G.R. No. L-7887 May 31, 1955
MACLEOD & COMPANY OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. PROGRESSIVE FEDERATION OF LABOR, respondent.

FACTS

The Progressive Federation of Labor, a union of employees of Macleod & Company, sent a letter on April 18, 1952, to the company setting forth grievances and demands to improve labor conditions. The company did not reply. Instead, on May 2, 1952, the company sent a notice to thirty-eight members of the union’s “outside gang” that their services would be terminated in 30 days, or on June 1, 1952. The union protested this action in letters dated May 5 and May 10, 1952, requesting reconsideration and threatening a strike if the notice was not withdrawn. The company did not answer these letters. Before sending the termination notice, the company’s manager had consulted the local public defender, who advised that Article 302 of the Code of Commerce (allowing termination with one month’s notice) had been repealed by the new Civil Code. The company ignored this advice. As the company did not reconsider, the union declared a strike on May 22, 1952. All strikers except fifty-two returned to work a few days later; the thirty-eight notified laborers were among those who did not return. The Court of Industrial Relations ordered the petitioner company to reinstate the thirty-eight laborers with payment of back wages.

ISSUE

1. May an employer terminate the services of employees upon 30 days’ notice regardless of motives?
2. Are strikers entitled to their wages during the strike?

RULING

1. No. The petitioner’s contention, based on Article 302 of the Code of Commerce, cannot be sustained because said article has been repealed by the new Civil Code. Furthermore, labor relations are now impressed with public interest and must be determined with considerations of moral and social character to promote industrial peace under the principle of social justice. The company was not justified in giving the termination notice without prior authority from the Court of Industrial Relations under the circumstances. Its action was illegal as it contravened Section 19 of Commonwealth Act No. 103 , which prohibits an employer from laying off employees when a labor union presents a petition likely to cause a strike. The action was also improper as it practically locked out the employees, forcing them to strike.
2. Yes, under the specific circumstances of this case. The general rule that strikers are not entitled to wages for days not worked (“a fair day’s wage for a fair day’s labor”) does not apply here. The thirty-eight laborers did not strike voluntarily; they were practically locked out by the termination notice, and the company’s stern attitude left them no alternative. Furthermore, the company’s contract with the Davao Stevedore Terminal Company contained a clause requiring the outside gang members to affiliate with the Davao Stevedore Mutual Benefit Association, which smacks of an unfair labor practice aimed at busting the union. Since the walkout was not of their own volition, it is fair to reinstate them with back wages. However, to mitigate the company’s liability, any earnings the laborers may have received from other employment during their separation may be deducted from the back wages. The petition for review is denied.