G.R. No. L-4157 July 8, 1952
PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE COMPANY, petitioner, vs. PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE WORKERS UNION (CLO) and JUAN L. LANTING, JOSE S. BAUTISTA, and V. JIMENEZ YAMSON, Judges of the Court of Industrial Relations, respondents.

FACTS

Pedro Labitag, a permanent employee working for several years as a lineman helper (digging holes for posts) for the Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company (the Company), was dismissed after a company doctor’s physical examination found him blind in his right eye. The Philippine Long Distance Telephone Workers Union (the Union) filed a petition with the Court of Industrial Relations (CIR) for his reinstatement. Presiding Judge Arsenio C. Roldan initially ordered that Labitag be transferred to another position or, if unavailable, dismissed with privileges under the Code of Commerce. The Union filed a motion for reconsideration. The CIR in banc, through a majority resolution penned by Associate Judge Jose S. Bautista and concurred in by Judges Juan L. Lanting and V. Jimenez Yanzon, reversed the initial order and directed the immediate reinstatement of Labitag to his former or a similar position with back wages. Presiding Judge Roldan, with the concurrence of Judge Modesto Castillo, dissented. The Company appealed this majority resolution.

ISSUE

Whether the Company can be compelled to reinstate Pedro Labitag, a worker blind in one eye, to his position as a lineman helper working on city streets.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the majority resolution of the Court of Industrial Relations ordering Labitag’s reinstatement with back wages. The Court held that:
1. Labitag’s blindness in one eye was a “defecto manifiesto” (manifest defect) visible at the time he was first hired, and he had worked satisfactorily in the same job for several years without any accident or complaint about his efficiency.
2. The Company’s fear that his defect made him a danger to himself or others while working on streets was speculative. The Court reasoned that drivers, having normal eyesight, would avoid a worker occupying a small part of the street, and caution signs are typically posted. It further noted that when one sense is impaired, others like hearing become keener as a natural compensation.
3. The actual experience of several years of safe and efficient work disproved the Company’s anticipations of danger and inefficiency.
4. While an employer has the right to choose and dismiss employees, this right must not be abused or exercised capriciously without reasonable ground, especially regarding a worker who served faithfully and was hired with a known, visible defect. Such abuse could disguise dismissal for union adherence.
The resolution was affirmed with costs against the petitioner.
Separate Opinions:
Justice TUASON concurred in the result but based his concurrence on the sole criterion of Labitag’s proven ability to do the work properly over several years, considering possibilities of accidents as unimportant and secondary.
Justice MONTEMAYOR, with whom Justices Padilla, Reyes, Bautista Angelo, and Labrador concurred, dissented. He argued that the Company only became aware of Labitag’s blindness after the medical examination, that the work involved real hazards, and that the employer’s right to dismiss an employee whose defect poses a danger to himself, fellow workers, and the public, with consequent liability risks for the employer, should be protected. He criticized the analogy in the CIR resolution to the sale of a defective horse under the Civil Code as inapplicable to a contract of employment.