No. L-39546. November 29, 1977.

*
committed the unfair labor practice acts complained of,
and, as a consequence thereof, are therefore ordered
PROGRESSIVE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION,
to cease and desist from further committing the same
JORGE L. ARANETA, JUDY A. ROXAS, MANUEL B. or similar acts and to reinstate the individual
JOVER, RAMON LLORENTE and PROGRESSIVE complainants to their former or substantially equivalent
EMPLOYEES UNION, petitioners, vs. COURT OF employment in respondent corporation, without loss of
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS and ARANETA COLISEUM seniority status and other benefits and/or privileges,
EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, respondents. with back wages from the time of their dismissal up to
April 11, 1972 when this case was considered
_______________ submitted for Decision, considering the delay
encountered in the disposition of this case.
*
 FIRST DIVISION. The Chief of the Examining Division of this Court, or
his duly authorized representative, is hereby directed
435
to proceed to the premises of the respondent
VOL. 80, NOVEMBER 29, 435 corporation to examine its pertinent payrolls, vouchers
1977 and other books of accounts necessary to compute the
monetary liability of respondents in line with this
Progressive Development Decision, and to submit immediately thereafter his
Corporation vs. CIR Report on the results of such computation for further
Labor relations; Unfair labor disposition of the Court.
practice; Discrimination; Dismissal of employees for SO ORDERED.
their refusal to become members of the Progressive Manila, Philippines, March 15, 1914.
Employees Union; Case at bar.—It appears that the (SGD.) ALBERTO S. VELOSO
individual complainants, during show days, were Associate Judge”      
1

always scheduled to work until June 1962 when they

were not included in the schedule anymore. This The motion for reconsideration of the
virtually amounted to dismissal, without prior notice. aforementioned decision was denied in a
Their not being included in the list of schedule since resolution en banc dated October 10, 1974. 2

June 1962 could only be the result of petitioners’ earlier In September 1962, Araneta Coliseum
threat of dismissal should said complainants refuse to Employees Association (ACEA), a legitimate labor
heed petitioners’ admonition for them to resign from organization in behalf of forty-eight (48)
the ACEA. There is reason to believe that had the
members, instituted Case No. 3304-ULP for unfair
individual complainants agreed to resign from the
ACEA and to transfer to the PEU, they would not have labor practice in the Court of Industrial Relations
been separated from their work and would even have against Progressive Development Corporation
been made permanent employees. From the facts of (PDC), a domestic business entity operating the
record, it is clear that the individual complainants were Araneta Coliseum, Jorge Araneta, Judy A. Roxas,
dismissed because they refused to resign from the Manuel B. Jover and Ramon Llorente, as officers
Araneta Coliseum Employees Association and to of the corporation PDC and Progressive
affiliate with the Progressive Employees Union which Employees Union (PEU), a labor organization
was being aided and abetted by the Progressive existing in the PDC.
Development Corporation.
The complaint alleged that the PDC, through
Same; Backwages; Payment of backwages
without deduction and qualification.—In view of the its officers, initiated a move to disauthorize the
length of time that has passed since the individual counsel of the complainant ACEA from appearing
complainants were dismissed in 1962, there is need to in a union conference with the respondents,
apply the formula adopted by the Court in Davao Free petitioners herein; that the supervisors of PDC
Workers Front vs. CIR and other cases. Under the encouraged, and assisted in, the formation of the
circumstances and equity of the case, and considering Progressive Employees Union (PEU) and coerced
the length of time and the union-busting activities of _______________
petitioner, the individual complainants are granted
backwages for five (5) years without qualification or 1
 Rollo, pp. 46-47.
deduction. 2
 Rollo, p. 67.

