Facts:

• The case involves a labor dispute between Insular Life Assurance Company and FGU Insurance Group and several labor unions.
• The dispute began in 1958 and has been brought to the Supreme Court twice for review.
• The main issue in this case is whether the petitioners are guilty of unfair labor practice and whether the respondent unions are entitled to reinstatement with backwages, retirement benefits, and service award differentials.
• In 1958, the respondent unions declared a strike due to a bargaining deadlock.
• The petitioners, on the strength of a writ of preliminary injunction, notified the strikers to report back to work or be replaced.
• The unions called off the strike and returned to work, but some workers were refused readmission due to pending criminal charges.
• The unions filed a complaint for unfair labor practice, alleging interference with their right to concerted activity and discrimination in readmission based on union membership and degree of participation in the strike.
• The Court of Industrial Relations dismissed the complaint, but this decision was later reversed by the Supreme Court in 1971, which found the petitioners guilty of unfair labor practice and ordered the reinstatement of the union members with backwages.
• In 1977, the Supreme Court clarified that the backwages should be equivalent to three years without deduction or qualification.
• The petitioners paid the backwages to all the dismissed employees except for four who had reached retirement age.
• The unions then sued the companies for contempt, alleging that they refused to reinstate the retired union members and engaged in sham reinstatement of others.
• The National Labor Relations Commission found the companies guilty of contempt and ordered them to pay a fine.
• The companies appealed this decision to the Supreme Court, which affirmed the decision but reversed the finding of contempt.
• After the decision became final, the unions filed a motion for computation of judgment, and the Labor Arbiter issued an order to compute the benefits in accordance with the Supreme Court's decision.
• The companies filed a motion for reconsideration of the order, but it was dismissed by the Labor Arbiter.
• The companies then filed a motion for reconsideration with the National Labor Relations Commission, which treated it as an appeal and dismissed it as untimely filed.
• The companies filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court, alleging grave abuse of discretion.

Issue:

• (Unlock)

Ruling:

• The Labor Arbiter's computation of backwages is not compatible with the Supreme Court's decision
• The retirement benefits, leave benefits, salary differentials, and service award diffe...(Unlock)

Ratio:

• The Supreme Court finds that the Labor Arbiter erred in awarding backwages for a period of eight years instead of three years.
• The backwages should be computed at the rate that the employees were actually receiving at the time of their dismissal, without deduction or qualification.
• The ret...continue reading