Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1968 > September 1968 Decisions > G.R. No. L-24498 September 21, 1968 - TANGLAW NG PAGGAWA v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-24498. September 21, 1968.]

TANGLAW NG PAGGAWA, Petitioner, v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS & RED V COCONUT PRODUCTS, LTD., Respondents.

A. V. Villacorta for Petitioner.

Romeo A. Real for Respondent.


SYLLABUS


1. LABOR AND SOCIAL LEGISLATIONS; INDUSTRIAL PEACE ACT; UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE; NON-ENFORCEMENT OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT; NO EVIDENCE SHOWN AGAINST EMPLOYER IN INSTANT CASE. — We find substantial support for the finding of the Industrial Court that there is no sufficient evidence "to show that the non-enforcement of the collective bargaining agreement was the reason for the resignation of a few members of complainant Union", and "that it is very apparent in the face of the agreement that the company acted in good faith when they entered into the said agreement." The only direct evidence on the point is the testimony of the union vice-president, which is not only naturally biased but hearsay in its nature, since the reasons for the resignation of the union members could only be known to him from what the former revealed. As the letters of resignation did not make any reference to the bargaining agreement, and were, moreover, dated after the unfair practice charges had been filed in the Court of Industrial Relations, i.e., post litem motam, the Industrial Court was justified in refusing to credit the union official’s testimony for lack of corroboration.

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; CLEAR PROOF REQUIRED. — It stands to reason that unfair labor practice being in the nature of a criminal offense, the same must be clearly proved by direct or circumstantial evidence.

3. ID.; ID.; COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT; INTERPRETATION THEREOF DEVOLVES UPON REGULAR COURTS IN THE ABSENCE OF UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE. — In the absence of an unfair labor practice, the issue in this case becomes reduced to the interpretation and enforcement of the contractual stipulations between labor and management, which devolves upon the regular courts, not upon the Industrial Court.


D E C I S I O N


REYES, J.B.L., J.:


Petition for review of the dismissal en banc by the Court of Industrial Relations, for lack of jurisdiction, of a complaint, docketed as Case No. 3153-ULP, filed by the herein petitioner labor union, Tanglaw Ng Paggawa, against the respondent company, Red V Coconut Products, Ltd., for unfair labor practice in having caused a depletion in the membership of the union by refusing to comply with the provisions of a collective bargaining agreement involving, inter alia, vacation leave and night differential pay.

Sometime in October, 1961, the petitioner union and the respondent company entered into a collective agreement covering many facets of their relationship. One of the stipulations in the agreement provides:ClubJuris

"PAYMENT — Mill EMPLOYEES who work 90% or more of the milling days at their designated jobs shall receive 15 days vacation leave pay if the mill has worked 170 or more days between January 1st and December 31st, otherwise the EMPLOYEE shall receive vacation pay at the rate of 1 day’s pay for every 15 days of mill operation." clubjuris

"Mill EMPLOYEES who work less than 90% of the milling days at their designated jobs, shall received 1 day’s pay for every 20 days they have worked between January 1st and December 31st up to a maximum of 15 days." (Par. 15, Vacation Plan, Appendix "B" BENEFITS, of the Agreement, Annex "H" of the Petition.)

The complainant union demanded payment of vacation leave for employees listed in Annex "A" of the complaint but the company refused, on the ground that "complainant would like to apply the first paragraph of the particular provision starting from the otherwise proviso while respondent was applying to the complainants the second paragraph of the aforestated provision" (Decision of trial court, Annex "D" page 10.)

Unable to bring management around to its own interpretation of the disputed provisions of the bargaining contract, the union brought charges of unfair labor practice against the employer company, accusing the latter of refusing in bad faith to comply with the collective contract on vacation leave and night differential pay, leading to a wave of resignations from the union that reduced its membership from 800 to around 700.

While the hearing judge found for the union, the Industrial Court en banc, upon appeal of the employer thereto, found no sufficient evidence "to show that the non-enforcement of the collective bargaining agreement was the reason for the resignation of a few members of complainant Union", and "that it is very apparent in the face of the agreement that the company acted in good faith when they entered into the said agreement" (Resolution, Annex "G", pages 4-5). With regard to the night shift differential claims, the court en banc held that the same had already been decided by it in Case No. 1642-V, which had been appealed to the Supreme Court. Thus, the Court of Industrial Relations concluded that, there being no unfair labor practice on the part of the company, the question was reduced to one of interpretation and enforcement of the bargaining agreement which should be settled by the regular courts, and, as previously stated, dismissed the case for the want of jurisdiction.

