G.R. No. 101858 - Batangas Laguna Tayabas Bus Co. vs. National Labor Relations Commission

On May 23, 1988, Tinig at Lakas ng Manggagawa sa BLTB Co. NAFLU, an affiliate of the National Federation of Labor Unions, filed a Notice of Strike against Batangas Laguna Tayabas Bus Company (BLTBCo).
The strike was launched on grounds of alleged unfair labor practices and violations of the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA).

BLTBCo responded by asking the Secretary of Labor to assume jurisdiction over the dispute or to certify it to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) for compulsory arbitration.
On August 3, 1988, the petitioner (BLTBCo) moved to dismiss the notice of strike.
Following failed attempts at settlement, Acting Labor Secretary C. Castro certified the dispute to the NLRC on August 29, 1988, and the certification order was served on the union and its affiliate, although union secretary Jerry Soriano notably refused to receive the document.

On August 31, 1988, union officers and members initiated the strike, establishing picket lines and blocking BLTBCo terminals.
The NLRC, on September 6, 1988, issued an en banc resolution ordering the striking employees to remove barricades and to return to work within five days, under conditions identical to those existing before the strike.
BLTBCo published the resolution on September 15, 1988, and imposed deadlines (extended from September 18 to September 19, 1988) for the return of the striking workers.
Out of approximately 1,730 employees who initially went on strike, 1,116 reported back to work, while some were later re-admitted; however, a significant number, including certain union members, did not comply and subsequently filed individual complaints for illegal dismissal.

Dismissing the union’s charge of unfair labor practice and union busting against BLTBCo for lack of merit.
Ordering BLTBCo to implement the CBA regarding uniforms and safety shoes.
Validating the dismissal of certain employees for lawful causes and declaring the strike illegal.
Declaring that some union members lost their employment status, while ordering the reinstatement of other members without backwages or loss of seniority.
Affirming the regularization of casual employees who rendered at least one year of service.

On September 16, 1991, NLRC denied the Motion for Reconsideration and the related prayer for a temporary restraining order, thereby cementing the directive for reinstatement of employees not involved in illegal activities.
BLTBCo then filed a special civil action for certiorari, challenging the NLRC resolutions on several grounds, notably:

That the reinstatement of 190 union members who participated in what it deemed an illegal strike was improper.
That some union members had abandoned their employment by defying the Return-to-Work Order.
That the NLRC inadequately limited the declaration of forfeiture of employment status to just 36 individuals despite evidence of wider involvement in illegal/violent acts.
That recognized union officers not named were spared from forfeiture.
That the so-called blanket reinstatement directive was inappropriate.

A temporary restraining order was issued on November 6, 1991, pending the resolution of the special civil action.

BLTBCo argued that the union members, by knowingly defying clear return-to-work orders, had effectively abandoned their jobs and should be dismissed.
The NLRC and supporting arguments (including those from the Solicitor General) emphasized that:

Vicarious liability principles differentiate between union leaders (who direct the strike) and rank-and-file employees (who merely follow).
The failure of some employees to meet the return-to-work deadline did not conclusively prove a deliberate abandonment; logistical and communication issues contributed.
Charges of illegal acts must be substantiated before justifying dismissal or forfeiture of employment status.

After reviewing the evidentiary record, the Court upheld the NLRC resolutions, emphasizing that due process was observed and that the reinstatement order was both proper and necessary to safeguard workers’ rights.

Whether the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in ordering the reinstatement of 190 union members who participated in an alleged illegal strike.
Whether the responding union members had validly abandoned their employment by defying the Return-to-Work Order issued on September 6, 1988.
Whether limiting the declaration of forfeiture of employment status to only 36 union members was proper despite evidence of additional employees engaging in violent or illegal acts during the strike.
Whether excluding certain recognized union leaders (namely Jerry Soriano, Serafin Soriano, and Desiderio Comel) from the forfeiture designation was justified given their roles.
Whether the directive for the "reinstatement of all striking employees of BLTBCo who have not committed illegal acts" was legally sound and non-blanket in application.