G.R. No. L-26136 October 30, 1978
THE BACHRACH MOTOR CO., INC. and/or “BACHRACH TRANSPORTATION CO., INC”, as operator of the RURAL TRANSIT, petitioner, vs. THE COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS and RURAL TRANSIT EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, respondents.

FACTS

In 1958, a labor dispute between Bachrach Motor Co., Inc., operator of Rural Transit, and the Rural Transit Employees Association reached the Court of Industrial Relations (CIR). During the pendency of this case, the company filed a petition in 1961 seeking authority to dismiss its driver, Maximo Jacob, for alleged violations of the Motor Vehicle Law, citing a June 9, 1961 accident that destroyed a company bus. The union countered, asserting the accident was due to a mechanical defect. At the hearing, the company presented only one witness, General Manager Joseph Kaplin, and documentary exhibits. After Kaplin’s direct testimony, the hearing was scheduled for cross-examination. However, Kaplin repeatedly failed to appear for cross-examination as he had left for abroad. Consequently, the union moved to strike his testimony from the record and sought Jacob’s reinstatement with backwages.

ISSUE

The primary issues were: (1) whether the CIR correctly dismissed the company’s petition for dismissal after striking Kaplin’s testimony; (2) whether the CIR correctly ordered Jacob’s reinstatement; and (3) whether the award of backwages was proper.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the CIR’s order with modification regarding backwages. On the first issue, the Court upheld the striking of Kaplin’s direct testimony. The right to cross-examine a witness is a fundamental component of due process in both judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings. Since the union was deprived of this right without its fault due to the witness’s unavailability, the incomplete testimony was rendered incompetent and properly excluded. The company’s documentary exhibits, admitted only “for whatever worth they may have,” were insufficient to substantiate the charges without testimonial evidence to authenticate and explain them. Consequently, the company failed to meet its burden of proof to justify Jacob’s dismissal. His reinstatement was thus a necessary legal consequence of the petition’s dismissal. Regarding backwages, the Court modified the CIR’s order for full backwages from suspension until reinstatement. Following the prevailing judicial trend to avoid protracted hearings on interim earnings, the Court deemed it fair and reasonable to limit the award to three years of backwages without qualification or deduction. The order was affirmed as modified.