Labor Relations (Strike)

8/15/2019 Labor Relations (Strike)

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/labor-relations-strike 1/471

LABOR RELATIONS

STRIKE

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT

Manila

THIRD DIVISION

G.R. No. 193789 September 19, !1

ALE" #. NARAN$O, %ONNAL&N %E GU'MAN, RONAL% (.

CRU', ROSEMARIE P. PIMENTEL, )*+ ROENA B.

BAR%A$E, Petitioners,

vs.

BIOME%ICA -EALT- CARE, INC. )*+ CARINA KAREN $.

MOTOL, Respondents.

D ! I S I O N

(ELASCO, $R., J.:

The !ase

This Petition for Revie" on !ertiorari under Rule #$ see%s to annul the &une

'$, '()()

Decision and Septe*ber '(, '()(' Resolution of the !ourt of +ppeals !+-

in !+/.R. SP No. )(0'($, findin1 that petitioners "ere validl2 dis*issed.

The !+ Decision overturned the Decision dated Nove*ber '), '((03 of the

National 4abor Relations !o**ission N4R!- and reinstated the Decision

dated March 3), '((0# of 4abor +rbiter 4i1erio V. +ncheta.

5HR6OR, in vie" of the fore1oin1, 7ud1*ent is hereb2 rendered

*odif2in1 the assailed Decision of the 4abor +rbiter dated March 3), '((08

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/sep2012/gr_193789_2012.html#fnt1










a- D!4+RIN/ the !o*plainants to have been ille1all2 dis*issed

for lac% of 7ust cause8

b- ORDRIN/ Respondents 7ointl2 and solidaril2 to pa2

!o*plainants separation pa2 in lieu of reinstate*ent co*puted on the basis of one )- *onth pa2 for ever2 2ear of service fro* date of

e*plo2*ent up to Nove*ber '9, '((: the date of co*plainants

ille1al dis*issal-8

c- ORDRIN/ Respondents 7ointl2 and solidaril2 to pa2

!o*plainants bac%"a1es fro* Nove*ber '9, '((: up to the finalit2

of this Decision8

d- ORDRIN/ the Respondents 7ointl2 and solidaril2 to pa2!o*plainants the follo"in1;

). <npaid salar2 for the period (0)$ Nove*ber '((:8

'. Prorated )3th *onth pa2 for '((:8

3. Service Incentive 4eave for '((: e=cept for co*plainant

>arda7e -8

#. <npaid co**issions based on their sales for the 2ears '(($

and '((:8 and

$. No*inal da*a1es in the a*ount of PhP 3(,((( each.

e- ORDRIN/ the Respondents 7ointl2 and solidaril2 to pa2

!o*plainants attorne2?s fees in the a*ount of I (@ of the total a"ard

of *onetar2 clai*s.

+ll other clai*s and counterclai*s are dis*issed for lac% of factual and

le1al basis.

The N4R! is ordered to reco*pute the *onetar2 a"ards due to petitioners

based on the aforelisted dispositions deductin1 fro* the a"ards to Naran7o



and Pi*entel their cash advances of PhP #,A$(.(( and PhP #,$((.((,

respectivel2.

SO ORDRD.

No costs.

SO ORDRD.

6IRST DIVISION

/G.R. No. 1080. %eember 19, !!12

INTERP-IL LABORATORIES EMPLO&EES UNION44, ENRICO

GON'ALES )*+ MA. T-ERESA

MONTE$O, petitioners, vs. INTERP-IL LABORATORIES,

INC., AN% -ONORABLE LEONAR%O A. #UISUMBING,

SECRETAR& O4 LABOR AN% EMPLO&MENT, respondents.

% E C I S I O N

KAPUNAN, J .5

+ssailed in this petition for revie" on certiorari are the decision,

pro*ul1ated on '9 Dece*ber )999, and the resolution, pro*ul1ated on ($

+pril '(((, of the !ourt of +ppeals in !+/.R. SP No. $(9A0.

!ulled fro* the Buestioned decision, the facts of the case are as follo"s;

Interphil 4aboratories *plo2ees <nion665 is the sole and e=clusive

bar1ainin1 a1ent of the ran%andfile e*plo2ees of Interphil 4aboratories,

Inc., a co*pan2 en1a1ed in the business of *anufacturin1 and pac%a1in1 phar*aceutical products. The2 had a !ollective >ar1ainin1 +1ree*ent

!>+- effective fro* () +u1ust )99( to 3) &ul2 )993.

Prior to the e=piration of the !>+ or so*eti*e in 6ebruar2 )993,

+llesandro /. SalaCar,)E VicePresidentHu*an Resources Depart*ent of

respondent co*pan2, "as approached b2 Nestor Oca*po, the union

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/dec2001/142824.htm#_edn1




president, and Hernando !le*ente, a union director. The t"o union officers

inBuired about the stand of the co*pan2 re1ardin1 the duration of the !>+

"hich "as set to e=pire in a fe" *onths. SalaCar told the union officers that

the *atter could be best discussed durin1 the for*al ne1otiations "hich

"ould start soon.

In March )993, Oca*po and !le*ente a1ain approached SalaCar. The2

inBuired once *ore about the !>+ status and received the sa*e repl2 fro*

SalaCar. In +pril )993, Oca*po reBuested for a *eetin1 to discuss the

duration and effectivit2 of the !>+. SalaCar acceded and a *eetin1 "as held

on )$ +pril )993 "here the union officers as%ed "hether SalaCar "ould be

a*enable to *a%e the ne" !>+ effective for t"o '- 2ears, startin1 ()

+u1ust )993. SalaCar, ho"ever, declared that it "ould still be pre*ature to

discuss the *atter and that the co*pan2 could not *a%e a decision at the

*o*ent. The ver2 ne=t da2, or on ): +pril )993, all the ran%andfile

e*plo2ees of the co*pan2 refused to follo" their re1ular t"oshift "or%

schedule of fro* :;(( a.*. to :;(( p.*., and fro* :;(( p.*. to :;(( a.*. +t

';(( p.*. and ';(( a.*., respectivel2, the e*plo2ees stopped "or%in1 and

left their "or%place 6tot :e);*< te o*t)*er: )*+ :er*< te r)6

m)ter);: te= 6ere 6or>*< o*. 5hen SalaCar inBuired about the reason

for their refusal to follo" their nor*al "or% schedule, the e*plo2ees told

hi* to Fas% the union officers.F To *ini*iCe the da*a1e the overti*e

bo2cott "as causin1 the co*pan2, SalaCar i**ediatel2 as%ed for a *eetin1

"ith the union officers. In the *eetin1, nrico /onCales, a union director,

told SalaCar that the e*plo2ees "ould onl2 return to their nor*al "or%

schedule if the co*pan2 "ould a1ree to their de*ands as to the effectivit2

and duration of the ne" !>+. SalaCar a1ain told the union officers that the

*atter could be better discussed durin1 the for*al rene1otiations of the

!>+. Since the union "as apparentl2 unsatisfied "ith the ans"er of the

co*pan2, the overti*e bo2cott continued. In addition, the e*plo2ees startedto en1a1e in a "or% slo"do"n ca*pai1n durin1 the ti*e the2 "ere "or%in1,

thus substantiall2 dela2in1 the production of the co*pan2.'E

On )# Ma2 )993, petitioner union sub*itted "ith respondent co*pan2

its !>+ proposal, and the latter filed its counterproposal.






On (3 Septe*ber )993, respondent co*pan2 filed "ith the National

4abor Relations !o**ission N4R!- a petition to declare ille1al petitioner

unions overti*e bo2cott and "or% slo"do"n "hich, accordin1 to

respondent co*pan2, a*ounted to ille1al stri%e. The case, doc%eted N4R!

N!R !ase No. (((9($$'993, "as assi1ned to 4abor +rbiter Manuel R.!ada2.

On '' October )993, respondent co*pan2 filed "ith the National

!onciliation and Mediation >oard N!M>- an ur1ent reBuest for preventive

*ediation ai*ed to help the parties in their !>+ ne1otiations. 3E The parties,

ho"ever, failed to arrive at an a1ree*ent and on )$ Nove*ber )993,

respondent co*pan2 filed "ith Office of the Secretar2 of 4abor and

*plo2*ent a petition for assu*ption of 7urisdiction.

On '# &anuar2 )99#, petitioner union filed "ith the N!M> a Notice of

Stri%e citin1 unfair labor practice alle1edl2 co**itted b2 respondent

co*pan2. On )' 6ebruar2 )99#, the union sta1ed a stri%e.

On )# 6ebruar2 )99#, Secretar2 of 4abor Nieves !onfesor issued an

assu*ption order #E over the labor dispute. On (' March )99#, Secretar2

!onfesor issued an order directin1 respondent co*pan2 to i**ediatel2

accept all stri%in1 "or%ers, includin1 the fift2three $3- ter*inated unionofficers, shop ste"ards and union *e*bers bac% to "or% under the sa*e

ter*s and conditions prevailin1 prior to the stri%e, and to pa2 all the unpaid

accrued 2ear end benefits of its e*plo2ees in )993.$E On the other hand,

petitioner union "as directed to strictl2

and i**ediatel2 co*pl2 "ith the return to "or% orders issued b2 the-

Office = = =.:E The sa*e order pronounced that a-ll pendin1 cases "hich are

direct offshoots of the instant labor dispute are hereb2 subsu*ed here"ith.AE

In the interim, the case before 4abor +rbiter !ada2 continued. On ):

March )99#, petitioner union filed an <r1ent Manifestation and Motion to

!onsolidate the Instant !ase and to Suspend Proceedin1s see%in1 the

consolidation of the case "ith the labor dispute pendin1 before the Secretar2

of 4abor. Despite ob7ection b2 respondent co*pan2, 4abor +rbiter !ada2

held in abe2ance the proceedin1s before hi*. Ho"ever, on (: &une )99#,













+ctin1 4abor Secretar2 &ose S. >rillantes, after findin1 that the issues raised

"ould reBuire a for*al hearin1 and the presentation of evidentiar2 *atters,

directed the 4abor +rbiters !ada2 and M. Sol del Rosario to proceed "ith

the hearin1 of the cases before the* and to thereafter sub*it their report and

reco**endation to his office.

On ($ Septe*ber )99$, 4abor +rbiter !ada2 sub*itted his

reco**endation to the then Secretar2 of 4abor 4eonardo +. Guisu*bin1.0E Then Secretar2 Guisu*bin1 approved and adopted the report in his Order,

dated )3 +u1ust )99A, hence;

5HR6OR, findin1 the said Report of 4abor +rbiter Manuel R. !ada2

to be supported b2 substantial evidence, this Office hereb2 RSO4VS to

+PPROV and +DOPT the sa*e as the decision in this case, and 7ud1*ent

is hereb2 rendered;

)- Declarin1 the overti*e bo2cott and "or% slo"do"n as ille1al stri%e8

'- Declarin1 the respondent union officers na*el2;

Nestor Oca*po President

!ar*elo Santos VicePresident

Marites Monte7o Treasurer>oard Me*ber

Rico /onCales +uditor

Rod +buan Director

Se1undino 6lores Director

Hernando !le*ente Director

"ho spearheaded and led the overti*e bo2cott and "or% slo"do"n, to

have lost their e*plo2*ent status8 and





3- 6indin1 the respondents 1uilt2 of unfair labor practice for

violatin1 the then e=istin1 !>+ "hich prohibits the union or

an2 e*plo2ee durin1 the e=istence of the !>+ fro* sta1in1 a

stri%e or en1a1in1 in slo"do"n or interruption of "or% and

orderin1 the* to cease and desist fro* further co**ittin1 theaforesaid ille1al acts.

Petitioner union *oved for the reconsideration of the order but its

*otion "as denied. The union "ent to the !ourt of +ppeals via a petition

for certiorari. In the no" Buestioned decision pro*ul1ated on '9 Dece*ber

)999, the appellate court dis*issed the petition. The unions *otion for

reconsideration "as li%e"ise denied.

Hence, the present recourse "here petitioner alle1ed;

TH HONOR+>4 6I6TH DIVISION O6 TH !O<RT O6 +PP+4S,

4I TH HONOR+>4 P<>4I! RSPONDNT IN TH

PRO!DIN/S >4O5, !OMMITTD /R+V +><S O6

DIS!RTION, +MO<NTIN/ TO 4+! +NDOR J!SS O6

&<RISDI!TION 5HN IT !OMP4T4K DISR/+RDD P+RO4

VIDN! R<4 IN TH V+4<+TION +ND +PPR!I+TION O6

VIDN! PRO6RRD >K TH P+RTIS.

TH HONOR+>4 6I6TH DIVISION O6 TH !O<RT O6 +PP+4S

!OMMITTD /R+V +><S O6 DIS!RTION, +MO<NTIN/ TO

4+! +NDOR J!SS O6 &<RISDI!TION, 5HN IT DID NOT

D!4+R PRIV+T RSPONDNTS +!T O6 JTNDIN/

S<>ST+NTI+4 SP+R+TION P+!+/ TO +4MOST +44

INVO4VD O66I!RS O6 PTITIONR <NION, D<RIN/ TH

PNDN!K O6 TH !+S, +S T+NT+MO<NT TO !ONDON+TION,

I6 INDD, THR 5+S +NK MISDD !OMMITTD.

TH HONOR+>4 6I6TH DIVISION O6 TH !O<RT O6 +PP+4S

!OMMITTD /R+V +><S O6 DIS!RTION, +MO<NTIN/ TO

4+! +NDOR J!SS O6 &<RISDI!TION 5HN IT H4D TH+T

TH S!RT+RK O6 4+>OR +ND MP4OKMNT H+S



&<RISDI!TION OVR + !+S + PTITION TO D!4+R STRI

I44/+4- 5HI!H H+D 4ON/ >N 6I4D +ND PNDIN/ >6OR

TH 4+>OR +R>ITR.9E

5e sustain the Buestioned decision.

