incident which constitutes an unfair labor practice.

Rather, it
No. L-20303. September 27, 1967. leaves to the court the work of applying its general prohibitory
REPUBLIC SAVINGS BANK (now REPUBLIC BANK), language in the light of infinite combinations of events which
petitioner, vs. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL may be charged as violative of its terms.
RELATIONS,ROSENDO T. RESUELLO,BENJAMIN
JARA,FLORENCIO ALLASAS,DOMINGO B. JOLA, APPEAL from a decision of the Court of
DlOSDADO S. MENDIOLA, TEODORO DE LA IndustrialRelations.
CRUZ,NARCISO MACARAEG and MAURO A. ROVILLOS,
respondents.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
228
Labor law; Unfair labor practice; Where employees were
dismissed for uniting a letter urging the bank president to 228 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
resign.—In the case at bar, respondents wrote and published
a letter to the bank president, demanding his resignation on ANNOTATED
the grounds of immorality, nepotism, favoritism and Republic Savings Bank vs. Court of Industrial
discrimination in the appointment and promotion of bank
employees. Held: Assuming that they acted in their individual Relations
capacities when they wrote the letter, they were nonetheless      Lichauco, Picazo & Agcaoili for petitioner.
protected, for they were engaged in a concerted activity, in      G. E. Fajardo for private respondents.
their right of self-organization that includes concerted activity
for mutual aid and protection, interference with which
constitutes unfair labor practice under Section 4(a)(l) of CASTRO, J.:
Republic Act No. 875. The joining in protests or demands by
even a small group of employees, if in furtherance of their The vital issue in this case is whether the dismissal of
interests as such, is a concerted activity protected by the the eight (8) respondent employees by the petitioner
Industrial Peace Act. It is not necessary that union activity be Republic Bank (hereinafter referred to as the Bank)
involved or that collective bargaining be contemplated. constituted an unfair labor practice within the meaning
Same; Complaint against nepotism, favoritism, and
and intendment of the Industrial Peace Act (Republic
other management practices is within area of collective
bargaining.—When respondents complained against nepotism, Act 875). The Court of Industrial Relations (CIR) found it
favoritism, and other management practices, they were acting did and its decision is now on appeal before us. The
within an area marked out by the Industrial Peace Act as a Bank maintains that the discharge was for cause.
proper sphere of collective bargaining. Even the reference to The Bank had in its employ the respondents
immorality was not irrelevant, as it was made to support the Rosendo T. Resuello, Benjamin Jara, Florencio Allasas,
respondents' other charge that the bank president had failed Domingo B. Jola, Diosdado S. Mendiola, Teodoro de la
to provide wholesome working conditions, let alone a good Cruz, Narciso Macaraeg and Mauro A. Rovillos. On July
moral example for the employees, by practicing discrimination
and favoritism in the appointment and promotion of certain
12, 1958 it discharged Jola and, a few days after (July
employees on the basis of illicit relations or blood relationship 18, 1958), the rest of respondents, for having written
with them. and published “a patently libelous letter xxx tending to
Same; Same; What bank should have done.—What the cause the dishonor, discredit or contempt not only of
bank should have done was to refer the letter-charge to the officers and employees of this bank, but also of your
grievance committee. This was its duty, failing which it employer, the bank itself.”
committed an unfair labor practice under Section 4(a)(6) of The letter referred to was a letter-charge which the
the Industria
227
respondents had written to the bank president,
demanding his resignation on the grounds of
VOL. 21, SEPTEMBER 27, 227 immorality, nepotism in the appointment and
favoritism as well as discrimination in the promotion of
1967 bank employees. The letter, dated July 9, 1958, is
Republic Savings Bank vs. Court of hereunder reproduced in full:
“Mr. Ramon Racelis
Industrial Relations President, Republic Savings Bank
Peace Act. Instead of stifling criticism, the bank should
Manila
have allowed respondents to air their grievance. Good faith
bargaining required of the bank an open mind and a sincere
desire to negotiate over grievances. “Dear Mr. President:
Same; Same; Nature of collective bargaining.— “We, the undersigned, on behalf of all our members
Collective bargaining does not end with the execution of an and employees of the Republic Savings Bank, who
agreement. It is a continuous process. The duty to bargain have in our hearts only the most Honest and sincere
