EN BANC
[G.R. No. 47233. December 19, 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; DISCRETION UNDER RULE-MAKING POWER; RIGHT OF PARTY TO PRESENT HIS CASE. — In view of the facts set out in the decision, it is clear that the petitioner was not deprived of its right to present its own case and to adduce evidence in support thereof. Section 10 of Commonwealth Act NO. 103 empowers the Court of Industrial Relations to "refer any industrial or agricultural dispute, or any matter under consideration or advisement 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 delicate 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 purpose of this provision is the expeditious dctermination of industrial and agricultural disputes and is in accord with the declared policy of freeing said court from the fetters of technicalities and legal forms, subject, of course, to the limitation that no party shall be deprived of his right to present his own case an l submit evidence in support thereof. And neither was petitioner denied this right when the said court refused to set its motion for reconsideration for oral argument. This is a matter which rests upon the sound discretion of the Court of Industrial Relations and which it may regulate in pursuance of its rule-making power under section 20 of Commonwealth Act No. 103.
2. ID; ID.; SECTION 19, AS AMENDED, OF COMMONWEALTH ACT NO. 103; SELECTION OR DISCHARGE OF EMPLOYEES — The evident purpose of section 19 is to maintain the parties in status quo during the pendency of an industrial or agricultural dispute in order to safeguard the public interest and aid the Court of Industrial Relations in the effective settlement of controversies which threaten to disrupt industrial peace and progress. As will be seen, the right of the employees, tenant;, or laborers to be continued in the service under the last terms and conditions existing before the dispute arose carries with it the corresponding obligation on their part not to strike or walk out of their employment, or to return to it if they have already done so. But the right of the employees or laborers to be continued in the service is not without limitation.
3. ID.; ID; ID.; ID. — As held in the case of Manila Trading & Supply Co. V8. Zulueta (G. R. No. 4G853), an employer cannot legally be compelled to continue with the employment of a person who admittedly was guilty of misfeasance or malfeasance towards his employer, and whose continuance in the service or the latter is patently inimical to his interests. That is to say, a discharge for a justifiable cause is allowed, and since under section 19 of Commonwealth Act No. 103 the obligation of the employer to continue the employee, tenant, or laborer in the service is incidental to the pendency of an agricultural or industrial dispute, and is imposed, as we have stated, in the public interest and to aid the court in the effective settlement of such dispute, the power of the said court to determine whether a justifiable cause exists is recognized. Similarly, section 19 has expressly empowered the Court of Industrial Relations to determine whether public interest requires that it order the laborer, tenant, or employee not to strike or walk out during the pendency of an agricultural or industrial dispute, and it is in this obvious spirit of the law that we should d construe the provision under consideration.
4. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID. — The right of an employer to freely select or discharge his employees is subject to regulation by the State basically in the exercise of its paramount police power. (Manila Trading & Supply Co. V8. Zulueta, supra.)
2. ID; ID.; SECTION 19, AS AMENDED, OF COMMONWEALTH ACT NO. 103; SELECTION OR DISCHARGE OF EMPLOYEES — The evident purpose of section 19 is to maintain the parties in status quo during the pendency of an industrial or agricultural dispute in order to safeguard the public interest and aid the Court of Industrial Relations in the effective settlement of controversies which threaten to disrupt industrial peace and progress. As will be seen, the right of the employees, tenant;, or laborers to be continued in the service under the last terms and conditions existing before the dispute arose carries with it the corresponding obligation on their part not to strike or walk out of their employment, or to return to it if they have already done so. But the right of the employees or laborers to be continued in the service is not without limitation.
3. ID.; ID; ID.; ID. — As held in the case of Manila Trading & Supply Co. V8. Zulueta (G. R. No. 4G853), an employer cannot legally be compelled to continue with the employment of a person who admittedly was guilty of misfeasance or malfeasance towards his employer, and whose continuance in the service or the latter is patently inimical to his interests. That is to say, a discharge for a justifiable cause is allowed, and since under section 19 of Commonwealth Act No. 103 the obligation of the employer to continue the employee, tenant, or laborer in the service is incidental to the pendency of an agricultural or industrial dispute, and is imposed, as we have stated, in the public interest and to aid the court in the effective settlement of such dispute, the power of the said court to determine whether a justifiable cause exists is recognized. Similarly, section 19 has expressly empowered the Court of Industrial Relations to determine whether public interest requires that it order the laborer, tenant, or employee not to strike or walk out during the pendency of an agricultural or industrial dispute, and it is in this obvious spirit of the law that we should d construe the provision under consideration.
4. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID. — The right of an employer to freely select or discharge his employees is subject to regulation by the State basically in the exercise of its paramount police power. (Manila Trading & Supply Co. V8. Zulueta, supra.)
D E C I S I O N
LAUREL, J.:
This is a petition for a writ of certiorari to review the resolution, dated January 15, 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 employee 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. After a preliminary conference, an order was entered on August t 6, 1938, by the Honorable Jose G. Generoso, one of the judges of said court, requiring the petitioner, inter alia, not to dismiss any of its employees and laborers without the cause and without the previous consent of the court.
