G.R. No. L-39844 - JULY 1986 - PHILIPPINE JURISPRUDENCE CASE NUMBERCASE TITLE G.R. No. L-39844July 31, 1986Talisay Employees' & Laborers' Association (TELA) vs. The Court of Industrial Relations G.R. No. L-41395July 31, 1986Almario T. Salta vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. L-48010July 31, 1986People of the Philippines vs. Sancho A. Budol G.R. No. L-53196July 31, 1986Pacifico De Sagun vs. People of the Philippines G.R. No. L-58889July 31, 1986Nathaniel S. Manipon, Jr. vs. Sandiganbayan G.R. No. L-60066July 31, 1986Felisa Rivera vs. Alfredo C. Florendo G.R. No. L-61523July 31, 1986Antam Consolidated, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. L-62831-32July 31, 1986Phil. National Bank vs. Intermediate Appellate Court G.R. No. L-65439July 31, 1986Pamantasan Ng Lungsod Ng Maynila vs. Intermediate Appellate Court G.R. No. L-66010-12July 31, 1986People of the Philippines vs. Antonio Y. Ibal A.C. No. 2734July 30, 1986Rosa Santiago Arcadio vs. Cesar Zook Ylagan G.R. No. L-70306-07July 30, 1986People of the Philippines vs. Victoriano Galo G.R. No. L-71459July 30, 1986D. M. Consunji, Inc. vs. National Labor Relations Commission G.R. No. L-55935July 30, 1986Marcopper Mining Corporation vs. Miguel Garcia G.R. No. L-66469July 29, 1986People of the Philippines vs. Bernardo Salas G.R. No. L-71017July 28, 1986Phil. Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc. vs. Leonardo I. Cruz G.R. No. L-65913July 28, 1986Renato B. Torres vs. People of the Phil G.R. No. L-69334July 28, 1986Servillano Alinsugay vs. Perfecto M. Cagampang, Jr. G.R. No. L-69572July 28, 1986Josefina Millora vs. Employees' Compensation Commission G.R. No. L-72248July 22, 1986Metro Drug Corporation vs. National Labor Relations Commission G.R. No. L-62642July 22, 1986Trinidad De Leon Vda. De Roxas vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. L-63053July 22, 1986Destileria Limtuaco & Company, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. L-68620July 22, 1986People of the Philippines vs. Freddie Tulagan G.R. No. L-68661July 22, 1986National Federation of Labor Union vs. Blas Ople G.R. No. L-66174July 22, 1986Angeles Bravo vs. Employees' Compensation Commission G.R. Nos. L-51612-13July 22, 1986Global Incorporated vs. Diego D. Atienza G.R. Nos. L-63709-10July 16, 1986People of the Philippines vs. Julian Perante, Jr. G.R. No. L-71360July 16, 1986Development Insurance Corporation vs. Intermediate Appellate Court G.R. No. L-28498July 14, 1986Salvador De La Rama vs. Rafael Ledesma G.R. No. L-34539July 14, 1986Eulalio Prudencio vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. L-62943July 14, 1986Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. L-66696July 14, 1986Francisca Arsenal vs. Intermediate Appellate Court G.R. No. L-73155July 11, 1986Patricio Tan vs. Commission on Elections A.M. No. 2278-MJJuly 11, 1986Sergio V. Bautista vs. Loreto Guevarra G.R. No. L-40294July 11, 1986People of the Philippines vs. Tobias Ribadajo G.R. No. L-48606July 11, 1986People of the Philippines vs. Ambrocio S. Bautista G.R. Nos. L-58674-77July 11, 1986People of the Philippines vs. Domingo Panis G.R. No. L-60962July 11, 1986People of the Philippines vs. Rolando C. Monteverde G.R. No. L-64699July 11, 1986People of the Philippines vs. Glicerio Masilang G.R. No. L-65153July 11, 1986People of the Philippines vs. Mansueto Lamberte G.R. No. L-67715July 11, 1986William Alain Miailhe vs. Elaine De Lencquesaing G.R. No. L-68288July 11, 1986Diosdado Guzman vs. National University G.R. No. L-68633July 11, 1986Jesus A. Salvacion vs. Sandiganbayan G.R. No. L-68922July 11, 1986Fidel Agcaoili vs. Juan Ponce Enrile G.R. No. L-71117July 10, 1986People of the Philippines vs. Edgardo D. Ng G.R. No. L-73680July 10, 1986Danilo O. Almoite vs. Pacific Architects & Engineers, Inc. G.R. No. L-36958July 10, 1986Mariano Zabat, Jr. vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. L-66497-98July 10, 1986Virgilio V. Sacay vs. Sandiganbayan G.R. No. L-46638July 9, 1986Aquilina R. Araneta vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. L-65545July 9, 1986First Asian Trans. & Shipping Agency, Inc. vs. Blas F. Ople G.R. No. L-65594July 9, 1986Maharlika Publishing Corporation vs. Spouses Tagle G.R. No. L-66945July 9, 1986People of the Philippines vs. Eduardo Bandojo