Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1982 > August 1982 Decisions > G.R. No. L-51494 August 19, 1982 - JUDRIC CANNING CORPORATION v. AMADO G. INCIONG

201 Phil. 456:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-51494. August 19, 1982.]

JUDRIC CANNING CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. THE HONORABLE AMADO G. INCIONG, in his capacity as Deputy Minister of Labor, THE HONORABLE FRANCISCO L. ESTRELLA, in his capacity as Director of Region IV, Ministry of Labor, UNITED LUMBER & GENERAL WORKERS OF THE PHILIPPINES (ULGWP), NORMA PINEDA, LEONILA MORALES, TERESITA BALMACEDA, VICKY PEÑALOSA, ADELINA VALENZUELA and JUANITA REPOSAR, Respondents.

Florante A. Bautista for Petitioner.

Eduardo G. Araulo for Private Respondents.

SYNOPSIS


Individual private respondents are employees of petitioner corporation and are members of respondent union. Said private respondents were allegedly not allowed to report for work due to their union activities in soliciting membership in a union yet to be organized. As a result, they and respondent union filed a complaint for unfair labor practice against the petitioner with the Ministry of Labor. The petitioner denied having locked out the respondents and claimed that respondents abandoned their positions. After hearing, the Labor Regional Director found respondent employees’ dismissal without valid cause and ordered petitioner to reinstate them with full backwages. Petitioner’s appeal to the Ministry of Labor was dismissed for lack of merit and a writ of execution was issued. In a petition for certiorari filed with the Supreme Court, petitioner corporation prayed for issuance of a temporary restraining order to enforce the writ of execution.

The Supreme Court DISMISSED the petition and lifted the temporary restraining order. It held that the Regional Director had found dismissal to be due to respondent’s union activities amounting to unfair labor practice, a finding of fact which may not be disturbed and this finding is the basis for the Regional Director’s conclusion that respondents were dismissed without valid cause.


SYLLABUS


1. REMEDIAL LAW; PETITION FOR REVIEW; DECISIONS OF MINISTRY OF LABOR; FINDINGS OF FACT MAY NOT BE DISTURBED ON REVIEW. — The finding of the respondent Regional Director, after the parties had submitted their respective position papers and a hearing was held, that respondents did not abandon their jobs but were dismissed because of their union activities, is a finding of fact which may not be disturbed by the Supreme Court.

2. LABOR AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION; LABOR CODE; UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE; ARBITRARY DISMISSAL; OFFER TO PAY SEVERANCE PAY DESPITE POSITION THAT EMPLOYEE ABANDONED WORK, AN ADMISSION OF. — The petitioner-employer stated that in spite of its position that the private respondents had abandoned their jobs, it "offered to pay respondent union members severance pay of one (1) month." This is a clear admission of the charge of arbitrary dismissal, for why should the petitioner offer to pay what it calls "severance pay’’ if the private respondents were not, indeed, dismissed, or if the petitioner sincerely believed in the righteousness of his stance?

3. ID.; ID.; ID.; INTERFERING WITH FORMATION OF UNION. — Under Article 248(a) of the Labor Code of the Philippines, "to interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in their exercise of the right to self-organization" is an unfair labor practice on the pan of the employer. Paragraph (d) of said Article also considers it an unfair labor practice for an employer "to initiate, dominate, assist or otherwise interfere with the formation or administration of any labor organization, including the giving of financial or other support to it. In this particular case, the private respondents were dismissed, or their services were terminated, because they were soliciting signatures in order to form a union within the plant. For sure, the petitioner corporation is guilty of unfair labor practice in interfering with the formation of a labor union and retaliating against the employee’s exercise of their right to self-organization.

4. ID.; ID.; ID.; DISMISSAL WITHOUT JUST CAUSE, NOT A CASE OF WHERE PRIOR CLEARANCE NOT REQUIRED BY LABOR CODE IMPLEMENTING RULES; CASE AT BAR. — Under Section 1, Rule XIV, Book V of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of the Labor Code, prior clearance with the Ministry of Labor is not necessary in this case since private respondents have been employed with the petitioner corporation for less than one (1) year. However, the questioned order finding the dismissal of the private respondents to be without just cause is not based upon such absence of prior clearance alone. The error of the Regional Director in stating that the dismissal of private respondents was without just cause in view of the absence of prior clearance from the Ministry of Labor is, thus not sufficient to warrant a reversal of the questioned order.


