Case Digest (G.R. No. 153799)
Facts:
Solidbank Union et al. v. Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company, G.R. Nos. 153799, 157169, 157327 and 157506, September 17, 2012, Supreme Court Second Division, Del Castillo, J., writing for the Court.
The disputes arise from a mass employee action on April 3, 2000 after then Secretary of Labor Bienvenido Laguesma assumed jurisdiction over a bargaining impasse between Solidbank Corporation and its certified bargaining representative, Solidbank Union. Secretary Laguesma issued an assumption order on January 18, 2000 and a subsequent disposition on March 24, 2000 directing the parties to conclude a CBA, dismissing some charges, and ordering certain check-off deductions. About 712 employees left work to accompany counsel in filing a motion for reconsideration and to conduct a brief public demonstration at the Secretary’s office; some provincial branches did likewise.
Solidbank considered the April 3 action an illegal strike that abandoned work and disrupted operations. Solidbank issued memoranda warning participants and requested explanations from 199 employees who did not return; those 199 were placed on preventive suspension and subsequently 129 were dismissed on April 17, 2000 (70 were later re-admitted). Some dismissed employees executed releases and quitclaims. Meanwhile Solidbank merged with First Metro and later sold banking-related assets and liabilities to Metrobank.
The Union and dismissed employees filed an illegal dismissal complaint with Labor Arbiter Luis D. Flores (Decision promulgated March 16, 2001) who ruled the April 3 event was not a strike but a protected exercise of constitutional rights, declared the dismissals illegal, ordered reinstatement, awarded backwages, moral and exemplary damages and attorneys’ fees. The NLRC Second Division (July 23, 2001) reversed the Labor Arbiter, holding the mass action was an illegal strike in violation of the Secretary’s assumption order, vacating the Arbiter’s decision but awarding separation benefits as equitable relief. Other consolidated proceedings produced inconsistent rulings: the NLRC Third Division, in another set of cases, ruled in favor of other complainants and ordered reinstatement with backwages.
Several petitions for certiorari and petitions for review on certiorari were filed in the Court of Appeals (CA) challenging NLRC rulings. The CA Second Division (Aug. 29, 2002, CA-G.R. SP No. 68054) granted certiorari for some complainants and reinstated the Labor Arbiter’s decision (with lowered damage awards). The CA Special Third Division (July 26, 2002, CA-G.R. SP No. 68998) meanwhile found the mass action to be an illegal strike and held Metrobank could not be held jointly liable because it was not Solidbank’s successor-in-interest. The CA Twelfth Division (Mar. 10, 2003, CA-G.R. SP Nos. 67730 & 70820) denied related petitions and declared dismissals illegal in other consolidated appeals.
This Court later decided consolidated petitions docketed as G.R. Nos. 159460 and 159461 on November 15, 2010 (Solidbank Corporation v. Gamier), resolving material questions: it characterized the mass action as a strike, found violations of the Secretary’s assumption order, determined which union officers were validly dismissed, awarded separation pay where reinstatement was infeasible because Solidbank had ceased operations, and held Metrobank not solidarily liable as not being successor-in-interest. That November 15, 2010 decision became final and executory on May 20, 2011.
The present consolidated petitions (G.R. Nos. 153799, 157169, 157327, 157506) are petitions for review on certiorari (Rule 45) challenging conflicting CA decisions (principally CA-G.R. SP Nos. 68054 and 68998) and CA interlocutory resolutions granting inju...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Does this Court’s November 15, 2010 Decision in G.R. Nos. 159460 and 159461 operate as res judicata and bar relitigation of the issues raised in these consolidated petitions?
- Was the petition in G.R. No. 153799 — attacking CA interlocutory resolutions that enjoined execution of the Labor Arbiter’s reinstatement order — a proper Rule 45 vehicle and/or rendered moot by subsequent developments?
- On the merits, was the April 3, 2000 mass demonstration a legitimate exercise of constitutional rights or an illegal strike, and what are the consequences for reinstatement, separation pay, and damages?
- Can Metrobank be held jointly and severally liable with So...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)