Case Summary (G.R. No. 100342-44)
Factual Background
With the appointment of Benefredo Quinto as internal auditor, Ismael P. Tamayo, Sr., who had been employed by RBAI since its inception in September 1956, felt aggrieved and filed a complaint on June 3, 1988 for illegal dismissal which was compromised on July 13, 1988 to reinstate him. The bank terminated Tamayo effective January 1, 1989, prompting his complaint for illegal dismissal filed March 27, 1989, docketed as NLRC Case No. SUB-RAB-01-03-7-0049-89. The RBAEU was certified as sole bargaining agent on December 12, 1989, and, after negotiations failed, filed a notice of strike on March 3, 1989 and commenced the strike on April 3, 1989. RBAI filed a petition to declare the strike illegal and for damages, docketed as NLRC Case No. SUB-RAB-01-04-7-0059-89, and the RBAEU filed a countercomplaint for unfair labor practice and damages, docketed as NLRC Case No. SUB-RAB-01-06-7-0097-89.
Consolidation and Labor Arbiter Decision
Labor Arbiter Ricardo N. Olairez consolidated the three cases and rendered a consolidated decision on December 14, 1989. He found Tamayo illegally dismissed and awarded backwages, retirement pay, and attorneys’ fees. He declared the strike staged by the RBAEU legal and dismissed RBAI’s petition. He found RBAI guilty of unfair labor practice amounting to constructive dismissal and ordered reinstatement or backwages for the union members, and awarded moral and exemplary damages and attorneys’ fees.
NLRC Resolution and Remand
Dissatisfied, RBAI appealed to the NLRC, which on January 31, 1991 set aside the Labor Arbiter’s consolidated decision and remanded all three cases to the Regional Arbitration Branch of origin for further proceedings. The Commission explained that in Case No. 0049-89 the bank should have been afforded an opportunity to cross-examine Tamayo as to allegations in his unverified position paper; in Case No. 0097-89 evidence of an illegal lock-out was lacking and the exact number of constructively dismissed employees was uncertain, thus requiring reception of further evidence.
Petition for Certiorari and Issues Raised
Petitioners filed a Rule 65 petition alleging grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in the NLRC’s remand. They challenged the remand of NLRC Case No. 0059-89 despite the NLRC’s own finding that the strike was legal; the remand of NLRC Case No. 0097-89 despite the absence of an appeal on the unfair labor practice finding and the asserted availability of the employee list in the record; the remand of NLRC Case No. 0049-89 for lack of cross-examination despite Article 221 of the Labor Code and the 90-day rule under Executive Order No. 109; and the denial of their motion for reconsideration on timeliness and service grounds.
Jurisdictional and Procedural Considerations
The Court noted its prior pronouncement in St. Martin Funeral Homes v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 130866, that certiorari petitions relating to NLRC decisions must generally be filed with the Court of Appeals, but explained that where memoranda had been filed in this Court before that decision the Court would proceed to take the case for final disposition. The petition proceeded before the Supreme Court accordingly.
Court’s Analysis: NLRC Case No. 0059-89 (Legality of Strike)
The Court found merit in petitioners’ attack on the remand of Case No. 0059-89. The NLRC had expressly found the strike legal after affirming the Labor Arbiter’s determination that the union observed the mandatory cooling-off period, a fact finding supported by the record. The Court reiterated that factual findings of a labor arbiter that are supported by evidence are to be accorded due respect, citing CDCP Tollways Operation Employees and Workers Union v. NLRC. Because the legality of the strike was determinative of the bank’s allegations of unfair labor practice and damages, the Commission’s remand of that case for further proceedings constituted grave abuse of discretion.
Court’s Analysis: NLRC Case No. 0097-89 (Unfair Labor Practice/Lock-out)
The Court upheld the NLRC’s remand of Case No. 0097-89. The Labor Arbiter’s finding of an illegal lock-out required evidentiary support which the record did not show. The Union failed to adduce proof that the bank refused employment during the pendency of the strike. The Court further observed that the filing of a petition to cancel union registration is not per se an unfair labor practice; intent to oppress must be shown. The NLRC therefore properly remanded the case for reception of evidence. The Court also rejected petitioners’ contention that the NLRC was at a loss as to the number of constructively dismissed employees, holding that the unions’ employee list attached to its pleading in Case No. 0059-89 could be considered in Case No. 0097-89 because the cases were consolidated and labor proceedings are non-litigious where technical rules need not be strictly applied.
