FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 47486. November 16, 1940. ]
MANILA TRADING SUPPLY CO., Petitioner, v. PHILIPPINE LABOR UNION, Respondent.
Ross, Lawrence, Selph & Carrascoso for Petitioner.
Manabat & Fajardo for Respondent.
SYLLABUS
1. EMPLOYERS AND EMPLOYEES; COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS; REFERENCE OF DISPUTE TO A LOCAL BOARD, ETC. — As may be seen, section 10 of Commonwealth Act No. 103 authorizes the Court of Industrial Relations, "for the sake of expedience and depending on the nature all extent of the facts and questions involved," to "refer any industrial or agricultural dispute, or any matter under consideration or advertisement by the court under the provisions of section four hereof to a local board of inquiry, a provincial fiscal, a justice of the peace or any public official in any part of the Philippines for investigation, report, and recommendation, and may delegate to such board or public official such powers and functions as the said Court of Industrial Relations may deem necessary; but such delegation shall not affect the exercise by the court itself of any of its powers or functions." The same section, however, provides that "the court may take into account or set aside the recommendation of any such board or public official in deciding the dispute and making its decision, award or order." The reference of the case to Attorney M. E. for investigation and report appears to have been made pursuant to this provision of Commonwealth Act No. 103. In the investigation made by Attorney E, it appears that the petitioner was represented by an attorney who has heard and given an opportunity to cross-examine and to present his side of the case. The petitioner does not attribute any irregularity committed in this investigation; neither does it impute distortion or misrepresentation of facts. At least no representation to this effect was made to the Court of Industrial Relations when the report of Attorney E was submitted. Under these circumstances, we cannot say that the failure of the Court of Industrial Relations to set Attorney E’S report for a hearing deprived the petitioner of a "fair and open hearing."cralaw virtua1aw library
2. ID.; ID.; POWER TO ORDER DISCHARGE OR REINSTATEMENT OF EMPLOYEES. — It appears that the discharge of D was ordered while the main industrial dispute was pending decision before the Court of Industrial Relations. Under the provisions of section 19 of Commonwealth Act No. 103, as amended, the said court is authorized to require his continuation in the service under the last terms and conditions existing before the dispute arose. The purpose of this requirement is to maintain the parties in status quo during the pendency of the dispute in order to safeguard the public interest and to enable the court to settle such dispute effectively. It is to be noted that under the same section, the Court of Industrial Relations is also empowered to enjoin the employee or laborer not to strike or walk out of his employment, or if he has already done so, to require him to forthwith return to it, when public interest so requires.
3. ID.; ID.; ID. — It is admitted, however, that an employer cannot legally be compelled to continue an employee or laborer in the service when a justifiable cause for his discharge exists, but since under section 19 of Commonwealth Act No. 103 the authority of the Court of Industrial Relations to require his continuance in the service is incidental to the pendency of an industrial dispute before it, it necessarily follows that the said court has the power to determine whether such cause exists. In the instant case, the Court of Industrial Relations having reached the conclusion that the dismissal of A. D. is groundless and unjustified, the doctrine in Manila Trading & Supply co. v. Zulueta (G. R. No. 46863, promulgated January 30, 1940),is not applicable. Upon the other hand, and as was observed in the case of Ang Tibay v. Court of Industrial Relations (G. R. No. 46496, promulgated May 29, 1939), "the policy of laissez faire has to some extent given way to the assumption by the Government of the right of intervention even in contractual relations affected with public interest."
2. ID.; ID.; POWER TO ORDER DISCHARGE OR REINSTATEMENT OF EMPLOYEES. — It appears that the discharge of D was ordered while the main industrial dispute was pending decision before the Court of Industrial Relations. Under the provisions of section 19 of Commonwealth Act No. 103, as amended, the said court is authorized to require his continuation in the service under the last terms and conditions existing before the dispute arose. The purpose of this requirement is to maintain the parties in status quo during the pendency of the dispute in order to safeguard the public interest and to enable the court to settle such dispute effectively. It is to be noted that under the same section, the Court of Industrial Relations is also empowered to enjoin the employee or laborer not to strike or walk out of his employment, or if he has already done so, to require him to forthwith return to it, when public interest so requires.
3. ID.; ID.; ID. — It is admitted, however, that an employer cannot legally be compelled to continue an employee or laborer in the service when a justifiable cause for his discharge exists, but since under section 19 of Commonwealth Act No. 103 the authority of the Court of Industrial Relations to require his continuance in the service is incidental to the pendency of an industrial dispute before it, it necessarily follows that the said court has the power to determine whether such cause exists. In the instant case, the Court of Industrial Relations having reached the conclusion that the dismissal of A. D. is groundless and unjustified, the doctrine in Manila Trading & Supply co. v. Zulueta (G. R. No. 46863, promulgated January 30, 1940),is not applicable. Upon the other hand, and as was observed in the case of Ang Tibay v. Court of Industrial Relations (G. R. No. 46496, promulgated May 29, 1939), "the policy of laissez faire has to some extent given way to the assumption by the Government of the right of intervention even in contractual relations affected with public interest."
