G.R. No. L-24963 November 29, 1968
G. LINER and/or JOSE DE KEYSER, petitioners, vs. NATIONAL LABOR UNION, EMILIANO SILVA and COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, respondents.

FACTS

Emiliano Silva was a bus driver for petitioner G. Liner since 1957. In January 1959, he began campaigning for membership in the respondent National Labor Union, and on February 28, 1959, he and 11 other drivers formally affiliated with said union. On March 5, 1959, upon reporting for work, Silva was assigned to an old and shabby bus, which he perceived as discriminatory. After driving three trips, he left the bus at the company garage and submitted a written note to the dispatcher stating he would complain to the Department of Labor about the undue change in his employment conditions. After lodging his complaint, Silva returned to work later that same day to sign the dispatcher’s book for the next day’s work, but the dispatcher, on instructions from management, refused to let him sign. Silva was told to see petitioner Jose De Keyser, the company manager, who expressed displeasure at Silva’s having gone to the Department of Labor, stating, “You, Silva, are up to a lot of foolishness… You think we don’t know what you have been doing.” Evidence indicated that after Silva left for the Department of Labor, De Keyser’s assistant instructed the conductor of Silva’s bus to prepare a report stating the bus returned to the garage at the driver’s instance, though it had no engine trouble, which appeared designed to justify a violation report against Silva. Silva’s attempts to resume work were futile; although he and three other drivers were asked via letter on March 15, 1959, to return to work, only two were reinstated, while Silva was not. This led to an unfair labor practice complaint filed with the Court of Industrial Relations (CIR), which found petitioners guilty and ordered Silva’s reinstatement with back wages from March 5, 1959, to the date of reinstatement (excluding June 8, 1964, to March 8, 1965).

ISSUE

Whether the CIR’s findings of fact and its award of full back wages to Emiliano Silva should be upheld.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the CIR’s decision. On the factual findings, the Court held that the CIR’s conclusions are conclusive if supported by substantial evidence, and such evidence existed in this case, including Silva’s testimony and the circumstances surrounding his dismissal. On the award of back wages, the Court rejected petitioners’ reliance on Fernando vs. Angat Labor Union and Sta. Cecilia Sawmills, Inc. vs. Court of Industrial Relations, as those cases involved distinct circumstances (sale of business and business closure). Instead, the Court applied Itogon-Suyoc Mines, Inc. vs. Sañgilo-Itogon Workers’ Union, which held that employees dismissed due to unfair labor practice are entitled to back wages from the date of dismissal to actual reinstatement, subject to deductions for earnings from other employment during that period and potential earnings from suitable employment they might have obtained with due diligence. The Court found no reason to depart from this ruling and thus affirmed the CIR’s judgment with costs against petitioners.