Title
Baguio Colleges Foundation vs. National Labor Relations Commission
Case
G.R. No. 98043
Decision Date
May 26, 1993
Employees dismissed for failing to comply with BCF's unauthorized directive, not the Secretary of Labor's return-to-work order; Supreme Court ruled dismissal illegal, ordered reinstatement with limited backwages.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 98043)

Background of Employment and Strike

Complainants Angiwan, Soriano, and Rivera were employed at different times by the Baguio Colleges Foundation and were involved in a strike initiated on March 8, 1988, due to labor disputes. Following the strike, on April 29, 1988, the Secretary of Labor and Employment issued a Return-to-Work Order mandating that all striking employees return to work at the start of the 1988-89 school year under prior conditions.

Directive Issuance and Response

On May 8, 1988, Baguio Colleges Foundation published a directive requiring all striking employees to report to Vice President Corazon Concepcion on May 14, 1988, to comply with the Secretary of Labor's order. However, some employees, including the private respondents, did not see this directive, resulting in their failure to report as instructed.

Disciplinary Actions and Complaints Filed

Consequently, respondents who did not comply received termination letters stating their dismissals were based on willful disobedience of the return-to-work order. The respondents filed complaints against the college's administration, claiming their terminations were illegal.

Labor Arbiter's Decision

On January 8, 1990, the Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of Angiwan, Soriano, and Rivera, ordering their reinstatement without loss of seniority and awarding back wages along with attorney’s fees. The petitioners appealed this decision to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC).

NLRC Ruling

On November 29, 1990, the NLRC affirmed the Labor Arbiter's decision, contending that the petitioners had changed the conditions of the Return-to-Work Order and that the dismissals of the employees were illegal. The NLRC noted that the Return-to-Work Order did not authorize the petitioners to impose a new timeframe or dismiss employees who failed to comply with a unilaterally set date.

Legal Analysis of Petitioners' Actions

The petitioners contended that they acted in good faith and were merely accommodating administrative necessities. However, the NLRC found no legal grounds for dismissing employees without proper notification and compliance with the original order issued by the Secretary of Labor.

Supreme Court Review and Findings

The Supreme Court determined that the NLRC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in its findings. The emplo

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.