Title
Batangas Laguna Tayabas Bus Co. vs. National Labor Relations Commission
Case
G.R. No. 101858
Decision Date
Aug 21, 1992
A union's illegal strike led to disputes over reinstatement, abandonment, and liability, with the Supreme Court upholding NLRC's resolutions emphasizing due process, social justice, and vicarious liability.
illegal strike
union members
certification order

Case Summary (G.R. No. 101858)

Factual Background

Private respondent Tinig at Lakas ng Manggagawa sa BLTB Co. NAFLU (TLM-BLTB-NAFLU), a NAFLU affiliate, filed a Notice of Strike against Batangas Laguna Tayabas Bus Company on May 23, 1988, alleging unfair labor practice and violation of the CBA. BLTBCo reacted by seeking that the dispute be assumed by the Secretary of Labor or, alternatively, certified to the NLRC for compulsory arbitration. BLTBCo also moved to dismiss the notice of strike on August 3, 1988. When amicable settlement efforts failed, Acting Labor Secretary C. Castro certified the dispute to the NLRC on August 29, 1988.

A copy of the certification order was served on August 29, 1988 on NAFLU and on August 30, 1988 on the union TLM-BLTBCo-NAFLU. The records noted that union secretary Jerry Soriano refused to receive the order. On August 31, 1988, officers and members of TLM-BLTBCo-NAFLU went on strike and maintained picket lines that blocked BLTBCo’s terminals.

On September 6, 1988, the NLRC issued an en banc resolution ordering the striking employees to lift the picket, remove obstructions and barricades, and return to work. The order required that all striking employees on payroll as of May 23, 1988 return to work and that BLTBCo accept them within five (5) days under the same terms and conditions prevailing before the strike. On September 15, 1988, BLTBCo published the NLRC resolution in a newspaper and called on striking workers to return no later than September 18, 1988, later extending the deadline to September 19, 1988. Of approximately one thousand seven hundred thirty (1,730) striking employees, one thousand one hundred sixteen (1,116) returned to work, and seventeen (17) others were later re-admitted.

Thereafter, about six hundred fourteen (614) employees, including some allegedly dismissed for causes other than the strike, filed individual complaints for illegal dismissal. Their common claim was that they were refused admission upon reporting back to work. The NLRC proceedings also included the individual union members who failed to comply with the return-to-work order, including the 190 respondents.

NLRC Resolutions and the Special Civil Action

On July 19, 1991, the NLRC resolved the labor dispute with multiple determinations: it dismissed the union’s charge of unfair labor practice and “union busting” for lack of merit; it ordered BLTBCo to implement provisions of the CBA on uniform and safety shoes; it declared valid certain dismissals grounded on lawful causes; it declared the strike illegal; and it declared that specific officers and members lost their employment status. The NLRC also ordered the reinstatement of certain union members “to their former position without loss of seniority rights but without backwages,” declared the case of one individual withdrawn, and directed the reinstatement of all striking employees who had not committed illegal acts. It additionally regularized casual employment where conditions were met.

A related NLRC resolution dated September 16, 1991 denied a motion for reconsideration by BLTBCo and a complainant, denied a prayer for a temporary restraining order, and directed that the reinstatement order be immediately executory, with no further motions for reconsideration allowed.

BLTBCo then filed a special civil action for certiorari, contending that the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in ordering the reinstatement of the 190 individual union members, based on alleged knowing participation in an illegal strike defying the assumption and return-to-work orders; based on an asserted abandonment of employment by those who supposedly failed to comply; based on the alleged erroneous limitation of forfeiture of employment status to only thirty-six (36) union officers and members despite BLTBCo’s alleged evidence of illegal acts by more employees; based on the alleged failure to include recognized union officers (including Jerry Soriano, Serafin Soriano, and Desiderio Comel) among those whose employment status were declared forfeited; and based on the alleged “blanket” nature of the NLRC’s reinstatement directive.

On motion and after BLTBCo posted a cash bond in the amount of P500,000.00, the Court issued a temporary restraining order on November 6, 1991 against enforcement of the NLRC resolutions.

