G.R. No. L-24019 November 29, 1968
PHILIPPINE EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION and LEONCIO B. MONZON, petitioners, vs. MLQSEA FACULTY ASSOCIATION and DIONISIO Q. QUIMSING, respondents.

FACTS

The case originated from a complaint for unfair labor practice filed against the Philippine Educational Institution (PEI) and its President, Leoncio B. Monzon. Respondent Dionisio Q. Quimosing, a professor at PEI’s School of Engineering and Architecture, was elected President of the MLQSEA Faculty Association on March 20, 1960. The petitioners were informed of his election on April 8, 1960. Subsequently, on May 13, 1960, charges for unfair labor practice were filed against the petitioners on behalf of the union. On June 11, 1960, Quimosing’s teaching load was reduced, and on or about September 10, 1960, he was informed he would not be given any teaching assignment for the second semester of the 1960-1961 school year. The petitioners denied the material averments, claiming the reduction was due to diminished enrollment and that Quimosing himself preferred to teach at the Guzman Institute of Technology. The Court of Industrial Relations (CIR), in a decision affirmed en banc, found the petitioners guilty of unfair labor practice, concluding that Quimosing was dismissed due to his union membership and activities. It ordered his reinstatement with back pay. A decisive issue arose from the petitioners’ allegation, supported by a Securities and Exchange Commission certificate, that PEI had been dissolved as of March 12, 1964, and was in the process of liquidation, rendering reinstatement impossible.

ISSUE

The primary issue is the scope and enforceability of the right to reinstatement with back pay for respondent Quimosing, in view of the allegation that the petitioner Philippine Educational Institution had been dissolved and was in liquidation.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the CIR’s finding of unfair labor practice, holding that the factual conclusions of the CIR are conclusive in the absence of a showing of grave abuse of discretion, which was not present. On the issue of reinstatement, the Court held that the dissolution of the corporate employer does not extinguish the liability for unfair labor practice. The Court ruled that the back pay award constitutes a charge or lien against the assets of the dissolved corporation, enforceable in the liquidation proceedings. The Court emphasized that the liability for unfair labor practice is a consequence of the commission of the act itself, and the subsequent dissolution of the corporation cannot defeat the award. The order for reinstatement, however, was deemed no longer feasible due to the corporation’s dissolution and cessation of business. The decision of the CIR was modified accordingly, sustaining the back pay award but setting aside the reinstatement order.