THE INSULAR LIFE ASSURANCE CO., LTD.

, EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION-NATU V THE

INSULAR LIFE ASSURANCE CO. LTD.
CASTRO; January 30, 1971
(rach mayuga)

NATURE
Appeal by certiorari to review a decision and resolution of the Court of Industrial Relations
dismissing the Unions complaint

FACTS
- The following UNIONS (Insular Life Assurance Co. Ltd, Employees Assn-NATU; FGU
Insurance Group Workers and Employees Assn-NATU; Insular Life Bldg Employees AssnNATU) while still members of the Federation of Free Workers, entered into separate collective
bargaining agreements with these COMPANIES (Insular Life Assurance Co. Ltd; FGU Insurance
Group)
- Lawyers of the Unions include Enaje and Garcia (Sec-treasurer of FFW). When they left FFW,
the Companies then hired them and Garcia became Asst. Corporate Sec and Legal Asst in the
Legal Dept, and Enaje became personnel manager of the Companies. He was also made
chairman of the negotiating panel for the Co. in the CBA with the Unions.
- Sept 16, 1957 Unions jointly submitted proposals for a modified renewal of their respective
CBA contracts w/c were due to expire on 9/30
- Sept/Oct 1957 - negotiations were conducted but snagged by deadlock on issue of union
shop; Unions then filed on 01/27/1958 notice of strike for deadlock on collective bargaining
- April 15, 1958 Unions dropped their demands regarding security but the Companies still
refused to negotiate
- Apr 25 to May 6 They tried negotiating but with no satisfactory results
- May 15, 1958 Unions voted to declare a strike in protest against what they considered as
unfair labor practices
- May 20, 1958 Unions went on strike and picketed the offices of Insular Life Bldg
- May 21, 1958 Companies through the Acting Manager Olbes sent to each of the strikers a
letter specifying incentives should they decide to go back to work
- Garcia and Abella (Chief of Personnel Records Section) tried to penetrate the picket lines.
When Garcia approached the picket line, he engaged into a fight with one of the strikers and
both of them suffered injuries.
- Companies organized 3 bus-loads of employees, including a photographer who succeeded in
penetrating the picket lines causing injuries to picketers.

- Alleging that some non-strikers were injured, the Companies filed criminal charges against
strikers and they also filed a petition for injunction.
- May 31, 1958 CFI Mla granted injunction. Companies sent individually to the strikers another
letter which states If you are still interested in continuing in the employ of the Group
Companies, and if there are no criminal charges against you, we are giving you until June 2 to
report for work at the home office. Otherwise, we may be forced to obtain your replacement.
- All of the more than 120 crim charges, except for 3, were dismissed. But employees decided to
call of the strike and to report back to work on June 2.
- Before readmitting, Companies required them to secure clearances from the City Fiscals
Office and to be screened by a management committee
- July 29, 1958 CIR prosecutor filed a complaint for unfair labor practice
- Aug 17, 1965 CIR dismissed the complaint
Relevant to the assigned topic (read pages 277-280!)
- Martinez, the Presiding Judge of the CIR, misquoted a SC decision in the case of Lopez Sr v.
Chronicle Publication Employees Assn:
(1) 60 words of the paragraph quoted by Martinez do NOT appear in the original;
(2) Martinez used For it is settled that...; the original reads, For it must be remembered...
(3) Last sentence in the quoted paragraph of Martinez is actually part of the immediately
succeeding paragraph in the SC decision.
- In the respondents brief, counsels for respondents quoted the CIRs decision

ISSUES
1. WON the Companies are guilty of unfair labor practice a) In sending out letters individually directed to the strikers
b) For discriminating against the striking members of the Unions in the matter of
readmitting employees after the strike
c) For dismissing officials and members of the Unions without giving them the benefit of
investigation and the opportunity to present their side
2. WON the officials and members of the Unions are to be reinstated with full back wages, from
June 2, 1958 to date of actual reinstatement
3. WON Presiding Judge Martinez and counsels of respondents are to be cited for contempt for
misquoting a Supreme Court decision

HELD
1.a) YES.

Ratio It is an unfair labor practice for an employer operating under a collective bargaining
agreement to negotiate with his employees individually, in connection with the changes in the
agreement. Although the union is on strike, the employer is still under the obligation to bargain
with the union as the employees bargaining representative.
Reasoning It is an act of interference for the employer to send a letter to all employees
notifying them to return to work at a specific time, otherwise new employees would be engaged
to perform their jobs. The first letter contains promises of benefits to employees; the second
letter contains threats to obtain replacements. Free speech protection under the Constitution is
inapplicable where the expression of opinion by the employer or his agent contains a promise of
benefit, or threats or reprisal.
- The circumstance that strikers later decided to return to work on account of injunction cannot
alter the intrinsic quality of the letters which tended to interfere with the employees right to
engage in lawful concerted activity in the form of strike.
- Totality of Conduct Doctrine: Expressions of opinion by an employer, though innocent in
themselves, were held to be culpable because of the circumstances under which they were
uttered. (1) Before Unions submission of proposals for renewal of CBAs, respondents hired
former legal counsels of petitioners; (2) After notice to strike was served on the Companies, they
reclassified 87 employees as supervisors, compelling them to resign from unions; (3) During
negotiations in Dept of Labor, they refused to answer the Unions demands en toto; (4) Strikers
were individually sent letters inducing them to return to work with promises of special privileges;
(5) Three truckloads of non-strikers crashed through the picket line, which resulted in injuries on
the part of picketers; (6) Criminal charges were brought upon picketers; (7) An injunction was
obtained from CFI; (8) Another letter was sent individually and by registered special delivery
mail threatening them with dismissal if they didnt report for work on June 2; (9) When they did
report for work, a screening committee refused to admit 63 members of the Unions on ground of
pending criminal charges; (10) When almost all were cleared by fiscals office, they were still
refused admission; but all non-strikers were readmitted immediately. It is clear that the main
reason for the strike was when it became clear that management will not negotiate in good
faith.
1.b) YES.
Ratio The companies are guilty of discrimination in their process of rehiring. They refused to
readmit strikers with pending criminal charges, even after these employees have secured the
required clearances. At the same time, the Companies readily readmitted non-strikers who also
had criminal charges, without requiring clearances. They even separated active from the less
active unionists on the basis of their militancy, or lack of it, on the picket lines.
Reasoning There are 3 conditions for readmission of the strikers: (1) he must be interested in
continuing his work with the companies; (2) no criminal charges against him; (3) report for work
on June 2, 1958, otherwise he would be replaced. All employees are considered to have
complied with first and third condition.
- In an anticipatory effort to exculpate themselves from charges of discrimination in rehiring, they
even delegated the power to readmit to a committee composed of Abella and Garcia. Both were
involved in unpleasant incidents with the picketers during the strike, and the mere act of placing
the power of reinstatement in their hands is a form of discrimination.

1.c) YES.
Ratio The Companies refused to take the employees back on account of their acts of
misconduct even if all, except three, were able to secure the required clearances. Record
shows that not a single dismissed striker was given the opportunity to defend himself against
the supposed charges.
2. YES.
Ratio The members and officials of the Unions went on strike because of the unfair labor
practices committed by the Companies. They are now entitled to reinstatement with back pay
because when they reported back for work, upon the invitation of their employers, they were
discriminatorily dismissed.
3. NO.
Ratio The misquotation is more a result of clerical ineptitude than a deliberate attempt on the
part of the respondent Judge to mislead. Counsels of respondents have the prima facie right to
rely on the quotation as it appears in the Judges decision, to copy it verbatim and to incorporate
it in their brief. Import of sentences in the quotation is substantially the same as the cited
decision.
Impt: In citing SCs decisions and rulings, it is the bounden duty of courts, judges and lawyers
to reproduce or copy the same word-for-word and punctuation mark-for-punctuation mark. This
is because only the decisions of this Honorable Court establish jurisprudence or doctrines in
this jurisdiction. (Miiranda v. Imperial)
- Ever present is the danger that if not faithfully and exactly quoted, the decisions and rulings of
SC may lose their proper and correct meaning, to the detriment of other courts, lawyers and the
public who may thereby be misled. Also, appellate courts will be precluded from acting on
misinformation, and be saved precious time in finding out whether citations are correct.
Disposition Decision of the CIR is reversed and set aside. Respondents are ordered to
reinstate the dismissed members of the petitioning Unions to their former or comparatively
similar positions with back wages.