La Mallorca local 101, petitioner, vs. La Mallorca Taxi, respondent, case no. 4-ULP, October 3, 1953 [Decision of the Court of industrial relations]

Title

Language

English

Source

XIX (10) October 31, 1954

Year

1954

Subject

Unfair labor practices

Labor disputes

Employee rights

Labor laws

Industrial relations

Philippines. Supreme Court

Appellate court

La Mallorca Taxi

Maralit, Estanislao

Chan, Manuel

Rights

In Copyright - Educational Use Permitted

Abstract

The respondent is seeking to dismiss the complaint filed by the Acting Prosecutor in the court against La Mallorca Taxi for unfair labor practice. When a complaint does not fairly appraise the respondents of the acts allegedly constituting unfair labor practice and of all other issues they are required to meet, such defect should not be a sufficient reason to dismiss the complaint; and serve as a ground for a motion for a bill of particular. The court’s decision for the motion under consideration is denied.

Fulltext

DECISION OF THE COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS La Mallorca Local l 01, Petitioner, vs. La Mall<wca Tazi, Re· spondent, Cm1e No. 4-ULP, October 3, 1953, Lanti11g, J. 1. COURT OF INDUSTR1AL RELATIONS; UNPAIR LAROR PRACTICE; NATURE OF UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE PROCEF:DINGS. - An unfair labor practice proceedings under Section 5 <>f' Republic Act No . 875 is not a criminal action. The underlying purpose :Jf proceedings under this section nf the Act is the effectuation and rireservation of industrial harmony. Acccrdingly, it has been held that while complaint proceedings may in given cases result in incidental relief or benefit to individual employees, the proceedings are intrinsic-a lly of a public nature. The proceedings are no\'el in our j ·nidical syst~m, having been comparatively recently created by the original Act. They have neither dependence upon nor r elation to either the substantive or adjective aspects of the common law. They do nt>t r:onstitute litigation in the sense that litigation, as it is generally conceived, ir> an action be. tween individual litigants for damages or other private redress. 2. ID· ; ID.; SUFFICIENCY OF THE COMPLAINT. - The sole function of the complaint is to advise the respondent of the charges constituting unfair labor practices 11s defined in the Act, that he may have due notice and a full opportunity for hearing thereon. The Act does not require the particulnrit y of pleading of an indictment '"Ir information, or the elemcnb of a cause like a declaration 3t law or a bill in CflUity. All that is required in a valid complaint before the Board is that there be a pbin statement Or the things claimed to c0nstitutc ~n unfair labor practice that respondent may be put upon his v/" defense. 3. ID.; ID.; EFFECT OF DEFECTIVE COMPLAINT. - W hen a complaint does not fairly apprise the respondents of the acts allegedly constituting unfair labor practice and of all other issues they are required to meet, such defect should not be a sufficient reason to dismiss or quash the complaint; at most, it could serve as ground for a motion for bill of particular:>.. 4. I D.; ID.; IMPOSITION OF PENALTIES. - In the event of a finding by this Court in an unfair labor practice case initi'1ted under section 5, that any perscn has engaged or is engaging in unfair- labor practice, only the remi:!dies and l·eliefs providC'd in said SE'ction may be granted. In such case, t~is Court should not and can not at the same time impose the penalties prescribf>d in section 25. On the other hand, in case the imposition of the penalties prescribed in section 25 is sought, a criminal complaint or information must be filed and the requirements of ~ue process as tc· procedure and t:vidcnce in ordiI?:iry criminal ca~e'l must be observed. 8. C. Gonzales & Acty. Prosecutor E.