G.R. No. L-7905 - San Miguel Brewery, Inc. vs. National Labor Union

As part of a labor dispute between San Miguel Brewery, Inc. and the National Labor Union and Sambela, the Court of Industrial Relations (CIR) issued a decision on September 17, 1949.
The decision mandated that the company should not dismiss, suspend, or transfer any employee except for just cause.

On April 4, 1950, San Miguel Brewery, Inc. dismissed Macario Borile, an employee and affiliate of the labor union.
In response, Borile filed a motion alleging that his dismissal was without just cause and in violation of the CIR’s prior order, seeking reinstatement with back pay from the date of his dismissal.
The company filed a written opposition on October 7, 1950, denying that Borile’s dismissal was unjustified or based on his union affiliation, and asserting that the dismissal was for just cause.

On September 11, 1953, Judge V. Jimenez Yanzon rendered a decision ordering that Borile be reinstated with back pay, subject to:

Counting his back pay from April 4, 1950 until August 27, 1952.
Deducting an aggregate of eight months corresponding to periods of two suspensions.

The decision noted that there was no evidence proving that the dismissal was due to union activities.

A letter from Mr. J. B. Preysler, vice-president of the company, enumerated the specific complaints leading to Borile’s dismissal:

On March 21, 1950: Leaving the Magnolia compound without permission and unlawfully carrying the company’s pistol outside its premises.
On January 24, 1950: Abandoning his post at the Magnolia compound without permission.
On December 14, 1949: Conducting himself in a scandalous manner inappropriate for a police officer by engaging in a fight involving his paramours.
On September 17, 1949: Making a false report by claiming to be on tour of duty while actually attending a fight at Rizal Memorial Stadium, a fact corroborated by company officials.

Insufficient evidence to support the charge related to his attendance at the stadium.
While there was ample proof for the scandalous conduct on December 14, 1949, the misconduct was not deemed serious enough to justify dismissal, warranting instead a penalty of four months suspension without pay.
The charges of abandoning his post and leaving the compound with the pistol, though established, did not individually justify immediate dismissal.

The CIR treated the offenses as separate acts, imposing penalties individually rather than summing them for dismissal, and thus ordered reinstatement with corresponding back pay adjusted for the cumulative suspensions.

On September 21, 1953, the company filed a motion for reconsideration.
The court maintained its decision through a resolution on January 19, 1954, with the decision affirmed by a majority vote of 3 to 2.
The company subsequently filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court on the basis that the decision infringed on its prerogative to govern its own employment practices.

The case of Manila Trading & Supply Co. vs. The Honorable Francisco Zulueta et al. was cited as a parallel.
In Manila Trading, the Supreme Court held that, while an employer’s decision to suspend or dismiss an employee is subject to state regulation, an employer cannot be compelled to retain an employee who has engaged in misconduct harmful to its interests.

Whether the dismissal of Macario Borile was justified based on the charges of misconduct enumerated by the petitioner company.

The central question is if the documented acts—unauthorized departure from duty, possession and improper use of the company’s pistol, abandonment of post, and scandalous conduct—constitute sufficient grounds for dismissal.
Whether treating each offense separately (by imposing suspensions rather than an aggregate dismissal) is appropriate under the circumstances.

Whether the lower court’s decision to reinstate Borile with back pay, subject to deductions for suspensions, improperly intruded upon the employer’s prerogative in managing its personnel.

Can a court override an employer’s decision to dismiss an employee if the dismissal is based on a series of documented misconducts?
Does the prior directive from the labor dispute restrict the company’s ability to dismiss an employee for just cause?

The relevance and applicability of the Manila Trading decision to the case at hand.

The issue whether the principles established in the Manila Trading case, which allow an employer to dismiss an employee found guilty of misfeasance, can justify the dismissal in Borile’s case.
The validity of the claim that the dismissal might be an encroachment upon the employer’s right to enforce discipline notwithstanding the CIR ruling.