Industrial-Commercial-Agricultural Workers’ Organization vs. CIR, et al.

No. L-21465. March 31, 1966.

INDUSTRIAL-COMMERCIAL-AGRICULTURAL WORKERS’ORGANIZATION (ICAWO), petitioner and

appellant, vs. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, CENTRAL AZUCARERA DE PILAR and/or ANTONIO
BELZARENA as Manager, CENTRAL AZUCARERA DE PLLAR ALLIED WORKERS ASSOCIATION (CAPAWA),
respondents and appellees.

Labor law; Seasonal workers are not new workers.—Petitioners contend that they are regular and old
employees and, as such, they should have been re-hired at the start, in the month of October of each
milling season, which usually lasts 5 months. Respondents, on the other hand, contend that these
laborers are new, their employment terminating at the end of each milling season and, therefore, could
not be re-admitted without the company violating the closed-shop agreement with the CAPAWA. Held:
Petitioners, even if seasonal workers, were not “new workers” within the scope of the closed shop
contract between the sugar central and the CAPAWA Union; hence, their discharge was illegal.

Same; Claim, for backpay must be filed in lower court.—As to petitioners’ claim for backpay, this matter
should be threshed out in the court below where the parties must be given opportunity to submit
evidence to prove or disprove the em-ployer’s good faith as well as the amounts that petitioners have
earned or should have earned during their wrongful lay-off, such amounts being deductible from the
backpay due to petitioners (National Labor Union vs. Zip Venetian Blind Co., L-15827, May 31, 1961;
Aboitiz & Co. vs. Court of Industrial Relations, L-18418, Nov. 29, 1962).

Labor Law; Employment of seasonal workers in sugar Centrals is not terminated at the end of each
milling season.— The cessation of the Central’s milling activities at the end of the milling season is not
permanent or definitive; it is a foreseeable suspension of work, and both activities will be resumed, as
they are in fact resumed, when sugar cane ripe for milling is again available. There is merely a temporary
cessation of the manufacturing process due to passing shortage of raw material that by itself alone is
not sufficient, in the absence of other justified reasons, to sever the employment or labor relationship
between the parties.

Same; Effect of assent by laborers to new medical examination.—The mere fact that the laborers assent
to their medical examination at the beginning of each milling season does not indicate that a new labor
contract is being entered into, in the absence of stipulation to such effect. Said examination is in the
interest of both the Central and the labor force.
Same; Courts; Poivers of Court of Industrial Relations in unfair labor practice cases.—The Industrial
Peace Act (Rep. Act No. 875) in its section 5(c) requires the Court of Industrial Relations, after
determining the existence of unfair labor practices, to issue a cease and desist order and take such
affirmative action as will effectuate the policies of said Act.

APPEAL from a decision of the Court of Industrial Relations.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

     A.Velez for the petitioner.

     Tirol & Tirol for the respondent.

REYES, J.B.L., J.:

Appeal from a decision of the Court of Industrial Relations (Case No. 44-ULP-Iloilo) dismissing charges for
unfair labor practice.

On 9 February 1956, the petitioner, Industrial-Commercial-Agricultural Workers’ Organization

(hereinafter referred to as the “ICAWO”), declared a strike against the respondent Central Azucarera de
Pilar. The strike was amicably settled the following day, and among the provisions of the “Amicable
Settlement” (Exhibit “C”) reads:

“That the company shall not discriminate against any woricer and the same treatment shall be accorded
to workers (ICAWO affiliates) who declared a strike or not. A petition for Certification Election will be
filed by the ICAWO in view of the other labor union, CAPAWA, with whom the company has an existing
collective bargaining contract, a union which is considered by the ICAWO as a company union.”

The CAPAWA therein referred to is the herein respondent Central Azucarera de Pilar Allied Workers
Association and the collective bargaining contract, likewise therein referred to, entered into in 1955,
provided:

“The EMPLOYER agrees that in hiring unskilled employees and laborers, the members of the WORKERS
ASSOCIATION should be given preference and the management should notify accordingly the WORKERS
ASSOCIATION of any vacancy existing in all Departments. New employees and laborers hired who are
members of the WORKERS ASSOCIATION will be on TEMPORARY STATUS and the EMPLOYER agrees that
before they will be considered regular employees and laborers they have to become members of the
CENTRAL AZUCARERA DE PILAR ALLIED WORKERS’ ASSOCIATION within thirty (30) days from the date of
employment and if they refuse to affiliate with the said labor organization within this time they will be
immediately dismissed by the EMPLOYER;”

Among the strikers were 101 seasonal workers, some of whom have worked as such for the company
since prewar years.

