Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1962 > October 1962 Decisions > G.R. No. L-18112 October 30, 1962 - KAPISANAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA NG ALAK v. HAMILTON DISTILLERY COMPANY, ET AL. :




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-18112. October 30, 1962.]

KAPISANAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA NG ALAK (NAFLU), Petitioner, v. HAMILTON DISTILLERY COMPANY, CO BON BENG, MARIANO ANG ENG and HAMILTON WORKER’S UNION, Respondents.

Oliveros & Mallare for Petitioner.

Agapito S. Mendoza for respondent Hamilton Workers’ Union.

Lopez-De Joya, , Dimaguila, Hermoso & Divino for respondent Hamilton Distillery Company, Et. Al.


SYLLABUS


1. LABOR; CLOSED SHOP AGREEMENT UNDER THE INDUSTRIAL PEACE ACT; NOT APPLICABLE TO EMPLOYEES ALREADY IN SERVICE WHO ARE MEMBERS OF ANOTHER UNION. — The closed-shop agreement authorized under section 4, subsection a (4), of the Industrial Peace Act, applies only to persons to be hired or to employees who are not yet members of any labor organization. It is inapplicable to those already in the service who are members of another union. To hold otherwise, i.e., that the employees in a company who are members of a minority union may be compelled to disaffiliate from their union and join the majority or contracting union, would render nugatory the right of all employees to self-organization and to form, join or assist labor organizations of their own choosing, a right guaranteed by the Industrial Peace Act (Section 3, Republic Act No. 875) as well as by the Constitution (Article III, section 1[6]. (Freeman Shirt manufacturing Co. v. CIR, L-16561, January 28, 1961.)


D E C I S I O N


CONCEPCION, J.:


Appeal by certiorari from a decision of the Court of Industrial Relations dismissing the complaint herein for unfair labor practice.

Respondent, Hamilton Distillery Company or Hamilton Wine Manufacturing Co., hereinafter referred to as the Company, is a commercial establishment engaged in the manufacture of wine in the Philippines, whereas respondents Co Bon Beng and Mariano Ang Eng are the superintendent or cashier, and the manager, respectively, thereof.

On September 24, 1957, two (2) labor unions, composed of employees and laborers of the Company, were registered with the Department of Labor, namely, petitioner Kapisanan ng mga Mangagawa ng Alak (NAFLU), hereinafter referred to as the NAFLU, and respondent Hamilton Workers’ Union, hereinafter referred to as the Workers’ Union. Thereupon, the latter and the Company entered into a collective bargaining agreement, incorporated into a private instrument purporting to have been executed on September 24, 1957. Moreover, the Company issued a notice bearing the same date, addressed to all of its employees, giving non-members of the Workers’ Union thirty (30) days within which to join the same, or else, be dismissed.

There is evidence to the effect that, upon learning that the NAFLU was being organized, or on September 23, 1957, Co Bon Beng sent for Francisco Dumlao, and inquired whether it was true that he had organized said labor union and was its president; that, upon receipt of an affirmative answer, Co Bon Beng urged Dumlao to dissolve the NAFLU, for otherwise he would be dismissed; that when Dumlao answered that he could not follow this advice, Co Bon Beng bade him to look for another job; that on September 24, 1957, Co Bon Beng refused to admit him to work, upon the ground that he was unwilling to dissolve the NAFLU; that, subsequently, some members thereof resigned therefrom and joined the Workers’ Union, because otherwise they would be dismissed by the Company; that, beginning from September 30, 1957, those who remained affiliated to the NAFLU were allowed to work only two (2) days a week; and that on October 28, 1957, the following members of the NAFLU, who did not join the Workers’ Union, were dismissed by the Company, namely:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

