Professional Documents
Culture Documents
CIR
G.R. No. 39040
June 6, 1990
FACTS
1. Respondent Antonio Cruz was employed by petitioner corporation as an electrician
a. Elected president of the Royal Undergarment Workers Union (RUWU), which affiliated with
PTGWO
2. RUWU-PTGWO, through National Sec and resp. Cruz, sent proposals to pet. Corp. for collective bargaining
3. The next day, resp. Cruz was terminated
a. Basis: Cruz’s “record and after careful analysis and deliberation.”
4. Respondent’s wife was also terminated
5. RUWU called a strike
6. RUWU-PTGWO and pet. corporation entered into a Return-to-Work Agreement thru the conciliation efforts
of the Department of Labor
a. Agreement: Corporation will reinstate of Spouses Cruz if RUWU would win the consent elections
7. Records don’t disclose results of consent elections however the Spouses were reinstated, thereby indicating
victory of RUWU
8. CBA entered into which contained a grievance procedure
a. Used several occasions whenever there were suspended union-employees through help of resp.
Cruz
9. Sometime later, PTGWO urged union-members to join nationwide strike
a. Resp. Cruz campaigned mems to join
10. At around 11PM, within the company premises, resp. Cruz approached 3 employees who were company
supervisors. There were 2 accounts of what happened:
a. Employees’ account: Cruz was under the influence of liquor and uttered: “Ikaw, Ikaw, Ikaw—mga
hayop kayo. Bibigyan ko kayo ng isang linggong taning sa buhay ninyo ipapapatay ko kayo.”
b. Cruz’s account: What he said was: “Ikaw, Ikaw, Ikaw pare, alam kong matitigas kayo rito sa
compania, kaya’t ako’y nakikiusap, kung maaari pag-natuloy ang nationwide strike bukas, makiisa
kayo at gamitin ang tigas ninyo.”
11. Three employees immediately went to the personnel officer of the corporation and executed affidavits the
day after
12. Gen. Manager placed resp. on preventive suspension for threatening “the lives of four (4) employees” and
for having “been reported under the influence of liquor,” both acts being “contrary to rules and regulations.”
13. Upon request of Cruz and Union, company conducted investigation
14. Petitioner corporation dismissed respondent Cruz for being under the influence of liquor and for having
threatened the lives of four of his co-employees
15. Resp. Cruz filed a complaint for ULP against the corp. before the CIR
16. CIR: guilty of ULP
Petition DENIED.