On the *atter of the authorit2 and 7urisdiction of the Secretar2 of 4abor

and *plo2*ent to rule on the ille1al stri%e co**itted b2 petitioner union,

it is undisputed that the petition to declare the stri%e ille1al before 4abor

+rbiter !ada2 "as filed lon1 before the Secretar2 of 4abor and *plo2*ent

issued the assu*ption order on )# 6ebruar2 )99#. Ho"ever, it cannot be

denied that the issues of overti*e bo2cott and "or% slo"do"n a*ountin1 to

ille1al stri%e before 4abor +rbiter !ada2 are intert"ined "ith the labor

dispute before the 4abor Secretar2. In fact, on ): March )99#, petitioner

union even as%ed 4abor +rbiter !ada2 to suspend the proceedin1s before

hi* and consolidate the sa*e "ith the case before the Secretar2 of

4abor.5hen +ctin1 4abor Secretar2 >rillantes ordered 4abor +rbiter !ada2

to continue "ith the hearin1 of the ille1al stri%e case, the parties acceded and

participated in the proceedin1s, %no"in1 full2 "ell that there "as also a

directive for 4abor +rbiter !ada2 to thereafter sub*it his report and

reco**endation to the Secretar2. +s the appellate court pointed out, the

subseBuent participation of petitioner union in the continuation of thehearin1 "as in effect an affir*ation of the 7urisdiction of the Secretar2 of

4abor.

The appellate court also correctl2 held that the Buestion of the Secretar2

of 4abor and *plo2*ents 7urisdiction over laborrelated disputes "as

alread2 settled in International Pharmaceutical, Inc. vs. Hon. Secretary of

Labor and Associated Labor Union (ALU))(E "here the !ourt declared;

In the present case, the Secretar2 "as e=plicitl2 1ranted b2 +rticle ':31- of

the 4abor !ode the authorit2 to assu*e 7urisdiction over a labor dispute

causin1 or li%el2 to cause a stri%e or loc%out in an industr2 indispensable to

the national interest, and decide the sa*e accordin1l2. Necessaril2, this

authorit2 to assu*e 7urisdiction over the said labor dispute *ust include and







e=tend to all Buestions and controversies arisin1 therefro*, *;+*< ):e:

o?er 6 te ;)bor )rbter ): e@;:?e r:+to*.

Moreover, +rticle ')A of the 4abor !ode is not "ithout, but conte*plates,

e=ceptions thereto. This is evident fro* the openin1 proviso therein readin1e-=cept as other"ise provided under this !ode = = =. Plainl2, +rticle ':31-

of the 4abor !ode "as *eant to *a%e both the Secretar2 or the various

re1ional directors- and the labor arbiters share 7urisdiction, sub7ect to certain

conditions. Other"ise, the Secretar2 "ould not be able to effectivel2 and

efficientl2 dispose of the pri*ar2 dispute. To hold the contrar2 *a2 even

lead to the absurd and undesirable result "herein the Secretar2 and the labor

arbiter concerned *a2 have dia*etricall2 opposed rulin1s. +s "e have said,

i-t is funda*ental that a statute is to be read in a *anner that "ould breathe

life into it, rather than defeat it.

In fine, the issuance of the assailed orders is "ithin the province of the

Secretar2 as authoriCed b2 +rticle ':31- of the 4abor !ode and +rticle

')Aa- and $- of the sa*e !ode, ta%en con7ointl2 and rationall2 construed to

subserve the ob7ective of the 7urisdiction vested in the Secretar2.))E

+nent the alle1ed *isappreciation of the evidence proffered b2 the

parties, it is a=io*atic that the factual findin1s of the 4abor +rbiter, "hensufficientl2 supported b2 the evidence on record, *ust be accorded due

respect b2 the Supre*e !ourt.)'E Here, the report and reco**endation of

4abor +rbiter !ada2 "as not onl2 adopted b2 then Secretar2 of 4abor

Guisu*bin1 but it "as li%e"ise affir*ed b2 the !ourt of +ppeals. 5e see no

reason to depart fro* their findin1s.

Petitioner union *aintained that the 4abor +rbiter and the appellate

court disre1arded the parol evidence rule )3E "hen the2 upheld the alle1ation

of respondent co*pan2 that the "or% schedule of its e*plo2ees "as fro*

:;(( a.*. to :;(( p.*. and fro* :;(( p.*. to :;(( a.*. +ccordin1 to

petitioner union, the provisions of their !>+ on "or%in1 hours clearl2 stated

that the nor*al "or%in1 hours "ere fro* A;3( a.*. to #;3( p.*.)#E Petitioner

union underscored that the re1ular "or% hours for the co*pan2 "as onl2

ei1ht 0- hours. It further contended that the 4abor +rbiter as "ell as the











!ourt of +ppeal should not have ad*itted an2 other evidence contrar2 to

"hat "as stated in the !>+.

The reliance on the parol evidence rule is *isplaced. In labor cases

pendin1 before the !o**ission or the 4abor +rbiter, the rules of evidence prevailin1 in courts of la" or eBuit2 are not controllin1.)$E Rules of

procedure and evidence are not applied in a ver2 ri1id and technical sense in

labor cases.):E Hence, the 4abor +rbiter is not precluded fro* acceptin1 and

evaluatin1 evidence other than, and even contrar2 to, "hat is stated in, the

!>+.

In an2 event, the parties stipulated;

Section ). Reular !or"in Hours + nor*al "or%da2 shall consist of not*ore than ei1ht 0- hours. The re1ular "or%in1 hours for the !o*pan2 shall

be fro* A;3( +.M. to #;3( P.M.The schedule of shift "or% shall be

*aintained8 ho"ever the co*pan2 *a2 chan1e the prevailin1 "or% ti*e at

its discretion, should such chan1e be necessar2 in the operations of the

!o*pan2. +ll e*plo2ees shall observe such rules as have been laid do"n b2

the co*pan2 for the purpose of effectin1 control over "or%in1 hours.)AE

It is evident fro* the fore1oin1 provision that the "or%in1 hours *a2 bechan1ed, at the discretion of the com#any, should such chan1e be necessar2

for its operations, and that the em#loyees shall observe such rules as have

been laid do$n by the com#any. In the case before us, 4abor +rbiter !ada2

found that respondent co*pan2 had to adopt a continuous '#hour "or%

dail2 schedule b2 reason of the nature of its business and the de*ands of its

clients. It "as established that the e*plo2ees adhered to the said "or%

schedule since )900. The e*plo2ees are dee*ed to have "aived the ei1ht

hour schedule since the2 follo"ed, "ithout an2 Buestion or co*plaint, the

t"oshift schedule "hile their !>+ "as still in force and even prior

thereto. The t"oshift schedule effectivel2 chan1ed the "or%in1 hours

stipulated in the !>+. +s the e*plo2ees assented b2 practice to this

arran1e*ent, the2 cannot no" be heard to clai* that the overti*e bo2cott is

7ustified because the2 "ere not obli1ed to "or% be2ond ei1ht hours.









+s 4abor +rbiter !ada2 elucidated in his report;

Respondents? atte*pt to den2 the e=istence of such re1ular overti*e

schedule is belied b2 their o"n a"areness of the e=istence of the re1ular

overti*e schedule of :;(( +.M. to :;(( P.M. and :;(( P.M. to :;(( +.M. ofthe follo"in1 da2 that has been 1oin1 on since )900. Proof of this is the case

undisputedl2 filed b2 the union for and in behalf of its *e*bers, "herein it

is clai*ed that the co*pan2 has not been co*putin1 correctl2 the ni1ht

pre*iu* and overti*e pa2 for "or% rendered bet"een ';(( +.M. and :;((

+.M. of the :;(( P.M. to :;(( +.M. shift.tsn pp. 9)(, testi*on2 of

+lessandro /. SalaCar durin1 hearin1 on +u1ust 9, )99#-. In fact, the union

VicePresident !ar*elo !. Santos, de*anded that the co*pan2 *a%e a

reco*putation of the overti*e records of the e*plo2ees fro* )90A =h.

FPF-. ven their o"n "itness, union Director nrico !. /onCales, testified

that "hen in )99' he "as still a Gualit2 !ontrol Inspector at the Sucat Plant

of the co*pan2, his schedule "as so*eti*e at :;(( +.M. to :;(( P.M.,

so*eti*e at :;(( +.M. to ';(( P.M., at ';(( P.M. to )(;(( P.M. and

so*eti*e at :;(( P.M. to :;(( +.M., and "hen on the : to : shifts, he

received the co**ensurate pa2 t.s.n. pp. A9, hearin1 of &anuar2 )(,

)99#-. 4i%e"ise, "hile in the overti*e per*its, dated March ), :, 0, 9 to )',

)993, "hich "ere passed around dail2 for the e*plo2ees to si1n, his na*e

appeared but "ithout his si1natures, he ho"ever had rendered overti*e

durin1 those dates and "as paid because unli%e in other depart*ents, it has

beco*e a habit to the* to si1n the overti*e schedule "ee%l2 t.s.n. pp. ':

3), hearin1 of &anuar2 )(, )99#-. The a"areness of the respondent union, its

officers and *e*bers about the e=istence of the re1ular overti*e schedule of

:;(( +.M. to :;(( P.M. and :;(( P.M. to :;(( +.M. of the follo"in1 da2 "ill

be further sho"n in the discussion of the second issue.)0E

+s to the second issue of "hether or not the respondents have en1a1ed inFoverti*e bo2cottF and F"or% slo"do"nF fro* +pril ):, )993 up to March

A, )99#, both a*ountin1 to ille1al stri%e, the evidence presented is eBuall2

cr2stal clear that the Foverti*e bo2cottF and F"or% slo"do"nF co**itted

b2 the respondents a*ounted to ille1al stri%e.





+s undisputabl2 testified to b2 Mr. +lessandro /. SalaCar, the co*pan2?s

VicePresidentHu*an Resources Depart*ent, so*eti*e in 6ebruar2, )993,

he "as approached b2 the union President Nestor Oca*po and <nion

Director Hernando !le*ente "ho as%ed hi* as to "hat "as the stand of the

co*pan2 re1ardin1 the duration of the !>+ bet"een the co*pan2 and"hich "as set to e=pire on &ul2 3), )993. He ans"ered that the *atter could

be best discussed durin1 the for*al rene1otiations "hich an2"a2 "as to

start soon. This Buer2 "as follo"ed up so*eti*e in March, )993, and his

ans"er "as the sa*e. In earl2 +pril, )993, the union president reBuested for

a *eetin1 to discuss the duration and effectivit2 of the !>+. +ccedin1 to

the reBuest, a *eetin1 "as held on +pril )$, )993 "herein the union officers

as%ed hi* if he "ould a1ree to *a%e the ne" !>+ effective on +u1ust ),

)993 and the ter* thereof to be valid for onl2 t"o '- 2ears. 5hen heans"ered that it "as still pre*ature to discuss the *atter, the ver2 ne=t da2,

+pril ):, )993, all the ran% and file e*plo2ees of the co*pan2 refused to

follo" their re1ular t"oshift "or% schedule of :;(( +.M. to :;(( P.M. and

:;(( P.M. to :;(( +.M., "hen after the 0hours "or%, the2 abruptl2 stopped

"or%in1 at ';(( P.M. and ';(( +.M., respectivel2, leavin1 their place of

"or% "ithout sealin1 the containers and securin1 the ra" *aterials the2

"ere "or%in1 on. 5hen he sa" the "or%ers leavin1 before the end of their

shift, he as%ed the* "h2 and their repl2 "as Fas%ed sic- the union

officers.F +lar*ed b2 the overti*e bo2cott and the da*a1e it "as causin1

the co*pan2, he reBuested for a *eetin1 "ith the union officers. In the

*eetin1, he as%ed the* "h2 the re1ular "or% schedule "as not bein1

follo"ed b2 the e*plo2ees, and union Director nrico /onCales, "ith the

support of the other union officers, told hi* that if *ana1e*ent "ould a1ree

to a t"o2ear duration for the ne" !>+ and an effectivit2 date of +u1ust ),

)993, all e*plo2ees "ill return to the nor*al "or% schedule of t"o )'hour

shifts. 5hen ans"ered that the *ana1e*ent could not decide on the *atter

at the *o*ent and to have it discussed and a1reed upon durin1 the for*al

rene1otiations, the overti*e bo2cott continued and the e*plo2ees at the

sa*e ti*e e*plo2ed a "or% slo"do"n ca*pai1n durin1 "or%in1 hours,

causin1 considerable dela2 in the production and co*plaints fro* the

clientscusto*ers =h. FOF, +ffidavit of +lessandro /. SalaCar "hich

for*ed part of his direct testi*on2-. This testi*onial narrations of SalaCar



"as, as earlier said, undisputed because the respondents? counsel "aived his

cross e=a*ination t.s.n. p. )$, hearin1 on +u1ust 9, )99#-.

