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.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 101858)

Procedural History

In response to the strike notice, Batangas Laguna Tayabas Bus Company requested the Secretary of Labor to assume jurisdiction over the dispute, which led to certification to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) for compulsory arbitration on August 29, 1988. Despite receiving the certification, the union proceeded with the strike on August 31, 1988, compelling the NLRC to issue a resolution on September 6, 1988, ordering the strikers to lift their picket lines and return to work.

NLRC Resolutions

The NLRC's subsequent resolutions, particularly those dated July 19, 1991, and September 16, 1991, rendered significant rulings on the legality of the strike and the employment status of the union members. The July resolution declared the strike illegal and upheld the dismissal of certain employees while also ordering the reinstatement of union members who did not commit illegal acts during the strike. The September resolution affirmed the previous orders and provided clarity on the reinstatement process.

Allegations of Illegal Actions

Batangas Laguna Tayabas Bus Company contended that the reinstated union members participated in an illegal strike, arguing that their failure to comply with the return-to-work order constituted abandonment of their employment. The company claimed the NLRC erred by failing to include additional employees who supposedly committed violent acts during the strike in the forfeiture of employment status.

NLRC’s Reasoning

The NLRC defended its decisions by asserting that not all union members were adequately notified about the assumption order, and only the union leaders, who are seen as primarily responsible for the illegal strike, should face employment forfeiture. The Commission maintained that while the majority returned to work, the failure of some to meet the return date should not automatically equate to job abandonment.

Judicial Review and Findings

Upon reviewing the NLRC resolutions, the court found no grave abuse of discretion in the decisions. The court emphasized that legitimate labor rights, including the right to strike, must be upheld, and employees exercising these rights should not be unreasonably penalized. The assertion that a strike is illegal du

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.