Allied Workers Association of the Philippines, vs. Insular Lumber Company, G.R. No. L-6128, February 25, 1954 [Supreme Court Decisions]

Media

Part of The Lawyers Journal

Title: Allied Workers Association of the Philippines, vs. Insular Lumber Company, G.R. No. L-6128, February 25, 1954 [Supreme Court Decisions]
Language: English
Source: The Lawyers Journal Volume XIX (Issue No.6) June 30, 1954
Year: 1954
Subject: Labor laws and legislation -- Cases; Labor unions
Rights
Abstract: [Respondent Insular Lumber Company (later to be referred to as the Lumber Company) is a domestic corporation engaged in the lumber business in Fabrica, Negros Occidental, employing laborers who belong either to the petitioner Allied Workers Association of the Philippines (later to be referred to as the Association) or to a rival union known as the United Labor Union, of which Catalino de los Santos is the President.]
Fulltext: for naturalization, Is married to a Filipino, and is 11ow Jiving as a peaceful resident in this country. Besides possessing all the qualifications required of an applicant for naturalization, the evidenee shows that during the last war, he cloo.rly identified himself with the Filipinos, even helping in the underground resistance movement. However, the law must be complied with. The following authorities may be cited: "x x x It is not within the province of the courts to make bargains with applicants for naturalizatoin. The courts have no choice but to require that there be a full compliance with the statutory provisions" (2 Am. Jr., 577). •"An alien who seeks political rights as a member of this nation can rightfully obtain them only upon terms and conditions specified by Congress. Courts are without authority t; sanction changes or modifications; their duty is rigidly .to en· (orce the legislative will in respect of a m.'.l.tter so vital to the public welfare"' <U.S. vs. Ginsberg, 243 U.S., 472; 61 L. ed. 853; 856). In view of the foregoing, the judgment appealed from is affirmed, with costs against the appellant. SO ORDERED. PartU, Pablo, Bengzon, Padilla, Montemay<W, Reyu, Bau.tista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion., and Diokno, J.J., concur. IX ,/ Allied Workers Association of the Philippines, vs. Insular Lum. /'er Company, C.R. No. L-6128, Febrtl.!111"1J 25, 1954, Montenw'llor, J. EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYEE; UNFAIR LABOR PRAC.. TICES; CASE AT BAR. - The Insular Lumber Co. tmployed laborers who belonged either to the Allied Workers Association of the Philippines or to a rival union known as the United Labor Union. Santos, a foreman of the Saw Mill De.. parhnent of the Company, had previously been l\n aclive and le.'.l.ding member of the Allied Workers Association of the Philip. pines, but recently had been President of a rh·al union (the United Labor Union). On April 18, 1952, the Allied Workers Association of the Philippines demanded the immediate expulsion and dismissal of Santos, and one of the grounds for the petition was that he had committed and continued to commit acts which constitute unfair labor practices, cruel and detri. mental to the members of the Association. These unfair and cruel labor practices consisted in the threats made by Santos against the workers that if they did not join the United Labor Union, they would be expelled from their jobs or t·eported to the special policemen of Governor Lacson to be manhandled and said laborers were forced to pay f>l.00 each :ind to enter said union against their will and desire, etc. The Lumber Co. filed a motion stating that as may be seen from the charges filed by the Association, the charges against Catalino who was the president of the United Labor union, a cival or the ASsociation had nothing to do with the per!ormanco? of his duties as an employee of the Lumber company, and that the charges were motivated by the fact of Catalino's being president of Qie United Labor Union; that the Lumber Company was under no obligation to take any part in the charges and countercharges of rival unions. HELD: - We cannot agree to the order appealed from stating that the charges againrt Catalino de los Santos were made against him as president of a rival labor union and iu no manner affected the Lum~r Company. It will be remembered that Catalino in allegedly making the threats and putting pressure upon the laborers working under him so acted while he wa::; working as a !oreman of the Lumber company, exercising the functions and authority of an important emw ployee or official of tht! Compa?ly. Furthermore, if he so acted with the knowledge and consent of the company, the parties to this case and the Court wants to know and have the right to know. We are more inclined to agree