Title
Producers Bank of the Philippines vs. National Labor Relations Commission
Case
G.R. No. 76001
Decision Date
Sep 5, 1988
Labor dispute over an illegal 1984 strike; NLRC ordered reinstatement despite violence claims; Supreme Court upheld NLRC, citing no grave abuse of discretion.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 76001)

Facts:

Producers Bank of the Philippines v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 76001, September 05, 1988, the Supreme Court Second Division, Sarmiento, J., writing for the Court. The petition was a motion for reconsideration of this Court’s May 25, 1988 resolution that had dismissed a petition for review on certiorari.

The petitioner is Producers Bank of the Philippines; respondents are the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), the Producers Bank Employees Association, and several employee-respondents (Eleuterio Yap, Ferdinand Lazo, Robert Tan, Alberto Brillo, Frederick Cases, Marilou Villena, and Arlene Villaro). The Labor Arbiter below was Virginia Son, who penned the challenged decision dated March 12, 1985.

The underlying dispute arose from a strike that began October 1, 1984. The Labor Arbiter found facts relating to the strike — including violence, coercion, intimidation, destruction of property and other unlawful acts — and issued a decision (March 12, 1985) adverse to the private respondents in some respects. On appeal the NLRC modified the Labor Arbiter’s decision and ordered the immediate reinstatement of the employee-respondents. The bank then filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court (Rule 45), which this Court dismissed in a May 25, 1988 resolution on the ground that the petition raised essentially factual issues and the petitioner had not shown that the NLRC’s findings lacked substantial evidence or exhibited grave abuse of discretion.

The present filing is the petitioner’s motion for reconsideration of that May 25, 1988 dismissal. In its motion the petitioner argued that (a) the Labor Arbiter’s decision was itself supported by substantial evidence proving illegal and violent conduct during the strike and therefore the NLRC should have affirmed it; and (b) the NLRC’s modification — ordering reinstatement — violated subsection (e) of Article 265 (now Article 264) of the Labor Code (the prohibition against violenc...(Subscriber-Only)

Issues:

  • Did the National Labor Relations Commission commit grave abuse of discretion when it modified the Labor Arbiter’s March 12, 1985 decision and ordered immediate reinstatement of the employee-re...(Subscriber-Only)

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.