Case Summary (A.M. No. RTJ-18-2535)
Factual Background
The labor dispute commenced with two sets of complaints filed—one by thirty-two employees against AER for unfair labor practices and another filed by AER against several employees, including those mentioned in the Union's complaint. The employees sought reinstatement, backwages, and damages, while AER accused them of participating in an illegal strike and sought penalties against them.
Initial Decisions
On August 9, 2001, the Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of the Union, directing AER to reinstate the employees without backwages. Both parties appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), which modified the Arbiter's decision on March 5, 2002, ruling out the existence of illegal dismissal or valid grounds for conducting a strike by the employees.
Appeal Processes
Following the NLRC's decision, the Union filed a motion for reconsideration, arguing that the excluded employees (those not charged with the illegal strike) should be reinstated. The Court of Appeals later decided on June 27, 2003, favoring the Union's arguments, ordering reinstatement without backwages except for those suspended due to drug testing.
Supreme Court's 2011 Decision
On July 13, 2011, the Supreme Court denied the petitions of both parties, ordering reinstatement of the employees without backwages and proposing separation pay if reinstatement was not feasible. The Court found both parties at fault in the matter.
Motion for Partial Reconsideration
Following the Supreme Court's decision, the Union filed a Motion for Partial Reconsideration regarding the failure to award backwages to fourteen employees excluded from AER’s complaint. The Court requested a comment from AER regarding this motion. AER's response did not provide substantial argumentation against the Union's points.
Ruling on Reconsideration
Upon review, the Supreme Court recognized the positions of the fourteen excluded employees, determining that nine of them had the right to reinstatement with backwages since they were not charged with illegal strike activities and thus could not be considered in pari delicto (equally at faul
...continue readingCase Syllabus (A.M. No. RTJ-18-2535)
Parties Involved
- Petitioners: Automotive Engine Rebuilders, Inc. (AER), Antonio T. Inducil, Lourdes T. Inducil, Jocelyn T. Inducil, Ma. Concepcion I. Donato
- Respondents: Progresibong Unyon Ng Mga Manggagawa sa AER, Arnold Villota, Felino E. Agustin, Ruprerto M. Mariano II, Eduardo S. Brizuela, and others (totaling 32 employees)
Background of the Case
- The labor controversy arose from mutual accusations of unfair labor practices between AER and the union representing its employees.
- AER filed a complaint against the union and 18 of its members for illegal concerted activities, alleging abandonment of work and misconduct.
- Concurrently, 32 employees filed a complaint against AER for unfair labor practices, illegal dismissal, and suspension, seeking reinstatement and backwages.
Procedural History
- The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of the union, ordering AER to reinstate the employees but without backwages, effective October 16, 2001.
- Both parties appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), which set aside the Labor Arbiter's decision and ruled that the employees had no valid basis for the strike.
- Following a motion for reconsideration from the union, the Court of Appeals (CA) ordered reinstatement of the employees but maintained a no-backwage