GR L 47828; (April, 1941) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-47828. April 14, 1941.
CRISTOBAL OLAIVAR, petitioner, vs. MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY and THE COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, respondents.
FACTS
Cristobal Olaivar was an autobus driver for the Manila Electric Company (Meralco). He was also a member of the National Labor Union, Inc., which was involved in an industrial dispute (Case No. 10) with Meralco over wage deductions and increases. A final decision was rendered in that case on January 31, 1939. On July 15, 1939, the Union moved to hold Meralco in contempt for alleged non-compliance with the decision. During the pendency of this contempt motion, on October 13, 1939, Olaivar, while driving a company bus, struck a parked automobile belonging to Lt. Conrado Uichanco. Meralco paid Uichanco P9.68 for the repairs and then required Olaivar to reimburse this amount as a disciplinary measure. Olaivar refused to pay the full amount, contending he was not solely at fault for the accident. Due to his refusal, Meralco dismissed him from service. The National Labor Union, Inc. filed a petition with the Court of Industrial Relations (CIR) for Olaivar’s reinstatement, alleging his dismissal was unjustified and possibly motivated by his union activities. The CIR, in its order of August 23, 1940, dismissed the petition as unmeritorious. Olaivar then filed this petition for certiorari.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Industrial Relations committed a grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the petition for reinstatement and upholding Cristobal Olaivar’s dismissal from employment.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the order of the Court of Industrial Relations. The Court held that the issue presented was essentially one of fact. The CIR found that Meralco did not dismiss Olaivar premeditatedly or due to his union activities, as it could have discharged him immediately after the accident if that were the case. Instead, the company offered him a chance to continue his employment upon reimbursement for the damage he caused. The Supreme Court reiterated the doctrine that it will not review the factual findings of the CIR in the absence of a showing of grave abuse of discretion. The Court concluded that Olaivar failed to substantiate his claim that his dismissal was due to his union activities. While the dismissal might not be entirely free from a “tinge of dislike” from the company, the Court could not speculate beyond the evidence presented. The petition was denied, with costs against Olaivar.