GR L 15453; (March, 1961) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-15453 and L-15723; March 17, 1961
SAN CARLOS MILLING CO., INC. and THE ALLIED WORKERS ASSOCIATION OF THE PHILIPPINES (SAN CARLOS CHAPTER), petitioners, vs. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, PHILIPPINE LAND-AIR-SEA LABOR UNION (PLASLU), SINFORNOSO KYAMKO, and 150 OTHERS, respondents.
FACTS
San Carlos Milling Co. had a collective bargaining agreement with the Allied Workers Association of the Philippines (AWA), containing a union shop clause. The agreement, dated December 12, 1952, was for three years and stated it was “automatically renewable” unless the parties agreed otherwise. On July 14, 1955, the parties executed a document recording their agreement to renew it for another three years upon its expiration. Employee Sinforoso Kyamko, an AWA member, joined a rival union, PLASLU, and campaigned for it. After an investigation for disloyalty, AWA expelled Kyamko and demanded his dismissal. The Company complied on February 18, 1956. PLASLU then demanded Kyamko’s reinstatement and better employment terms. Upon the Company’s refusal, PLASLU declared a strike on April 12, 1956. The strikers offered to return to work on April 27, 1956, but the Company refused reinstatement.
ISSUE
The primary issues were: (1) Whether the union shop agreement was valid and effective at the time of Kyamko’s dismissal, thereby justifying it; and (2) Whether the Company committed unfair labor practice by refusing to reinstate the strikers who had offered to return to work.
RULING
The Supreme Court ruled that the collective bargaining agreement was validly renewed and in effect. The Court rejected a hyper-technical grammatical interpretation of the renewal clauses. The original contract’s term of being “automatically renewable” and the subsequent July 1955 document expressing the parties’ “complete understanding and agreement to effect a renewal” clearly manifested their mutual intent to continue the contract. Therefore, the union shop provision was operative when Kyamko was dismissed in February 1956. However, the Court found that Kyamko’s dismissal pursuant to this clause, after proper investigation and expulsion by AWA for campaigning for a rival union, was legally justified and did not constitute an unfair labor practice.
Nevertheless, the Court held the strike was legal because it was primarily motivated by the dismissal of Kyamko, which the workers believed to be unjust. Consequently, the Company’s subsequent refusal to reinstate the strikers who had made an unconditional offer to return to work on April 27, 1956, constituted unfair labor practice. The strikers did not abandon their employment; their status as employees continued despite the strike. The pendency of PLASLU’s petition for a certification election did not justify the refusal to reinstate. The Court ordered the reinstatement of the strikers. However, considering the Company acted in good faith based on its belief in the validity of the union shop agreement, the award of back wages was equitably reduced to one-half from the date of the offer to return until actual reinstatement. The decision of the Court of Industrial Relations was modified accordingly.