On the opening of the milling season for the year 1956- 1957, the respondent company refused to re-
admit these 101 seasonal workers of the ICAWO on the ground that it was precluded by the closed-shop
clause in its collective bargaining agreement with the CAPAWA. Thus, on 8 May 1958, the ICAWO filed
an unfair labor practice charge against the company. The Court of Industrial Relations, in its decision
dated 27 November 1961, ordered the reinstatement, with back wages, of these laborers; but on a
motion for reconsideration, the said court, en banc, reversed the said decision in its resolution dated 13
August 1962.

Not satisfied with the reversal, the ICAWO filed the present petition for certiorari to review the
industrial court’s resolution.

The arguments gravitate around the status of the seasonal workers, the petitioner contending that they
are regular and old employees and, as such, they should have been re-hired at the start, in the month of
October, of each milling season, which usually lasts 5 months. The respondents, on the other hand, urge
that these laborers are new, their employment terminating at the end of each milling season and,
therefore, could not be readmitted without the company violating the closed-shop agreement with the
CAPAWA.

In an almost identical case, involving practically the same parties, G.R. No. L-17422, 28 February 1962,
the Court interpreted the closed shop agreement, jam quot, as referring “to future or new employees or
laborers”. This interpretation, however, does not resolve the present issue because it does not classify
the seasonal workers one way or the other. A direct precedent, however, exists in the case of Manila
Hotel Company vs. Court of Industrial Relations, et al., L-18873, 30 September 1963, wherein this Court,
alluding to certain employees in the Pines Hotel in Baguio, stated:

“x x x. Their status is that of regular seasonal employees who are called to work from time to time,
mostly during summer season. The nature of their relationship with the hotel is such that during off
season they are temporarily laid off but during summer season they are reemployed, or when
566

566

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Industrial-Commercial-Agricultural Workers’ Organization vs. CIR, et al.

their services may be needed. They are not strictly speaking separated from the service but are merely
considered as on leave of absence without pay until they are re-employed. Their employment
relationship is never severed but only suspended. As iuch, these employees can be considered as in the
regular employment of the hotel.”

The respondent company, however, relies upon the case of Hind Sugar Company vs. Court of Industrial
Relations, et al., L-13364, 26 July 1960. This citation cannot be considered authoritative in the present
case because the Hind case did not actually rule on the temporary character of the employment of
seasonal workers; instead, it affirmed their reinstatement, which the labor court had ordered under
Section 10 of the Industrial Peace Act as a solution to a strike, without regard to the permanent or
seasonal nature of the employment of the strikers. Definitely, the Hind case did not deal with seasonal
employees that had been recalled to work year after year during the milling season, thereby creating a
reasonable expectation of continued employment; and for this rearon, the Manila Hotel case (supra)
sets a rule more in accord with justice and equity under the conditions shown by the record now before
us.

Our conclusion is that petitioners, even if seasonal workers, were not “new workers” within the scope of
the closed shop contract between the sugar central and the CAPAWA union; hence their discharge was
illegal.

In filing the unfair labor practice complaint on 8 May 1958, the petitioner union, under the
circumstances, did not incur laches, because there was no work for these seasonal workers during the
off-season, from March to October. Moreover, the seat of the prosecutor’s office was in Cebu, not in
Panay, and a certification election had intervened to absorb the attention of the complainants.
For the foregoing reasons, the resolution under review is hereby set aside, and the court of origin is
directed to order the reinstatement of the 101 seasonal workers to their former positions in the
respondent sugar milling company.

With regard to the petitioners’ claim for backpay, this

567

VOL. 16, MARCH 31, 1966

567

Industrial-Commercial-Agricultural Workers’ Organization vs. CIR, et al.

matter should be threshed out in the court below where the parties must be given opportunity to
submit evidence to prove or disprove the employer’s good faith as well as the amounts that petitioners
have earned or should have earned during their wrongful lay off, such amounts being deductible from
the backpay due to petitioners (National Labor Union vs. Zip Venetian Blind Co., L-15827, 31 May 1961;
Aboitiz & Co. vs. C.I.R., L-18418, 29 Nov. 1962).