D E C I S I O N
LAUREL, J.:
This is a petition for a writ of certiorari to review the resolution, dated May 25, 1940, of the Court of Industrial Relations entered in its case No. 49, entitled "Philippine Labor Union v. Manila Trading & Supply Co."cralaw virtua1aw library
On July 7, 1938, the Secretary of Labor certified to the Court of Industrial Relations that an industrial dispute existed between the petitioner and certain of its employees who are members of the respondent union, and that the controversy was a proper one to be dealt with by said Court in the public interest. The matter was thereupon docketed as case No. 49 of the Court of Industrial Relations, and given the title above indicated.
On July 11, 1939, and during the pendency of the industrial dispute mentioned above, the petitioner discharged Andres Dimapiles, a mechanic who had been in its employ since March 11, 1936. It is alleged that on July 1, 1939, the aforesaid employee absented himself from work without permission, and that upon his return to duty on July 3, 1939, he was warned by the petitioner that he would be dropped from the service upon the repetition of the same offense. On July 10, 1939, Andres Dimapiles again absented himself from work without permission, whereupon he was dismissed by the petitioner.
On July 15, 1939, the respondent union herein filed a petition in case No. 49, praying for an order of reinstatement in favor of Andres Dimapiles, alleging that this employee was discharged by the petitioner without just cause and without the express authority of the Court of Industrial Relations. On July 24, 1939, the petitioner filed its answer, praying denial of the petition for reinstatement.
The matter of the reinstatement of Andres Dimapiles was referred by the Court of Industrial Relations, for investigation, to Mr. Manuel Escudero, an attorney of said court, before whom evidence was submitted by the parties. Attorney Escudero subsequently filed a report of his findings and recommendations with the Court of Industrial Relations, and on August 3, 1939, the Honorable Jose G. Generoso, one of the Judges of said court, promulgated an order the pertinent portion of which is as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"Visto el informe del Letrado de este Tribunal, que investigo los meritos de la peticion asi como las defensas de la recurrida, el Juzgado encuentra: que el obrero Andres Dimapiles, ha estado empleado en la compañia como mecanico desde el 11 de marzo de 1936 hasta el 11 de julio de 1939, en que fue despedido; que su despido fue injustificado, puesto que, en los dias 1.
On July 7, 1938, the Secretary of Labor certified to the Court of Industrial Relations that an industrial dispute existed between the petitioner and certain of its employees who are members of the respondent union, and that the controversy was a proper one to be dealt with by said Court in the public interest. The matter was thereupon docketed as case No. 49 of the Court of Industrial Relations, and given the title above indicated.
On July 11, 1939, and during the pendency of the industrial dispute mentioned above, the petitioner discharged Andres Dimapiles, a mechanic who had been in its employ since March 11, 1936. It is alleged that on July 1, 1939, the aforesaid employee absented himself from work without permission, and that upon his return to duty on July 3, 1939, he was warned by the petitioner that he would be dropped from the service upon the repetition of the same offense. On July 10, 1939, Andres Dimapiles again absented himself from work without permission, whereupon he was dismissed by the petitioner.
On July 15, 1939, the respondent union herein filed a petition in case No. 49, praying for an order of reinstatement in favor of Andres Dimapiles, alleging that this employee was discharged by the petitioner without just cause and without the express authority of the Court of Industrial Relations. On July 24, 1939, the petitioner filed its answer, praying denial of the petition for reinstatement.
The matter of the reinstatement of Andres Dimapiles was referred by the Court of Industrial Relations, for investigation, to Mr. Manuel Escudero, an attorney of said court, before whom evidence was submitted by the parties. Attorney Escudero subsequently filed a report of his findings and recommendations with the Court of Industrial Relations, and on August 3, 1939, the Honorable Jose G. Generoso, one of the Judges of said court, promulgated an order the pertinent portion of which is as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"Visto el informe del Letrado de este Tribunal, que investigo los meritos de la peticion asi como las defensas de la recurrida, el Juzgado encuentra: que el obrero Andres Dimapiles, ha estado empleado en la compañia como mecanico desde el 11 de marzo de 1936 hasta el 11 de julio de 1939, en que fue despedido; que su despido fue injustificado, puesto que, en los dias 1.
