Case Digest (G.R. No. 110226)
Facts:
Alberto S. Silva et al. v. National Labor Relations Commission and Philtread (Firestone) Tire and Rubber Corporation, G.R. No. 110226, June 19, 1997, Supreme Court Second Division, Romero, J., writing for the Court.Petitioners are twenty-nine former rank-and-file employees of private respondent Philtread (Firestone) Tire and Rubber Corporation who had availed themselves of a retrenchment program in 1985 under a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) dated July 5, 1983 that afforded priority in re-employment should the company recover. After Philtread expanded operations and hired new personnel in 1986, petitioners applied for re-employment but were not rehired; subsequent demands and union requests to defer hiring until petitioners were reinstated were ignored.
On December 5, 1988 petitioners filed a complaint with the National Capital Region Arbitration Branch of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) for unfair labor practice (ULP), damages and attorneys' fees. After position papers and a motion to dismiss by Philtread (raising lack of jurisdiction and lack of locus standi), Labor Arbiter Edgardo M. Madriaga rendered a decision on August 31, 1989 dismissing the complaint but directing Philtread to give petitioners priority in hiring; the Labor Arbiter did not address the jurisdictional contention. Petitioners appealed to the NLRC; Philtread did not appeal.
On April 15, 1992 the NLRC reversed the Labor Arbiter and ordered Philtread to re-employ petitioners and similarly situated employees, subject to vacancies and reasonable physical condition; that resolution was received by Atty. Abraham B. Borreta on May 5, 1992. On May 20, 1992 Atty. Borreta filed an ex parte manifestation returning the copy and asserting erroneous service, explaining that Atty. Daniel C. Gutierrez had exclusively handled the case and that the law firm had been dissolved. Despite the apparent service, Philtread's counsel (Atty. Gutierrez) filed a motion for reconsideration only on June 5, 1992.
Acting on that late motion, the NLRC promulgated on November 18, 1992 a resolution dismissing petitioners' complaint on the ground that jurisdiction lay with the voluntary arbitrator under Article 261 of the Labor Code; petitioners moved for reconsideration pointing out that the amendatory law relied upon (Republic Act No. 6715) took effect March 21, 1989—after the complaint was filed—so it could not retroactively divest the Labor Arbiter of jurisdiction, and that the April 15, 1992 resolution had become final when Philtread failed to file a timely motion for reconsideration within ten (10) days of receipt. The NLRC denied reco...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the NLRC commit grave abuse of discretion by entertaining and acting upon Philtread’s late motion for reconsideration and setting aside its April 15, 1992 resolution that had become final and executory?
- At the time petitioners filed their complaint on December 5, 1988, did the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC properly have jurisdiction to hear petitioners’ ULP complaint despite the subsequent enactment of Republic Act No. 6715?
- Does Article 261 (and related provisions) of the Labor Code, as amended by RA 6715, divest the Labor Arbiter and NLRC of jurisdiction over disputes involving alleged violations of a CBA where the complainants are not parties to the CBA and, ...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)