with Presiding Judge Roldan in his dissent that under the circumstances the Lumber company should take direct interest in the case, deny or meet the, charges for the reason that its good name is involved; that the continued employment of Catalino would in no way solve the industrial conflict between the parties to the case, and that unless the Lumber Company could show that the acts of Catalino complained of, if proven. were individual acts withw out the anthority of the Company, or it authorized, were ex.. ceeded, the Company could not ucape blame, and that Cataw lino as foreman exercised to a limited extent managerial func. tions as a result of which his acts as an agent may be con.. sidered as the acts of his principal. Emilio R. SEveri110 for petitioner. Ross, Selph, CMTascoso and Janda for respondent. DECISION MONTEMAYOR, J., There is no dispute as to the facts. Respondent INSULAR LUMBER COMPANY <later to be re!erred to as the Lumber Compuny) is a domestic corporation <.ngagcd in the lumber business in Fabricn, Negtos Occidental, employing laborers who belong either to the petitioner ALLIED WORKERS ASSOCIATION OF THE PHILIPPINES <later to be referred to as the Association) or to a rival union known as the UNITED LABOR UNION, of which Catalino de los Santos is the President. On April 18, 1952, the petitioner Allied Workers Union sent a letter to t.he respondent Lumber Company presenting three demands, namely: (]) The immediate expulsion and dismiss;1l of Catalino de los Santos, foreman of the Sawmill Department of the Insular Lwnber Company on the ground that he had committed and continued to commit acts which constitu+.e unfair labor practices, cruel and detrimental to the members ot the petitioner; (2) The standardization of salaries and wages based on proper job classification and evaluation; and (3) A general daily ;ncrease of P2.00 in wages and sa.. laries of all the employees and laborers of the company. According to the memorandum filed on behalf o( the Lumber Company dated January 7, 1953, on April 18, 1952, the company replied to the petition as regards the demand for the expulsion and dismissal of Catalino de los Santos, saying that the latter had been the foreman of the sawmill .department of the company for many years, hacl previously been an active and leading member of the petitioner Association, but recently had been the President of a rival Union (The . United Labor Union) of which many employeca and laborers of the company wero affiliated; that while the accuw sations made against Catalino might be well founded the comp1>ny wanted to say that the United Labor Union had made more or less similar charges from time to time against several members of the Association, and that inasmuch as the company had always (ollowed a strictly neutral attitude as between the two unions, ~id company had ignored said complaints; consequently, the company felt that in Order to be fair it Eihould not take the drastic action of dismissal requested but that if the Association sent proof that Catalino had been enriching himself at the expense of the laborers working under him, the company Would immediately investigate the matter. 282 THE LAWYERS JOURNAL June SO, 1954 Convinced that the Lumbe1· Company refused and failed to grant the three demands aforcmenli'lnt>d, the Association d<'clared a strike in the afternoon of June 7, 1952. On Ju_ne 9, 1952, the company sought the interventi~n of the Court of InduStrial Relations CCIR> by filing a petition entitled "INSULAH LUMBER COMPANY, petitioner, vs. ALLIED WORKERS ASSOCIATION, respondent, Numbered '705-V''. On June 14, 1952, while the strike was in progress, the Lumber company filed an urgent petition in the CIR asking it to ord{'r the strikers back to work. On June 17, 1952, Associa~e Judge ,Jose Bautista who wns hearing the ease issued an order to the Jnborers and employees of the Lumber Company who were on strike to i·eturn to work pending determination of the demands and i~ues involved in the cuse. Pursuant to said order the sfriking laborers and employees i·eturned to work. Complying with the verbal order of Judge Bautista the Association presented a specification or charges against Catalino de lvs Santos, dated June 16, Hl52. According to this specification, Catalino de los Santos was working as foreman of the sawmill dl'partrnent of the Lumber company, which sawmill department was the biggest department of the Lumber company; that ten laborers whose names wen: listed, working in said sawmill under Catalino were threatened that if they did not join the United Labor Union they wou,ld be expelled from their jobs or reported to the Special Policemen of Governor Lacson (presumably of Negros Occident.al) to be manhandled, and said