Case Digest (G.R. No. 160303)
Facts:
G & S Transport Corporation v. Tito S. Infante, Melor Borbo, and Danilo Castaneda, G.R. No. 160303, September 13, 2007, Second Division, Tinga, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner G & S Transport Corporation (petitioner) was the exclusive coupon taxi concessionaire at Ninoy Aquino International Airport (NAIA) from 1 February 1989 to 31 January 1994 and employed the respondents — Tito S. Infante, Melor Borbo, and Danilo Castaneda — as taxi drivers since 1 February 1989. Two drivers, Ricardo Gonzales and Ephraim Alzaga, were dismissed by petitioner on 9 May 1990 following a union demand; in sympathy other drivers staged a stoppage at the garage at the Duty Free Compound and at the Domestic Airport beginning 16 May 1990. Petitioner filed a complaint for illegal strike against thirty-seven drivers on 22 May 1990; two days later the drivers filed a case for illegal dismissal against petitioner.
At the hearing before Acting Executive Labor Arbiter Melquiades Sol D. Del Rosario, affidavits and testimonies were submitted. The Labor Arbiter, in a decision dated 31 May 1999, found that a sit-down (sympathy) strike occurred and that respondents participated; he concluded, however, that respondents should not be dismissed because there was no substantial proof they committed illegal acts during the strike. The Arbiter ordered separation pay in lieu of reinstatement without backwages for those who had participated, while ordering backwages and separation pay for others found not to have participated.
The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) affirmed the Labor Arbiter in toto (NLRC Decision dated 15 October 2001). Petitioner sought relief from the Court of Appeals via a petition for certiorari; in CA-G.R. SP No. 71472 the Court of Appeals, in a decision dated 27 June 2003, reversed the NLRC and Labor Arbiter, declared respondents’ dismissal illegal, and remanded for computation of backwages and other monetary benefits. The Court of Appeals denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration in a resolution dated 8 October 2003.
Petitioner filed the present petition for review with the Supreme Court seeking reversal of the Court of ...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Is a petition for certiorari appropriate to review the NLRC’s factual findings and did this Court have authority to re-evaluate those findings?
- Did respondents participate in an illegal strike on 16 May 1990?
- Was the NLRC’s award of separation pay in lieu of reinstatement without backwages proper, or should respondents have been...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)