G.R. No. 47641 June 27, 1941 - JOSEFA BUNDALIAN, ET AL. v. JUAN DE VERA, ET AL.

    072 Phil 520

  • G.R. No. 47701 June 27, 1941 - MENTHOLATUM CO. v. ANACLETO MANGALIMAN, ET AL.

    072 Phil 524

  • G.R. No. 47731 June 27, 1940

    QUINTINA R. SABADO v. LEONCIA FERNANDEZ

    072 Phil 531

  • G.R. No. 47888 June 27, 1941 - MANUEL VILLARAMA vs.JUANITO MANLUSOC

    072 Phil 538

  • G.R. No. 47931 June 27, 1941 - ADRIANO MENDOZA v. CALIXTO PILAPIL, ET AL.

    072 Phil 546

  • G.R. Nos. 47955 y 47993 June 27, 1941 - MARIANO B. ARROY, ET AL. v. ARSENIO DIZON

    072 Phil 557

  • G.R. No. 47971 June 27, 1941 - IN RE: MARIANO MAGBANUA, ET AL. v. MANUEL A. AKOL, ET AL.

    072 Phil 567

  • G.R. No. 48004 June 27, 1941 - CARLOS DORONILA v. DOLORES VASQUEZ DE ARROYO

    072 Phil 572

  • G.R. No. 47179 June 28, 1941 - PHIL. ASS’N OF MECHANICAL AND ELECTRICAL ENGINEERS v. M. JESUS CUENCO, ET AL.

    072 Phil 579

  • G.R. No. 47269 June 28, 1941 - KUAN LOW & CO. v. EL ADMINISTRADOR DE ADUANAS

    072 Phil 582

  • G.R. No. 47424 June 28, 1941 - EL BANCO NACIONAL FILIPINO v. BACOLOD-MURCIA MILLING CO., INC.

    072 Phil 583

  • G.R. No. 47586 June 28, 1941 - LIM BONFING, ET AL. v. TEODORICO RODRIGUEZ

    072 Phil 586

  • G.R. No. 47966 June 28, 1941 - LOPE ATIENZA v. MAXIMINO CASTILLO

    072 Phil 589

  • G.R. No. 47342 June 30, 1941 - HILARIO C. RODRIGUEZ v. RAMON ECHEVARRIA

    073 Phil 1

  • G.R. No. 47446 June 30, 1941 - JOSE P. BANTUG v. MAMERTO ROXAS

    073 Phil 13

  • G.R. No. 47637 June 30, 1941 - JOSE VISTAN v. EL ARZOBISPO CATOLICO ROMANO DE MANILA

    073 Phil 20

  • G.R. No. 47663 June 30, 1941 - JULIN GO v. EL BANCO NACIONAL FILIPINO

    073 Phil 27

  • G.R. No. 47768 June 30, 1941 - NORTHERN LUZON TRANSPORTATION v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

    073 Phil 41

  • G.R. No. 47790 June 30, 1941 - IN RE: EMILIANO GUZMAN

    073 Phil 51

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. 47768   June 30, 1941 - NORTHERN LUZON TRANSPORTATION v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL. <br /><br />073 Phil 41

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    EN BANC

    [G.R. No. 47768. June 30, 1941.]

    NORTHERN LUZON TRANSPORTATION, INC., Petitioner, v. THE COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS and DAGUITI NAGCAYCAYSA NGA MANGMANGGUED, Respondents.

    Lockwood, Ampil & Chan and Francisco Ortega for Petitioner.

    Paquia & Lerum for respondent Daguiti Nagcaycaysa Nga Mangmanggued.

    No appearance for respondent court.

    SYLLABUS


    1. EMPLOYERS AND EMPLOYEES; DISMISSAL OF EMPLOYEES; JURISDICTION OF COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS. — The circumstance that the dismissal or lay-off occurred prior to the certification of the dispute does not affect the jurisdiction of the Court of Industrial Relations to pass upon and determine the legality or propriety of the dismissal or lay- off if this question is involved in, or arises from, the dispute thus certified for cognizance and adjudication by the said court. (Bohol Land Transportation Co. v. BLT Employees Labor Union, G. R. No. 47661, promulgated March 12, 1941.)

