Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1960 > November 1960 Decisions > G.R. No. L-15439 November 29, 1960 - ISAAC PERAL BOWLING ALLEY v. UNITED EMPLOYEES WELFARE ASSN.

110 Phil 227:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-15439. November 29, 1960.]

ISAAC PERAL BOWLING ALLEY, Petitioner, v. UNITED EMPLOYEES WELFARE ASSOCIATION AND THE HON. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, Respondents.

Felix S. Falgui for Petitioner.

Vidal Magbanua for respondent CIR.

Augurio Camu for respondent Association.


SYLLABUS


EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYEE; PINBOYS SHOULD RESPECT CUSTOMERS’ PROPERTY; MISCONDUCT TO THAT EFFECT SHOULD BE DETERRED. — In a bowling alley, which is maintained for public recreation customers often bring vehicles for private use which they leave beside the alley. It is absolutely necessary for the success of the business that pinboys employed should respect these customers’ vehicles or anybody else’s property. This norm of conduct should be observed not only with respect to customer’s property but also to other employee’s properties whether belonging to the union or not. To permit such a conduct to go unpunished would certainly encourage petty thievery among pinboys and employees and further abuses. Unions are not organized to abuse non- union members or the latter’s rights and any act of abuse by any member of a union against a non-union member should not be left unpunished.


D E C I S I O N


LABRADOR, J.:


This case was filed by the United Employees Welfare Association, respondent herein, with the Court of Industrial Relations on June 23, 1953, to secure the reinstatement of two pinboys, Avelino Morada and Godofredo Castel, alleged to have been illegally dismissed by the Isaac Peral Bowling Alley, petitioner herein, by reason of membership in the respondent association. Petitioner herein, opposed the motion for reinstatement alleging that the termination of the services of the said two pinboys was brought about by just and valid causes and never for union activities as alleged in the motion. After hearing, the Court of Industrial Relations in a decision dated January 19, 1959 ordered that the said pinboys, Morada and Castel, be reinstated with back wages from the time of their suspension or dismissal to November 6, 1958, with deduction for any amount earned by them during the period of said suspension or dismissal. From this decision, which was affirmed by the court en banc, the Isaac Peral Bowling Alley prosecuted the present appeal.

The Court below conducted a hearing and made the following findings —

"After a careful perusal of the evidence submitted by both parties in this case, this Court finds the following facts to be undisputed; that Avelino Morado and Godofredo Castel worked for respondent Isaac Peral Bowling Alley as pinboys from 1951 to June 22, 1953 when their services were terminated by the respondent company; that Antonio Martinez and Pedro Cedano were likewise employed in the respondent company as pinboy and janitor, respectively, with the former still working while the latter resigned recently; that Morado and Castel were the chapter president and auditor. respectively, of petitioner United Employees Welfare Association while still working, and that Martinez and Cedano were non-union members; that on June 18, 1953 at about 4:00 P.M. at the back of the respondent company, an alteration and a near fight occurred between Morado and Castel, on the one hand, and Martinez and Cedano, on the other; that the main cause of the said alteration and controversy was Morado’s taking and Infante’s using a bicycle of Martinez who resented what they did, then resulting in a hot exchange of words between the parties involved; that an actual physical fight with knives and lead pipe between the two groups did not take place as a consequence, as one grout tried to challenge the other to avoid a fight; that immediately after the aforesaid incident, the protagonists were brought to the Manila Police Department (Precinct No. 4) for investigation and were released thereafter; that on June 19, 1953. the parties were investigated by the respondent company who admonished them not to repeat the incident, as the same is not only prejudicial to them but to the respondent business; that on June 22, 1953, the respondent company terminated the services of pinboys Morado and Castel and warned pinboy Martinez and janitor Cedano, both of whom were retained in their services." (pp. 6-8. Annex "C")

x       x       x


"It would, however, seem from the facts given that the immediate and proximate cause of the dismissal on June 22, 1953 of Morado and Castel was the altercation on June 18, 1953 as above described. As to whether the said incident is a just cause for the dismissal of the above-named individuals is a question which should be resolved in the light of the provisions of Republic Act No. 875 which took effect on June 17, 1953. This, it is believed, is more in keeping with the spirit of the Industrial Peace Act and with the protection of labor clause of the Constitution.

