Case Digest (G.R. No. 120505)
Facts:
The case involves the Association of Independent Unions in the Philippines (AIUP) and four of its members—Joel Densing, Henedino Mirafuentes, Christopher Patentes, and Andres Tejana—who are the petitioners. The respondents are the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), CENAPRO Chemical Corporation, and Go Sing Chan in his capacity as Managing Director. The events leading to the case began on February 21, 1995, when the NLRC modified a previous decision by the Labor Arbiter that had ordered the reinstatement and payment of backwages to the petitioners. The modification came after the respondent company filed a motion for reconsideration, resulting in the NLRC deleting the backwages award and ordering separation pay instead.
The petitioners were casual employees of CENAPRO Chemicals Corporation, which had a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) with the CENAPRO Employees Association (CCEA) that excluded casual employees from union membership. After their request for regu...
Case Digest (G.R. No. 120505)
Facts:
Employment Status and Union Formation:
- Petitioners Joel Densing, Henedino Mirafuentes, Christopher Patentes, and Andres Tejana were casual employees of CENAPRO Chemicals Corporation.
- The company had a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) with CENAPRO Employees Association (CCEA), which excluded casual employees from union membership.
- The casual employees, seeking regularization, formed an organization and affiliated with the Association of Independent Unions in the Philippines (AIUP).
- AIUP filed a petition for certification election, which was opposed by CENAPRO and CCEA based on the contract bar rule.
Strike and Illegal Acts:
- On May 4 and July 3, 1990, AIUP filed a notice of strike, citing unfair labor practices, including coercion and union busting.
- On July 23, 1990, the union staged a strike, during which illegal acts were committed, such as padlocking the company gate, blocking access, and preventing non-striking employees from working.
- CENAPRO filed a petition for injunction, and a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) was issued to prevent further illegal acts.
Labor Arbiter’s Decision:
- The Labor Arbiter declared the strike illegal and dismissed the charges of illegal lockout and unfair labor practice.
- Five union officers were declared to have lost their employment status, while 15 union members were not reinstated due to quitclaims.
- Six workers, including the petitioners, were ordered reinstated.
NLRC’s Modifications:
- The NLRC initially affirmed the Labor Arbiter’s decision but later modified it upon CENAPRO’s motion for reconsideration.
- The NLRC ordered payment of separation pay in lieu of reinstatement, deleted the award of backwages, and declared Joel Densing to have lost his employment status.
Issue:
- Whether the NLRC acted with grave abuse of discretion in entertaining CENAPRO’s second appeal.
- Whether the NLRC erred in reversing its earlier resolution and depriving petitioners of their right to reinstatement and backwages.
- Whether the NLRC erred in declaring Joel Densing to have lost his employment status.
- Whether the petitioners were entitled to reinstatement and backwages.
Ruling:
The Supreme Court granted the petition and set aside the NLRC’s Resolution dated February 21, 1995. The Court reinstated the Labor Arbiter’s decision with modifications:
- The petitioners, Joel Densing, Henedino Mirafuentes, Christopher Patentes, and Andres Tejana, were entitled to full backwages computed from October 15, 1993, until full payment of their separation pay.
- Payment of separation pay in lieu of reinstatement was authorized.
- The NLRC gravely abused its discretion in declaring Joel Densing to have lost his employment status due to insufficient evidence.
Ratio:
Illegality of the Strike:
- The strike was declared illegal due to the commission of prohibited acts, such as blocking access to the company premises and violating the TRO.
- Union officers who knowingly participated in illegal acts during the strike may lose their employment status under Article 264(a) of the Labor Code.
Substantial Evidence Requirement:
- For an ordinary striking employee to be dismissed, there must be substantial evidence proving their participation in illegal acts during the strike.
- The uncorroborated testimony of Mr. Ponce was insufficient to justify Joel Densing’s dismissal.
Reinstatement and Backwages:
- Under Article 223 of the Labor Code, a decision reinstating a dismissed employee is immediately executory, even pending appeal.
- The petitioners were entitled to reinstatement or separation pay, as well as full backwages without deductions.
Contract Bar Rule:
- The petition for certification election filed by AIUP was barred by the existing CBA between CENAPRO and CCEA, as it was filed outside the 60-day freedom period.