G.R. No. L-20179-81 December 28, 1964
EUGENIO LOPEZ, SR., EUGENIO LOPEZ, JR. and “CHRONICLE PUBLICATIONS,” petitioners, vs. CHRONICLE PUBLICATIONS EMPLOYMENT ASSOCIATION, PHILIPPINE NEWSPAPER WORKERS GUILD, ORLANDO AQUINO, CARMELITO VICENTE, JOSE GABOR, ARNALDO MOSS, JR. and LETTY DE LA RAMA-ECHAUS, respondents.

FACTS

The case involves a petition to review the decision of the Court of Industrial Relations (CIR) in consolidated unfair labor practice cases. The CIR found the petitioners guilty of unfair labor practice for: (1) refusing to give the traditional Christmas bonus in 1958 and 1959 to complainants Orlando Aquino, Jose Gabor, Arnaldo Moss, Letty de la Rama-Echaus, and Carmelito Vicente; (2) excluding them from a general salary increase granted to all employees on April 1, 1959; and (3) dismissing Aquino and Vicente on September 9, 1959, due to their union activities. The complainants, along with Virgilio F. Reyes (then News Editor of The Manila Chronicle), organized the Chronicle Publication Employees Association on June 8, 1958. Following this, the complainants were “grounded” (denied assignments) and subjected to the discriminatory acts mentioned. Their dismissals were prompted by their publication of an article titled “Political Pressure?” in the union paper “The Newsman,” which insinuated that the Chronicle management was exerting political pressure on the City Fiscal’s Office. The petitioners defended their actions as measures of self-preservation, arguing that the complainants engaged in disloyal activities by participating in an illegally organized union (allegedly formed with a supervisor) and by publishing a defamatory article.

ISSUE

1. Whether the participation of a supervisor in organizing a rank-and-file union renders the union illegal and strips its members of legal protection, thereby justifying the employer’s discriminatory acts against them.
2. Whether the dismissal of employees Aquino and Vicente for publishing the article “Political Pressure?” constitutes a valid disciplinary measure or an unfair labor practice.
3. Whether petitioners Eugenio Lopez, Sr. and Eugenio Lopez, Jr. can be held liable for unfair labor practice in cases where they were not originally named as parties.

RULING

1. On the Legality of the Union and Protection of Members: The Supreme Court ruled that the union’s legality was not vitiated by the participation of a supervisor. Section 3 of Republic Act 875 grants all employees the right to self-organization but prohibits supervisors from joining unions of employees under their supervision. The law is silent on the effect of such ineligibility on the union itself. The Court construed that the invalidity of a supervisor’s membership affects only that individual’s membership status and does not invalidate the entire union or deprive its qualified members of legal protection. In this case, Virgilio P. Reyes had resigned as News Editor before the union’s formal organization on June 8, 1958. Even assuming he participated while still a supervisor, his disqualification did not make the union illegal. Consequently, the complainants’ participation in forming their own union was a protected activity, and the discriminatory acts regarding the Christmas bonus and salary increase constituted unfair labor practice.
2. On the Dismissal of Aquino and Vicente: The Supreme Court reversed the CIR on this point, ruling that the dismissal was a justified disciplinary measure. The article “Political Pressure?” contained an insinuation (based on suspicion) that the employer was corrupting a public official, which was an act inimical to the employer’s interest. The Court distinguished this from a criminal libel case, noting that the issue was not criminal liability but whether the act warranted disciplinary action. Even if the publication could be considered privileged under penal law, it did not neutralize its deleterious effect on the employer’s reputation and interests. Publishing such an accusation in a union newspaper constituted misconduct, a just cause for dismissal under Republic Act No. 1052 , as amended.
3. On the Liability of Eugenio Lopez, Sr. and Eugenio Lopez, Jr.: The Supreme Court held that the Lopezes could not be held liable in Cases Nos. 1940-ULP and 2412-ULP because they were not made parties in those cases. The consolidation of cases was for purposes of joint hearing only and did not automatically make them respondents. Liability for the unfair labor practices in those cases (denial of bonus and salary increase) was confined solely to the Chronicle Publications, Inc.
DISPOSITIVE PORTION: The decision of the Court of Industrial Relations was modified. The finding of unfair labor practice for the discriminatory acts (bonus and salary increase) was affirmed, but only against Chronicle Publications, Inc. The finding of unfair labor practice for the dismissal of Aquino and Vicente was reversed, upholding their dismissal as valid. No costs were awarded.