D E C I S I O N


CONCEPCION, JR., J.:


Petition for certiorari, with a prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction or restraining order, to annul and set aside the Order issued by the Regional Director of the Ministry of Labor on November 15, 1978 in Case No. R4-STF — 5515-78, entitled: "United Lumber and General Workers of the Philippines (ULGWP), Et Al., complainants, versus Judric Canning Corporation, Respondents," which ordered the herein petitioner to reinstate immediately herein private respondents Norma Pineda, Vicky Peñalosa, Leonila Morales, Teresita Balmaceda, Adelina Valenzuela, and Juanita Reposar to their former positions with full backwages from the date of their dismissal up to their actual reinstatement; the Order issued by the respondent Amado G. Inciong on August 3, 1979, which affirmed the aforestated order of the Regional Director and dismissed the appeal of the herein petitioner; and the Writ of Execution issued in said case on September 24, 1979.

The records show that the herein private respondents Norma Pineda, Vicky Peñalosa, Leonila Morales, Teresita Balmaceda, Adelina Valenzuela, and Juanita Reposar are employees of the petitioner corporation and are members of the United Lumber and General Workers of the Philippines (ULGWP). On August 19, 1978, the said complainants were allegedly not allowed to report for work due to their union activities in soliciting membership in a union yet to be organized in the company and their time cards were removed from the rack. As a result, the said complainants and their labor union filed a complaint for unfair labor practice against the petitioner with Region IV of the Ministry of Labor, seeking the reinstatement of the complainants with full backwages. 1

The herein petitioner denied having locked out the complainants and claims that the said complainants failed to report for work and abandoned their positions. The petitioner also denied having knowledge of the union activities of the complainants until August 30, 1978, when it was served notice of a petition for direct certification filed by the complainant union. 2

After hearing the parties, or on November 15, 1978, the Regional Director of Region IV of the Ministry of Labor, after finding that the petitioner had dismissed the complainants without valid cause, ordered the petitioner to immediately reinstate the complainants to their former positions with full backwages from the date of their dismissal up to their actual reinstatement. 3

The petitioner corporation appealed to the Ministry of Labor, 4 but its appeal was dismissed for lack of merit on August 3, 1979. 5 Thereafter, a writ of execution was issued on September 24, 1979. 6

Hence, the present recourse. As prayed for, a temporary restraining order, restraining the respondents from enforcing, implementing and/or carrying out the writ of execution dated September 24, 1979, was issued on November 12, 1979. 7

1. The petitioner contends that the Regional Director’s finding, which was affirmed by the respondent Deputy Minister of Labor, that the petitioner is guilty of unfair labor practice for terminating the services of the respondent union members due to their alleged union activities, is not supported by the evidence of record.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

This contention is untenable. The record shows that after the parties had submitted their respective position papers, a hearing was held, at the conclusion of which, the respondent Regional Director found that the private respondents did not abandon their jobs but were dismissed because of their union activities. This is a finding of fact which may not now be disturbed.

Besides, the private respondents immediately filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, seeking their reinstatement, on August 24, 1978, soon after their services were terminated on August 19, 1978. It would be illogical for the private respondents to abandon their work and then immediately file an action seeking their reinstatement.

Moreover, there was no reason at all and none has been suggested by the petitioner, for the private respondents to abandon their work. No employee with a family to support, like the private respondents, would abandon their work knowing fully well of the acute unemployment and underemployment problem and the difficulty of looking for a means of livelihood. As the Solicitor General stated: "To get a job is difficult; to run from it is foolhardy."cralaw virtua1aw library

But, most of all, the petitioner stated that in spite of its position that the private respondents had abandoned their jobs, it "offered to pay respondent union members severance pay of one (1) month." 8 This is a clear admission of the charge of arbitrary dismissal, for why should the petitioner offer to pay what it calls "severance pay" if the private respondents were not, indeed, dismissed, or if the petitioner sincerely believed in the righteousness of its stance?chanrobles.com:cralaw:red

2. The petitioner further claims that it could not have committed the unfair labor practice charge for dismissing some of its employees due to their alleged union activities because the alleged dismissal took place more than four (4) months before the organizational meeting of the union and more than one (1) year before actual registration of said union with the Labor Organization Division of the Bureau of Labor Relations.