"From the evidence on record, this Court believes and so holds that there was obvious discrimination manifested by the respondent between Morado and Castel, on one side, and Martinez and Cedano, on the other. For while the former who were admittedly members of the petitioner union were outrightly separated from the service, the latter who were non-union members were merely given warning." (pp. 10-11, Annex "C")

The first ground raised in this appeal is lack of jurisdiction on the part of the court below. The petition alleges unfair labor practices; consequently, the claim of lack of jurisdiction is absolutely without merit.

As to the other issue, we cannot agree with the court below that the dismissal of the two pinboys was an act of discrimination committed by respondent against the members of the union. As the court itself found, the immediate cause of the altercation between the dismissed pinboys and the other two non-member pinboys was the fact that Morada (union member) took a bicycle of one Martinez (non-union member) and gave it to Infante for his use, and as Martinez and Cedano (non-union members) resented the taking of the bicycle, the altercation arose between them. The altercation was evidently, caused by an act of misappropriation of the bicycle and its use through the acts of Morada. Not because Morada was the chapter president of the union was he justified in appropriating, without the consent of the owner, the bicycle belonging to a non-union member. His act was an abuse of his position as president of the union, and his subsequent act in thereafter claiming that this dismissal was due to discrimination, evinces a predisposition to falsify facts. In a bowling alley, which is maintained for public recreation, customers often bring vehicles for private use which they leave beside the alley. It is absolutely necessary for the success of the business that pinboys employed should respect to customer’s property but also to other employee’s properties whether belonging to the union or not. To permit such a conduct to go unpunished would certainly encourage petty thievery among pinboys and employees and further abuses. Unions are not organized to abuse non-union members or the latter’s rights and any act of abuse by any member of a union against a non-union member should not be left unpunished.

For the foregoing considerations we find that the dismissal of the two pinboys, members of the union, was fully justified. The judgment appealed should be, as it is hereby, reversed, with costs against the respondent United Employees Welfare Association.

Bengzon, Bautista Angelo, Gutierrez David, Paredes and Dizon, JJ., concur.

Separate Opinions


BARRERA, J. : dissenting:clubjuris

I dissent.

From the facts found by the Court of Industrial Relations, it is clear to me that the principal, if not the only, reason for the dismissal of the pin-boys Avelino Morada and Godofredo Castel, was their union activities, they being the chapter president and auditor respectively of respondent labor union. Such dismissal could not be the result of the unauthorized use of the bicycle, which the majority qualified as misappropriation, because Castel did not take part therein (it was Morada who took it and Infante, another pin-boy, who used the same) and yet be (Castel) was dismissed. Neither could the altercation be the cause of the dismissal, because of the four participants, only Morada and Castel were dismissed, while Martinez and Cedano, who were non-members, were retained. Under the circumstances, I agree with the Court of Industrial Relations that there was obvious discrimination against the unionist pin-boys.

Paras, C.J., Padilla and Reyes, J.B.L., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main


ClubJuris.Com



November-1960 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-11001 November 23, 1960 - FORTUNATO V. BORROMEO v. GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM

    110 Phil 1

  • G.R. No. L-12125 November 23, 1960 - LUIS G. ABLAZA v. AMANCIO SYCIP

    110 Phil 4

  • G.R. No. L-13251 November 23, 1960 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. ALTO SURETY & INSURANCE CO., INC.

    110 Phil 9

  • G.R. No. L-14223 November 23, 1960 - SABINA SANTIAGO v. J. M. TUASON & CO., INC.

