GR 48204; (October, 1941) (Digest)
G.R. No. 48204; October 10, 1941
NATIONAL LABOR UNION, INC., petitioner, vs. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS and THE PHILIPPINE MANUFACTURING CO., respondents.
FACTS
The petitioner, National Labor Union, Inc., sought a review of an order from the Court of Industrial Relations. The order authorized the respondent company, The Philippine Manufacturing Co., to discharge its employee, Benjamin Sanchez, for misconduct. The Court of Industrial Relations found from the evidence that Benjamin Sanchez had been suspended twice previously: on March 8, 1939, for fighting with another company laborer, P. Nomora; and on July 8, 1939, for instigating various laborers not to work on Sundays. On November 25, 1940, at noon, Benjamin Sanchez had an altercation near the company’s bundy clock with another laborer, Ursula de Guzman. During this incident, Sanchez proffered defamatory remarks to de Guzman, who then hit him with an umbrella, provoking a fight between them. Following an investigation by company officer Mr. H.S. Jensen, Benjamin Sanchez was found guilty of provoking the fight, and his indefinite suspension was recommended.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Industrial Relations erred in its factual finding that Benjamin Sanchez, and not Ursula de Guzman, provoked the quarrel on November 25, 1940, thereby justifying his dismissal.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the Court of Industrial Relations. The petitioner’s sole contention was a challenge to the factual finding regarding who provoked the quarrel. The Supreme Court held that it cannot reverse a decision or order of the Court of Industrial Relations on a pure question of fact. Citing previous jurisprudence (Central Azucarera de Tarlac vs. The Court of Industrial Relations, et al.), the Court reiterated its limited scope of review on factual matters from the Court of Industrial Relations. The Court of Industrial Relations had concluded that Benjamin Sanchez was a young man of impulsive character with a propensity to quarrel and attack, and that his two previous suspensions and his role as the provocator in the November 25, 1940 incident justified his dismissal. This factual conclusion was not subject to review. The order was affirmed, with costs.