G.R. No. L-68805July 9, 1986People of the Philippines vs. Benjamin Cruz G.R. No. 70054July 8, 1986Banco Filipino vs. Monetary Board G.R. No. 71370July 7, 1986Slobodan Bobanovic vs. Sylvia P. Montes G.R. No. 71989July 7, 1986Avelina Conde vs. Felix Mamenta Jr. G.R. No. 74077July 7, 1986Foster Parents Plan International vs. Harriet Demetriou G.R. No. L-28526July 7, 1986Remigio V. Tan vs. Gregorio T. Lantin G.R. No. L-44444-45July 7, 1986People of the Philippines vs. Gregorio Pacada, Jr. G.R. No. L-60074July 7, 1986Teofilo I. Marcelo vs. Francisco S. Tantuico, Jr. G.R. No. L-60087July 7, 1986People of the Philippines vs. Juan L. Nabaluna G.R. No. L-64548July 7, 1986Rolando P. Bartolome vs. People of the Philippines G.R. No. L-67496July 7, 1986Top Rate International Services vs. Intermediate Appellate Court G.R. No. L-68574July 7, 1986People of the Philippines vs. Doroteo Baao A.M. No. 84-3-886-0July 7, 1986Solicitor General vs. Hon. Perpetua D. Coloma G.R. No. L-49385-87July 2, 1986People of the Philippines vs. Feliciano Banaan The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc. Talisay Employees' & Laborers' Association (TELA) vs. The Court of Industrial RelationsAlmario T. Salta vs. Court of AppealsPeople of the Philippines vs. Sancho A. BudolPacifico De Sagun vs. People of the PhilippinesNathaniel S. Manipon, Jr. vs. SandiganbayanFelisa Rivera vs. Alfredo C. FlorendoAntam Consolidated, Inc. vs. Court of AppealsPhil. National Bank vs. Intermediate Appellate CourtPamantasan Ng Lungsod Ng Maynila vs. Intermediate Appellate CourtPeople of the Philippines vs. Antonio Y. IbalRosa Santiago Arcadio vs. Cesar Zook YlaganPeople of the Philippines vs. Victoriano GaloD. M. Consunji, Inc. vs. National Labor Relations CommissionMarcopper Mining Corporation vs. Miguel GarciaPeople of the Philippines vs. Bernardo SalasPhil. Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc. vs. Leonardo I. CruzRenato B. Torres vs. People of the PhilServillano Alinsugay vs. Perfecto M. Cagampang, Jr.Josefina Millora vs. Employees' Compensation CommissionMetro Drug Corporation vs. National Labor Relations CommissionTrinidad De Leon Vda. De Roxas vs. Court of AppealsDestileria Limtuaco & Company, Inc. vs. Court of AppealsPeople of the Philippines vs. Freddie TulaganNational Federation of Labor Union vs. Blas OpleAngeles Bravo vs. Employees' Compensation CommissionGlobal Incorporated vs. Diego D. AtienzaPeople of the Philippines vs. Julian Perante, Jr.Development Insurance Corporation vs. Intermediate Appellate CourtSalvador De La Rama vs. Rafael LedesmaEulalio Prudencio vs. Court of AppealsMetropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System vs. Court of AppealsFrancisca Arsenal vs. Intermediate Appellate CourtPatricio Tan vs. Commission on ElectionsSergio V. Bautista vs. Loreto GuevarraPeople of the Philippines vs. Tobias RibadajoPeople of the Philippines vs. Ambrocio S. Bautista People of the Philippines vs. Domingo PanisPeople of the Philippines vs. Rolando C. MonteverdePeople of the Philippines vs. Glicerio MasilangPeople of the Philippines vs. Mansueto LamberteWilliam Alain Miailhe vs. Elaine De LencquesaingDiosdado Guzman vs. National UniversityJesus A. Salvacion vs. SandiganbayanFidel Agcaoili vs. Juan Ponce EnrilePeople of the Philippines vs. Edgardo D. NgDanilo O. Almoite vs. Pacific Architects & Engineers, Inc.Mariano Zabat, Jr. vs. Court of AppealsVirgilio V. Sacay vs. SandiganbayanAquilina R. Araneta vs. Court of AppealsFirst Asian Trans. & Shipping Agency, Inc. vs. Blas F. OpleMaharlika Publishing Corporation vs. Spouses TaglePeople of the Philippines vs. Eduardo BandojoPeople of the Philippines vs. Benjamin CruzBanco Filipino vs. Monetary BoardSlobodan Bobanovic vs. Sylvia P. MontesAvelina Conde vs. Felix Mamenta Jr.Foster Parents Plan International vs. Harriet DemetriouRemigio V. Tan vs. Gregorio T. LantinPeople of the Philippines vs. Gregorio Pacada, Jr.Teofilo I. Marcelo vs. Francisco S. Tantuico, Jr.People of the Philippines vs. Juan L. NabalunaRolando P. Bartolome vs. People of the PhilippinesTop Rate International Services vs. Intermediate Appellate Court People of the Philippines vs. Doroteo BaaoSolicitor General vs. Hon. Perpetua D. ColomaPeople of the Philippines vs. Feliciano BanaanThe Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc.