    2. ID.; ID.; ID. — Where dismissals of employees and laborers have given cause for a labor dispute to arise and the same has been duly certified to the Court of Industrial Relations for arbitration and settlement under the provisions of Commonwealth Act No. 103, the said court may determine the legality or propriety of such dismissals, and, in proper cases, order the reinstatement of the employees so dismissed if in its opinion such relief or demand is necessary or expedient for the purpose of settling the dispute, preventing further disputes or doing justice to the parties.

    3. ID.; ID.; ID.; PAYMENT OF BACK SALARIES. — The Court of Industrial Relations is a special court and, as such, is authorized to order the petitioner to pay the wages of its employees and laborers who have been reinstated. (Antamok Goldfields Mining Co. v. Court of Industrial Relations, G. R. No. 46892.)

    4. ID.; ID.; BUSINESS OPERATING AT A LOSS. - Where, as in the present case, it becomes necessary for an employer to reduce its personnel due to losses in the operation of its business, its right to determine who among its employees should be retained or dismissed should not be interfered with, unless it could be shown that the employer, under cover of this right, is proceeding against the employees in an unjust or capricious manner.


    D E C I S I O N


    LAUREL, J.:


    This is a petition for a writ of certiorari to review the "decision parcial" of the Court of Industrial Relations dated August 8, 1940, ordering the petitioner herein, Northern Luzon Transportation, Inc., to re-employ German Valdez, Hilarion Agrava, Espiritu Gonzales, Sebastian Oliva, Filomeno Lamadrid, Segismundo Llapitan, and Felix Lucas, and to pay their salaries from the respective dates of their dismissal to the date of re-employment.

    On March 20, 1940, the Secretary of Labor certified to the Court of Industrial Relations for arbitration and settlement an industrial dispute between the petitioner and the herein respondent, "Daguiti Nagcaycaysa Nga Mangmanggued," which was forthwith docketed as Case No. 154 of the said court. One of the demands involved in the dispute thus certified relates to the re-employment of certain employees who were previously dismissed by the petitioner, among whom were the employees aforementioned. On April 11, 1940, Atty. Amando C. Bugayong, of the division of investigation of the Court of Industrial Relations, was commissioned to receive the evidence of the parties with respect to the foregoing demand, and on August 8, 1940, the said court rendered the "decision parcial" now complained of, the dispositive part of which is as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "De las pruebas aportadas en la investigacion y del informe sometido por dicho Comisionado, llegamos a la conclusion de que los despidos de Espiritu Gonzales, Filomeno Lamadrid, Segismundo Llapitan, Sebastian Oliva, Hilarion Agrava, German Valdez, Felix Lucas fueron realmente sin causa justificada y deben ser readmitidas a los mismos puestos que tenian al tiempo de su despido y con los mismos salarios que percibian.

    ". . . Con respecto a los demas, declaramos que su despido fue injustificado y ordenamos a la recurrida que readmita a los mismos, debiendo pagar a cada uno de estos sus respectivos salarios que los correspondian desde la fecha de su despido hasta que sean readmitidos al servicio de la recurrida en la siguiente forma: (a) A Espiritu Gonzales, desde el 27 de diciembre de 1939; (b) a German Valdez desde el 2 de noviembre de 1939; (c) a Sebastian Oliva, desde el 12 de enero de 1940; (d) a Filomeno Lamadrid, desde el 16 de octubre de 1939; (e) Felix Lucas, desde el 23 de octubre de 1939; (f) Hilarion Agrava, desde el 2 de noviembre de 1939; y (g) Segismundo Llapitan, desde el 17 de enero de 1940.."

    On August 19, 1940, the petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of the foregoing decision, which was denied by the Court of Industrial Relations in its resolution of September 14, 1940. Hence, this petition for certiorari.