imposes on the parties during the term of their agreement the motive to conserve and protect the interest of the
mutual obligation “to meet and confer promptly and
expeditiously and in good faith x x x for the purpose of
institution and its 200,000 depositors, do hereby,
adjusting any grievances or question arising under such demand the much needed resignation of His
agreement” (Sec. 13, Rep. Act No. 875) and a violation of this Excellency, Mr. Ramon Racelis as President and
obligation is, by Section 4(a)(6) and (b)(3), an unfair labor Member of the Board of Directors of the Bank.
practice. “Mr. President, you have already, in so many
Same; Same; Nature of grievance procedure.—The occasions, placed the Bank on the verge of danger,
grievance procedure is a part of the continuous process of that now we deem
collective bargaining. It is intended to promote, as it were, a
friendly dialogue between labor and management as a means 229
of maintaining industrial peace.
Same; Right of self-organization of employees, not VOL. 21, SEPTEMBER 27, 1967 229
unlimited.—The right of self-organization of employees is not Republic Savings Bank vs. Court of
unlimited, as the right of an employer to discharge for cause
is undenied. Industrial Relations
Same; Purpose of Industrial Peace Act.—The Industrial it right and justifiable for you to leave this Bank and let
Peace Act does not touch the normal exercise of the right of other more capable presidents continue the work you
an employer to select his employees or to discharge them. It have not well accomplished.
is directed solely against the abuse of that right by interfering “In the above instance, we are presenting charges
with the countervailing right of self-organization. But the
difficulty arises in determining whether in fact the discharges
which in our humble contention properly justifies
are made because of such separable cause, or because of incapacity on your part to continue and assume the
some other activities engaged in by employees for the position as top executive of the huge institution:
purpose of collective bargaining.
Same; Same; Duty of Court of Industrial Relations to 1. “(1)That you Mr. President, have tolerated
weigh employer's motive.—It is for the Court of Industrial
Relations, in the first instance, to make the determination,”to
and practiced immorality in this Bank. We
weigh the employer's expressed motive in determining the have been expecting you to do something
effect on the employees of management's otherwise about this malpractice which is very
equivocal act.” Act does not undertake the impossible task of disgraceful and affects the morale of the
specifying in precise and unmistakable language each hundreds of your employees. But so far,
 Mr. President, you have just let this thing even shift this particular employee to other
passed through. As a matter of fact, you branches or departments since the
have even promoted these women like beginning when it has been the policy of
Misses Pacita Mato and Edita Castro. These the Bank to reshuffle its personnel. If you
women are of questionable characters, Mr. want to know why your good nephew did
President, and should have had no place in not transfer this employee, we will tell you.
the Bank as managers or even as mere 'Your good nephew has eaten too many
employees. We know Mr. President, baskets of delicious alimango.' Mr.
because it is an open secret in the Bank, President, if there is someone to be blamed
that you have illicit relations with one of in this particular case, it is your good
them—Miss Edita Castro. As top officer and nephews and nieces for their gross
as father of the employees of the Bank, you negligence.
have shown this bad example to your 2. “(b)Aside from the one mentioned above,
employees. Mr. President, we are really we have also Mr. Rodolfo Francisco, who in
ashamed of you. April 1955, maliciously withdraw (sic)
2. “(2)That you have allowed the practice of P970.00 in two withdrawal slips from the
nepotism in this Bank. You have employed account of one depositor in one of our
relatives of yours like Honorio Ravida; provincial offices, inserting his name as co-
Bienvenido Ravida; Antonio Racelis; Jesus depositor in the savings account ledger.
Antonio; and Argentina Racelis. Not only 3. “(c)In January 1958, Mr. Jose de los Santos
that Mr. President. You have also given expended and approved representation
those nieces and nephews of yours good expense in the amount of P300.00 in one of
positions at the expense of the more our provincial offices,
capable employees. Mr. President, if we 4. “(d)Mr. Federico M. Dabu, the ex-cashier
have to mention all of them, one page will and now Personnel Manager, incurred a
not be enough. shortage in the amount of Pl,240.00 in the
3. “(3)With regards to promotion, you have course of the audit on August 3, 1954.
given more preferences to your close 5. “(e)Mr. Jose S. Guevara, Vice-President on