437
PETITION for review of the decision of the Court of
Industrial Relations. VOL. 80, NOVEMBER 29, 437
1977
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court. Progressive Development
     Emilio S. Torres, Jr. for petitioners. Corporation vs. CIR
     Jose D. Iglesias for petitioner Union.
the employees, particularly the individual
     Liver B. Gesmundo for private respondents.
complainants, to disaf-filiate from the
complainant union and to affiliate with the PEU;
FERNANDEZ, J.:
that in July and August 1962 the respondents,
petitioners herein, discriminated against the
This is a petition for review the decision of the individual complainants by either not giving them
Court of Industrial Relations in Case No. 3304-ULP their working schedules, lessening their number
entitled “Araneta Coliseum Employees of working days and eventually dismissing them
Association, complainant, versus Progressive from their employment, because of their refusal
Corporation, et al., respondents”, the dispositive to disaffiliate from their union and join the
part of which reads: Progressive Employees Union; and the individual
436
complainants are:
436 SUPREME COURT
REPORTS ANNOTATED 1. “1.Antonio Buluran
Progressive Development 2. 2.Mario Bagaybayan
Corporation vs. CIR 3. 3.Bonifacio Cendanio
“WHEREFORE, all of the foregoing considered, and as 4. 4.Eduardo Evangelista
so recommended, the respondents in this case should 5. 5.Juan Cumiran
be, as they are hereby, declared GUILTY of having 6. 6.Antonio Martin
 7. 7.Arthur Melbielb employees; that the services of complainant
8. 8.Amando Reyes, Jr. Gregorio Viray were terminated because the
9. 9.Jaime Serrano office to which he was assigned was closed; and
10. 10.Dominador Semon that complainant Reynaldo Asis was dismissed for
11. 11.Azarcon Roberto collecting his salary without actually rendering
12. 12.Jaime Villazo the corresponding services. 4

13. 13.Pedro Estabello The Progressive Employees Union (PEU)

14. 14.Garcia Edilberto denied that the officers and supervisors of the
15. 15.Rodolfo Macalino corporation PDC initiated and assisted in its
16. 16.Eduardo Misa formation and claimed that its organization is the
17. 17.Bernardo Orquia joint efforts of the
18. 18.Florentino Ricardo _______________
19. 19.Jorge Buan
20. 20.Restituto Makilala
3
 Rollo, pp. 30-31.
4
 Rollo, pp. 31-32.
21. 21.Gregorio Viray
22. 22.Carlos Celistino 439
23. 23.Federico Bola VOL. 80, NOVEMBER 29, 439
24. 24.Jose Dueñas 1977
25. 25.Aida Avenia
26. 26.Mira Divinagracia Progressive Development
27. 27.Amaparo Fernandez Corporation vs. CIR
28. 28.Rose Haguisan overwhelming majority of the employees and
29. 29.Aurora Reyes laborers of the corporation PDC, free from any
30. 30.Remedios Berdanea undue influence, interference and/or intimidation
31. 31.Felisa Siason from any party. The PEU claimed that the
32. 32.Luz Caquiela institution of the unfair labor practice case by the
33. 33.Benodian Nieva complainants is a desperate attempt to unduly
34. 34.Dimarocot Aquino delay the proceedings in Case No. 1054-MC for
certification election. 5

438 Ramon Llorente denied all imputations against

438 SUPREME COURT him in the complaint and alleged that Gregorio
Viray, a casual janitor, was separated when his
REPORTS ANNOTATED
office was closed. Llorente claimed that he
Progressive Development severed his employment with the PDC in June
Corporation vs. CIR 1962 and could not have committed the acts
complained of against him in July and August
1. 35.Domingo Malate 1962. 6

