Case Digest (G.R. No. 129824)
Facts:
De Paul/King Philip Customs Tailor, and/or Milagros Chuakay and William Go v. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), and Victoriano Santos, et al., G.R. No. 129824, March 10, 1999, Supreme Court Second Division, Puno, J., writing for the Court.The respondents (private respondents) were employees of De Paul/King Philip Customs Tailor who on 14 February 1993 organized a union, affiliated with the Federation of Free Workers (FFW) on 26 February 1993, and secured an FFW charter and registration with the Bureau of Labor Relations. On 10 March 1993 the union sought a certification election with DOLE-NCR; on 23 March 1993 it filed a strike notice alleging unfair labor practice. The union president, Victoriano Santos, ceased working on 6 April 1993 and other members staged a walkout on 12 April 1993.
On 13 May 1993 the union filed before the NLRC National Capital Region Arbitration Branch a complaint for unfair labor practice, illegal dismissal and unpaid overtime; the petition for certification election was dismissed on 26 May 1993 (no appeal). The private respondents later disaffiliated from FFW (21 June 1993) and, by amended complaint filed 28 June 1993, pursued their claims in their individual capacities. The amended complaint listed each employee’s hiring date, termination date (6 or 12 April 1993), and salary.
Before the Labor Arbiter, private respondents alleged they had been warned against union activity and thereafter were prevented from working, had machinery removed, and were harassed by “hired” policemen; petitioners denied dismissal and asserted the employees abandoned work in preparation for a strike, pointing to notices directing them to return to work. On 16 June 1994 Labor Arbiter Arthur L. Amansec dismissed the unfair labor practice complaint for lack of proof of dismissal, but as a measure of “compassionate justice” ordered separation pay equivalent to fifteen days per year of service and dismissed other claims.
Both parties appealed to the NLRC. On 19 February 1997 the NLRC (Third Division) reversed the Labor Arbiter, found the respondents illegally dismissed, and ordered reinstatement with back wages from dismissal until actual reinstatement (subject to the earnings elsewhere rule), or, if reinstatement was impracticable, separation pay of one month per year of service. The NLRC’s 31 March 1997 Minute Resolution denied petitioners’ motion for reconsideration.
Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari before the Supreme Court seeking annulment of the NLRC Order and Resolution on grounds of grave abuse of discretion and excess of jurisdiction in trea...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the NLRC commit grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in finding that private respondents were illegally dismissed?
- Did the NLRC act in excess of jurisdiction in treating the petitioners’ return-to-work notices as fabrications?
- Was the award of backwages by the NLRC proper or must it be modified under...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)