G.R. No. 88725 - Asian Transmission Corp. vs. National Labor Relations Commission

Asian Transmission Corporation (ATC) is the petitioner, while the respondents include the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), its Commissioners, and the Bisig ng Asian Transmission Labor Union (BATLU), among others.
The case is an offshoot of two earlier Supreme Court decisions (G.R. Nos. 75271-73 and 77567, both decided on June 27, 1988) that dealt with substantially the same controversy and parties.

A return-to-work order was first issued by the Ministry of Labor and Employment on June 3, 1986 and was reiterated on June 13, 1986 and November 24, 1986.
The order was grounded on the principle that while the order did not bestow an absolute right, it imposed an obligation upon workers; compliance was necessary for job retention and for the resumption of company operations.
The order was intended to benefit those workers who complied by returning to work, irrespective of pending determinations on the legality of the strike.

Despite being notified of the directive, forty-four employees staged a strike and engaged in picketing, thereby defying the return-to-work order.
The employer (ATC) accepted the returning workers who complied with the directive but refused to readmit the striking employees.
The NLRC subsequently issued a resolution (January 13, 1987) ordering ATC to either accept or reinstate the defiant workers on its payroll immediately.

The Supreme Court, in its decisions and resolutions (including those on February 22, 1989), clarified that the return-to-work order benefits only those workers who complied with it.
The Court emphasized that the order imposes a duty rather than a discretionary right; noncompliance, such as the act of striking, results in forfeiture of the workers’ right to reinstatement and corresponding payment for work.
On remand, BATLU filed a motion for execution on behalf of the workers seeking readmission. The NLRC’s Third Division granted this motion on June 13, 1989, ordering the readmission of thirty-four workers (a reduction from the original forty-four).

ATC petitioned for the annulment of the NLRC Resolution of June 13, 1989, contending that the readmission should not extend to workers who defied the order.
The petitioner also moved for a show-cause order against the respondents for allegedly subverting or violating the Supreme Court’s earlier decisions and resolutions.
The respondents’ interpretation focused on upholding mandatory compliance, while ATC argued that those who engaged in the strike had effectively abandoned their employment rights.

Whether a return-to-work order may be validly issued by the NLRC and the Ministry of Labor and Employment pending the final determination of the legality or illegality of the strike.
Whether such an order imposes a mandatory duty on workers rather than conferring a discretionary right.

Whether workers who defied the return-to-work order by engaging in a restrained strike and picketing consequently forfeited their right to reinstatement and payment for work not performed.
Whether the employer’s refusal to readmit these defiant employees is legally justified under the established principles enunciated by the earlier Supreme Court decisions.