[LABOR 2 | ATTY.
NOLASCO] 1
9. PHILIPPINE AMERICAN CIGAR & CIGARETTE FACTORY WORKERS
INDEPENDENT UINION (NLU) v. PHILIPPINE AMERICAN CIGAR &
CIGARETTE MANUFACTURING CO., INC.
G.R. No. L-18364 February 28, 1963
Concepcion, J.
Digest by: Santos
TOPIC: Unfair Labor Practices; Company Union
PARTIES:
Employer: Philippine American Cigar & Cigarette Manufacturing Co., Inc.
Union A: Philippine American Cigar & Cigarette Factory Workers
Independent Union (NLU)
DOCTRINE:
If the dismissal of an employee due to the filing of unfair labor practice
charge against the employer is an undue restraint of the freedom to prefer
charges for violations of the labor laws, the dismissal of his brother owing to
the non-withdrawal of the charges of the former would be a greater and more
effective restraint upon said freedom, and, hence, constitutes an unfair labor
practice under Section 4 (a) (5), in relation to Section 4 (a) (4) of Republic
Act No. 875.
RECIT-READY:
Apolonio San Jose has a brother (Francisco) that is a member of the
complainant union. The brother, Francisco filed a ULP case against the
employer herein. The employer subsequently warned Apolonio that if his
brother does not withdraw from his ULP case (different case from Apolonio),
they will terminate his employment. Francisco did not withdraw his case,
Apolonio was terminated. It was contended that such dismissal of Apolonio
constituted ULP. The employer contended that such dismissal is not what is
contemplated in Section 4(a) (5) of RA 875. The Supreme Court held that
such dismissal of Apolonio constitutes as ULP – what is prohibited to be
done directly shall not be allowed to be accomplished indirectly.
FACTS:
 Apolonio San Jose’s brother filed an Unfair Labor Practices case
against the employer herein
 Subsequent to the filing, the employer, by its manager Chue Yiong,
summoned and advised union president Lazaro Peralta that if
Francisco San Jose will not withdraw his charge against the
company, the same will dismiss his brother, Apolonio.
 Eventually, Apolonio was dismissed without just and valid cause and
in gross violation of the operative collective bargaining agreement
between the union and the corporation
 A case of ULP was filed against the company (different from what
Francisco filed)
 The Court of Industrial relations held that such allegations do not
constitute as ULP pursuant to Section 4(a) (5) of RA 875
ISSUE/S:
1. WON the respondent corporation committed unfair labor practice
HELD: YES, the Respondent Corporation committed unfair labor practice
when it unjustly dismissed Apolonio.
ANSWER: the Supreme Court held that what is prohibited to be done
directly shall not be allowed to be accomplished indirectly. It cited
American jurisprudence which held that the dismissal of a laborer on account
of union activities of his brother constituted an unfair labor practice.
IN THIS CASE: SEE DOCTRINE (it was a short case, not much I can get
from it)
CONCLUSION: In addition to violating Section 4(a) (5) of Republic Act No.
875, the discharge of Apolonio San Jose is, therefore, an unfair labor
practice under subdivision (4) of said Section 4(a), which is the counterpart of
Section 8(3)of the National Labor Relations Act (Wagner Act) of the United
States.
DISPOSITIVE PORTION / RULING:
WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby reversed, insofar as it
dismisses the complaint of petitioner herein, and another one shall be
entered finding respondent Philippine American Cigar & Cigarette
Manufacturing Co., Inc. guilty of unfair labor practice and ordering said
respondent to reinstate Apolonio San Jose, immediately after his decision
shall have become final, with backpay. It is so ordered..
(GO2) 2018 - 2019