G.R. No. L-29356 October 31, 1974
DAVAO FREE WORKERS FRONT, et al., petitioners, vs. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, 7-UP BOTTLING COMPANY OF THE PHILIPPINES, et al., respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Davao Free Workers Front filed an unfair labor practice complaint against respondent 7-UP Bottling Company. The trial court found the company guilty of gross unfair labor practices aimed at eliminating the union. The acts included refusing to bargain in good faith, interfering in union elections by coercing members to vote for a company-favored candidate, sponsoring a rival union to execute a favorable collective bargaining agreement, and locking out union members. These union-busting actions justified the union’s declaration of a strike on August 6, 1957. The trial court ordered the reinstatement of nine unlawfully dismissed employees with full backwages and awarded strike-duration pay to the strikers, less earnings elsewhere.
All five judges of the Court of Industrial Relations (CIR) en banc concurred with the factual findings of unfair labor practice and the justification for the strike. However, a split majority modified the trial court’s award. It limited the dismissed employees’ backwages to three years without qualification and conditioned the strikers’ return to work on their filing individual applications, with strike-duration pay subject to proof of no earnings elsewhere. The union appealed this modification to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Industrial Relations en banc committed reversible error in modifying the trial court’s award of full backwages without qualification and strike-duration pay.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the petition and reinstated the trial court’s decision with modifications. The legal logic is anchored on the finality of the factual findings of unfair labor practice. The Court had previously denied the employer’s separate appeal (G.R. No. L-29331) in September 1968, affirming that the company’s acts constituted gross unfair labor practice justifying the strike. Since all five CIR judges affirmed these facts, the only question was the propriety of the monetary awards.
The Court ruled that where an employer is guilty of unfair labor practice which justifies a strike, dismissed employees are entitled to reinstatement with backwages from dismissal until actual reinstatement. The split majority’s limitation of backwages to three years was erroneous. Citing precedent, the Court held that backwages should be awarded in full, without deduction or qualification. Regarding the strikers, the condition of filing individual applications for reinstatement was deemed an unwarranted imposition, as they were entitled to return to work by virtue of the court’s order. On strike-duration pay, the Court modified the award. Instead of requiring protracted proof of interim earnings, which was inequitable after a nine-year litigation, it fixed a net and reasonable amount equivalent to five years’ wages, payable without qualification. The case was remanded for implementation.