GONZALES v.

VICTORY LABOR UNION (1969)

Makalintal, J. | Question of Fact

Petitioner: JOSE MA. GONZALES

Respondents: VICTORY LABOR UNION, JULIAN BELTRAN, SEVERINO APAWAN,
PONCIANO SAYAN, and QUIRICO MENDEZ

Summary: Gonzalez was charged of unfair labor practice for allegedly dismissing his
employees due to their union membership. He denies this, arguing that he dismissed
them because of their pilferage. CIR en banc rendered a 3-2 decision in favor of the
employees. SC reversed, ruling that CIR’s majority opinion did not meet the standard of
substantial evidence.
Doctrine: The decision was rendered by an almost evenly divided court and that the
division was precisely on the facts as borne out by the evidence. In such a situation, SC
feels called upon to go over the record and, in order to determine the substantiality of
evidence, consider it not only in its quantitative but also in its qualitative aspects. For to
be substantial, evidence must first at all be credible.

Facts
 Gonzalez was engaged in trawl fishing. Beltran, Apawan, Sayan, Mendez and one
Virgilio Baes were working in his fishing boat.
 A complaint was lodged at the Court of Industrial Relations (CIR) against
Gonzalez, charging him with unfair labor practice in dismissing said employees by
reason of their membership in Victory Labor Union (VICLU), thereby interfering in
the exercise of their right to self-organization.
 Gonzalez counters that their dismissal was for cause, they having been found
pilfering the catch of the fishing boat.
 CIR ruled against Gonzalez. He filed a Motion for Reconsideration before the CIR
en banc, but it was denied, with judges voting 3-2. Hence this petition for review.
Issue
WON the CIR decision complied with substantial evidence rule? – NO
Ratio
 Substantial evidence rule instructs that findings of fact by the CIR are not disturbed
on appeal as long as they are supported by such relevant evidence as a
reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.
 The decision was rendered by an almost evenly divided court and that the division
was precisely on the facts as borne out by the evidence. In such a situation, SC
 feels called upon to go over the record and, in order to determine the substantiality
of evidence, consider it not only in its quantitative but also in its qualitative aspects.
For to be substantial, evidence must first at all be credible.
 The evidence relied upon by the majority in CIR is the testimony of respondents
Beltran, Apawan and Mendez, as well as the testimony of the union president,
Attorney Campos. The first three uniformly declared that they became members
of VICLU; that they had not committed any irregularity at work; and that on
February 7, 1962 they were being dismissed by reason of their union membership.
 BUT there is other evidence which cannot be lightly dismissed:
o The respondents and Atty. Campos testified that the actual signing of
membership slip was done in the morning of November 15, 1951. Yet the
log book of the boat shows that the boat was fishing in the sea off Bohol the
whole day on that date. Between the entries in a log book, which is required
by law to be kept by every master or captain of a registrable vessel, and a
membership slip, the first is more reliable.
o The complaint for unfair labor practice named Baes as one of the five
complainants, all members of VICLU. But on trial, Atty. Campos testified
that Baes was not a member of the union at all.
o Petitioner was never officially notified that respondents were members of
the VICLU. No demand for check-off deductions from their wages was ever
served upon him. And although all crew members of the boat were
supposedly affiliated to VICLU, no attempt was made by the latter to secure
a collective bargaining agreement or at least a certification election.
o The captain of the vessel himself, who was not a member of the union, was
dismissed for complicity in the pilferage.
o There were significant contradictions on the testimony of respondents.
Beltran testified that the four of them were called together to the office and
told that they were dismissed. Mendez testified that such incident happened
aboard. Apawan said that he was called alone to the office of his employer.
 In view of all the considerations set forth, the bare testimony of respondents is
insufficient to establish unfair labor practice under the standard fixed by law.

GRANTED.