laborers were forced by Catalino to pay f'l.00 each as entrance fee to said Union against their will and desire; that Antonio Ablando, a laborer in the sawmill department under Catalino was promised by the latter a job provided that in exchange he lent Catalino the sum of Pl0.00; that eventually Ablando was given a job but during the time that he was working with the Lumber Company, Catalino had taken from him the total amount of f'130.0.0 allegedly borrowed but never paid, and that Catalino also took one of Ablando's pigs worth P30.00 without paying for the same; that abnut 458 laborers whose names were listed in the specification and who were working in the sawmill department under Ctalino were thl'eatened that if they refused to sign their membership and affiliation with the '·VOICE OF THE POOR", a union being organized by Catalino, they would be separated frcm the service; that the Lumber company had been duly advised of these doings and activities of De lo~ Santos but that the management had not done anything to pl'otect said laborers who had been the object of the threats, intimidation and coerci.on by Catalino, and that the laborers so mentioned and listed were 1·eady to testify in court. On June 21, 1952, the Lumber company filed a motion stating that as may be seen from the apecification of charges filed by the Association, the charges against Catalino who waa the president of the United Labor Union, a rival of the Association had nothing to do with the performance of his duties as an ~mp\oyee of the Lumber company, and that the chuges were motivated by the fact or" Catalino's being president of the United Labor Union, that there was no law specifying what are unfair labor practices by rival union leaders; that the Lumber company could not act on ex.parte charges; that the Lumber company was under no obligation to take any part in charges and countercharges of rival unions; that Catalino should be served a copy of the charges an_ d given the opportunity to answer the same and make such defenses and present evidence as he may have, with such counsel as he may select for all of which the Lumbe1· company could not be held res.. ponsible; thirt the other issues involved referring to the demands for standardization of and increase in wages could be properly discussed and submitted to the CIR in Manila. , 1'he motion concluded with a prayer that the Lumbe1· company be relieved of any obligation or duty to defend Mr. Catalino de los Santos against ihe charges filed by the Association, and that the CIR dismis3 such charges as not a proper issue in the dispute between the petitioner and respondent with the right of course on the r,art or the Association to present such charges before the proper tribunal. ~. Acting upon this motion of the Lumber company Judge Bautista issued an order dated J une 28, Hl52 holding that according to the specification of charges filed by the association against Catalino de los Santos, it was clear that the charges were filed against him as President of a rival union for unfair labor practices and in no manner affected the Lumber company, <>s the dispute wafi between two rival unions; however, considering that the said charges against Catalino mi~ht involve the Lumber company if not solved in time, the court <CIRI WC'uld proceed to investigate .said charges, "but in so doing it shall relieve the petitloner Lumber company of the obligation or duty to defend Mr. De los Santos." The order rec1ui1·ed Catalino to be notified of the same and of the date of hearing of the charges against him in Bacolod City. As to the other demands, namely, standardization of salaries and gcncral increase of wages, the hearing was ordered held in Manila. The Association filed a motion for reconsid2ration of the above referred order of June 28, 1952. On said motion for reconsideration the CIR act~d in bane and Judge Bautista with the concurrence of Associate Judges Castillo and Yanson ruled that the court failed to find sufficient reasons for altering or modifyin~ ·said order. However, Presiding Judge Roldan and Associate Judge Lanting dissented in separate opinions. The Association is no"! appuling to this Court from the said order. We \!annot agree to the order appealed from stating that the' chanres against Catalino de los Santos were made against him as president of a rival labor union and in no manner affected the Lumber company. It will be remembered that Catalino in allegedly making the threats and putting pressure upon the laborers working under him so acted while h~ was working as a foreman of the Lumber company, exe1·cising the functions and authority of an important cmployec or official of the Company. Furthermore, if he so acted with the knowledge and .:onsent of the