G.R. No. L-23133; July 13, 1967
VICENTE S. DEL ROSARIO, CEFERINA LLAMAS VDA. DE DEL ROSARIO, TERESITA REYES and DIOSDADO LARRAZABAL, petitioners, vs. THE COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS and THE PHILIPPINE LAND-AIR-SEA LABOR UNION (PLASLU), respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners are co-owners and the administrator of Hacienda del Rosario, a 200-hectare land, and lessees of a 107-hectare land, both devoted to large-scale sugar cane planting, processing, and milling. Respondent union, PLASLU, filed a charge of unfair labor practice before the Court of Industrial Relations (CIR) on June 30, 1958, alleging that petitioners dismissed 87 workers due to their union membership, in violation of Section 4-A of Republic Act 875. Petitioners moved to dismiss on grounds of lack of jurisdiction. The CIR, in its decision dated May 11, 1963, upheld its jurisdiction and found that about fifty workers were dismissed for union membership, ordering their reinstatement with back wages. Upon reconsideration en banc on December 13, 1963, the CIR, applying the doctrine in Victorias Milling Co. vs. CIR, dismissed the complaint as to agricultural workers but affirmed jurisdiction over industrial workers (e.g., mill laborers, trapicheros, chemists, drivers). Petitioners appealed, questioning the CIR’s jurisdiction and the sufficiency of evidence for the unfair labor practice finding.

ISSUE

1. Does the Court of Industrial Relations have jurisdiction over the case?
2. Is the finding of unfair labor practice supported by substantial evidence?

RULING

1. Yes, the CIR has jurisdiction over the industrial workers of the hacienda. Applying the rulings in Pampanga Sugar Mills vs. Pasumil Workers’ Union and Victorias Milling Co. vs. CIR, the nature of the work classifies a worker as agricultural or industrial. In a mechanized hacienda, there can be both types of workers. Agricultural workers fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of Agrarian Relations, while industrial workers are under the exclusive jurisdiction of the CIR. The record shows petitioners’ undertaking was mechanized (e.g., ownership of two mills, specialization between field and mill workers, presence of a timekeeper and payrolls, and industrial positions like mill laborers, chemists, and drivers). Therefore, the CIR properly exercised jurisdiction over the industrial workers involved in processing and transporting sugar cane.
2. Yes, the finding of unfair labor practice is supported by substantial evidence. Petitioners’ arguments—such as the dissenting opinion of a judge, the fact that some complainants never worked or moved to dismiss their claims, the presentation of only seven witnesses, and minor discrepancies in the date of dismissal—do not negate the existence of substantial evidence. The CIR found credible the evidence that petitioners dismissed the laborers in March 1958 due to their union membership and rejected petitioners’ claims of resignation, non-employment, or financial difficulties as not credible. Findings of fact by the CIR, when supported by substantial evidence, are conclusive.
The appealed decision and resolution of the Court of Industrial Relations are affirmed. Costs against petitioners.