G.R. No. L-12639; April 27, 1960
PABLO A. VELEZ, petitioner, vs. PAV WATCHMEN’S UNION and the COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Pablo A. Velez is the owner, operator, and manager of the Pablo Velez Special Watchmen’s Agency (the Agency), a business engaged in providing ship security services. The respondent, Pablo A. Velez Watchmen’s Union (the Union), is a legitimate labor organization whose members are watchmen of the Agency. The Acting Prosecutor of the Court of Industrial Relations (CIR) filed a complaint for unfair labor practices against Velez. After proceedings, the CIR found him guilty. The CIR’s decision, later affirmed en banc with a modification on the computation of back wages, ordered Velez to: (1) cease the unfair labor practices; (2) reinstate Jesus Cabagnot, Ildefonso Aguirre, and Isaac de Castro with back pay; (3) bargain collectively with the Union; and (4) publish the order. Velez petitioned for review, challenging the findings of unfair labor practice, the order to bargain collectively, the existence of an employer-employee relationship, and the reinstatement and back pay order.
The CIR’s findings of unfair labor practice were based on evidence that Velez: (a) interfered with the Union’s organization by threatening a union organizer and demanding affiliation papers; (b) refused to meet with Union representatives and had them arrested on a pretext; (c) required employees Aguirre and de Castro to resign from the Union as a condition for continued employment; (d) discriminated against Union members Cabagnot, Aguirre, and de Castro by bypassing them for work assignments after learning of their union activities, despite sufficient work; and (e) initiated, assisted, and supported the formation of a rival union, the Manila Bay Watchmen’s Association (MBWA), holding its organizational meeting in the Agency during office hours and promising help to secure its registration.

ISSUE

1. Whether the CIR erred in finding petitioner Pablo A. Velez guilty of unfair labor practices.
2. Whether the CIR erred in ordering him to bargain collectively with the respondent Union.
3. Whether the CIR erred in holding that an employer-employee relationship exists between Velez and the Union members.
4. Whether the CIR erred in ordering the reinstatement with back pay of the discriminated employees.

RULING

1. No, the CIR did not err in finding unfair labor practices. The Supreme Court affirmed the CIR’s findings, as they were supported by the record. Velez’s acts of interference, coercion, discrimination, and support for a company-dominated union (the MBWA) clearly constituted unfair labor practices under Republic Act No. 875 .
2. No, the CIR did not err in ordering collective bargaining. This order is a direct consequence of the finding of unfair labor practice. The respondent Union is a legitimate labor organization entitled to recognition. The MBWA was instigated by Velez to frustrate the Union’s demands, so the order to bargain with the legitimate Union was proper.
3. No, the CIR did not err in finding an employer-employee relationship. Velez claimed to be a mere agent for shipping companies. However, the Court held he falls within the statutory definition of “employer” under Section 2(c) of Republic Act No. 875 , which includes “any person acting in the interest of an employer, directly or indirectly.” Furthermore, Velez himself referred to the watchmen as his employees and had entered into a collective bargaining agreement with the MBWA.
4. No, the CIR did not err in ordering reinstatement with back pay. Section 5(c) of Republic Act No. 875 explicitly authorizes the CIR to order reinstatement of victims of unfair labor practices “with or without backpay.” Since Cabagnot, Aguirre, and de Castro were denied work assignments due to their union activities, the order for back pay corresponding to what they would have earned was logical and lawful.
The decision of the Court of Industrial Relations was affirmed in toto.