Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1969 > March 1969 Decisions > G.R. Nos. L-24634 & L-24635 March 28, 1969 - UNION OF PHILIPPINE EDUCATION EMPLOYEES v. PHILIPPINE EDUCATION CO., INC., ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. Nos. L-24634 & L-24635. March 28, 1969.]

UNION OF PHILIPPINE EDUCATION EMPLOYEES (NLU), Petitioners, v. PHILIPPINE EDUCATION CO., INC., and THE COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, Respondents.

Eulogio R. Lerum, for Petitioners.

Manuel O. Chan for Private Respondent.


SYLLABUS


1. LABOR AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION; INDUSTRIAL PEACE ACT; UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE; ELIMINATION OF EMPLOYEE’S NAME FROM ROSTER IS NO UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE. — Petitioner points to the case of five of the nineteen employees ordered reinstated with back wages, who "simply failed to return after the expiration of their leave of absence," and contends that the same relief must be awarded to Palaganas. There is a demonstrable difference between their situation and his, for they were working on a regular and continuous basis; and with respect to Jose Pineda, who was also reinstated despite the fact that he was working off and on, the Court did not find that he took a leave of absence and then failed to return thereafter. In any event, insofar as Palaganas is concerned, the elimination of his name from the company’s roster on the ground that he remained unheard from after his leave of absence expired can hardly be considered as an unfair labor practice which would justify reinstatement, let alone back wages.

2. ID.; ID.; BACK WAGES; RIGHT THERETO ON THE BASIS OF JUSTICE. — In the case of Eduardo Elbanbuena, his claim for reinstatement was dismissed "as it appears that he was reinstated and is still in the service." The denial of back wages to him, however, was erroneous. The court found: "right now (as of the date of the decision) Eduardo Elbanbuena is still in the service, but complainant’s evidence clearly showed that he was laid off. Probably he was recalled since the presentation of complainant’s evidence." It is not disputed that he was out of work from January 9 to November 3, 1960. Respondent company says that for all that appears he might have been on extended leave of absence without pay during that period, and that it was incumbent upon petitioner to prove otherwise. The categorical finding of the court that he had been laid off sufficiently rules out the speculative possibility referred to by respondent company. And if the other regular employees who failed to return after the expiration of their leaves of absence were granted back wages, justice dictates that Elbanbuena should be entitled to the same benefits.

3. ID.; ID.; ID.; NO RIGHT THERETO WHERE THE EMPLOYEES WERE NOT LAID OFF. — The claim of Jesus Galang and Maximo Villanueva for back wages was correctly dismissed by the court because "they were not laid off; and they have already returned to work upon the expiration of their leaves of absence and have been thereafter continuously working in their former positions." This is a factual finding that is not disputed, nor has evidence of any lay-off of these two employees been brought to our attention.


D E C I S I O N


MAKALINTAL, J.:


Petitioning union filed two complaints for unfair labor practice against respondent company, alleging dismissal of twenty-seven of its employees for union activities. Respondent court, in its decision of January 4, 1965, ordered the reinstatement of nineteen (19), with back wages. Of the remaining eight (8), two had died, one had found employment elsewhere, and one had retired. The other four are Ernesto Palaganas, Eduardo Elbanbuena, Jesus Galang and Maximo Villanueva. Palaganas was not ordered reinstated, while Elbanbuena, Galang and Villanueva, although reinstated, were not granted back wages. The instant petition for review was filed by the union with respect to these four, the prayer being for the reinstatement of Palaganas with back wages and for the award of back wages to the three others.