The contention is without merit. Under Article 248(a) of the Labor Code of the Philippines, "to interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in their exercise of the right to self-organization" is an unfair labor practice on the part of the employer. Paragraph (d) of said Article also considers it an unfair labor practice for an employer "to initiate, dominate, assist or otherwise interfere with the formation or administration of any labor organization, including the giving of financial or other support to it. In this particular case, the private respondents were dismissed, or their services were terminated, because they were soliciting signatures in order to form a union within the plant. In their affidavit, executed on September 19, 1978, 9 the private respondents stated:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Na kami ay nagkampanya upang papirmahin namin sa ‘membership form’ ng ULGWP ang nakakarami (majority) sa mga empleyeado at nagharap kami ng petisyon sa Ministri ng Paggawa upang masertify ang aming unyon sa Case No. R4-LRD-M-8-403-78;

"Na dahil sa aming pagreklamo sa Pangasiwaan na ibigay sa amin ang mga biyaya sa ilalim ng Kodigo ng Paggawa at dahil sa pagtayo at pagkampaniya namin sa mga empleyeado na sumapi sa unyon ay kami ay pinag-initan at tinanggal sa trabaho ng Pangasiwaan."cralaw virtua1aw library

For sure, the petitioner corporation is guilty of unfair labor practice in interfering with the formation of a labor union and retaliating against the employees’ exercise of their right to self-organization.

3. Finally, the petitioner claims that the "respondent Regional Director’s finding, which was affirmed by respondent Deputy Minister of Labor, that the ‘dismissal’ of respondent union members ‘is conclusively presumed to be without a valid cause’ because petitioner failed to apply for clearance is contrary to the applicable Rules and Regulations Implementing the Labor Code and is at variance with jurisprudence on the matter."cralaw virtua1aw library

The petitioner obviously refers to the following portion of the Order of the Regional Director dated November 15, 1978:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"The record shows that complainants Norma Pineda, Vicky Peñalosa, Leonila Morales, Teresita Balmaceda, Adelina Valenzuela and Juanita Reposar were employed by respondent in January, 1978, up to August, 1978. They worked continuously up to the time that their services were terminated by respondent on the ground of abandonment. However, respondent did not apply for clearance with this Office to terminate the services of complainants. Hence, their dismissal is conclusively presumed to be without a valid cause."cralaw virtua1aw library

Indeed, prior clearance with the Ministry of Labor for the termination of the private respondents is not necessary in this case since the private respondents have been employed with the petitioner corporation for less than one (1) year. Section 1, Rule XIV, Book V of the Implementing Rules and Regulations provides as follows:chanrobles.com.ph : virtual law library

"Section. 1. Requirement for shutdown or dismissal. — No employer may shut down his establishment or dismiss any of his employees with at least one year during the last two years, whether the service is broken or continuous, without prior clearance issued therefor in accordance with this Rule. Any provision in a collective agreement dispensing with the clearance requirement shall be null and void."cralaw virtua1aw library

However, the questioned order finding the dismissal of the private respondents to be without just cause is not based upon such absence of prior clearance alone. The respondent Regional Director also found that the private respondents were dismissed because of their union activities and for the failure of the petitioners to file a report in lieu of prior clearance, as provided for in Section 11, Rule XIV, Book V of the Implementing Rules and Regulations. The questioned order further reads, as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Moreover, we find that complainants did not abandon their job. They were terminated due to the fact that they actively campaigned and assisted in the organization of their union.

"Therefore, the dismissal of complainants is without valid cause, considering that respondent failed to justify their action and also have not filed the necessary report as required under the Labor Code."cralaw virtua1aw library

The error of the Regional Director in stating that the dismissal of the private respondents was without just cause in view of the absence of prior clearance from the Ministry of Labor is, thus, not sufficient to warrant a reversal of the questioned order.

WHEREFORE, the petition should be, as it is hereby, DISMISSED. The temporary restraining order heretofore issued is hereby LIFTED and set ASIDE. With costs against the petitioner.

SO ORDERED.

Barredo (Chairman), Aquino, Guerrero, Abad Santos, De Castro and Escolin, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. Rollo, pp. 39, 41, 43.

