Case Digest (G.R. No. L-33955)
Facts:
The case involves Fortunato Da. Bondoc as the petitioner and the Court of Industrial Relations (CIR), Philippine National Railways, and Libertado S. Castro as the respondents. The events leading to this case began on January 10, 1968, when a complaint for unfair labor practices was filed by the Acting Prosecutor of the CIR against the private respondents based on Bondoc's allegations. He claimed that he was discriminated against in promotions due to his non-membership in any labor organization. Bondoc sought a cease and desist order against the respondents and requested to be promoted to the position of General Road Foreman effective July 1, 1962, along with the corresponding salary and benefits. The private respondents denied the allegations and, on July 1, 1968, filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, arguing that it failed to state a valid cause of action. The CIR deferred the resolution of this motion until after hearing the merits of the case. During the proceedings...
Case Digest (G.R. No. L-33955)
Facts:
Background of the Case:
- On January 10, 1968, Fortunato Da. Bondoc filed a complaint for unfair labor practices under Section 4(a), sub-sections 4 and 5 of Republic Act No. 875 (Industrial Peace Act) against the Philippine National Railways (PNR) and Libertado S. Castro.
- Bondoc alleged that he was discriminated against in promotions because he was not a member of any labor organization. He sought a cease and desist order and his promotion to the position of General Road Foreman effective July 1, 1962, with corresponding salary and benefits.
Allegations of Discrimination:
- Bondoc claimed that despite his seniority, rank, competence, and fitness, he was bypassed for promotions in favor of Simeon Mendoza and Simeon Malinay, who were allegedly less qualified.
- On July 1, 1962, Mendoza was promoted to Road Foreman instead of Bondoc. On January 1, 1965, Mendoza was again promoted to General Road Foreman, bypassing Bondoc.
- When Mendoza retired, Malinay was appointed to the vacant position, again bypassing Bondoc.
- Bondoc was later assigned to the Hearing Committee without per diems, and his area of responsibility was reduced due to the subdivision of the Central Division of the Engineering Department.
Respondents' Defense:
- The private respondents denied the allegations, stating that promotions were based on individual work merits and the Revised Civil Service Rules.
- They argued that Mendoza and Malinay had higher ratings than Bondoc and were next-in-rank for the positions.
- They also claimed that Bondoc’s transfer to the Hearing Committee was at his own request and that per diems were not paid beyond the first month due to legal constraints.
Issue:
- Whether the private respondents were guilty of unfair labor practice under Section 4(a)(4) of Republic Act No. 875 for discriminating against Bondoc in promotions to encourage or discourage membership in a labor organization.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)