Case Digest (G.R. No. 153664)
Facts:
Grand Boulevard Hotel (Formerly Known As Silahis International Hotel, Inc.) v. Genuine Labor Organization of Workers in Hotel, Restaurant and Allied Industries (GLOWHRAIN), G.R. Nos. 153664 & 153665, July 18, 2003, Supreme Court Second Division, Callejo, Sr., J., writing for the Court.The dispute arose from successive labor confrontations between petitioner Grand Boulevard Hotel (then Silahis International Hotel, Inc.) and respondent union GLOWHRAIN‑Silahis. The parties had earlier executed collective bargaining agreements (CBAs) (one covering July 10, 1985–July 9, 1988 and a later CBA for July 10, 1988–July 9, 1991). Between 1987 and 1990 the hotel dismissed and suspended several union members; the union filed multiple notices of strike and sought relief from the Department of Labor and Employment, National Capital Region (DOLE‑NCR), which repeatedly issued status quo ante bellum / return‑to‑work orders and certified disputes to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) for compulsory arbitration (notably orders dated June 4, 1987; May 23, 1990; October 31, 1990; and November 28, 1990).
On October–November 1990 the hotel announced a staggered retrenchment program and terminated many employees (including union officers), and on November 16, 1990 the union staged a picket following a strike vote; police dispersed the picket and arrested some union officers. The DOLE issued return‑to‑work orders and certified the dispute to the NLRC, but the hotel proceeded with retrenchments and barred certain officers from working. The union and individual officers were subsequently dismissed by the hotel for participating in the November 16–29, 1990 strike.
Petitioner hotel filed a complaint for illegal strike before the Regional Arbitration Office of the NLRC (docketed Case No. 02‑00717‑91). The Labor Arbiter (Cornelio L. Linsangan) on February 12, 1992 declared the union officers guilty of illegal strike and ordered them to have lost and forfeited their employment. The union appealed to the NLRC. The NLRC, on September 30, 1993, affirmed the Labor Arbiter’s decision (while urging the hotel, on humanitarian grounds, to consider limited financial assistance).
The union officers filed petitions for certiorari (Rule 65) with this Court (G.R. No. 153664 and G.R. No. 153665). Pursuant to this Court’s ruling in St. Martin Funeral Homes v. NLRC the petitions were remanded to the Court of Appeals (CA) and re‑docketed as CA‑G.R. SP Nos. 53284 and 53285. The CA, by decision dated January 9, 2002, granted the petitions, held that the November strike was legal because the union acted in good faith in believing the hotel committed unfair labor practices (ULP), set aside the Labor Arbiter’s and NLRC’s decisions, and ordered reinstatement or separation pay and generous damages. The CA’s denial of the hotel’s motion for reconsideration was dated May 27, 2002.
Petitioner filed a petition for review on c...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Procedural: Is the petition deficient for (a) a defective certificate of non‑forum shopping and (b) failure to attach relevant pleadings as required by Rule 45?
- Substantive: (a) Was the strike staged by the respondent union on November 16–29, 1990 legal? (b) Were the dismissals of the union officers as a conseque...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)