relatives. When the Bank advocated the Personnel have (sic) been accepting bribe
sending of pensionados to States, you have moneys. One of these amounts to
only limited your choice among your P4,000.00 which was delivered by a
nieces, nephews, and querida, namely, messenger sometime during the last
Miss Argentina Racelis, Mr. Jesus Antonio, quarter of 1957.
Miss Edita Castro, and her brother-in-law,
Mr. Pedro Garcia, Jr. In doing this, Mr. “Mr. President, the anomalies are only a partial list
President, you have only lowered the of the irregularities which so far you have not acted
reputation and standing of the Republic upon. This type of people should have been fired out
Savings Bank. There is really no sense in from the Bank; yet on the contrary, you promoted
sending high school and B.S.E. graduates them to higher and responsible positions, thus,
to States to study advanced banking. resulting in the demoralization of the more capable
Because of this silly decision, it took one employees.
pensionado six months and cost the Bank a
total of P10,000.00 just to study Christmas 231
savings. That subject is very simple; one VOL. 21, SEPTEMBER 27, 1967 231
need not go to States to study savings; that
you know full well, Mr. President. The Republic Savings Bank vs. Court of
reason why you sent Miss Castro to States Industrial Relations
was because you were also there. Are we “Mr. President, we hope that you have still a little
not right? sense of decency and propriety left. So, for goodsake
4. “(4)That you Mr. President, tolerated and and for the welfare of the Bank, DO RESIGN NOW as
still to- President and as Member of the Board of Directors of
the Republic Savings Bank.
230 Very respectfully yours,
230 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (Sgd.) Rosendo T. Resuello
President, RSB Supervisors' Union (FFW),
ANNOTATED (Sgd.) Benjamin Jara
Republic Savings Bank vs. Court of Vice-President RSB Supervisors' Union (FFW)
(Sgd.) Florencio Allasas
Industrial Relations Treasurer, RSB Supervisors' Union (FFW)
(Sdg.) Domingo B. Jola
1. lerating grave dishonesty in this Bank as Chairman, Executive Committee, RSB
evidenced by the following irregularities Employees' Union (FFW)
and anomalies; (Sgd.) Diosdado S. Mendiola
Vice-President, RSB Employees Union (FFW)
1. “(a)In one of our branches, around (Sgd.) Teodoro de la Cruz
P200,000.00 was mulcted and embezzled Member, Executive Committee, RSB
by a certain Maximo Donado by doctoring Employees' Union (FFW)
the ledgers and records of that particular (Sgd.) Angelino Quiambao
office. To the present, the amount is still President, RSB Security Guard Union (FFW)
increasing and some more are being dug (Sgd.) Narciso Macaraeg
up from the records everyday ever since its Vice-President, RSB Security Guard
discovery in February 1957. In this case Union (FFW)
you dismissed Mr. M. Donado, immediately. (Sgd.) Alfredo Bautista
But this was all that you did. If you have to Treasurer, RSB Security Guard Union (FFW)
go back to the history of the case, you will (Sgd.) Pacifico A. Argao
find out that your beloved nieces and PRO, RSB Employees' Union (FFW)
nephews are also involved having been (Sgd.) Toribio B. Garcia
managers of that particular office. Another Secretary, RSB Security Guard Union (FFW)
nephew, the Vice President-Operations, (Sgd.) Mauro A. Rovillos
then Vice President, Personnel, was also Member, Executive Committee, RSB Supervisors'
involved for valid reasons that he did not Union (FFW)”
Copies of this letter were admittedly given to the Indeed, when the respondents complained against
chairman of the board of directors of the Bank, and the nepotism, favoritism and other management practices,
Governor of the Central Bank. they were acting within an area marked out by the Act
At the instance of the respondents, prosecutor A. as a proper sphere of collective bargaining. Even the
Tirona filed a complaint in the CIR on September 15, reference to immorality was not irrelevant as it was
1958, alleging that the Bank's conduct violated section made to support the respondents’ other charge that
4 (a) (5) of the Industrial Peace Act which makes it an the bank president had failed to provide wholesome
unfair labor practice for an employer “to dismiss, working conditions, let alone a good moral example, for
discharge or otherwise prejudice or discriminate the employees by practicing discrimination and
against an employee for having filed charges or for favoritism in the appointment and promotion of certain
having given or being about to give testimony under employees on the basis of illicit relations or blood
this Act.” relationship with them.
The Bank moved for the dismissal of the complaint, In many respects, the case at bar is similar
232 to National Labor Relations Board v. Phoenix Mutual
232 SUPREME COURT REPORTS Life Insurance Co.  The issue in that case was whether
7

