Title
San Miguel Brewery, Inc. vs. Santos
Case
G.R. No. L-12682
Decision Date
Aug 31, 1961
Temporary guard dismissed for union activities; court ruled unfair labor practice, reinstating him to temporary role, not permanent, due to pretextual medical grounds.

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-12682)

Allegations of Unfair Labor Practices

Peter C. Santos filed a complaint against San Miguel Brewery and Colonel Rueda, accusing them of engaging in unfair labor practices. The allegations included interfering with his rights to self-organization, discrimination in not appointing him as a permanent security guard due to his union activities, and wrongful dismissal despite union recommendations for his reinstatement. In their defense, the petitioners denied these claims, asserting that Santos was not a union member and that his dismissal was unrelated to his activities within the union.

Court Findings and Evidence

The Court of Industrial Relations conducted hearings and established several facts, including Santos’s temporary employment history, his appointment as a union confidential agent, and the union’s formal recommendation for his promotion to a permanent guard position. The court noted that despite these recommendations, Santos was dismissed after questionable medical evaluations suggested he was unfit for the role, an assessment the court found lacking credibility.

Disputes Over Dismissal Justification

Colonel Rueda’s explanation for Santos’s dismissal, which was purportedly due to concerns about his health, was met with skepticism. The court highlighted inconsistencies in the medical assessments that Santos received and questioned the justification for not treating his alleged ailment. Additionally, communication between Rueda and union members indicated that Rueda was aware of Santos’s involvement in union activities that directly opposed the company's practices.

Legal Conclusions and Unfair Labor Practices

The Court concluded that Santos's dismissal was largely motivated by his participation in union activities rather than any valid occupational reasons. The decision thus noted that while Rueda’s actions may have stemmed from personal motives, they occurred within the context of his duties as a security officer, rendering the company liable for his unfair labor practices.

Findings on Reinstatement and Position

Although the court affirmed that Santos was a victim of unfair labor practices, it modified the order for reinstatement to clarify that he should return to his previous position as a temporary sec

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.