2. Id., p. 50.

3. Id., p. 57.

4. Id., p. 59.

5. Id., p. 80.

6. Id., p. 81.

7. Id., p. 107.

8. Id., p. 29; par. 10(f) of Petition.

9. Id., p. 48.




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






August-1982 Jurisprudence                 

  • A.M. No. 921-MJ August 19, 1982 - ANTONIO C. LUCERO v. CARLOS B. SALAZAR

    201 Phil. 396

  • A.M. No. P-1518 August 19, 1982 - EROTIDO O. DOMINGO v. ROMEO R. QUIMSON

  • A.M. No. 2247-MJ August 19, 1982 - PEDRO G. VALENTIN v. MARIANO P. GONZALES

    201 Phil. 401

  • A.M. No. 2385-MJ August 19, 1982 - JONATHAN A. LUZURIAGA v. JESUS B. BROMO

    201 Phil. 408

  • G.R. No. L-34081 August 19, 1982 - PHIL. SUGAR INSTITUTE v. ASSOC. OF PHILSUGIN EMPLOYEES

    201 Phil. 416

  • G.R. No. L-35440 August 19, 1982 - RUFINO GERALDE v. ANDRES Y. SABIDO

    201 Phil. 418

  • G.R. No. L-38352 August 19, 1982 - ADELA J. CAÑOS v. E.L. PERALTA

    201 Phil. 422

  • G.R. No. L-46499 August 19, 1982 - TRADE UNIONS OF THE PHIL. AND ALLIED SERVICES v. AMADO G. INCIONG

    201 Phil. 427

  • G.R. No. L-48057 August 19, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICTORIO VENEZUELA

    201 Phil. 433

  • G.R. No. L-50402 August 19, 1982 - PHIL. COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL BANK v. NAT’L. MINES & ALLIED WORKERS UNION

    201 Phil. 441

  • G.R. No. L-51194 August 19, 1982 - CENTRAL AZUCARERA DE LA CARLOTA, INC. v. AMADO G. INCIONG

    201 Phil. 451

  • G.R. No. L-51494 August 19, 1982 - JUDRIC CANNING CORPORATION v. AMADO G. INCIONG

    201 Phil. 456

  • G.R. No. L-52720 August 19, 1982 - UNITED CMC TEXTILE WORKERS UNION v. JACOBO C. CLAVE

    201 Phil. 463

  • G.R. No. L-58287 August 19, 1982 - EDUARDO VILLANUEVA v. LORENZO MOSQUEDA

    201 Phil. 474

  • G.R. No. L-60067 August 19, 1982 - SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

    201 Phil. 477

  • G.R. No. L-26940 August 21, 1982 - PAULINA SANTOS, ET AL. v. GREGORIA ARANZANSO, ET AL.

    201 Phil. 481

  • G.R. No. L-27130 August 21, 1982 - PAULINA SANTOS DE PARREÑO v. JULIO VILLAMOR, ET AL.

    201 Phil. 487

  • G.R. No. L-30697 August 2, 1982 - GILBERTO M. DUAVIT v. HERMINIO MARIANO

    201 Phil. 488

  • G.R. No. L-35705 August 21, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RICARDO M. UMALI

    201 Phil. 494

  • G.R. No. L-36222 August 21, 1982 - AUGUST O. BERNARTE, ET AL. v. SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE, ET AL.

    201 Phil. 513

  • G.R. No. L-39007 August 21, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CAMILO RAMIREZ

    201 Phil. 519

  • G.R. No. L-40621 August 21, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AQUILINO PADUNAN

    201 Phil. 525

  • G.R. No. L-56962 August 21, 1982 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. ANDRES B. PLAN

    201 Phil. 541

  • G.R. No. L-58805 August 21, 1982 - ROMULO BOLAÑOS, ET AL. v. RAFAEL DELA CRUZ, ET AL.

    201 Phil. 549

  • G.R. No. L-59493 August 21, 1982 - MANUEL SAN ANDRES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    201 Phil. 552

  • G.R. No. L-59823 August 21, 1982 - GETZ CORPORATION PHILS., INC., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    201 Phil. 558

  • G.R. No. L-38753 August 25, 1982 - RAFAEL S. MERCADO v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF RIZAL, BRANCH V, ET AL.

    201 Phil. 565

  • G.R. No. L-44031 August 26, 1982 - SONIA VILLONES v. EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

    201 Phil. 574

  • G.R. No. L-47099 August 26, 1982 - IGNACIO DELOS ANGELES v. GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM, ET AL.

    201 Phil. 581

  • G.R. No. L-59582 August 26, 1982 - JESUS M. PAMAN v. RODRIGO DIAZ, ET AL.

    201 Phil. 597

  • A.M. No. 78-MJ August 30, 1982 - BUENAVENTURA B. MARTINEZ v. TEODORO O. PAHIMULIN

    201 Phil. 602

  • A.M. No. P-1722 August 30, 1982 - BENIGNO CABALLERO v. WALTER VILLANUEVA

    201 Phil. 606

  • G.R. No. L-25933 August 30, 1982 - PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE COMPANY v. FREE TELEPHONE WORKERS UNION, ET AL.

