G.R. No. 39040. June 6, 1990.

*
PETITION for certiorari to review the decision of the Court of
ROYAL UNDERGARMENT CORPORATION OF THE Industrial Relations.
PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL
RELATIONS, ROYAL UNDERGARMENT WORKERS The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
UNION (PTGWO) and ANTONIO CRUZ, respondents.      Tañada, Vivo & Tan for petitioner.
     Carlos E. Santiago for Antonio Cruz.
Labor Law; Unfair labor practice of employer to discriminate
tenure of employment of employee to discourage membership in MEDIALDEA, J.:
labor union.—We accord respect to the findings of the industrial
court. Section 3 of Republic Act No. 875, known as The Industrial
Peace Act, as amended, provides that employees shall have the right This is a petition for review on certiorari seeking the reversal
to self-organization and to form, join or assist labor organizations of of the decision rendered by the defunct Court of Industrial
their own choosing for the purpose of collective bargaining through Relations on January 21, 1974 adjudging the petitioner
representatives of their own choosing and to engage in concerted corporation guilty of unfair labor practice and ordering the
activities for the purpose of collective bargaining and other mutual reinstatement of and payment of backwages to respondent
aid or protection. Hence, it shall be unfair labor practice for an Antonio Cruz.
employer to discriminate in regard to tenure of employment or any 280
term or condition of employment to encourage or discourage
membership in any labor organization (Section 4 (a) (4), R.A. No.
280 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
875). ANNOTATED
Same; Unexplained conduct of employer to employee was Royal Undergarment Corporation of the
inspired by the latter’s union membership.—It has previously been Philippines vs. Court of Industrial
indicated that an employer may treat freely with an employee and is Relations
not obliged to support his actions with a reason or purpose. However,
where the attendant circumstances, the history of the employer’s past The antecedent facts as found by the industrial court are as
conduct and like considerations, coupled with an intimate connection follows:
between the employer’s action and the union affiliations or activities Respondent Antonio Cruz was employed by petitioner
of the particular employee or employees taken as a whole raise a corporation in 1957 as an electrician. Sometime in December,
suspicion as to the motivation for the employer’s action, the failure of 1961, he was elected president of the Royal Undergarment
the employer to ascribe a valid reason therefor may justify an Workers Union (RUWU for brevity), a legitimate labor
inference that his unexplained conduct in respect of the particular organization which became affiliated with the Philippine
employee or employees was inspired by the latter’s union Transport and General Workers Organization (PTGWO for
membership or activities (Rothenbergon Labor Relations, pp. 401-
402, cited in San Miguel Brewery, Inc., et al. v. Santos, et al., No. L-
brevity).
12682, August 31, 1961, 2 SCRA 1081). On December 14, 1961, the RUWU-PTGWO, represented
by the National Secretary of PTGWO and respondent Cruz as
Same; Same; Court of Industrial Relations; Findings of Court RUWU President, sent proposals to petitioner corporation for
of Industrial Relations, conclusive when supported by evidence.— the purpose of collective bargaining.
Further, On the following day, December 15, 1961, petitioner
_______________
corporation, thru its personnel manager, terminated the
*
 FIRST DIVISION. services of respondent Cruz allegedly on the basis of the
latter’s “record and after careful analysis and deliberation.”
279
Respondent’s wife, Felicidad Cruz, who was also an employee
of petitioner, was likewise terminated. Thus, RUWU called a
VOL. 186, JUNE 6, 279
strike sometime during the first week of January, 1962.
1990 On January 10, 1962, RUWU-PTGWO and petitioner
Royal Undergarment Corporation of corporation entered into a Return-to-Work Agreement thru the
the Philippines vs. Court of Industrial conciliation efforts of the Department of Labor. The
agreement contained the following provision:
Relations “x x x.
factual findings of the Court of Industrial Relations are “Regarding the two (2) employees, Mr. Antonio Cruz and Mrs.
conclusive in the absence of a showing that the same have no support Cruz, the union entrusts the settlement of its complaint for decision to
in the evidence on record. This Court will not review said court’s the Management, which shall be reinstatement for both employees
factual findings as long as the same are supported by evidence. This when the Royal Undergarment Workers Union-PTGWO shall have
is so because the industrial court is governed by the rule of been chosen as the collective bargaining agent for the workers at the
substantial evidence rather than by the rule of preponderance of consent election to be held in the company premises;
evidence as in ordinary civil cases (Sanchez v. Court of Industrial “x x x.” (pp. 39-40, Rollo)
Relations, L-19000, July 31, 1963, 8 SCRA 654; Industrial
Commercial Agricultural Workers Organization v. Bautista, L-15639, The records do not disclose the results of the consent election.
