G.R. No. L-51494 August 19, 1982
Judric Canning Corporation, petitioner, vs. The Honorable Amado G. Inciong, in his capacity as Deputy Minister of Labor, et al., respondents.

FACTS

Private respondents were employees of petitioner Judric Canning Corporation and members of the United Lumber and General Workers of the Philippines (ULGWP). On August 19, 1978, they alleged they were prevented from reporting for work and their time cards were removed due to their union activities, specifically soliciting membership for a union being organized within the company. They subsequently filed a complaint for unfair labor practice and illegal dismissal, seeking reinstatement with backwages. The petitioner corporation denied the allegations, contending the employees had voluntarily abandoned their work and that it had no knowledge of their union activities until later served with a petition for certification election.

ISSUE

Whether the Regional Director and the Deputy Minister of Labor committed grave abuse of discretion in finding that the dismissal of the private respondents constituted unfair labor practice and was without valid cause, thereby ordering their reinstatement with full backwages.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, upholding the labor officials’ findings. The Court emphasized that the factual conclusion of the Regional Director, affirmed by the Deputy Minister, that the employees were dismissed due to their union activities and not due to abandonment, is binding and supported by evidence. The Court found it illogical for employees to abandon their jobs and immediately file a case for reinstatement, especially given the difficulty of securing employment. The petitioner’s offer of severance pay was deemed a clear admission of dismissal.
On the legal issue, the Court rejected the petitioner’s argument that no unfair labor practice could exist because the dismissal preceded the union’s formal organization and registration. Under Article 248(a) and (d) of the Labor Code, interfering with or restraining employees in their right to self-organization, including dismissing them for soliciting union membership, constitutes unfair labor practice. The protection extends to preparatory organizational activities, not merely to registered unions. While the Regional Director erred in citing the lack of prior clearance for dismissal (as the employees had less than one year of service), this error was not fatal. The order was primarily grounded on the substantive finding of dismissal due to union activity and the petitioner’s failure to submit the required report in lieu of clearance. Thus, no grave abuse of discretion was committed.