Case Digest (G.R. No. 101251)
Facts:
In Digital Telecommunications Philippines, Inc. v. Digitel Employees Union (DEU), Digital Telecommunications Philippines, Inc. (Digitel) and the Digitel Employees Union (DEU) clashed over collective bargaining and alleged union-busting. In 1994, DEU won certification as the exclusive bargaining agent of Digitel’s rank-and-file employees. Negotiations reached a deadlock, prompting Acting Labor Secretary Laguesma to assume jurisdiction and order parties to forge a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA), but no agreement materialized. The union went dormant until September 28, 2004, when Rafael Esplana, claiming to be DEU President, submitted new officer lists and CBA proposals. Digitel refused to negotiate pending proof of the union’s compliance with its by-laws. Esplana filed for Preventive Mediation (November 4, 2004) and issued a notice of strike (November 25, 2004). On March 10, 2005, Labor Secretary Patricia Sto. Tomas assumed jurisdiction again. Meanwhile, Digitel’s affiliateCase Digest (G.R. No. 101251)
Facts:
- Union Certification and Early Negotiations
- In 1994, via certification election, Digitel Employees Union (DEU) became exclusive bargaining agent of rank-and-file employees of Digital Telecommunications Philippines, Inc. (Digitel).
- Collective bargaining negotiations ensued but reached deadlock; Acting Labor Secretary Laguesma assumed jurisdiction and ordered execution of a CBA, which was never forged.
- Dormancy and Revival of the Union
- Over the next ten years, the Union became dormant and many members left Digitel.
- On 28 September 2004, Arceo Rafael A. Esplana, as self-styled DEU President, submitted new officers’ list, CBA proposals and ground rules; Digitel demanded proof of compliance with union by-laws.
- Assumption Orders and Strike Notices
- On 4 November 2004, DEU filed for preventive mediation with NCMB; on 25 November 2004, filed notice of strike.
- On 10 March 2005, Labor Secretary Sto. Tomas assumed jurisdiction; on 23 May 2005, subsumed second strike notice under the first assumption order and directed CBA negotiations.
- Petition for Cancellation of Union Registration
- On 14 March 2005, Digitel petitioned the Bureau of Labor Relations to cancel DEU’s registration for reportorial lapses, misrepresentation of officers, mixed membership, and non-employee members.
- On 11 May 2005, DOLE Regional Director dismissed the petition; on 9 March 2007, BLR affirmed this dismissal.
- Closure of Digiserv and Dismissal of Employees
- During the assumption order, Digitel Service, Inc. (Digiserv) filed an Establishment Termination Report, closing its call-center operations and dismissing 100 employees (42 DEU members).
- DEU filed a third strike notice over alleged union-busting and violation of assumption order.
- NLRC and Court of Appeals Proceedings
- NLRC (31 January 2006) dismissed unfair labor practice charge but held dismissal of 13 remaining employees illegal; ordered reinstatement with backwages.
- On reconsideration, four employees quit-claimed entitlements; nine remained.
- CA-G.R. SP No. 91719 (2008): Petition against DOLE orders to bargain denied; DOLE orders affirmed.
- CA-G.R. SP No. 94825 (2008): NLRC decision modified to allow separation pay in lieu of reinstatement and delete Php100,000 fine.
Issues:
- Whether the pendency of a petition to cancel union registration precludes an assumption order or collective bargaining negotiations.
- Whether Digiserv is a legitimate contractor or a prohibited labor-only contractor whose employees are actually Digitel’s.
- Whether the closure of Digiserv and the dismissal of its employees constituted a valid retrenchment or an illegal dismissal.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)