167. National Labor Union v. CIR ii.

In view of the above and in order to give the management

GR NO. L-31276 a free hand in operating the establishment, it is advised
September 9, 1982 that the firm win be closed for business temporarily.
iii. You will be notified if your services will again be needed.
By: Pax
7. On July 17, 1963, the petitioner union representing the twenty-one (21)
dismissed workers charged the respondent business establishment with unfair
Topic: Parties liable for Acts labor practice before the respondent court on August 10, 1963 On July 20,
Petitioners: National Labor Union 1963, Ang Wo Long employed twenty-four (24) new workers in the Everlasting
Respondents: COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, Everlasting Manufacturing, Ang Manufacturing.
Wo Long, Benito Estanislao 8. On August 10, 1963, the acting prosecutor of the respondent court formally
filed a complaint on the alleged discriminatory dismissal of the twenty-one
DOCTRINE:
(21) complaining workers against the Everlasting Manufacturing.
FACTS: 9. Upon being summoned, respondent, through counsel, filed its answer denying
the material allegations of the complaint. As affirmative defenses, it is claimed
1. The twenty-one (21) complaining workers were members of the National substantially that respondent establishment is no longer owned by Benito
Labor Union, a legitimate labor organization. They were employed at the Estanislao but by Ang Wo Long who purchased the same from the former for
respondent Everlasting Manufacturing, a business establishment which
valuable consideration and that the new owner is not duty bound to respect
manufactured paper cups, water cups, and other allied products. They were
hired by Benito Sy Estanislao who owned the said establishment. whatever agreement has been entered into by the former owner and the
2. On April 29, 1963, Benito Estanislao sold by Everlasting Manufacturing to Ang workers; that there has never been any employer-employee relationship
Wo Long as evidenced by a Deed of Sale between the new owner and the complaining workers so that the latter could
3. On May 3, 1963, after a series of negotiations, a collective bargaining not have been dismissed or locked out. Respondent avers that the complaint
agreement was entered into between the Everlasting Employees Union (NLU) be dismissed.
represented by its officers and the respondent business establishment 10. Several hearings were had and when the case was pending decision, a 'Motion
represented by Benito Estanislao who signed himself manager. Both parties to Include Ang Wo Long as Party Respondent' by counsel for petitioner union,
were represented by their respective counsel. The CBA was supposed to be which motion was granted by this Court in its Order. Upon being summoned,
"for a period of not less than 2 years or until March 3, 1965 and thereafter for respondent Ang Wo Long, through counsel, filed on January 13, 1965, his
an additional twelve 12 months, unless written notice of intended change is Answer which is substantially similar to the one filed by respondent
served by either party thereto, sixty (60) days prior to March 31, 1965." Everlasting Manufacturing.
4. In the meantime, on April 21, 1963, Ang Wo Long filed with the Bureau of 11. The respondent court rendered a decision finding the respondents guilty of
Commerce an application for the registration of Everlasting Manufacturing as unfair labor practice and are ordered:
a firm name or business name. The corresponding certificate registration was a. To cease and desist from committing further acts of unfair labor
issued by the Bureau of Commerce on May 3, 1963, the same day that the practice; and
collective bargaining agreement was entered into. b. 2 To reinstate the twenty-one complaining workers to their
5. On July 8, 1963, the Office of the Mayor, Caloocan City issued a business positions with back wages from July 8, 1963, until they are actually
permit to Ang Wo Long to operate the Everlasting Manufacturing. reinstated.
6. On July 10, 1963, Ang Wo Long sent individual letters to the twenty-one (21) 12. Acting on a motion for reconsideration of the afore-stated decision filed by the
complaining workers, with similar contents, quoted hereunder: respondents and a motion to dismiss thereto filed by the petitioner union, the
i. This is to inform you that the Everlasting Manufacturing is respondent court, after conducting a hearing issued a Resolution en banc
now under new management. I am now the owner of this dated November 7, 1966 ordering the reopening of the case and to include
establishment which I bought from the previous owner Benito Estanislao as party respondent to determine his liability under the
last month.
 complaint. Considering the different opinions of the members of the ISSUE:
respondent court the March 22, 1966 decision was set aside. WON the respondent court's exoneration of respondent Ang Wo Long from any
13. Pursuant to the November 7, 1966 Resolution, Benito Estanislao was issued liability to the twenty-one(21) complaining workers of the petitioner union under
summons at his last known address requiring him to answer the complaint. the May 3, 1963 collective bargaining agreement executed between the petitioner
14. The summons was, however, returned by the counsel for respondent Ang Wo union represented by its officers on one hand and respondent Everlasting
Long on the ground that Benito Estanislao did not reside and was not found at Manufacturing represented by Benito Estanislao as general manager should be
the premises of the former. upheld.
15. Hence, the respondent court issued an order to the effect that Estanislao be HELD/RATIO : No
issued summons by publication. Despite summons by publication, however,
Estanislao did not answer the complaint. Neither did Estanislao appear in
1. A careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of this case constrains
court. The respondent court, therefore, conducted hearings of the case
Us to grant the petition and to set aside the questioned order and resolution
without the presence and representation of Estanislao.
of the respondent court.
16. the respondent court issued an Order which finds Benito Estanislao guilty of
2. The respondent court modified its decision and absolved Ang Wo Long of
