Case Digest (G.R. No. 172846)
Facts:
Manila Polo Club Employees Union (MPCEU) FUR-TUCP v. Manila Polo Club, Inc., G.R. No. 172846, July 24, 2013, Supreme Court Third Division, Peralta, J., writing for the Court. The petition was filed under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure to review the Court of Appeals' February 2, 2006 Decision and May 29, 2006 Resolution in CA‑G.R. SP No. 73127, which affirmed the August 28, 2002 Decision and September 13, 2002 Resolution of Voluntary Arbitrator Jesus B. Diamonon dismissing petitioner’s complaint for illegal retrenchment.Petitioner is the Manila Polo Club Employees Union (MPCEU), affiliated with FUR‑TUCP; respondent is Manila Polo Club, Inc., a non‑profit proprietary membership organization. On December 13, 2001, respondent’s Board unanimously resolved to cease operations of its Food and Beverage (F&B) outlets (except the Last Chukker) and refer operations to a concessionaire, citing recurring losses. On March 22, 2002 the Board approved a program implementing the cessation and a retrenchment/separation-pay scheme; notices were sent by registered mail to the union, affected employees and to the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE), and an Establishment Termination Report was submitted to DOLE.
Affected employees reported for work on March 25, 2002 and were prevented from entering the Club; they later learned F&B operations had been awarded to Makati Skyline, Inc. Petitioner filed grievances and Notices of Strike with the NCMB alleging illegal dismissal, non‑implementation of the CBA, union busting and unfair labor practices. After negotiation, the parties agreed to submit to Voluntary Arbitration the sole issue whether the retrenchment of 117 union members was legal; the case was submitted to VA Diamonon on June 17, 2002.
On August 28, 2002 VA Diamonon dismissed the complaint for lack of merit but without prejudice to payment of separation pay; a motion for reconsideration was denied on September 13, 2002. The Court of Appeals, in CA‑G.R. SP No. 73127, affirmed the VA’s Decision in a February 2, 2006 Decision and denied the s...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the Voluntary Arbitrator and the Court of Appeals err in dismissing petitioner’s complaint for illegal retrenchment?
- Whether the cessation/transfer of respondent’s Food and Beverage operations constituted a bona fide closure (not a simulated closure or union‑busting) that justified termination of employment with payment of separation pay rather than ...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)