[ G.R. No. L-4157. July 08, 1952 ] 91 Phil. 550
[ G.R. No. L-4157. July 08, 1952 ]
PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE COMPANY, PETITIONER, VS. PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE WORKERS UNION (CLO) AND JUAN L. LANTING, JOSE S. BAUTISTA, AND V. JIMENEZ YAMSON, JUDGES OF THE COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, RESPONDENTS. D E C I S I O N
JUGO, J.:
Pedro Labitag had been working for several years for the petitioner Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company, which hereinafter, for the sake of brevity, will be called the Company, as lineman helper, whose work mostly consisted in digging holes at the sides of the streets for posts. The Company doctor made a physical examination of the employees and the workers of the Company. He found that Labitag was blind in the right eye and recommended his dismissal. The Company accordingly dismissed him. The Philippine Long Distance Telephone Workers’ Union, which hereinafter will be called the Union, filed an urgent petition with the Court of Industrial Relations, praying that he be reinstated. Presiding Judge Arsenio C. Roldan of said court issued an order dated July 1, 1950, to the effect that Labitag should be transferred to another position or, if no other position was available for him, that he be dismissed with the privileges to which he is entitled under the Code of Commerce as a regular worker, and that in the future, should there be another available position for him, he be appointed to it. The Union filed a motion for reconsideration and the case was reconsidered by the Court in banc. The Court through Associate Judge Jose S. Bautista, with the concurrence of Judges Juan L. Lanting and V. Jimenez Yanzon, passed a resolution declaring the motion for reconsideration well founded, and ordering the immediate reinstatement of Pedro Labitag to his former position or another similar position with the same pay, and the payment of his wages from the time he was dismissed until his reinstatement. Presiding Judge Roldan dissented with the concurrence of Judge Modesto Castillo. Labitag was a permanent employee according to the findings of the Court of Industrial Relations. When he was hired for the first time he was already blind in one eye and that was a defect visible to the officers of the Company who hired him. The majority resolution of the Court of Industrial Relations, from which the appeal is taken and not from the minority opinion of Judge Roldan of the same court, qualifies the physical defect of Labitag as “defecto manifiesto” within the meaning of article of the old Civil Code, undoubtedly in its Spanish text, and article 1561 of the new Civil Code. In the Spanish text of article 1484 “defecto manifiesto” is considered as equivalent to “que estuviere a la vista” in contrast to those defects which are not so. Consequently, if the defect of Labitag was “manifiesto” or “estuviere a la vista”, the officers of the Company who employed him could not have failed to see it when they employed him. This reference to said articles should not be taken to mean that we are applying them here, but is only to show the meaning of the word “manifiesto” as used by the majority opinion of the Court of Industrial Relations. He was able to do the work above mentioned, without any accident and without any complaint as to his efficiency. It was only when the doctor made a physical examination and reported that Labitag’s right eye was blind that the Company dismissed him. It is claimed by the Company that as Labitag was working in the streets the cars and other vehicles might strike him because he could not see them. It is hard to see how this might happen any more than with a worker with two sound eyes. If Labitag is occupying a small part of the side of a street in his work, the drivers who have normal eyesight would not run him down but would avoid him. A two-eyed man working in a small part of a street would not be running from one part of the street to the other whenever a vehicle is coming, for that would greatly hamper his work and even mislead the drivers, who as a rule, assume that the worker will stay where he is, to be avoided by the drivers. So many vehicles pass on the street that a two-eyed worker would be continually jumping from one point to another if it were their duty to avoid the Vehicles and not the vehicles to avoid them. Furthermore, as a general rule, when laborers are working in the street, there is a sign cautioning drivers of their presence. Moreover, when one eye is blind the other becomes keener and the sense of hearing and other senses become more acute, on the generally admitted principle that nature makes compensations to a great extent. There is no reason, therefore, why the defective one eye would diminish the efficiency of Labitag, or endanger his life or limb to the prejudice of the company which would have to pay him indemnity under the Workmen’s Compensation Act in case of accident. If his blindness in one eye is a great handicap to Labitag why is it that during the several years that he has worked at said job no accident has happened and no inefficiency has been noted? Natural science is necessarily experimental and all a priori reasoning gives way to a posteriori results. All the arguments to show that Labitag’s defect renders him dangerous and inefficient in his work fall before the happy results of his experience of several years in the same kind of work, results which disprove the rather gloomy but unjustified anticipations of danger and inefficiency. An imagined anticipation cannot overcome the clear and tangible evidence of actual experience. The petitioner contends that it is its right to choose and fire employees without interference from the Court of Industrial Relations, provided it is not done on account of union activities of the workers. That right should not be abused or exercised capriciously, without any reasonable ground, with reference to a worker who has worked faithfully and satisfactorily for a number of years and who was admitted with his alleged defect visible and known, for, otherwise, in future similar cases the exercise of such right might be used as a disguise for dismissing an employee for union adherence. In view of the foregoing, the resolution appealed from is affirmed, with costs against the petitioner. It is so ordered. Paras, C. J., Feria, Pablo, and Bengzon, JJ., concur.