10/16/2020 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 105

[No. L-11876. May 29, 1959]

MERALCO WORKERS UNION, petitioner, vs. MANILA

ELECTRIC COMPANY, ET AL., respondents.

Review by certiorari of a decision of the Court of Industrial

Relations. Petitioner union, composed of laborers and
employees of the Manila Electric Company, charged the
said company with unfair labor practice, alleging (1)
that it discriminatorily discharged Conrado Trinidad by
reason of his union activities, and (2) that union
members were refused overtime compensation enjoyed
by non-members. Finding that Trinidad's discharged
was caused by his repeated absences without previous
permission and that the members who were denied
overtime compensation had signed a waiver in
consideration of certain valuable privileges, the lower
court dismissed the charges. Held: Petitioner tries to
minimize the cause for Trinidad's dismissal by saying
that he was discharged for having absented himself
twice. But the fact is not disputed that previous to those
two absences without permission, he had already been
absent five times and warned that should he again
absent himself from work without previous permission
he would be dismissed from the service. Repeated
absences without permission are something that should
not be taken lightly in an enterprise, which, like the
respondent company, is under obligation to furnish
electric light and power twenty-four hours a day to the
inhabitants of a metropolitan and industrial city like
Manila, and that disregard of warning against repetition
of a series of absences amounts to gross indiscipline
which no enterprise should be compelled to tolerate. On
the second count, petitioner contended that since the
court had found that some workers worked overtime, it
should have directed the respondent to make payment.
But since the only issue in the case was that of unfair
labor practice based on alleged discrimination in the
payment of overtime compensation, and the court found
that there had been no such discrimination, it had no
alternative but to dismiss the charge as without

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001752feb1da5fb67fbe1003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/2
10/16/2020 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 105

foundation. If petitioner believes and can prove that

there has been a
1337

violation of the eight-hour labor law, what it should do is to

file a charge on that specific point so that adequate proof
could be adduced for or against it. Petitioner cannot just
assume that the waiver of overtime compensation by
drivers who preferred to work in the motor pool was
against the law, it appearing that such waiver was to be in
consideration for certain valuable privileges they were to
enjoy, and there is no proof that the value of those
privileges did not adequately compensate for such work.

Decision affirmed. Reyes, A., J., ponente.

———————————

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

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001752feb1da5fb67fbe1003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/2