The burden of petitioner’s argument is that these four employees were similarly situated as the nineteen who received the full benefits of the decision, and therefore, must be treated in the same manner. This is not altogether correct, as the decision itself reveals. The court’s finding with respect to Palaganas is as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Ernesto Palaganas’ case as told by respondent was a little different. Similarly, he was on the payroll of the Company on the off- and-on basis. Then he went on a leave of absence and since then he was unheard of until the respondent ultimately decided to erase his name in their roster."cralaw virtua1aw library

Petitioner points to the case of five of the nineteen employees ordered reinstated with back wages, who "simply failed to return after the expiration of their leave of absence," and contends that the same relief must be awarded to Palaganas. There is a demonstrable difference between their situation and his, for they were working on a regular and continuous basis; and with respect to Jose Pineda, who was also reinstated despite the fact that he was working off and on, the Court did not find that he took a leave of absence and then failed to return thereafter. In any event, insofar as Palaganas is concerned, the elimination of his name from the company’s roster on the ground that he remained unheard from after his leave of absence expired can hardly be considered as an unfair labor practice which would justify reinstatement, let alone back wages.

In the case of Eduardo Elbanbuena, his claim for reinstatement was dismissed "as it appears that he was reinstated and is still in the service." The denial of back wages to him, however, was erroneous. The court found: "right now (as of the date of the decision) Eduardo Elbanbuena is still in the service, but complainant’s evidence clearly showed that he was laid off. Probably he was recalled since the presentation of complainant’s evidence." It is not disputed that he was out of work from January 9 to November 3, 1960. Respondent company says that for all that appears he might have been on extended leave of absence without pay during that period, and that it was incumbent upon petitioner to prove otherwise. To our mind, the categorical finding of the court that he had been laid off sufficiently rules out the speculative possibility referred to by respondent company. And if the other regular employees who failed to return after the expiration of their leaves of absence were granted back wages, justice dictates that Elbanbuena should be entitled to the same benefits.

The claim of Jesus Galang and Maximo Villanueva for back wages was correctly dismissed by the court because "they were not laid off; and (they) have already returned to work upon the expiration of their leaves of absence and have been thereafter continuously working in their former positions." This is a factual finding that is not disputed, nor has evidence of any lay-off of these two employees been brought to our attention.

WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is modified by ordering the payment of back wages to Eduardo Elbanbuena for the period from January 9 to November 3, 1960, and affirmed in all other respects. No costs.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Zaldivar, Sanchez, Ruiz Castro, Fernando, Capistrano, Teehankee and Barredo, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






March-1969 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-26430 March 11, 1969 - ROSA GONZALEZ VDA. DE PALANCA, ET AL. v. CHUA KENG KIAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-29588 March 18, 1969 - ANTONIO J. VILLEGAS, ET AL. v. ABELARDO SUBIDO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26443 March 25, 1969 - MAKATI DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. PEDRO C. TANJUATCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-26770 & L-26771 March 25, 1969 - SAN ILDEFONSO ELECTRIC PLANT, INC. v. BALIUAG ELECTRIC LIGHT AND POWER CO., INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24985 March 27, 1969 - VICTORIAS MILLING CO., INC. v. BERTITO D. DADIVAS

  • G.R. No. L-24399 March 28, 1969 - FIRESTONE TIRE AND RUBBER COMPANY OF THE PHIL. v. FERNANDO TEMPONGKO

  • G.R. Nos. L-24634 & L-24635 March 28, 1969 - UNION OF PHILIPPINE EDUCATION EMPLOYEES v. PHILIPPINE EDUCATION CO., INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24699 March 28, 1969 - ABIGUEL REYES-GREGORIO, ET AL. v. ARSENIO REYES

  • G.R. No. L-24775 March 28, 1969 - MARIANO C. ATEGA v. MONTANO A. ORTIZ

  • G.R. No. L-24982 March 28, 1969 - BERNARDINA FLORENDO v. BONIFACIA FLORENDO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25333 March 28, 1969 - CONSOLIDATED WORKERS UNION v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25338 March 28, 1969 - UNION INSURANCE SOCIETY OF CANTON, LTD. v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25439 March 28, 1969 - IN RE: CHUA TAN CHUAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-25555 March 28, 1969 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DOMINGO MAGCAMIT

  • G.R. No. L-25618 March 28, 1969 - ABELARDO SUBIDO, ET AL. v. SIMEON GOPENGCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25878 March 28, 1969 - PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF FREE LABOR UNIONS v. GAUDENCIO CLORIBEL