    110 Phil 16

  • G.R. No. L-14569 November 23, 1960 - BENITO CODILLA v. JOSE L. MARTINEZ

    110 Phil 24

  • G.R. No. L-14641 November 23, 1960 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. EUSTAQUIO DE LUNA

    110 Phil 28

  • G.R. No. L-14764 November 23, 1960 - CENON VILLANUEVA v. BARBER WILHELMSEN LINE

    110 Phil 34

  • G.R. No. L-14864 November 23, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUANITO SOLON

    110 Phil 39

  • G.R. No. L-14897 November 23, 1960 - JESUS NEPOMUCENO v. REHABILITATION FINANCE CORPORATION

    110 Phil 42

  • G.R. No. L-15904 November 23, 1960 - ELIZALDE PAINT & OIL FACTORY, INC. v. JOSE S. BAUTISTA

    110 Phil 49

  • G.R. No. L-16022 November 23, 1960 - NATALIA B. NICOMEDES v. CHIEF OF CONSTABULARY

    110 Phil 52

  • G.R. No. L-13114 November 25, 1960 - ELENITA LEDESMA SILVA v. ESTHER PERALTA

    110 Phil 57

  • G.R. No. L-15276 November 28, 1960 - EPIFANIO J. ALANO v. CLARO CORTES

    110 Phil 74

  • G.R. No. L-7330 November 29, 1960 - JOSE BENARES v. CAPITOL SUBDIVISION, INC.

    110 Phil 79

  • G.R. No. L-10508 November 29, 1960 - PO ENG TRADING v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

    110 Phil 83

  • G.R. No. L-10810 November 29, 1960 - JOSEFINA RUIZ DE LUZURIAGA BLANCO v. COMPANIA GRAL. DE TABACOS DE FILIPINAS

    110 Phil 87

  • G.R. No. L-10836 November 29, 1960 - IN RE: PROCOPY MOSCAL v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    110 Phil 99

  • G.R. No. L-11325 November 29, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BOTO BALONTO

    110 Phil 102

  • G.R. No. L-11482 November 29, 1960 - ESTEBAN T. BUMANGLAG v. JOSE FERNANDEZ

    110 Phil 107

  • G.R. No. L-11837 November 29, 1960 - MAGDALENA G. VDA. DE CUAYCONG v. CRISTETA L. VDA. DE SENGBENGCO

    110 Phil 113

  • G.R. No. L-12275 November 29, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TEOTIMO RUBINIAL

    110 Phil 119

  • G.R. No. L-12508 November 29, 1960 - JOSE L. LAGRIMAS v. ROBERTO ZURBANO

    110 Phil 127

  • G.R. Nos. L-13107-08 November 29, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DIO DELMAS

    110 Phil 132

  • G.R. No. L-13173 November 29, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFREDO SORIO

    110 Phil 138

  • G.R. No. L-14217 November 29, 1960 - LUZ H. COLOMA v. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    110 Phil 145

  • G.R. No. L-14274 November 29, 1960 - COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS v. SERREE INVESTMENT COMPANY

    110 Phil 148

  • G.R. No. L-14283 November 29, 1960 - GIL BALBUNA v. SECRETARY OF EDUCATION

    110 Phil 150

  • G.R. No. L-14382 November 29, 1960 - REMEDIOS CUENCO VDA. DE BORROMEO v. COURT OF APPEALS

    110 Phil 155

  • G.R. No. L-14559 November 29, 1960 - REYNALDO MADRIÑAN v. VICENTE G. SINCO

    110 Phil 160

  • G.R. No. L-14567 November 29, 1960 - ELENA PERALTA VDA. DE CAINA v. COURT OF APPEALS

    110 Phil 164

  • G.R. No. L-14594 November 29, 1960 - SEVERINO CAÑGAS v. TAN CHUAN LEONG

    110 Phil 168

  • G.R. No. L-14611 November 29, 1960 - EVANGELINO LASERNA v. MARIA JAVIER

    110 Phil 172

  • G.R. No. L-14656 November 29, 1960 - PHILIPPINE LAND-AIR-SEA LABOR UNION (PLASLU) v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

    110 Phil 176

  • G.R. No. L-14682 November 29, 1960 - FRANCISCO EVARISTO v. OLEGARIO LASTRILLA

    110 Phil 181

  • G.R. No. L-14690 November 29, 1960 - JESUS S. DIZON v. JOSE T. GARCIA, SR.