Its attempt to have the decision reconsidered being fruitless, the union appealed to this Court.

It will be seen that the main issue is one of fact: was the conduct of the employer discriminatory and intended to prejudice the union by aiming to reduce its membership? The Industrial Court answered the question in the negative, and this finding finds substantial support in the record. The only direct evidence on the point is the testimony of the union vice-president, Pedro Barba, which is not only naturally biased but hearsay in its nature, since the reasons for the resignation of the union members could only be known to him from what the former revealed. As the letters of resignation submitted in support of the union’s allegations did not make any reference to the bargaining agreement, and were, moreover, dated after the unfair practice charges had been filed in the Court of Industrial Relations, i.e., post litem motam, the court a quo was justified in refusing to credit Barba’s testimony for lack of corroboration.

It stands to reason that unfair labor practice being in the nature of a criminal offense, the same must be clearly proved, by direct or circumstantial evidence, and can not be merely presumed from the fact of the members’ resignation. Not only this: the employer must be shown to have designed its conduct to produce resignations, and of this no evidence is produced, or referred to, in the appellant’s own briefs. Not only did the Court of Industrial Relations declare that there was no evidence of discrimination since the company enforced its interpretation of the vacation leave and shift differential "to all its employees irrespective of union affiliation" (Resolution, pages 3- 4), but it also found that the vacation leave provision was enforced by the company from January 1, 1961, despite the stipulation that the contract providing the same was to be effective only as of August 15, 1961. The Industrial Court found this retroactive enforcement as negativing the company’s bad faith, and we find no reason to hold this view to be unjustified or improper.

On the question of night shift differential, the union stresses that the previous case (No. 1642-V) was for recovery of its money value, while, in the case at bar, the charge is for unfair labor practice. Obviously, even if it is adjudged that the company is bound to pay such differentials, it is still questionable whether its refusal to do so was done to prejudice the union. No clear evidence exists on this point.

The findings of fact made by the Industrial Court being reasonably supported by the record, they are binding upon this Court. In the absence of an unfair labor practice, the issue becomes reduced to a simple case of divergence of opinion between labor and management as to how their agreement on vacation leave should be applied. Hence, the proper issue on this matter is the interpretation and enforcement of the contractual stipulations, which devolves upon the regular courts, not upon the Industrial Court (Phil. Sugar Institute v. C.I.R., Et Al., L-13098, October 29, 1959, 106 Phil. 401; Elizalde Paint & Oil Factory Inc., v. Hon. Jose S. Bautista, Et Al., L-15904, November 23, 1960; National Mines & Allied Worker’s Union v. Phil. Iron Mines, Inc., Et Al., L-19372, October 31, 1964; Dee Cho Lumber Workers Union v. Dee Cho Lumber Co., L-10080, April 30, 1957, 101 Phil. 417; Nasipit Labor Union (MFL) v. C.I.R., Et Al., L-17838, August 3, 1966). No error, and much less abuse of discretion, exists, therefore, in the Court of Industrial Relations declining jurisdiction.

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the resolution under review is hereby affirmed with costs against the petitioner.

Concepcion, C.J., Dizon, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Sanchez, Castro, Angeles and Fernando, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main


ClubJuris.Com



September-1968 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-20977 September 7, 1968 - JOAQUIN P. NEMENZO v. BERNABE SABILLANO

  • G.R. No. L-28470 September 19, 1968 - REAL MONASTERIO v. DOMINGO FABIAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24498 September 21, 1968 - TANGLAW NG PAGGAWA v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24687 September 21, 1968 - IN RE: FONG CHOY v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-25135 September 21, 1968 - PHILIPPINE MEDICAL ASSOCIATION v. BOARD OF MEDICAL EXAMINERS

  • G.R. No. L-25484 September 21, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SERVILLANO MA. MODESTO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-29417 September 21, 1968 - EDILBERTA P. ANOTA, ET AL. v. EDUARDO BERMUDO, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21303 September 23, 1968 - REPUBLIC BANK v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21942 September 23, 1968 - ELIZALDE & CO., INC. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25791 September 23, 1968 - CARLOS B. GONZALES v. EULOGIO SERRANO

  • G.R. No. L-24833 September 23, 1968 - FIELDMEN’S INSURANCE CO., INC. v. MERCEDES VARGAS VDA. DE SONGCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24202 September 23, 1968 - C.A. CHIONG SHIPPING CO., ET AL. v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21070 September 23, 1968 - REPUBLIC TELEPHONE CO., INC. v. PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE CO., INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21402 September 23, 1968 - NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION v. JOSE ARAÑAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24303 September 23, 1968 - BEATRIZ C. ARAGONES, ET AL. v. ABELARDO SUBIDO