  • G.R. No. L-26153 March 28, 1969 - GUALBERTO TENCHAVEZ v. ATLAS CONSOLIDATED MINING & DEVELOPMENT CO., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26487 March 28, 1969 - CONSTANTINA DE AGRAVIADOR, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26572 March 28, 1969 - MORALES DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26932 March 28, 1969 - RUPERTO SANCHEZ, ET AL. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26953 March 28, 1969 - ZENAIDA MEDINA v. VENANCIA L. MAKABALI

  • G.R. No. L-26808 March 28, 1969 - LUCIO V. GARCIA v. CONRADO M. VASQUEZ

  • G.R. No. L-27100 March 28, 1969 - GERMAN S. MONTESA v. FELIPE ONOFRE DIRECTO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27120 March 28, 1969 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUAN L. BOCAR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27189 March 28, 1969 - FIREMAN’S FUND INSURANCE COMPANY v. MAERSK LINE FAR EAST SERVICE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27231 March 28, 1969 - ALFONSO VISITACION v. VICTOR MANIT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28113 March 28, 1969 - MUNICIPALITY OF MALABANG, ET AL. v. PANGANDAPUN BENITO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28734 March 28, 1969 - EMETERIO A. RODRIGUEZ v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-29199 March 28, 1969 - CLENIO L. ONDONA v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-29343 March 28, 1969 - FELIPE DE GUZMAN v. WALFRIDO DE LOS ANGELES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-29610 March 28, 1969 - ALIM BALINDONG v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-29458 March 28, 1969 - VIRGINIA F. PEREZ v. RAFAEL DE LA CRUZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-29684 March 28, 1969 - ARACELI V. MALAG v. RAMON DE LOS CIENTOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-29814 March 28, 1969 - SANTOS ANDAL, ET AL. v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-29894 March 28, 1969 - JESUS W. LAZATIN v. RUPERTO KAPUNAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-30058 March 28, 1969 - LUIS G. DE CASTRO v. JULIAN G. GINETE, ET AL.

  • Adm.Case No. 598 March 28, 1969 - AURORA SORIANO DELES v. VICENTE E. ARAGONA, JR.

  • G.R. No. L-20017 March 28, 1969 - IN RE: LEON TE POOT v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-21213 & L-21214 March 28, 1969 - GABRIEL ZARI, ET AL. v. JOSE R. SANTOS

  • G.R. No. L-21291 March 28, 1969 - PRECIOLITA V. CORLISS v. MANILA RAILROAD CO.

  • G.R. Nos. L-21528 & L-21529 March 28, 1969 - ROSAURO REYES v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-21664 March 28, 1969 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL., ET AL. v. MANOLO L. MADDELA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21953 March 28, 1969 - ENCARNACION GATIOAN v. SIXTO GAFFUD, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22007 March 28, 1969 - NATIONAL MIRROR FACTORY v. ISIDRA SUNGA VDA. DE ANURE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22094 March 28, 1969 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SANTIAGO TATLONGHARI, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22187 March 28, 1969 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANASTACIO MAISUG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22619 March 28, 1969 - IN RE: EMMANUEL LAI, ET AL. v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-22687 March 28, 1969 - MALAYAN INSURANCE CO., INC. v. MANILA PORT SERVICE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22675 March 28, 1969 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. PACIFIC COMMISSION HOUSE

  • G.R. No. L-22706 March 28, 1969 - JOAQUIN UYPUANCO, ET AL. v. JOSE N. LEUTERIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22784 March 28, 1969 - INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA v. OSAKA SHOSEN KAISHA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23253 March 28, 1969 - IN RE: PACITA CHUA v. BARTOLOME CABANGBANG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23591 March 28, 1969 - LEONCIO YU LIM v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-23654 March 28, 1969 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICENTE MARQUEZ

  • G.R. No. L-23792 March 28, 1969 - MODESTA JIMENEZ VDA. DE NOCETE v. PILAR OIRA

  • G.R. No. L-23942 March 28, 1969 - CARMEN DEVEZA, ET AL. v. JUAN B. MONTECILLO, ET AL.