    As grounds for the allowance of the writ prayed for herein, the petitioner alleges that:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "(a) The said dismissed employees were discharged or separated from the service before any industrial dispute arose between your petitioner and respondent Daguiti Nagcaycaysa Nga Mangmanggued and the Court of Industrial Relations is without power and jurisdiction to order their reinstatement in such a case;

    "(b) Their discharge or dismissal was not due to their union activities and the Court of Industrial Relations is devoid of power and jurisdiction to order the reinstatement of employees unless the cause of their discharge was by reason of their union activities;

    "(c) The Court of Industrial Relations is without power to reinstate an employee after he has voluntarily resigned and his resignation accepted, as in the case of Felix Lucas;

    "(d) The Court of Industrial Relations is without power to order the reinstatement of employees separated from the service due to the abolition of their positions on account of continual losses incurred by the employer due to the operation of the service in which they are employed, as in the cases of Hilarion Agrava and German Valdez. To force the employer to reinstate them is to deprive the employer of property without due process of law;

    "(e) The Court of Industrial Relations is without power to order the reinstatement of an inspector of a transportation company who, on account of his disloyalty, has lost the confidence of his employer, the said inspector being the ’eyes and ears’ of the company and its representative in the lines operated by it, as in the case of Filomeno Lamadrid;

    "(f) The Court of Industrial Relations gravely abused its discretion by ordering the reinstatement of employees who have voluntarily separated themselves from the service by absenting themselves continuously from work against the express orders of the employer, as in the case of Espiritu Gonzales and Segismundo Llapitan.

    "(g) The Court of Industrial Relations abused its discretion seriously when it ordered the reinstatement of Sebastian Oliva, who was discharged for serious irregularities in the performance of his duties as a conductor in not issuing tickets to passengers and for attempted stealing;

    "(h) The Court of Industrial Relations is without power to order the payment of back salaries of the dismissed employees, even assuming that it has the power to order them reinstated, for the reason that such an order is equivalent to an order for the payment of damages caused the employees, and the Court of Industrial Relations has no power to impose the payment of damages in any case, the said power being a purely judicial function.."

    The challenge directed by the petitioner against the authority of the Court of Industrial Relations to order the reinstatement of the employees above-mentioned rests upon the theory that since their dismissal took place prior to the certification of the dispute to the Court of Industrial Relations, and, therefore, not cognizable by said court under section 19 of Commonwealth Act No. 103, the said court does not have the power to take cognizance of such dismissal under section 4 of the same Act prior to its amendment by Commonwealth Act No. 559. We are, however, of the opinion that the circumstance that the dismissal or lay-off occurred prior to the certification of the dispute does not affect the jurisdiction of the Court of Industrial Relations to pass upon and determine the legality or propriety of the dismissal or lay-off if this question is involved in, or arises from, the dispute thus certified for cognizance and adjudication by the said court. (Bohol Land Transportation Co. v. BLT Employees Labor Union, G. R. No. 47661, promulgated March 12, 1941.)

    It is, however, contended by the petitioner that even if the jurisdiction of the Court of Industrial Relations over the subject matter of the present controversy were sustained, the said court would have no authority to order the reinstatement of employees dismissed by it unless their dismissal was made on account of their union activity or under the circumstances mentioned in section 21 of Commonwealth Act No. 103. Where dismissals of employees and laborers have given cause for a labor dispute to arise and the same has been duly certified to the Court of Industrial Relations for arbitration and settlement under the provisions of Commonwealth Act No. 103, the said court may determine the legality or propriety of such dismissals, and, in proper cases, order the reinstatement of the employees so dismissed if in its opinion such relief or demand is necessary or expedient for the purpose of settling the dispute, preventing further disputes or doing justice to the parties.

    As a last point of law raised by the petitioner, it is contended that "the Court of Industrial Relations is without power to order the payment of back salaries of the dismissed employees for the reason that such an order is equivalent to an order for the payment of damages caused the employees, and the Court of Industrial Relations has no power to impose the payment of damages in any case, the said power purely a judicial function." This question is not of first impression in this Court and was laid at rest in the case of Antamok Goldfields Mining Co. v. Court of Industrial Relations, G. R. No. 46892, promulgated June 28, 1940, in which we said:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "El ultimo señalamiento de error guarda relacion con la parte de la orden del 6 de mayo de 1939 que dispone que la recurrente pague a los 55 obreros respuestos los jornales que dejaron de percibir durante su separacion del servicio. La recurrente sostiene que este parte de la orden equivale a una sentencia por daños y perjuicios que el Tribunal de Relaciones Industriales no pueda pronunciar por carecer de jurisdiccion. La pretension no es meritoria. El Tribunal de Relaciones Industriales, conforme ya se ha dicho, es un tribunal especial y como tal tiene facultad para disponer que la recurrente pague los jornales de sus empleados y obreros que han sido respuestos."cralaw virtua1aw library

    The rest of the questions raised by the petitioner relate to the determination of facts made by the Court of Industrial Relations with respect to the cause of the discharge of the seven employees involved in this controversy.

