Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 2

LegProf 1

Lawyers and the Courts: Cannon 10.02

INSULAR LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY v. NLRC


January 30, 1971 | J. Gutierrez Jr

Petitioner: THE INSULAR LIFE ASSURANCE CO., LTD., EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION-NATU, FGU
INSURANCE GROUP WORKERS and EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION-NATU, and INSULAR LIFE
BUILDING EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION-NATU (Unions)
Respondent: THE INSULAR LIFE ASSURANCE CO., LTD., FGU INSURANCE GROUP, JOSE M.
OLBES and COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

Doctrine: A lawyer shall not knowingly misquote or misrepresent SC rulings

FACTS
• Petitioners, Unions, submitted proposals to the Companies for a modified renewal of their expiring
collective bargaining contracts.
• Respondents hired Felipe Enage and Ramon Garcia, former legal counsels of the petitioners, as
personnel manager and assistant corporate secretary, respectively, with attractive compensations.
• Negotiations were conducted on the Union's proposals, but these were snagged by a deadlock on the
issue of union shop thus Unions filed a notice of strike for "deadlock on collective bargaining."
• Parties continued to negotiate on the labor demands to no avail due to a stalemate on the matter of
salary increases
• Unions voted to declare a strike in protest of what they considered unfair labor practices.
• 87 Unionists were reclassified as supervisors without increase in salary nor in responsibility forcing them
to resign from the Union.
• Unions went on strike and picketed the offices of the Insular Life Building at Plaza Moraga.
• Respondent sent to each of the strikers a letter urging them to return to work with benefits like a)
Meals in the office, b) Comfortable sleeping quarters inside office, c) Free coffee and occasional movies
d) Overtime pay, and e) Arrangements for Families
• Unions continued to strike save for some who were enticed by the letter
• A fight which resulted in injuries to both strikers and non-strikers occurred in the picket line due to
management men trying to forcibly break through picket lines despite other available entrances.
• With the use of Photographs, the Companies then filed criminal charges as well as a writ of preliminary
injunction restraining strikers from impeding company gates against the strikers at the Manila Fiscal
office, although all but 3 cases of slight misdemeanor were dismissed.
• Company sent letters individually to members of the Union stating that their position of the Union’s
demand is unchanged, and the positions of the employees cannot be held available for much longer.
• Because of the issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction against them as well as the Companies
ultimatum to return to their jobs or else be replaced, the strikers reported back to work
• Companies required ONLY the strikers to secure clearances from the City Fiscal's Office of Manila and
screened by a management committee which includes Garcia and Enage. The screening committee
rejected 83 strikers with pending criminal charges.
 Even after obtaining the clearance only a few were readmitted, and the company adamantly
refused the admission of the most active members
• Pet. Filed for complaint of unfair labor practices but the Court of Industrial Relations but it was dismissed

ISSUES + HELD
1. W/N res. are guilty of unfair labor practice in sending out individually to the strikers the letters- Yes
• The letters were directed to the strikers individually during a collective bargaining agreement without being coursed
through the Unions despite respondent’s duty to bargain with the union as the employees' bargaining representative
• The letters should be read considering the preceding and subsequent circumstances surrounding them.
• (Underlined facts above)The facts prove respondent’s intent of Union Breaking by offering incentives in their first
letter so the strikers would abandon the strike.
2. W/N the companies are guilty of unfair labor practice for discriminating against the striking members of
the Unions in the matter of readmission – Yes
• The respondents separated the active from the less active unionists based on their militancy on the picket lines.
• More militant Unionists were refused readmission even after they were able to secure clearances from the
competent authorities with respect to the criminal charges filed against them.

