A.M. No. RTJ-21-003 - Re: Jose S. Jacinto, Jr.

Complainants Alma Angiwan, Danilo Soriano, and Restituto Rivera were hired in November 1987, June 1978, and May 1982 respectively.
While Angiwan was not a member of the union, Soriano and Rivera were members of Kapisanan at Lakas ng mga Guro sa BCF-ALU, a union which staged a strike on March 8, 1988.

On April 29, 1988, Secretary of Labor and Employment Franklin M. Drilon issued an order directing all striking employees to return to work at the opening of the 1988-89 school year, with the condition that they be accepted under the same terms and conditions as prior to the work stoppage.
This order was issued under the ambit of Article 263(g) of the Labor Code, thereby asserting the authority of the Secretary over the labor dispute at BCF.

On May 8, 1988, Baguio Colleges Foundation (BCF) published a directive in its community newspaper, the Gold Ore, instructing all striking employees to report to the office of Mrs. Corazon R. Concepcion, Vice-President for Administration, on May 14, 1988, between 8:00 a.m. and 10:00 a.m.
In addition to the published notice, Concepcion issued individual written directives to union members, requiring their personal appearance to indicate compliance with the Secretary’s order.

Several complainants did not read the newspaper notice and did not receive the individual written directive, and hence failed to report on the stipulated date and time.
Those who reported as directed were subjected to verbal reprimands, threats regarding teaching load assignments, and were even told to seek alternative employment.
When complainants later attempted to show their willingness to comply with the return-to-work order by reporting to Concepcion with letters of intent, they were informed that their late appearance constituted a violation of the directive.

On May 25, 1988, private respondents received individual termination notices signed by Ray Dean Salvosa, Executive Vice-President of BCF, citing their failure to report within the specified period as willful disobedience of the Secretary’s directive.
Claiming that their dismissals were illegal, the respondents filed complaints before the Labor Arbiter.

On January 8, 1990, Labor Arbiter Gambito rendered a decision ordering the reinstatement of Angiwan, Soriano, and Rivera with backwages computed from the opening of the 1988-89 school year.
Petitioners (BCF officials) appealed the decision, and on November 29, 1990, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) issued its resolution, entirely upholding the Labor Arbiter’s decision.

Petitioners contended that they were merely following the Secretary’s return-to-work order when they issued the directive through the Gold Ore and in writing.
They argued that the purpose of the directive was grounded in necessity, to secure a proper head count of available faculty before the school year commenced.
Petitioners denied that they varied the Secretary’s order by clarifying that the published directive allowed a reporting period of six days, not just the single day pointed out by the NLRC.

Private respondents maintained that they should not have been summarily terminated for failing to report on a fixed date, especially when some did so as soon as they became aware of the directive.
They referenced the precedent set in Union of Filipro Employees v. Nestle Philippines, Inc., emphasizing that return-to-work or assumption orders are executory in nature and requiring strict compliance, regardless of any personal or administrative interpretations.
The Solicitor General’s memorandum suggested that the act of fixing a single reporting date by petitioners potentially revealed a sinister intent to remove the complainants from their employment.

The NLRC found that by unilaterally changing the time frame of the Secretary’s order to a fixed date and using that as a basis for dismissal, petitioners effectively altered the tenor of the original order.
The NLRC deemed that such alteration was unauthorized and served only as a justification for dismissing the striking employees who did not report on that one particular day.
Based on these findings, and on the substantial evidence supporting the respondents’ claims, the NLRC affirmed the dismissal decisions, with a clarification that the award for backwages is limited to three (3) years.

Whether the BCF’s issuance of a directive, which fixed the reporting period on a single day, amounted to a unilateral and unauthorized variation of the Secretary’s return-to-work order.
Whether the dismissal of the complainants for failing to report on the specified date was justified under the altered directive, considering that the original order permitted a broader time frame for compliance.
Whether the failure to properly notify all striking employees of the modified directive resulted in a violation of their rights and justified their reinstatement with backwages.
Whether the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in upholding the findings related to the altered tenor of the Secretary’s order and the resulting dismissals.