2. 36.Reynaldo Asis The Court of Industrial Relations found the

3. 37.Feliciano Cabuang following facts to be established by the evidence
4. 38.Carmencita Anakan of record:
5. 39.Welhelmina Basco “From the evidence on record, the following facts are
established, to wit:
6. 40.Corazon Feliciano
7. 41.Florecerfina Guerra
8. 42.Antonio Jalla 1. 1.That the complainant union was registered in
the Department of Labor with Registration No.
9. 43.Rosa de delos Santos 3367-IP, dated September 11, 1961, and that
10. 44.Ida Velasquez the individual complainants are members
11. 45.Erlando Martin thereof;
12. 46.Solidad Fernando 2. 2.That the Progressive Development
13. 47.Margie Osorio Corporation (PDC) is a domestic entity
14. 48.Sulpicio Makali”
3 engaged in show business and operates the
Araneta Coliseum, with respondents Jorge
Araneta, Judy A. Roxas, Manuel B. Jover and
Said individual complainants prayed that after Ramon Llorente as its officers;
declaring the respondents, petitioners herein, 3. 3.That, on September 19, 1961, the
guilty of unfair labor practice acts, the complainant union formally informed the
complainants be ordered reinstated to their management of its existence (Exh. ‘KK-1’) and
former positions with back wages and all the the management acknowledged the same on
rights and privileges formerly appertaining October 25, 1961 (Exh. ‘B’, ‘E-1’ & ‘B-2’);
thereto. 4. 4.That, on January 6, 1962, a 24-item proposal
was sent by the complainant union to the
The respondents, corporation PDC, Jorge L.
management thru respondent Jorge Araneta
Araneta, Judy A. Roxas and Manuel B. Jover (Exh. ‘C’), which was only received by
claimed in their answer that the individual respondent Ramon Llorente (Exh. ‘C-1’);
complainants were merely casuals or temporary 5. 5.That, on February 19, 1962, thru Nicolas
employees and their services depended on the Santiago, the management answered the said
availability of work as ushers, usherettes, guards proposals (Exh. ‘D’);
and janitors when there were shows, 6. 6.That, on February 23, 1962, relative to the
performances or exhibits at the Araneta management’s answer (Feb. 19, 1962), the
Coliseum. They alleged that they did not interfere complainant union requested the
management for a negotiation conference on
with the complainant union and in fact they met
February 21, 1962 (Exh. ‘E’), but Mr. Santiago
and conferred with said union’s counsel; that they requested them that the same be postponed
did not initiate nor assist the PEU; that they did to March 1, 1962, (Exh. ‘E-1’);
not discriminate against the individual
complainants nor dismiss them as said _______________
complainants were only casuals or temporary
 5
 Rollo, p. 32. III
6
 Ibid.

440 THE RESPONDENT INDUSTRIAL COURT ERRED IN

FINDING THAT INDIVIDUAL COMPLAINANT REYNALDO
440 SUPREME COURT
ASIS A SECURITY GUARD WAS ALLEGEDLY
REPORTS ANNOTATED DISCHARGED DUE TO HIS UNION ACTIVITIES AND
Progressive Development THEREFORE CONSTITUTE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE ON
THE PART OF THE PETITIONERS DESPITE PETITIONERS’
Corporation vs. CIR CONTENTION THAT THE SAID SECURITY GUARD
REYNALDO ASIS WAS DISCHARGED FOR CAUSE
1. 7.That, on February 28, 1962, Mr. Nicolas FOLLOWING HIS OWN ADMISSION THAT HE PUNCHED
Santiago requested for the cancellation of the HIS TIME CARD AND COLLECTED HIS SALARY WITHOUT
projected conference of March 1, 1962, RENDERING THE CORRESPONDING SERVICES.” 8

alleging as reason therefor the ‘hurried

departure of the managing Director, Mr. Jorge The Progressive Employees Union filed a separate
Araneta for the United States’ (Exh. ‘F’) and brief and contended that the Court of Industrial
requested for a later date, which he will Relations committed the following errors:
inform the union; “I
2. 8.That, on April 21, 1962, the complainant
union reminded Mr. Nicolas Santiago that, in RESPONDENT COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS
view of the fact that Mr. Jorge Araneta had ERRED IN DECLARING PARTICULARLY PROGRESSIVE
already arrived, they requested for a EMPLOYEES UNION GUILTY OF“ HAVING COMMITTED
conference (Exh. ‘M’, ‘H’, & ‘I’), which was set THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE ACTS COMPLAINED OF.
for June 14, 1962 at the office of the Araneta
Enterprises Bldg., Cubao, Quezon City (Exh. II
‘J’);
3. 9.That, on June 13, 1962, respondent Ramon
RESPONDENT COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS
Llorente requested the President of the
ERRED IN HOLDING THAT INDIVIDUAL COMPLAINANTS
complainant union Antonio (Tony) Buluran, to
WERE SUBJECT OF DISCRIMINATIONS AND DISMISSAL
see him in his residence to take up with him
FROM THEIR WORK THEREBY ENTITLED TO
the agenda for tomorrow’s meeting (June 14,
REINSTATEMENT WITH BACK WAGES.” 9

1962) (Exh. ‘E’).

