Caltex Filipino Managers and Supervisors Association v.

CIR
G.R. L-30632-33 – April 11, 1972
J.Villamor

Topic: Unfair Labor Practice – In General – Construction/Interpretation

Doctrine: RA 875 provides for instances of unfair labor practices. If a company commits a violation of any of the
instances given, then they shall be found guilty of ULP.

Petitioners: Caltex Filipino Managers and Supervisors Association

Respondents: Court of Industrial Relations, Caltex Philippines Inc., W.E. Menefee and B.F. Edwards

Case Summary: CALFIMS wanted to be the authorized bargaining unit of management individuals employed by
Caltex Philippines. After having issues with being recognized by the company, proceedings in Court for the
certification election of said association, and a strike staged by members of the association against the company,
the SC needed to answer two very important issues. First, was whether the strike was illegal, and second was
whether Caltex committed unfair labor practices. To the first question, the SC declared that the strike was actually
legal and so was evidenced by the evidences presented by both parties. With regard to the unfair labor practices, the
SC found that Caltex indeed committed violations of RA 875. The company did not bargain in good faith with the
bargaining unit, they also committed acts which showed that they were convincing people not to join associations,
and they also prematurely terminated some employees who joined the strike, among others.

Facts:
 January 21, 1965: Petitioner, (CALFIMSA) was registered as a labor organization; it sent a letter to the company
informing them of the former’s registration
o Caltex replied and inquired on the position titles of the employees which CALFIMSA was to represent
o Caltex countered the request of CALFIMSA to be the duly authorized bargaining agency of the
employees, and the former stated that a distinction exists between representatives of management and
individuals employed as supervisors
 Caltex stated that they were of the belief that managerial employees are not qualified for
membership in a labor organization; hence CALFIMSA should institute a certification
proceeding so as to remove any question with regard to the position titles that should be
included in the bargaining unit
 February 22, 1965: Caltex initiated a certification proceeding docketed as Case 1484-MC
 March 8, 1965: CALFIMSA filed a notice to strike  Refusal of Caltex to bargain in good faith and act on
association’s demands, union-busting tactics, unfair labor practices, etc.
 March 29, 1965: Judge Tabigne cautioned the parties to maintain status quo; and specifically advises the
employees NOT to go on strike, making it clear, however, that in the presence of unfair labor practices, the
employees could go on strike even without any notice
 April 22, 1965: Employees staged the strike after the efforts exerted by the BLR failed
 April 26, 1965: Caltex then filed an “urgent petition” filed as Case No. 1484-MC (1), as an incident of the
certification election proceedings
o To declare the strike as illegal; to have the officers and members of the association who
instigated/participated in the strike be punished for contempt and be declared to have lost employment
status; and a temporary injunction be issued against the association; and damages
 CIR: Sided with Caltex and declared that the strike was illegal, and that there were no unfair labor practices
committed by Caltex

Issues + Held:
1. W/N the strike was illegal – NO
 Considering arguendo that the illegality incident had not become moot and academic, the SC found that they
were unable to agree with the CIR that the strike was unjustified
o CALFIMSA was able to file its notice of strike on March 8, 1965 and the association gave reasons
therefore, any of which is a valid ground of strike
 In addition, the association presented voluminous evidence that showed that they were not
only asking for recognition from the company, but also that they were accusing the company
of bargaining in bad faith, and unfair labor practices
 It must be remembered, that one of the important rights recognized by the Magna Carta of
Labor is the right to self-organization  this is a monumental piece of labor legislation
 The CIR conveniently picked out a number of incidents that took place during the strike to support its conclusion
that the strikers resorted to means beyond the pale of the law in the prosecution of a strike
 o Such as: The members blocking off entrances/exits of other employees, refusal of striking supervisors
to surrender the keys to the depots and storage tanks, etc.
o The SC, however, stated that the CIR ignored other strong evidences from the witnesses who work in
the Company
o Having said this, the SC found that the CIR committed GAD, and so the SC is justified in reviewing or
altering the respondent court’s factual findings
 SC: “We are convinced from the records that on the whole, the means employed by the
strikers during the strike, cannot be considered as unlawful; in other words, the Company
itself through the provocative, if not unlawful, acts of the non-striking employees is not
entirely blameless for the isolated incidents relied upon by respondent court as tainting the
picketing of the strikers with illegality.”