+side fro* the fore1oin1 undisputed testi*onies of SalaCar, the testi*onies

of other Depart*ent Mana1ers pointin1 to the union officers as theinsti1ators of the overti*e bo2cott and "or% slo"do"n, the testi*on2 of

pifanio Salu*bides =h. FKF- a union *e*ber at the ti*e the concerted

activities of the respondents too% place, is Buoted hereunder;

'. Noon Pebrero )993, ipinata"a1 n1 Presidente n1 <n2on na si Nestor

Oca*po an1 lahat n1 ta1a*aintenance n1 ba"at departa*ento upan1

du*alo sa isan1 *itin1. Sa *itin1 na i2on, sinabi ni Rod +buan, na isan1

Dire%tor n1 <n2on, na *a2roon ilalabas na *e*o an1 <n2on na na1uutos

sa *1a e*ple2ado n1 o*pan2a na *a1i*bento n1 sarisarin1 dahilan

para lan1 hindi sila *a%apa1trabaho n1 Foverti*eF. Sinabihan rin a%o ni

Tessie Monte7o na si2a na*an1 Treasurer n1 <n2on na ?Mann2, hu"a1 %a na

lan1 pu*aso% sa >i2ernes para hindi %a *asabihan n1 *a1trabaho n1

Sabado at 4in11o? na si2a na*an1 ara" n1 Foverti*eF %o. = = =

3. Na%alipas an1 dala"aan1 bu"an at noon1 unan1 baha1i n1 +bril )993,

*initin1 %a*i n1 Shop Ste"ards na*in na sina +riel +beno7a, Dan2

Tansion1co at Vic%2 >aron. Sinabihan %a*i na hu"a1 n1 *a1oveti*e pa1na1bi1a2 n1 sen2as an1 <n2on n1 Fsho"ti*e.F

#. Noon1 u*a1a n1 i%a)$ n1 +bril )993, na1sabi na si Dann2 Tansion1co

n1 Fsho"ti*eF. Dahil dito "ala n1 e*ple2adon1 na1overti*e at saba2

saba2 silan1 u*alis, *aliban sa a%in.+%o a2 pu*aso% rin noon1 +bril )A at

)0, )993 na Sabado at 4in11o.

$. Noon1 i%a)9 n1 +bril )993, a%o a2 ipinata"a1 ni +riel +beno7a Shop

Ste"ard, sa opisina n1 <n2on. Nadatnan %o doon an1 halos lahat n1opis2ales n1 <n2on na sina;

Nestor Oca*po Presidente

!ar*elo Santos >isePresidente



Nandin1 !le*ente Director

Tess Monte7o !hief Ste"ard

Se1undo 6lores Director

nrico /onCales +uditor

>o2 +lcantara Shop Ste"ard

Rod +buan Director

at *ara*i pan1 iba na hindi %o na *aalaala. Pa1paso% %o, a%o?2 pinali1iran

n1 *1a opis2ales n1 <n2on. Tinanon1 a%o ni Rod +1uan %un1 ba%it a%o

Fna1oveti*eF 1a2on1 F>ini12an %a na na*in n1 instruction na hu"a1

pu*aso%, pinilit *o pa rin1 pu*aso%.F FMana1e*ent %a ba o

<n2onista.F Sina1ot %o na a%o a2 <n2onista. Tinanon1 ni2a *uli %un1 ba%it

a%o pu*aso%.Sinabi %o na "ala a%on1 *aibi1a2 na dahilan para lan1 hindi

pu*aso% at F*a1overti*e.F Pa1%atapos nito, a%o a2 pina1*u*ura n1 *1a

opis2ales n1 <n2on %a2a?t a%o a2 *adalian1 u*alis.

= = =F

4i%e"ise, the respondents? denial of havin1 a hand in the "or% slo"do"n

since there "as no chan1e in the perfor*ance and "or% efficienc2 for the

2ear )993 as co*pared to the previous 2ear "as even rebuffed b2 their

"itness M. Theresa Monte7o, a Gualit2 !ontrol +nal2st. 6or on cross

e=a*ination, she Monte7o- ad*itted that she could not ans"er ho" she "as

able to prepare the productivit2 reports fro* Ma2 )993 to 6ebruar2 )99#

because fro* +pril )993 up to +pril )99#, she "as on union leave. +s such,

the productivit2 reports she had earlier sho"n "as not prepared b2 her since

she had no personal %no"led1e of the reports t.s.n. pp. 3'3$, hearin1 of

6ebruar2 'A, )99$-. +side fro* this ad*ission, the co*parison *ade b2 the

respondents "as of no *o*ent, because the hi1her production for the 2ears

previous to )993 "as reached "hen the e*plo2ees re1ularl2 rendered

overti*e "or%. >ut undeniabl2, overti*e bo2cott and "or% slo"do"n fro*



+pril ):, )993 up to March A, )99# had resulted not onl2 in financial losses

to the co*pan2 but also da*a1ed its business reputation.

videntl2, fro* all the fore1oin1, respondents? un7ustified unilateral

alteration of the '#hour "or% schedule thru their concerted activities ofFoverti*e bo2cottF and F"or% slo"do"nF fro* +pril ):, )993 up to March

A, )99#, to force the petitioner co*pan2 to accede to their unreasonable

de*ands, can be classified as a stri%e on an install*ent basis, as correctl2

called b2 petitioner co*pan2. ===)9E

It is thus undisputed that *e*bers of the union b2 their o"n volition

decided not to render overti*e services in +pril )993. '(E Petitioner union

even ad*itted this in its Me*orandu*, dated )' +pril )999, filed "ith the

!ourt of +ppeals, as "ell as in the petition before this !ourt, "hich both

stated that Fs-so*eti*e in +pril )993, *e*bers of herein petitioner, on

their o"n volition and in %eepin1 "ith the re1ular "or%in1 hours in the

!o*pan2 = = = decided not to render overti*eF.')E Such ad*ission

confir*ed the alle1ation of respondent co*pan2 that petitioner en1a1ed in

overti*e bo2cott and "or% slo"do"n "hich, to use the "ords of 4abor

+rbiter !ada2, "as ta%en as a *eans to coerce respondent co*pan2 to 2ield

to its unreasonable de*ands.

More i*portantl2, the overti*e bo2cott or "or% slo"do"n b2 the

e*plo2ees constituted a violation of their !>+, "hich prohibits the union or

e*plo2ee, durin1 the e=istence of the !>+, to sta1e a stri%e or en1a1e in

slo"do"n or interruption of "or%.''E In Ila$ at %u"lod n &anaa$a vs.

'LR ,'3E this !ourt ruled;

= = = T-he concerted activit2 in Buestion "ould still be illicit because

contrar2 to the "or%ers e=plicit contractual co**it*ent that there shall be

no stri%es, "al%outs, stoppa1e or slo"do"n of "or%, bo2cotts, secondar2

bo2cotts, refusal to handle an2 *erchandise, pic%etin1, sitdo"n stri%es of

an2 %ind, s2*pathetic or 1eneral stri%es, or an2 other interference "ith an2

of the operations of the !OMP+NK durin1 the ter* of === their collective

bar1ainin1- a1ree*ent.













5hat has 7ust been said *a%es unnecessar2 resolution of SM!s ar1u*ent

that the "or%ers concerted refusal to adhere to the "or% schedule in force for

the last several 2ears, is a slo$do$n, an inherentl2 ille1al activit2 essentiall2

ille1al even in the absence of a nostri%e clause in a collective bar1ainin1

contract, or statute or rule. The !ourt is in substantial a1ree*ent "ith the petitioners concept of a slo"do"n as a stri%e on the install*ent plan8 as a

"illful reduction in the rate of "or% b2 concerted action of "or%ers for the

purpose of restrictin1 the output of the e*plo2er, in relation to a labor

dispute8 as an activit2 b2 "hich "or%ers, "ithout a co*plete stoppa1e of

"or%, retard production or their perfor*ance of duties and functions to

co*pel *ana1e*ent to 1rant their de*ands. The !ourt also a1rees that such

a slo"do"n is 1enerall2 conde*ned as inherentl2 illicit and un7ustifiable,

because "hile the e*plo2ees continue to "or% and re*ain at their positionsand accept the "a1es paid to the*, the2 at the sa*e ti*e select "hat part of

their allotted tas%s the2 care to perfor* of their o"n volition or refuse

openl2 or secretl2, to the e*plo2ers da*a1e, to do other "or%8 in other

"ords, the2 "or% on their o"n ter*s. = = =.'#E

6inall2, the !ourt cannot a1ree "ith the proposition that respondent

co*pan2, in e=tendin1 substantial separation pac%a1e to so*e officers of

petitioner union durin1 the pendenc2 of this case, in effect, condoned the

ille1al acts the2 co**itted.

Respondent co*pan2 correctl2 postured that at the ti*e these union

officers obtained their separation benefits, the2 "ere still considered

e*plo2ees of the co*pan2. Hence, the co*pan2 "as *erel2 co*pl2in1 "ith

its le1al obli1ations.'$E Respondent co*pan2 could have "ithheld these

benefits pendin1 the final resolution of this case. Ket, considerin1 perhaps

the financial hardships e=perienced b2 its e*plo2ees and the econo*ic

situation prevailin1, respondent co*pan2 chose to let its e*plo2ees avail of their separation benefits. The !ourt vie"s the 1esture of respondent

co*pan2 as an act of 1enerosit2 for "hich it should not be punished.

-ERE4ORE, the petition is DNID D< !O<RS and the '9

Dece*ber )999 decision of the !ourt of +ppeals is +66IRMD.







SO OR%ERE%.

avide, *r., .*., (hairman), Pardo, and +naresSantiao, **., concur .

Puno, *., on official leave.


SUPREME COURT

Manila

SECON% %I(ISION

G.R. No. 1390 No?ember 11, !!8

NATIONAL UNION O4 ORKERS IN T-E -OTEL RESTAURANT

AN% ALLIE% IN%USTRIES NU-RAINAPLIU4D %USIT -OTEL

NIKKO C-APTER, petitioner,

vs.

T-E -ONORABLE COURT O4 APPEALS 4ormer E<t %?:o*D,

T-E NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION NLRCD,

P-ILIPPINE -OTELIERS INC., o6*er )*+ oper)tor o %USIT

-OTEL NIKKO )*+For C-I&UKI 4U$IMOTO, )*+ ESPERAN'A (.

AL(E', respondents.

==

G.R. No. 19 No?ember 11, !!8

NU-RAIN%USIT -OTEL NIKKO C-APTER, petitioner,

vs.

SECRETAR& O4 LABOR AN% EMPLO&MENT )*+ P-ILIPPINE

-OTELIERS, INC., respondents.

% E C I S I O N

(ELASCO, $R., J.5



In /.R. No. ):39#', the Petition for Revie" on !ertiorari under Rule #$ of

the National <nion of 5or%ers in the Hotel Restaurant and +llied Industries

Dusit Hotel Ni%%o !hapter <nion- see%s to set aside the &anuar2 )9, '((#

Decision) and &une ), '((# Resolution' of the !ourt of +ppeals !+- in !+

/.R. SP No. A:$:0 "hich affir*ed the October 9, '((' Decision3 of the National 4abor Relations !o**ission N4R!- in N4R! N!R !! No.

(((')$('.

In /.R. No. )::'9$, the Petition for !ertiorari under Rule :$ of the <nion

see%s to nullif2 the Ma2 :, '((# Decision# and Nove*ber '$, '((#

Resolution$ of the !+ in !+/.R. SP No. A(AA0 "hich affir*ed the &anuar2

3), '((': and March )$, '(('A Orders of the Secretar2 of 4abor and

*plo2*ent, Patricia +. Sto. To*as Secretar2-.

E?o;to* o te Pre:e*t Petto*:

The <nion is the certified bar1ainin1 a1ent of the re1ular ran%andfile

e*plo2ees of Dusit Hotel Ni%%o Hotel-, a five star service establish*ent

o"ned and operated b2 Philippine Hoteliers, Inc. located in Ma%ati !it2.

!hi2u%i 6ui7i*oto and speranCa V. +lveC are i*pleaded in their official

capacities as the Hotel?s /eneral Mana1er and Director of Hu*an

Resources, respectivel2.

On October '#, '(((, the <nion sub*itted its !ollective >ar1ainin1

+1ree*ent !>+- ne1otiation proposals to the Hotel. +s ne1otiations

ensued, the parties failed to arrive at *utuall2 acceptable ter*s and

conditions. Due to the bar1ainin1 deadloc%, the <nion, on Dece*ber '(,

'((), filed a Notice of Stri%e on the 1round of the bar1ainin1 deadloc% "ith

the National !onciliation and Mediation >oard N!M>-, "hich "as

doc%eted as N!M>N!RNS)'3:9(). Thereafter, conciliation hearin1s

"ere conducted "hich proved unsuccessful. !onseBuentl2, a Stri%e

Vote0 "as conducted b2 the <nion on &anuar2 )#, '((' on "hich it "as

decided that the <nion "ould "a1e a stri%e.

Soon thereafter, in the afternoon of &anuar2 )A, '((', the <nion held a

1eneral asse*bl2 at its office located in the Hotel?s base*ent, "here so*e

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_163942_2008.html#fnt1


















*e*bers sported closel2 cropped hair or cleanl2 shaven heads. The ne=t

da2, or on &anuar2 )0, '((', *ore *ale <nion *e*bers ca*e to "or%

sportin1 the sa*e hair st2le. The Hotel prevented these "or%ers fro*

enterin1 the pre*ises clai*in1 that the2 violated the Hotel?s /roo*in1

Standards.

In vie" of the Hotel?s action, the <nion sta1ed a pic%et outside the Hotel

pre*ises. 4ater, other "or%ers "ere also prevented fro* enterin1 the Hotel

causin1 the* to 7oin the pic%et. 6or this reason the Hotel e=perienced a

severe lac% of *anpo"er "hich forced the* to te*poraril2 cease operations

in three restaurants.

SubseBuentl2, on &anuar2 '(, '((', the Hotel issued notices to <nion

*e*bers, preventivel2 suspendin1 the* and char1in1 the* "ith the

follo"in1 offenses; )- violation of the dut2 to bar1ain in 1ood faith8 '-

ille1al pic%et8 3- unfair labor practice8 #- violation of the Hotel?s /roo*in1

Standards8 $- ille1al stri%e8 and :- co**ission of ille1al acts durin1 the

ille1al stri%e. The ne=t da2, the <nion filed "ith the N!M> a second Notice

of Stri%e on the 1round of unfair labor practice and violation of +rticle

'#0a- of the 4abor !ode on ille1al loc%out, "hich "as doc%eted as N!M>

N!RNS()()9('. In the *eanti*e, the <nion officers and *e*bers

sub*itted their e=planations to the char1es alle1ed b2 the Hotel, "hile the2continued to sta1e a pic%et 7ust inside the Hotel?s co*pound.

