Scotys Department Store vs Micaller

Facts:
Nena Micaller was employed as a sales girl in Scotys Department Store. This store
was owned and operated by Yu Ki Lam, Richard Yang, Yu Si Kiao and Helen Yang.
Pursuant to section 5b of the Industrial Peace Act, Nena filed charges of unfair labor
practice against her employers alleging that she was dismissed by them because of
her membership in the National Labor Union and that, prior to her separation, said
employers had been questioning their employees regarding their membership in
said union and had interfered with their right to organize under the law.
The employers denied the charge. They claim that the complainant was dismissed
because of misconduct and disrespect to the management. That on November 30
1953, she was dismissed for insulting the owner of the store and for taking to the
girls inside the store during business hours. The Industrial Court found the
petitioners guilty of unfair labor practice and ordered them to pay a fine of 100
pesos.
Issue:
W/n the Industrial Court is justified in imposing a fine not only upon Yu Ki Lam, who
was the manager, but also upon Richard Yang, Yu Si Kiao and Helen Yang, who were
mere owners thereof but had no participation in its management.
Held:
No. The Court of Industrial Relations has no jurisdiction to impose the penalties
prescribed in section 25 of RA 875.
SEC 25. Penalties Any person who violates the provisions of section three this act shall be punished by a fine of
not less than 100 pesos nor more than 1000 pesos, or by imprisonment of not less than 1 month no more than 1
year, or both by such free and imprisonment, in the discretion of the Court.

The Court concluded that the word Court cannot refer to Court of Industrial
Relations for to give meaning would be violative of the safeguard guaranteed to
every accused by our Constitution. That No person shall be held to answer criminal
offense without due process of law and that In all criminal prosecution the
accused..shall enjoy the right to be heard by himself and counsel, against him.
The procedure laid down by law to be observe by the Court of Industrial Relations in
dealing with the unfair labor practice cases negates those constitutional guaranteed
to the accused. The law provides that the rules of evidence prevailing in court for
the courts of law and equity cannot be controlling and it is the spirit and intention of
act the Court of Industrial Relations and its members and hearing examiners shall
be use every and all reasonable means to ascertain the facts in each case speedily
and objective and without regards to technicalities of law of procedure
It is likewise enjoined that the Court shall not be bound solely by the evidence
presented during the hearing but may avail itself of all other means such as ocular
inspections and questioning of well-informed persons which results must be made a
part of the record. All this means that an accused may be tried without meeting the

witnesses face to face and be convicted upon preponderance of evidence and not
beyond reasonable doubt. This is against the due process guaranteed by the
constitution. The power to impose penalty is lodged in ordinary court and not in
Court of Industrial Relations.