G.R. No. L-23689 July 31, 1968
MAYO LOPEZ CARILLO, HONEY LOPEZ PANGANIBAN, BENITA LOPEZ, ALBINA H. LOPEZ and BALBINO BIADO, petitioners, vs. ALLIED WORKERS’ ASSOCIATION OF THE PHILIPPINES (AWA), RAFAEL DIDAL, BALTAZAR DE ASIS, DIEGO CABALLES, CRISPIN BUENAFE AND the HON. ARTEMIO C. MACALINO, Executive Judge of the Court of Agrarian Relations, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners Mayo Lopez Carillo (co-owner and administrator of Hacienda Fara-on) and others were ordered by respondent Judge Artemio C. Macalino of the Court of Agrarian Relations to reinstate respondents Rafael Didal, Baltazar de Asis, Diego Caballes, and Crispin Buenafe (security guards affiliated with respondent Allied Workers’ Association) to their positions with back wages from May 22, 1963. The security guards, originally farm workers, were appointed as security guards. In April 1963, they affiliated with the union. On May 21, 1963, petitioner Carillo summoned them and stated that as security guards, they should not be affiliated with the union; if they desired to continue membership, they would be transferred to other farm work (not as security guards or skilled work). The security guards, not agreeable to this condition, did not report for work thereafter. The respondent Judge found that the proposed transfer to farm work with a lower wage scale tended to discourage union membership and constituted an unfair labor practice.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Agrarian Relations correctly held that the petitioners committed an unfair labor practice by requiring the security guards to relinquish union membership or be transferred to other farm work, and ordering their reinstatement with back wages.

RULING

The Supreme Court AFFIRMED the decision of the Court of Agrarian Relations. The Court held: (1) The finding of unfair labor practice (constructive discharge) is a factual finding supported by substantial evidence, which the Supreme Court cannot disturb on appeal. (2) The Industrial Peace Act ( Republic Act No. 875 ) provisions on unfair labor practice were applicable to agricultural laborers even before the Agricultural Land Reform Code ( Republic Act No. 3844 ) took effect, as established in Santos v. Court of Industrial Relations (1961). (3) Although the work of a security guard may not strictly fall under “agrarian relations” (per Dequito v. Lopez), petitioners are barred from raising the jurisdictional question at this late stage, having failed to do so earlier. Even if they could, the Court, under the doctrine of Francisco v. City of Davao and in line with the constitutional principles of social justice and protection to labor, would decide the case on its merits to avoid further delay and serve the ends of justice. The reinstatement with back wages was upheld.