Sie sind auf Seite 1von 2




Graciano Indias, petitioner, filed a complaint before the Court of Industrial

Relations (CIR) alleging that respondent, Philippine Iron Mines, has engaged
in unfair labor practice within the meaning of Section 4(a), paragraph 1,2,3,4,
and 5 of Republic Act No. 875.
Respondent answered the complaint by alleging that petitioner was
dismissed from the service for a cause.
Hearings were then conducted by the hearing examiner of CIR in which both
parties appeared with their counsel.
After the presentation of both sides, hearing examiner rendered his report
stating that the charge filed by complainant relating to unfair labor practice,
has not been substantiated by evidence and that petitioners dismissal was
with sufficient cause.
The Court of Industrial Relations approved the hearing examiners report and
recommendation which dismissed the complaint against respondent.
Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration but was then denied by the court.
Hence, the petition for review.

Petitioner raised two issues. First, regards the issuance of the order of CIR,
dismissing a case without stating the facts and the law which supports the decision.
Second, petitioner disputes the findings of the hearing examiner regarding his
dismissal, claiming that he was dismissed by respondent because of his
involvement in union activities and not because of the altercation he had with
another employee who was outside the work place and which was beyond work
The Supreme Court found no merit in the first issue by complainant. Statement of
facts or discussion of evidence is not necessary if the court is satisfied with the
report of its examiner, which already contains a full discussion of the case and
As regards to the dismissal of petitioner, the evidence is clear that respondent
served the dismissal on the ground that petitioner committed grave misconduct due
to his violent temper. His quarrel against a co-employee resulted to a court action
by the latter, showing that petitioner possess a degree of violent character which
was contrary to the companys rules and regulations that laborers should possess
good behavior as norm of conduct in order to avoid untoward incident in the
companys underground tunnels.
Also, the issue being contested is a question of fact in which the Supreme Court
cannot consider because under Section 6 of Republic Act No. 875, the Supreme
Court is limited only to the interpretation considering the question of law.

The petition is dismissed and the order of the Court of Industrial Relation is affirmed.
Supreme Court holds that an employer cannot legally be compelled to continue with
employment of a person who admittedly was guilty of misfeasance or malfeasance
towards his employer and those continuance in the service of the latter is patently
inimical to his interest.