Case Digest (G.R. No. 196110)
Facts:
PNCC Skyway Corporation (PSC) v. The Secretary of Labor & Employment, PNCC Skyway Traffic Management, and Security Division Workers Organization, G.R. No. 196110, February 06, 2017, the Supreme Court Second Division, Peralta, J., writing for the Court.In March 1977 the Philippine National Construction Corporation (PNCC) was awarded the franchise to construct, operate and maintain the expressways including the South Metro Manila Skyway. On December 15, 1998, PNCC created petitioner PNCC Skyway Corporation (PSC) to handle traffic safety, maintenance and toll collection on the Skyway.
On July 18, 2007, Citra Metro Manila Tollway Corporation (Citra) entered into agreements with the Toll Regulatory Board and PNCC for a build-and-transfer transfer of Skyway operations to Skyway O & M Corporation (SOMCO), with a transition period ending at 10:00 p.m. on December 31, 2007. On December 28, 2007, three days before turnover, PSC served termination letters on its employees and notified the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE), stating that operations would close and employment would terminate effective January 31, 2008, and offering separation pay and other benefits.
On the same day the PNCC Skyway Traffic Management and Security Division Workers Organization (Union) filed a Notice of Strike with DOLE, contending the closure was a union-busting device and that workers were denied due process because notices were served only three days before PSC ceased operations; the Union sought reinstatement, backwages, damages and attorney’s fees. PSC denied anti-union intent, invoked management prerogative, contended the closures were pursuant to the ASTOA agreement, and asserted it had paid employees for January 2008. PSC also alleged the Union’s strike was illegal.
On August 29, 2008, the Secretary of Labor and Employment (SOLE) issued a decision finding PSC’s closure bona fide (authorized cause) but that PSC failed to comply with Article 283 of the Labor Code’s one‑month written notice requirement; SOLE dismissed unfair labor practice and illegal strike charges, ordered separation and other benefits (including separation pay of no less than 250% of basic monthly pay and Php40,000 gratuity), and additionally ordered Php30,000 indemnity to each dismissed employee who was not validly notified on December 31, 2007. Motions for reconsideration before DOLE were denied on August 26, 2009.
PSC filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (October 30, 2009) alleging grave abuse of discretion by SOLE in ordering the additional Php30,000 indemnity under Article 283. On July 22, 2010 the Court of Appeals dismissed PSC’s petition, upholding SOLE’s finding that paying ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err in upholding the Labor Secretary’s finding that PSC failed to comply with the procedural requirements of Article 283 of the Labor Code on notice?
- Did the Court of Appeals err in upholding the Labor Secretary’s conclusion that payment of the employees’ salaries and benefits for January 2008 amounted to substantial compliance with Article 283’s one‑month notice requirement?
- Are the precedents relied on by respondents—principally Agabon...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)