G.R. No. L-23290, August 31, 1970
Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company, Petitioner, v. Free Telephone Workers’ Union (PAFLU) and Court of Industrial Relations, Respondents.

FACTS

On February 15, 1960, petitioner Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company (PLDT) dismissed switchboard operators Rosario Badillo and Sally H. Lim. They were found guilty of engaging in a private conversation about borrowing money for about fourteen minutes on February 10, 1960, while on duty, in violation of company rules. On July 6, 1960, respondent Free Telephone Workers’ Union, of which the operators were members, staged a strike. This strike was certified by the President to the Court of Industrial Relations (CIR) as involving an industry indispensable to the national interest. Among the Union’s demands was the reinstatement of several employees, including Badillo and Lim. After hearing, the CIR affirmed Lim’s dismissal due to her several past infractions but ordered Badillo’s reinstatement. The CIR reasoned that the February 10 incident did not seem to be of her own making but motivated by “feminine curiosity,” and her reinstatement would lessen tension in the labor dispute. PLDT’s motion for reconsideration was denied. PLDT now appeals, questioning the CIR’s jurisdiction over the reinstatement demand, contending the demand is barred by laches, and that Badillo’s dismissal was justified by her history of rule violations.

ISSUE

1. Whether the CIR had jurisdiction over the Union’s demand for Badillo’s reinstatement.
2. Whether the demand for Badillo’s reinstatement is barred by laches.
3. Whether Badillo’s dismissal was justified.

RULING

1. On Jurisdiction: The CIR had jurisdiction. The labor dispute was certified by the President to the CIR, which found that the termination of Badillo and Lim was one of the causes of the dispute. The Court found no reason to disturb the CIR’s assumption of jurisdiction, as it was in a better position to determine if the reinstatement demand formed an important part of the labor dispute.
2. On Laches: The demand is not barred by laches. The mere lapse of five months between dismissal and the strike is insufficient to prove laches. There is no evidence Badillo intended to abandon her claim. As a Union member, it is presumed she sought the Union’s assistance, and the Union pressed for her reinstatement.
3. On the Justification for Dismissal: Badillo’s dismissal was not justified solely based on the February 10, 1960 incident. While she had prior infractions in 1956 (resulting in a 5-day suspension) and 1958 (resulting in a reprimand), she had already been penalized for those. The resolution of her dismissal should be confined to its immediate cause. The CIR, exercising its discretionary power to resolve a certified labor dispute and lessen industrial unrest, did not exceed its jurisdiction in ordering her reinstatement. However, considering PLDT’s bona fide belief in the totality of her infractions, the Court modified the CIR’s order. Badillo is entitled to reinstatement but without back wages or any pecuniary compensation for the period from her dismissal on February 15, 1960, until her reinstatement. The reinstatement shall take effect on July 21, 1964, the date the CIR en banc denied PLDT’s motion for reconsideration. The judgment is affirmed as modified.