[ G.R. No. L-4061. May 28, 1952 ] 91 Phil. 378
[ G.R. No. L-4061. May 28, 1952 ]
CENTRAL VEGETABLE OIL MANUFACTURING CO., INC., PETITIONER AND APPELLANT, VS. PHILIPPINE OIL INDUSTRY WORKERS UNION (CLO), (C.V.C. LOCAL), ET AL., RESPONDENTS AND APPELLEES. D E C I S I O N
PARAS, C.J.:
In case No. 146-V of the Court of Industrial Relations between the Central Vegetable Oil Manufacturing Company, Inc. and the Philippine Oil Industry Workers Union, the parties entered on July 17, 1948, into an agreement worded as follows:
“1. That pending the re-opening of the factory in all the departments: “(a) Alfonso de los Reyes will work in place of Primitivo Tan at P6 per day and he and Jose Deogracias (the latter at P6.30 per day) will be working regularly in the filling department; “(b) Primitivo Soriano will be working as a helper electrician at P3.30 per day; “(c) Apolinario Roque will work as filterman at P6.12 per day; “2. That, if the new machinery has not been installed upon the re-opening of the factory in all its departments, the Company shall admit all the former laborers of April 3, 1948; that, if the new machinery has then been installed upon the reopening of the factory in all its departments, the Company and a duly authorized representative of the Union shall determine who among the former laborers shall be hired for each kind of work it deemed capable to do the same and any disagreement thereon will be submitted to the Court of Industrial Relations for arbitration and decision; provided, however, that during the negotiation and the pendency of the matter before the Court of Industrial Relations, the laborers called by the Company and the Union members shall work and continue working to the end that the re-opening of the factory shall not be delayed; “3. That, upon the re-opening of the factory in all its departments, the Company and a duly authorized representative of the Union shall fix wages of the laborers at such scales similar to those of the Philippine Refining Company, in as much as the same machines now being used by the said Company are to be installed in the factory; and, in case of any disagreement, the provisions in paragraph 2 of this agreement will apply; “4. That all laborers of April 3, 1948, shall be given a loan of twenty (20) days wages, except those who already received geatuity from the Company as per attached list and those who will be working during the present period pending the re-opening of the factory in all its departments, said loan being without interest and payable at the rate of twenty (20%) per centum of each laborer’s weekly wage; except, however, that those laborers who are forcibly laid off shall have the right to keep their loan without obligation to repay the same. “The above-mentioned Union agrees to allow its affiliated laborers who were working on June 10, 1948, to resume work immediately upon signing of this agreement.”
This agreement, which was approved by the Court of Industrial Relations on July 23, 1948, was supplemented in the sense that, in determining the former laborers who shall be hired for each kind of work, the Company and the duly constituted representative of the Union shall not consider the re-employment of those who have already received gratuity before July 17, 1948, and severed their relations with the Company. The arrangement embodied in the agreement was conceived by the parties in contemplation of the installation of new machineries of the Company which might necessitate the reorganization of its personnel. Accordingly, there was a time when, while machineries were being installed in the new oil mill, 24 laborers of the Union were laid off. However, upon demand of said 24 laborers, the Company allowed them to work one day each week, so that from June 27 to July 5, 1949, they continued to work on shifts of four men a day, during which they were also granted a loan equivalent to one day’s salary per week. From July 5 to August 6, 1949, when the super duos were being tested, however, these 24 laborers were allowed to work on full time basis. On on about August 6, 1949, a notice was posted on the bulletin board of the Company by the plant superintendent to the effect that the oil mill would stop operation at 7:00 a. m., Sunday, August 7, 1949, due to the readjustment of the machineries until further notice, and that all shifts, mechanics and assistants should report for work at 8:00 a. m., Monday, August 8, 1949. On this latter date, while the three mechanics and three assistants reported for work, the 24 laborers did not. This gave rise to a petition dated August 13, 1949, which the Central Vegetable Oil Manufacturing Company, Inc. filed with the Court of Industrial Relations against the Philippine Oil Industry Workers Union, praying that the laborers affiliated with the respondent Union be discharged on the ground that they declared an illegal strike on August 8, 1949. After hearing, the Court of Industrial Relations, thru Judge Arsenion C. Roldan, rendered a decision on December 12, 1949, authorizing the Central Vegetable Oil Manufacturing Company, Inc. to dismiss the 24 laborers who failed to report for work on August 8, 1949, and to replace them with new laborers, without prejudice to other laborers of the Company who are members of the Union and who had not gone on strike. Upon motion for reconsideration filed by the Union, the Court of Industrial Relations ordered the reinstatement of the laborers and the payment of their wages from the day work is resumed in the Company. Judges V. Jimenez Yanson and Jose S. Bautista held that no strike was staged by the 24 laborers, on the ground that, if they in fact stopped working on August 8, 1949, it was because there was no work, as announced in the following notice posted in the bulletin board of the Company: “Oil mill will stop operation, August 6, 1949, until further notice. All the three mechanics and three assistant mechanics must report to their respective duty.” Judge Juan L. Lanting concurred in the reinstatement of the laborers, but held that, even admitting that there was a strike, the same was not illegal. Judges Arsenio C. Roldan and Modesto Castillo dissented, holding that there was an Illegal strike because it was in violation of the agreement of July 17, 1948, and that, at any rate, said laborers had abandoned their work in violation of said agreement. The Company has filed the present petition for review on certiorari. In our view of the case, we will assume that there was a strike on August 8, 1949. In this connection, it may be stated that on July 14, 1949, the respondent Union presented to the Company the following 14-point petition:
“1. That, in case of reparation periods all laborers who are members of the Union be given other jobs in the company; “2. That, all night shift, workers covered from 6:00 p.m. to 6 a.m. be given an additional compensation of fifty per cent (50%); “3. That, sick leave up to complete recovery with full pay be provided the laborers; “4. That, free medicine, medical care, dental treatment and hospitalization he provided all laborers; “5. That, after one (1) month of service, any laborer be considered permanent; “6. That, the closed-shop system in hiring new employees be established; “7. That, in case of disability, death, incurable disease, dismissal and/or closing of the business, any laborer be given a compensation of two (2) months pay for every year, of service rendered; “8. That, the amount of six pesos (P6.00) as the minimum wage for the present be given the laborers; “9. That, the following laborers be given their former daily wages such as indicated hereinbelow:
‘a. Pricilo Sarmiento …….. 12.00 a day; b. Raymundo Dizon ……. 9.60 a day; and c. All foreman ……………. 9.00 a day.’
“10. That, the check-off system in the collection of dues and other monetary obligation of the union members be established; “11. That, one (1) man be given the sole responsibility in the supervision of all the works and operation of the whole factory; “12. That, due to the present conditions of speedy and heavy pressure of work in which the present laborers can’t cope with due to their small number, an expeller, two (2) copra bodega tendermen and one (1) copra meal tenderman be employed in each shift; “13. That, the regular mechanics be reinforced or employed additional mechanics, and “14. That, maternity leave of one (1) month before and one (1) month after delivery with full pay be provided all the female laborers.”
In addition, on August 8, 1949, the Union asked the Company to allow the 24 laborers in question to work for more than one day, or a minimum of two days every week. This was turned down by the Company which also refused to consider the 14-point petition and insisted that the Union should appoint a representative who, with the Company, could fix the wages of the laborers at scales similar to those of the Philippine Refining Company, as required by the agreement of July 17, 1948. In our opinion, the strike declared, on August 8, 1949, undoubtedly prompted by the refusal of the company to discuss the 14-point petition of the Union and to concede at least two working days a week, was legitimate. The plea of the laborers for better conditions and for more working days cannot be said to be trivial, unreasonable or unjust, much less illegal, because it is not only the inherent right but the duty of all free men to improve their living standards through honest work that pays a decent wage. We cannot hope to have a strong and progressive nation, as long as the laboring class (which constitutes the great majority) remains under constant economic insecurity and leads a life of misery. The demand for two working days a week, even regardless of those for sick leave, maternity leave, medical treatment and hospitalization, is the most legitimate that can be presented by any laborer, for it affects his very right to live. We need not stretch our imagination or power of reasoning to realize that the laborer who has to feed and clothe himself and his family for seven days a week, cannot survive on one day’s wage. The demands that gave rise to the strike may not properly be granted under the circumstances of this case, but that fact should not make said demands and the consequent strike illegal. The ability of the Company to grant said demands is one thing, and the right of the laborers to make said demands is another thing. The latter should be kept inviolate. There are adequate instrumentalities which may be resorted to in case of excesses. In this connection, it may be mentioned that there is nothing in the agreement of July 17, 1948, that may be interpreted as prohibiting the Union absolutely from seeking more working days or better conditions for the laborers. And such prohibition will be patently immoral if not illegal. The Union is charged with having violated its agreement of July 17, 1948, by refusing to name a representative for the purpose of fixing the scales of salaries and wages in accordance with those of the Philippine Refining Company, but, as Judge Lanting properly observes, said violation may be negatived by the belief of the Union that the Company first violated the agreement by employing extra laborers. The explanation of the Company to the effect that extra laborers were hired, not to replace the regular laborers but merely to do odd jobs, is not entirely plausible, because the 24 laborers in question could have been as well employed to perform said odd jobs, specially because as admitted by the appellant, “the twenty-four laborers worked on rotation of four men a day so that each man worked one day a week. They worked—not in their regular work which had to do with the operation of the duo expellers and which duo expellers were not then operating—but by doing odd jobs and helping at the installation of the new machineries.” At any rate, we think that the fixing of wages should be subordinated to the more urgent and important matter of threshing out the question of granting two working days to the laborers. Wherefore, the appealed decision of the Court of Industrial Relations is affirmed, and it is so ordered with costs against the petitioner. Feria, Pablo, Bengzon, Tuason, and Labrador, JJ., concur.