Case Digest (G.R. No. L-20044)
Facts:
National Union of Restaurant Workers (PTUC) v. Court of Industrial Relations, et al., G.R. No. L-20044, April 30, 1964, the Supreme Court En Banc, Bautista Angelo, J., writing for the Court.On June 9, 1960 the National Union of Restaurant Workers (PTUC) filed a complaint for unfair labor practice against the owners of Tres Hermanas Restaurant, principally Mrs. Felisa Herrera. The union alleged, among other things, that respondents refused to bargain collectively and that one employee, Martin Briones, was dismissed for acting as organizer and adviser of the union. Respondents answered, denying the charges and stating they would bargain only if the union were certified or became a company union; they also explained Briones’ separation as based on threats he allegedly made against Mrs. Herrera.
Judge Emiliano C. Tabigne of the Court of Industrial Relations heard the evidence and, on July 28, 1961, rendered judgment exonerating respondents and dismissing the complaint. The CIR en banc then reviewed the case and, in a split decision, affirmed Judge Tabigne’s findings and dismissal of the complaint.
The union sought review in this Court by a petition for review (Rule 45), challenging the CIR’s findings as amounting to grave abuse of discretion. The petition principally attacked three factual determinations by the CIR: (1) that respondents did not refuse to bargain collectively because they met and discussed the union’s demands, accepting some, rejecting others and leaving some open for later discussion; (2) that respondents did not interfere, coerce or restrain employees’ right to self-organization because the derogatory notations on a negotiation document were made by a bookkeeper acting on his own initiative and not by an authorized representative; and (3) that the dismissal of Briones was motivated by Mrs. Herrera’s fear for her safety arising from Br...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Industrial Relations commit grave abuse of discretion in its findings and in dismissing the complaint?
- Did respondents refuse to bargain collectively with the complaining union?
- Did respondents interfere with, coerce or restrain their employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization?
- Was the dismissal of Martin Briones mot...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)