Case Digest (G.R. No. L-53060)
Facts:
Rosario T. Mamerto, et al. v. Hon. Amado G. Inciong, G.R. No. 53060, November 15, 1982, Supreme Court Second Division, De Castro, J., writing for the Court. Petitioners are twenty-eight workers who filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against Lucky Garments Manufacturing Company. Respondents were Hon. Francisco L. Estrella, Director, National Capital Region, Ministry of Labor (who issued the initial administrative disposition), and Hon. Amado G. Inciong, Deputy Minister, Ministry of Labor (who affirmed Director Estrella's order).The Ministry of Labor record showed the complainants consisted of sixteen regular employees, eight apprentices, and four domestic helpers. The respondent company applied for clearance to dismiss certain workers after a concerted absence from March 7 to March 13, 1979 that allegedly slowed and paralyzed production; other named complainants were alleged to be AWOL since March 6, 1979, apprentices who failed to meet training standards, or household workers employed by a private individual. Director Estrella dismissed the illegal dismissal complaint, found that many complainants participated in an illegal sit-down strike and economic sabotage in violation of PD 823, and granted clearance to dismiss. That Order of May 18, 1979 set out factual findings on each group of complainants and concluded the case lacked merit.
On appeal, Deputy Minister Inciong, by Order dated February 15, 1980, affirmed Director Estrella. Inciong likewise classified several complainants as apprentices or household helpers, denied that the Ramo incident justified the absences, and held that petitioners had defaulted in presenting their position papers—having filed instead a motion to certify the issues for compulsory arbitration which was denied—and that the nature of the dispute (termination) did not present intricate questions of law or fact requiring compulsory arbitration. Inciong ordered the company to pay financial assistance to regular employees but nonetheless affirmed dismissal of the illegal dismissal complaints.
Petitioners then filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court seeking annulment of both administrative orders on grounds of grave abuse of discretion and deni...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did public respondents deny petitioners due process by refusing to certify the issues for compulsory arbitration and by deciding the case without petitioners' position papers?
- Were petitioners' terminations actually caused by union activities amounting to unfair labor practice, or were the dismissals for valid, legal causes support...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)