A. Mendoza | A2022
16/3/19
LegProf 2
Lawyers and the Courts: Cannon 10.02

• Perhaps to avoid discrimination charges - the power to readmit was delegated to a committee, choosing employees
who’ve been involved in unpleasantries with the picketers and were hostile to the strikers, as members thereof.
• Placing the power of reinstatement in the hands of those hostile to the strikers is a form of discrimination in rehiring.
• This explanation that those with only MINOR misconduct would be readmitted while those with MAJOR ones would
not is shattered upon examination of the evidence. For, with one exception, the other strikers were not admitted
because of simple "acts of misconduct."
3. W/N the companies are guilty of unfair labor practice for dismissing officials and members of the Unions
without giving them the benefit of investigation and the opportunity to present their side regarding activities
undertaken by them in the legitimate exercise of their right to strike – Yes
• Not a single dismissed striker was given the opportunity to defend himself against their charges
• When the striking employees reported back for work on June 2, 1958, the respondents refused to readmit them w/o
the clearances; but when they were able to give required clearances, the respondents still refused to take them back.
• The cases of dismissed officers and members of the unions do not indicate enough basis for dismissal.
• The members should be given backpay from the date they reported back to work until the day they were actually
admitted to work because it was the respondents fault which deprived them of employment minus the wages they
earned from other jobs during the time they were unjustly dismissed.

(Substantial) 4. W/N the Presiding Judge Arsenio Martinez of the Court of Industrial Relations and
the counsels for the private respondents should be cited for contempt – No
Precising Judge cited SC in his decision subject of the instant petition for certiorari. He wrote:
In a proceeding for unfair labor practice, involving a determination as to whether or not the acts of the
employees concerned justified the adoption of the employer of disciplinary measures against them, the mere
fact that the employees may be able to put up a valid defense in a criminal prosecution for the same acts,
does not erase or neutralize the employer's right to impose discipline on said employees. For it is settled that
not even the acquittal of an employee of the criminal charge against him is a bar to the employer's right to
impose discipline on its employees, should the act upon which the criminal charged was based constitute
nevertheless an activity inimical to the employer's interest... The act of the employees now under
consideration may be considered as a misconduct which is a just cause for dismissal. (Lopez, Sr., et al. vs.
Chronicle Publication Employees Ass'n. et al., G.R. No. L-20179-81, December 28, 1964.)
• However, 60 words of the paragraph quoted by the respondent Judge do not appear in the pertinent
paragraph of this Court's decision.
• The 1st underscored quote should have started with For it must be remembered not For it is settled
• The second and last underlined sentence in the quoted paragraph of the respondent Judge's decision,
appears not in the same paragraph of this Court's decision but on the next paragraph.
• This; however, does not warrant contempt against the judge because it was done NOT out of an
attempt to mislead but because of ineptitude brought about by excess work.
•The quotation substantially reflects the SC ruling that "[N]ot even the acquittal of an employee, of the
criminal charges against him, is a bar to the employer's right to impose discipline on its employees,
should the act upon which the criminal charges were based constitute nevertheless an activity inimical to
the employer's interest."
• The respondent’s council had prima facie right to rely on the quotation as it appears in the respondent
Judge's decision, to copy it verbatim, and to incorporate it in their brief
• It is the duty of courts, judges and lawyers to reproduce or copy the same word-for-word and
punctuation mark-for-punctuation mark because Art 8 of the Civil Code makes the SC decisions applying
or interpreting the laws or the Constitution become a part of the legal system of the Philippines
• If improperly quoted these rulings may loose their meaning

RULING: Respondents admonished to be more careful and ordered to reinstate the dismissed members

Dissenting/ Concurring/ Separate Opinions – N/A

SUPERDIGEST ENTRY
Trigger Words: Union Breaking via Letters Of Enticement, over worked Judge Misquoted the SC
Facts: Deadlock on Deal of Union and Companies, Strike is held, letter of enticement is sent, forced entry
through picket line, charges, ultimatum letter, discriminatory readmission and readmission requirement
Doctrine: A lawyer shall not knowingly misquote or misrepresent SC ruling
Ruling: Respondents admonished to be more careful and ordered to reinstate the dismissed members
Relevant Provisions: Cannon 10.02

A. Mendoza | A2022
16/3/19

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi