Case Digest (G.R. No. 139940)
Facts:
Arellano University Employees and Workers Union, et al. v. Court of Appeals, National Labor Relations Commission, and Arellano University, Inc., G.R. No. 139940, September 19, 2006, Supreme Court Third Division, Carpio Morales, J., writing for the Court.Petitioners are the Arellano University Employees and Workers Union (the Union) and several named union members; respondents are the Court of Appeals, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), and Arellano University, Inc. The petition challenges CA resolutions of April 13, 1999 and September 3, 1999 that dismissed petitioners' certiorari petition as filed beyond the reglementary period under Section 4, Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure (as amended by the Supreme Court En Banc Resolution of July 21, 1998).
Chronology of antecedent events: On December 12, 1997 the Union filed a Notice of Strike (NCMB‑NCR‑NS‑12‑520‑97) alleging interference in union activities, union busting (violation of CBA Art. IV, Secs. 1–2), refusal to deduct penalties from absent members during union meetings, and contracting out of union work. On December 17, 1997, a majority of the Union members filed a petition for audit of union funds before the DOLE‑NCR regional office. On March 11, 1998 DOLE‑NCR ordered the Union officers to call a general meeting to account for P481,117.28 in union funds; on the same day DOLE Secretary Trajano certified the first Notice of Strike for compulsory arbitration to the NLRC.
A second Notice of Strike (NCMB‑NCR‑NS‑07‑277‑98) was certified for compulsory arbitration by DOLE Secretary Bienvenido E. Laguesma on August 5, 1998; a strike was staged on August 5, 1998. The DOLE Secretary issued a Return‑to‑Work Order on August 5, 1998, served on August 6; the Union lifted the strike only on August 7 about 3:00 p.m. The University filed on August 24, 1998 a petition to declare the strike illegal (NLRC‑NCR Case No. 00‑08‑06897‑98). The University also sought consolidation of an interpleader (NLRC NCR No. 00‑02‑02036‑98) and an underpayment wage complaint (NLRC NCR No. 00‑02‑01422‑98) with the ULP proceedings.
The NLRC, after consolidation, issued a Decision dated October 12, 1998. It (a) found the two Notices of Strike “without merit” insofar as the issues resolved were concerned and absolved the University of ULP charges; (b) granted the University's petition declaring the August 5–7 strike illegal and declared the loss of employment status of the individual respondents in NLRC‑NCR Case No. 00‑08‑06897‑98; (c) ruled no diminution of workers' benefits in the wage case, upholding the University’s use of 314 days as divisor. The NLRC held that the petition for audit was initiated by union members themselves (per DOLE order) and not by management, that the University's refusal to make deductions was consistent with the CBA’s checkoff requirements and the law limiting arbitrary penalties, and that the contracting‑out allegation had not been raised at NCMB.
Petitioners' motion for reconsideration before the NLRC was denied by Resolution of January 20, 1999. They filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, which dismissed the petition as filed six days late under Section 4, Rule 65 (as amended July 21, 1998). Petitioners then sought relief in the Supreme Court: they filed a motion for 30‑day extension of time (granted by the Court), and on October 28, 1999 filed the present petition which the Court treated as a Rule 45 petition for review on certiorari.
While the CA resolutions were issued in 1999 under the then prevailing Rule 65 period, the Supreme Court noted that Section 4 of Rule 65 was later amended by A.M. No. 00‑2‑03‑SC (effective September 1, 2000) to provide a 60‑day period counted from notice of denial of a motion for reconsideration, and that remedial rules like this may be given retroactive effect. The Supreme Court accordingly applied the 2000 amendment retrospectively, set aside the CA resolutions, and proceeded to decide the NLRC decision on the mer...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was petitioners' Rule 65/Rule 45 petition properly dismissed by the Court of Appeals as filed beyond the reglementary period, or should the later amendment to Section 4 of Rule 65 (A.M. No. 00‑2‑03‑SC) be given retroactive application to render petitioners' filing timely?
- Did the NLRC err in absolving Arellano University of Unfair Labor Practice charges (interference, union‑busting and withholding of dues) arising from the petition for audit and alleged unilateral acts?
- Was the NLRC's declaration of loss of employment status of the strikers valid as to all named individuals, and was there sufficient evidence to support dismissal of ordinary striking workers?
- Was the NLRC correct in using 314 days as ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)