    110 Phil 186

  • G.R. No. L-14769 November 29, 1960 - LAURO P. LEVISTE v. EUSEBIO F. RAMOS

    110 Phil 190

  • G.R. No. L-14780 November 29, 1960 - POMPEYO L. PALARCA v. RESTITUTA BAROL DE ANZON

    110 Phil 194

  • G.R. Nos. L-14785 & L-14923 November 29, 1960 - FELIX ABE v. FOSTER WHEELER CORPORATION

    110 Phil 198

  • G.R. No. L-14983 November 29, 1960 - AGRIPINA VDA. DE ALBURO v. FILOMENA VDA. DE UMBAO

    110 Phil 210

  • G.R. No. L-15231 November 29, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARTEMIO PERVEZ

    110 Phil 214

  • G.R. No. L-15271 November 29, 1960 - ONG YET MUA HARDWARE CO. v. MANILA RAILROAD CO.

    110 Phil 219

  • G.R. No. L-15312 November 29, 1960 - IN RE: JUAN TACDORO v. JESUS ARCENAS

    110 Phil 222

  • G.R. No. L-15439 November 29, 1960 - ISAAC PERAL BOWLING ALLEY v. UNITED EMPLOYEES WELFARE ASSN.

    110 Phil 227

  • G.R. No. L-15551 November 29, 1960 - DAVID CONSUNJI v. MANILA PORT SERVICE

    110 Phil 231

  • G.R. No. L-15593 November 29, 1960 - MARIA BALDO v. PEDRO GUERRERO

    110 Phil 235

  • G.R. Nos. L-15618, L-16000 & L-16116 November 29, 1960 - ATLANTIC MUTUAL INSURANCE CO. v. MANILA PORT SERVICE

    110 Phil 240

  • G.R. No. L-15671 November 29, 1960 - AMERICAN PRESIDENT LINES, LTD. v. RICHARD A. KLEPPER

    110 Phil 243

  • G.R. No. L-15804 November 29, 1960 - SANCHO B. DE LEON v. ESTANISLAO FAUSTINO

    110 Phil 249

  • G.R. No. L-15925 November 29, 1960 - ESTELA FRANCISCO DE LASALA v. PEDRO SARNATE

    110 Phil 255

  • G.R. No. L-16028 November 29, 1960 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. DALMACIO URTULA

    110 Phil 262

  • G.R. No. L-16030 November 29, 1960 - SEGUNDA INOCANDO v. JUAN INOCANDO

    110 Phil 266

  • G.R. No. L-16068 November 29, 1960 - CONSUELO S. CALALANG v. INTESTATE ESTATE OF GERVACIO TANJANGCO

    110 Phil 270

  • G.R. No. L-16093 November 29, 1960 - LOCAL 7, PRESS & PRINTING FREE WORKERS v. EMILIANO TABIGNE

    110 Phil 276

  • G.R. No. L-16406 November 29, 1960 - PRIMO QUETULIO v. DELFIN B. FLORES

    110 Phil 284

  • G.R. Nos. L-16409 & L-16416 November 29, 1960 - ALEJANDRO L. GUMPAL v. MANUEL ARRANZ

    110 Phil 287

  • G.R. No. L-16523 November 29, 1960 - LUIS G. PERALTA v. FELIXBERTO SERRANO

    110 Phil 301