an insurance company was guilty of an unfair labor

ANNOTATED practice in interfering with this right of concerted
Republic Savings Bank vs. Court of Industrial activity by discharging two agents employed in a
Relations branch office. The cashier of that office had resigned.
The ten agents employ 1 there held a meeting and
contending that respondents were discharged not for
agreed to join in a letter to the home office objecting to
union activities but for having written and published a
the transfer to their branch office of
libelous letter against the bank president. The court _________________
denied the motion on the basis of its decision in
another case  in which it ruled that section 4 (a) (5)
1

 Section 3 of the Industrial Peace Act provides: “Employees’ Right

5

applies to cases in which an employee is dismissed or to Self-organization.—Employees shall have the right to self-
discriminated against for having filed “any charges organization and to form, join or assist labor organizations of their own
choosing for the purpose of collective bargaining through
against his employer.” Whereupon the case was heard. representatives of their own choosing and to engage in concerted
In 1960, however, this Court overruled the decision activities for the purpose of collective bargaining and other mutual aid
of the CIR in the Royal Interocean case and held that or protection. Individuals employed as supervisors shall not be eligible
“the charge, the filing of which is the cause of the for membership in a labor organization of employees under their
supervision but may form separate organization of their own.”
dismissal of the employee, must be related to his right  Annot, 6 A.L.R. 2d 416 (1949).
6

to self-or-ganization in order to give rise to unfair labor 167 F. 2d 983 (7th Cir. 1948).

7

practice on the part of the employer,” because “under

234
subsection 5 of section 4(a), the employee's (1) having
filed charges or (2) having given testimony or (3) being 234 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
about to give testimony, are modified by ‘under this ANNOTATED
Act’ appearing after the last item.”  The Bank therefore
2

renewed its motion to dismiss, but the court held the Republic Savings Bank vs. Court of Industrial
motion in abeyance and proceeded with the hearing. Relations
On July 4, 1962 the court rendered a decision a cashier from another branch office to fill the position.
finding the Bank guilty of unfair labor practice and They discussed also the question whether to
ordering it to reinstate the respondents, with full back recommend the promotion of the assistant cashier of
wages and without loss of seniority and other their office as the proper alternative. They then chose
privileges. This decision was affirmed by the court en one of their number to compose a draft of the letter
banc on August 9, 1962. and submit it to them for further discussion, approval
Relying upon Royal Interocean Lines v. and signature. The agent selected to write the letter
CIR and Lakas ng Pagkakaisa sa Peter Paul v. CIR,  the 4

