Case Digest (G.R. No. 100342-44)
Facts:
Rural Bank of Alaminos Employees Union (RBAEU) and Ismael Tamayo, Sr., petitioners, v. National Labor Relations Commission, Third Division; Exec. Labor Arbiter Jose B. Bolisay; and Rural Bank of Alaminos, Inc., G.R. Nos. 100342-44, October 29, 1999, Supreme Court Third Division, Purisima, J., writing for the Court.The dispute arose from three consolidated labor cases initially filed before Sub‑Regional Arbitration Branch No. 1 in Dagupan City. Ismael P. Tamayo, Sr. first filed a complaint for illegal dismissal after he was effectively terminated on January 1, 1989 despite an earlier compromise agreement promising reinstatement; this became NLRC Case No. SUB‑RAB‑01‑03‑7‑0049‑89. The Rural Bank of Alaminos, Inc. (RBAI) filed NLRC Case No. SUB‑RAB‑01‑04‑7‑0059‑89 seeking a declaration that the union’s strike was illegal, and the RBAEU filed NLRC Case No. SUB‑RAB‑01‑06‑7‑0097‑89 charging the bank with unfair labor practice and damages after the strike and alleged constructive dismissals.
Labor Arbiter Ricardo N. Olairez consolidated the three cases and, on December 14, 1989, rendered a consolidated decision: he held Tamayo illegally dismissed and awarded backwages, retirement pay and attorneys’ fees; declared the Union’s strike legal and dismissed the bank’s petition; and found the bank guilty of unfair labor practice/constructive lockout, ordering reinstatement or backwages for union members plus moral and exemplary damages and attorneys’ fees. The arbiter’s decision contained specific monetary computations and an immediate-execution reinstatement order.
The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), Third Division, reversed the Labor Arbiter’s consolidated decision in a Resolution dated January 31, 1991, setting it aside and remanding all three cases to the Regional Arbitration Branch of origin for further proceedings; it denied petitioners’ motion for reconsideration on March 26, 1991. The NLRC found, among other things, that the record lacked evidence showing refusal to employ (for the lockout charge) and that the bank should have been allowed to cross‑examine Tamayo on an unverified position paper.
Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court in the Supreme Court, alleging grave abuse of discretion and lack or excess of jurisdiction by the NLRC in ordering remands and in denying timely process. The Court noted the rule from St. M...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the NLRC commit grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in remanding NLRC Case No. 0059‑89 (bank’s petition to declare the strike illegal) to the Labor Arbiter after affirming the Labor Arbiter’s finding that the strike was legal?
- Did the NLRC commit grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in remanding NLRC Case No. 0097‑89 (union’s unfair labor practice/lockout claim) despite the Labor Arbiter’s finding of unfair labor practice and the absence of an appeal on that specific finding?
- Did the NLRC commit grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in remanding NLRC Case No. 0049‑89 (Tamayo’s illegal dismissal) for failure to allow cross‑examination of Tamayo on his unverified position paper?
- Did the NLRC violate petitioners’ right to speedy disposition and due process by remanding the c...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)