G.R. No. L-18364; February 28, 1963
PHILIPPINE AMERICAN CIGAR & CIGARETTE FACTORY WORKERS INDEPENDENT UNION (NLU), petitioner, vs. PHILIPPINE AMERICAN CIGAR & CIGARETTE MANUFACTURING CO., INC., respondent.

FACTS

The petitioner union filed a complaint for unfair labor practice against the respondent company. The allegations, which the Court of Industrial Relations (CIR) found substantiated, were that the company’s manager summoned the union president and advised that if union member Francisco San Jose did not withdraw an unfair labor practice charge he had filed against the company, the company would dismiss his brother, Apolonio San Jose. Subsequently, on January 24, 1959, the respondent company did dismiss Apolonio San Jose. The CIR found that the moving cause for Apolonio’s dismissal was indeed his brother Francisco’s refusal to withdraw the unfair labor practice charge.
The CIR, however, dismissed the complaint. It reasoned that while the dismissal of Apolonio may have been illegal or improper, it did not constitute an unfair labor practice under Republic Act No. 875 . The CIR interpreted Section 4(a)(5) of the Act, which prohibits dismissing an employee “for having filed charges,” as applying only to the employee who personally filed the charge. Since Apolonio was not the one who filed the charge, the CIR held it had no jurisdiction over the claim as an unfair labor practice case.

ISSUE

Whether the dismissal of an employee (Apolonio San Jose) due to a relative’s (his brother Francisco’s) refusal to withdraw an unfair labor practice charge constitutes unfair labor practice under Republic Act No. 875 .

RULING

Yes, the dismissal constitutes unfair labor practice. The Supreme Court reversed the CIR decision. The legal logic centers on a purposive construction of the labor law to effectuate its spirit and intent. While Section 4(a)(5) explicitly protects the employee who files charges, the Court held that this provision must be interpreted in line with the fundamental purpose of the Act: to assure absolute freedom for employees to organize and seek redress for violations without fear of reprisal.
The Court reasoned that if dismissing the charging employee is an undue restraint on this freedom, then dismissing a close relative as leverage to force the withdrawal of charges is an even greater and more effective restraint. It creates pressure not merely on the individual complainant but on his immediate family, which could more powerfully coerce an employee into abandoning a legitimate claim. The law prohibits what cannot be done directly from being accomplished indirectly. Citing American jurisprudence under the analogous Wagner Act, the Court noted consistent rulings that discharging a relative due to another employee’s union activities constitutes an unfair labor practice. Such action extends the penalty for union activity beyond the individual, creating a potent tool to discourage collective action.
Consequently, Apolonio San Jose’s dismissal violated Section 4(a)(5) as an act of discrimination for the filing of charges, broadly construed. It also violated Section 4(a)(4), the counterpart of the U.S. Wagner Act’s Section 8(3), which prohibits discrimination to encourage or discourage union membership. The Court ordered the respondent company guilty of unfair labor practice and directed the immediate reinstatement of Apolonio San Jose with backpay.