company, the parties to this case and the Court wants t.o know and have the right to know. We are more inclined to agree with Presiding Judge Roldan in his dissent that under the circumstances the Lumber -company should take direct interest in the case, deny or meet the churges for the reason t.hat its good name is inv~lved; that the continued employment of Catalino would in no way solve the industrial conflict between the parties to the case, and that unless the Lumber company could show that the acts of Catalino comr lained of, if pro,·en, were indi\'idual acts without the authority (Jf the Company, or if authorized, w{'re exceeded, the Company could not escape blame, and that Catalino as foreman exercised to a limited extent managerial functions as a result of which l;iis ads as an agent may be considered as the acts of his principal. We also agree with Judge Lanting in his dissent that if it were trne as claimed .ir. the order appealed from that the charges against Catalino in no manner affected the lumber company but involved only two rival unions, then the CIR lacked jUl'isdiction over the subject matter because there was no employer-employee relationship involved; that as a foreman Catalino by his position must have had certain supervisory, if not managerial functions; that when he indulged in the anti-labor practices attributed to him there was the likelihood that he was acting for the Company, and tliat said Company has the burden of proof to show why it should be exempt from blan1e for the acts of Catalino, and that even if it was proven that the company did not know of such acts, still it could be compelled to discharge Catalino !n order to remove a sure cause of dissension in the Com1iany. In conclusion, we are of the opinion that the charges against Catalino de los Santos affect. and involve the J~umber company. It would appear that as foreman of the sawmill department emJune 30, 1954 T_ HE LAWYERS JOURNAL 283: ploying hundreds of laborers he had the right to employ nnd dis. charge laborers or at least the anthority to recommend their f'mployment and discharge. Naturally, with such authority, and the laborers knowing it, his urging them to join a certain labor union under threat- of dismissal and his requests for loans even when not repaid, could not well be ignored or rejected by them. Of course, as the order appealed from states, the Lumber company cannot be compelled to defend Catalino de los Santo;;; but that the company should be vitally interested in the investigation against Catalino, there is no doubt. The company is a party to the case. Whether it wants to take part in the investigatio11 and hearing. that is its affair, but it will naturally be bound by any finding and decision of the CIR based on said investigation and hearing. With this understanding and with the consequent modification of the order appealed from, the same is h<'reby affirmed. No costs. Paras, Pablo, Beng:on, Patlilla, Reyes, Jugo, Bautista. Angel9, and Labrador, J.J., concur. x Larry J. Johnson, Plaintiff-.4vpellee, vs. Maj. Gen. Hrm•ard M. Turrter, et al., Defendants-Appelfo.nt., G. R. No. L-6118, April ?.6, 1954, Monte111nyor, J. ACTION AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES; JURISDICTION. - Philippine courts have no ju. risdiction to try cases against the Government of the United States unless said government has given its consent to the filing of such cases. Sizto F. Santiago for appellants. Quinhn F. Pidal for appellee. DECIS I ON MONTEMAYOR, J.: This is an appeal by the defendants from a decision of the Court of First Instance of Manila ordering them or their succes.. sors or representatiVes to return to plaintiff or his authorized representative the confiscated Militar y Payment Certificates <SCRIP MONEY> in the reconverted or new series, amounting to $~1713.00. For purposes of the present appeal the pertinent facts not disputed arc as follows. Plaintiff-Larry J. Johnson, an American citizen, was formerly employed by the U. S. Army at Okinawa up to August 5, 1950, when he resigned, supposedly in violation of his employment con. tract. In the same month he returned to the Philippines as an American civilian, bringing with him Military Payment Certificates <SCRIP MONEY> in the amount of $3,713.0IJ which sum he claims to have earned while at Okinawa. About five months later, that is, on January 15, 1951, he went to the U.S. Military Port 'of Manila and while there tried to convert said scrip money into U.S. dollars, allegedly for the purpose of sending it to the Unit~d States. Defendant Capt, Wilford H. Hudson Jr., P rovost Mar. 1>hal of the Military Port of Manila in the performance ·of his military duties and claiming that said act of Johnr.on in keeping scrip