You are on page 1of 1

Scoty’s Dept. Store v. Micaller in number to the old.

The new employees were

G.R. No. L-8116 | Aug 25, 1956 | J. Bautista Angelo affiliated with another labor union.
 Criminal cases filed against Micaller:
FACTS 1) Information for threats  dismissed
Nena Micaller was employed as a salesgirl in the Scoty's 2) Information for slander  sentenced to pay
Department Store, owned and operated by Yu Ki Lam, a fine of P50 but the decision was appealed
Richard Yang, Yu Si Kiao and Helen Yang. Pursuant to to the CFI
section 5(b) of the Industrial Peace Act, Nena Micaller 3) Another information for slander.
filed charges of ULP against her above employers  She was dismissed for "insulting the owner of
alleging that she was dismissed by them because of her the store, Yu Ki Lam, on November 5, and for
membership in the National Labor Union and that, prior taking to the girls inside the store during
to her separation, said employers had been questioning business hours." And on the strength of these
their employees regarding their membership in said facts the court found respondents, now
union and had interfered with their right to organize petitioners, guilty of unfair labor practice and
under the law. ordered them to pay a fine of P100.
 HELD: Dismissed because of membership in
The employers denied the charge. They claim that the National Labor Union and union activities, ER
complainant was dismissed from the service because of guilty of ULP, and ER fined P100
her misconduct and serious disrespect to the
management and her co-employees so much so that ISSUE
several criminal charges were filed against her with the W/N ER is guilty of ULP
city fiscal of Manila who, after investigation, filed the
corresponding informations against her and the same HELD
are now pending trial in court. YES.

After due hearing, the industrial court found the following Findings of fact binding on SC
The industrial court has made a careful analysis of the
 Prior to November, 1953, Nena Micaller was evidence and has found the petitioners have really
earning P4.80 a day. subjected complaint and her co-employees to a series of
 After every New Year, she was given from P180 questioning regarding their membership in the union or
to P200 as bonus whereas the other employees their union activities which in contemplation of law are
were only given P60. For three consecutive deemed acts constituting unfair labor practice. This
years (1950-1952), she was given a first prize finding is binding upon this Court.
for being the best seller, the most cooperative
and most honest employee. Questioning of employees concerning union
 She organized a union among the employees of membership and activities and disparaging remarks by
the store which was latter affiliated with the supervisory employees made in such away as to hamper
National Labor Union. Later, the National Labor the exercise of free choice on the part of the employees,
Union sent a petition to the store containing ten have been uniformly condemned as ULP.
demands and Nena was called by the
management for questioning and, in the Also, the power to impose the penalties provided for in
manager's office, Yu Ki Lam, Richard Yang, Yu section 25 of Republic Act No. 875 is lodged in ordinary
Si Kiao and Helen Yang asked her who were the courts, and not in the Court of Industrial Relations,
members of the union, but she pretended not to notwithstanding the definition of the word "Court"
know them. contained in section 2(a) of said Act. Hence, the decision
 Richard Yang and Yu Si Kiao, together with a of the of the industrial court in so far as it imposes a fine
brother-in law, went to the house of Nena and of P100 upon petitioners is illegal and should be nullified.
there again questioned her regarding her union
 Nena was brought by her employers to the
house of their counsel, Atty. Joaquin Yuseco,
and there she was again questioned regarding
her union activities and was even made to sign a
paper of withdrawal from the union.
 The manager of the Store, Yu Ki Lam asked
each employee whether they were members of
the union.
 The union gave notice to strike to the
management. Upon receipt of the notice, the
management hired temporary employees equal