  • G.R. No. L-26137 September 23, 1968 - EUGENIO V. VILLANUEVA, JR. v. JOSE R. QUERUBIN

  • G.R. No. L-18010 September 25, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TEOFILO CABILTES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24656 September 25, 1968 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. NUMERIANO C. ESTENZO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25031 September 25, 1968 - ISIDORO GEVEROLA v. VICENTE N. CUSI, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25379 September 25, 1968 - JOSE L. LACHICA, ET AL. v. JUAN E. YAP

  • G.R. No. L-22733 September 25, 1968 - SALVADOR BENEDICTO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23302 September 25, 1968 - ALEJANDRO RAS v. ESTELA SUA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25132 September 25, 1968 - FRANCISCO DUQUE v. GAVINA CRUZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28927 September 25, 1968 - LAGUNA COLLEGE v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-29193 September 26, 1968 - CIPRIANO P. MALIWANAG v. AMEURFINA MELENCIO-HERRERA

  • G.R. No. L-25531 September 26, 1968 - ELENO T. SANGALANG, SR. v. HUGO H. CAINGAT

  • G.R. No. L-21299 September 27, 1968 - ANSELMA PENDON, ET AL. v. JOSE R. CABATUANDO

  • G.R. No. L-21183 September 27, 1968 - VICTORIAS MILLING, CO., INC. v. MUNICIPALITY OF VICTORIAS

  • G.R. No. L-23991 September 27, 1968 - UNITED SEAMEN’S UNION OF THE PHILIPPINES v. COMPAÑIA MARITIMA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25222 September 27, 1968 - BESSIE M. GRAY, ET AL. v. VICENTE C. KIUNGCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25226 September 27, 1968 - ISABELO PINZA v. TEOFILO ALDOVINO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25790 September 27, 1968 - JOSE A. GARCIA v. ADELAIDA CRUZ

  • G.R. No. L-28493 September 27, 1968 - AGRIPINA J. VALDEZ, ET AL. v. ESTELA DIZON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-29362 September 27, 1968 - DOMESTIC INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE PHILIPPINES v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-23958 September 28, 1968 - EASTERN PAPER MILLS EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION-NATU v. EASTERN PAPER MILLS, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24489 September 28, 1968 - AUGUSTIN GRACILLA v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24503 September 28, 1968 - IN RE: LO BENG HA ONG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-24934 September 28, 1968 - J.M. TUASON & CO., INC. v. RAYMUNDO FAMILARA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25359 September 28, 1968 - ARADA LUMUNGO, JUHURI DAWA, ET AL. v. ASAAD USMAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25511 September 28, 1968 - PATRICIO S. CUNANAN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28246 September 28, 1968 - ROGELIO PUREZA, ET AL. v. ALBERTO AVERIA

  • G.R. No. L-29532 September 28, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIANO OANDASAN

  • G.R. No. L-20993 September 28, 1968 - RIZAL LIGHT & ICE CO., INC. v. MUNICIPALITY OF MORONG, RIZAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22110 September 28, 1968 - CRISTOBAL MARCOS, ET AL. v. MARIA JESUS DE ERQUIAGA DE BANUVAR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23312 September 28, 1968 - JULIO GATLABAYAN, ET AL. v. EMILIANO C. RAMIREZ

  • G.R. No. L-23370-71 September 28, 1968 - TERESA FERRER, ET AL. v. CESARIO C. GOLEZ

  • G.R. No. L-23832 September 28, 1968 - PROCESO APOLEGA v. PERSEVERANDA HIZON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24155 September 28, 1968 - DELFIN SANTOS, ET AL. v. ROBERTO E. CHICO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25133 September 28, 1968 - JOSE SANTIAGO v. CELSO ALIKPALA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25361 September 28, 1968 - LEONARDO NAVARRO v. LUIS L. LARDIZABAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-29026 September 28, 1968 - PANTALEON PACIS v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-29471 September 28, 1968 - PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF FREE LABOR UNIONS v. JOAQUIN M. SALVADOR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21544 September 30, 1968 - J.M TUASON & CO., INC. v. ATANACIO MUNAR

  • G.R. No. L-25051 September 30, 1968 - JOSE B. ROXAS, ET AL. v. PEDRO BERMUDEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25150 September 30, 1968 - ANICIA CADIZ v. SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE, ET AL.