Manila

SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. L-39844 July 31, 1986

TALISAY EMPLOYEES & LABORERS' ASSOCIATION (TELA) and/or FELIPE B. LACSON, as President and CLAUDIO MOCON and Others,petitioners-appellants,
vs.
THE COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS (Now NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION), TALISAY-SILAY MILLING CO., INC. and/or ALFREDO BAÑAS, as Resident Manager, and the FREE VISAYAN WORKERS (TASIMICO CHAPTER), JOSE T. REYES, as President, and TALISAY-SILAY INDUSTRIAL COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATION (TASICA), AMADO ARANETA,respondents-appellees.

Luis D. Lacson for petitioners.

Felipe & Sison Law Office for respondent TSM Co.

PARAS,J.:

This is a petition for certiorari and/or review (Rollo, pp. 1434) of the October 30, 1974en bancresolution of the Court of Industrial Relations in CIR Case No. 3768-ULP (Talisay Employees' & Laborers' Association, et al. vs. Talisay-Silay Milling Company, Inc., et al.) which modified the decision of the trial court with the finding that only respondent Talisay-Silay Industrial Cooperative Association (TASICA) was guilty of unfair labor practice and liable for the backwages of petitioners-appellants while Talisay-Silay Milling Co., Inc. (TASIMICO) and J. Amado Araneta although virtually absolved from liability were directed to re-admit on a preferred basis individual complainants who were members of the complaining union TELA (Rollo, pp. 44-46).