April 30, 1963, 7 SCRA 907). Subsequently however, respondent Cruz and his wife were
Same; Same; Same; Judicial trend to fix a reasonable period both re-employed and reinstated by petitioner corporation,
for the payment of backwages.—Anent the third assigned error, it is thereby indicating the victory of RUWU-PTGWO in the
the judicial trend to fix a reasonable period for the payment of consent election.
backwages to avoid protracted delay in post judgment hearings to On March 31, 1962, RUWU-PTGWO and petitioner
prove earnings of the worker elsewhere during the period that he had corporation entered into a collective bargaining agreement
not been reinstated to his employment. In consonance with the rulings which con-
in many cases, and in view of the circumstances and equity of the 281
instant case, respondent Cruz should be reinstated and granted
backwages corresponding to a period of three (3) years from the time
VOL. 186, JUNE 6, 1990 281
he was dismissed on December 13, 1962, without deduction for his Royal Undergarment Corporation of the
earnings elsewhere during his lay-off and without qualification of his Philippines vs. Court of Industrial
backwages as thus fixed, that is, unqualified by any wage increases
(Bachrach Motor Co., Inc. v. Court of Industrial Relations, L-26136, Relations
October 30, 1978, 86 SCRA 27; L.R. Aguinaldo & Co., Inc. v. Court tained a grievance procedure for the settlement of disputes.
of Industrial Relations, No. L-31909, April 5, 1978, 82 SCRA 309; Such grievance procedure was applied on several occasions
Davao Free Workers Front v. Court of Industrial Relations, L-29356, involving suspensions of union members-employees through
October 27, 1975, 67 SCRA 418). the help and active participation of respondent Cruz as union
president.
 Sometime in November, 1962, the PTGWO urged its ASSUMING ARGUENDO THAT PETITIONER IS GUILTY
member-unions to stage a nationwide strike. Thus, respondent OF UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE, RESPONDENT CIR ERRED IN
Cruz campaigned among the members of RUWU to join the AWARDING RESPONDENT CRUZ FULL BACKWAGES
WITHOUT DEDUCTING THEREFROM THE INCOME HE
strike.
EARNED DURING SAID PERIOD.” (pp. 9-10, Rollo)
On November 28, 1962 at around 11:00 p.m., within the
company premises, respondent Cruz approached three co- 283
employees who are supervisors of the company, namely, VOL. 186, JUNE 6, 1990 283
Camaguin, Dayadante and Gaspar. These persons contended
that respondent Cruz, who was under the influence of liquor,
Royal Undergarment Corporation of the
uttered the following remarks to them: “Ikaw, Ikaw, Ika— Philippines vs. Court of Industrial
wmga hayop kayo. Bibigyan ko kayo ng isang linggong taning Relations
sa buhay ninyo ipapapatay ko kayo.” They also claim that Anent the first and second assigned errors, petitioner submits
respondent Cruz had challenged another co-employee. that the records of the case, particularly the testimonies of
Respondent and his witnesses denied this charge and claimed respondent Cruz himself and his witnesses, show that
that what the respondent actually said to the three employees petitioner corporation did not interfere with or prevent the
was: “Ikaw, Ikaw, Ikaw pare, alam kong matitigas kayo rito sa union activities of its employees; that the former has even
compania, kaya’t ako’y nakikiusap, kung maaari pag-natuloy allowed or abetted active unionism within the company; that
ang nationwide strike bukas, makiisa kayo at gamitin ang tigas the dismissal of respondent Cruz was not impelled by reason
ninyo.” Immediately thereafter, the three employees went to of union participation of respondent Cruz but solely by his
the personnel officer of petitioner corporation. On November infraction of company rules and regulations, specifically,
29, 1962, they executed an affidavit regarding the incident. serious threats against the lives of three co-employees,
The following day, on November 30, 1962, the general challenging another to a fight and intoxication while on duty,
manager of petitioner corporation placed respondent Cruz on all of which clearly amounted to a dismissal for cause under
preventive suspension effective December 3, 1962 for the Termination Pay Law, Rep. Act No. 1052, as amended.
threatening “the lives of four (4) employees” and for having On the other hand, the Court of Industrial Relations found
“been reported under the influence of liquor,” both acts being from the surrounding circumstances of the case, a valid and
“contrary to rules and regulations.” sufficient basis for the charge of unfair labor practice against
Upon the request of respondent Cruz and PTGWO, the petitioner company. Said the respondent court:
petitioner corporation conducted a conference which was in “There is no question as to the union activities of the complainant.
the nature of an investigation of the incident. Starting from the time he was elected president of the RUWU, he had
On December 13, 1962, petitioner corporation dismissed engaged himself actively in union affairs. He had in behalf of others
respondent Cruz for being under the influence of liquor on pursued assiduously the employee relationships of the membership.
November 28, 1962 and for having threatened the lives of four And on a higher plane, he urged the members to join the nation-wide
strike being planned by the PTGWO.
of his co-employees. “On the part of respondent there appears to be an attitude of
Respondent Cruz filed a complaint for unfair labor antipathy towards the complainant. Going back to the time, when the
practice RUWU sent collective bargaining proposals represented then by the
282 complainant, the latter and his wife were dismissed one day after the
282 SUPREME COURT REPORTS same was received by respondent company. The record does not
show the specific reasons or bases for this action except the general
ANNOTATED
proposition that this (complainant’s) record was supposedly carefully
Royal Undergarment Corporation of the analyzed. And yet, why include his wife in the dismissal? In the
Philippines vs. Court of Industrial Return-to-Work Agreement of January, 1962 which followed, a
peculiar and strange arrangement was made. The reinstatement of
Relations complainant and his wife was made to depend on a contingency—the
against petitioner corporation with the Court of Industrial victory of RUWU in the consent election. The main consideration
Relations. On January 21, 1974, the respondent industrial therefore of complainant’s reinstatement, as well as that of his wife,
court, while affirming the findings of the hearing examiner, is, he gets back to work if his union wins; he stays out, if his union
rendered a decision, the dispositive portion of which, reads as loses. Should one’s employment be made to depend on his union
follows: affiliation or identity? This aspect only projects the animosity
“WHEREFORE, respondent is hereby declared guilty of unfair labor harbored by the respondent against the complainant.
practice and is ordered to cease and desist from further committing 284
the same. Respondent is further directed to reinstate complainant
Antonio Cruz to his former or equivalent position without loss of 284 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
seniority and other privileges and to pay him backwages including all ANNOTATED
benefits attached to his position, from the date he was dismissed up to
November 17, 1969.
Royal Undergarment Corporation of the
“SO ORDERED.” (pp. 43-44, Rollo) Philippines vs. Court of Industrial
Relations
Hence, this petition for review on certiorari with the petitioner
“Then, in the space of eleven months, complainant once again was
assigning the following errors: dismissed from respondents’ employ, e.g. in December of the same
“I year he was reinstated. Respondents based its dismissal of
complainant on the ground that he was obviously under the influence
RESPONDENT CIR COMMITTED A GRAVE of liquor and he threatened the lives of four co-employees. The
MISAPPREHENSION OF FACT IN HOLDING IN ITS DECISION evidence of being ‘obviously under the influence of liquor’ is based
THAT IT WAS RESPONDENT CRUZ’ UNION ACTIVITIES on the supposed observation of the three witnesses whose lives were
WHICH CAUSED HIS DISMISSAL BY PETITIONER. allegedly threatened, coming as it is from a biased source. None of
these witnesses have ever supplied, much less hinted on the
“II motivation why complainant threatened their lives. On the contrary,
they claimed that they were on friendly terms with the complainant
RESPONDENT CIR LIKEWISE COMMITTED A GRAVE with no previous background of misunderstanding between them.
MISAPPREHENSION OF FACT IN NOT HOLDING IN ITS None of them ever filed criminal charges against the complainant for
DECISION THAT THE DISMISSAL OF RESPONDENT CRUZ the supposed threat on their lives indicating that whatever has
WAS FOR CAUSE AS PROVIDED FOR IN THE TERMINATION transpired is not as serious as pictured by the respondent. The
PAY LAW AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH MANAGEMENT incident was simply blown into such proportion so as to provide a
PREROGATIVE. supposed valid cause for complainant’s dismissal. In the light of the
initial attitude of respondent earlier discussed, the inducing cause
“III directly contributing to complainant’s dismissal is the respondent’s
antipathy to complainant’s union activity and not his misconduct.” 286
(pp. 42-43, Rollo) 286 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
We accord respect to the findings of the industrial court. ANNOTATED
Section 3 of Republic Act No. 875, known as the The Royal Undergarment Corporation of the
Industrial Peace Act, as amended, provides that employees Philippines vs. Court of Industrial
shall have the right to self-organization and to form, join or
assist labor organizations of their own choosing for the Relations
purpose of collective bargaining through representatives of instant case, respondent Cruz should be reinstated and granted
their own choosing and to engage in concerted activities for backwages corresponding to a period of three (3) years from
the purpose of collective bargaining and other mutual aid or the time he was dismissed on December 13, 1962, without
protection. Hence, it shall be unfair labor practice for an deduction for his earnings elsewhere during his lay-off and
employer to discriminate in regard to tenure of employment or without qualification of his backwages as thus fixed, that is,
any term or condition of employment to encourage or unqualified by any wage increases (Bachrach Motor Co., Inc.
discourage membership in any labor organization (Section 4 v. Court of Industrial Relations, L-26136, October 30,
(a) (4), R.A. No. 875). 1978, 86 SCRA 27; L.R. Aguinaldo & Co., Inc. v. Court of
We have perused the record and found that the totality of Industrial Relations, No. L-31909, April 5, 1978, 82 SCRA
evidence as found by respondent court supports the conclusion 309; Davao Free Workers Front v. Court of Industrial
that respondent Cruz has been unjustly dismissed by reason of Relations, L-29356, October 27, 1975, 67 SCRA 418).
his union activities. The charge by petitioner against ACCORDINGLY, the petition is hereby DENIED and the
respondent Cruz for being under the influence of liquor on a decision of the Court of Industrial Relations dated January 21,
certain date and for having threatened the lives of his co- 1974 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION that petitioner is
employees is too flimsy to merit serious consideration. We directed to reinstate respondent Antonio Cruz without loss of
have on record the undisputed facts that private respondent, as seniority rights and with backwages for three (3) years from
president of RUWU, the time of dismissal, without deduction and qualification. If
285 reinstatement is no longer possible, respondent Antonio Cruz
VOL. 186, JUNE 6, 1990 285 should be awarded separation pay of one (1) month for every
year of service. With costs against petitioner.
Royal Undergarment Corporation of the SO ORDERED.
Philippines vs. Court of Industrial      Narvasa (Chairman), Cruz and Gancayco,
Relations JJ., concur.
was known for his aggressive and militant union activities;      Griño-Aquino, J., On leave.
that he and his wife had been previously dismissed on the
Petition denied. Decision affirmed with modification.
ground of active participation in union affairs; that they were
Note.—Illegality of dismissal is more apparent in the light
reemployed only pursuant to the express terms of the Return-
of the express constitutional provision requiring the State to
to-Work Agreement executed by petitioner corporation and
assure the workers security of tenure and just and humane
RUWU when the latter won in the consent election; that
conditions of work. (Remerco Garments Manufacturing vs.
respondent Cruz was dismissed again for the second time in
Minister of Labor and Employment, 135 SCRA 167.)
the course of his campaign among RUWU members to join the
nationwide strike of PTGWO in which RUWU is a member
——o0o——
union.
It has previously been indicated that an employer may
treat freely with an employee and is not obliged to support his
actions with a reason or purpose. However, where the
attendant circumstances, the history of the employer’s past
conduct and like considerations, coupled with an intimate
connection between the employer’s action and the union
affiliations or activities of the particular employee or
employees taken as a whole raise a suspicion as to the
motivation for the employer’s action, the failure of the
employer to ascribe a valid reason therefor may justify an
inference that his unexplained conduct in respect of the
particular employee or employees was inspired by the latter’s
union membership or activities (Rothenbergon Labor
Relations, pp. 401-402, cited in San Miguel Brewery, Inc., et
al. v. Santos, et al., No. L-12682, August 31, 1961, 2 SCRA
1081).
Further, factual findings of the Court of Industrial
Relations are conclusive in the absence of a showing that the
same have no support in the evidence on record. This Court
will not review said court’s factual findings as long as the
same are supported by evidence. This is so because the
industrial court is governed by the rule of substantial evidence
rather than by the rule of preponderance of evidence as in
ordinary civil cases (Sanchez v. Court of Industrial
Relations, L-19000, July 31, 1963, 8 SCRA 654; Industrial
Commercial Agricultural Workers Organization v. Bautista, L-
15639, April 30, 1963, 7 SCRA 907).
Anent the third assigned error, it is the judicial trend to fix
a reasonable period for the payment of backwages to avoid
protracted delay in post judgment hearings to prove earnings
of the worker elsewhere during the period that he had not been
reinstated to his employment. In consonance with the rulings
in many cases, and in view of the circumstances and equity of
the