G.R. No. L-32829. August 30, 1974.
PHILIPPINE ROCK PRODUCTS, INC., FREDERICK W. DRURY, EUSEBIO B. GARCIA AND AVELINO DE GUZMAN, petitioners, vs. PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF FREE LABOR UNIONS (PAFLU), PEDRO ALVAREZ AND COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, respondents.

FACTS

Pedro Alvarez was employed as a truck driver by Philippine Rock Products, Inc. (PHILROCK) starting July 17, 1964. He joined the Process Division Workers Union, affiliated with PAFLU, on February 9, 1965, and became its chapter vice-president on July 18, 1965. On July 5, 1966, he received a 30-day suspension letter from Manager F.W. Drury, followed by a dismissal letter dated July 15, 1966, within the suspension period. The company alleged the dismissal was for loss of trust and confidence, citing an incident on June 26, 1966, where Alvarez was accused of taking five pieces of company lumber valued at P8.00 without consent and uttering abusive words to a security guard.
Alvarez contested his dismissal before the Court of Industrial Relations (CIR), claiming it was due to his union activities. The CIR found that as a union officer, Alvarez actively represented workers in grievance meetings, which the company resented. The criminal charge for theft filed by the company was dismissed by the Provincial Fiscal after preliminary investigation. The investigation revealed that the security guard, Elviro Saladar, admitted allowing Alvarez to take the lumber, noting it was a common practice for items of small value and was done openly, not surreptitiously.

ISSUE

Whether the dismissal of Pedro Alvarez was due to a valid loss of trust and confidence or constituted unfair labor practice motivated by his union activities.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the CIR’s decision, ruling that Alvarez’s dismissal constituted unfair labor practice. The legal logic rests on the principle that findings of fact by the CIR, if supported by substantial evidence, are conclusive. The Court examined the record and found substantial evidence supporting the CIR’s conclusion that the theft charge was a pretext to harass Alvarez for his union leadership. The dismissal of the criminal case was pivotal, as the company’s own witness admitted Alvarez had permission to take the lumber, negating any dishonest intent or breach of trust. The alleged disrespect to the security guard was also belied by the circumstances, as Alvarez complied with the request to log the items.
The Court rejected the company’s argument that the dismissal was due to loss of confidence, emphasizing that the alleged cause was unsupported by evidence and was merely used to penalize lawful union activity. Regarding the award of backwages, the Court modified the CIR’s original award of two years and two months. Applying its recent jurisprudence, the Court extended the backwages to four years without qualification, jointly and severally against the petitioners, due to the delay caused by their appeal. This modification serves to fully effectuate the policies of the Industrial Peace Act by restoring the employee to the position he would have occupied absent the unfair labor practice. The petition was denied with costs against the petitioners.