Talisay-Employees Laborers' Association (TELA), a legitimate labor organization is the petitioner and complainant union in this case with Felipe B. Lacson as its president. Free Visayan Workers (FVW) another legitimate organization is the respondent with its president Jose Treyes, later succeeded by Amado F. Rivera. Another respondent is the Talisay Silay Milling Co., Inc. (TASIMICO) a domestic corporation duly organized under the laws of the Philippines with office and sugar central at Talisay, Negros Occidental, engaged in the manufactures of centrifugal sugar from the sugarcanes of its adherent planters milling with it, while other respondents, J. Amado Araneta, and Alfredo Banas are its president and resident manager, respectively. On the other hand respondent Talisay Stay Industrial Cooperative Association (TASICA) is composed of workers of respondent TASIMICO and duly registered with the Cooperative Administrative Office (CAO). (Decision, CIR, Rollo, pp. 53-54.)

Petitioner TELA and respondent FVW are rival unions working in Talisay Silay Milling Co., Inc. On February 22, 1963, a certification election was held at the Central. Respondent FVW won over petitioner TELA and was certified as the Collective Bargaining Unit. The result of the election was not challenged. (Answer of TASIMICO, pp. 2-5; Decision, CIR, Rollo, pp. 53-54).

Among the demands of FVW to the company was the lease of the Central to TASICA which was organized and registered a year earlier on April 2, 1962. Due to prolonged failure of TASIMICO to act on the demands of FVW, the latter struck on April 15, 1963. The members of TELA did not join the FVW strike. Picket lines were established and maintained by members of the FVW during the strike. Meanwhile TASIMICO had not terminated its milling operations for the 1962-63 crop year when FVW struck. Two conciliation conferences, presided over and/or attended by representatives of the Department of Labor, were held between the striking FVW union and respondent TASIMICO and Banas. To completely terminate the strike TASIMICO entered into a contract of lease with TASICA on April 18, 1963. It was only on April 29, 1963 when the strike was finally settled. Members of both TELA and FVW were paid their wages for the period from April 1 to 14, 1963, but only FVW members were paid their strike duration pay for the period from April 15 to 29, 1963. (Decision, CIR, Rollo, pp. 53-54).

On May 2, 1963, the Central of respondent TASIMICO was placed under the control of the Armed Forces of the Philippines under Major General Pedro Q. Molina by authority of Presidential Proc. No. 106 issued by President Diosdado Macapagal, while on May 3, 1963, the Solicitor General filed a petition with the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental for the appointment of an Administrator of the Central, said petition was docketed as Civil Case No. 6980, entitled Republic of the Philippines v. Talisay Silay Milling Co., Inc. and Talisay-Silay Industrial Coop. However, on May 4, 1963, Judge Jose F. Fernandez of the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental denied the petition of the Solicitor General in said Civil Case but ordered the respondents TASIMICO AND TASICA to resume milling ten (10) days thereafter. The Central and above-named respondents resumed operations on May 14, 1963 under the supervision and control of the Armed Forces of the Philippines but pursuant to the resolution of the Supreme Court, Judge Fernandez of the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental appointed Sugar Quota Administrator Conrado Manalansan as Administrator of the Central of respondents on May 31, 1963. Finally, on June 5, 1963, the milling operations of respondents' Central under Manalansan's Administration terminated. (Decision, CIR, Rollo, pp. 53-54).

On July 19, 1963, the Acting Prosecutor, in behalf of petitioner TELA filed a complaint with the Court of Industrial Relations, docketed as Case No. 3768-ULP charging TASIMICO; TASICA and Amado Araneta with unfair labor practice as follows: (a) having aided financially, materially and morally FVW in the certification election so that it would garner the majority votes; (b) having discriminated against members of complainant union with regard to the implementation of 15% salary increases, collection of union dues, by virtue of check off, rice rations, etc.; (c) having abetted the consumation of a token negotiation regarding the formation of a cooperative known as TASICA; (d) having leased to TASICA by pretext respondent TSM's central to do away with complainant union, (e) having instigated the staging of a strike to stall the milling of the sugar canes of planters; (f) having prevented TELA through security guards from entering the compound to work although they did not join the strike; (g) having discriminated against TELA by denying them to work after the strike unless identification cards issued by TASICA is shown; and (h) having discriminated against TELA by denying them work during off-season. (Complaint; Rollo, pp. 84-89; Decision, Rollo, p. 48).