Let the records be returned to the Court of Industrial Relations for further proceedings, in consonance
with this opinion. So ordered.

     Chief Justice Bengzon and Justices Concepcion, Barrera, Regala, Makalintal, J.P. Bengzon, Zaldivar and
Sanchez, concur. Mr. Justice Dizon, on leave, did not take part.

Resolution set aside.

RESOLUTION ON MOTION

FOR RECONSIDERATION

August 23, 1966

REYES, J.B.L., J.:

Respondents Central Azucarera de Pilar and its manager have asked this Court to reconsider and reverse
its decision of March 31, 1966. They insist that the seasonal character of the milling activities of the
respondent Central each year necessarily implies that the employment of petitioners ceases after each
milling season.

We do not find this position tenable. The cessation of the Central’s milling activities at the end of the
season is certainly not permanent or definitive; it is a foreseeable suspension of work, and both Central
and laborers have reason to expect that such activities will be resumed, as they are in fact resumed,
when sugar cane ripe for milling is again available. There is, therefore, merely a temporary cessation of
the manufacturing process due to passing shortage of raw material that by itself alone is not sufficient,
in the absence of other justified reasons, to sever the employment or labor relationship between the
parties, since the shortage is not permanent. The proof

of this assertion is the undenied fact that many of the petitioner members of the ICAWO Union have
been laboring for the Central, and reengaged for many seasons without interruption. Nor does the
Central interrupt completely its operations in the interval between milling seasons; the office and sales
force are maintained, precisely because operations are to be later resumed.

That during the temporary layoff the laborers are considered free to seek other employment is natural,
since the laborers are not being paid yet must find means of support. A period during which the Central
is forced to suspend or cease operation for a time (whether by reason of lack of cane or by some
accident to its machinery) should not mean starvation for the employees and their families. Of course,
the stopping of the milling at the end of each season, and before the next sugar crop is ready, being
regular and foreseen by both parties to the labor relation, no compensation is expected nor demanded
during the seasonal layoff.

Neither does the fact that the laborers assent to their medical examination at the beginning of each
milling season indicate that a new labor contract is being entered into, in the absence of stipulation to
such effect. Said examination is in the interest not only of the Central but also of the labor force itself
and is a mere precautionary measure.

The seasonal stoppage of work does not, therefore, negate the reasonable expectation of the laborers
to be subsequently allowed to resume work unless there be other justifiable reasons for acting
otherwise. We note again that in the Hind case (Hind Sugar Co. vs. C.I.R., L-13364, July 26, 1960) the
pronouncement of the Industrial Court that reemplyoment of the seasonal laborers was discretionary in
the employer was not in issue before this Court. All that was declared therein was that the Company
should not be compelled to pay for work not done as it would be inconsistent with the C.I.R.’s own
pronouncement, the legal correctness of which was not being contested. In Manila Hotel Co. vs. C.I.R., L-
18873, September 30, 1963, on the contrary, it was squarely ruled that the employment of the seasonal
laborers is not severed, but only suspended, during the seasonal layoff.

569

VOL. 16, MARCH 31, 1966

569

Eusebio vs. Sociedad Agricola de Balarin, et al.

In remanding the case to the Court of Industrial Relations for determination whether the Central acted
in good faith and the employees should be declared entitled to backpay, and the amount due the latter,
this Court took into account that these are matters dependent upon circumstances that the C.I.R. had
not previously inquired into, and particularly the requirement of the Industrial Peace Act (Republic Act
875) in its section 5(c), that where a person is found engaging in any unfair labor practice, the Industrial
Court, besides issuing a cease and desist order, must

“take such affirmative action as will effectuate the policies of this Act”,

a rule that implies exercise of judgment and discretion by the Industrial Court, based on facts and
considerations not now brought to our attention.

Wherefore, the motion for reconsideration is denied.

     Justices Concepcion, Barrera, Dizon, Makalintal, J.P. Bengzon, Zaldivar, Sanchez and Castro, concur.
Justice Regala is on leave.

Motion for reconsideration denied Industrial-Commercial-Agricultural Workers’ Organization vs. CIR, et

al., 16 SCRA 562, No. L-21465 March 31, 1966