    In connection with the discharge of Felix Lucas, it is claimed by the petitioner that this employee had voluntarily resigned and that his resignation was accepted. The Court of Industrial Relations in holding that his discharge was without justifiable cause stated the following in its resolution of September 14, 1940:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "En cuanto al despido de Felix Lucas, resulta a que este era un lider obrerista que trabajaba con la recurrida desde hacia dos años como chauffeur; que en cierta ocasion los Srs. Minnich y Miranda, Gerentes de la recurrida, le investigaron acerca de sus actividades unionistas e hicieron cierta requisa de sus papeles para poder encontrar algo concerniente a la union, admitiendo Felix Lucas que el era uno de los miembros de la union recurrente; que despues de aquel incidente, le mandaron a San Fernando para hacer trabajos de barrendero y otros trabajos inadecuados y enteramente distintos del que antes tenia; que el 23 de octubre de 1936, Felix Lucas dimitio y durante la investigacion, al ser preguntado porque dimitio, contesto que lo hacia como protesta al acto de discriminacion de que habia sido victima, quitandosele del puesto de chauffeur y dandole trabajos impropios e inadecuados a su oficio como el de barrendero o basurero. Bajo estas circunstancias, creemos que la compañia recurrida ha procedido de una manera impropia e injusta contra Felix Lucas, haciendole objeto de democion para que dejara el servicio de la compañia."cralaw virtua1aw library

    As to Filomeno Lamadrid, it is alleged by the petitioner that he was caught sleeping in a bus at Km. Post No. 348 at a time when he should be performing his duties as an inspector, as a result of which he was discharged. The Court of Industrial Relations in ordering the reinstatement of this employee based its action on the following findings of fact:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "Refiriendonos al despido de Filomeno Lamadrid, resulta que este es de oficio inspector de la recurrida y se alega que fue despedido por haber sido hallado dormido en el bus, segun informan los Branch Managers Puzon y Borja. Los reports de Puzon y Borja coinciden con el report de Filomeno Lamadrid, con la unica diferencia de que en el report de Borja, se decia que Lamadrid y el conductor del truck ambos estaban dormidos. Una de los testigos declaro que Filomeno Lamadrid no estaba dormido sino que solamente tenia la cabeza apoyada en uno de los asientos delanteros del truck, si bien otro afirmo que estaba acostado. No estimamos probado suficientemente el hecho de que el inspector Lamadrid estuviera realmente dormido, pero el resultado de este incidente fue que el conductor que se dijo que tambien estaba dormido no fue suspendido ni despedido, ni bien se separe de la union, como miembro de la misma, pero por lo contrario, el inspector Lamadrid, que era el fundador de la union recurrente y actualmente es secretario-tesorero, fue despedido. No encontramos prueba que justifique que Filomeno Lamadrid, el inspector despedido, estuviere realmente dormido durante su viaje, y hallamos en el proceder de la recurrida cierto discrimen por el diferente trato dispensado al conductor al no despedirle tambien."cralaw virtua1aw library

    With reference to the case of Espiritu Gonzales, it appears that this employee was operated on for appendicitis and was confined in the hospital from September 16, 1939, to September 27, 1939. It is alleged by the petitioner that he was discharged because of his failure to report for work after his release from the hospital when requested to do so in spite of the fact that he had fully recovered from his illness at the time. The Court of Industrial Relations found that this employee was asked to go back to work on November 5, 1939, one month and eight days after his release from the hospital and concluded that "este hecho no justifica su despido, pues que la ausencia o no presentacion al trabajo fue debida a su enfermedad."cralaw virtua1aw library