Finding the Report of the Hearing Examiner to be substantially in accordance with the record, the trial court dismissed all the charges for insufficiency of evidence, except the alleged unfair labor practice committed after the strike, more particularly the refusal to admit individual employees-workers-complainants who were members of the TELA back to their work because of their union affiliation for which respondents are declared guilty of unfair labor practice and ordered to reinstate individual complainants with backwages from April 15, 1963 when the strike began, up to November 24, 1967 when the case was last heard. (Decision, Rollo, pp. 82-83).

On motions for reconsideration, the CIR, sitting en banc, affirmed the findings of facts of the trial court but modified the decision of the trial court, finding only respondent TASICA guilty of unfair labor practice and ordering it to pay the workers their backwages but only for a period of three (3) years from April 29, 1963, the period of actual effectivity of the lease agreement, while TASIMICO although absolved was directed to re-admit, on a preferred basis, the individual complainants. (Resolution of CIR, pp. 44-46).

Hence, this petition.

In compliance with the Resolution dated February 7, 1975 (Rollo, p. 205) of the First Division of this Court, the comments filed by respondents J. Amado Araneta and TASIMICO on March 8, 1975 (Rollo, pp. 212-217) and respondent TASICA (Rollo, pp. 221-224) on March 2, 1975, all alleged that the issues raised in the petition are purely questions of fact which have been finally decided by the Court of Industrial Relations for failure of petitioner to appeal and prayed that said petition be denied for being frivolous, immaterial, improper and irrelevant. Respondent FVW did not file any comment.

In a Resolution dated July 9, 1975 (Rollo, p. 236), the First Division of this Court resolved to give due course to the petition. After the petitioners deposited the costs, respondents were required to answer the petition. (Rollo, pp. 242-244).

Respondents filed their answers: TASICA on September 10, 1975 (Rollo, pp. 257-263); J. Amado Araneta and TASIMICO on October 2, 1975 (Rollo, p. 280); denying the charges levelled against them and praying that the petition be dismissed for being unfounded and without basis in law and in fact; and National Labor Relations Commission on October 23, 1975 (Rollo, pp. 286-295) reiterating the basis of the decision of the defunct Court of Industrial Relations.

On October 30, 1975, petitioners filed a Reply to the Answer of TASICA (Rollo, pp. 299-304); and of respondents TASIMICO and J. Amado Araneta (Rollo, pp. 319-336) on November 28, 1975, insisting on the charges alleged in the petition.

On the other hand, TASICA filed a Rejoinder to the Reply of Petitioners on November 15, 1975 (Rollo, pp. 309-316).

Thereafter petitioners and respondents filed their respective briefs (Rollo, pp. 354, 406, 408 and 410) to which petitioners filed a Consolidated Reply (Rollo, pp. 447-477).

Petitioners, in its Brief, submits six (6) assignments of error. They are:

1. THE COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS EN BANC ERRED IN NOT FINDING ALL THE RESPONDENTS GUILTY OF UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE AND IN HOLDING THAT ONLY THE TASICA IS GUILTY OF UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE.

2. THE COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS EN BANC ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE LEASE OF THE CENTRAL TO TASICA WAS VALID FOR ALL INTENTS AND LEGAL PURPOSES AND RELIEVED THE CENTRAL FROM LIABILITY FOR BACK WAGES AND FROM THE OBLIGATION TO REINSTATE IMMEDIATELY ALL THE COMPLAINANTS.

3. THE COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS EN BANC ERRED IN NOT FINDING THE RESPONDENTS JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY LIABLE FOR THE BACK WAGES OF THE PETITIONERS AND IN HOLDING ONLY TASICA LIABLE THEREFOR.