On &anuar2 ':, '((', the Hotel ter*inated the services of t"ent2nine '9-

<nion officers and si=t2one :)- *e*bers8 and suspended ei1ht2one 0)-

e*plo2ees for 3( da2s, fort2ei1ht #0- e*plo2ees for )$ da2s, four #-

e*plo2ees for )( da2s, and three 3- e*plo2ees for five da2s. On the sa*e

da2, the <nion declared a stri%e. Startin1 that da2, the <nion en1a1ed in

pic%etin1 the pre*ises of the Hotel. Durin1 the pic%et, the <nion officials

and *e*bers unla"full2 bloc%ed the in1ress and e1ress of the Hotel

pre*ises.

!onseBuentl2, on &anuar2 3), '((', the <nion filed its third Notice of Stri%e

"ith the N!M> "hich "as doc%eted as N!M>N!RNS()($((', this

ti*e on the 1round of unfair labor practice and unionbustin1.



On the sa*e da2, the Secretar2, throu1h her &anuar2 3), '((' Order,

assu*ed 7urisdiction over the labor dispute and certified the case to the

N4R! for co*pulsor2 arbitration, "hich "as doc%eted as N4R! N!R !!

No. (((')$('. The Secretar2?s Order partl2 reads;

5HR6OR, in order to have a co*plete deter*ination of the

bar1ainin1 deadloc% and the other incidents of the dispute, this Office

hereb2 consolidates the t"o Notices of Stri%e N!M>N!RNS)'

3:9() and N!M>N!RNS()()9(' and !RTI6IS the entire

labor dispute covered b2 these Notices and the intervenin1 events, to

the N+TION+4 4+>OR R4+TIONS !OMMISSION for

co*pulsor2 arbitration pursuant to +rticle ':3 1- of the 4abor !ode,

as a*ended, under the follo"in1 ter*s;

= = = =

d. the Hotel is 1iven the option, in lieu of actual reinstate*ent, to

*erel2 re*:t)te the dis*issed or suspended "or%ers in the pa2roll in

li1ht of the special circu*stances attendant to their reinstate*ent8

= = = =

SO ORDRD. *phasis added.-

Pursuant to the Secretar2?s Order, the Hotel, on 6ebruar2 ), '((', issued an

InterOffice Me*orandu*,9 directin1 so*e of the e*plo2ees to return to

"or%, "hile advisin1 others not to do so, as the2 "ere placed under pa2roll

reinstate*ent.

<nhapp2 "ith the Secretar2?s &anuar2 3), '((' Order, the <nion *oved for

reconsideration, but the sa*e "as denied per the Secretar2?s subseBuentMarch )$, '((' Order. +ffronted b2 the Secretar2?s &anuar2 3), '((' and

March )$, '((' Orders, the <nion filed a Petition for !ertiorari "ith the !+

"hich "as doc%eted as !+/.R. SP No. A(AA0.

Mean"hile, after due proceedin1s, the N4R! issued its October 9, '(('

Decision in N4R! N!R !! No. (((')$(', in "hich it ordered the Hotel





and the <nion to e=ecute a !>+ "ithin 3( da2s fro* the receipt of the

decision. The N4R! also held that the &anuar2 )0, '((' concerted action

"as an ille1al stri%e in "hich ille1al acts "ere co**itted b2 the <nion8 and

that the stri%e violated the FNo Stri%e, No 4oc%outF provision of the !>+,

"hich thereb2 caused the dis*issal of '9 <nion officers and :) <nion*e*bers. The N4R! ordered the Hotel to 1rant the :) dis*issed <nion

*e*bers financial assistance in the a*ount of L *onth?s pa2 for ever2 2ear

of service or their retire*ent benefits under their retire*ent plan "hichever

"as hi1her. The N4R! e=plained that the stri%e "hich occurred on &anuar2

)0, '((' "as ille1al because it failed to co*pl2 "ith the *andator2 3(da2

coolin1off period)( and the :e?e*+)= :tr>e b)*,)) as the stri%e occurred

onl2 '9 da2s after the sub*ission of the notice of stri%e on Dece*ber '(,

'(() and onl2 four da2s after the sub*ission of the stri%e vote on &anuar2)#, '(('. The N4R! also ruled that even if the <nion had co*plied "ith the

te*poral reBuire*ents *andated b2 la", the stri%e "ould nonetheless be

declared ille1al because it "as attended b2 ille1al acts co**itted b2 the

<nion officers and *e*bers.

The <nion then filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the N4R!?s Decision

"hich "as denied in the 6ebruar2 A, '((3 N4R! Resolution. <nfaCed, the

<nion filed a Petition for !ertiorari under Rule :$ "ith the !+, doc%eted as

!+/.R. SP No. A:$:0, and assailed both the October 9, '((' Decision and

the 6ebruar2 A, '((3 Resolution of the N4R!.

Soon thereafter, the !+ pro*ul1ated its &anuar2 )9, '((# Decision in !+

/.R. SP No. A:$:0 "hich dis*issed the <nion?s petition and affir*ed the

rulin1s of the N4R!. The !+ ratiocinated that the <nion failed to

de*onstrate that the N4R! co**itted 1rave abuse of discretion and

capriciousl2 e=ercised its 7ud1*ent or e=ercised its po"er in an arbitrar2 and

despotic *anner.

6or this reason, the <nion filed a Motion for Reconsideration "hich the !+,

in its &une ), '((# Resolution, denied for lac% of *erit.

In the *eanti*e, the !+ pro*ul1ated its Ma2 :, '((# Decision in !+/.R.

SP No. A(AA0 "hich denied due course to and conseBuentl2 dis*issed the







<nion?s petition. The <nion *oved to reconsider the Decision, but the !+

"as unconvinced and denied the *otion for reconsideration in its Nove*ber

'$, '((# Resolution.

Thus, the <nion filed the present petitions.

The <nion raises several inter"oven issues in /.R. No. ):39#', *ost

e*inent of "hich is "hether the <nion conducted an ille1al stri%e. The

issues presented for resolution are;

+

5HTHR OR NOT TH <NION, TH '9 <NION O66I!RS

+ND :) MM>RS M+K > +D&<D/D /<I4TK O6 ST+/IN/+N I44/+4 STRI ON &+N<+RK )0, '((' DSPIT

RSPONDNTS? +DMISSION TH+T THK PRVNTD S+ID

O66I!RS +ND MM>RS 6ROM RPORTIN/ 6OR 5OR

6OR +44/D VIO4+TION O6 TH HOT4?S /ROOMIN/

ST+ND+RDS

>

5HTHR OR NOT TH '9 <NION O66I!RS +ND :)MM>RS M+K V+4ID4K > DISMISSD +ND MOR TH+N

'(( MM>RS > V+4ID4K S<SPNDD ON TH >+SIS O6

6O<R #- S46SRVIN/ +66ID+VITS O6 RSPONDNTS

!

5HTHR OR NOT RSPONDNTS IN PRVNTIN/ <NION

O66I!RS +ND MM>RS 6ROM RPORTIN/ 6OR 5OR

!OMMITTD +N I44/+4 4O!O<T)'

In /.R. No. )::'9$, the <nion solicits a riposte fro* this !ourt on "hether

the Secretar2 has discretion to i*pose Fpa2rollF reinstate*ent "hen he

assu*es 7urisdiction over labor disputes.





Te CortH: R;*<

The !ourt shall first dispose of /.R. No. )::'9$.

+ccordin1 to the <nion, there is no le1al basis for allo"in1 pa2rollreinstate*ent in lieu of actual or ph2sical reinstate*ent. +s ar1ued, +rt.

':31- of the 4abor !ode is clear on this point.

The Hotel, on the other hand, clai*s that the issue is no" *oot and an2

decision "ould be i*possible to e=ecute in vie" of the Decision of the

N4R! "hich upheld the dis*issal of the <nion officers and *e*bers.

The <nion?s position is untenable.

The Hotel correctl2 raises the ar1u*ent that the issue "as rendered *oot

"hen the N4R! upheld the dis*issal of the <nion officers and *e*bers. In

order, ho"ever, to settle this relevant and novel issue involvin1 the breadth

of the po"er and 7urisdiction of the Secretar2 in assu*ption of 7urisdiction

cases, "e no" decide the issue on the *erits instead of rel2in1 on *ere

technicalities.

5e held in University of Immaculate once#cion, Inc. v. Secretary of Labor ;

5ith respect to the Secretar2?s Order allo"in1 pa2roll reinstate*ent

instead of actual reinstate*ent for the individual respondents herein,

an a*end*ent to the previous Orders issued b2 her office, the sa*e is

usuall2 not allo"ed. +rticle ':31- of the 4abor !ode afore*entioned

states that all "or%ers *ust i**ediatel2 return to "or% and all

e*plo2ers *ust read*it all of the* under the sa*e ter*s and

conditions prevailin1 before the stri%e or loc%out. The phrase Funder

the sa*e ter*s and conditionsF *a%es it clear that the nor* is actualreinstate*ent. This is consistent "ith the idea that an2 "or% stoppa1e

or slo"do"n in that particular industr2 can be detri*ental to the

national interest.)3

Thus, it "as settled that in assu*ption of 7urisdiction cases, the Secretar2

should i*pose actual reinstate*ent in accordance "ith the intent and spirit





of +rt. ':31- of the 4abor !ode. +s "ith *ost rules, ho"ever, this one is

sub7ect to e=ceptions. 5e held in &anila iamond Hotel -m#loyees Union

v. ourt of A##eals that pa2roll reinstate*ent is a departure fro* the rule,

and special circu*stances "hich *a%e actual reinstate*ent i*practicable

*ust be sho"n.)# In one case, pa2roll reinstate*ent "as allo"ed "here thee*plo2ees previousl2 occupied confidential positions, because their actual

reinstate*ent, the !ourt said, "ould be i*practicable and "ould onl2 serve

to e=acerbate the situation.)$ In another case, this !ourt held that the N4R!

did not co**it 1rave abuse of discretion "hen it allo"ed pa2roll

reinstate*ent as an option in lieu of actual reinstate*ent for teachers "ho

"ere to be reinstated in the *iddle of the first ter*.): 5e held that the N4R!

"as *erel2 tr2in1 its best to "or% out a satisfactor2 ad hoc solution to a

festerin1 and serious proble*.)A

The peculiar circu*stances in the present case validate the Secretar2?s

decision to order pa2roll reinstate*ent instead of actual reinstate*ent. It is

obviousl2 i*practicable for the Hotel to actuall2 reinstate the e*plo2ees

"ho shaved their heads or cropped their hair because this "as e=actl2 the

reason the2 "ere prevented fro* "or%in1 in the first place. 6urther, as "ith

*ost labor disputes "hich have resulted in stri%es, there is *utual

anta1onis*, en*it2, and ani*osit2 bet"een the union and the *ana1e*ent.

Pa2roll reinstate*ent, *ost especiall2 in this case, "ould have been the onl2

avenue "here further incidents and da*a1es could be avoided. Public

officials entrusted "ith specific 7urisdictions en7o2 1reat confidence fro*

this !ourt. The Secretar2 surel2 *eant onl2 to ensure industrial peace as she

assu*ed 7urisdiction over the labor dispute. In this case, "e are not read2 to

substitute our o"n findin1s in the absence of a clear sho"in1 of 1rave abuse

of discretion on her part.

The issues raised in /.R. No. ):39#', bein1 interrelated, shall be discussedconcurrentl2.

To be deter*ined "hether le1al or not are the follo"in1 acts of the <nion;

)- Reportin1 for "or% "ith their bald or cropped hair st2le on

&anuar2 )0, '(('8 and











'- The pic%etin1 of the Hotel pre*ises on &anuar2 ':, '(('.

The <nion *aintains that the *ass pic%et conducted b2 its officers and

*e*bers did not constitute a stri%e and "as *erel2 an e=pression of their

1rievance resultin1 fro* the loc%out effected b2 the Hotel *ana1e*ent. Onthe other hand, the Hotel ar1ues that the <nion?s deliberate defiance of the

co*pan2 rules and re1ulations "as a concerted effort to paral2Ce the

operations of the Hotel, as the <nion officers and *e*bers %ne" prett2 "ell

that the2 "ould not be allo"ed to "or% in their bald or cropped hair st2le.

6or this reason, the Hotel ar1ues that the <nion co**itted an ille1al stri%e

on &anuar2 )0, '((' and on &anuar2 ':, '(('.

5e rule for the Hotel.

