Case Digest (G.R. No. 241437)
Facts:
The case involves Albay Electric Cooperative, Inc. (ALECO) as the petitioner and ALECO Labor Employees Organization (ALEO) as the respondent. ALECO is an electric cooperative that holds a franchise for the retail distribution of electricity in Albay province. In March 2012, during a Special General Membership Assembly, ALECO's Finance Manager reported significant financial distress, with payables amounting to Php134 million and long-term obligations totaling Php3.1 billion. To address this crisis, ALECO proposed a Private Sector Participation (PSP) rehabilitation strategy, which required current employees to tender courtesy resignations, while ALEO advocated for a Cooperative-to-Cooperative (C2C) rehabilitation scheme.
On April 15, 2013, ALEO filed for preventive mediation with the National Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB) due to alleged unfair labor practices, but negotiations failed. A notice of strike was filed on April 25, 2013, and a strike vote conducted in...
Case Digest (G.R. No. 241437)
Facts:
Background of the Parties
- ALECO: Albay Electric Cooperative, Inc. (ALECO) is an electric cooperative holding a franchise for the retail distribution of electricity in Albay.
- ALEO: ALECO Labor Employees Organization (ALEO) is the collective bargaining agent representing ALECO's employees.
Financial Distress and Rehabilitation Efforts
- ALECO faced severe financial distress, with payables amounting to Php134 million to the Philippine Electricity Market Corporation (PEMC) and Php87 million to other creditors, including the National Grid Corporation of the Philippines (NGCP) and retirees. Its total long-term obligations reached Php3.1 billion.
- ALECO proposed Private Sector Participation (PSP) as a rehabilitation strategy, requiring employees to tender courtesy resignations but offering separation pay and priority rehiring under the new concessionaire.
- ALEO opposed PSP and advocated for a Cooperative-to-Cooperative (C2C) rehabilitation scheme.
Labor Dispute and Strike
- On April 15, 2013, ALEO filed for preventive mediation due to alleged unfair labor practices.
- ALEO conducted a strike vote on May 10, 17, and 20, 2013, with 217 out of 235 members voting in favor of a strike.
- A referendum on September 14, 2013, resulted in the adoption of PSP, with San Miguel Power Holdings Corporation as the winning bidder.
- Despite the referendum, ALEO went on strike on September 23, 2013.
- ALECO issued Notices of Retrenchment on October 23, 2013, under Office Memorandum No. 216.
Assumption of Jurisdiction by the Secretary of Labor
- On January 7, 2014, ALECO requested the Secretary of Labor to assume jurisdiction over the labor dispute.
- The Secretary of Labor issued a Return-to-Work Order on January 10, 2014, directing all striking employees to return to work and ALECO to resume operations under pre-strike conditions.
Issue:
Procedural Issues:
- Whether ALECO can challenge the January 17, 2018 Resolution of the Secretary of Labor through the present Petition.
- Whether ALEO can still contest the validity of the retrenchment and raise claims for damages and attorney’s fees.
Substantive Issues:
- Whether the CA erred in sustaining the Secretary of Labor’s award of backwages.
- Whether the CA erred in reducing the period for which ALECO is liable for backwages.
Ruling:
Procedural Matters:
- The Court ruled that the January 17, 2018 Resolution cannot be challenged through the present Petition, as it should have been raised via a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 before the CA.
- ALEO’s challenge to the validity of the retrenchment and claims for damages and attorney’s fees were deemed final and unassailable, as they were not raised in a timely petition for certiorari.
Substantive Matters:
- The Court upheld the award of backwages, ruling that ALECO failed to comply with the Return-to-Work Order by not reinstating employees under pre-strike conditions.
- The CA correctly limited the computation of backwages to the period from January 10, 2014 (date of the Return-to-Work Order) to April 29, 2016 (date of the Secretary of Labor’s Resolution).
- The Court rejected ALECO’s argument that backwages should only accrue until February 26, 2014, when employees last reported for work, as ALECO failed to provide actual work or pay wages during the reinstatement period.
Ratio:
Authority of the Secretary of Labor:
- Under Article 278 263 of the Labor Code, the Secretary of Labor has the authority to assume jurisdiction over labor disputes in industries indispensable to national interest. This includes issuing return-to-work orders and maintaining the status quo until the dispute is resolved.
Backwages as Compensation for Non-Compliance:
- Backwages are awarded not as a penalty but as compensation for the employer’s failure to reinstate employees under pre-strike conditions. This includes payment of salaries and benefits that would have been earned had the employees been reinstated.
Finality of Judgment:
- The doctrine of finality of judgment applies to the Secretary of Labor’s Resolution dated April 29, 2016, which upheld the validity of the retrenchment and denied ALEO’s claims for damages and attorney’s fees. These matters cannot be revisited in the present proceedings.
Proper Computation of Backwages:
- Backwages should cover the period from the issuance of the Return-to-Work Order until the resolution of the labor dispute by the Secretary of Labor. The CA correctly limited this period to April 29, 2016.
Conclusion:
The Court denied ALECO’s Petition and affirmed the CA’s Decision, upholding the award of backwages and limiting the computation period to January 10, 2014, to April 29, 2016. The case was remanded to the Labor Arbiter for proper computation of the monetary award.