unfair labor practice and he is hereby ordered to pay backwages to the
responsibility for and liability under the May 3, 1963 collective bargaining
twenty-one (21) complaining workers during the full duration of the collective
contract because of its finding that there was a lack of evidence which would
bargaining contract.
show knowledge not only of the CBA but of the existence of the union itself on
17. The case is dismissed insofar as it concerns respondent Ang Wo Long
the part of Mr. Ang Wo Long.
18. Petitioner union wants Us to set aside the questioned Order and
3. Appreciation of facts and conclusions drawn from facts must be such as
Resolution en banc dated September 14, 1968 and March 7, 1969 respectively
would be acceptable to a reasonable mind. The reconsidered conclusions of
and to reinstate the March 22, 1966 decision finding Everlasting
the respondent court not only fly against the dictates of reason and common
Manufacturing and Ang Wo Long guilty of unfair labor practice. The petitioner
sense but are out of touch with the grounds of public policy implicit in the
states that the findings and conclusions of the respondent court in the March
Industrial Peace Act and in the constitutional mandate on protection to
22, 1966 decision were founded on substantial evidence whereas the findings
labor.
and conclusions of the respondent court in the later order and resolution were
4. Knowledge or awareness of what is going on refers to a mental and inner state
not founded upon substantial evidence. Furthermore, no reason was given by
of consciousness, cognizance, and information. Whether or not Mr. Ang Wo
the respondent court for the March 22, 1966 decision's reversal according to
Long knew the labor problems of the firm he purchased, the existence of a
the petitioner.
union, the on-going — CBA negotiations, and the efforts of the employees he
19. The respondent court in its March 22, 1966 decision found Everlasting
later dismissed to reach an agreement with management on the terms and
Manufacturing and Ang Wo Long guilty of unfair labor
conditions of their employment can be determined only from an admission of
20. It can be readily seen that the respondent court's March 22, 1966 decision
Mr. Ang himself or from the surrounding facts and circumstances indicative of
was based mainly on respondent Ang Wo Long's inconsistent testimony and
knowledge. or awareness.
the circumstances surrounding his acquisition of respondent Everlasting
5. Under the facts are circumstances of this case, it is irrational if not specious to
Manufacturing which according to the respondent court tended to show Ang
assume that Mr. Ang bought a business lock, stock, and barrel without
Wo Long's knowledge of the existence of the May 3, 1963 collective
inquiring into its labor-management situation and that his dismissal of all the
bargaining contract.
union members without retaining a few experienced workers and their
21. On the other hand, the respondent court in the September 4, 1968 Order
replacement with a completely new set of employees who were strangers to
found the same circumstances to be merely preparatory acts of Ang Wo Long
the company was anything other than an attempt to rid the firm of unwanted
before he could begin to operate the respondent Everlasting Manufacturing
union activity.
and that 'here was no evidence on record which proved his knowledge of the
6. There is substantial evidence to sustain a finding of Mr. Ang's knowledge of
May 3, 1963 collective bargaining contract. The Order was silent however, on
the bargaining negotiations and the resulting CBA and, consequently, of unfair
the March 22, 1966 decision as regards the inconsistent testimony of Ang Wo
labor practice on his part.
Long.
7. The former owner, Benito Estanislao alias Cha Wa, sold Everlasting
Manufacturing to Ang Wo Long on April 29, 1963 while CBA negotiations were
going on and about to be concluded. The firm had a recent history of labor
problems and the bargaining negotiations came about only after a strike.
8. According to the respondent court, the acts of Ang Wo Long — his filing an
application for registration with the Bureau of Commerce on April 21, 1963,
his securing the mayor's permit, and his other acts of management — were
only acts preparatory to taking over the firm and not acts indicating
knowledge of union activity and the CBA negotiations. We rule otherwise.
9. Precisely because Mr. Ang performed acts indicative of normal care and
caution on the part of a man buying a manufacturing firm, We rule that the
same care and caution was also extended to a more sensitive aspect of the
business, one attracting the greatest degree of concern and attention of any
new owner, which was the relationship of the workers to management, their
willingness to cooperate with the owner, and their productivity arising from
harmonious relations. Benito Estanislao signed the CBA no longer as owner
but as "general manager."
10. The new owner used the same premises, the same business name,
machineries, tools and implements and the same officials and supervisors
including the assistant manager, Mr. Tan Hoc The only change was the
replacement of the 21 union member with a completely new set of employees
hired from outside the firm
11. Another mystifying aspect of the questioned order and resolution was the
placing of full responsibility on the shoulders of Mr. Benito Estanislao whom
the court funny knew had already conveniently disappeared even as it
absolved the only person who could grant affirmative relief and whose liability
had earlier been determined to be founded on substantial evidence.
12. The summons issued to Benito Estanislao was returned by Ang Wo Long's
counsel who stated that Benito Estanislao was no longer at his former
address. Summons had to be effected through publication. The person found
guilty of unfair labor practice did not show up at the reopened hearings and as
far as the records before US show, had disappeared. The concatenation of
circumstances clearly indicates the participation of both Mr. Estanislao and
Mr. Ang in the unfair labor practice. Hence, Ang Wo Long should be jointly and
severally liable with Benito S. Estanislao for the payment of backwages to the
complaining employees.

Petition Granted