VOL.30,OTOBER31, 196947 Gonzales vs.VictrLaborUnion(ICL U No. L-23256, October 31, 1969. JOSEM.GONZALESpetitioner,vs.VICTORY LABOR UNION (VICLU),JULIANBELTRAN,SEVERINOAPAWAN, PONCIANO SAYAN, adQUIICOMNDEZ, respondents. Laborlaw;Coutof 11UustrialRelations;Substatialevidencea; W SureeCout m goovetherecordsof thece.-Whleunderthe substaiaevidenceruletefmdingsoffactofteCourtofIndustia Relationsaenotdistubeonappaaslongatheaesupportedbysuch relevatevideceasaresonablemindmightaccetaadequetosupporta conclusion,thereisonecircumstanceweretheSupremeCourtmanot aceptthefingsoffactin 48 48SUPREME COURTREPORTS A OTATED Gonalesvs.VctoryLaborUnion(ICLU thedeisionappealedfomaconclusive,nely,ttesaddecisionw renderedbyaalmostdividedcourtadttedivisionwpreiselyon thefactsasboreoutbyteevidence.InsuchasituiontheSupremeCourt feelscalledupontogoovertrecordad,inordertodeterminethe substantiaitofteevidence,consideritnotonlyInitsqutitaivebutalso initsquaitaiveapets.Fortobsubstaial,evidencemustfrstofallbe creible. PETITION frreview by certiorari of adecisionand resolutionof theCourtofIndustia Relations. Thefacts aestated inteopinion of theCourt. Erasmo MDiola frpetitioner. LoretoG.CamposandAlbertoFMonte/a/confr respondents. MAALITAL,J.: This caseisbefreusonreviewbycertioraiofthedecisionofthe CourtofIndustialRelationsdatedMay8,1963,adofits resolutionofJuly19,1963,inCaseNo.303-ULP-Cebu,Victory Labor Union(VICLU), eta. vs.JoseM.Gonzales. HereinpetitionerGonzalezwasengagedintawlfshing,ad aonghisemployeeswereJuliaBeltan,SeverinoApawan, PoncianoSayan,QricoMendezandVirgilioBaesallofthem workinginpetitioner'sfshingboatheMEmiliaa.OnMach 31,1962theActingProsecutoroftheCourtofIndustrialRelations fledacomplaintagainstpetitioner,charginghimwth unfairlabor practiceindismissingsaidemployeeswithoutjustcausebutby reasonoftheirmembershipinVICLUadtherebyinterferingad coercing teminte exercise ofteir rightto self-orgaization. Gonzalesadmitedinhisanswerthatthecomplainants,except VirgilioBaes,werehisemployees,butdeniedthathedismissed themfrtheirunionafliation,adallegedthattheirdismissalwas frcause, they havingbeenfundtohaveconnivedwth eachother inpilferingtecatchoftefshigboatandsellingthesaetothe publicfr theirpersonalbeneft.Petitionerfher denied that hehad kowledge, priort theflingoftecomplain of 49 VOL.30,OTOBER31, 196949 Gonzales vs.VictrLaborUnion(ICL [ thecomplainants' membershipintelabor union. Afertial,thecourtbelow,inadecisionpennedbyPresiding JudgeJoseS.Bautista,heldhereinpetitionerguiltofunfairlabor practice,orderedhimtceaseaddesistfomtheactscomplained ofanddirectedtereinstatementofthecomplainatswithback wagesfomFebruary 7, 1962, whichwthedateofteirdismissal. PetitionerfledamotionfrreconsiderationbefretheCourten bane,buttemotionwdeniedinaminuteresolutionsigedby PresidingJudgeBautistaandconcurredinbyAssociateJudges ArsenioI.MatinezadBaltazaM.Villaueva.Aextended dissent,however,wasfledbyAssociateJudgeEmiliaoC. Tabige,wththeconcurrenceofAssociateJudgeAmandoC. Bugayong. Inthiscaseweareagainfcedwittheapplicationofthe I substantialevidencerule,underwhichthefi ndingsoffactofthe CourtofIndustialRelationsarenotdisturbedonappealaslongas theyaresupportedby"suchrelevantevidenceasareasonablemind 2 mightacceptas adequatetosupportaconclusion. 