Title
Malayang Manggagawa ng Stayfast Phils., Inc. vs. National Labor Relations Commission
Case
G.R. No. 155306
Decision Date
Aug 28, 2013
A labor dispute arose between unions MMSP and NLMS-Olalia over certification as Stayfast's bargaining agent. MMSP staged an illegal sit-down strike, leading to member terminations. Courts upheld Stayfast's actions, citing due process and lack of evidence for unfair labor practices. MMSP's petition was dismissed for procedural errors and failure to prove grave abuse of discretion.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 155306)

Background Facts

This case stems from a certification election held on December 29, 1995, where two unions, the Petitioner and Nagkakaisang Lakas ng Manggagawa sa Stayfast (NLMS-Olalia), contested for the title of exclusive bargaining agent for the employees of Stayfast Philippines, Inc. NLMS-Olalia won the election, leading to significant disputes regarding labor practices and the legality of subsequent strikes initiated by the Petitioner.

Sequence of Events

Following the election results, the Med-Arbiter certified NLMS-Olalia as the exclusive bargaining agent, which was then upheld after an appeal by the Petitioner to the Secretary of Labor. The certification led to NLMS-Olalia's demand for collective bargaining, which was rejected by Stayfast Philippines. This rejection prompted NLMS-Olalia to strike, leading to the Petitioner subsequently filing its own notice of strike.

Labor Dispute and Strikes

Although the Petitioner withdrew its notice of strike after a conciliation process, they staged a 'sit-down strike' on July 21, 1997, alleging discrimination by the company against its members. The company retaliated by issuing termination notices to participants of the strike, which prompted the Petitioner to file a complaint for various labor violations, including union busting and illegal lockout.

Decisions by Labor Arbiter and NLRC

The Labor Arbiter ruled against the Petitioner, declaring the strike illegal and citing failure to prove claims of discrimination or unfair labor practices. This decision was upheld by the NLRC, underscoring the legality of termination proceedings against the Petitioner’s members who participated in the unauthorized strike.

Appeal to the Court of Appeals

The Petitioner subsequently filed a petition for certiorari in the Court of Appeals, claiming that the NLRC displayed gross and grave abuse of discretion. The Court dismissed the petition, affirming the NLRC's findings based on substantial evidence, and noted that the NLRC's conclusion did not exhibit grave abuse of discretion.

Petition for Certiorari to the Supreme Court

Dissatisfied with the Court of Appeals' ruling, the Petitioner pursued further recourse by filing a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court, arguing that the lower courts violated labor protections and decided the termination of employees incorrectly.

Procedural Issues

The Supreme Court identified critical procedural flaws in the Petitioner’s filings, particularly emphasizing that a petition for certiorari is inappropriate when an appeal is a viable option, as highlighted by the established legal precedent. The Supreme Court pointed out that the Petitioner failed to file an appeal under the proper Rule 45 within the designated timeframe and did not seek a motion for reconsidera

...continue reading

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