G.R. No. L-20303 - OCTOBER 1967 - PHILIPPINE JURISPRUDENCE CASE NUMBERCASE TITLE G.R. No. L-20303October 31, 1967 Republic Savings Bank vs. Court of Industrial Relations, et al. G.R. No. L-20346October 31, 1967 City Mayor, et al. vs. Chief, Philippine Constabulary, et al. G.R. No. L-21258October 31, 1967 Filipinas Life Assurance Company vs. Court of Tax Appeals, et al. G.R. No. L-21556October 31, 1967 Philippine Surety and Insurance Co., Inc. vs. Beatriz Zabal G.R. No. L-22206October 31, 1967 Franklin Baker Company of the Philippines vs. Florencio Diamante, et al. G.R. No. L-22357October 31, 1967 People of the Philippines vs. Felipe Gumahin G.R. No. L-22459October 31, 1967 Antonio V. Roque vs. Bienvenido P. Buan, et al. G.R. No. L-22538October 31, 1967 Philippine National Bank vs. Primitiva Mallorca G.R. No. L-22555October 31, 1967 Philippine Iron Mines, Inc. vs. Tomas Abear, et al. G.R. No. L-22576October 31, 1967 Alpha Insurance & Surety Co. vs. Manila Port Service, et al. G.R. No. L-23090October 31, 1967 Pangasinan Transportation Co., Inc. vs. Nicasio A. Yatco, et al. G.R. No. L-23196October 31, 1967 Laureano Oliva vs. Nicolas V. La Madrid, et al. G.R. No. L-23300October 31, 1967 Andres Manarpaac, et al. vs. Rosalino Cabanatan, et al. G.R. No. L-23395October 31, 1967 Auyong Hian vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue G.R. No. L-23566October 31, 1967 Elena L. Garcia vs. Antonio J. Villegas, et al. G.R. No. L-23636October 31, 1967 Tabacalera Insurance Co. vs. Manila Railroad Company, et al. G.R. No. L-23848October 31, 1967 Porfirio Rilloraza vs. Pedro Arciaga, etc., et al. G.R. No. L-24106October 31, 1967 Insurance Company of North America vs. Warner, Barnes and Co., Ltd., et al. G.R. No. L-24154October 31, 1967 People of the Philippines vs. Gregorio D. Montejo G.R. No. L-25945October 31, 1967 Norberto B. Paa vs. Quintin Chan G.R. No. L-19012October 30, 1967 Victoria Julio vs. Emiliano Dalandan, et al. G.R. No. L-20175October 30, 1967 Maria A. Garcia, et al. vs. Rita Legarda, Inc. G.R. No. L-20432October 30, 1967 Jose Manalang, et al. vs. Artex Development Co., Inc., et al. G.R. No. L-20911October 30, 1967 People of the Philippines vs. Sulpicio de La Cerna, et al. G.R. No. L-22082October 30, 1967 People of the Philippines vs. Isabel P. del Carmen, et al. G.R. No. L-23715October 30, 1967 State Bonding & Insurance Co., Inc. vs. Manila Port Service, et al. G.R. No. L-23797October 30, 1967 Juan E. Sevilla vs. Leoncio Parina, et al. G.R. No. L-23811October 30, 1967 Philippine Education Co., Inc. vs. Manila Port Service, et al. G.R. No. L-27341October 30, 1967 In Re: P. J., Keiner Co., Ltd. P. J., Keiner Co., Ltd. vs. Republic of the Philippines G.R. No. L-28055October 30, 1967 Republic of the Philippines, et al. vs. Delfin Montano, et al. G.R. No. L-21069October 26, 1967 Manila Surety and Fidelity Co., Inc. vs. Rodolfo R. Velayo G.R. No. L-22371October 26, 1967 People of the Philippines vs. Mariano Daga G.R. No. L-22392October 26, 1967 Rural Transit Employees' Association vs. Bachrach Motor Co., Inc., et al. G.R. No. L-22488October 26, 1967 Mateo C. Bacalso, et al. vs. Modesto R. Ramolete, et al. G.R. No. L-24844October 26, 1967 Macario Arocha vs. Martiniano Vivo, et al. G.R. No. L-24853October 26, 1967 Martiniano Vivo vs. Francisco Arca, et al. G.R. No. L-18440October 25, 1967 Hawaiian-Philippine Co. vs. Auditor General G.R. No. L-24757October 25, 1967 Marcos B. Comilang vs. Generoso A. Buendia, et al. G.R. No. L-28089October 25, 1967 Bara Lidasan vs. Commission on Elections G.R. No. L-23181October 24, 1967 In Re: Tan Sen. Tan Sen vs. Republic of the Philippines A.C. No. 736October 23, 1967 Manuel R. Go vs. Romulo Candoy G.R. No. L-19804October 23, 1967 Leon Balbas, et al. vs. Melecio R. Domingo G.R. No. L-24693October 23, 1967 Ermita-Malate Hotel and Motel Operators Association, Inc., et al. vs. City Mayor of Manila G.R. No. L-25162October 23, 1967 Champion Auto