It is contended by the petitioners that in view of
It was this meeting, as well as the circumstances the irregularity of actual promotions and
that preceded the same, which the union claims performances held in Araneta Coliseum, the
started the management’s exertion of all efforts to individual complainants and members of the
discourage membership in the complainant union, and respondent ACEA
which eventually culminated in the formation of the _______________
respondent union, The Progressive Employees Union
(PEU), allegedly formed purportedly to bust the 8
 Brief for the Petitioners, pp. a-c, Rollo, p. 173.
complainant union.” 7
9
 Brief for Progressive Employees Union, pp. A-B, Rollo, p.
191.
The Progressive Development Corporation and its
officers assinged the following errors: 442
“I 442 SUPREME COURT
REPORTS ANNOTATED
THE RESPONDENT INDUSTRIAL COURT ERRED IN
FINDING THE PETITIONERS GUILTY OF UNFAIR LABOR Progressive Development
PRACTICE IN SPITE OF PETITIONERS’ CONTENTION Corporation vs. CIR
THAT THE INDIVIDUAL COMPLAINANTS WHO WERE were naturally hired by the petitioner company
HIRED AS USHERS, USHERETTES, JANITORS OR
only as casuals, extras or replacements in various
ATTENDANTS WERE MERELY CASUALS AND THAT
THEIR HIRINGS DEPENDED ENTIRELY ON ACTUAL positions of ushers, usherettes, porters,
SHOWS OR PERFORMANCES IN THE ARANETA attendants and/or janitors, and all in rotation
COLISEUM. basis only because of the numerous other
applicants for accommodation, hence there was
II no basis for petitioners to have dismissed with
discrimination the individual complainants and
THE RESPONDENT INDUSTRIAL COURT ERRED IN members of the respondent ACEA because of
FINDING THE PETITIONERS GUILTY OF UNFAIR LABOR petitioners’ practice of hiring by rotation.  This 10

PRACTICE IN DISMISSING INDIVIDUAL COMPLAINANT contention is without merit. As testified to by Jose

GREGORIO VIRAY FOR HIS ALLEGED UNION Generoso, Jr., President of the Progressive
MEMBERSHIP WITH THE RESPONDENT UNION ARANETA
Employees Union, their members were also
COLISEUM
_______________ casual employees but are now regulars. This fact
shows that the casual status of the members of
7
 Rollo, pp. 32-34. ACEA could not have been the cause of their
dismissals. Moreover, as testified to by Concordia
441
Araiza, a witness for petitioners, it was the
VOL. 80, NOVEMBER 29, 441 Personnel Manager, Ramon Llorente, who was in
1977 charge of assigning ushers and usheretts every
Progressive Development time there were scheduled shows; and that while
the Araneta Coliseum maintained only such
Corporation vs. CIR
number of ushers, usherettes and janitors, if their
EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, FOR SHORT, ACEA, DESPITE
PETITIONERS’ CONTENTION THAT SAID GREGORIO services were needed, every time there was a
VIRAY WAS MERELY A CASUAL WORKER FROM MARCH scheduled show or during show days, the
1962 UP TO JUNE 1962, AND WHOSE DISMISSAL WAS Coliseum hired additional personnel.  It is, 11

