Case Digest (G.R. No. L-56856)
Facts:
Henry Bacus, Maximo Dangga, Salvador Flores, Victor Fuentes, Santiago Lacquio, Luz Fuentes, Eleodoro Gajo, Juanito Genilla, Godofredo Gac-ang, and Calixto Coyno v. Hon. Blas F. Ople, Minister of Labor and Employment and Findlay Millar Timber Company, G.R. No. L-56856, October 23, 1984, Second Division, Cuevas, J., writing for the Court. Petitioners are ten employees of private respondent Findlay Millar Timber Company; public respondent is Hon. Blas F. Ople, Minister of Labor and Employment.On February 19, 1979 roughly 1,400 employees of the Company staged a mass walkout to protest nonpayment of wages (covering January 1–February 15, 1979) and alleged noncompliance with mandated benefits. Pursuant to Section 10 of PD 823, the Minister of Labor assumed jurisdiction over the dispute on February 23, 1979 and directed the MOLE regional office to hear and decide the matter. The Company filed a clearance application to terminate 22 employees on February 27, 1979 (later a second clearance for 19 employees on March 3); the Company alleged an illegal strike, coercion and acts of intimidation, and asserted interruption of export commitments. The workers filed a consolidated opposition on March 10, 1979.
The Minister (through Deputy Minister Amado G. Inciong) issued orders on March 2 and March 13, 1979 directing return to work, payment of certain payrolls, enjoining parties to maintain the status quo, and referring the issues for hearing. After position papers were filed, arbiter Bach M. Macaraya was assigned and set hearings on October 8–9, 1979. Counsel for the workers, Atty. Romeo Maata, had scheduling conflicts with a related case (BLR Case No. 2309-79) and contested the notice and setting; the arbiter proceeded to hear the Company's witnesses ex parte when the workers departed, and reset the hearing to October 13, 1979.
On October 18, 1979 Deputy Minister Inciong, adopting the arbiter's recommendation, declared the strike illegal and granted clearance to terminate ten of the 41 employees sought terminated (the ten petitioners here). The decree characterized the ten as instigators and leaders and cited alleged violent acts; dismissal of those ten followed. A motion for reconsideration was denied by Minister Ople on March 10, 1981. The petitioners then filed a petition for certiorari with preliminary injunction in the Supreme Court al...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was the decision of the Minister of Labor and Employment rendered with grave abuse of discretion or without/in excess of jurisdiction because petitioners were denied procedural due process in MOLE proceedings?
- Was the finding that the strike was illegal and the consequent clearance to terminate the ten petitioners justified on the record?
- What interim remedy, if any, should be afforded pending proper determination of...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)