4. THE COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS EN BANC ERRED IN LIMITING THE BACK WAGES DUE THE PETITIONERS TO A PERIOD OF THREE YEARS, THE LIFETIME OF THE ALLEGED LEASE CONTRACT, AND IN NOT HOLDING THAT THE BACK WAGES SHOULD COVER THE ENTIRE PERIOD THAT PETITIONERS WERE DEPRIVED OF WORK FROM THE START OF THE STRIKE ON APRIL 15,1963 UP TO ACTUAL REINSTATEMENT.

5. THE COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS EN BANC ERRED IN NOT ORDERING THE RESPONDENT TASIMICO TO REINSTATE IMMEDIATELY ALL COMPLAINANTS TO THEIR FORMER POSITIONS AND IN MERELY ALLOWING THE TASIMICO TO REINSTATE THEM ON A PREFERRED BASIS TO BE DETERMINED BY SAID RESPONDENT.

6. THE COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS EN BANC ERRED IN NOT ORDERING THE DELIVERY TO THE PETITIONERS OF THE AMOUNT CORRESPONDING TO THEIR 15% SALARY INCREASE DEPOSITED WITH THE RESPONDENT COURT.

Petitioners' first three assigned errors, being interrelated, will be discussed simultaneously.

The crucial issue in this case is whether or not the findings of fact of the Court of Industrial Relations can be the subject of review in this petition.

The first three alleged errors refer to the findings of fact of the Hearing Examiner, which were adopted by the trial court and later affirmed by respondent Court of Industrial Relations sitting en banc.

The records show that the Hearing Examiner went over the exhibits of complainant union, and reviewed the testimonies of its witnesses on record as well as the evidence of all the respondents and put them to the test not only of sufficiency but also of credibility. He went over the testimony of sixty-six (66) witnesses and a total of three thousand four hundred and eighty-eight (3,488) exhibits offered by the parties, during the hearing from January 16, 1964 to November 24, 1967, (Decision, Rollo, p. 60) and finally concluded that uncontroverted evidence of respondents, oral and documentary as well as further admissions of complainants, negate TELA's charges (Rollo, pp. 66-67).

Specifically the conclusion based on such detailed findings of fact are as follows:

(a) complainant union did not protest the outcome or result of the certification election on February 22, 1963 (Rollo, p. 61); (b) on TELA's own admission, all benefits alluded to were given to FVW and TELA members alike subject to company policy, rules and regulations even to the extent that amounts not received by TELA members were deposited in court (Rollo, pp. 61, 65); (c) the existence of respondent TASICA as a duly organized and registered industrial cooperative association with Registration Certificate No. 000335 issued by the Cooperative Administrative Office, has not been challenged (Rollo, pp. 67-68); (d) neither have complainants proven by competent and unassailable evidence that the lease contract was simulated but on the contrary it was shown that it was duly executed with the formalities of law, attended by high ranking officials and well publicized in leading newspapers (lbid); (e) the strike was declared because of alleged failure of the respondents TASIMICO and TASICA, Araneta and Banas to deal with FVW as the duly certified collective bargaining representative of the workers (Rollo, pp. 72, 74); (f) it was the pickets established by the strikers that prevented the TELA members from approaching the gates of the Central and not the security guards (Rollo, p. 76); (g) when the strike was settled, the Central gates were thrown open to all returning workers but only a few TELA workers returned despite due notice given to them (Rello, pp. 77-78) and (h) as to employment during off-season, no discrimination was committed against TELA members and the fact that majority of the workers employed during such period were FVW members was due to the fact that the latter constitute practically 4/5 of the labor force of respondents TASIMICO, Araneta and Banas. (Rollo, p. 65).