    201 Phil. 611

  • G.R. No. L-27657 August 30, 1982 - PAULINA SANTOS DE PARREÑ0 v. GREGORIA ARANZANSO

    201 Phil. 623

  • G.R. No. L-29268 August 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CESARIO C. GOLEZ, ET AL.

    201 Phil. 632

  • G.R. No. L-33515 August 30, 1982 - J. M. TUASON & CO., INC. v. RAYMUND FAMILARA

    201 Phil. 635

  • G.R. No. L-37686 August 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BENJAMIN L. ARCENAL

    201 Phil. 640

  • G.R. No. L-39298 August 30, 1982 - SULPICIO G. PAREDES v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT, ET AL.

    201 Phil. 644

  • G.R. No. L-41700 August 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RICARTE SIBAYAN

    201 Phil. 648

  • G.R. No. L-42447 August 30, 1982 - PIONEER INSURANCE AND SURETY CORPORATION v. SERAFIN E. CAMILON

    201 Phil. 658

  • G.R. No. L-42660 August 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARSENIO OLMEDILLO

    201 Phil. 661

  • G.R. No. L-43427 August 30, 1982 - FELIPE N. CRISOSTOMO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    201 Phil. 666

  • G.R. No. L-45472 August 30, 1982 - HEIRS OF SATURNINA AKUT v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    201 Phil. 680

  • G.R. No. L-46762 August 30, 1982 - PHILIPPINE AIRLINES SUPERVISORS’ ASSOCIATION v. AMADO GAT INCIONG, ET AL.

    201 Phil. 689

  • G.R. No. L-48975 August 30, 1982 - RAFAEL B. MAGPANTAY v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    201 Phil. 702

  • G.R. No. L-54068 and 54142 August 30, 1982 - ST. LUKE’S HOSPITAL, INC. v. MINISTER OF LABOR, ET AL.

    201 Phil. 706

  • G.R. No. L-54094 August 30, 1982 - ALABANG DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, ET AL. v. MANUEL E. VALENZUELA, ET AL.

    201 Phil. 727

  • G.R. No. L-54760 August 30, 1982 - MICAELA C. AGGABAO v. LETICIA U. GAMBOA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-55801 August 30, 1982 - LEONARDO MAGAT v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-56973 August 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SABENIANO LOBETANIA

    201 Phil. 762

  • G.R. No. L-56995 August 30, 1982 - RAYMUNDO R. LIBRODO v. JOSE L. COSCOLLUELA, JR.

  • G.R. No. L-59548 August 30, 1982 - DAVAO LIGHT & POWER CO., INC. v. PACITA CAÑIZARES-NYE

    201 Phil. 777

  • G.R. No. L-59821 August 30, 1982 - ROWENA F. CORONA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    201 Phil. 782

  • G.R. No. L-60342 August 30, 1982 - FRANCISCO S. BANAAD v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    201 Phil. 788

  • G.R. No. L-28237 August 31, 1982 - BAY VIEW HOTEL, INC. v. KER & CO., LTD., ET AL.

    201 Phil. 794

  • G.R. No. L-29971 August 31, 1982 - ESSO STANDARD EASTERN, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    201 Phil. 803

  • G.R. No. L-32437 August 31, 1982 - SALANDANG PANGADIL, ET AL. v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF COTABATO, BRANCH I, ET AL.

    201 Phil. 813

  • G.R. No. L-36759 August 31, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NECESIO IMBO

    201 Phil. 821

  • G.R. No. L-37935 August 31, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CLEMENTE GANADO

    201 Phil. 828

  • G.R. No. L-38687 August 31, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FILOMENO HISUGAN

    201 Phil. 836

  • G.R. No. L-39777 August 31, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELIX ATIENZA

    201 Phil. 844

  • G.R. No. L-44707 August 31, 1982 - HICKOK MANUFACTURING CO., INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    201 Phil. 853

  • G.R. No. L-59887 August 31, 1982 - CHINA BANKING CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    201 Phil. 857

  • G.R. No. L-60687 August 31, 1982 - PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE COMPANY v. MINERVA C. GENOVEA

    201 Phil. 862

  • G.R. No. L-60800 August 31, 1982 - JAIME PELEJO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    201 Phil. 873

  • G.R. No. L-60987 August 31, 1982 - SAMUEL BAUTISTA v. NATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

    201 Phil. 879