G.R. No. 160303 - G and S Transport Corporation vs. Infante

Case Summary (G.R. No. 160303)

Factual Background

G & S Transport Corporation was the exclusive coupon taxi concessionaire at the Ninoy Aquino International Airport (NAIA) under a five-year concession from 1 February 1989 to 31 January 1994. The three respondents were employed as taxi drivers by petitioner beginning 1 February 1989 and were assigned to shifts at the Domestic Airport in May 1990. On 9 May 1990 petitioner terminated two drivers, Ricardo Gonzales and Ephraim Alzaga, after receiving a union memorandum accusing them of disloyalty and acts inimical to the union. Several drivers soon staged a stoppage of work on 16 May 1990 in apparent sympathy with the dismissed employees. Petitioner treated the stoppage as an illegal strike, sought the drivers’ return to work, and on 22 May 1990 filed a complaint for illegal strike against thirty-seven drivers. Two days later those drivers filed complaints for illegal dismissal against petitioner.

Respondents’ Account of Events

Respondents Infante and Borbo averred in a joint affidavit that they reported for duty on 16 May 1990 but found no taxi or dispatcher; they learned of the protest, remained at the premises until their shift ended at 1:00 a.m., and did not work the following day because it was their day off. When they reported on 18 May 1990 they were refused entry because their names did not appear on a list of drivers allowed to work. Castaneda stated that he was on sick leave from 11 to 15 May 1990, reported to work on 16 May 1990 but was prevented from performing duties because of the protest, and was denied entry on 17 May 1990.

Labor Arbiter and NLRC Proceedings

The Acting Executive Labor Arbiter found that a stoppage of work occurred on 16 May 1990 at petitioner’s garage and characterized the concerted action as an illegal strike because no notice or strike vote had been filed and because of a no-strike clause in the collective bargaining agreement. The Labor Arbiter, however, distinguished among the drivers: three complainants who had not participated in the strike were declared illegally dismissed and awarded backwages and separation pay in lieu of reinstatement because petitioner had ceased operations; four other complainants, including the three respondents here, were found to have participated in the illegal strike but were not dismissed; they were ordered paid separation pay in lieu of reinstatement but without backwages. The NLRC affirmed the Labor Arbiter’s decision in its entirety.

Court of Appeals Ruling

In CA-G.R. SP No. 71472 the Court of Appeals reversed the NLRC and Labor Arbiter. The appellate court criticized the Labor Arbiter for failing to rule categorically on the validity of respondents’ dismissal and concluded that the dismissals were illegal. The Court of Appeals relied on a Securities and Exchange Commission certification that G & S Transport Corporation remained operational as of 6 August 1999 and held that the NLRC and Labor Arbiter had gravely abused their discretion by awarding separation pay instead of reinstatement. The Court of Appeals remanded the case to the Labor Arbiter to compute backwages and other monetary benefits.

Parties’ Contentions Before the Supreme Court

Petitioner argued that the Court of Appeals improperly re-weighed facts and substituted its own factual findings for those of the Labor Arbiter, insisting that the Labor Arbiter’s findings were supported by evidence and judicial precedent. Respondents invoked the Court’s authority in cases like St. Martin Funeral Homes v. NLRC to contend that the Court of Appeals may reassess factual findings where the NLRC manifestly overlooked relevant facts or misapplied the law; they maintained that they either did not participate in the stoppage or, if they did, they did not commit illegal acts that would warrant dismissal.

Legal Issues Presented

The core issues were whether respondents participated in an illegal strike and, if so, whether the proper remedy was reinstatement with backwages or separation pay in lieu of reinstatement and without backwages. Secondary issues included whether the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion and whether the Court of Appeals exceeded its authority by reassessing factual findings.

Supreme Court Ruling

The Supreme Court granted the petition and reversed and set aside the Court of Appeals’ decision and resolution. The Court reinstated the decision of the NLRC, which had affirmed the Labor Arbiter’s findings and awards: respondents were found to have participated in an illegal strike but had not been shown to have committed specific illegal acts during the strike; consequently, dismissal was not warranted and separation pay in lieu of reinstatement, without backwages, was the appropriate remedy.