11 Thereisonecircumstancewhich, atthevery outset, hasdetained usfomacceptingthefi ndingsoffctinthedecisionappeaedfom asconclusive.namely,tattesaiddecisionwrenderedbyan almostevenlydividedcourtandthatthedivisionwaspreciselyon thefactsasboreoutbyteevidence.InsuchasituationtisCourt felscalleduponto goover therecordand, inorder to determine the substantialit ofteevidence, consideritnotonly initsquatitative butalsoinitsqualitativeaspects.Fortobesubstantial,evidence mustfi rstatal becredible. Thequestionteniswhetherornotteconclusionoftebare majorityoftheCourtbelow,thattecomplainantsthere,now respondents, weredismissed by petitioner i Sec. 6, R. A. No.875. 2 AngTiby vs.CI,69 Phl.635SaniagRiceMllvs.SaiagoLab Unio, G.R.No.L-1800,Aust31,1962;Kaisahan NgMM gwasa LaCampana v.Tanoo, G.R. No. L-18338, Octobr 31,1962. 50SUPREM COURTREPORTSANOTATED Gonzales vs.Vctr LaborUnion{ICL U 50 frtheirunionafliation,meetsthetestthusestablished.Theonly evidenceonthis pointis thetestimony of respondentsJulian Beltan, SeverinoApawanandQuiricoMendez,aswellasthetestimony of theunionpresident,AttoreyLoretoG.Capos.Thefrstthree moreorlessunifrmlydeclaedthattheybecaemembersof VICLUonNovember15,1951bysigingthecorresponding membershipslip(Exh.A);thattheyhnotviolatedanyruleor committedanyirregularityintheperformanceoftheirduties;and thatonFebru7,1962teywerecalledbytemaagementad toldthattheywerebeingdismissedbyreasonoftheirunion membership.Uponitsfceadconsideredinisolation,such evidencecouldconceivably meetthetestof substantiality.Butthere isoterevidencewhichcannotbelightlydismissedwitout abitarilyclosingtedoortoajudiciousdischargeof thepowerof review, withinthelimits setdow by therule. 1. Firstofall,thereistemembershipslipsigedbycomplainatsJuliaBelta.SeverinoApawa.PonciaoSayanad QricoMendezwhenthey allegedly afliated tothe Victory Labor Union.Theslipislikewisesigedbytheunionpresident, Attorey LoretoG.Campos, andbeasthehandwritten dateinink,"Nov.15, 1951.11 Attorey Campos categoricallyaf edontewitess stand thecorrectessoftedatetuswritten,andsaidthatteactual sigingwasdoneintemoringofthatday.Yetthelogbookofthe MILEmilianashowsthatthewholedayofNovember15,1961the boatwasoutfshingintheseaof Bohol.Betweentheentriesina logbook,whichisrequiredbylawtobekeptbyeverymasteror captainofaregistablevessel,andamembershipslipsuchasthat siged by respondents, tefrstis undoubtedly more reliable. 2. Thecomplaintfrua laborpracticenamedVirgilioBaes asoneoftefvecomplainants,almembersofVICLU.Accordingto AttoreyCapos,whenexminedatthetial,Baeswnota memberoftheunionatall,h notsigedanymembershippaper, adwsincludedinthecomplaintonlythroughinadvertence.His inclusion 51 VOL.30,OTOBER31, 196951 Gonzales vs.VctrLaborUnion(ICL U certainlydoesnotspeakwellofAttoreyCapos'credibilitas witess, particularly inthelightofhisother testimony thatbefrehe preparedtecomplaint,aspresidentandlawyeroftheunion,he investigatedthecomplainantsonebyone,andthatterewasa prelimina hearing oftecaseby the prosecutor ofteCourt. 3. PetitionerwasneverofciallynotifedthatrespondentsweremembersofteVictoryLaborUnion.Nodemadfrcheck-of deductionsfomtheirwageswaseverserveduponhim.Infct, respondents themselves saidthatfom November15, 1961, uptothe timeoftheirdismissalfomemploymentonFebrua7, 1962, tey didnotpayaymonthlyuniondues.Andathoughallthecrew members of theM Emiliaaweresupposedly afliatedto VICLU, noattemptwhatsoeverwasmadeby thelattertosecureacollective bagainingageementorat leasta certifcation election. 4. Asigifcantfctisthatitwasnotonly respondentswhoweredismissedbypetitionerbutalsothecaptainofthevesselhimself ErestoBaroc,whowasnotamember01theunionadwhose dismissalwasfrcomplicity inthepilfrageofthecatchoftheM Emiliana. Thefregoingcircumstances,objectiveasteyare,lendstrong supporttthetestimonyofpetitionerGonzalesandofhiswitess FelipeJubay,totheefectthattheyhareceivedevidence, consistingofreportsfomdiferentsources,thatwhenevertheboat arivedatCebuaferafshingtiprespondentswouldsellfshat very cheapprices;thatGonzalesinvestigatedthemonebyonead wasconvincedoftheirguilt;thathewasnotyettroughwiththe investigation,butteyfiledtretaferFebruary7,1962;and that he did notknow they were members ofay labor union. Besidesthefregoingevidencefrhereinpetitionerthetwo dissentingmembersoftecourtbelowalsoconsideredcertn sigficatcontadictionsIntetestimony ofrespondents,Wequote fom their opinion: "Regrdingteirdismissa,wefndtterewsuf cient justifcationfr theactiontakebytheemployer.It ap 52SUPREM COURTREPORTSAOTATED Gonzales vs.Vctr LaborUnion(ICL U 52 peasttheseeployeeswrefundtohavesatagetheinterestof teir employer.Theypilferetefshcbythemandsoldtemtoprivate partiesadpoketetheprocedstheref.Thiscirctanceisacle indicaionofsabotageadpilfeagepureadsimple.Andthedismissaof thisinsttcaseshould,therefre,beinorder. Itisclaimettheeweeaofdiscriminationontepaofte employerwetheseemployesweredismisse.Weholdthecontary wre. Letustakefrinstanceteso-calleinterviewoftfureployeesbythe employeronFebruy7,1962.Oewites(Bolton)testifedtthefur oftewerecalletogethetoteofceoftmanagementadtoldthe tteweredismissebecausemaageentdidnotliketheirmembership totheirunion.Theothewitesstestife tsuchincidenthappeedaboad thebatMEmiliaa(WitessMendez).Inaoteinstce,Witess Apawasadthewcalleaonetotheofceofrespondenemployer adnobodywwiththematthetimehewtoldofhisdismissaThese contadicorystementsclealyindicatettheemployehnokowlege ofteirmembrshipate. timeexceptwenthecomplawflead notifedbythefilingofthesaeadtheirdismissalwnot,therefre, motivaebyaydiscriminatoryaonthepaoftheemploye.Astated abovewefmdttherewjustifcaionoftheirdismissalbeauseofthe pilfragecommittedbythemindispsingaportionofthecachtoprivate partiestothelossoftheireployer.Whenaemployeehcommittea actCheicaltoteployer'sinteret,hisdismissalis justcauseama bepermittedbythisCou." Weconclude,i viewofalltheconsiderationsabovesetfr,that thebaretestimonyofrespondents,complainantsbelow,is insufcientto establishthechargeofua laborpracticeunderte standardf ixedby lawad enunciatedi the decisions of this Court. Thejudgentappealedfomissetaside,adthecomplaintis dismissed, with costs. Concepcion,C.J,Reyes,J.B. L. ,Dizon,Zldivar,Sanchez, Castro,Teehanke andBaredo,JJ, concur. Ferando, J., concursi theresult. Judgent set aside. Note-FindingsoffactoftheCourtofIndutrialRetotions.Seetheannotation in1SCR27-31adtenotes in16 SCR 827-829. 53 Copyrght2015 CentrlBook Supply,Inc.Allrghtsrsere.