Supply, Co., Inc. vs. Bureau of Customs, etc. G.R. No. L-25362October 23, 1967 Hartford Fire Insurance Co. vs. Customs Arrastre Service, et al. G.R. No. L-25477October 23, 1967 Insurance Company of North America vs. Republic of the Philippines G.R. No. L-25478October 23, 1967 American Insurance Co. vs. Republic of the Philippines, et al. G.R. No. L-25695October 23, 1967 American Insurance Co. vs. Republic of the Philippines, et al. G.R. No. L-25784October 23, 1967 Firemen's Insurance Co. vs. Republic of the Philippines, et al. G.R. No. L-25844October 23, 1967 Fireman's Fund Insurance Co. vs. Republic of the Philippines, et al. G.R. No. L-25871October 23, 1967 Insurance Company of North America vs. Republic of the Philippines, et al. G.R. No. L-26618October 23, 1967 Fireman's Fund Insurance Co. vs. Republic of the Philippines, et al. G.R. No. L-27077October 23, 1967 Northern Assurance Company, Ltd. vs. Republic of the Philippines, et al. G.R. No. L-27516October 19, 1967 Insurance Company of North America vs. Republic of the Philippines, et al. G.R. No. L-27394October 13, 1967 Armando V. Ampil vs. Corazon Juliano-Agrava, et al. G.R. No. L-28071October 13, 1967 Philippine Association of Free Labor Unions vs. Court of Industrial Relations, et al. G.R. No. L-23638October 12, 1967 Dionisio Fernandez, et al. vs. Ismaela Dimagiba G.R. No. L-23662October 12, 1967 Mariano Reyes, et al. vs. Ismaela Dimagiba A.C. No. 528October 11, 1967 Angel Albano vs. Perpetua Coloma G.R. No. L-23124October 11, 1967 Insurance Company of North America vs. Manila Port Service, et al. G.R. No. L-16315October 10, 1967 Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Hawaiian-Philippine Co. G.R. No. L-27583October 10, 1967 Margarito J. Lofranco vs. Jesus Jimenez, Sr. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc. Republic Savings Bank vs. Court of Industrial Relations, et al. City Mayor, et al. vs. Chief, Philippine Constabulary, et al. Filipinas Life Assurance Company vs. Court of Tax Appeals, et al. Philippine Surety and Insurance Co., Inc. vs. Beatriz Zabal Franklin Baker Company of the Philippines vs. Florencio Diamante, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Felipe Gumahin Antonio V. Roque vs. Bienvenido P. Buan, et al. Philippine National Bank vs. Primitiva Mallorca Philippine Iron Mines, Inc. vs. Tomas Abear, et al. Alpha Insurance & Surety Co. vs. Manila Port Service, et al. Pangasinan Transportation Co., Inc. vs. Nicasio A. Yatco, et al. Laureano Oliva vs. Nicolas V. La Madrid, et al. Andres Manarpaac, et al. vs. Rosalino Cabanatan, et al. Auyong Hian vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Elena L. Garcia vs. Antonio J. Villegas, et al. Tabacalera Insurance Co. vs. Manila Railroad Company, et al. Porfirio Rilloraza vs. Pedro Arciaga, etc., et al. Insurance Company of North America vs. Warner, Barnes and Co., Ltd., et al. People of the Philippines vs. Gregorio D. Montejo Norberto B. Paa vs. Quintin Chan Victoria Julio vs. Emiliano Dalandan, et al. Maria A. Garcia, et al. vs. Rita Legarda, Inc. Jose Manalang, et al. vs. Artex Development Co., Inc., et al. People of the Philippines vs. Sulpicio de La Cerna, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Isabel P. del Carmen, et al. State Bonding & Insurance Co., Inc. vs. Manila Port Service, et al. Juan E. Sevilla vs. Leoncio Parina, et al. Philippine Education Co., Inc. vs. Manila Port Service, et al. In Re: P. J., Keiner Co., Ltd. P. J., Keiner Co., Ltd. vs. Republic of the Philippines Republic of the Philippines, et al. vs. Delfin Montano, et al. Manila Surety and Fidelity Co., Inc. vs. Rodolfo R. Velayo People of the Philippines vs. Mariano Daga Rural Transit Employees' Association vs. Bachrach Motor Co., Inc., et al. Mateo C. Bacalso, et al. vs. Modesto R. Ramolete, et al. Macario Arocha vs. Martiniano Vivo, et al. Martiniano Vivo vs. Francisco Arca, et al. Hawaiian-Philippine Co. vs. Auditor General