DUE TO THE ABOLITION OF THE OFFICE WHERE HE therefore, clear that the services of the members
WAS ASSIGNED. of the ACEA were also needed, their casual status
notwithstanding.
 It appears that the individual complainants, It is also a fact that the Progressive Employees
during show days, were always scheduled to work Union, after exerting efforts to win in the
until June 1962 when they were not included in Certification Election, Case No. 1054-MC, did not
the schedule anymore.  This virtually amounted
12
conclude and enter into a collective bargaining
to dismissal, without prior notice. Their not being agreement with the management. According to
included in the list of schedule since June 1962 Generoso, the Progressive Employees Union was
could only be the result of petitioners’ earlier already disbanded. 15

threat of dismissal should said complainants _______________

refuse to heed petitioners’ admonition for them to
resign from the ACEA.
13
 Rollo, p. 43.
14
 Rollo, pp. 34-35.
There is reason to believe that had the 15
 Rollo, pp. 35-36.
individual complainants agreed to resign from the
ACEA and to transfer to the PEU, they would not 444
have been separated from their work and would 444 SUPREME COURT
even have been made permanent employees. REPORTS ANNOTATED
Thus, a Mrs. Concordia Araiza who was a casual
Progressive Development
employee of the petitioner corporation, upon her
suspension for four (4) hours on representation of Corporation vs. CIR
the ACEA, became a permanent employee after As regards Gregorio Viray, it is not refuted that he
she handed her was an active member of the ACEA and that he
_______________ was in charge of around eighteen (18) janitors.
There can be no other reason for dismissal except
10
 Brief for petitioner corporation and its officials, p. 7, his active membership with the Araneta Coliseum
Rollo, p. 173.
Employees Association because the office where
11
 Rollo, p. 42.
12
 Rollo, pp. 42-43. he was working was not closed. After Ramon
Llorente with whom Viray was assigned had
443 resigned, his position was taken over by Alicia
VOL. 80, NOVEMBER 29, 443 Nonado Iglesias. 16

1977 The contention of the petitioner that Reynaldo

Asis collected his salary without actually
Progressive Development
rendering corresponding services is not
Corporation vs. CIR supported by the following facts found by the
resignation from the ACEA Union personally to Court of Industrial Relation:
Jose E. Belmonte, the General Manager of the “In the case of Gregorio Viray, it is on record that, while
Progressive Development Corporation. 13
assigned in the office of Mr. Llorente, he was sent to
From the facts of record, it is clear that the Aida Avena and Carmencita Anacan for them to sign
individual complainants were dismissed because the disauthorization of Atty. Riño, ACEA’s counsel.
they refused to resign from the Araneta Coliseum Since the two refused to sign, another letter was again
Employees Association and to affiliate with the sent to Aida Aveña, who again refused to sign.
Infuriated by said refusal, Llorente got mad and said
Progressive Employees Union which was being that those who cannot follow instructions were not
aided and abetted by the Progressive needed by him (tsn. pp. 32-33, June 4, 1964). And this
Development Corporation. obviously included Viray himself.
The assertion of the petitioner Progressive It is not refuted that Gregorio Viray was an active
Development Corporation and its officials that member of ACEA and that he was in charge of around
they have nothing to do with the formation of the eighteen (18) janitors. If, as argued, his dismissal was
Progressive Employees Union is not supported by due to the abolition of the office where he was
the facts of record. assigned, it puzzles us to note why he, alone, of the
The President then of the Progressive rest of the janitors was singled out for dismissal. And
the fact that, after the separation of Mr. Ramon
Employees Union was Jose Generoso, Jr., Stage
Llorente, with whom Viray was assigned, Mrs. Alicia
Manager of the Progressive Development Nonada Iglesias took over the position of Llorente (it is
Corporation. The stage Manager, Generoso, has now Mrs. Iglesias who is in charge of the schedule of
supervisory power over the twenty-two (22) ushers and usherettes) completely belie respondents’
employees under him. Generoso was then the No. allegation that Viray was dismissed because the office
2 man in the Araneta Coliseum, being an where he was working was already closed. This being
assistant of the Director of said Coliseum. While the case, there can be no other reason for his dismissal
the Progressive Employees Union was allegedly except his undisputed active membership with
organized on June 26, 1962, it was only on July complainant.” 17