Court’s Analysis: NLRC Case No. 0049-89 (Tamayo’s Cross-Examination)
The Court held that the Labor Arbiter did not commit grave abuse of discretion in declining to hold a formal hearing to permit cross-examination of Tamayo and in deciding the case on the basis of position papers. The determination to conduct a trial rests in the arbiter’s discretion, and the absence of a formal hearing is not, by itself, a ground of grave abuse. The Court further ruled that the lack of verification of Tamayo’s position paper was a formal defect only, not jurisdictional, and could be cured by an oath, citing precedent such as Pampanga Sugar Development Co., Inc. v. NLRC and Murillo v. Sun Valley Realty, Inc. Consequently, the remand of Case No. 0049-89 was unjustified.
Motion for Reconsideration and Service
The Court rejected petitioners’ claim that their motion for reconsideration was improperly denied as late because they were not furnished copies of the NLRC resolution. It
...continue reading
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 100342-44)
Parties and Posture
- RURAL BANK OF ALAMINOS EMPLOYEES UNION (RBAEU) and Ismael Tamayo, Sr. were the petitioners before the Supreme Court.
- National Labor Relations Commission, Third Division, Exec. Labor Arbiter Jose B. Bolisay, and Rural Bank of Alaminos, Inc. (RBAI) were the respondents in the certiorari petition.
- The petition was filed under Rule 65, Rules of Court seeking to annul the NLRC Resolutions of January 31, 1991 and March 26, 1991 for grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
- The matter arose from three consolidated cases originally before Sub-Regional Arbitration Branch No. 1 in Dagupan City designated NLRC Case Nos. 01-03-7-0049-89, 01-04-7-0059-89, and 01-06-7-0097-89.
Key Factual Allegations
- Ismael P. Tamayo, Sr. filed a complaint for illegal dismissal on June 3, 1988 after an appointment of Benefredo Quinto to internal auditor and after a July 13, 1988 compromise agreement to reinstate Tamayo.
- RBAI terminated Tamayo effective January 1, 1989 on the ground that his services were not needed, prompting a new illegal dismissal complaint filed March 27, 1989.
- The Union was certified sole bargaining agent on December 12, 1989 and submitted wage proposals in February 1989 that led to a strike commencing April 3, 1989 after a March 3, 1989 notice.
- RBAI filed a petition to declare the strike illegal under Art. 248(e), Labor Code and sought damages alleged at P30,000.00 per day.
- The Union filed a counterclaim alleging unfair labor practice and constructive dismissal during the strike and prayed for moral and exemplary damages.
Labor Arbiter Decision
- Labor Arbiter Ricardo N. Olairez consolidated the three cases and rendered a decision dated December 14, 1989.
- The Labor Arbiter found Tamayo to be a regular employee illegally dismissed and awarded P63,442.56 for full backwages/benefits, P29,822.80 as retirement pay, P9,326.53 as attorneys' fees, and one percent interest monthly, for a total of P102,591.89 as of December 31, 1989.
- The Labor Arbiter declared the Union's strike legal and dismissed RBAI’s petition for illegality for lack of merit.
- The Labor Arbiter held RBAI guilty of unfair labor practice tantamount to an illegal lock-out and ordered reinstatement or backwages for a nine-month period (April–December 1989), payment of P10,000.00 moral damages and P5,000.00 exemplary damages to each union member, attorneys' fees, and immediate reopening of the bank.
NLRC Action
- The National Labor Relations Commission promulgated a Resolution on January 31, 1991 setting aside the Labor Arbiter’s consolidated decision and remanding all three cases to the Regional Arbitration Branch of origin for further proceedings.
- The NLRC specifically held that the Labor Arbiter erred by denying RBAI an opportunity to cross-examine Tamayo on his unverified position paper and that evidence was lacking to substantiate the claim of illegal lock-out and the exact number of constructively dismissed employees.
- The NLRC denied petitioners’