G.R. No. 101251 - Sinon vs. Civil Service Commission

The case involves a petition for review of a decision by the Secretary of Labor that modified an earlier arbitrator’s decision.
The arbitrator originally ordered reinstatement with backwages for the complainants on May 4, 1973, which was later altered to award separation pay upon a motion for reconsideration by the respondent company.
A subsequent motion for reconsideration filed by the petitioner was denied for lack of merit, leading to the current petition.

Complainants Agapito Duro, Alfredo Torio, and Rustico Javillonar were dismissed after an application for clearance to terminate their employment was approved by the Secretary of Labor on December 19, 1972.
The dismissal was based on allegations of willful violation of company regulations, gross insubordination, and refusal to submit to a company investigation.
The contested incident occurred when the complainants failed to report for work on November 26, 1972, due to a dispute arising from a change in the work schedule.

Prior to the dispute, the company operated on a schedule that had the night shift working Monday to Saturday or Monday to Friday, as provided by the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA).
Sometime in July 1972, the company shifted the work schedule for the third shift from the previous Monday-to-Friday scheme to a new Sunday-to-Thursday schedule, effective July 5, 1972.
On November 6, 1972, night shift employees (through their union’s representative) demanded to revert to the old schedule. Discussions ensued from November 15 to November 24, 1972, resulting in a compromise that allowed night shift personnel to work on Monday and Saturday, with an exception for maintenance and preparation crews.
The new schedule was disseminated to be effective November 26, 1972, prompting the complainants’ refusal to report on a day (Sunday) that they believed was not a working day under the terms of the CBA.
Their absence on the scheduled day led to their suspension for fourteen (14) days, which eventually culminated in their dismissal.

The petitioner contended that the change in the work schedule violated the existing CBA, arguing that the complainants’ refusal to comply was based on that agreement.
The petitioner further alleged that the dismissal infringed on constitutional rights, specifically those under Section 9, Article II of the 1973 Constitution, which guarantees workers the right to self-organization, collective bargaining, security of tenure, and just and humane conditions of work.
The incident, however, occurred in 1972, preceding the Constitution’s promulgation, thus raising issues regarding the retroactive application of constitutional protections.

Whether the dismissal of the complainants was valid when based on their refusal to comply with the new work schedule imposed by the respondent company.
Whether such refusal constitutes insubordination or serious misconduct justifying dismissal.

Whether the change in work schedule by the company violated the existing terms of the CBA.
How the provisions of the CBA should be interpreted in light of the management's prerogative to change work schedules.

Whether the dismissal violated Section 9, Article II of the 1973 Constitution on security of tenure and just and humane conditions of work.
Whether constitutional rights, being prospective in application, can be applied retroactively to incidents that occurred prior to the effective date of the Constitution.