However, the trial court was not in accord with the finding, 9 and conclusions of the Hearing Examiner as to certain alleged discriminatory acts of respondents committed after the strike and based its views on the following circumstances: (a) respondent Treyes, the president of FVW, disliked TELA, the rival union, resulting in discriminatory exclusion of TELA members from receiving rice rations, alcohol, bagasse, etc., the distribution of which was placed under the supervision of FVW during the strike; (b) the other respondents abetted these discriminations; and (c) the notice of return to work was not truly intended for TELA members. In fact TELA members who did not join the strike wanted to return to work but were prevented by security guards retained by lessee TASICA, whose president is also Treyes, the president of FVW. Joining the FVW was the pass to re-admission. As a consequence only a handful of alleged TELA members were re-admitted while 200 of them were not. (Rollo, pp. 81-82).

Hence, as previously stated respondents were declared guilty of unfair labor practice for the above reasons but on motions for reconsideration, the Court of Industrial Relations sitting en banc modified the judgment and held that only the respondent Talisay-Silay Industrial Cooperative Association (TASICA) guilty of said unfair labor practice. (Resolution, CIR, Rollo, pp. 44-45).

In defining the scope of responsibility or liability of the guilty party or parties in the discriminatory acts charged, the respondent court (CIR) ruled:

In recapitulation, the respondent Court ruled that "whatever discriminatory acts then that were committed against the complainants, more particularly the refusal of the entry or admission of the individual employees-workers complainants who were members of the TELA back to their work, should and must be the sole and exclusive responsibility of the lessee, respondent TASICA. (Ibid,p. 43).

Indeed it is well settled, in fact, in the language of the Court "too well-settled to need any citation of authorities that the findings of fact of the Court of Industrial Relations, if supported by substantial evidence are binding on the Supreme Court." (Alhambra Industries, Inc. v. CIR, L-22219, Aug. 28, 1969, 29 SCRA 138; Ease Asiatic Co., et al. v. CIR, et al., L-17037, Apr. 30, 1966, 40 SCRA 521; Tanglaw ng Paggawa v. CIR, L-24498, Sept. 21, 1968, 25 SCRA 19; Phil. Educational Inst. v. MLQSEA Faculty Ass., L-24019, Nov. 29, 1968, 26 SCRA 272; G-Liner v. National Labor Union, L-24963, Nov. 29, 1968, 26 SCRA 282; De Leon v. Pampanga Sugar Dev. Co., Inc., L-26844, Sept. 30, 1969, 29 SCRA 628; Lakas ng Manggagawang Makabayan v. CIR, L-32178, Dec. 28, 1970, 36 SCRA 600). Thus, in the case ofKapisanan ng Manggagawa sa Camara Shoes v. Camara Shoes,(112 SCRA 689), and inManila Hotel Corp. v. NLRC, et al.,(G.R. No. 53453, Jan. 22, 1986) the Court held that the findings of fact of the National Labor Relations Commission are generally entitled to respect, except when there is grave abuse of discretion.

In the instant case, it being beyond dispute that the findings of fact are supported by a "seeming parade of positive credible evidence" (Resolution, CIR, Rollo, p. 41), there appears no cogent reason to disturb such findings of the trial court.

As to the fourth assignment of error, the Court of Industrial RelationsEn Bancdid not err in fixing the maximum backwages due to petitioners to a period of three years.

