GR 48170; (October, 1941) (Digest)
G.R. No. 48170; October 10, 1941
NATIONAL LABOR UNION, INC., petitioner, vs. STANDARD VACUUM OIL COMPANY and THE COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, respondents.
FACTS
On February 24, 1938, the Court of Industrial Relations (CIR) decided an industrial dispute between the National Labor Union, Inc. and Standard Vacuum Oil Company, enjoining the company from dismissing any leaders or laborers involved in a strike without just cause and without first submitting such cause to the CIR. On November 27, 1939, the company notified the CIR that it had suspended employees Eladio Echevarria, Basilio de Castro, Santiago Timbancaya, Felipe Patugalan, Alejandro C. Padua, and Adriano Leyva for alleged complicity in the theft of Gargoyle Mobiloils. The National Labor Union petitioned the CIR, alleging the suspensions were unjust and due to union activities, and sought the employees’ reinstatement with back pay. The company opposed, alleging breach of trust and sought authority to discharge them. After a hearing, and after the City Fiscal dropped the theft case for insufficient evidence, the CIR ordered the reinstatement of de Castro, Patugalan, Padua, and Leyva without back pay, and approved the dismissal of Echevarria and Timbancaya as of their suspension dates. The CIR found that Echevarria was the foreman and Timbancaya the checker of the Lubricating Oil Department, and shortages occurred in November 1939. The court noted Timbancaya admitted knowing about the theft and receiving a share of the proceeds. It concluded that while the evidence might not suffice for a criminal conviction, Echevarria and Timbancaya were responsible for the losses in their departments, and the company had lost trust and confidence in them.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Industrial Relations erred in: (1) approving the dismissal of employees Echevarria and Timbancaya despite the City Fiscal’s dismissal of the criminal case for insufficiency of evidence; and (2) denying back pay to the other employees ordered reinstated.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the Court of Industrial Relations.
1. The CIR did not err in approving the dismissal. The conviction of an employee in a criminal case is not indispensable to warrant dismissal. The CIR’s role is to determine if the dismissal is for a just cause or due to union activities. It is not necessary to find guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The CIR found sufficient evidence that Echevarria and Timbancaya were responsible for the losses, breaching the trust of their employer. Their alleged union activities were not the determinative cause of their dismissal. The City Fiscal’s finding was not binding on the CIR in this labor matter.
2. The CIR did not err in denying back pay. The CIR found the company’s action in suspending the other employees pending the case was not without reason. This is a question of fact, and under Section 14 of Commonwealth Act No. 103, the Supreme Court is only authorized to review the CIR’s order upon a question of law. No sufficient justification was found in the record to reverse this factual conclusion.
The order under review was affirmed, with costs.