G.R. No. L-13830 - People vs. Cadag

Automotive Engine Rebuilders, Inc. (AER) is a company engaged in automotive engine repair, rebuilding, and precision engineering for over 35 years.
Progresibong Unyon ng Mga Manggagawa sa AER (Unyon) is the legitimate labor union of AER’s rank and file employees, organized in 1998.
A labor dispute arose between AER and Unyon, with each party filing complaints against the other before the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC).

On January 28, 1999, eighteen employees allegedly staged an abrupt walkout and illegal assembly within AER premises.
The employees reportedly attempted to remove a line boring machine from the AER Performance and Service Center (AER-PSC) and forced guards and officers to open the gate.
Despite pleas to return to work, the employees persisted in their disruptive act, which eventually required police intervention.
Subsequently, management issued a memorandum demanding written explanations from the employees, whose unsatisfactory responses led to their termination and allegations of illegal strike, walkout, and other misconduct.
A wildcat strike ensued on February 22, 1999, involving barricading of company premises and obstruction of work, prompting further disciplinary steps.

On December 22, 1998, Unyon petitioned for a certification election before the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) as they organized within AER.
In retaliation, AER compelled all employees to undergo compulsory drug testing—a measure not previously implemented before the union’s organization.
The results, issued on January 8, 1999, revealed that seven employees tested positive for illegal drugs.
On January 12, 1999, AER suspended the employees who tested positive for violating company policy on work under the influence, allowing only two to return pending a medical certification.
While the affected employees were delayed in submitting required medical certificates, AER further charged them with insubordination and absence without leave, ultimately refusing to reinstate them.

The LA ruled in favor of Unyon by directing AER to reinstate the concerned employees without backwages, finding that their suspension was without valid cause and due process.
The LA noted that although the employees were not entirely faultless, the concerted work slowdown as a form of protest did not justify the severity of termination.

Upon appeals by both parties, the NLRC modified the LA decision on March 5, 2002.
The NLRC set aside the order of reinstatement by finding no illegal dismissal, stating that the suspension of three employees (Froilan Madamba, Ruperto Mariano, and Roberto Caldeo) was valid due to their drug test results.
It was held that the test was not discriminatory and that management’s requirement for a medical certificate was within their prerogative.

The CA reversed or modified previous decisions regarding the number of complainants, holding that the number of parties corresponds to the actual signatories of the complaint (32 originally, reduced by subsequent resignations and quitclaims).
On June 27, 2003, the CA directed the reinstatement of the petitioners immediately without backwages, while upholding the validity of the drug test and the management’s actions concerning the medical certificate requirement.
A later CA Amended Decision on October 1, 2003 reinstated all suspended employees without backwages upon reconsideration of the matter.
Both parties later filed consolidated petitions for review challenging aspects of the CA rulings.

The reinstatement order without backwages was improper because the employees had been illegally suspended and dismissed.
All complainants, as evidenced by 32 signatures (minus those who resigned or signed quitclaims), should be reinstated with backwages if applicable.
AER’s compulsory drug test was used as a pretext in retaliation against union activities and lacked proper due process.

The number of valid complainants should be reduced to only those who failed to comply with the requirement to submit a medical certificate (thus limiting the count to three).
The compulsory drug test, being uniformly applied and part of company policy, was valid and justified the suspension or termination of those who tested positive and were unfit to work.
The affected employees’ failure to report voluntarily even after submission of a medical certificate demonstrated willful disobedience, validating their dismissal.

Whether the suspension and subsequent dismissal of certain employees were carried out without affording them due process.
Whether the imposition of compulsory drug testing immediately after unionization was a legitimate exercise of management prerogative or a retaliatory act.

Whether the correct count of complaining employees should be based solely on the signatories of the original complaint or on subsequent procedural developments (resignations and quitclaims).

Whether the order for reinstatement of the employees without backwages was proper under the circumstances.
Whether awarding backwages is warranted irrespective of the reinstatement order considering the illegal or questionable nature of the labor actions.

Whether both AER and the union, by engaging in illegal or retaliatory actions, should suffer the consequences of their wrongful acts.
The impact of mutual fault on the remedy and relief afforded to the parties.