Scotys Department Store v.

Micaller (Bautista-Angelo, 1956) Pet: Scotys, in Escolta Manila, Manager:Yu Ki Lam, Owners:Richard Yang, Yu Si Kiao, Helen Yang, employed Res: Nena Micaller as a salesgirl. Facts: 1. Nena was the best seller of Scotys for three years (1950-52) She was earning 4.8 a day and was given a bonus of P180-200 at the end of 1952, as compared to other employees who only got P60. 2. Oct. 5, 1952: Nena organized a union, which later affiliated with National Labor Union(NLU). 3. NLU sent a petition to Scotys containing 10demands; because of this Nena and other employees were subjected to the following: (Interrogation) a. After the NLUs petition was received by Scotys, Nena was called for questioning, asking her who the members of the union were. Nena pretended not to know. b. Oct18 Owner/Managers of Scotys went to Nenas house, again questioning her about her union memebership. c. Oct19 (morning) Nena was brought by her employers to the house of their counsel Atty Yuseco, where she was again questioned re:her union activities. She was even made to sign a paper of withdrawal from the union. d. Oct19 (evening) Store manager Yu Ki Lam asked each employee whether they were members of the union. 4. Oct 31: The union gave a notice of strike. Upon receipt of this notice Scotys hired temporary employees equal in number to the old (union members). The new employees were affiliated with another labor union. 5. A series of criminal cases were filed against Nena, 1st Threats=dismissed. 2nd Slander=pay fine but is on appeal. 3rd Slander. 6. Nov. 30: Nena was dismissed for (1)insulting the owner of the store, Yu Ki Lam. (2)talking to the girls inside the store during office hours. 7. Nena FILED: Unfair labor practice, alleging that she was dismissed because of her membership in the union + prior to her separation, her employers were questioning their employees re:membership in the union. 8. Scotys ANSWER: Denied charges. Nena was allegedly dismissed because of her misconduct and serious disrespect to management so much so that several criminal complaint were filed against her. 9. CIR: After due hearing, held Scotys Manager and owners liable. Issue: w/n Petitioners are guilty of Unfair Labor practice in interrogating their employees an dismissing Nena. Decision: YES guilty, but penal fine is deleted since that is not within the jurisdiction of the CIR. 1. That Scotys subjected their employees to a series of questioning re:membership in the union is a question of fact which the SC cannot look into. a. CIR made a careful analysis of the evidence and found these facts to be true. Which in contemplation of the law are deemed acts of ULP under RA875 4 (a)(4). 2. Since law on ULP is recent in the Phil, SC used a US case which in their opinion is on all fours with this case. NLRB v. Harris-Woodson Co.: a. In that case there was also abundant evidence of questioning of employees as to membership in the union. b. There was also anti-union expressions by the cos superintendent. c. And that as held in NLRB v. Norfolf-Southern Bus Co: Questioning of employees concerning

3.

However the CIR is not justified in imposing penal sanctions on the petitioners. a. CIR law (RA 875) 25 provides: Penalties- Any person who violates the provisions of 3 this act shall be punished by a fine of not less than P100/imprisonment of 1mo-1yr or both in the discretion of the Court. b. 25 does not specifiy as to what Court it relates to. (whether CIR or regular courts)

union membership and activities and disparaging remarks by supervisory employees made in such away as to hamper the exercise of free choice on the part of the employees, have been uniformly condemned as a violation of the Act. d. There a certain Edna Edler was also discharged at the time when question of union representation was becoming acute. e. Edna Edler was dismissed despite also being a competent and efficient employee with a long record of service. She was also dismissed merely to pre-empt the labor union activities.

SC after mature deliberation concludes that 25 refers to regular courts, for to hold it to mean as the CIR would be violative of the safeguards guaranteed by our consti to the accused since: i. Procedure laid down by law for CIR in dealing with ULP cases negates the guarantee ii. It provides that the rules of evidence prevailing in the (regular) courts cannot be controlling iii. CIR in hearing shall use every reasonable means to ascertain facts speedily and objectively without regards to technicalities of law of procedure. d. As compared to the Court of Agrarian Reform (CAR) which can impose penal sanctions, CIR cannot. i. CARs law contains penal sanctions AND a procedure to be followed in cases involving these penal sanctions: 10 Criminal proceedings should be prosecuted as in ordinary cases ii. CIRs law on the other hand only contains the provision for penal sanctions. It is silent on the procedure to be followed in the prosecution of the offense. 4. Power to impose penalties under 25 is lodged in the ordinary courts not CIR, notwithstanding definition of Court in 2(a) of the act. WHEREFORE decision of CIR MODIFIED, penal sanction in the form of P100 fine is deleted. Civil liab is affirmed. -Czarina Dee

c.