Case Digest (G.R. No. 119281)
Facts:
Nissan Motors Philippines, Inc. v. Secretary of Labor and Employment and Bagong Nagkakaisang Lakas sa Nissan Motor Philippines, Inc. (BANAL‑NMPI‑OLALIA‑KMU), G.R. Nos. 158190‑91, 158276 and 158283, June 21, 2006, Supreme Court Second Division, Garcia, J., writing for the Court.The dispute arose from a collective‑bargaining deadlock between Nissan Motors Philippines, Inc. (the Company) and Bagong Nagkakaisang Lakas sa Nissan Motor Philippines, Inc. (BANAL‑NMPI‑OLALIA‑KMU) (the Union). The Union filed four notices of strike: the first on December 4, 2000 (alleging unfair labor practice after about 140 employees were suspended for a November 15, 2000 protest over early payment of the 13th month pay); the second on July 24, 2001 (deadlock in bargaining over economic and non‑economic issues); and third and fourth notices in August–September 2001 (complaining of illegal lockout, illegal suspension, union busting and nonpayment of wages). Production declines, charges of slowdown, suspensions and alleged wrongful dismissals followed.
On August 22, 2001, the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) Secretary assumed jurisdiction under Article 263 of the Labor Code, enjoined any strike or lockout, and directed the parties to cease acts that would exacerbate the dispute and for the Union to refrain from any slowdown. Despite the injunctions, the Company filed a motion to deputize the PNP on October 5, 2001; the PNP was deputized on October 13, 2001. The Company suspended some 140 employees for the November 2000 incident and later dismissed a number of Union officers and members for allegedly defying the DOLE orders and participating in a concerted slowdown that materially reduced production.
On December 5, 2001, DOLE Secretary Patricia A. Sto. Tomas issued a decision: she affirmed the suspension of the 140 employees, sustained the dismissal of Union officers, but recalled the dismissal of Union members (reinstating them without back wages and imposing a one‑month suspension deemed already served); she also ordered the parties to conclude a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) embodying agreed dispositions. A January 22, 2002 modificatory resolution deleted three names mistakenly listed as officers.
Both the Company and the Union separately sought relief at the Court of Appeals (CA) by certiorari under Rule 65. The consolidated CA Special Division denied both petitions in a Decision dated February 7, 2003 and denied motions for reconsideration in a May 15, 2003 Resolution. Before the CA’s merits ruling the CA’s Fourth Division had on November 8, 2002 cited the Union’s counsel, Atty. Napoleon Banzuela, Jr., for indirect contempt for imputing bias against a CA justice and fined him P15,000.00.
Each private party then filed petitions for review under Rule 45 with the Supreme Court (Nissan Motor in G.R. Nos. 158190‑91; the Union in G.R. Nos. 158276 and 158283). Nissan challenged (inter alia) the reinstatement of the 140 rank‑and‑file workers and DOLE’s economic awards given the Company’s finan...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err in affirming the DOLE Secretary’s factual finding that the Union engaged in a concerted work slowdown constituting an illegal strike (standard of review / deference to quasi‑judicial findings)?
- Were the dismissals of union officers and of rank‑and‑file members lawful—i.e., could the Company validly terminate officers and/or ordinary members for participating in the slowdown after assumption of jurisdiction?
- Were the economic awards and other aspects of the DOLE Secretary’s disposition proper given the Company’s proven financial condition and the use of confidential conciliation information?
- Was the CA’s citatio...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)