Marcos B. Comilang vs. Generoso A. Buendia, et al. Bara Lidasan vs. Commission on Elections In Re: Tan Sen. Tan Sen vs. Republic of the Philippines Manuel R. Go vs. Romulo Candoy Leon Balbas, et al. vs. Melecio R. Domingo Ermita-Malate Hotel and Motel Operators Association, Inc., et al. vs. City Mayor of Manila Champion Auto Supply, Co., Inc. vs. Bureau of Customs, etc. Hartford Fire Insurance Co. vs. Customs Arrastre Service, et al. Insurance Company of North America vs. Republic of the Philippines American Insurance Co. vs. Republic of the Philippines, et al. American Insurance Co. vs. Republic of the Philippines, et al. Firemen's Insurance Co. vs. Republic of the Philippines, et al. Fireman's Fund Insurance Co. vs. Republic of the Philippines, et al. Insurance Company of North America vs. Republic of the Philippines, et al. Fireman's Fund Insurance Co. vs. Republic of the Philippines, et al. Northern Assurance Company, Ltd. vs. Republic of the Philippines, et al. Insurance Company of North America vs. Republic of the Philippines, et al. Armando V. Ampil vs. Corazon Juliano-Agrava, et al. Philippine Association of Free Labor Unions vs. Court of Industrial Relations, et al. Dionisio Fernandez, et al. vs. Ismaela Dimagiba Mariano Reyes, et al. vs. Ismaela Dimagiba Angel Albano vs. Perpetua Coloma Insurance Company of North America vs. Manila Port Service, et al. Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Hawaiian-Philippine Co. Margarito J. Lofranco vs. Jesus Jimenez, Sr. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc.
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-20303 October 31, 1967
REPUBLIC SAVINGS BANK (now REPUBLIC BANK),petitioner,
vs.
COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ROSENDO T. RESUELLO, BENJAMIN JARA, FLORENCIO ALLASAS, DOMINGO B. JOLA, DIOSDADO S. MENDOZA, TEODORO DE LA CRUZ, NARCISO MACARAEG, and MAURO A. ROVILLOS,respondents.
Lichauco, Picazo and Agcaoili for petitioner.
Mauro Rovillos respondents.
R E S O L U T I O N
CASTRO,J.:
The petitioner Republic Bank has filed a motion for reconsideration of our decision of September 27, 1967.
First. It is argued that as the complaint in this case charges violation of section 4(a) (5) of the Industrial Peace Act, this Court is without power to find the Bank guilty of violation of any other provision of section 4(a), and that as it was in fact held liable not only under paragraph (5) but also under paragraphs (1) and (6) of section 4(a), it was denied its constitutional right to due process. "The decision has departed from the issue defined in the complaint and answer."
This argument has no merit. The question is whether the Bank committed the act charged in the complaint. If it did, it is of no consequence, either as a matter of procedure or of substantive law, what the act is denominated — whether as a restraint, interference or coercion, as some members of the Court believe it to be, or as a discriminatory discharge as other members think it is, or as a refusal to bargain as some other members view it, or even as a combination of any or all of these.1For howsoever it may be characterized, the Bank's conduct in discharging the respondent employees constituted an unfair labor practice.
In the leading case ofNational Labor Relations Board v. Mackay Radio & Telegraph Company,2the claim was similarly made that the company was found guilty of an unfair labor practice which was not within the issues upon which the case was tried. According to the company, it was summoned to answer a complaint that it discriminated by discharging five strikers, and that after all the evidence was in, the complaint was withdrawn and a new one was filed charging it this time with refusal to re-employ the strikers. But, it was said, when the National Labor Relations Board made its findings it reverted to the original position that what the company did was not a failure to employ but a wrongful discharge.
