[ G.R. No. L-2203. May 23, 1949 ] 83 Phil. 663
[ G.R. No. L-2203. May 23, 1949 ]
SAN MIGUEL BREWERY, RECURRENTE, CONTRA LA CORTE DE RELACIONES INDUSTRIALES Y LA NATIONAL LABOR UNION, RECURRIDAS. D E C I S I O N
BRIONES, M.:
Se ha interpuesto el presente recurso de certiorari por la entidad recurrente San Miguel Brewery contra la Corte de Relaciones Industriales y la National Labor Union a fin de que revoquemos y dejemos sin efecto una orden dictada por la referida Corte en el Expediente No. 26-V (4), bajo la ponencia de su presidente interino, Hon. Jose Ma. Paredes, orden que despues se confirmo por el tribunal en pleno con una sola disidencia. Para dar una idea clara y acabada de los hechos que dieron lugar al litigio y de los puntos de derecho en controversia, estimamos conveniente y apropiado transcribir íntegramente a continuación la orden cuya revocación se pide, a saber:
[“INCIDENTAL CASE NO. 26 V(4)] “NATIONAL LABOR UNION, petitioner, vs. SAN MIGUEL BREWERY, respondent. “ORDER
“This is a motion presented by the attorneys for the union alleging that on September 23, 1946, the company dismissed one Urbano Umapas without the permission of this Court, for having testified in the main case No. 26-V and for having been one of the members of the petitioning” union, praying that the vice-president of the company, J. B. Preysler, be punished for contempt and the company ordered to readmit Umapas. The company answering, alleged that Umapas was not an employee or laborer of the company but a special policeman assigned to the San Miguel Brewery by the Provost Marshal’s Office, MPC, and as such was under the control and supervision of said office; that on September 23, 1946, the respondent company was advised by Col. Alberto Ramos, Provost Marshal’s Office, that the appointment of Umapas as special policeman of the company had been cancelled for which reason, on the same date, Umapas was advised by the company that inasmuch as his appointment as special police had been cancelled, he could not continue rendering service to the company. “After his discharge from the Army, Umapas applied for the position of special policeman of the San Miguel Brewery (Exhibit A) and by the latter’s request, he was screened by the Military Police Command. Having been found to be qualified, Colonel Dumlao notified the company to that effect (Exhibit B). On May 18, 1946, Umapas was hired and employed by the company as guard at a monthly salary of P180 and given a badge with the following inscriptions, ‘San Miguel Brewery Guard No. 19’ (Exhibit D). One month and three days afterwards, or on June 21, while he was already working as guard of the respondent company, Umapas was appointed as special agent of the Military Police Command (Exhibit C). “On July 30, 1946, the Court issued an order in the main case entitled, National Labor Union vs. San Miguel Brewery, Case No. 26-V prohibiting the workers from declaring a strike and the respondent from suspending or dismissing any of its employees and laborers without any justifiable cause and without first securing permission of the Court. On August 27, Umapas was presented as a witness by the National Labor Union in the main case and he testified there that although he was one of the employees of the company, he was not given the monthly sack of rice like the others. He testified in the present incident that he was an applicant for membership in the Chapter of the National Labor Union, the San Miguel Brewery Employees and Laborers Association, commonly known as ‘Sambela,’ On September 23, Umapas was dismissed from his employment in the San Miguel Brewery by J. E. Preysler, Vice-President of the company, without obtaining permission from this Court. “The main question presented before this Court is whether Umapas was an employee of the respondent company and if so, whether his dismissal was for a just cause or on account of his union activities or affiliation. “Dr. Adriano, assistant vice-president of the respondent company declared that he hired and employed Umapas as guard at a monthly salary of 1180. The appointment of Umapas as special agent was issued by the MPC but it was the respondent company who paid his salary as a special policeman. The main duty of the MPC was to screen the applicant and recommend him to the company. If the applicant was found fit and qualified, he was recommended to the company and once accepted he was appointed as special agent of the MPC. Colonel Dumlao declared that the MPC did not issue the appointment ‘unless the appointee is employed by the San Miguel Brewery.’ So that the appointment of special policeman by the MPC depended upon his appointment by the San Miguel Brewery. It cannot be denied, therefore, that from the time Umapas was hired by Dr. Adriano, there was created the relationship of employer and employee between the respondent company and the employee con-erned. This is strengthened by the fact that Umapas was hired by the company on May 18, 1946, (page 80 of the record) and was appointed special agent of the MPC only on June 21, 1946 (Exhibit C). In the case of Bendix Products Corporation (volume two, p. 275, Labor Disputes and Collective Bargaining) the employer contended that its policemen were not employees within the meaning of the Act because they held commissions as special officers from the City of South Bend, Indiana. However, said the Board in holding against the contention, ‘The policemen are hired by the company and are paid by it. There is no basis for finding that they are anything other than employees of the company.’ “It is evident, therefore, that Umapas was an employee of the company at the time of his dismissal on September 23. If he was not such an employee, there would have been no need of tagging him with badge No. 19 with the inscription ‘San Miguel Brewery’ intended only for employees of the said company. “The allegation in the answer of the company that Umapas was not an employee thereof because he was under the direct supervision and control of the MPC Command, is not quite correct. The evidence shows that prior to his dismissal, the respondent company, through Mr. Olives, made the assignments to work in the Metropolitan Theater, at the Sargento Mariano Street in Pasay, at the United Dairies at Rotonda. This control is a prerogative of an employer over an employee. “Was the dismissal of Umapas for a just cause or simply on account of his union activities or affiliations? “Umapas was dismissed by the company because of the cancellation of his appointment as special agent for a violation of the instruction from the MPC to the effect, as reported by the company, that he was a member of a labor organization. (Exhibit E). This cancellation could not have materialized had it not been for the said report. The cancellation by the MPC of the appointment of special agent is not, however, of a great moment in the determination of the cause why Umapas was dismissed, because according to Lieutenant Villegas, notwithstanding the cancellation, if the company desired to continue with the service it could have done so, despite the fact that he was no longer a special agent but as special policeman or other status, for there had been & case where the MPC Command recommended the dismissal of an employee because of anomalies committed outside of the premises of the compound, but the company insisted in employing him. So that in the final analysis, it was the will of the company that was to be followed. Consequently, the report (Exhibit E) regarding the affiliation of Umapas to a union was merely a pretext on the part of the company to dismiss him. “The Court searched in vain the records of what might have been the cause of the dismissal. There were no charges of neglect, or inefficiency or bad conduct or anomaly committed by Umapas. There is, however, the fact that he applied, for affiliation with the ‘Sambela’ which he wanted to cancel on October 10, 1946 (Exhibit H). This coupled with the fact that he testified in the main case wherein he supported the claim of the petitioner therein that he also was not given the monthly sack of rice like the others, justify the conclusion that Umapas was dismissed because of these acts which, in the opinion of this Court, do not constitute a just cause. “Granting for the purposes of argument that Colonel Dumlao conditioned the appointment of Umapas upon his not joining any union, this Court believes that Colonel Dumlao did not have the authority to prohibit or deprive any individual from joining a union of his own choosing, for that would be a violation of the constitution and our labor laws. The office of Colonel Dumlao then was only acting as a screening agency of the respondent company. As a principal, the company may not prohibit Umapas from joining any labor union, neither does Colonel Dumlao’s office as agent possess such right. “The right of the employees or laborers to be continued in the service of a company or corporation is not of course without limitation. However, if the employees or laborers are dismissed because of their union affiliation or for other unjustifiable causes, this Court should surely extend to the aggrieved employee or laborer the remedy provided by law. “The Court, therefore, finds the dismissal of Urbano Umapas unjustifiable and orders the company to reinstate him to his former position at the same rate of compensation from the time of his dismissal until the date of reinstatement, with all the benefits that he should have received therefor. “Pursuant to the provisions of section 6 of Commonwealth Act No. 103, as amended, Attorney Guillermo S. Nieva of this Court is hereby delegated to take such action as may be warranted in the premises in connection with the charges for contempt.”
En cuanto a la apreciacion de los hechos, nuestra con-clusion es que la Gorte de Relaciones Industrials no ha cometido ningun abuso en el ejercicio de su discretion; por tanto, nos vamos a limitar a resolver las cuestiones de derecho que se plantean en autos. La recurrente alega y arguye que Urbano Umapas no era obrero o empleado de la compañía San Miguel Brewery sino un policia especial asignado a dicha compania por la Provost Marshal’s Office de la Military Police Command y que tal policia estaba bajo el control y supervisión de dicha oficina; que posteriormente la agenda de la San Miguel Brewery recibió una comunicación del Coronel Alberto Ramos, de la Provost Marshal’s Office, en el sentido de que el nombramiento de dicho Umapas como policía especial habia sido cancelado, por cuyo razón fue notificado inmediatamente por la compañía de que en vista de la cancelación de su nombramiento como policía especial, el mismo no podía seguir prestando servicio a la compañía. La recurrente, por tanto, sostiene que el paro o cesantía de Urbano Umapas se decreto mediante justa causa. Según los autos, la Corte de Relaciones Industrials hallo que el nombramiento de Urbano Umapas como guardia se había extendido independientemente de la acción de la Military Police Command designándole policía o agente especial; pero aun suponiendo cierto que el nombramiento de Umapas se hizo en virtud de la designación hecha por el Provost Marshal, esto no harba de Umapas un funcionario publico en virtud de la doctrina sentada por nosotros recientemente en el asunto de “Manila Terminal Company, Inc., vs. La Corte de Relaciones Industrials y la Manila Terminal Relief & Mutual Aid Association”,[2] R. G. No. L-1881. En dicho asunto hemos establecido que el nombramiento de policía especial hecho por el Alcalde de Manila no hacia del nombrado un funcionario de la ciudad de Manila, toda vez que los sueldos se sufragaban por la compania y el policía servía exclusivamente a la misma. El caso presente es enteramente idéntico al citado—asi que reiteramos aqui ahora la doctrina alii sentada. No hay cuestion sobre el hecho de que los sueldos de Umapas se pagaban por la San Miguel Brewery exclusivamente; tampoco hay controversia sobre el hecho de que Umapas estaba al servicio exclusivo de la compania. Si la Military Police Command tuvo algo que ver con la designacion, ello fue solamente en virtud de un arreglo especial entre la compañía y la Military Police Command para que esta estudiase y dictaminase sobre las cualificaciones del solicitante para el cargo. En meritos de lo expuesto, se desestima y sobresee el re-curso interpuesto, con las costas a cargo de la recurrente. Asi se ordena. Moran, Pres., Paras, Feria, Pablo, Perfecto, Bengzon, Montemayor, y Reyes, MM., estan conformes.