+rt. ')'o- of the 4abor !ode defines a stri%e as Fan2 te*porar2 stoppa1e of

"or% b2 the concerted action of e*plo2ees as a result of an industrial or

labor dispute.F

In /oyota &otor Phils. or#. !or"ers Association (/&P!A) v. 'ational

Labor Relations ommission, "e cited the various cate1ories of an ille1al

stri%e, to "it;

Noted authorit2 on labor la", 4ud"i1 Teller, lists si= :- cate1ories of

an ille1al stri%e, vi0 .;

)- "hen itE is contrar2 to a specific prohibition of la", such as stri%e

b2 e*plo2ees perfor*in1 1overn*ental functions8 or

'- "hen itE violates a specific reBuire*ent of la", such as +rticle

':3 of the 4abor !ode on the reBuisites of a valid stri%eE8 or

3- "hen itE is declared for an unla"ful purpose, such as inducin1 the

e*plo2er to co**it an unfair labor practice a1ainst nonunion

e*plo2ees8 or



#- "hen itE e*plo2s unla"ful *eans in the pursuit of its ob7ective,

such as a "idespread terroris* of nonstri%ers for e=a*ple,

prohibited acts under +rt. ':#e- of the 4abor !odeE8 or

$- "hen itE is declared in violation of an e=istin1 in7unction, such asin7unction, prohibition, or order issued b2 the DO4 Secretar2 and the

N4R! under +rt. ':3 of the 4abor !odeE8 or

:- "hen itE is contrar2 to an e=istin1 a1ree*ent, such as a nostri%e

clause or conclusive arbitration clause.)0

5ith the fore1oin1 para*eters as 1uide and the follo"in1 1rounds as basis,

"e hold that the <nion is liable for conductin1 an ille1al stri%e for the

follo"in1 reasons;

1irst , the <nion?s violation of the Hotel?s /roo*in1 Standards "as clearl2 a

deliberate and concerted action to under*ine the authorit2 of and to

e*barrass the Hotel and "as, therefore, not a protected action. The

appearances of the Hotel e*plo2ees directl2 reflect the character and "ell

bein1 of the Hotel, bein1 a fivestar hotel that provides service to topnotch

clients. >ein1 bald or havin1 cropped hair per se does not evo%e ne1ative or

unpleasant feelin1s. The realit2 that a substantial nu*ber of e*plo2eesassi1ned to the food and bevera1e outlets of the Hotel "ith full heads of hair

suddenl2 decided to co*e to "or% baldheaded or "ith cropped hair,

ho"ever, su11ests that so*ethin1 is a*iss and insinuates a sense that

so*ethin1 out of the ordinar2 is afoot. Obviousl2, the Hotel does not need to

advertise its labor proble*s "ith its clients. It can be 1leaned fro* the

records before us that the <nion officers and *e*bers deliberatel2 and in

apparent concert shaved their heads or cropped their hair. This "as sho"n b2

the fact that after co*in1 to "or% on &anuar2 )0, '((', so*e <nion

*e*bers even had their heads shaved or their hair cropped at the <nion

office in the Hotel?s base*ent. !learl2, the decision to violate the co*pan2

rule on 1roo*in1 "as desi1ned and calculated to place the Hotel

*ana1e*ent on its heels and to force it to a1ree to the <nion?s proposals.





In vie" of the <nion?s collaborative effort to violate the Hotel?s /roo*in1

Standards, it succeeded in forcin1 the Hotel to choose bet"een allo"in1 its

inappropriatel2 hair st2led e*plo2ees to continue "or%in1, to the detri*ent

of its reputation, or to refuse the* "or%, even if it had to cease operations in

affected depart*ents or service units, "hich in either "a2 "ould disrupt theoperations of the Hotel. This !ourt is of the opinion, therefore, that the act of

the <nion "as not *erel2 an e=pression of their 1rievance or displeasure

but, indeed, a calibrated and calculated act desi1ned to inflict serious

da*a1e to the Hotel?s finances or its reputation. Thus, "e hold that the

<nion?s concerted violation of the Hotel?s /roo*in1 Standards "hich

resulted in the te*porar2 cessation and disruption of the Hotel?s operations

is an unprotected act and should be considered as an ille1al stri%e.

Second , the <nion?s concerted action "hich disrupted the Hotel?s operations

clearl2 violated the !>+?s FNo Stri%e, No 4oc%outF provision, "hich reads;

+RTI!4 JJII NO STRI5OR STOPP+/ +ND

4O!O<T

S!TION ). No Stri%es

The <nion a1rees that there shall be no stri%es, "al%outs,stoppa1e or slo"do"n of "or%, bo2cott, refusal to handle

accounts, pic%etin1, sitdo"n stri%es, s2*path2 stri%es or an2

other for* of interference andor interruptions "ith an2 of the

nor*al operations of the HOT4 durin1 the life of this

+1ree*ent.

The facts are clear that the stri%e arose out of a bar1ainin1 deadloc% in the

!>+ ne1otiations "ith the Hotel. The concerted action is an econo*ic stri%e

upon "hich the aforeBuoted Fno stri%e"or% stoppa1e and loc%outF prohibition is sBuarel2 applicable and le1all2 bindin1.)9

/hird , the <nion officers and *e*bers? concerted action to shave their heads

and crop their hair not onl2 violated the Hotel?s /roo*in1 Standards but also

violated the <nion?s dut2 and responsibilit2 to bar1ain in 1ood faith. >2





shavin1 their heads and croppin1 their hair, the <nion officers and *e*bers

violated then Section :, Rule JIII of the I*ple*entin1 Rules of >oo% V of

the 4abor !ode.'( This rule prohibits the co**ission of an2 act "hich "ill

disrupt or i*pede the earl2 settle*ent of the labor disputes that are under

conciliation. Since the bar1ainin1 deadloc% is bein1 conciliated b2 the N!M>, the <nion?s action to have their officers and *e*bers? heads shaved

"as *anifestl2 calculated to anta1oniCe and e*barrass the Hotel

*ana1e*ent and in doin1 so effectivel2 disrupted the operations of the

Hotel and violated their dut2 to bar1ain collectivel2 in 1ood faith.

1ourth, the <nion failed to observe the *andator2 3!+)= oo;*<o

pero+ and the :e?e*+)= :tr>e b)* before it conducted the stri%e on

&anuar2 )0, '(('. The N4R! correctl2 held that the <nion failed to observe

the *andator2 periods before conductin1 or holdin1 a stri%e. Records reveal

that the <nion filed its Notice of Stri%e on the 1round of bar1ainin1

deadloc% on Dece*ber '(, '((). The 3(da2 coolin1off period should have

been until &anuar2 )9, '(('. On top of that, the stri%e vote "as held on

&anuar2 )#, '((' and "as sub*itted to the N!M> onl2 on &anuar2 )0,

'(('8 therefore, the Ada2 stri%e ban should have prevented the* fro*

holdin1 a stri%e until &anuar2 '$, '(('. The concerted action co**itted b2

the <nion on &anuar2 )0, '((' "hich resulted in the disruption of the Hotel?s

operations clearl2 violated the abovestated *andator2 periods.

Last , the <nion co**itted ille1al acts in the conduct of its stri%e. The

N4R! ruled that the stri%e "as ille1al since, as sho"n b2 the

pictures') presented b2 the Hotel, the <nion officers and *e*bers for*ed

hu*an barricades and obstructed the drive"a2 of the Hotel. There is no

*erit in the <nion?s ar1u*ent that it "as not its *e*bers but the Hotel?s

securit2 1uards and the police officers "ho bloc%ed the drive"a2, as it can

be seen that the 1uards andor police officers "ere 7ust tr2in1 to secure theentrance to the Hotel. The pictures clearl2 de*onstrate the tense and hi1hl2

e=plosive situation brou1ht about b2 the stri%ers? presence in the Hotel?s

drive"a2.







6urther*ore, this !ourt, not bein1 a trier of facts, finds no reason to alter or

disturb the N4R! findin1s on this *atter, these findin1s bein1 based on

substantial evidence and affir*ed b2 the !+.'' 6actual findin1s of labor

officials, "ho are dee*ed to have acBuired e=pertise in *atters "ithin their

respective 7urisdictions, are 1enerall2 accorded not onl2 respect but evenfinalit2, and bind us "hen supported b2 substantial evidence.'3 4i%e"ise, "e

are not dut2bound to delve into the accurac2 of the factual findin1s of the

N4R! in the absence of clear sho"in1 that these "ere arrived at arbitraril2

andor bereft of an2 rational basis.'#

5hat then are the conseBuent liabilities of the <nion officers and *e*bers

for their participation in the ille1al stri%e

Re1ardin1 the <nion officers and *e*bers? liabilities for their participation

in the ille1al pic%et and stri%e, +rt. ':#a-, para1raph 3 of the 4abor !ode

provides that F/)2*= *o* oer 6o >*o6*<;= p)rtp)te: * )*

;;e<); :tr>e )*+ )*= 6or>er or *o* oer 6o >*o6*<;=

p)rtp)te: * te omm::o* o ;;e<); )t: +r*< ) :tr>e m)= be

+e;)re+ to )?e ;o:t : emp;o=me*t :t)t: @ @ @ .F The la" *a%es a

distinction bet"een union officers and *ere union *e*bers. <nion officers

*a2 be validl2 ter*inated fro* e*plo2*ent for their participation in an

ille1al stri%e, "hile union *e*bers have to participate in and co**it ille1alacts for the* to lose their e*plo2*ent status.'$ Thus, it is necessar2 for the

co*pan2 to adduce proof of the participation of the stri%in1 e*plo2ees in

the co**ission of ille1al acts durin1 the stri%es.':

!learl2, the '9 <nion officers *a2 be dis*issed pursuant to +rt. ':#a-, par.

3 of the 4abor !ode "hich i*poses the penalt2 of dis*issal on F)*= *o*

oer 6o >*o6*<;= p)rtp)te: * )* ;;e<); :tr>e.F 5e, ho"ever, are

of the opinion that there is roo* for lenienc2 "ith respect to the <nion

*e*bers. It is pertinent to note that the Hotel "as able to prove before the

N4R! that the stri%ers bloc%ed the in1ress to and e1ress fro* the Hotel. >ut

it is Buite apparent that the Hotel failed to specificall2 point out the

participation of each of the <nion *e*bers in the co**ission of ille1al acts













durin1 the pic%et and the stri%e. 6or this lapse in 7ud1*ent or dili1ence, "e

are constrained to reinstate the :) <nion *e*bers.

6urther, "e held in one case that union *e*bers "ho participated in an

ille1al stri%e but "ere not identified to have co**itted ille1al acts areentitled to be reinstated to their for*er positions but "ithout

bac%"a1es.'A 5e then held in 2 3 S /rans#ort or#oration v. Infante;

5ith respect to bac%"a1es, the principle of a Ffair da2?s "a1e for a

fair da2?s laborF re*ains as the basic factor in deter*inin1 the a"ard

thereof. If there is no "or% perfor*ed b2 the e*plo2ee there can be

no "a1e or pa2 unless, of course, the laborer "as able, "illin1 and

read2 to "or% but "as ille1all2 loc%ed out, suspended or dis*issed or

other"ise ille1all2 prevented fro* "or%in1. 5hile it "as found that

respondents e=pressed their intention to report bac% to "or%, the latter

e=ception cannot appl2 in this case. In Phili##ine &arine 4fficers

2uild v. om#a5ia &aritima, as affir*ed in Phili##ine iamond

Hotel and Resort v. &anila iamond Hotel -m#loyees Union, the

!ourt stressed that for this e=ception to appl2, it is reBuired that the

stri%e be le1al, a situation that does not obtain in the case at bar .'0

In this li1ht, "e stand b2 our recent rulin1s and reinstate the :) <nion*e*bers "ithout bac%"a1es.

-ERE4ORE, pre*ises considered, the !+?s Ma2 :, '((# Decision in

!+/.R. SP No. A(AA0 is hereb2 A44IRME%.

The !+?s &anuar2 )9, '((# Decision in !+/.R. SP No. A:$:0 is

hereb2 SET ASI%E. The October 9, '((' Decision of the N4R! in N4R!

N!R !! No. (((')$(' is hereb2 A44IRME% "ithMO%I4ICATIONS,

as follo"s;

The '9 <nion officials are hereb2 declared to have lost their e*plo2*ent

status, to "it;








). 4O +NTONIO +T<T<>O

'. D5IN . >+44STROS

3. 4ORTT+ DIVIN+ D 4<N+

#. INIS<S+N D V4

$. DNNIS H+>R :. M+RITS HRN+ND

A. >RN+RD H</O

0. NOR+MI+ INT+4

9. 4+<RO &+VIR

)(. SH+N 4+<

)). M+K >4N 4+NO

)'. D/+R 4IN/HON

)3. MI4+/ROS 4OP)#. &OS M<ONS

)$. R+K NRV+

):. &S<S NON+N

)A. M+R4KN O44RO

)0. !+THK ORD<N+

)9. RKN+4DO R+SIN/

'(. &<STO T+><ND+

'). >+RTO4OM T+4IS+KON

''. &<N TSORO

'3. 4KNDON TSORO

'#. S+4V+DOR TIPONS

'$. SONNK <K

':. 5I46RDO V+44S, &R.

'A. M4 VI44+H<!O

'0. MM+ G. D+N+O

'9. &ORD+N +4&+NDRO

The :) <nion *e*bers are hereb2 REINSTATE% to their for*er positions

"ithout bac%"a1es;

). D+NI4O +/<IN+4DO

'. !4+RO +>R+NT



3. 64IJ +RRIS/+DO

#. D+N >+<TIST+

$. M+. THRS+ >ONI6+!IO

:. &<+N ><S!+NO

A. 4K !H<+0. +44+N D4+/ON

9. 6R<MN!IO D 4ON

)(. 44I D4 M<NDO

)). D5IN D4OS !INTOS

)'. SO4OMON DION

)3. K4OTSI DR+PR

)#. R4+ND !O44+NTS

)$. &ON+S !OMPNIDO):. ROD4IO SPIN<V+

)A. +RM+NDO ST+!IO

)0. SHR5IN 6+4!S

)9. &4+ 6R+N<4+

'(. RK /+4O/O

'). +4ON+ /RNOMINO

''. VIN!NT HM>R+DOR

'3. ROS4KN I>+R>I+

'#. &+IM IDIOM+, &R.