1. Ambos, Avelina 27. Gawiran, Gorgonio

2. Belarmino, Gleceria 28. Jusay, Ruben

3. Bada, Adora 29. Ignacio, Antonio

4. Cerezo, Rosa 30. Labusta, Engracio

5. Cerdeno, Josefa 31. Libatique, Cerilo

6. Cobarrubias, Luz 32. Martin, Ramon

7. Cobarrubias, Corazon 33. Hermogeno, Esther

8. Castranero, Filomena 34. Javier, Mercedes

9. Cenon, Marina 35. Lacsamana, Nenita

10. Dumlao, Cristina 36. Manreza, Avelina

11. Cruz, Elena de la 37. Masiglat, Norma

12. Esquivel, Plavia 38. Montealegre, Angelina

13. Evangelista, Rosalina 39. Yumul, Laura

14. Francisco, Rosita 40. Reyes, Elnora

15. Flores, Dorotea 41. Sarmiento, Purita

16. Germeno, Caridad 42. Santos, Crisanta

17. Pique, Remedios 43. Perez, Cresencia

18. Vigo, Leda 44. Martin, Jorge

19. Avinante, Simplicio 45. Martin Severino

20. Brion, Felix 46. Mariano, Anicito

21. Bayano, Ramon 47. Mendoza, Roman

22. Cruz, Jose de la 48. Montevirgen, Manuel

23. Diaz, Angel 49. Opinaldo, Fernando

24. Dumalo, Francisco 50. Santos, Vicente

25. Gindoy Luis, Jr. 51. Reyes, Felicisimo

26. Gonzaga, Atanacio 52. Sanches, Esteban

These dismissed employees reported the matter to the Court of Industrial Relations, with which a formal complaint for unfair labor practice was, on November 28, 1957, filed, by an acting prosecutor of said court, against the Company, its aforementioned superintendent or cashier and manager, and the Workers’ Union. In their answer to this complaint, respondents denied the charge and invoked, in justification for said dismissal of members of the NAFLU, a "closed shop" clause in the collective bargaining agreement between the Company and the Workers’ Union.

Meanwhile, or on October 11, 1957, the NAFLU had filed with the Court of Industrial Relations a petition for certification election (Case No. 500 MC), in view of which said court issued an order dated October 19, 1957, directing that copies thereof be posted for the information of the employees and laborers concerned and that copies of the petition be served upon the corresponding officers of the Company and of the Workers’ Union. Still later, or on November 25, 1957, the NAFLU filed, in the unfair labor practice proceedings, an urgent petition for an injunctive relief, praying, among other things, that the effectivity of the collective bargaining agreement between the Company and the Workers’ Union be suspended and that the Company be ordered to reinstate the dismissed employees or laborers with backpay. This petition was denied on January 3, 1958. In due course thereafter, or on December 29, 1960, said Court rendered a decision dismissing the unfair labor practice case. A reconsideration of such decision having been denied by the Court sitting en banc, the case is now before us on appeal by certiorari taken by the NAFLU.

The main issues in this appeal are: (1) whether or not the collective bargaining agreement between the Company and the Workers’ Union had been made fraudulently; and (2) whether or not the dismissal of members of the NAFLU who had failed and refused to join the Workers’ Union constitutes an unfair labor practice.

With respect to the first issue, one cannot minimize the importance of the fact that, although the Workers’ Union was registered on September 24, 1957, its collective bargaining agreement with the Company and the notice issued by the Company — giving its employees who were not members of the Workers’ Union thirty (30) days to join the same, or else be dismissed — bear the same date. Likewise, note — worthy is the circumstance that, aside from being a Chinese, Valentin Kaw, the president of the Workers’ Union was the timekeeper of the Company, who as such, had supervisory authority over its employees and laborers, and could, therefore, exercise substantial pressure upon them to induce, if not compel, them to join the Workers’ Union, and that the treasurer thereof was his brother Benito Kaw, another Chinese. Considering further that said agreement was contained in a private document, and that the NAFLU was, also, registered as a duly organized labor union, on the date aforementioned, we find it difficult to avoid the feeling that the Workers’ Union was, if not company dominated, at least organized under the patronage of the Company, and that the same was in such a hurry to bargain with the Workers’ Union, in order to beat the NAFLU and prevent it from taking appropriate action prior thereto, that the agreement was made in a Private instrument, thus suggesting that it must have been made late at night. Otherwise the agreement could have been executed before a notary public for the corresponding acknowledgment.

Indeed, the record shows that, despite several defections from the NAFLU, prior to the expiration of the period given by the Company to non-members of the Workers’ Union, the Company had to dismiss 52 members of the NAFLU, apart from its president, for failure to join the Workers’ Union within said period. Considering that the Company had altogether around 100 employees only, it is clear that a petition for certification election, if filed by the NAFLU prior to the execution of the collective bargaining agreement between the Workers’ Union and the company, would have, in all probability, barred effectively said agreement.

Independently of the foregoing, the provisions thereof do not legalize the dismissal of members of the NAFLU. The lower court held otherwise, relying upon the "closed shop" clause of said agreement reading:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"That the COMPANY shall establish the policy of ‘Union Shop’ effective October 24, 1957. All workers shall by that date become members of the UNION, except those monthly salaries employees, and other supervisor-employees (technical men) listed by the Management. The COMPANY shall be free to hire new laborers with out giving consideration to their membership or non-membership to the Union. However, all laborers hired must join the UNION within sixty (60) days of employment, or face discharge, except, those selected by the Management above. The UNION assumes responsibility of individually signing up new laborers."cralaw virtua1aw library

In this connection, it is well settled in this jurisdiction that, in the absence of a manifest intent to the contrary, "closed shop" provisions in a collective bargaining agreement "apply only to persons to be hired or to employees who are not yet members of any labor organization" and that said provisions of the agreement are "not applicable to those already in the service at the time of its execution" (Confederated Sons of Labor v. Anakan Lumber Co., L-12503 [April 29, 1960]; Local 7, Press & Printing Free Workers [FFW] v. Judge Tabigne, L-16093 [November 29 1960]; Freeman Shirt Manufacturing Co. v. CIR, L-15463 and L-15723 [March 17, 1961]; Talim Quarry Co., Inc. v. Bartolo, L-15768 [April 29, 1961]).

The language of the above quoted "closed shop" clause is not such as to bar necessarily the limitation of its application to new employees or laborers, or at least, to those who were not as yet affiliated to any labor organization. The first sentence of said clause may be construed to refer to laborers or employees admitted after September 24, but before October 24, 1957. At any rate, if the Company and the Workers’ Union intended, by said clause, to authorize the dismissal of persons already in the service of said Company on or before September 24, 1957, but belonging to another labor organization, and who failed to quit from the latter and join the Workers’ Union on or before October 24, 1957, then such stipulation would be null and void (Findley Millar Timber Co. v. PLASLU, L-18217 and L-18222 (September 29, 1962). As held in Freeman Shirt Manufacturing Co., Inc. v. CIR (supra):jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"The closed-shop agreement authorized under sec. 4 subsec. a(4) of the Industrial Peace Act above quoted should however, apply only to persons to be hired or to employees who are not yet members of any labor organization. It is inapplicable to those already in the service who are members of another union. To hold otherwise, i.e., that the employees in a company who are members of a minority union may be compelled to disaffiliate from their union and join the majority or contracting union, would render nugatory the right of all employees to self-organization and to form, join or assist Labor self-organization of their own choosing, a right guaranteed by the Industrial Peace Act (sec. 3, Rep. Act No. 875) as well as by the Constitution (Art. III, sec. 1[6])."cralaw virtua1aw library

WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby reversed, and another one shall be entered ordering the Company to cease and desist from further unfair labor practices, to pay the members of the NAFLU who had been discriminated against the difference between the compensation actually paid to them and that which they would have received had there been no discrimination, and to reinstate the employees named above, with back wages from the time of their dismissal until their actual reinstatement, with all of the rights and privileges appertaining thereto, as well as to pay the costs. It is so ordered.

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






October-1962 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-10614 October 22, 1962 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE TUAZON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17474 October 25, 1962 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE V. BAGTAS

  • A.C. No. 57 October 30, 1962 - HERMENEGILDO U. ABSALUD v. EUSEBIO F. RAMOS

  • G.R. No. L-48922 October 30, 1962 - AMPARO M. VDA. DE ROYO v. N. T. DEEN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-12919 October 30, 1962 - UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS HOSPITAL v. U.S.T. HOSPITAL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15183 October 30, 1962 - IN RE: PAULINO P. GOCHECO, ET AL. v. FRANCISCO T. ESTACIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15548 October 30, 1962 - JOSE KABIGTING v. ACTING DIRECTOR OF PRISONS

  • G.R. No. L-16096 October 30, 1962 - C. N. HODGES v. DY BUNCIO & CO., INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16174 October 30, 1962 - RUBEN O. SANGALANG v. BRIGIDA VERGARA

  • G.R. No. L-16519 October 30, 1962 - PROVINCE OF PANGASINAN, ET AL. v. PEDRO PALISOC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16705 October 30, 1962 - ANTONIO E. QUEROL v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE

  • G.R. No. L-17053 October 30, 1962 - GAVINO LAO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-17176 October 30, 1962 - ROSENDO RALLA v. MATEO L. ALCASID, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-17207 & L-17372 October 30, 1962 - U.S.T. PRESS v. NATIONAL LABOR UNION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17399 October 30, 1962 - BONIFACIO SY PIÑERO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-17530 October 30, 1962 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CAUSIANO ENOT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17570 October 30, 1962 - ROSALINA MARTINEZ v. AURELIA GONZALES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17645 October 30, 1962 - JULIANA ZAPATA v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

  • G.R. No. L-17784 October 30, 1962 - MARIANO GARCHITORENA v. TOMAS P. PANGANIBAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17822 October 30, 1962 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEOPOLDO DOMENDEN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17924 October 30, 1962 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. NICASIO YATCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18008 October 30, 1962 - ELISEA LAPERAL v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-18066 October 30, 1962 - JUANITA NAIRA v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18068 October 30, 1962 - IN RE: ANTONIO GO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-18112 October 30, 1962 - KAPISANAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA NG ALAK v. HAMILTON DISTILLERY COMPANY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18216 October 30, 1962 - STOCKHOLDERS OF F. GUANZON, ET AL. v. REGISTER OF DEEDS OF MANILA

  • G.R. No. L-18235 October 30, 1962 - PHILIPPINE LAND-AIR-SEA LABOR UNION, ET AL. v. KIN SAN RICE AND CORN MILL COMPANY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18239 October 30, 1962 - CESAR ROBLES, ET AL. v. DONATO TIMARIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18622 October 30, 1962 - LIM SON v. BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF THE BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION

  • G.R. No. L-18953 October 30, 1962 - EMILIO ARZAGA v. FRANCISCO BOBIS, SR.