and another were discharged for their activities in this

Bank argues that the court should have dismissed the respect as being, so their notices stated, completely
complaint because the discharge of the respondents unpleasant and far beyond the periphery of their
had nothing to do with their union activities as the responsibility. In holding the company liable for unfair
latter in fact admitted at the hearing that the writing of labor practice, the Circuit Court of Appeals said:
the letter-charge was not a “union action” but merely “A proper construction is that the employees shall have the
their “individual” act. right to engage in concerted activities for mutual aid or
It will avail the Bank none to gloat over this protection even though no union activity be involved, or
admission of the respondents. Assuming that the latter collective bargaining be contemplated. Here Davis and
acted in their individual capacities when they wrote the Johnson and other salesmen were properly concerned with the
identity and capability of the new cashier. Conceding they had
letter-charge they were nonetheless protected for they
no authority to appoint a new cashier or even recommend
were engaged in concerted activity, in the exercise of anyone for the appointment, they had a legitimate interest in
their right acting concertedly in making known their views to
_______________ management without being discharged for that interest. The
moderate conduct of Davis and Johnson and the others bore a
1
 Mariano v. Royal Interocean Lines, Case 527-ULP. reasonable relati on to conditions of their employment. It was
2
 Royal Interocean Lines v. CIR, L-11745, Oct. 31, 1960. therefore an unfair labor practice for respondent to interfere
 Note 2, supra.
with the exercise of the right of Davis and Johnson and the
3

4
 L-10130, Sept. 30, 1957.
other salesmen to engage in concerted activities for their
233 mutual aid or protection.”

VOL. 21, SEPTEMBER 27, 1967 233 Other members of this Court agreed with the CIR that
Republic Savings Bank vs. Court of Industrial the Bank’s conduct violated section 4(a) (5) which
makes it an unfair labor practice for an employer to
Relations dismiss an employee for having filed charges under the
of self-organization that includes concerted activity for Act.
mutual aid and protection,  interference with which
5

Some other members of this Court believe, without

constitutes an unfair labor practice under section 4(a) necessarily expressing approval of the way the
(l). This is the view of some members of this Court. For, respondents expressed their grievances, that what the
as has been aptly stated, the joining in protests or Bank should have done was to refer the letter-charge
demands, even by a small group of employees, if in to the grievance committee. This was its duty, failing
furtherance of their interests as such, is a concerted which it committed an unfair labor practice under
activity protected by the Industrial Peace Act. It is not section 4 (a) (6). For collective bargaining does not end
necessary that union activity be involved or that with the execution of an agreement. It is a continuous
collective bargaining be contemplated. 6

process. The duty to bargain imposes on the parties

during the term of their agreement the mutual
obligation “to meet and confer promptly and Examiner and Board are in agreement there is an increased
expeditiously and in good faith xxx for the pur- presumption in favor of their resolution of the issue.” 19

235
What we have just essayed underscores at once the
VOL. 21, SEPTEMBER 27, 1967 235 difference between Royal Interocean and Lakas ng
Republic Savings Bank vs. Court of Industrial Pagkakaisa on the one hand and this case on the other.
In Royal Interocean, the employee’s letter to the home
Relations
office, for writing which she was dismissed, complained
pose of adjusting any grievances or question arising
of the local manager’s “inconsiderate and untactful
under stich agreement”  and a violation of this
attitude” —a grievance which, the court found, “had
8

20

obligation is, by section 4 (a) (6) and (b)(3) an unfair

nothing to do with or did not arise from her union
labor practice.  As Professors Cox and Dunlop point out:
activities.” Nor did
9

“Collective bargaining x x x normally takes the form of ________________

negotiations when major conditions of employment to be
written into an agreement are under consideration and of
 Phelps Dodge Corp, v. NLRB, 313 U.S. 177 (1941).
grievance committee meetings and arbitration when
15