~tanislao /lfaralit for petitioner. Manuel Chan for respondents. ORDER This concerns a motion of respondent seeking to dismiss or quash the complaint filed by the Acting Prosecutor of this CJurt dated August 15, 1953 against _ the La Mallorca Taxi for unfair labor practice. Th<> grounds in support of said motion are as follows: ·•i. The complaint, which is a crimin:tl action, has not been brought in the name of the real party i11 :nterest, that is, the People of the Philippines; 2. The respondent is a juridical person, and a juridical person caru1ot be made a defendant in u criminal action; 3. The allegation!! of the complaint are vague, uncerhin and fails to inform the respondf'nt of the nature and caus1.. of the accusation against it; ;md 4. The procedure prescribed by Republic Act 875 for the hearing or tl'iul of ,·iolation uf the provisions of the same, that is, by Section 5 thneof, in rdation to Section 2b of the said Act, is unconstitutional and void.'' The first three grounds are all wholly based on the pttmi9e that the complaint filed in this case is a criminal complaint and that consequently the present action before this Court is a criminal action. An examination of this premise is therefore necessary. First of all, the complaint itself stales that it was brought "pursuant to Section 5(b) of Republic Act No. 875." Said section 5(b) provides: "(b) The Court shall observe the following procedure without resort to mediation and conciliation as provided in Section four of Commonwealth Act numbered One Hundred and Three, as amended, or to any pre-trial procedure. Whenever it is charged by an offended party or his representative that any person has engaged or is engaging in any such unfair labo1· practice, the Court or any agency or agent design:lted by the Court must investigate such charge and shall have the power to issue and cause to be served upon such person a complaint, stating the charges in that respect and containing a notice of hearing before the Court or a member thereof, or before a designated Hearing Examiner, at the time and place fixed therein not less than five nor more than ten days after serving the said complaint. The pet·son complained of shall have the right to file an answer to the complaint and to appear in person or otherwise (but if the Court shall so request, the nppearance shnll be personal) and give testimony at the place and time fi xed in the complaint. In the discretion of the Court, a member, thereof or a Hearing Examiner, any other person may be allowed to intervene in the said proceeding and to present testimony. In any such proceeding, the rules of evidence prevailing in Courts of law or equity shall not be controlling and it is the spirit and intention of this Act that the Court and its members and Hearing Examiners shall use evel'y and all reasonable means to ascertain the facts in each case speedily and objectively and without regard to technicalities of law or procedure. In rendering its decisions, the Cou1·t shall not be bound solely by the evidence presented during the hearing but may avail itself of all other means such as (but nbt limited to) ocular inspections and questioning well-informed persons which results must be made a part of the record. In the proceedings before the Court or a Hearing Examiner thereof, the parties shall not be required to be represented by legal counsel and it shall be the duty and obligation of t he Court or Hearing Examiner to examine and cross-examine witnesses on behu.lf of the parties and to assist in the orderly presentation of the evidence." Paragraph 4 or the complaint all~es "thu.t by the acts described in paragraph three (3) above, respondents and/or its agents have engaged and are- engaging in unfair labor practice within the mean· ing of Section 4(a), sub-section 1 of Republic Act No. 875." The provisions referred to reads as follows: "Sec. 4. Unfair Labor Practice.(a) it shall be unfair labor practice for an employer: ( 1) To interfere with, restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of their rights guarnateed in section three; Section 5(b) of Republic Act No. 875 was borrowed substantially from Section lO(b) of the National Labor Relations Act of the United States which, as originally enacted, reads: "SEC. JO(b) Whenever it is charged that any person has engaged in or in engaging in any such unfair labor practice, the Board, or any agent or agency designated by the Board for such purposes, shall have powel' to issue and cause to be served upon such person u. complaint stating the charges in that respect, and containing a notice of hearing be.fore lhe Board or a member thereof, or before a designated agent or agency, at a place therein fixed not less than five days after the serving of said complaint. Any such complaint pl&)' be amended by the member, agent, or agency conducting the hearing or th@ Board in its discretion at any lime prior to the issuance of an October 31, 1!154 THE I.A WYERS JOURNAL order based thereon. The person so complained of shall have the right to file an answer to the original or amended complaint and to appear in person or otherwise and give testimony at the place o.nd time fixed in the complaint. In the discretion of thP member, agent or agency conducting the hearing or the Board, any other person may be allowed to intervene in the said proceeding and to present testimony. In any such proceeding the mies of evidence prevailing in courts of law or equity shall not be controlling." Commenting on the above-quoted provision, Rothenberg, in his book entitled "Labor Relations," has the following to say: "The underlying purpose of proceedings under this section of the Act is the effectuation and preservation of industrial harmony. Accol'dingly, it has been held that while complaint proceedings may in given cases result in incidental relief or benefit to individual employees, the proceedings are intrinsically of a public nature. The proceedings are novel in our juridical system, having been comparatively recently created by the original Act. They have neither dependence upon nor relation to either the substantive Ol' adjective aspects of the common law. They do not constitute 'litigation' in the sense that litigation, aa it is generally conceived, is an action between individual litigants for damages or other private redress in which the right of Jury trial obtains." (p. 560J As to the sufficiency of a complaint filed pursuant to this provision, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals says: "The sole function of the complaint is to advise the respondent of the charges constituting unfair labor practices as defineci in the Act, that he mr.y have due notice and a full opportunity for hearing thereon. The Act does not require the particularity of pleading of an indictment or information, or the elements of a cause like a declaration at Jaw or a bi!! in equity. All that is requisite in a valid complaint before the Board is that there be a plain statement of the things claimed to constitute an unfair labor practice that respondent may be put upon his defense." (NLRB v. Piqua Munising Wood' Products Comp:rnY,, 109 F<2d) 552, cited in Teller's Labor Disputes and Collective Bargaining, Vol. 2. p. 1005). The above is sufficient to dispose of respondent's contention that rho instant proceeding is a criminal action and hence the Court considers th1i first three grnunds of respondent's motion to dismi!';!i as not well taken. What remains for the Court to consider is the fourth ground, It is our opinion that the procedure prescribeci in section [ for the hearing of unfair labor practke cases docs not violate the constitutionnl 1·equirement of due process· As stated earlier, Section 5(b) of our law was copied from section 10{b) of the National L&bor Relations Act, nnd in overrding the contention that this Act was lacking in due prucess of law, the United States Supreme Court declai·ed: "We construe the procedural provisions as affording acl1iqmtte opportunity to secure judicial protection against nrbitn1ry action in accordance with the. well-settled rules applicable to administrutive agencies set up by Congress to aid in the enforcement of valid legislation." <Jones and Laughlin Steei Corporation vs. National Labor Relations &ard, 301 USO 1'he Court notes, howe\•er, that what respondent objects to is the procedure prescl'ibed in section 5 in relation to section 25. This is evident from the wording of the fourth ground quoted at the Jx... ginning and the statement on page I2 of the motion to the effect that "Section 5 und 25, insofar as they complem1mt: each other, arc null and void." Jn <lffect it is respondent's -zontention Uint sC'ction 25 is inseparable from section U because any finding or decision of this Court in an action or proceeding brought under section 5 to the effect that one of the unfair labor practices enumerated in section 4 has been committed will Hutonv1tically require the imposition of the penalties iirovided in section 25. The C.ourt dcE:s not subscribe to such a \•iew. lice ~1~s!~ea~~r:tl'i~:~1~:j ::~::~~dc~~t, n::u;l~:vi~~:~y u;:!~~~e~a:~. ~:a~: assumption in not correct.. In the £eCOnd place, the first paragraph of section 25 is applicable only to persons who violate section ! and the commission of any of the acta of unfair labor practice enumer1tted in section 4 is not necessarily also a violation of section 3. In the third place, a close eJ(amination of these two aed iona will show that they are not inseparably intertwined but on the contrary can stand alone and independently of each other. Consequently, the irnposition oi the penalties provided by section 25 is not mandatnry 1~1 proceedingi; brought under section 5. It is our opinion that in the l.vent of a finding by tlai11 Court in an unfair labor practice case mitiated under section 5, that any pcn;on has engaged or is engaging i:i unfair labor practice, only the i·emedies and reliefs provided in said section may be granted. In such case, this Court should not and cannot at the same tim(. impose the penalties prescribed in section 25. On the other hand, in case the imposition and penalties prescribed in section 25 is sought, a criminal complaint or information must be filed a nd the requirements of due process as to procedure and evidence in ordinary criminal cases must be observed. As to the sufficiency of the complaint filed in this case, the Court is satisfied that it conforms substantially tc> their requirPmrnts of due process. At any rate, when a complaint does not fairly apprise the respondents '>f the acts alledgely constituting unfair labor practice and of· all other issued they are required to meet, such defect shouid not be a sufficient reason to dismiss or quash the complaint; at most, it could serve as ground for a motion for bill of particulars. IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the motion under consideral;ion shoulcl be, as it is hereby, denied. SO ORDERED. Manila, Philippines, October 3, 1953. {$GD.) JUA N L. LANTING As. 'foetate J u.dge Re public or the Phillppinea ~p n rtme nt of Public Works 11nd Commun ic11lions BUREAU Of' POSTS MANILA SWORN STATEMENT 1Re11uirl'd by Act 26801 The umlcrsig ned. VICENTE J, FRANCISCO e<litorf1nn nruti ng l'ditor/hUllnest man11ger/ owner / r>ubli1her. of THE LAWYERS JOURNAL (title o f publkatlonl. p ublished once 11 month (frequcncy of issue). in ENGLISH AND SPANISH C111n¥U•irt• In which r>rinled). nt 1190 Tnft A\•enue, Mnnil11 (office of 1>ublie.tlon) • ..rt.,r havin Jt been duly s worn in nceordnnec with lnw, he reby submit.I th" followin1t 1ta1"ment <>f ownershi11. rn11nn)!'.Cm<' nt. ci rcu!ntion, d e . . which ia reQuirW by Act 25SO, 111 amended by Commonw~ nlth Act No. 201: Po.t·Offke Addreu 1190 Tftft Avenue, Ma nila 1190 Tnft Avenue, Mnnl111 1190 Taft A•·enue, Mani la 1190 Ta ft A\enue. Manila 11 90 Tdt Avenue. Mulla !05 Don A. Rocet Ave., Queion Cl\J' 11 90 'l'llft A\•enue, M1tnil1< If publication Is owned by n corPOrnt ion , 1tockho lder1 owning one percent or more of the totnl nmount of at04'ka: NONE NONE · ·n~~;,i,;.;1d~~~: · ;..;~~tU~~;;~: · ;.~ · ·~lh .... r. · .;.,cu~it; · i.'0'1d~~; · ·~.;.~';~~· · ~~~· · ~; · ~~·t· · ~; more of totnl nmnunt of ""curity : NONE NONE · ·1·,; ·~~.-.; ·~r ',j~;°1~· ~~L1i~~i;~~·: ~~·~·r~;..; .. · 0nu n;~; ·~r · ~~1~ie·.· ·1;;;~·t:.d' ~·~.i ·~;·.~~·1~i~ · ~; < •nch iu u ~ during the rroccdin1r m <'nlh of , ......................... 19 .• • I. Sent to 1 >aid •ub!!Cribera .. • : . . . . ....... . 2. Sent to nthe ra thnn 1 •11id sub11eribers , .. In cue of Pllhlicntlon othe r than daily. total numher of co1 1\u r>rintt><I •11d drcu!nted of lhe 1 111t Issue dated Aua u ot SI. 1954. I. Se nt to vnid 1uh•c rihc,r1 . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . 3.~00 2. Sc nttoothera thnnpnid sub&crlbcrt. 100 1S1:1d.l VICENTE J . FRANCISCO ISl1tnaturel OWNJ:ll AND PU llLl!'.trE I< ITille of dultrn•tlonl Subocribed a nd zworn lo before me thl1 1 day of October. 1954 Al M•nlla ti... nffln nt exhih!tlng Illa n ~ai d<>n"" Cu1if!cftt" No. A-0195i31 l&11UHI 111 Q. C .• Morch 28, 1954. Doe. No. 807 P alj'.f: No. E! Book I Serio of !9S4 RICARDO J . FRANCISCO Notary P ublic Until Dec. SI. 1954 ( NOTE): Thit form i1 uem pt from the Pf\J'ntent of dorull'M!ll~'"J' stamp lu. li26 THE LAWYERS JOURNAL October 31, l!l54

Media