  • G.R. No. L-20010 October 30, 1962 - FRANCISCO BOIX, ET AL. v. MELQUIADES G. ILAO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-13486 October 31, 1962 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VALENTIN BAGSICAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-13968 October 31, 1962 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ILDEFONSO CORTEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-14366 October 31, 1962 - BOARD OF LIQUIDATORS, ET AL. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-14542 October 31, 1962 - MANUEL A. CORDERO v. JOSE R. CABATUANDO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-14848 October 31, 1962 - COLUMBIAN ROPE COMPANY OF THE PHIL., ET AL. v. TACLOBAN ASSOC. OF LABORERS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-15201 and L-15202 October 31, 1962 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. POLICARPIO G. TIONGSON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15310 October 31, 1962 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TEODORO ABLOG

  • G.R. No. L-15605 October 31, 1962 - URSULA FRANCISCO v. JULIAN RODRIGUEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15983 October 31, 1962 - MAXIMO ACIERTO, ET AL. v. VICTORINA G. DE LAPERAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16587 October 31, 1962 - VICTORIA D. MIAILHE, ET AL. v. RUFINO P. HALILI, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16708 October 31, 1962 - BENIGNO T. PEREZ, ET AL. v. J. ANTONIO ARANETA

  • G.R. No. L-16789 October 31, 1962 - ATLANTIC MUTUAL INSURANCE CO. v. MANILA PORT SERVICE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17008 October 31, 1962 - ALLISON J. GIBBS, ET AL. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17062 October 31, 1962 - MARIANO S. RAMIREZ v. DAMIAN L. JIMENEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17168 October 31, 1962 - J. M. TUASON & CO., INC. v. AMBROSIO CABILDO

  • G.R. No. L-17429 October 31, 1962 - GLICERIA RAMOS, ET AL. v. JULIA CARIÑO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17560 October 31, 1962 - VICENTE GARCIA, ET AL. v. JOSE FENOY

  • G.R. No. L-17619 October 31, 1962 - FRANCISCA GATCHALIAN v. GORGONIO PAVILIN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17439 October 31, 1962 - JOSE IRA, ET AL. v. MARINA ZAFRA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17760 October 31, 1962 - RAMCAR, INC. v. EUSEBIO S. MILLAR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17772 October 31, 1962 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO BAUTISTA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17898 October 31, 1962 - PASTOR D. AGO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17914 October 31, 1962 - ROSARIO MARTIN VDA. DE MALLARI v. NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY

  • G.R. No. L-17991 October 31, 1962 - JOSE MA. DEL ROSARIO v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18006 October 31, 1962 - IN RE: CUAKI TAN SI v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-18030 October 31, 1962 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ESMAEL SUSUKAN

  • G.R. No. L-18078 October 31, 1962 - AGRICULTURAL CREDIT AND COOPERATIVE FINANCING CORP. v. GOYENA LUMBER CO., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18231 October 31, 1962 - MIGUEL R. SOCCO, ET AL. v. SALVADORA G. GARCIA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18253 October 31, 1962 - WENCESLAO PLAZA, ET AL. v. EULOGIO MENCIAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18285 October 31, 1962 - IN RE: TOMASA V. BULOS v. VICENTE TECSON

  • G.R. No. L-18338 October 31, 1962 - KAISAHAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA LA CAMPANA v. RICARDO TANTONGCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18379 October 31, 1962 - AMANDA V. CABIGAO v. AMADO DEL ROSARIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18588 October 31, 1962 - INES R. DE PAGES, ET AL. v. MATEO CANONOY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18589 October 31, 1962 - BALDOMERO BAUTISTA, ET AL. v. ALEJANDRA CABLAY, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-19968-69 October 31, 1962 - ALIPIO N. CASILAN, ET AL. v. FILOMENO B. YBAÑEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20131 October 31, 1962 - MACO STEVEDORING CORPORATION v. MACAPANTON ABBAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-20141-42 October 31, 1962 - JOAQUIN CUATICO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20389 October 31, 1962 - FRANCISCO B. BAUTISTA v. PRIMITIVO A. GARCIA