'$. O64I+ 44+>+N

':. RN+TON 4<ON/

'A. TOD<4O M+!+4INO

'0. &+ M+!+S+T

'9. HRN+NI P+>I4ONI+

3(. HONORIO P+!ION

3). +NDR+ VI44+6<RT

3'. M+RIO P+!<4+N

33. &<4IO P+&IN+/

3#. &OS4ITO P+SION

3$. VI!NT P+SIO4+N

3:. H+4 PN+

3A. PDRO PO44+NT



30. D<+RDO R+MOS

39. IM4D+ R+SIN

#(. D46IN R++4+N

#). V+N/4IN RKS

#'. RODO46O RKS#3. >RI/I4DO R<>IO

##. RIO S+4!DO

#$. &<+NITO S+N!H

#:. M+. THRS+ S+N!H

#A. DON+TO S+N +/<STIN

#0. RI!+RDO SO!ORRO

#9. V+4RIO SO4IS

$(. DOMIN+DOR S<+R$). OR4+NDO T+></O!+

$'. H4N T+4ON

$3. RO>RT T+N/R+

$#. 4O<RDS T+K+/

$$. RO4+NDO TO4NTINO

$:. RKN+4DO TRSN+DO

$A. RI!H+RD S+>4+D+

$0. M+ K+PDI+N/!O

$9. /I4>RTO VD+STO

:(. DOMIN/O VID+RO+/+

:). D+N VI44+N<V+

In vie" of the possibilit2 that the Hotel *i1ht have alread2 hired re1ular

replace*ents for the aforelisted :) e*plo2ees, the Hotel *a2 opt to

pa2 SEPARATION PA& co*puted at one )- *onth?s pa2 for ever2 2ear of

service in lieu of REINSTATEMENT, a fraction of si= :- *onths bein1

considered one 2ear of service.

SO OR%ERE%.

S!OND DIVISION

/G.R. No. 107!8!. Apr; , !!2



CAPITOL ME%ICAL CENTER, INC., petitioner, vs. NATIONAL

LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, $AIME IBABAO, $OSE

BALLESTEROS, RONAL% CENTENO, NARCISO

SARMIENTO, E%UAR%O CANA(ERAL, S-ERLITO %ELA

CRU', SO4RONIO COMAN%AO, MARIANO GALICIA,RAMON MOLO%, CARMENCITA SARMIENTO, -ELEN

MOLO%, ROSA COMAN%AO, ANGELITO CUI'ON, ALE"

MARASIGAN, $ESUS CE%RO, ENRICO RO#UE, $A&

PERILLA, -ELEN MEN%O'A, MAR& GLA%&S

GEMPEROSO, NINI BAUTISTA, ELENA MACARUBBO,

MUSTIOLA SAL(ACION %APITO, ALE"AN%ER MANABE,

MIC-AEL EUSTA#UIO, ROSE A'ARES, 4ERNAN%O

MAN'ANO, -ENR& (ERA CRU', C-ITO MEN%O'A,4RE%ELITA TOMA&AO, ISABEL BRUCAL, MA-ALKO

LA&ACAN, RAINIER MANACSA, KAREN (ILLARENTE,

4RANCES ACACIO, LAMBERTO CONTI, LORENA BEAC-,

$U%ILA- RA(ALO, %EBORA- NA(E, MARILEN

CABAL#UINTO, EMILIANA RI(ERA, MA. ROSARIO

URBANO, ROENA ARILLA, CAPITOL ME%ICAL CENTER

EMPLO&EES ASSOCIATIONA4, GREGORIO %EL

PRA%O, ARIEL ARA$A, )*+ $ESUS STA. BARBARA,

$R.,respondents.

% E C I S I O N

CALLE$O, SR., J .5

This is a petition for revie" of the Decision )E of the !ourt of +ppeals

!+- in !+/.R. SP No. $A$(( and its Resolution den2in1 the *otion for

reconsideration thereof.

Te A*tee+e*t:'E

5hether the respondent !apitol Medical !enter *plo2ees +ssociation

+lliance of 6ilipino 5or%ers the <nion, for brevit2- "as the e=clusive

bar1ainin1 a1ent of the ran%andfile e*plo2ees of the petitioner !apitol

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/apr2005/147080.htm#_ftn1






Medical !enter, Inc. had been the bone of contention bet"een the <nion and

the petitioner. The petitioners refusal to ne1otiate for a collective bar1ainin1

a1ree*ent !>+- resulted in a unionled stri%e on +pril )$, )993.

The <nion had to contend "ith another union the !apitol Medical!enter +lliance of !oncerned *plo2ees !M!+!- "hich de*anded for

a certification election a*on1 the ran%andfile e*plo2ees of the petitioner.

Med+rbiter >ri1ida 6adri1on 1ranted the petition, and the *atter "as

appealed to the Secretar2 of 4abor and *plo2*ent SO4-.

<ndersecretar2 >ienvenido . 4a1ues*a rendered a Resolution on

Nove*ber )0, )99# 1rantin1 the appeal. He, li%e"ise, denied the *otion

filed b2 the petitioner and the !M!+!. The latter thereafter brou1ht the

*atter to the !ourt "hich rendered 7ud1*ent on 6ebruar2 #, )99A affir*in1

the resolution of <ndersecretar2 4a1ues*a, thus;

). Dis*issin1 the petition for certification election filed b2 the !apitol

Medical !enter +lliance of !oncerned *plo2ees<nited 6ilipino Services

5or%ers for lac% of *erit8 and

'. Directin1 the *ana1e*ent of the !apitol Medical !enter to ne1otiate a

!>+ "ith the !apitol Medical !enter *plo2ees +ssociation+lliance of

6ilipino 5or%ers, the certified bar1ainin1 a1ent of the ran%andfilee*plo2ees.3E

The decision of the !ourt beca*e final and e=ecutor2. Thereafter, in a

4etter dated October 3, )99A addressed to Dr. Thel*a N. !le*ente, the

President and Director of the petitioner, the <nion reBuested for a *eetin1 to

discuss *atters pertainin1 to a ne1otiation for a !>+, confor*abl2 "ith the

decision of the !ourt.#E Ho"ever, in a 4etter to the <nion dated October )(,

)99A, Dr. !le*ente re7ected the proposed *eetin1, on her clai* that it "as a

violation of Republic +ct No. :A)3 and that the <nion "as not a le1iti*ate

one. On October )$, )99A, the petitioner filed a Petition for the !ancellation

of the <nions !ertificate of Re1istration "ith the Depart*ent of 4abor and

*plo2*ent DO4- on the follo"in1 1rounds;







3- Respondent has failed for several 2ears to sub*it annuall2 its annual

financial state*ents and other docu*ents as reBuired b2 la". 6or this reason,

respondent has lon1 lost its le1al personalit2 as a union.

#- Respondent also en1a1ed in a stri%e "hich has been declared ille1al b2the National 4abor Relations !o**ission.$E

+pparentl2 una"are of the petition, the <nion reiterated its proposal for

!>+ ne1otiations in a 4etter dated October ):, )99A and su11ested the date,

ti*e and place of the initial *eetin1. The <nion further reiterated its plea in

another 4etter :E dated October '0, )99A, to no avail.

Instead of filin1 a *otion "ith the SO4 for the enforce*ent of the

resolutions of <ndersecretar2 4a1ues*a as affir*ed b2 this !ourt, the<nion filed a Notice of Stri%e on October '9, )99A "ith the National

!onciliation and Mediation >oard N!M>-, servin1 a cop2 thereof to the

petitioner. The <nion alle1ed as 1rounds for the pro7ected stri%e the

follo"in1 acts of the petitioner; a- refusal to bar1ain8 b- coercion on

e*plo2ees8 and c- interference restraint to selfor1aniCation.AE

+ series of conferences "as conducted before the N!M> National

!apital Re1ion-, but no a1ree*ent "as reached. On Nove*ber :, )99A, the petitioner even filed a 4etter "ith the >oard reBuestin1 that the notice of

stri%e be dis*issed80E the <nion had apparentl2 failed to furnish the

Re1ional >ranch of the N!M> "ith a cop2 of a notice of the *eetin1 "here

the stri%e vote "as conducted.

On Nove*ber '(, )99A, the <nion sub*itted to the N!M> the

*inutes9E of the alle1ed stri%e vote purportedl2 held on Nove*ber )(, )99A

at the par%in1 lot in front of the petitioners pre*ises, at the corner of Scout

Ma1banua Street and Pana2 +venue, GueCon !it2. It appears that )A0 out of the 3(( union *e*bers participated therein, and the results "ere as follo"s;

)$: *e*bers voted to stri%e8 )# *e*bers cast ne1ative votes8 and ei1ht

votes "ere spoiled.)(E















On Nove*ber '0, )99A, the officers and *e*bers of the <nion sta1ed a

stri%e. SubseBuentl2, on Dece*ber ), )99A, the <nion filed an e6

#arte *otion "ith the DO4, pra2in1 for its assu*ption of 7urisdiction over

the dispute. The <nion li%e"ise pra2ed for the i*position of appropriate

le1al sanctions, not li*ited to conte*pt and other penalties, a1ainst thehospital directorpresident and other responsible corporate officers for their

continuous refusal, in bad faith, to bar1ain collectivel2 "ith the <nion, to

ad7ud1e the sa*e hospital directorpresident and other corporate officers

1uilt2 of unfair labor practices, and for other 7ust, eBuitable and e=peditious

reliefs in the pre*ises.))E

On Dece*ber #, )99A, the SO4 issued an Order, assu*in1 7urisdiction

over the on1oin1 labor dispute. The decretal portion of the order reads;

5HR6OR, this Office no" assu*es 7urisdiction over the labor disputes

at !apitol Medical !enter pursuant to +rticle ':31- of the 4abor !ode, as

a*ended. !onseBuentl2, all stri%in1 "or%ers are directed to return to "or%

"ithin t"ent2four '#- hours fro* the receipt of this Order and the

*ana1e*ent to resu*e nor*al operations and accept bac% all stri%in1

"or%ers under the sa*e ter*s and conditions prevailin1 before the stri%e.

6urther, parties are directed to cease and desist fro* co**ittin1 an2 act that

*a2 e=acerbate the situation.

Moreover, parties are hereb2 directed to sub*it "ithin )( da2s fro* receipt

of this Order proposals and counterproposals leadin1 to the conclusion of

the collective bar1ainin1 a1ree*ents in co*pliance "ith afore*entioned

Resolution of the Office as affir*ed b2 the Supre*e !ourt.

SO ORDRD.)'E

In obedience to the order of the SO4, the officers and *e*bers of the<nion stopped their stri%e and returned to "or%.

6or its part, the petitioner filed a petition)3E to declare the stri%e ille1al

"ith the National 4abor Relations !o**ission N4R!-, doc%eted as N4R!

N!R !ase No. (()'(0:##9A. In its position paper, the petitioner









appended the affidavit of r"in >arbacena, the overseer of the propert2

across the hospital "hich "as bein1 used as a par%in1 lot, at the corner of

Scout Ma1banua Street and Pana2 +venue, GueCon !it2. +lso included "ere

the affidavits of Si*on &. Tin1Con and Re11ie >. >ara"id, the petitioners

securit2 1uards assi1ned in front of the hospital pre*ises. The2 attested tothe fact that no secret ballotin1 too% place at the said par%in1 lot fro* :;((

a.*. to A;(( p.*. of Nove*ber )(, )99A. )#E The petitioner also appended the

affidavit of Henr2 V. Vera !ruC, "ho alle1ed that he "as a *e*ber of the

<nion and had discovered that si1natures on the State*ents of !ash Receipt

Over Disburse*ent sub*itted b2 the <nion to the DO4 purportin1 to be

his "ere not his 1enuine si1natures8)$E the affidavits of )A of its e*plo2ees,

"ho declared that no for*al votin1 "as held b2 the *e*bers of the <nion

on the said date, "ere also sub*itted. The latter e*plo2ees also declaredthat the2 "ere not *e*bers of an2 union, and 2et "ere as%ed to si1n

docu*ents purportin1 to be a stri%e vote attendance and unnu*bered stri%e

vote ballots on different dates fro* Nove*ber 0 to )), )99A.

In their position paper, the respondents appended the 7oint affidavit of

the <nion president and those *e*bers "ho alle1ed that the2 had cast their

votes durin1 the stri%e vote held on Nove*ber )(, )99A.):E

In the *eanti*e, on Septe*ber 3(, )990, the Re1ional Director of theDO4 rendered a Decision den2in1 the petition for the cancellation of the

respondent <nions certificate of re1istration. The decision "as affir*ed b2

the Director of the >ureau of 4abor Relations on Dece*ber '9, )990.

In a parallel develop*ent, 4abor +rbiter 6acundo 4. 4eda rendered a

Decision on Dece*ber '3, )990 in N4R! N!R !ase No. (()'(0:##9A

in favor of the petitioner, and declared the stri%e sta1ed b2 the respondents

ille1al. The fallo of the decision reads;

). Declarin1 as ille1al the stri%e sta1ed b2 the respondents fro* Nove*ber

'0, )99A to Dece*ber $, )99A8

'. Declarin1 respondent &ai*e Ibabao, in his capacit2 as union president, the

other union officers, and respondents Ronald G. !enteno, Michael ustaBuio









and Henr2 Vera !ruC to have lost their e*plo2*ent status "ith petitioner8

and

3. Orderin1 the above respondents to pa2, 7ointl2 and severall2, petitioner the

a*ount of T"o Hundred Thousand Pesos P'((,(((.((- b2 "a2 of da*a1es.)AE

The 4abor +rbiter ruled that no votin1 had ta%en place on Nove*ber )(,

)99A8 *oreover, no notice of such votin1 "as furnished to the N!M> at

least t"ent2four '#- hours prior to the intended holdin1 of the stri%e vote.

+ccordin1 to the 4abor +rbiter, the affidavits of the petitioners )A

e*plo2ees "ho alle1ed that no stri%e vote "as ta%en, and supported b2 the

affidavit of the overseer of the par%in1 lot and the securit2 1uards, *ust

prevail as a1ainst the *inutes of the stri%e vote presented b2 the

respondents. The 4abor +rbiter also held that in li1ht of +rticle ':39- of the

4abor !ode, the respondent <nion should have filed a *otion for a "rit of

e=ecution of the resolution of <ndersecretar2 4a1ues*a "hich "as affir*ed

b2 this !ourt instead of sta1in1 a stri%e.