16
 NLRB v. Local 1229, IBEW, 346 U.S. 464 (1953).
questions arising in the administration of an agreement are at 17
 NLRB v. Stowe Spinning Co., 336 U.S. 226 (1949).
stake.” 10
18
 Republic Aviation Corp. v. NLRB, supra note 13.
19
 NLRB v. M & B Headwear Co., 349 F.2d 170 (4th Cir. 1965).
Instead of stifling criticism, the Bank should have 20
 See second Royal Interocean case, L-12429, Feb. 27, 1961.
allowed the respondents to air their grievances. Good
237
faith bargaining required of the Bank an open mind and
a sincere desire to negotiate over grievances.  The 11 VOL. 21, SEPTEMBER 27, 1967 237
grievance committee, created in the collective Republic Savings Bank vs. Court of Industrial
bargaining agreements, would have been an
appropriate forum for such negotiation. Indeed, the Relations
grievance procedure is a part of the continuous process the court find evidence of discriminatory discharge
of collective bargaining.  It is intended to promote, as it
12
in Lakas ng Pagkakaisa as the letter, which the
were, a friendly dialogue between labor and employee wrote to the mother company in violation of
management as a means of maintaining industrial the local company’s rule, denounced “wastage of
peace. company funds.” In contrast, the express finding of the
The Bank defends its action by invoking its right to court in this case was that the dismissal of the
discipline for what it calls the respondents’ libel in respondents was made on account’ of the letter they
giving undue publicity to their letter-charge. To be had written, in which they demanded the resignation of
sure, the right of self-organization of employees is not the bank president for a number of reasons touching
unlimited,  as the right of an employer to discharge for
13
labor-management relations—reasons which not even
tcause  is undenied. The Industrial Peace Act does not
14
the Bank’s judgment that the respondents had
ouch the normal exercise of the right of an employer to committed libel could excuse it for making summary
select his employees or to discharge them. It is discharges  in disregard of its duty to bargain
21

directed solely against the abuse of that right by collectively.

interfering with the In final sum and substance, this Court is in
________________ unanimity that the Bank’s conduct, identified as an
interference with the employees’ right of self-
 Industrial Peace Act, see. 13.
8
organization, or as a retaliatory action, and/or as a
 NLRB v. Highland Shoe, Inc., 119 F.2d 218 (1st Cir. 1941); NLRB v.
9

refusal to bargain collectively, constituted an unfair

Bachelder, 120 F. 2d 574 (7th Cir. 1941).
 The Duty to Bargain Collectively During the Term of an Existing
10
labor practice within the meaning and intendment of
Agreement, 63 Harv. L. Rev. 1097, 1105 (1950). section 4 (a) of the Industrial Peace Act.
 Cf. id. at 1110.
11
ACCORDINGLY, the decision of July 4, 1962 and the
 United Steelworkers of America v. Warrior & Gulf Navigation
resolution of August 9, 1962 of the Court of Industrial
12

Co., 363 U.S. 574 (1960); accord, United Steelworkers of America v.

Enterprise Wheel & Car Corp., 363 U.S. 593 (1960). Relations are affirmed, at petitioner’s cost.
 Republic Aviation Corp. v. NLRB, 324 U.S. 793 (1945).
13
     Concepcion, C.J.,Reyes,
 E.g., Philippine Educ. Co. v. Union of Phil. Educ. Employees, L-
14

J.B.L.,. Dizon, Makalintal,Zaldivar, Sanchez and Angeles 
13773, April 29, 1960.
JJ., concur. take part.
236      Bengzon, J.P.J., did not take part.-
236 SUPREME COURT REPORTS      Fernando,J., concurs in a separate opinion.

