SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 007 18/02/2020, 7)45 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 007 18/02/2020,
/2020, 7)45 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 007
No. L-18810. April 23, 1963.
MD TRANSIT and TAXI CO., INC. and CAM
TRANSPORTATION CO., petitioners, vs. BIENVENIDO
DE GUZMAN, CECILIO CAJOLES and BERNARDITA
ORACION, respondents.
Unfair labor practice; Expulsion of members due to charges
preferred against officers of union.·The Union was guilty of unfair
labor practice under subdivision (b) (2) of Section 4 of Republic Act
No. 875, when respondent members were ex​pelled from the Union
due to the charges preferred by them against the officer of the
Union, which led to the discovery of an alleged shortage in its
Mutual Aid Fund and the refer​ence of the case to the FiscalÊs Office
for appropriate action. Necessarily, this was also the reason why
respondents were dismissed by petitioner companies, since there is
no other possi​ble cause for said dismissal, thereby committing an
unfair labor practice under subdivision (a) (5) of said Section 4.
VOL. 7, APRIL 23, 1963
MD Transit & Taxi Co., vs. De Guzman
APPEAL by certiorari from a decision of the Court of
Industrial Relations.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Luis A. Dayot Law Offices for petitioners.
Filoteo Dianala Jo for respondents.
CONCEPCION, J.:
Appeal by certiorari, taken by petitioners MD Transit &
Taxi Co. Inc., and CAM Transportation Co. from a decision
of the Court of Industrial Relations directing the
reinstatement of complainants Bienvenido de Guzman,
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001705816caa5e3976f32003600fb002c009e/p/ASL936/?username=Guest
18/02/2020, 7)45 PM
Bernardita Oracion, and Cecilio Cajoles, as members of the
MD-CAM Local 3 (PTGWO), as well as the reinstatement
of Bernardita Oracion, and Bienvenido de Guzman as
employees of the MD Transit & Taxi Co., Inc. with back
wages from October 27 and November 9, 1958, respectively,
and that of Cecilio Cajoles as employee of CAM
Transportation Co., from October 27, 1958, until actual
reinstatement in all cases, and, likewise, directing the
Chief of the Examining Division of said Court or his duly
authorized representative, to proceed to the premises of
said petitioners and go over the records thereof „to
determine the back wages‰ of said „complainants and
thereafter to submit a report to the court for further
disposition.‰
Petitioners MD Transit & Taxi Co., Inc. and CAM
Transportation Co. are separate entities engaged in
business as common carriers, but under joint management,
which had entered into a collective bargaining agreement
with the MD-CAM Local 3 (PTGWO), a labor union
composed of employees of said entities, to which prior to
October 27, 1958, complainants Bienvenido de Guzman,
Cecilio Cajoles and Bernardita Oracion were rendering
services, the first two as drivers and the last as
conductress. On October 23, 1958, complainants secured
the signatures of their co-employees to a petition to the
727
Department of Labor for an auditing of the mutual aid fund
of said Union, collected by its president, Felipe de Guzman.
As the auditing requested took place, said Department
727 found on October 27, 1958, that there was a shortage of
over P22,000.00 in the aforementioned mutual aid
728
728 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
MD Transit & Taxi Co., vs. De Guzman
fund. The matter was, accordingly, referred to the City
Fiscal of Quezon City for appropriate action. On the same
date, complainants were suspended as members of the
Union by order of said Felipe de Guzman, and several days
later, or on November 9, 1958, they were expelled from the
Union by its Board of Directors. Complainants were,
Page 1 of 5 http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001705816caa5e3976f32003600fb002c009e/p/ASL936/?username=Guest Page 2 of 5
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 007
likewise, dismissed by the petitioners, although the parties
do not agree on the date on which this took place. Hence,
complainants brought their case to the Court of Industrial
Relations, an Acting Prosecutor of which subsequently filed
a complaint charging the petitioners, as well as the
President, the Vice-President and the members of the
Board of Directors of the Union, with unfair labor practice.
In their answer, petitioners denied the commission of
unfair labor practice on their part and alleged that
complainantsÊ dismissal was due: 1) to their absence from
work for four (4) consecutive days, in violation of their
collective bargaining contract; and 2) to a communication of
the Union to the petitioners urging the same to dismiss the
complainants pursuant to a closed shop stipulation in said
contract, in view of their expulsion from the Union. The