The respondents appealed the decision to the N4R! "hich rendered a

Decision)0E on &une )#, )999, 1rantin1 their appeal and reversin1 the

decision of the 4abor +rbiter. The N4R! also denied the petitioners petitionto declare the stri%e ille1al. In resolvin1 the issue of "hether the union

*e*bers held a stri%e vote on Nove*ber )(, )99A, the N4R! ruled as

follo"s;

5e find untenable the 4abor +rbiters findin1 that no actual stri%e votin1

too% place on Nove*ber )(, )99A, clai*in1 that this is supported b2 the

affidavit of r"in >arbacena, the overseer of the par%in1 lot across the

hospital, and the s"orn state*ents of nineteen )9- sic- union *e*bers.

5hile it is true that no stri%e votin1 too% place in the par%in1 lot "hich he is

overseein1, it does not *ean that no stri%e votin1 ever too% place at all

because the sa*e "as conducted in the par%in1 lot i**ediatel2directl2

frontin1, not across, the hospital buildin1 +nne=es )&, ) to ):-.

6urther, it is apparent that the nineteen )9- sic- hospital e*plo2ees, "ho

recanted their participation in the stri%e votin1, did so involuntaril2 for fear







of loss of e*plo2*ent, considerin1 that their +ffidavits are unifor* and #ro

forma +nne=es H' to H)9-.)9E

The N4R! ruled that under Section A, Rule JJII of DO4 Order No. 9,

Series of )99A, absent a sho"in1 that the N!M> decided to supervise theconduct of a secret ballotin1 and infor*ed the union of the said decision, or

that an2 such reBuest "as *ade b2 an2 of the parties "ho "ould be affected

b2 the secret ballotin1 and to "hich the N!M> a1reed, the respondents "ere

not *andated to furnish the N!M> "ith such notice before the stri%e vote

"as conducted.'(E

The petitioner filed a *otion for the reconsideration of the decision, but

the N4R! denied the said *otion on Septe*ber 3(, )999.')E

The petitioner filed a petition for certiorari "ith the !+ assailin1 the

decision and resolution of the N4R! on the follo"in1 alle1ation;

P<>4I! RSPONDNT N+TION+4 4+>OR R4+TIONS

!OMMISSION N4R!- !OMMITTD /R+V +><S O6

DIS!RTION +MO<NTIN/ TO 4+! OR J!SS O6

&<RISDI!TION, +!TD !+PRI!IO<S4K, +ND !ONTR+VND TH

4+5 +ND ST+>4ISHD &<RISPR<DN! IN RVRSIN/ TH4+>OR +R>ITRS D!ISION D+TD D!M>R '3, )990 +NNJ

- +ND IN <PHO4DIN/ TH 4/+4ITK O6 TH STRI ST+/D

>K PRIV+T RSPONDNTS 6ROM NOVM>R '0, )99A TO

D!M>R $, )99A.''E

On Septe*ber '9, '(((, the !+ rendered 7ud1*ent dis*issin1 the

petition and affir*in1 the assailed decision and resolution of the N4R!.

The petitioner filed the instant petition for revie" on certiorari under Rule #$ of the Rules of !ourt on the follo"in1 1round;

TH !O<RT O6 +PP+4S /R+V4K RRD IN <PHO4DIN/ TH

N4R!S 6INDIN/ TH+T RSPONDNTS !OMP4ID 5ITH TH

4/+4 RG<IRMNTS 6OR ST+/IN/ TH S<>&!T STRI.'3E













The petitioner asserts that the N4R! and the !+ erred in holdin1 that the

sub*ission of a notice of a stri%e vote to the Re1ional >ranch of the N!M>

as reBuired b2 Section A, Rule JJII of the O*nibus Rules I*ple*entin1 the

4abor !ode, is *erel2 director2 and not *andator2. The use of the "ord

shall in the rules, the petitioner avers, indubitabl2 indicates the *andator2nature of the respondent <nions dut2 to sub*it the said notice of stri%e vote.

The petitioner contends that the !+ erred in affir*in1 the decision of the

N4R! "hich declared that the respondents co*plied "ith all the

reBuire*ents for a la"ful stri%e. The petitioner insists that, as 1leaned fro*

the affidavits of the )A union *e*bers and that of the overseer, and contrar2

to the 7oint affidavit of the officers and so*e union *e*bers, no *eetin1

"as held and no secret ballotin1 "as conducted on Nove*ber )(, )99A.

The petitioner faults the !+ and the N4R! for holdin1 that a *eetin1 for

a stri%e vote "as held on the said date b2 the respondents, despite the fact

that the N4R! did not conduct an ocular inspection of the area "here the

respondents *e*bers alle1edl2 held the votin1. The petitioner also points

out that it adduced docu*entar2 evidence in the for* of affidavits e=ecuted

b2 )A *e*bers of the respondent union "hich re*ained unrebutted. The

petitioner also posits that the !+ and the N4R! erred in reversin1 the

findin1 of the 4abor +rbiter8 further*ore, there "as no need for therespondent union to sta1e a stri%e on Nove*ber '0, )99A because it had

filed an ur1ent *otion "ith the DO4 for the enforce*ent and e=ecution of

the decision of this !ourt in /.R. No. ))09)$.

The petition is *eritorious.

5e a1ree "ith the petitioner that the respondent <nion failed to co*pl2

"ith the second para1raph of Section )(, Rule JJII of the O*nibus Rules

of the N4R! "hich reads;

Section )(. Stri%e or loc%out vote. + decision to declare a stri%e *ust be

approved b2 a *a7orit2 of the total union *e*bership in the bar1ainin1 unit

concerned obtained b2 secret ballot in *eetin1s or referenda called for the

purpose. + decision to declare a loc%out *ust be approved b2 a *a7orit2 of



the >oard of Directors of the e*plo2er, corporation or association or the

partners obtained b2 a secret ballot in a *eetin1 called for the purpose.

The re1ional branch of the >oard *a2, at its o"n initiative or upon the

reBuest of an2 affected part2, supervise the conduct of the secret ballotin1. Inever2 case, the union or the e*plo2er shall furnish the re1ional branch of the

>oard and notice of *eetin1s referred to in the precedin1 para1raph at least

t"ent2four '#- hours before such *eetin1s as "ell as the results of the

votin1 at least seven A- da2s before the intended stri%e or loc%out, sub7ect to

the coolin1off period provided in this Rule.

+lthou1h the second para1raph of Section )( of the said Rule is not

provided in the 4abor !ode of the Philippines, nevertheless, the sa*e "as

incorporated in the O*nibus Rules I*ple*entin1 the 4abor !ode and has

the force and effect of la".'#E

+side fro* the *andator2 notices e*bedded in +rticle ':3, para1raphs

c- and f- of the 4abor !ode, a union intendin1 to sta1e a stri%e is *andated

to notif2 the N!M> of the *eetin1 for the conduct of stri%e vote, at least

t"ent2four '#- hours prior to such *eetin1. <nless the N!M> is notified

of the date, place and ti*e of the *eetin1 of the union *e*bers for the

conduct of a stri%e vote, the N!M> "ould be unable to supervise theholdin1 of the sa*e, if and "hen it decides to e=ercise its po"er of

supervision. In 'ational 1ederation of Labor v. 'LR ,'$E the !ourt

enu*erated the notices reBuired b2 +rticle ':3 of the 4abor !ode and the

I*ple*entin1 Rules, "hich include the '#hour prior notice to the N!M>;

)- + notice of stri%e, "ith the reBuired contents, should be filed "ith the

DO4, specificall2 the Re1ional >ranch of the N!M>, cop2 furnished the

e*plo2er of the union8

'- + coolin1off period *ust be observed bet"een the filin1 of notice and

the actual e=ecution of the stri%e thirt2 3(- da2s in case of bar1ainin1

deadloc% and fifteen )$- da2s in case of unfair labor practice. Ho"ever, in

the case of union bustin1 "here the unions e=istence is threatened, the

coolin1off period need not be observed.


http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/dec1997/113466.htm







#- %efore a stri"e is actually commenced, a stri"e vote should be ta"en by

secret ballotin, $ith a 78hour #rior notice to '&%. The decision to

declare a stri%e reBuires the secretballot approval of *a7orit2 of the total

union *e*bership in the bar1ainin1 unit concerned.

$- The result of the stri%e vote should be reported to the N!M> at least

seven A- da2s before the intended stri%e or loc%out, sub7ect to the coolin1

off period.

+ union is *andated to notif2 the N!M> of an i*pendin1 dispute in a

particular bar1ainin1 unit via a notice of stri%e. Thereafter, the N!M>,

throu1h its conciliator*ediators, shall call the parties to a conference at the

soonest possible ti*e in order to activel2 assist the* in e=plorin1 all

possibilities for a*icable settle*ent. In the event of the failure in the

conciliation*ediation proceedin1s, the parties shall be encoura1ed to

sub*it their dispute for voluntar2 arbitration. Ho"ever, if the parties refuse,

the union *a2 hold a stri%e vote, and if the reBuisite nu*ber of votes is

obtained, a stri%e *a2 ensue. The purpose of the stri%e vote is to ensure that

the decision to stri%e broadl2 rests "ith the *a7orit2 of the union *e*bers

in 1eneral and not "ith a *ere *inorit2, and at the sa*e ti*e, discoura1e

"ildcat stri%es, union bossis* and even corruption. ':E + stri%e vote report

sub*itted to the N!M> at least seven da2s prior to the intended date of stri%e ensures that a stri%e vote "as, indeed, ta%en. In the event that the

report is false, the sevenda2 period affords the *e*bers an opportunit2 to

ta%e the appropriate re*ed2 before it is too late.'AE The )$ to 3( da2 coolin1

off period is desi1ned to afford the parties the opportunit2 to a*icabl2

resolve the dispute "ith the assistance of the N!M> conciliator*ediator,'0E "hile the sevenda2 stri%e ban is intended to 1ive the DO4 an

opportunit2 to verif2 "hether the pro7ected stri%e reall2 carries the

i*pri*atur of the *a7orit2 of the union *e*bers.'9E

The reBuire*ent of 1ivin1 notice of the conduct of a stri%e vote to the

N!M> at least '# hours before the *eetin1 for the said purpose is desi1ned

to a- infor* the N!M> of the intent of the union to conduct a stri%e vote8

b- 1ive the N!M> a*ple ti*e to decide on "hether or not there is a need to











supervise the conduct of the stri%e vote to prevent an2 acts of violence

andor irre1ularities attendant thereto8 and c- should the N!M> decide on

its o"n initiative or upon the reBuest of an interested part2 includin1 the

e*plo2er, to supervise the stri%e vote, to 1ive it a*ple ti*e to prepare for

the deplo2*ent of the reBuisite personnel, includin1 peace officers if need be. <nless and until the N!M> is notified at least '# hours of the unions

decision to conduct a stri%e vote, and the date, place, and ti*e thereof, the

N!M> cannot deter*ine for itself "hether to supervise a stri%e vote

*eetin1 or not and insure its peaceful and re1ular conduct. The failure of a

union to co*pl2 "ith the reBuire*ent of the 1ivin1 of notice to the N!M>

at least '# hours prior to the holdin1 of a stri%e vote *eetin1 "ill render the

subseBuent stri%e sta1ed b2 the union ille1al.

In this case, the respondent <nion failed to co*pl2 "ith the '#hour

prior notice reBuire*ent to the N!M> before it conducted the alle1ed stri%e

vote *eetin1 on Nove*ber )(, )99A. +s a result, the petitioner co*plained

that no stri%e vote *eetin1 ever too% place and averred that the stri%e sta1ed

b2 the respondent union "as ille1al.

!onfor*abl2 to +rticle ':# of the 4abor !ode of the Philippines3(E and

Section A, Rule JJII of the O*nibus Rules I*ple*entin1 the 4abor !ode,

3)E no labor or1aniCation shall declare a stri%e unless supported b2 a *a7orit2vote of the *e*bers of the union obtained b2 secret ballot in a *eetin1

called for that purpose. The reBuire*ent is *andator2 and the failure of a

union to co*pl2 there"ith renders the stri%e ille1al.3'E The union is thus

*andated to alle1e and prove co*pliance "ith the reBuire*ents of the la".

In the present case, there is a diver1ence bet"een the factual findin1s of

the 4abor +rbiter, on the one hand, and the N4R! and the !+, on the other,

in that the 4abor +rbiter found and declared in his decision that no secret

votin1 ever too% place in the par%in1 lot frontin1 the hospital on Nove*ber

)(, )99A b2 and a*on1 the 3(( *e*bers of the respondent <nion. r"in

>arbacena, the overseer of the onl2 par%in1 lot frontin1 the hospital, and

securit2 1uards Si*on Tin1Con and Re11ie >ara"id, declared in their

respective affidavits that no secret votin1 ever too% place on Nove*ber )(,









)99A8 )A e*plo2ees of the petitioner also denied in their respective

state*ents that the2 "ere not *e*bers of the respondent <nion, and "ere

as%ed to *erel2 si1n attendance papers and unnu*bered votes. The N4R!

and the !+ declared in their respective decisions that the affidavits of the

petitioners )A e*plo2ees had no probative "ei1ht because the saide*plo2ees *erel2 e=ecuted their affidavits out of fear of losin1 their 7obs.

The N4R! and the !+ anchored their conclusion on their findin1 that the

affidavits of the e*plo2ees "ere unifor* and #ro forma.

5e a1ree "ith the findin1 of the 4abor +rbiter that no secret ballotin1 to

stri%e "as conducted b2 the respondent <nion on Nove*ber )(, )99A at the

par%in1 lot in front of the hospital, at the corner of Scout Ma1banua Street

and Pana2 +venue, GueCon !it2. This can be 1leaned fro* the affidavit of

>arbacena and the 7oint affidavit of Tin1Con and >ara"id, respectivel2;

). That I a* "or%in1 as an overseer of a par%in1 lot o"ned b2 Mrs.

