Case Digest (G.R. No. 101858)
Facts:
Batangas Laguna Tayabas Bus Company v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 101858, August 21, 1992, First Division, Cruz, J., writing for the Court. Petitioner Batangas Laguna Tayabas Bus Company (BLTBCo) faced a strike when private respondent Tinig at Lakas ng Manggagawa sa BLTBCo-NAFLU (TLM-BLTBCo-NAFLU), an affiliate of the National Federation of Labor Unions, filed a Notice of Strike on May 23, 1988 alleging unfair labor practice and violation of the collective bargaining agreement (CBA).BLTBCo asked the Secretary of Labor to assume jurisdiction or to certify the dispute to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) for compulsory arbitration and moved to dismiss the notice of strike on August 3, 1988. Acting Labor Secretary C. Castro certified the dispute to the NLRC on August 29, 1988; service of the certification was effected on NAFLU on August 29 and on TLM-BLTBCo-NAFLU on August 30, 1988, though the union secretary allegedly refused to receive it.
The union commenced a strike on August 31, 1988, and maintained picket lines. On September 6, 1988, the NLRC en banc issued a Return-To-Work order: striking employees on payroll as of May 23 were ordered to return and BLTBCo was directed to reaccept them within five days. BLTBCo published the NLRC resolution on September 15 and set deadlines (later extended) for return; of some 1,730 strikers only 1,116 reported back, with 17 later readmitted. Approximately 614 employees who alleged refusal of readmission filed individual illegal dismissal complaints.
On July 19, 1991, the NLRC issued a resolution dismissing the union's unfair labor practice charge, declaring the strike illegal, upholding certain dismissals as lawful, declaring forfeiture of employment status for specified officers and members, and ordering reinstatement of identified union members and all striking employees “who have not committed illegal acts” without backwages. On September 16, 1991, the NLRC denied BLTBCo’s motion for reconsideration and made the reinstatement order immediately executory.
BLTBCo filed a special civil action for certiorari (seeking relief for alleged grave abuse of discretion) in the Supreme Court, challenging: (1) the reinstatement of 190 union members despite participation in an illegal strike; (2) failure to find abandonment of employment; (3) limiting forfeiture to 36 officers and members despite more alleged violators; (4) excluding certain union leaders from forfeiture; and (5) the purportedly blanket reinstatement. The Court issued a temporar...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the NLRC commit grave abuse of discretion in ordering the reinstatement of the 190 union members who participated in the strike?
- Did the NLRC err in failing to find that the striking employees abandoned their employment?
- Did the NLRC commit grave abuse of discretion by limiting forfeiture of employment status to certain union officers and members despite allegations of broader illegal acts?
- Could the Court direct forfeiture of employment status as to union leaders (Serafin Soriano, Jerry Soriano and Desiderio Comel) who were not impleaded?
- Was the NLRC's directive to reinstate “all striking employees ... w...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)