In rejecting the contention, the United States Supreme Court said:
The position is highly technical. All parties to the proceeding knew from the outset that the thing complained of was discrimination against certain men by reason of their alleged union activities. . . . The respondent further argues that, when the amended complaint was filed and the original one withdrawn, the charge it had to meet was a refusal to re-employ; that the phrase "re-employ" means "employ anew;" that if the Board had found a failure to employ the five men because of discrimination forbidden by the Act, the findings would have followed the complaint, whereas the Board, in its conclusions of fact, referred to respondent's action as "refusal to reinstate to employment" and as a discharge; and the argument is that the findings do not follow the pleading.
A review of the record shows that at no time during the hearings was there any misunderstanding as to what was the basis of the Board's complaint. The entire evidence, pro and con, was directed to the question whether, when the strike failed and the men desired to come back and were told that the strike would be forgotten and that they might come back in a body save for eleven men who were singled out for different treatment, six of whom, however, were treated like everyone else, the respondent did in fact discriminate against the remaining five because of union activity. While the respondent was entitled to know the basis of the complaint against it, and to explain its conduct, in an effort to meet that complaint, we find from the record that it understood the issue and was afforded full opportunity to justify the action of its officers as innocent rather than discriminatory.3
Second. Still, it is insisted that because the complaint did not allege violation of section 4 (a) (1), the Bank did not present evidence — which, it is claimed, it had all the time — to prove that in writing the letter the respondent employees were not at all engaged in a concerted activity but were merely out to aid one who at the time was fighting for the control of the Bank. But even if this case were to be decided strictly on section 4(a) (5) grounds, still the Bank is not excused from its duty to come forward with the evidence it claims it has, to prove that the respondent employees were not in fact engaged in a protected activity. For indeed it is now settled that violations of paragraphs (2), (3), (4), (5), and (6) are also violations of section 4 (a) (1), as section 4 is in fact intended to secure the right of self-organization, as declared in section 3, to form, join or assist labor organizations to bargain collectively and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining and other mutual aid or protection.4
Third. It is further contended that the Bank could not be found guilty of a refusal to bargain because the respondent employees, in the first instance, did not follow the grievance procedure outlined in the collective bargaining agreement with the R.S.B. Employees Union, which called for the creation of a union committee to take up grievances with the Bank's representative.
The argument is fallacious. It assumes the existence of a specific procedure for the handling of grievances when the fact is that no specific procedure governs the present case because the respondent employee do not belong to one union. They are officer of different unions from three bargaining units in the Bank. As a group they are governed by no collective bargaining with the Bank. Yet they were engaged in a concerted activity, interference with which is an unfair labor practice.5
Indeed, the finding of refusal to bargain is based on the Bank's failure to process its own grievance — what it considered was the employees' libel in giving undue publicity to their grievances — through a grievance commitee meeting. As stated in the main decision in this case, not even the Bank's judgment that the respondent employees committed libel could excuse it from its duty to bargain collectively, which includes the adjustment of grievances.
Furthermore, even assuming that the respondent employees failed to observe procedure, the Bank was not thereby justified in unilaterally discharging them. At most such failure could justify the Bank in ignoring their demand.
Fourth. Finally, invoking the ruling inPhilippine Air Lines v. Philippine Air Lines Employees Association6the Bank pleads for a mitigation of backwages. Indeed, the amounts which the respondent employees have or could have earned during the period for which the backwages are granted should be deducted. With respect to actual earnings, deductions are allowed because of the law's abhorrence for double compensation, and with respect to money which an employee could have earned, deductions are founded on the employee's duty to mitigate and diminish his loss.
However, the plea should be addressed to the Court of Industrial Relations when this case is remanded to it for execution of the judgment. The only issue here is the illegality of the dismissal of the employees. As this Court explained in thePALcase, the question of deduction becomes relevant and material only after the dismissal is finally decided to be illegal.
ACCORDINGLY, the motion for reconsideration is denied.
Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P., Zaldivar, Sanchez, Angeles and Fernando, JJ.,concur.
Footnotes
1Cf. United States v. Lim San, 87 Phil. 273, 278-281.
2304 U.S. 333 (1937).
3Id. at 349-350.
4NLRB v. Express Publishing Co., 312 U.S 426 (1941).
5NLRB v. Phoenix Mutual Life Ins. Co., 167 F.2d 983 (7th Circ. 1948).
660 O. G. 8269 (1960).