Legal Basis and Reasoning

The Court reiterated that certiorari is limited to questions of jurisdiction and grave abuse of discretion and generally does not permit reexamination of factual findings except in recognized exceptions when factual findings are contradictory between tribunals or when there is manifest oversight. The Court accepted that a sit-down or sympathetic strike occurred and that respondents participated. It relied on Art. 212 for the definition of strike and on Art. 264 for the rule that mere participation by rank-and-file union members in an illegal strike is not, by itself, a ground for dismissal; termination requires proof that the striker committed illegal acts during the strike and identification of the striker who committed them. The Court found that petitioner did not produce substantial evidence identifying illegal acts attributable to each respondent. The affidavits of petitioner’s witnesses failed to specify particular illegal acts by each respondent, and the Labor Arbiter himself di

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 160303)

Parties and Procedural Posture

G & S Transport Corporation filed a petition for review seeking reversal of the Court of Appeals decision in CA-G.R. SP No. 71472 dated 27 June 2003 and its resolution dated 8 October 2003.
Tito S. Infante, Melor Borbo, and Danilo Castaneda were the respondents who sued for illegal dismissal and sought reinstatement and backwages.
The Labor Arbiter rendered a decision on 31 May 1999 ordering separation pay in lieu of reinstatement without backwages for the respondents who were found to have participated in an illegal strike.
The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) affirmed the Labor Arbiter’s decision in full on 15 October 2001.
The Court of Appeals reversed the NLRC and Labor Arbiter on 27 June 2003 and remanded for computation of backwages and other monetary benefits.
The Supreme Court granted the petition and set aside the Court of Appeals decision, reinstating the NLRC judgment.

Key Facts

G & S Transport Corporation was the exclusive coupon taxi concessionaire at Ninoy Aquino International Airport under a five-year concession from 1 February 1989 to 31 January 1994.
Respondents were taxi drivers employed since 1 February 1989 and were assigned shifts at the Domestic Airport in May 1990.
Two drivers were dismissed on 9 May 1990 following a union demand, which precipitated a work stoppage by several drivers at the company garage on 16 May 1990.
Petitioner filed an illegal strike complaint on 22 May 1990 and the drivers filed a corresponding illegal dismissal complaint two days later.
Several drivers executed affidavits of desistance before the Labor Arbiter and only seven complainants remained when the case reached hearing.

Proceedings Below

The Labor Arbiter found a stoppage of work on 16 May 1990 and characterized it as an illegal strike for lack of strike notice, strike vote, and by reason of a no-strike-no-lockout clause in the CBA.
The Labor Arbiter found that four respondents had participated in the illegal strike but had not been shown to have committed specific illegal acts and ordered separation pay in lieu of reinstatement without backwages because petitioner had ceased operations.
The NLRC affirmed the Labor Arbiter’s decision in toto.
The Court of Appeals reversed the NLRC and Labor Arbiter, declared the respondents’ dismissal illegal, and remanded for computation of backwages based on an SEC certification that petitioner remained operational.

Issues Presented

Whether respondents participated in an illegal strike on 16 May 1990.
Whether the award of separation pay in lieu of reinstatement without backwages was proper given the Labor Arbiter’s and NLRC’s findings and the Court of Appeals’ contrary ruling.
Whether the Court of Appeals gravely abused its discretion by re-evaluating factual findings of the Labor Arbiter and NLRC.

Parties' Contentions

Petitioner contended that respondents knowingly and deliberately joined and actively participated in an illegal strike and committed illegal acts during the stoppage warranting dismissal.
Respondents contended that they did not join the strike and that, even assuming participation, they did not commit any illegal acts during the strike and thus could not be validly dismissed.
Respondents relied on the authority of St. Martin Funeral Homes v. NLRC to argue that the Court of Appeals may re-evaluate NLRC factual findings when the latter manifested a misapprehension of facts.

Relevant Law and Standards

Article 212 of the Labor Code defines strike as any temporary stoppage of work by concerted action of employees as a result of an industrial or labor dispute and requires a labor dispute to validate a strike.
Article 264 of the Labor Code distinguishes between union officers and rank-and-file members and provides that mere participation by ordinary members in an illegal strike does not automatically justify dismissal unless they committed illegal acts during the strike.
Sec. 4, Rule I, Rules Implementing Book VI of the Labor Code prescribes reinstatement as the standard relief for employees separated without just cause, with placement in substantially equiva