On August 15, 1938, and during the pendency of the industrial dispute above referred to, the petitioner discharged the employee Gavino David, on the alleged ground of reduction of personnel and for irregularities committed by the said employee in the performance of his duties. On September 1, 1938, the respondent Philippine Labor Union filed a petition in Case No. 49, praying for the readmission of Gavino David and other employees who were similarly dismissed, alleging that their separation from the service was without just cause and without the previous consent of the Court of Industrial Relations. The matter was referred by the court to Mr. Manuel Escudero, attorney of said court, before whom evidence was taken. Mr. Escudero, on September 7, 1939, filed his report. C)n November 3, 19.’39, the Honorable Jose G. Generoso entered an order providing for the reinstatement of the discharged employees, including Gavino David, the dispositive part of which, in so far as it concerns David, reads as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"De las pruebas y demas datos, resulta probado:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
"Que en los balances de los libros de la compahia durante los años de 1937 y 1938 se demuestra que la misma ha marginado una ganancia razonable en proporcion a su capital invertido.
"Que la suspension indefinida de que se trata equivale a un despido porque en los talleres de la recurrida hay trabajo para los obreros suspendidos.
"La alegacion de la compania al efecto de oue Gavino David fue suspendido no solamente con el objeto de reducir el personal sino tambien porque es un obrero ineficiente y hologazan. . . no esta apoyada por los meritos del presente caso, pues resulta que los archivos de la compañia demuestran, segun investigacion del Auditor de este Tribunal y por propia admision de la recurrida, que Gavino David fue suspendido, segun su tarjeta de servicio (service card), por reduccion de personal, y solamente cuando se trajo el caso ante el Tribunal y se investigaron los despidos, es cuando la recurrida alego como una causa mas, la de ineficiencia y holgazaneria. Resulta que tal ineficiencia y holgazaneria lo deduce la recurrida del hecho de que Gavino David requirio mas tiempo del necesario, para volver a Manila cuando llevo un auto a Baguio por orden de dicha recurrida, y de Baguio salio para Dagupan, de cuyo municipio trajo un truck de segunda mano a Manila. Gavino David explico, que tuvo muchas roturas de gomas en el camino, y la recurrida por su parte, corroborando tal explicacion, aprobo y pago los gastos, en que habia incurrido dicho David en la cantidad de P31.72 por el referido viaje, algunos de los cuales representan pagos por vulcanizacion de gomas que se rompieron durante el viaje.
"Ateniendose a las conclusiones y consideraciones antes consignadas, el Tribunal es de opinion que los nueve obreros de que se trata, fueron privados de su trabajo por la recurrida con infraccion del art. 19 de la Ley No. 103 del Commonwealth, tal como esta reformado por el art. 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 employee 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. After a preliminary conference, an order was entered on August t 6, 1938, by the Honorable Jose G. Generoso, one of the judges of said court, requiring the petitioner, inter alia, not to dismiss any of its employees and laborers without the cause and without the previous consent of the court.
On August 15, 1938, and during the pendency of the industrial dispute above referred to, the petitioner discharged the employee Gavino David, on the alleged ground of reduction of personnel and for irregularities committed by the said employee in the performance of his duties. On September 1, 1938, the respondent Philippine Labor Union filed a petition in Case No. 49, praying for the readmission of Gavino David and other employees who were similarly dismissed, alleging that their separation from the service was without just cause and without the previous consent of the Court of Industrial Relations. The matter was referred by the court to Mr. Manuel Escudero, attorney of said court, before whom evidence was taken. Mr. Escudero, on September 7, 1939, filed his report. C)n November 3, 19.’39, the Honorable Jose G. Generoso entered an order providing for the reinstatement of the discharged employees, including Gavino David, the dispositive part of which, in so far as it concerns David, reads as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"De las pruebas y demas datos, resulta probado:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
x x x
"Que en los balances de los libros de la compahia durante los años de 1937 y 1938 se demuestra que la misma ha marginado una ganancia razonable en proporcion a su capital invertido.
"Que la suspension indefinida de que se trata equivale a un despido porque en los talleres de la recurrida hay trabajo para los obreros suspendidos.
"La alegacion de la compania al efecto de oue Gavino David fue suspendido no solamente con el objeto de reducir el personal sino tambien porque es un obrero ineficiente y hologazan. . . no esta apoyada por los meritos del presente caso, pues resulta que los archivos de la compañia demuestran, segun investigacion del Auditor de este Tribunal y por propia admision de la recurrida, que Gavino David fue suspendido, segun su tarjeta de servicio (service card), por reduccion de personal, y solamente cuando se trajo el caso ante el Tribunal y se investigaron los despidos, es cuando la recurrida alego como una causa mas, la de ineficiencia y holgazaneria. Resulta que tal ineficiencia y holgazaneria lo deduce la recurrida del hecho de que Gavino David requirio mas tiempo del necesario, para volver a Manila cuando llevo un auto a Baguio por orden de dicha recurrida, y de Baguio salio para Dagupan, de cuyo municipio trajo un truck de segunda mano a Manila. Gavino David explico, que tuvo muchas roturas de gomas en el camino, y la recurrida por su parte, corroborando tal explicacion, aprobo y pago los gastos, en que habia incurrido dicho David en la cantidad de P31.72 por el referido viaje, algunos de los cuales representan pagos por vulcanizacion de gomas que se rompieron durante el viaje.
x x x
"Ateniendose a las conclusiones y consideraciones antes consignadas, el Tribunal es de opinion que los nueve obreros de que se trata, fueron privados de su trabajo por la recurrida con infraccion del art. 19 de la Ley No. 103 del Commonwealth, tal como esta reformado por el art. 1.
