[ G.R. No. L-2347. January 23, 1950 ] 85 Phil. 330
[ G.R. No. L-2347. January 23, 1950 ]
ANSELMO BULASAG ET AL., PETITIONERS, VS. ALIPIO RAMOS AND THE COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, RESPONDENTS. D E C I S I O N
MORAN, C.J.:
This is an appeal by a certiorari taken by some tenants who have been dismissed by their landlord for just cause according to the Court of Industrial Relations.
The landlord, Alipio Ramos, filed a petition with the Tenancy Law Enforcement Division of the Department of Justice, asking for authority to dismiss his tenants Anselmo Bulsag, Rafael Garcia, Patricio Diaz, Juan Lopez, Juan Pujante and Segundo Bahia from their landholdings located in the barrio of Santol, municipality of Balayan, Province of Batangas, upon the ground that said tenants refused to sign contracts of tenancy in accordance with law. The authority was granted and the six tenants appealed to the Court of Industrial Relations wherein the authority applied for was also granted. Hence, the instant appeal of this court.
According to the facts found by the Court of Industrial Relations, Alipio Ramos, the landlord, is the owner of 40 hectares of land and has under his administration another 110 hectares of land belonging to his wife, both parcels of land being located in the barrio of Santol, municipality of Balayan, Province of Batangas. Great portions of these lands are planted with sugar cane and smaller portions with rice. Prior to the 1946-1947 agricultural year the sharing between the landlord and his tenants was on a 50-50 per cent basis, the tenants furnishing the work animals, farm implements and defraying a part of the expenses of planting and cultivation. The landlord also shared in said expenses because the harvesters who usually were the planters themselves were given one-tenth of the gross produce as compensation. Before the agricultural year of 1947-1948, the landlord advised his tenants to execute tenancy contracts embodying all the requirements of hte Philippine Rice Share Tenancy Law (Act No. 4054, as amended) and providing as one of the terms and conditions thereof a sharing basis of 55-45 per cent in favor of the tenants, the landlord to share equally in all the necessary expenses for planting, cultivating, harvesting and threshing. The tenants refused to execute this kind of contract and in turn proposed a sharing basis of 70-30 per cent in their favor. The landlord asked for authority to dismiss his tenants upon their refusal to execute the contracts proferred to them. And the main issue is whether the tenants’ refusal to execute said contracts is a just cause for their dismissal. This question was decided by the Tenancy Law Enforcement Division of the Department of Justice and by the Court of Industrial Relations in the affirmative. And consequently the landlord was given authority to dismiss his tenants should they fail to sign within ten days the tenancy contracts offered to them.
The Court of Industrial Relations held that “under the stipulation of facts, the proposal, terms and conditions under which the six respondents may be engaged again as tenants were, in all respects, fair, legal and in accordance with public policy. The proposed conditions are not undust, burdensome or prejudicial to the interest of the tenants. On the contrary, the conditions provide them better and improved sharing basis and greater profits compared to the conditions observed by the parties before the conflict arose. The conditions of the proposed tenancy contract having satisfied and complied with all the requirements of the Philippine Rice Share Tenancy Act, as amended, and the ordinances appended thereto, the tenants may freely accept or reject it. The law gives them only this choice.
The contract proposed by the landlord as well as that offered by the tenants are both permitted by law and when as in the instant case the landlord and the tenants fail to reach an understanding, the Tenancy Law Enforcement Division of the Department of Justice in the first instance and the Court of Industrial Relations on appeal may in their discretion and under the circumstances of each case determine which of the two contracts must prevail. And if the contract as proposed by the landlord is favored, refusal of the tenants to sign the same within the time given them, may be deemed to be sufficient cause for their dismissal.
The landlord is the owner of the farm and as such has the choice in formulating the terms of his contracts of tenancy, provided he does not violate thereby the provisions of the law intended for the protection of the tenants and does not furthermore deliberately impose conditions that are burdensome and injurious to the interest of the tenants. Although the Philippine Rice Share Tenancy Act was intended to give the tenants a better participation in the fruits of their labor, there is nothing in that Act intended to destroy all the attributes of ownership, such, for instance, as the right of the owner to freely dispose of his property in a manner that is not offensive to the limitations contained in said Act. Therefore, if the contracts of tenancy proposed by the owner are not forbidden by specific provisions of the Tenancy Law and are not injurious to the tenants, they must be respected. And tenants’ refusal to sign them is a just cause for their dismissal.
The decision of the Court of Industrial Relations is affirmed, without costs.
Bengzon, Padilla, Tuason, Montemayor, Reyes, and Torres, JJ., concur. Ozaeta, J., no part.