money and in trying to convert it into dollars was a violation of military circulars, rules and regulations, confiscated said scrip money, gave a receipt therefor and later delivered the scrip money to the military authorities. J ohnson made a formal claim for the return of his ~crip money and upon failure •lf the military authorities to favorably act upon his claim, on July 3, 1951, he ccmmenced the present action in the Court of First Instance of Manila against Major General Howard M. Turner as Commanding General, Philippine Command <Air Force) and 13th Air Force with office at Clark Field; Major Torvald B. Thompson as Finance Officer, Provost Marshal, 13th Air Force with office at Clark Field; and Captain Wilford H. Hudson Jr. as Provost Marshal attached to the Manila Military Port Area, to recover said amount of $3,713.00 "at the reconverted or new series aud to the same f ull worth and value." It may be stated in this connection that shortly after the confiscation of the scrip money in Manila on January 15, 1951, an order was issued by the U.S. military authorities for the conversion of all scrip money then outstanding into a new series, thereby rendering valueless and of no use the old series of which the scrip confiscated from Johnson formed a part, and that was the reason why the prayer contained in Johnson's complaint is for the return not of the very same scrip money Cold series) confiscated, but the sU:m "nt the reconverted or new serieg and to the same full worth and value." The defendants through counsel moved for the dismissal of the complaint on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over their persons and over the subject-matter for the reason that they were being sued as defendants in their. respective official capacities as officers of the U.S. Air Force and the action was based on their official actuations, and that the U.S. Government had not given its consent to be sued. The motion for dismissal was denied and the case was heard, after which, the trial court found and hdd that it had jurisdiction because the claim was for the return of plaintiff's scrip money and not for the recovery of a sum of money as Carnages arising from any civil liability of the defenda1}ts;. and that the confiscatory act Of the defendants is contrary to the proYisions of the Philippine constitution prohibiting deprivation of one's property without due process of law. Pursuant to rules and regulations as well as the practice in U.S. military establishments in Okinawa and the Philippines, military payment certificates popularly known as "scrip money" is issued to military and authorized personnel for use exclusively within said military establishments and as sole medium of exchange in lieu of U.S. dollars, the issuance of said scrip money being restricted to ~hose authorized to purchase tax free merchandise at the tax-free agencies of the U.S. Government within its military installations. It is said to be intended as a control mt=asure and to assure that the economy of the Republic of the Philippines will be duly protected. The confiscation of Johnson's scrip money is allegedly based on Circular No. 19, Part I, par. 7<a) of the GHQ, Far East Comnmnd, APO 500, dated March 15, 1949, the pertinent provisions of which read thus: "7. Disposition of Military Payment Certificates. A. Personnel authorized to hold and use military payment certificates prior to departing on leave, temporary duty, or permanent change of status from a military payment certi. ficate areas to areas where military payment certificates are not in authorized use will dispose of their military payment certificates holding prior to departure. Similarly authorized personnel who lose their authorized status are required at the time of such lose to dispose of their military payment or certificate holdings." It is the claim of the defendants that Johnson should have disposed of or converted his scrip money into dollars upon his resignation as employee of the U.S. Government when he lost his authori:.:ed status. and prior- to hi11 departure from Okinawa, and that his possession of said scrip mor.ey in the Philippines, parti. cularly m the Manila Military Port Area was illegal, hence the confiscation. Believing that the main and most important question involved in the appeal is that of jurisdiction, we shall confine our considerations to the same. In the case of Syquia v. Lopez, et al., 47 O.G. 665, where an action was brought 'against U.S. Army officers not only for the recovery of possession of certain apart.. ments occupied by military personnel under .a contract of lease, but also to collect back rents and rents at increased rates includiug damages, we held: 284 THE LA WYERS JOURNAL June 30, 1954
pages: 282-284