2. W/N Caltex committed unfair labor practices – YES

 Sec. 14 (c) of RA 875, it states that the parties themselves are required to “participate fully and promptly in such
meetings and conferences as the (Conciliation) Service may undertake.”
o In the case at bar, the parties agreed to meet on April 21, 1965, but the company did not even send
representatives!
 THE COMPANY’S CLAIM TO BE IN GOOD FAITH CANNOT BE GIVEN
CREDENCE  W.E. Menefee, the managing director, conveniently left Manila for Davao on
either April 17 or 18
 In addition, there was a deliberate failure on the part of the company to attend the conciliation
meetings on April 19 and 21
 It is clear that the company employed dilatory tactics to discredit CALFIMS before the eyes of
its own members and prospective members
 It is likewise not disputed that on March 4, 1965, the company issued its statement of policy
which stated that:
“We sincerely believe that good employee relations can be maintained and essential employee needs
fulfilled through sound management administration without the necessity of employee organization
and representations. We respect an employee’s right to present his grievances, regardless of whether
or not he is represented by a labor organization.”
o From the above quoted statement, an employee reading it would gain the impression that there was no
need to join the Association – for he is free to present his grievances regardless of whether or not he is
represented by a labor organization
 This type of conduct cannot escape the Court’s attention
 In addition, long prior to the strike, the Company had also interfered with the Cebu Supervisor’s Union by
enticing one of the employees, Mapa, to leave the Union under the guise of a promotion in Manila
 Discriminatory acts practiced against the active unionists include acts such as preferring non-members of the
association in promotions to higher positions and humiliating active unionists by either promoting junior
supervisors over them or by reduction of their authority compared to that assigned to them before the strike, or
otherwise downgrading their positions
o In addition, the company terminated the employment of J.J. Mapa and Dominador Mangalino,
President and VP of the association
 The company did not even hesitate to do so notwithstanding the fact that the association made
a seasonable appeal from the CIR’s decision
 This particular action shows the anti-union posture and attitude of the
company
 It must be noted that the terminations were premature considering that the CIR did not even
expressly provide that such dismissal should be effected immediately despite the pendency of
the appeal timely taken by the association
 The evidence suggests that the company did in fact commit unfair labor practices, and they violated Sec. 4 (a),
Nos. (1), (3), (4), (5) and (6)1

1
Section 4. Unfair Labor Practices. -

(a) It shall be unfair labor practice for an employer:

(1) To interfere with, restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed in section three;

(3) To initiate, dominate, assist in or interfere with the formation or administration of any labor organization or to contribute
financial or other support to it;
  Art. 24 of the Civil Code states that the Courts must be vigilant for the protection of one at a disadvantage – and
here, the association CALFIMSA appears to be at a disadvantage in its relations with the Company
o Adequate affirmative relief, including backwages, must be awarded to the strikers

Ruling: WHEREFORE, respondent court’s resolution dated May 16, 1969, together with the decision dated February 26,
1969, is reversed.

(4) To discriminate in regard to hire or tenure of employment of any term or condition of employment to encourage or discourage
membership in any labor organization: Provided, That nothing in this Act or in any other Act or statute of the Republic of the
Philippines shall preclude an employer from making an agreement with a labor organization to require as a condition of
employment membership therein, if such labor organization is the representative of the employees as provided in section twelve;

(5) To dismiss, discharge, or otherwise prejudice or discriminate against an employee for having filed charges or for having given
or being about to give testimony under this Act;

(6) To refuse to bargain collectively with the representatives of his employees subject to the provisions of section thirteen and
fourteen.