11, 1962 that its existence was publicly The evidence shows that Reynaldo Asis, like the
announced when the management of the other individual complainants, was dismissed
petitioner corporation refused to meet with the because he refused to join the Progressive
Araneta Coliseum Employees Association. The Employees Union.
Progressive Employees Union never collected The petitioners were correctly found to have
dues from its members and all their members are committed acts constituting unfair labor practice.
now regular employees and are still working in In view of the length of time that has passed
the construction unit of the Philippine since the individual complainants were dismissed
Development Corporation. There is evidence that in 1962, there is need to apply the
the Progressive Employees Union became _______________
inactive after the death of Atty. Reonista, the
former counsel of the Progressive Development 16
 Rollo, p. 45.
Corporation.  This shows that the Progressive
14
17
 Rollo, pp. 44-45.
Employees Union was organized to camouflage 445
the petitioner corporation’s dislike for the Araneta
VOL. 80, NOVEMBER 29, 445
Coliseum Employees Association and to stave off
the latter’s recognition. 1977
 Progressive Development Compelling a union to agree on a suspension
of negotiations while a case is pending as a
Corporation vs. CIR condition to the receipt of salary differentials by
formula adopted by this Court in Davao Free the union members is null and void. (Government
Workers Front vs. CIR and other cases. 18

Service Insurance System vs. GSIS

Under the circumstances and equity of the Supervisors’ Union (GSISSU), 68 SCRA 418).
case, and considering the length of time and the
union-busting activities of petitioner, the ——o0o——
individual complainants are granted back wages
for five (5) years without qualification or
deduction.
WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is
hereby affirmed with the modification that the
Progressive Development Corporation is ordered
to reinstate the individual complainants to their
former or substantially equivalent positions with
the same rank and compensation and without
loss of seniority and other privileges within fifteen
(15) days from the promulgation of this decision
and said Progressive Development Corporation is
further ordered to pay the individual
complainants back wages equivalent to five (5)
years without qualification or deduction, with
costs against the petitioners. This decision is
declared immediately executory.
SO ORDERED.
     Teehankee  (Chairman), Makasiar, Muñoz
Palma, Martin and Guerrero, JJ., concur.
Decision affirmed with modification.
Notes.—The Supreme Court held, in a labor
case, that it can proceed to resolve matters and
issues on appeal which the parties failed to raise
for determination where the same is essential for
a complete adjudication of the rights and
obligations of the parties. (Insular Life Ass. Co.,
Ltd. Employees Assn-NATU vs. Insular Life Ass.
Co., Ltd., 76 SCRA 50).
A legitimate concerted activity cannot be used
for the purpose of circumventing judicial orders
nor may jurisdiction over a labor dispute be
tossed around like a plaything. (Air Line Pilots
Assn. of the Philippines vs. Court of Industrial
Relations, 76 SCRA 274).
_______________

 60 SCRA 408; see also Mercury Drug Co., Inc., et al., vs.
18

Court of Industrial Relations, et al., L-23357, April 30, 1974, 56

SCRA 694; Feati University Faculty Club vs. Feati
University, 58 SCRA 395; and Insular Life Assurance Co., Ltd.
Employees Association NATU vs. Insular Life Assurance Co.,
Ltd., 76 SCRA 50.

446

446 SUPREME COURT

REPORTS ANNOTATED
Vda. de Legaspi vs. Avendaño
The non-complianee with the rule that all issues
in a certified labor dispute should be ventilated in
the case where the same was docketed is not an
error of jurisdiction. (Ibid.).
The maintenance of membership clause in a
collective bargaining agreement is interpreted
strictly against the existence of the right to
dismiss. In order that an employer may be found
to dismiss employees who do not maintain their
union membership, there must be a clear
stipulation to this effect. (Confederated Sons of
Labor vs. Anakan Lumber Co., 107 Phil.
915; Manila Cordage Co. vs. CIR, 78 SCRA 409).
By filing a ULP case against the union, the
employer in effect abandoned the issue it raised
concerning the legality of the strike in the
certification election case. (Dairy Queen Products
Co. of the Philippines, Inc. vs. CIR,78 SCRA 439).