Case Digest (G.R. No. L-58341)
Facts:
Pepsi-Cola Labor Union-BFLU-Tupas Local Chapter No. 896 v. National Labor Relations Commission and Pepsi-Cola Bottling Company of the Philippines, Inc., Naga Plant, G.R. No. 58341, June 29, 1982, Supreme Court Second Division, Abad Santos, J., writing for the Court.On December 11, 1979 a certification election at the Pepsi-Cola Bottling Company (Naga Plant) produced 128 votes for the Pepsi‑Cola Labor Union‑BFLU‑Tupas Local Chapter No. 896 (the UNION) out of 131 cast. Competition between contending unions produced litigation over representation; the losing group’s petitions were ultimately dismissed by this Court (G.R. No. 51893). Meanwhile, on April 1, 1980 the UNION filed a notice of strike with the Ministry of Labor and Employment (MOLE) Regional Office; Med‑Arbiter Antonio B. Caayao issued a resolution on April 25, 1980 declaring that notice premature and the contemplated strike illegal.
Despite the resolution, the UNION staged a stoppage beginning May 7, 1980 (disputed duration: the UNION said one day; the company said three days); a return‑to‑work order issued May 9, 1980. On May 15, 1980 Pepsi‑Cola Bottling Company filed a complaint for unfair labor practice and illegal strike, docketed as Case No. 82‑80 before the Arbitration Branch, Regional Office No. V. Executive Labor Arbiter Lolito C. Fulleros rendered a decision on November 20, 1980 holding the strike illegal under PD 823 (embodied in Articles 264–267 of the Labor Code), and declaring that "all the officers and members of the union whose names and positions appear on Annex 'A' of the complaint except Romulo Cal, Nilo Bariso and Mauro Nieto be considered to have lost their employment status effective May 7, 1980."
The UNION filed a "Motion for Reconsideration or Appeal to the NLRC" on December 8, 1980, alleging grave abuse, lack of jurisdiction and error of law and fact. Pepsi‑Cola moved to dismiss the appeal for failure to furnish the adverse party a copy of the appeal. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), 3rd Division, in a resolution dated August 17, 1981, dismissed the UNION’s appeal for lack of service on the adverse party, citing Article 223 of the Labor Code, S...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was the NLRC correct to dismiss the UNION’s appeal for failure to serve/furnish a copy on the adverse party?
- Was the Executive Labor Arbiter’s blanket declaration that all officers and members listed in Annex "A" lost their employment status valid, or should some employees be reinstate...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)