Firstly, the contract of lease between TASIMICO and TASICA has a term of three years, during which time respondent court held that TASICA had the sole and exclusive responsibility. Secondly, while the Supreme Court ruled in Manila Hotel Corporation v. National Labor Relations Commission, et al. (G.R. No. 53453, Jan. 22, 1986) that where there was no valid termination, private respondent is entitled under Article 280 of the Labor Code to reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and with backwages from the time his compensation was withheld up to the time of his reinstatement, still in a great number of illegal dismissal cases, (Mercury Drug Co., Inc. vs. Court of Industrial Relations, 56 SCRA 694; People's Bank & Trust Co. vs. PBTC Employees Union, 69 SCRA 10; Insular Life Insurance Co., Ltd., Employees Assn. NATU vs. Insular Life Assurance Co., Ltd., 76 SCRA 50; Monteverde vs. Court of Industrial Relations, 79 SCRA 259; Davao Development Corp. vs. National Labor Relations Commission, 81 SCRA 489; L.R. Aguinaldo, Inc. vs. Court of Industrial Relations, 82 SCRA 309, Liberty Cotton Mills Workers Union vs. Liberty Cotton Mills, Inc., 90 SCRA 391; Litex Employees Assn. vs. Court of Industrial Relations, 116 SCRA 459; Associated Anglo-American Tobacco Corp. vs. Lazaro, 125 SCRA 463; PAL, Inc. vs. NLRC, 126 SCRA 223; Union of Supervisors (RB) NATU vs. Secretary of Labor, 128 SCRA 442; Lepanto Consolidated Mining Company vs. Encarnacion, 136 SCRA 256; Panay Railways, Incorporated vs. National Labor Relations Commission, 137 SCRA 480) this Court in the interest of justice and expediency adopted the policy of granting backwages for a maximum period of three (3) years without qualification and deduction.

It will be recalled that respondent TASIMICO was absolved by the Court en banc from the liability of paying petitioners' backwages because of the existence of a valid lease contract entered into by it with TASICA.ℒαwρhi৷As previously mentioned, said Court ruled that the lease contract being valid and effective for all legal intents and purposes, respondent TASICA assumed not only the control, operation and management then of the sugar central covered by the lease but also the obligations, liabilities and responsibilities arising therefrom. Accordingly, whatever discriminatory acts then were committed against the petitioners, more particularly the refusal of entry or admission of the individual members of TELA, should be the sole and exclusive responsibility of the lessee, respondent TASICA.

The findings of the trial court are to the effect that after the strike, TELA members did report for work but were prevented by respondents FVW and TASICA and therefore cannot be faulted. In addition to this, it must be stated that the lease contract has a provision that all management personnel and other employees of respondent TASIMICO in the central would be retained by respondent TASICA; and that the lease contract is only for a period of three (3) years, renewable for another three (3) years. (Petition, Rollo, pp. 21, 44). Hence, had not respondents FVW and TASICA refused, after the strike, to admit the TELA members back to work, they would have been still employees and workers of respondent TASIMICO. For this reason, it is very clear, that TASIMICO cannot be blamed for the serious dislocation in employment, 'resulting in an imbalance in the social and economic equilibrium in the locality, specially considering that those workers who were hired as replacements for the non-returning TELA workers have become FVW members who in the interregnum have earned the right to employment. (Brief, TASICA, p. 29).

InColumbian Rope Co. of the Phil. vs. Tacloban Association of Laborersand Employees (6 SCRA 428), the Court in ruling in favor of the employer quoted American Jurisprudence as follows:

In the instant case, the lower court absolved respondent TASIMICO from responsibility but for humanitarian reasons and in the constitutional viewpoint of a new and compassionate society, required it to reinstate TELA members on a preferred basis. To question the wisdom of such decision and require TASIMICO to reinstate them all at the same time would not only be requiring the impossible but would in effect penalize said respondent for events over which it had no control.

The claim of petitioners that the Court of Industrial Relations En Banc should have ordered the delivery to them of the amount corresponding to their 15% salary increase deposited with respondent Court, is tenable.

That the amount belongs to the workers concerned is not disputed. In fact said salary increases were deposited in court for their safekeeping and to insure their payment to the corresponding owners.

Thus, in the interest of harmony and peace, the case should be finally disposed of and said increase should be paid to petitioners in accordance with company rules and regulations.

PREMISES, CONSIDERED,the assailed resolution of the Court of Industrial Relations is herebyAFFIRMED,and the entity (National Labor Relations Commission) that replaced respondent court, is hereby ordered to remit to petitioners the amount corresponding to their 15% salary increases deposited with said Court, the same to be paid in accordance with the rules and regulations of respondent Talisay Silay Milling Co., Inc.

SO ORDERED.

Feria (Chairman), Fernan Alampay and Gutierrez, Jr., JJ., concur.