ANNOTATED ________________

Republic Savings Bank vs. Court of Industrial  “Considering the actualities of the collective bargaining and
21

Relations grievance procedures, we think the employer must realize that far-
fetched and overstated claims, easily dissuadable, are often made
countervailing right of self-organization.  But the 15
initially by one side in a labor dispute (especially when it is
difficulty arises in determining whether in fact the inexperienced in labor relations). Such claims may well evaporate on
discharges are made because of such a separable discussion and negotiation, and never become an integral part of the
union’s real purposes. We think that the employer cannot seize upon
cause or because of some other activities engaged in this kind of claim—made by ignorant workers in their initial demands—
by employees for the purpose of collective bargaining. 16
in order to justify retaliatory measures against them. He must make
It is for the CIR, in the first instance, to make the some effort to find out if the employees mean in fact to pursue these
claims, to stick to demands which are not protected by see. 7.
determination, “to weigh the employer’s expressed Summary discharge seems especially premature here.” NLRB v.
motive in determining the effect on the employees of Electronics Equip. Co., 194 F.2d 650 (2nd Cir. 1952). Cf. Abaya v.
management’s otherwise equivocal act.”  For the Act 17 Villegas, L-25641, Dec. 17, 1966.
does not undertake the impossible task of specifying in
238
precise and unmistakable language each incident
which constitutes an unfair labor practice. Rather, it 238 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
leaves to the court the work of applying the Act’s ANNOTATED
general prohibitory language in the light of infinite
combinations of events which may be charged as Republic Savings Bank vs. Court of Industrial
violative of its terms.  As the Circuit Court of Appeals
18
Relations
puts it:
“Determining the legality of a dismissal necessarily involves FERNANDO, J., concurring:
an appraisal of the employer’s motives. In these cases
motivations are seldom expressly avowed, and avowals are
not always candid. There thus must be a measure of reliance The opinion of the Court in this highly significant unfair
on the administrative agency knowledgeable in labor- labor practice case, one of first impression, easily
management relations and on the Trial Examiner who commends itself for approval. The relevant facts are
receives the evidence firsthand and is therefore in a unique set forth in all fullness and with due care. The position
position to determine the credibility of the witnesses. Where of the Court united as it is on an unfair labor practice
having been committed, but not quite fully agreed as could management select who would represent the
to which particular subsection of the legal provision latter or with whom to deal, otherwise in effect there
was violated, is delineated with precision. With the would be only one party. Obviously, there would then
explicit acknowledgement there made that some be no bargaining.
members of the Court are of the belief that what was 240
done by the Republic Bank here amounted to 240 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
“interference” and with the writer being of the
persuasion that it could be categorized in line with the
ANNOTATED
statute as “interference, restraint or coercion,” a few Republic Savings Bank vs. Court of Industrial
words as to why this view is entertained may not be Relations
inappropriate.
It is my view therefore that the dismissal amounted to
No one can doubt that we are in the process of
“interference, restraint or coercion” as prohibited in
evolving an indigenous labor jurisprudence.
the Industrial Peace Act. To repeat, this Section 4(a),
Notwithstanding the clearly American background of
with the exception of subsection (2), was taken from
the Industrial Peace Act, based as it is mainly on the
the Wagner Act. There is as stated by Bufford in his
Wagner Act,  labor relations in the Philippines with their
treatise for the Wagner Act “an overlap” as this
1

peculiar problems and the ingenuity of Filipino lawyers

particular subsection deals “with additional labor
have resulted in a growing body of decisions notable
practice besides containing incidental provisions
for their suitability to local condition and their distinctly
concerning related matters.”  As noted further by such
2

local flavor. This is as it should be.

commentator: “As expressed by the Senate
The present case affords one such instance. The
Committee: ‘The four succeeding unfair labor practices
wealth of adjudication by both judicial and
are designed not to impose limitations or restrictions
administrative agencies in the United States
upon the general guarantees of the first, but rather to
notwithstanding the diligent and earnest search for a
spell out with particularity some of the practices that
ruling based on a similar fact-situation yielded no case
have been most prevalent and most troublesome.’ “
precisely in point. What does it signify? At the very
Teller is in agreement. This subsection according to
least, it may indicate that while the problem posed
him “involves the widest varieties of activities.” The
could have arisen there, this particular response of
other unfair labor practices condemned fall within its
labor was quite unique. On the assumption which I
terms. Thus: “That the Board has taken this position is
have here hypothetically made that there was indeed a
evidenced both by the Board decisions and by express
valid cause for grievance, a more diplomatic approach
statement to such effect contained in its first annual
could have been attempted. Or at the very least the
report, the language of which in this connection is as
procedure indicated for the adjustment of a grievance
follows : ‘At the outset it should be explained that the
could have been followed. That was not done. What
Board has held that a violation by an employer of any
respondents did was to issue an ultimatum.
_______________
of the other four subdivisions of Section 8 of the act is,
by the same token, a violation of Section 8(1). Such a
1
 The National Labor Relations Act (1935) 49 Stat. 457. conclusion is too obvious to require explanation. In
fact, almost all of the cases in which the Board has
239 found a violation of Section 8(1) are cases in which the
VOL. 21, SEPTEMBER 27, 1967 239 principal offense charged fell within some other
subdivision of Section 8. The explanation for this is,
Republic Savings Bank vs. Court of Industrial apparently, that even though an employer may be
Relations engaging in anti-union activities in violation of Section
Collective bargaining whether in its formative stage 8(1), unions do not seek protection of the act Until such
preparatory to a labor contract or in the adjustment of activities take such drastic form as bring them within
a labor problem in accordance with the procedure set the provisions of some other subdivisions, as, for
forth in an existing agreement presupposes the give- example, the discriminatory discharge of union
and-take of discussion. No party adopts, at least in its members (which comes within subdivision [3]), the
initial stages, a hard-line position, from which there can domination of or interference with the formation or
be no retreat. That was not the situation here. administration of a labor organization (which comes
Respondents as labor leaders appeared adamantine in within subdivision [2] or a refusal to bargain
their attitude to terminate the services of the then collectively (which
president of the Republic Savings Bank. Nor did they _______________
mince words in describing his alleged misdeeds. They
 Bufford on the Wagner Act (1941), 169.
were quite certain that he had offended most
2

grievously. They wanted him out. There was no room 241

for discussion.
That for me is not bargaining as traditionally and
VOL. 21, SEPTEMBER 28, 1967 241
commonly understood. It is for that reason that I find it Enguerra vs. Dolosa
difficult to agree fully with the view that their dismissal comes within subdivision [5].”
could be construed as a refusal to bargain collectively. In the Philippines as in the United States then, the
Moreover, they did not as adverted to in the opinion of first subsection on “interference, restraint or coercion”
the Court, follow the procedure set forth for adjusting covering as it does such a broad range of undesirable
grievances. Nor considering the explicit language of practices on the part of employers could easily be
the Industrial Peace Act may such dismissal fall within seized upon, where a borderline case, inimical to the
the prohibition against dismissing employees for right of self-organization or to collective bargaining,
having filed charges or about to give testimony “under presents itself as justifying a finding of an unfair labor
the Act.” As a matter of fact, if the letter were indeed practice.
libelous, their dismissal would not have been Decision and resolution affirmed.
unjustified. There was an admission as noted in the
opinion “that the writing of the letter charged was not ________________
a ‘union’ action but merely their ‘individual’ act.”
Nonetheless, concurrence with the decision arrived
at by the Court is called for in view of their mass
dismissal. Under the circumstances, the supervisors
union, the Republic Savings Bank employees union, the
Republic Savings Bank security guards union, and the
Republic Savings Bank supervisors union were left
leaderless. For collective bargaining to be meaningful,
there must be two parties, one representing
management and the other representing the union. Nor