answer filed by the officers of the latter was substantially
of the same tenor.
In due course, the lower court rendered the
aforementioned decision in favor of the complainants, upon
the ground that their expulsion from the Union was illegal
it having been effected without previous notice and
hearing, and its true cause being, not their alleged absence
from work, but the complaint by them filed with the
Department of Labor for alleged irregularities in the
handling of the mutual aid fund of the Union, and that
complainants were dismissed by the petitioners before the
latter had received the communication, Exhibit 5, of the
Union, asking the petitioners to dismiss the complainants
owing to their aforementioned expulsion from the Union. A
reconsideration of said decision having been denied by the
lower court sitting en banc, the petitioners have interposed
the present appeal by certiorari, contending: 1) that having
acted in compliance with a valid close shop provision of the
contract above referred to, petitioners
VOL. 7, APRIL 23, 1963
MD Transit & Taxi Co., vs. De Guzman
cannot be convicted of the unfair labor practice commented
by the Union; and 2) that the lower court had acted on
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001705816caa5e3976f32003600fb002c009e/p/ASL936/?username=Guest
18/02/2020, 7)45 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 007 18/02/2020, 7)45 PM
mere conjectures, and, consequently, had erred in findings
that complainants were dismissed by the petitioners before
the latter had received said letter of the Union, Exhibit 5.
The officers of the Union did not appeal from the
aforementioned decision.
We find no merit in this appeal of petitioners herein, the
lower court found that complainants were dismissed before
said Exhibit 5 was received by petitioners herein. Said
dismissal could not have been made, therefore, in
pursuance either of the request contained in said
communication or of the closed shop provision of the
aforementioned collective bargaining agreement. Moreover,
the lower court found and this amply supported by the
evidence or record · that complainantsÊ suspension by the
President of the Union, and their subsequent expulsion by
its Board of Directors, were due to the charges preferred by
said complainants against the officers of the Union, which
led to the discovery of an alleged shortage in its Mutual Aid
Fund, and the preference of the case to the City Fiscal of
Quezon City. Thus the Union was guilty of unfair labor
practice under subdivision (b) (2) of Section 4 of Republic
Act No. 875. Necessarily, this was, also, the reason why
complainants were dismissed by the petitioners herein ·
since there is no other possible cause for said dismissal, in
the light of circumstances adverted to above · thereby
committing an unfair labor practice under subdivision (a)
(5) of said Section 4.
With respect to the sufficiency of the evidence in support
of the finding that complainants were dismissed by
petitioners before the latter had receive the aforementioned
Exhibit 5, the record abundantly shows that complainants
were not allowed by agents of petitioners herein to enter its
premises or work for the petitioners since November 9,
1958 despite the fact that said communication was not
written and sent until November 10, 1958.
729
WHEREFORE, with the modification that the
backwages of the three (3) complainants shall begin from
729
730
730 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
MD Transit & Taxi Co., vs. De Guzman
Page 3 of 5 http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001705816caa5e3976f32003600fb002c009e/p/ASL936/?username=Guest Page 4 of 5
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 007 18/02/2020, 7)45 PM

November 9, 1958, which is the date of their dismissal by

the petitioners, the decision appealed from is hereby
affirmed, in all other respects, with costs against the
petitioners.

Bengzon, C.J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Reyes, J.B.L.,

Barrera, Paredes, Dizon, Regala, and Makalintal, JJ.,
concur.
Labrador, J., took no part.

Decision affirmed with modification.

Note.·Am employee, who has been dismissed from the

service owing to an unfair labor practice on the part of the
union, is entitled to reinstatement as member of the union
and to his former or substantially equivalent position in
the company, with backpay to be borne by the union
(Salunga v. Court of Industrial Relations, et al., L-22456,
Sept. 27, 1967, 21 SCRA 216). See also Republic Savings
Bank c. Court of Industrial Relations, et al., L-20303, Sept.
27, 1967, 21 SCRA 226, where certain employees were
dismissed for writing a letter urging the bank president to
resign.

_______________

© Copyright 2020 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001705816caa5e3976f32003600fb002c009e/p/ASL936/?username=Guest Page 5 of 5