Davao Free Workers V CIR 7.
Pallar was not allowed to enter the Company premises by Divino
Petitioners: Davao Free Workers Front et al
Respondents: CIR, 7-Up bottling Company of the PH
Doctrine: The filing and pendency of an unfair labor practice case as in the
case at bar presupposes a continuing employer-employee
relationship and when the case is decided in favor of the workers, this
relationship is in law deemed to have continued uninterruptedly.
FACTS:
1. DFW and 7-UP entered a CBA effective for year. It recognizes DFW
as the sole bargaining agent of all its members and afforded benefits
w/o distinction between union and non-union members.
2. Sanchez (Plant Manager) called the president of DFW and presented
a draft CBA to replace the one about to expire. This draft recognizes
DFW as the "only legitimate, duly organized and existing labor union"
and a P0.25 wage increase.
3. Negotiations were made and it was found out by Sanchez and an
accountant that the Union treasurer collected strike funds and more
than what was declared.
a. Asked to explain w/n 6 hours for technical malversation
b. Was done without grievance hearing as required by CBA
c. Was dismissed by 7-Up but temporarily reinstated.
4. In the election of officers, Divino made known his intention to run for
the presidency and intimated that somebody was backing him up
(supposedly Sanchez). Before the elections several DFW members
were called by 7-UP officers to convince them to vote for the right
man (Divino) to avoid trouble.
5. On election day, several 7-UP officers were seen in the vicinity of the
election area. Divino lost by a wide margin to Villarin.
6. Sanchez sent a letter to DFW saying that it must make a decision
regarding the draft or else they would shut up the Davao plant.
based on the previous allegation of betrayal to Divino.
8. Divino started a new union, 7-UP Employees Assoc (SEAD) because
of the news of DFW staging a strike to demand a close shop.
9. 7-Up filed a notice of lockout against members of DFA for failure of
agreement on CBA.
10. Divino left DWF. He also prevented entry of some members of DWF.
a. Told them that if they were not members of DWF, they would
be allowed to work.
b. Asked them to join SEAD.
11. SEAD was issued a reg certificate. 2 days before the 30 day lockout
period, it also sent a letter asking 7-Up recognition as sole bargaining
unit.
a. CBA signed with fringe benefits. Representative of members
only.
12. Weirdly, Divino, the president of the SEAD, does not remember if he
ever furnished a list of his members to 7-UP for 7-UP to know who
are the members entitled to the benefits granted by the agreement.
13. On August 6, 1957, DFW went on strike based on the acts herein
cited.
14. RTC: found 7-UP guilty of ULP and ordered reinstatement.
15. CIR en banc resolution: "fails to find sufficient justification in altering
or modifying the aforesaid decision"
a. CIR was unanimous that respondents were guilty of grave
ULP and anti-union acts however,
b. three separate opinions were filed which altered and
modified the trial court's judgment awarding backwages
and strike duration pay.
 16. In short, all the 5 judges sustained the findings of ULP and
discriminatory acts justifying the strike,
a. only three judges voted to award backwages without
deduction in varying periods.
17. Both parties sought to appeal from respondent court's decision and
resolution en banc to this Court.
18. 7-UPs petition questioning the right to reinstatement with
backwages without deduction is already a settled matter when SC
affirmed the CIR and denied 7-UPs petition for review.
19. Only question is DFWs petition for review.
a. that the "duration of the period for backwages ... should not
be shortened in view of the gravity of respondents' offense
and the resultant damage and prejudice to said workers"
b. and that "the striking members of petitioning union are
clearly entitled to strike duration pay.
ISSUE: WON the "duration of the period for backwages ... should not be
shortened in view of the gravity of respondents' offense and the resultant
damage and prejudice to said workers."?
RULING + RATIO: Yes.
On the matter of payment of full backwages to the wrongfully dismissed
petitioners-employees from date of dismissal to reinstatement without
exclusion of any period during which the case was pending determination by
respondent court
As soon SCs resolution denying respondents' separate appeal in another
case from CIRs decision became final, petitioners filed with CIR their motion
for execution of its decision as affirmed with modification by the en
banc resolution ordering the reinstatement with backwages of the nine
wrongfully dismissed employees and for the return to work of the striking
members of petitioner union. HOWEVER, respondents successfully opposed
in their pleading the reinstatement and return of the workers on the ground
that the matter of the amount of backwages was appealed by petitioners
through the present case to this Court and contended erroneously that
petitioners thereby waived the benefits of the rule on non-stay of execution of
judgment.
The second ground in the opposition to the Motion for extension was an
entirely new and unpleaded matter. (the matter of reinstatement can no
longer be effected there having been closure of the Davao branch office
due to financial reverses). it was only alleged after the court had denied
their reconsideration and the SC denied their separate appeal. Such closure
was undertaken at their own instance and risk and without court authorization
even with the rendition of judgment ordering them to reinstate. Such was
then done in bad faith. However because of the unjustified suppression of 7-
UP for 2 years of their MR and failure of appeal for the first time, the Courts
considers as a matter of equity that notice of such closure and application be
remanded for further proceedings and evidence. New matter, new separate
claims. (if closure is for justifiable cause, if reinstatement is feasible, WON
payment of backwages with or without deduction shall continue after date of
finality).
On the pendency of the case pay
DWF is contending that the backwages corresponding to the period of six to
seven years t the case was pending with the CIR through the date of the
decision; until the release of said court's en banc resolution and denial with
modification should not be excluded from the backwages award. Two other
judges concurred in awarding full backwages without deduction
or qualification from dismissal to reinstatement. One qualified his
concurrence by voting to exclude a period of seven years (from date of
submittal for decision until after the workers presented themselves
unsuccessfully for work). Another excluding from the backwages award a
period of six years (one year after submittal for decision to resolution of the
motion for reconsideration).
The CIR was correct in following established principles in not requiring
medical examination as a condition precedent for reinstatement or return to
work. The filing and pendency of an unfair labor practice case as in the case
at bar presupposes a continuing employer-employee relationship and
when the case is decided in favor of the workers, this relationship is in
law deemed to have continued uninterruptedly notwithstanding their
unlawful dismissal or the lawful strike and stoppage of work, and hence,
seniority and other privileges are preserved in their favor.
To require them to undergo a physical or medical examination as a
precondition of reinstatement or return to work simply because of the long
pendency of their case which is not their fault would not only defeat the
purpose of the law and the constitutional and statutory mandates to protect
labor but would work to their unfair prejudice as aggrieved parties and give
an undue advantage to employers as the offenders who have the means and
resources to wage attrition and withstand the bane of protracted litigation.
They may be subjected to periodic physical or medical examination
as old reinstated workers, but not as a precondition to their
reinstatement or return to work with the important consequence that if they
are found to be ill or suffering from some disability, they would be entitled to
all the benefits that the laws and company practices provide by way of
compensation, medical care, disability benefits and gratuities, etc. to
employees and workers.
On the strike duration pay
Two judges voted against the granting of strike duration pay
on vague grounds "of wielding our discretionary authority so as to be
consistent with justice and equity"Another voted against the granting of strike
duration pay on the ground that "this matter has neither been raised nor
pleaded or prayed for in the complaint."
Strike duration pay less earnings must be sustained. What justifies the
backwages equally justifies the granting of strike duration pay.They
were left with no other alternative by their employer's improper and
oppressive conduct but to declare a strike to render aid and protection to
themselves and their unlawfully dismiss companions.
Disposition: En banc resolution set aside as to the modifications and case
remanded.
.