Case Summary (G.R. No. 158786)
Petitioners and Respondents
• G.R. Nos. 158786 & 158789 (Rule 45 petitions): TMPCWA and 227 dismissed officers/members vs. NLRC Second Division, CA, Toyota, and certain Toyota officers.
• G.R. Nos. 158798 & 158799: Toyota vs. TMPCWA challenging CA’s restoration of separation pay to the 227 dismissed employees.
Key Dates
• June 25, 1999 – DOLE orders certification election; May 12, 2000 – Union certified exclusive bargaining agent; Toyota appeals.
• Jan. 16, 2001 – Union files strike notice; Feb. 21–23, 2001 – over 200 members refuse work and picket BLR/DOLE, causing PhP 53.8 M losses.
• Mar. 16, 2001 – Toyota terminates 227 employees for serious misconduct.
• Mar. 17–Apr. 12, 2001 – Union strikes, barricades plant gates; NLRC issues TRO; Apr. 10, 2001 – DOLE Secretary assumes jurisdiction, orders return to work.
• May 23 & 28, 2001 – Reinstated employees picket Toyota plants in defiance of DOLE order.
• Aug. 9, 2001 – NLRC declares strikes illegal, sustains dismissals, awards separation pay.
• Feb. 27, 2003 – CA affirms NLRC, deletes separation pay.
• June 20, 2003 – CA reinstates separation pay on social justice grounds.
• Oct. 19, 2007 – Supreme Court decision.
Applicable Law
• 1987 Constitution: state policies on social justice and protection of labor.
• Labor Code of the Philippines:
– Art. 212(o): definition of strike.
– Art. 263: procedural requisites for lawful strike; assumption of jurisdiction/certification Order.
– Art. 264(a), (e), (g): prohibited activities; officer/member liability; return-to-work directives.
– Art. 282: just causes for dismissal.
• Toyota Code of Conduct Sec. D.6: “Inciting or participating in riots, disorders, alleged strikes, or concerted actions detrimental to [Toyota’s] interest” is ground for dismissal.
Factual Background
Following Toyota’s refusal to negotiate pending appeal of certification, the Union staged mass actions:
• Feb. 21–23, 2001: mass refusal of overtime/work and picketing at BLR/DOLE.
• Mar. 17–Apr. 12, 2001: strike and barricade of Bicutan and Sta. Rosa plants, obstructing ingress/egress.
• May 23 & 28, 2001: payroll-reinstated members picket Toyota plants against DOLE’s return-to-work order.
Toyota issued show-cause notices, conducted investigations, and terminated 227 employees for abandonment of work, serious misconduct, and violation of company rules.
Procedural History
• NLRC (Aug. 9, 2001): all three sets of mass actions declared illegal for non-compliance with Art. 263 and for use of coercion/obstruction (Art. 264(e)); dismissals upheld; separation pay awarded to 227 employees.
• NLRC (Sept. 14, 2001): denied motions for reconsideration.
• CA (Feb. 27, 2003): affirmed NLRC but deleted separation pay due to serious misconduct.
• CA (June 20, 2003): reinstated separation pay on social justice grounds.
• SC (Rule 45 review, Oct. 19, 2007): consolidated evaluation.
Issues Presented
- Were the Union’s mass actions (Feb. 21–23; Mar. 17–Apr. 12; May 23 & 28, 2001) illegal strikes?
- Were the dismissals of the 227 Union officers/members lawful?
- Are Union officers and members liable under Art. 264(a) for participating in or committing illegal acts during strikes?
- Was due process violated by exclusion of Union’s position paper?
- Should separation pay be awarded to employees dismissed for serious misconduct?
Legality of Mass Actions
• Definition: a strike is any temporary concerted work stoppage arising from a labor dispute (Art. 212(o)).
• Requirements (Art. 263): written notice, strike vote, reporting to DOLE. February 2001 actions lacked these prerequisites and thus were illegal.
• March–April 2001 pickets employed coercion, intimidation, and obstruction of plant ingress/egress, violating Art. 264(e).
• May 2001 pickets breached DOLE Secretary’s assumption/certification Order (Art. 263(g)), which prohibited actions worsening the labor situation.
→ All mass actions were properly declared illegal.
Due Process and Position Paper
Union failed to timely submit its position paper despite multiple NLRC orders. Its belated submission did not justify consideration. No deprivation of due process occurred; the Union waived its right by non-compliance.
Liability of Union Officers
Under Art. 264(a), any union officer who knowingly participates in an illegal strike or illegal acts during a strike may be declared to have lost employment status. The evidence shows officers instigated and led all illegal mass actions. Their dismissal for cause is affirmed.
Liability of Union Members
• Mere participation in an illegal strike does not warrant dismissal.
• However, employees who knowingly committed illegal acts—co
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 158786)
Parties
- Petitioners in G.R. Nos. 158786 & 158789:
• Toyota Motor Philippines Corp. Workers Association (TMPCWA) and 227 dismissed officers/members - Respondents in those cases:
• National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC-2nd Division) and its Commissioners
• Toyota Motor Philippines Corporation (Toyota), Takeshi Fukuda, David Go - Petitioners in G.R. Nos. 158798 & 158799:
• Toyota Motor Philippines Corporation - Respondent in those cases:
• Toyota Motor Philippines Corp. Workers Association (TMPCWA)
Background of Dispute
- TMPCWA is the duly registered, sole bargaining agent of Toyota rank-and-file employees.
- Toyota is a BOI-registered auto assembler and exporter employing ~1,400 workers.
- Assets reported at ₱5.525 billion; net sales ₱14.646 billion; income tax provisions ₱120.9 million.
- Union filed a certification‐election petition (NCR-OD-M-9902-001) on February 14, 1999.
- DOLE Secretary ordered a certification election (June 25, 1999); Med-Arbiter certified TMPCWA as exclusive agent (May 12, 2000).
- Toyota appealed the certification; refused to bargain in the interim.
Strike Notices and Mass Actions
- January 16, 2001: Union filed a notice of strike (NCMB-NCR-NS-01-011-01) over refusal to negotiate.
- February 5, 2001: NCMB converted notice into preventive mediation; BLR hearing set for February 22.
- February 21–23, 2001: 135–200+ union members staged pickets at BLR/DOLE offices; absented themselves from work; Toyota suffered ₱53.85 million in losses.
- March 1, 2001: Union submitted explanations invoking constitutional rights to assemble/picket.
- March 17–April 12, 2001: Union strike and intensified pickets/barricades at Bicutan and Sta. Rosa plants; obstructed ingress/egress; acts of intimidation recorded.
- May 23 & 28, 2001: Payroll‐reinstated employees picketed Toyota plants in defiance of DOLE Secretary’s return-to-work order.
Employer’s Disciplinary Measures
- February 27, 2001: Toyota issued notices to ~360 employees to explain defiance of orders, absences, and picketing under Company Code of Conduct (Section D, ¶ 6).
- March 16, 2001: Toyota dismissed 227 employees for serious misconduct (Article 282, Labor Code) and violation of Code of Conduct.
- Toyota offered severance pay as alternative relief under NLRC award; later contested.
NLRC Proceedings and Decisions
- April 5, 2001: NLRC issued TRO ordering removal of barricades; rejected union’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
- April 10, 2001: DOLE Secretary assumed jurisdiction under Art. 263(g), certified dispute to NLRC; ordered return-to-work by April 16, 2001; allowed payroll reinstatement.