Graciano Indias v Phil. Iron Mines, Inc.G.R. No. L-9987; 29 April 1957; Bautista-Angelo, J.Digest by Dudday

FACTS1. 23 Jun 1954: Petitioner Indias filed before the CIR a complaint against his former employer respondent PHL Iron Mines for

unfair labor practice. He alleged that he was unjustly terminated from work because of his union activities (he participated in a strike led by one Pedro Venida) and that the justification given by the company should not be given credit since his quarrel with a co-employee happened outside work hours and outside the work premises. He prayed for reinstatement.

2. Respondent PHL Iron Mines, on the other hand, contended that Indias was terminated for just cause, it having been found that the latter committed grave misconduct due to his violent temper when he quarreled with a fellow employee (Apolonio Umaga) in Jose Panganiban (a poblacion, aka town), leading to a court action for less physical injuries against Indias. Respondent also set up a counterclaim for P2000.

3. Hearings were conducted by Atty. Tabigne in which both parties appeared with counsels. After the presentation of evidence, Tabigne rendered a report recommending dismissal of the complaint. His reason was that the charge of unfair labor practice was not substantiated by evidence and that the grave misconduct due to Indias’ violent temper was a violation of the company’s rules and regulations which says that underground laborers should possess good behavior as norms of conduct to avoid any untoward incident in the underground tunnels. Such violation was found a valid cause for Indias’ dismissal. CIR adopted the recommendation and adopted the ff. order:

“Hearing Examiner Mr. Tabigne recommends the dismissal of this case on the ground that the evidence by the complainant did not support the charges of unfair labor practice. The facts are stated in the Hearing Examiner's dated May 16, 1955.

After a perusal of the record of the case, the Court finds no sufficient justification for modifying said recommendation, findings and conclusions, and consequently, this case is hereby dismissed.

SO ORDERED.”

4. Hence, this petition for review.

ISSUES, RESOLUTION, RATIO

1. WON the CIR made a wrong finding of fact in holding that there was just cause in Indias’ dismissal [No] SC is not a trier of facts. The findings of the hearing officer should be given credit and should be affirmed since it is the

one in a better position to determine the truthfulness of the allegations.

2. WON CIR may issue an order dismissing a case without stating the facts and the law in support thereof [Yes]

Indias’ Arguments The order should be voided for having violated the 1935 Constitution ( “No decision shall be rendered by any court of

record without expressing therein clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based. [Art. VIII, Sec. 12]”) and Sec. 1, Rule 35 of the Rules of Court stating that a court decision shall state clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based.

SC Ruling While it is true that the order does not make its own discussion of evidence or its own findings of fact, such is not

necessary if the court –as in the CIR in this case –is satisfied with the report of the examiner/referee which already contains the full discussion of the evidence and findings of fact based thereon. CIR approved the report of the hearing officer “after a perusal of the record of the case” which should give a presupposition that it had examined the evidence and found no justification for any modification of the findings. It is purposeless to repeat what the examiner has already found when the court is in full accord with it. Suffice it to say that a new discussion of evidence or its own findings of fact is necessary if the court disagrees with the report, because in such case the court must state its reasons for disagreement. As had been held in Manila Trading & Supply Co. v Phl Labor Union:

“When the CIR refers a case to a commissioner for investigation, report, and recommendation, and at such investigation the parties were duly represented by counsel, heard or at least given an opportunity to be heard, the requirement of due process has been satisfied, even if the court failed to set the report for hearing, and a decision on the basis of such report, with the other evidence of the case, is a decision which meets the requirement of a fair and open hearing.”

Appeal denied. Order appealed from is affirmed.