Case Summary (G.R. No. 142824)
Background and Events Leading to the Dispute
Interphil Laboratories Employees Union-FFW served as the exclusive bargaining representative for the rank-and-file employees of Interphil Laboratories, Inc., a manufacturer of pharmaceutical products. They had a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) in effect from August 1, 1990, to July 31, 1993. Before the CBA's expiration, union representatives approached the company's Vice-President for Human Resources, Allesandro G. Salazar, to discuss the status of the upcoming negotiations for a new CBA. After several meetings, the company indicated that it was not yet ready to finalize the CBA terms. This led to unilateral actions by the employees, including a refusal to adhere to their work shifts beginning April 16, 1993.
Actions of the Employees and Company Response
The rank-and-file employees halted their normal two-shift schedule, which included working from 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. They left their workstations without completing their tasks. When Salazar inquired about this, employees deferred to union officials for explanations. Union representatives made clear to Salazar that the employees would not return to their scheduled work unless their demands regarding the CBA were addressed. Consequently, the employees persisted in their boycott of overtime work and initiated a slowdown in their production efforts.
Legal Proceedings Initiated by the Respondent
In response to the ongoing labor actions by the union, Interphil Laboratories filed a petition with the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) on September 3, 1993, seeking a declaration that the employees' overtime boycott constituted an illegal strike. The case was assigned to Labor Arbiter Manuel R. Caday. Subsequently, the respondent company sought preventive mediation and, when negotiations failed, it petitioned the Secretary of Labor for jurisdiction over the case.
Strike and Subsequent Findings by the Labor Arbiter
The union declared a strike on February 12, 1994, citing unfair labor practices. The Secretary of Labor issued an order for both parties to return to the status quo ante. Eventually, Labor Arbiter Caday found that the overtime boycott and work slowdown enforced by the union amounted to an illegal strike, leading to the dismissal of specific union officers involved in leading these actions for breaking the terms of the CBA.
Rulings by the Court of Appeals and Supreme Court
The union sought a review of the Labor Arbiter's decision in the Court of Appeals, which upheld the Arbiter's findings and dismissed the union's petition for certiorari on December 29, 1999. Petitioner claimed that the Court of Appeals and Labor Secretary had committed grave abuse of discretion by disregarding established legal principles regarding labor disputes and failing to appropriately consider evidence.
Jurisdiction of the Secretary of Labor
The Supreme Court concluded that issues pertaining to the illegal strike actions were intertwined with the disputes preceding the Secretary of Labor's intervention. The acceptance by the union to continue proceedings under the Labor Secretary affirmed the latter's jurisdiction to address labor disputes of this nature. The Court highlighted the dual jurisdiction of the Secretary and Labor Arbiters as established by the Labor Code, noting that overlapping jurisdiction serves to expedite resolution of disputes pertinent to national interest.
Evaluation of Evidence and Application of the Parole Evidence Rule
The Supreme Court addressed t
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 142824)
Case Overview
- The case involves a petition for review on certiorari regarding the decisions made by the Court of Appeals related to labor disputes between Interphil Laboratories Employees Union-FFW and Interphil Laboratories, Inc.
- The ruling from the Court of Appeals was based on a series of events that began with the expiration of a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) and the subsequent actions taken by the union and the company.
- The Supreme Court's decision was rendered on December 19, 2001, affirming the appellate court's rulings.
Background Facts
- Interphil Laboratories Employees Union-FFW is the sole bargaining agent for rank-and-file employees at Interphil Laboratories, Inc., which manufactures and packages pharmaceutical products.
- The existing CBA was effective from August 1, 1990, to July 31, 1993.
- In early 1993, union representatives approached company officials regarding the renewal of the CBA, which was set to expire.
- The union's inquiries yielded no definitive response from the company, leading to a breakdown in negotiations.
Events Leading to the Dispute
- On April 16, 1993, after the company indicated it was premature to discuss the CBA's renewal, all rank-and-file employees engaged in an overtime boycott and work slowdown.
- The employees left their posts prematurely and refused to follow the established work schedule, prompting the company to seek clarification from union leaders.
- The company filed a petition with the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) to declare the union's actions as illegal strikes.
Legal Proceedings
- Following the company's petition, various procedural steps were taken, including reque