Facts:

The case revolves around Atlantic Gulf & Pacific Co. of Manila, Inc. (hereafter referred to as the petitioner) and the A.G. & P. Employees and Workers' Union (PAFLU), with a key individual, Felipe Mercado, as the focal respondent. Felipe Mercado had been employed by the petitioner since 1928 and had risen to the position of foreman supervisor due to his efficiency and competence. Mercado was also involved in the union, having been one of its organizers and serving as an auditor since March 1957. His duties included holding meetings and discussions among union members at work during non-working hours, which the petitioner was aware of.

On October 28, 1958, Mercado was dismissed from his position under the allegation of stealing company property, specifically two brushes and the handle of a hammer, valued at ₱1.00 each, from the company premises. The dismissal occurred following an earlier event on October 24, 1958, when Mercado attempted to take the items with the int

...

Facts:

Background of Employment and Union Involvement

• Felipe Mercado had been employed by Atlantic Gulf & Pacific Co. of Manila, Inc. since 1928 and rose through the ranks to become a foreman supervisor.
• Mercado was recognized as an efficient employee over his lengthy service.
• He was one of the organizers and had been serving as the auditor of the PAFLU (Atlantic Gulf and Pacific Free Workers and Employees Union) since March 1957.
• As a union officer, he actively participated in organizing meetings and caucuses among union members during off hours and lunch breaks, a fact known to his employer.

Union Activities and Related Events

• Mercado was heavily involved in union activities, which included active participation in the certification election proceedings in Case No. 495MC in July 1953.
• His involvement was not limited to mere membership; he played an instrumental role in the union by organizing and actively participating in the certification election, thereby intensifying his union profile.

The Incident Leading to Dismissal

• On October 28, 1958, Mercado was dismissed by his employer.
• The dismissal was predicated on the allegation that on October 4, 1953, Mercado had removed from the company premises a bundle containing two brushes and the handle of a hammer, each valued at P1.00.
• There were suggestions that the alleged act of taking these items was merely a pretext and that the real reason for his dismissal was his active union affiliation.

Evidence Presented During Proceedings

• The Union introduced critical evidence through testimonies of Mercado, Ruben Pangan, and Benito Samonte:
• Testimony described that days before a contested election, petitioner’s shop superintendent, Robert Russel, had confronted Mercado regarding his union membership, labeling the PAFLU as a communist organization and comparing Mercado to Luis Taruc, the HUK leader.
• Mercado testified that on the afternoon of October 24, 1953, he unwrapped a bundle in the presence of the gateman (Rodolfo Caminio) and explained his intent to use the items (presumably in connection with All Saints’ Day activities) and to return them the next day.
• The gateman advised Mercado about securing a pass, and as agreed, Mercado left the items with him.
• On October 28, petitioner dismissed Mercado on the pretext that he had removed company property.
• Petitioner’s evidence relied on the statements of Cornelio Tongson (a security guard), Ricardo Mamuyac, and Eladio Morales; however, the lower court characterized these as hearsay since:
• Tongson did not witness the occurrence firsthand.
• Caminio, the direct witness, was not presented by petitioner.
• Additional context noted that another employee, suspected of stealing ten empty drums, was only suspended for six months—underscoring the disproportionate treatment meted out to Mercado.

Procedural Posture and Issue of Jurisdiction

• The Court of Industrial Relations found that the dismissal was due to Mercado’s union activities which amounted to discrimination and an unfair labor practice.
• The decision mandated a cease and desist order against further unfair practices and directed the reinstatement of Mercado with back wages from the time of dismissal.
• On a motion for reconsideration by petitioner, the decision was affirmed en banc by the same court, leading to the subsequent appeal by certiorari before the Supreme Court.

Issue:

Whether the dismissal of Felipe Mercado was truly based on the alleged theft of company property or if it was, in reality, motivated by his active participation and union affiliation.

• Was Mercado’s union activity the actual cause of his dismissal?
• Whether the evidence received by the lower court sufficiently established that dismissal was connected to his union activities rather than any infraction related to company property.
• Whether the lower court committed a grave abuse of discretion in affirming that Mercado’s dismissal was discriminatory in nature when compared with other disciplinary actions taken by the petitioner.
• Additionally, the issue was raised about Mercado’s eligibility to be a member of a labor organization under RA No. 875 given his status as a foreman supervisor, though this particular contention was not extensively litigated in the lower proceedings.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)