The Parties’ Contentions

BLTBCo’s central position was that the 190 union members should not have been reinstated because they knowingly participated in a strike that was illegal from its inception due to defiance of the Assumption Order of August 29, 1988 and the Return-to-Work Order of September 6, 1988. BLTBCo also argued that the individual respondents had abandoned their employment when they disobeyed the return-to-work order. Further, it challenged the NLRC’s determination that only thirty-six (36) union officers and members lost employment status, asserting that it initially identified at least one hundred (100) employees who committed illegal or violent acts and at least twenty (20) employees who reported back but later abandoned their work to resume strike activities. BLTBCo also faulted the NLRC for not including certain recognized union officers among those whose employment status were forfeited. Finally, BLTBCo argued that the NLRC issued an overbroad, “blanket” directive reinstating all striking employees who had not committed illegal acts.

The NLRC’s resolution, as reflected in BLTBCo’s own invocation of language from the NLRC, underscored that a strike undertaken despite an assumption or certification order becomes a prohibited and thus illegal activity under Art. 264. It also emphasized that a wholesale forfeiture of employment status for all participants was unwarranted given alleged inadequate service of the certification order on the union as of the strike date and the absence of proof that striking members had been apprised of such order. The NLRC further applied the principle of vicarious liability, penalizing only union officers who were regarded as the moving force behind the strike and treating the rank-and-file as followers. The NLRC also relied on the view that, although the strike was illegal, not all participants could be treated as having knowingly defied the return-to-work order, especially where evidence of individual refusal or abandonment was not established.

Supreme Court’s Assessment of Grave Abuse of Discretion

The Court held that the challenged NLRC resolutions had to be sustained. It agreed with the reasoning attributed to the NLRC that the illegality of a strike did not automatically justify reinstatement denial for all participants in the absence of adequate proof that individual workers were knowingly defiant or had committed illegal acts for which forfeiture could properly be imposed.

On BLTBCo’s complaint that the NLRC reinstated workers who failed to comply with the return-to-work order, the Court recognized the NLRC’s findings that the circumstances, including time and place of employment and the employees’ residences, along with lack of individual notice, were reasons justifying the failure of some workers to beat the deadline. The Court also noted the fact that BLTBCo caused publication of the NLRC resolution only once and that it could not reasonably expect ordinary workers to be regular readers of the relevant newspaper. It further held that the mere fact that most strikers returned did not necessarily prove that the rest deliberately defied the return-to-work order.

As to BLTBCo’s assertion of abandonment, the Court rejected it. It reiterated that abandonment requires a deliberate, unjustified refusal to resume employment and must be clearly established by overt acts showing that the employee did not want to work anymore. It held that the mere act of joining a strike did not logically prove abandonment, and it found that BLTBCo’s affidavit evidence was unreliable, being hearsay, and inconsistent with the subsequent acts of the workers in filing complaints about their separation. The Court also treated the filing of those complaints as inconsistent with a conclusion that the workers had abandoned their employment.

With respect to BLTBCo’s argument that the NLRC erred in limiting forfeiture to thirty-six (36) union officers and members, the Court found those issues factual. It held that the NLRC’s findings were conclusive and would not be disturbed absent a showing of grave abuse of discretion. The Court also accepted the Solicitor General’s point that the filing of charges against employees for alleged illegal acts during a strike did not, by itself, justify dismissal. It emphasized that charges must be proved in an investigation where the employee is given the chance to defend himself, even if the alleged ground could constitute a criminal offense, citing the Court’s ruling in Almira v. B.F. Goodrich Phil., Inc..

The Court also rejected BLTBCo’s contention that certain union officers—Serafin Soriano, Jerry Soriano, and Desiderio Comel—should likewise have been dismissed. It noted that these three individuals were not impleaded in the petition, unlike the other individually named union members, and thus were not afforded an opportunity to defend themselves against BLTBCo’s charges. The Court therefore found itself precluded from making pronouncements regarding their alleged role in the strike.

Finally, the Court addressed BLTBCo’s claim that the NLRC issued a blanket reinstatement order. The Court agreed with the view that the NLRC directive was not truly blanket. It explained that the key clause required that the workers reinstated were those who “have not committed illegal acts.” It treated the NLRC’s September 16, 1991 clarification as dispositive of BLTBCo’s characterization, because the NLRC tied forfeiture and reinstatement to substantiated evidence of illegal acts and acknowledged due process was satisfied since the employer had the opportunity to present evidence and workers were admitted first pending such determinations.

Legal Ba

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms