EN
BANC
NATIONAL
FASTENER
CORPORATION OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Petitioner,
G.
R.
No. L-15834
January
20, 1961
-versus-
COURT OF
INDUSTRIAL
RELATIONS
AND
NATIONAL
FASTENER
EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION [PTUC],
Respondents.
D
E C I S I
O N
REYES,
J.B.L., J :
Petition for
Certiorari
to set aside the Resolution en banc dated July 17, 1959, of the
Court of Industrial Relations, modifying the Decision of His Honor,
Presiding
Judge Jose S. Bautista, by ordering the reinstatement of Celestino
Blas,
a member of the respondent union, with back wages, and finding the
petitioner
corporation guilty of unfair labor practice.
In a Complaint dated
November 29, 1958, herein petitioner National Fastener Corporation of
the
Philippines was charged before the respondent Court of Industrial
Relations
with unfair labor practice under the provisions of Sec. 4(a), (1), (4)
and (5) of Republic Act No. 875, allegedly committed as follows:
"That respondent
corporation
through its president and general manager, Hans. M. Menzi, dismissed
Celestino
Blas, an employee at said corporation and Sergeant-at-arms of the
complainant
union, on July 17, 1958, in order to discourage union membership and
also
because of his having testified in the Court of Industrial Relations,
Case
No. 1340-ULP, entitled `National Fastener Employees Association (PTUC)
versus National Fastener Corporation of the Philippines and Santiago
Elizaga
and Enrique Mesina', on February 10, 1958."
Petitioner denied the charge
in its Answer of December 5, 1958, by averring that it was constrained
to dismiss Celestino Blas for just and valid grounds, particularly in
view
of the latter's absenteeism from work.
On June 13, 1959, the
Hon. Jose S. Bautista, Presiding Judge, after due hearing, rendered a
Decision,
declaring therein respondent corporation guilty of unfair labor
practice
as charged and ordering the reinstatement of Celestino Blas to his work
without backpay. Upon motion for reconsideration filed by both parties,
the Court en banc promulgated the appealed Resolution,
sustaining
the findings of unfair labor practice, but, this time, ordering
Celestino
Blas' reinstatement with back wages. Judge Bautista dissented from this
modification.
In this Petition for
Certiorari, petitioner corporation contends that the respondent Court
of
Industrial Relations abused its discretion in ordering the
reinstatement
of Celestino Blas with backpay, in finding petitioner guilty of unfair
labor practice, and in not upholding its [petitioner's] stand that
Blas'
dismissal from the company was justified.
We see no merit in
the appeal.
It is true that
Celestino
Blas committed certain irregularities during his employment, and this
fact
is not denied by the respondent union. These irregularities, however,
were,
except for the alleged absences without leave on May 5 and 6, 1958,
committed
long before Blas' dismissal, for which he was already reprimanded or
otherwise
punished by the petitioner. The immediate cause of discharge, it would
appear, was the fact that on July 7, 1958 to July 19, 1958, Blas
absented
himself from work, allegedly without previous authority from the
management.
This matter was testified to by Santiago Elizaga, the superintendent of
the corporation. According to Celestino Blas, however, between 7:00 to
8:00 o'clock on the morning of July 7, 1958, he went to the main office
of the company at 183 Soler, Manila, purposely to see its president and
general manager, and there he was able to secure said official's
permission
to go on vacation leave, without pay. The question of whom to believe
being
a matter largely dependent on the trier's discretion, the findings of
the
Industrial Court which had the better opportunity to examine and
appraise
the factual issues, certainly deserve respect.
Neither is the lower
Court's finding on the commission of unfair labor practice by the
petitioner
corporation so lacking in the requisite support as to warrant a
reversal
thereof [See Sec. 6, Republic Act No. 875].[1]
There is testimony to the effect that, on several occasions, Celestino
Blas was approached and instructed by Santiago Elizaga not to affiliate
with the complainant union; that to further discourage such membership,
Blas was promised that should he comply with the request of the
management,
he would be given a raise in salary; and that when the management came
to know of his affiliation with respondent union, and because he
testified
in another unfair labor practice case [Case No. 1340-ULP] against
petitioner
corporation and Santiago Elizaga, he was served with a stern warning
that
any little infraction on his part would mean his outright dismissal
from
work. Elizaga himself admitted that there were other employees who
incurred
absences without leave, and yet said erring employees were not
discharged
by the company. It may not be amiss to state also that Santiago
Elizaga's
report to the management [Exh. "8"], which immediately preceded, and
most
likely prompted, Celestino Blas' dismissal, made significant mention of
the fact that "Blas is a member of the P.T.U.C., with whom we
[petitioner]
have a pending case at the C.I.R."
It is contended that
if it were true that the company intended to discourage union
membership,
then it could have done better by dismissing more active officials of
the
respondent union than Celestino Blas, who was just its
sergeant-at-arms.
But that would have made the design too obvious and, no doubt, would
have
been more risky for the company to do. For the same reason, We cannot
readily
accept petitioner's proposition that had the corporation really wanted
to discriminate against Blas because of his damaging testimony in said
ULP Case No. 1340, it would have likewise dismissed the other two
employees
who, like Blas, testified critically against the company and Elizaga.
In short, as the record
stands, We cannot say that the decision of the Industrial Court is not
sustained by substantial evidence. That there are circumstances
militating
against its conclusions does not warrant reversing it, since in appeals
of this kind, preponderance of evidence is not the issue, but whether
that
relied upon in the appealed decision is at all credible.
As to the award of
backpay, that matter rests within the sound discretion of the
Industrial
Court [Sec. 5(a), Republic Act No. 875, Velez vs. PAV Watchman's Union
and the Court of Industrial Relations, 107 Phil., 689; 58 Off. Gaz. (7)
1309].
WHEREFORE, the
Resolution
appealed from is affirmed. Costs against petitioner-appellant.
Paras, C.J.,
Bengzon, Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Barrera,
Gutierrez
David, Paredes and Dizon, JJ., concur.
__________________________
Endnote:[1]
See also United Lines, et al, vs. Ass. Watchmen & Security Union,
et
al., G.R. Nos. L-12208-11, May 21, 1958. |