    With regard to the case of Sebastian Oliva, who was a conductor in one of the buses of the petitioner, it appears that he was discharged allegedly for having attempted to defraud the petitioner, in that while making a trip from Km. Post No. 718 to Km. Post No. 724, between Camalaniugan Junction and Aparri in the Province of Cagayan, he did not issue any tickets to six of his eleven passengers. The fact, however, is that he was entirely innocent of this charge as shown in the following findings of the Court of Industrial Relations in connection with this incident:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "Otro de los despedidos fue Sebastian Oliva, empleado como conductor en uno de los trucks de la Compañia recurrida que hacia viajes a Aparri. Segun las pruebas, en el dia de autos algunos pasajeros pidieron tickets hasta el kilometro 718 como su punto de destino y Oliva asi lo hizo, pero al llegar al referida kilometro, los dichos pasajeros no desembarcaron del truck no obstante el conductor haberles avisado que debian bajar por haber llegado al Kilometro 718; que los pasajeros dijeron que habian pedido pasaje hasta el sitio de Canayon en la creencia de que Canayon estaba en el kilometro 718. Durante la discusion que se entablo entre el conductor y los pasajeros, llego un inspector de la compañia quien creyo que Oliva trataba de defraudar a la compañia y por tal motivo se incauto y confisco los tickets que tenia dicho conductor; pero resulta que dichos pasajeros se decidieron a proseguir el viaje hasta Aparri y fue entonces cuando el conductor no tuvo mas remedio que cobrarles la tarifa correspondiente, que es diez centimos, pero el conductor no pudo expedir dichos tickets, porque el inspector se los incauto. Bajo estos hechos, no estimamos que dicho conductor haya tenido intencion alguna de defraudar a la compañia, y por lo tanto, no consideramos justificado su despido."cralaw virtua1aw library

    As we do not find any valid reason for disturbing the findings of fact of the Court of Industrial Relations as set forth above, we decline to disturb them and the action taken by the Court of Industrial Relations in ordering the reinstatement of Felix Lucas, Filomeno Lamadrid, Espiritu Gonzales, and Sebastian Oliva is hereby affirmed.

    With respect to the case of German Valdez and Hilarion Agrava, the facts surrounding their dismissal are not controverted. It appears that prior to the discharge of these two employees, the petitioner was operating two boats, launch No. 1 and launch No. 2, in connection with its service as a public utility on the Abulog River. Valdez and Agrava were then employed as boatmen in launch No. 1. Due, however, to the fact that the operation of these two boats was a losing proposition, the operation of launch No. 2 was suspended indefinitely. Primitivo Viloria and Marcos Mayang, the boatmen assigned to launch No. 2, were then transferred to launch No. 1, and Valdez and Agrava were discharged. The Court of Industrial Relations in ordering the reinstatement of these two men made the observation that "lo logico hubiera sido que Viloria y Mayang, fueran los despedidos, toda vez que estos eran los que operaban la lancha Num. 2, cuya operacion fue suspendida por la compañia, y no los que ya venian operando desde antes la lancha Num. 1, a menos que hubiera algun motivo para semejante proceder lo cual no es ha establecido." We are of the opinion that this conclusion of the Court of Industrial Relations is erroneous. Where, as in the present case, it becomes necessary for an employer to reduce its personnel due to losses in the operation of its business, its right to determine who among its employees should be retained or dismissed should not be interfered with, unless it could be shown that the employer, under cover of this right, is proceeding against the employees in an unjust or capricious manner. The action of the Court of Industrial Relations, therefore, ordering the reinstatement of German Valdez and Hilarion Agrava is hereby reversed.

    As to the dismissal of Segismundo Llapitan, it is alleged by the petitioner that this employee went on leave of absence on account of the illness of his child but failed to return to his work when requested to do so by the petitioner. No findings of fact is made by the Court of Industrial Relations regarding this employee. The conclusion in said court’s "decision parcial" of August 8, 1940, that his dismissal was without justifiable cause, is one of law and is devoid of factual basis. The case, as to this employee, should be remanded for express finding of facts and statement of the reason for the action of the Court of Industrial Relations.

    The order appealed from is confirmed with respect to Felix Lucas, Filomeno Lamadrid, Espiritu Gonzales, and Sebastian Oliva; it is reversed as to German Valdez and Hilarion Agrava; and the case as to Segismundo Llapitan is remanded to the Court of Industrial Relations, with the foregoing instruction, without pronouncement regarding costs. So ordered.

    Avanceña, C.J., Diaz, Moran and Horrilleno, JJ., concur.

    G.R. No. 47768   June 30, 1941 - NORTHERN LUZON TRANSPORTATION v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL. <br /><br />073 Phil 41


    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED