G.R. No. L-13401, December 29, 1960
PRUDENTIAL BANK & TRUST COMPANY and SIXTO L. OROSA, JR., petitioners, vs. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, NATIONAL LABOR UNION and JOSE M. SEÑIR, respondents.

FACTS

Jose M. Señir, the acting chief of the security guard section of Prudential Bank & Trust Company, was dismissed on October 31, 1956. Subsequently, Señir and the National Labor Union filed an unfair labor practice complaint against the Bank and its Vice-President and General Manager, Sixto Orosa, Jr., alleging dismissal due to Señir’s union activities. The petitioners denied the charge, asserting Señir was dismissed for cause based on an investigation by a special committee into charges filed against him by security guard Pablo M. Ignacio. Señir countered that the committee was irregularly constituted, denied him representation by counsel, and did not allow him to present evidence in his defense.
The Court of Industrial Relations found that a collective bargaining agreement was in force between the Bank and the Prudential Bank & Trust Co. Employees Association, which included a provision for a Personnel Committee to settle disputes. The special committee that investigated Señir was not constituted in accordance with this agreement. The committee also denied Señir’s request for counsel and concluded its investigation without giving him an opportunity to present evidence. The court gave credence to Señir’s claim that his dismissal was due to his union activities, noting support from allegations in Ignacio’s complaint that Señir was agitating for improved working conditions. The court declared the committee’s proceedings null and void and ordered Señir’s reinstatement with back pay. The petitioners sought certiorari to annul this decision.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Industrial Relations acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in rendering its decision finding the petitioners guilty of unfair labor practice and ordering the reinstatement of Jose M. Señir.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition. It held that the issue had narrowed to whether the respondent court exceeded its jurisdiction or gravely abused its discretion in crediting Señir’s testimony over that of Orosa. The Court found that the petitioners did not deny the irregularities in the special committee’s organization and procedures. The conclusion reached by the Court of Industrial Relations was made in the valid exercise of its jurisdiction and constituted, at most, a mere error of judgment not reviewable by certiorari. The writ of certiorari was denied, and the preliminary injunction was dissolved.