Madelaine Dionisio and located ri1ht in front of the !apitol Medical !enter,

specificall2 at the corner of Scout Ma1banua Street and Pana2 +venue,

GueCon !it28

'. That on Nove*ber )(, )99A, durin1 *2 entire tour of dut2 fro* :;(( a.*.

to :;(( p.*., no votin1 or election "as conducted in the afore*entioned par%in1 space for e*plo2ees of the !apitol Medical !enter andor their

1uests, or b2 an2 other 1roup for that *atter.33E

). That I, Si*on &. Tin1Con, a* a securit2 officer of Veterans Philippine

Scout Securit2 +1enc2 hereinafter referred to as VPSS+-, assi1ned, since

&ul2 )99A up to the present, as Securit2 Detach*ent !o**ander at !apitol

Medical !enter hereinafter referred to as !M!- located at Scout Ma1banua

corner Pana2 +venue, GueCon !it28

'. That *2 Tin1Con- functions as such include overall in char1e of securit2

of all buildin1s and properties of !M!, and rovin1 in the entire pre*ises

includin1 the par%in1 lots of all the buildin1s of !M!8





3. That I, Re11ie >. >ara"id, a* a securit2 1uard of VPSS+, assi1ned, since

&une )99A up to the present, as securit2 1uard at !M!8

#. That *2 >ara"id- functions as such include access control of all persons

co*in1 in and out of !M!s buildin1s and properties. I also so*eti*es1uard the par%in1 areas of !M!8

$. That on Nove*ber )(, )99A, both of us "ere on dut2 at !M! fro* A;((

a.*. to A;(( p.*., "ith *e >ara"id- assi1ned at the *ain door of the !M!s

Main >uildin1 alon1 Scout Ma1banua St.8

:. That on said date, durin1 our entire tour of dut2, there "as no votin1 or

election conducted in an2 of the four par%in1 spaces for !M! personnel and

1uests.3#E

The alle1ations in the fore1oin1 affidavits belie the clai* of the

respondents and the findin1 of the N4R! that a secret ballotin1 too% place

on Nove*ber )(, )99A in front of the hospital at the corner of Scout

Ma1banua Street and Pana2 +venue, GueCon !it2. The respondents failed to

prove the e=istence of a par%in1 lot in front of the hospital other than the

par%in1 lot across fro* it. Indeed, )A of those "ho purportedl2 voted in a

secret votin1 e=ecuted their separate affidavits that no secret ballotin1 too% place on Nove*ber )(, )99A, and that even if the2 "ere not *e*bers of the

respondent <nion, "ere as%ed to vote and to si1n attendance papers. The

respondents failed to adduce substantial evidence that the said affiants "ere

coerced into e=ecutin1 the said affidavits. The bare fact that so*e portions

of the said affidavits are si*ilarl2 "orded does not constitute substantial

evidence that the petitioner forced, inti*idated or coerced the affiants to

e=ecute the sa*e.

IN LIG-T O4 ALL T-E 4OREGOING, the petition is /R+NTD.The Decisions of the !ourt of +ppeals and N4R! are ST +SID +ND

RVRSD. The Decision of the 4abor +rbiter is RINST+TD. No costs.

SO OR%ERE%.





Puno, (hairman), Austria&artine0, /ina, and hico'a0ario,

**., concur .

SECON% %I(ISION

A. SORIANO A(IATION,

Petitioner,

versus

EMPLO&EES ASSOCIATION

O4 A. SORIANO A(IATION,

$ULIUS S. (ARGAS IN -IS

CAPACIT& AS UNION

PRESI%ENT, RE&NAL%O

ESPERO, $OSE4INO ESPINO,

GALMIER BALISBIS,

GERAR%O BUNGABONG,

LAURENTE BA&LON,

$E44RE& NERI, ARTURO

INES, RE&NAL%O BERR&,

RO%OL4O RAMOS, OSAL%

ESPION, ALBERT AGUILA,

RA&MON% BARCO,

RE&NANTE AMIMITA,

SONN& BAASANTA, MAR

NIMUAN AN% RAMIR LICUANAN,

Respondents.

G.R. No. 1879

Present;

!+RPIO, *.,

!ORON+,

!+RPIO MOR+4S, *., Actin

hair#erson,D4 !+STI44O, and

+>+D, **.

Pro*ul1ated;

+u1ust )#, '((9

= =

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/august2009/166879.htm#_ftn1






% E C I S I O N

CARPIO MORALES, J.5

On Ma2 '', )99A, +. Soriano +viation petitioner or the co*pan2- "hich is

en1a1ed in providin1 transportation of 1uests to and fro* Aman#ulo and -l

'idoresorts in Pala"an, and respondent *plo2ees +ssociation of +.

Soriano +viation the <nion-, the dul2certified e=clusive bar1ainin1 a1ent

of the ran% and file e*plo2ees of petitioner, entered into a !ollective

>ar1ainin1 +1ree*ent !>+- effective &anuar2 ), )99A up to Dece*ber 3),

)999. The !>+ included a NoStri%e, No4oc%out clause.

On Ma2 ) )', and &une )', )99A, "hich "ere le1al holida2s and

pea% season for the co*pan2, ei1ht *echanics*e*bers of respondent

<nion, its herein corespondents +lbert +1uila +1uila-, Re2nante +*i*ita

+*i*ita-, /al*ier >alisbis >alisbis-, Ra2*ond >arco >arco-, /erardo

>un1abon1 >un1abon1-, &osefino spino spino-, &effre2 Neri Neri- and

Rodolfo Ra*os, &r. Ra*os-, refused to render overti*e "or%.

Petitioner treated the refusal to "or% as a concerted action "hich is aviolation of the NoStri%e, No4oc%out clause in the !>+. It thus *eted the

"or%ers a 3(da2 suspension. It also filed on &ul2 3), )99A a co*plaint for

ille1al stri%e a1ainst the*, doc%eted as N4R! !ase No. (A($#(99A, "hich

"as later dis*issed at its instance in order to 1ive "a2 to settle*ent, "ithout

pre7udice to its refilin1 should settle*ent be unavailin1.

The atte*pted settle*ent bet"een the parties havin1 been futile, the

<nion filed a Notice of Stri%e "ith the National !onciliation and Mediation

>oard N!M>- on October 3, )99A, attributin1 to petitioner the follo"in1

acts; )- union bustin1, '- ille1al dis*issal of union officer, 3- ille1al

suspension of ei1ht *echanics, #- violation of *e*orandu* of a1ree*ent,

$- coercion of e*plo2ees and interro1ation of ne"l2hired *echanics "ith

re1ard to union affiliation, :- discri*ination a1ainst the aircraft *echanics,



A- harass*ent throu1h s2ste*atic faultfindin1, 0- contractual labor, and

9- constructive dis*issal of the <nion President, &ulius Var1as Var1as-.

+s despite conciliation no a*icable settle*ent of the dispute "as

arrived at, the <nion "ent on stri%e on October '', )99A.

Mean"hile, pursuant to its reservation in N4R! !ase No. (A($#(9

9A, petitioner filed a Motion to ReOpen the !ase "hich "as 1ranted b2

4abor +rbiter Manuel P. +suncion b2 Order of October '), )99A.

>2 Decision)E dated Septe*ber '0, )990 rendered in petitioners

co*plaint in N4R! !ase No. (A($#(99A, the 4abor +rbiter declared that

the ne"l2 i*ple*ented "or%shift schedule "as a valid e=ercise of *ana1e*ent prero1ative and the refusal of herein individual respondents to

"or% on three consecutive holida2s "as a for* of protest b2 the <nion,

hence, dee*ed a concerted action. Notin1 that the <nion failed to co*pl2

"ith the for*al reBuire*ents prescribed b2 the 4abor !ode in the holdin1 of

stri%e, the stri%e "as declared ille1al.

The <nion appealed to the N4R! "hich dis*issed it in a #er

curiam Decision'E dated Septe*ber )#, )999, and the subseBuent *otion for

reconsideration "as denied b2 Resolution dated Nove*ber )), )999.

In the interi* or on &une ):, )990, ei1ht *onths into the second stri%e,

petitioner filed a co*plaint a1ainst respondents before the 4abor +rbiter,

pra2in1 for the declaration as ille1al of the stri%e on account of their alle1ed

pervasive and "idespread use of force and violence and for the loss of their

e*plo2*ent, citin1 the follo"in1 acts co**itted b2 the*; publicl2 shoutin1

of foul and vul1ar "ords to co*pan2 officers and nonstri%in1 e*plo2ees8

threatenin1 of officers and nonstri%in1 e*plo2ees "ith bodil2 har* anddousin1 the* "ith "ater "hile passin1 b2 the stri%e area8 destruction of or

inflictin1 of da*a1e to co*pan2 propert2, as "ell as private propert2 of

co*pan2 officers8 and puttin1 up of placards and strea*ers containin1

vul1ar and insultin1 epithets includin1 i*putin1 cri*e on the co*pan2.







>2 Decision3E of &une )$, '(((, 4abor +rbiter Ra*on Valentin !. Re2es

declared the second stri%e ille1al. Ta%in1 7udicial notice of the Septe*ber

'0, )990 Decision of 4abor +rbiter +suncion, he noted that as the <nion

"ent on the first stri%e on a nonstri%eable issue Q the Buestioned chan1e of

"or% schedule, it violated the NoStri%e, No4oc%out clause in the !>+ and,in an2 event, the <nion failed to co*pl2 "ith the reBuire*ents for a valid

stri%e.

The 4abor +rbiter "ent on to hold that the <nion deliberatel2 resorted

to the use of violent and unla"ful acts in the course of the second stri%e,

hence, the individual respondents "ere dee*ed to have lost their

e*plo2*ent.

On appeal, the National 4abor Relations !o**ission N4R!-

affir*ed in toto the 4abor +rbiters decision, b2 Resolution#E dated October

3), '((). It held that even if the stri%e "ere le1al at the onset, the

co**ission of violent and unla"ful acts b2 individual respondents in the

course thereof rendered it ille1al.

Its *otion for reconsideration havin1 been denied b2

Resolution$E dated Dece*ber )#, '((), the <nion appealed to the !ourt of

+ppeals.>2 the assailed Decision of +pril ):, '((#,:E the appellate court

reversed and set aside the N4R! rulin1, holdin1 that the acts of violence

co**itted b2 the <nion *e*bers in the course of the stri%e "ere not, as

co*pared to the acts co*plained of in Shell 4il !or"ers Union v. Shell

om#any of the Phili##ines, [7] 1irst ity Interlin" /rans#ortation o., Inc.,

v. Roldanonfesor 0E and &aria ristina 1ertili0er Plant -m#loyees

Association v. /andaya , 9E this case "as applied b2 the 4abor +rbiter in his

Decision of Septe*ber '0, '((0- "here the acts of violence resulted in lossof e*plo2*ent, concluded that the acts in the present case "ere not as

serious or pervasive as in these i**ediatel2cited cases to call for loss of

e*plo2*ent of the stri%in1 e*plo2ees.

Specificall2, the appellate court noted that at the ti*e petitioner filed

its co*plaint in &une )990, al*ost ei1ht *onths had alread2 elapsed fro*


















the co**ence*ent of the stri%e and, in the interi*, the alle1ed acts of

violence "ere co**itted onl2 durin1 nine nonconsecutive da2s, vi0 ; one

da2 in October, t"o da2s in Nove*ber, four da2s in Dece*ber, all in )99A,

and t"o da2s in &anuar2 )990. To the appellate court, these incidents did not

"arrant the conversion of an other"ise le1al stri%e into an ille1al one, andneither "ould it result in the loss of e*plo2*ent of the stri%ers. 6or, so the

appellate court held, the incidents consisted *erel2 of na*ecallin1 and

usin1 of banners i*putin1 ne1li1ence and cri*inal acts to the co*pan2 and

its officers, "hich do not indicate a de1ree of violence that could be

cate1oriCed as 1rave or serious to "arrant the loss of e*plo2*ent of the

individual stri%ers found to be responsible.

>2 Resolution of &anuar2 '$, '(($, the appellate court denied petitioners

*otion for reconsideration, hence, the present petition.

Petitioner insists that, contrar2 to the appellate courts findin1, the Buestioned

acts of the stri%ers "ere of a serious character, "idespread and pervasive8

and that the <nions i*putation of cri*e and ne1li1ence on its part, and the

prolon1ed stri%e resulted in its loss of 1ood"ill and business, particularl2 the

ter*ination of its lease and airservice contract "ith Aman#ulo, the loss of

its aftersales repair service a1ree*ent "ith >ell Helicopters, the loss of its

accreditation as the >eechcraft service facilit2, and the decision of -l 'ido to put up its o"n aviation co*pan2.

+part fro* the acts of violence co**itted b2 the stri%ers, petitioner bases

its plea that the stri%e should be declared ille1al on the violation of the No

Stri%eNo4oc%out clause in the !>+, the stri%e havin1 arisen fro* non

stri%eable issues. Petitioner proffers that "hat actuall2 pro*pted the holdin1

of the stri%e "as the i*ple*entation of the ne" shift schedule, a valid

e=ercise of *ana1e*ent prero1ative.

In issue then is "hether the stri%e sta1ed b2 respondents is ille1al due to the

alle1ed co**ission of ille1al acts and violation of the No Stri%eNo

4oc%out clause of the !>+ and, if in the affir*ative, "hether individual

respondents are dee*ed to have lost their e*plo2*ent status on account

thereof.



The !ourt rules in the affir*ative.

The !ourt notes that, as found b2 the 4abor +rbiter in N4R! !ase

No. (A($#(99A, the first stri%e or the *echanics refusal to "or% on 3consecutive holida2s "as pro*pted b2 their disa1ree*ent "ith the

*ana1e*enti*posed ne" "or% schedule. Havin1 been 1rounded on a non

stri%eable issue and "ithout co*pl2in1 "ith the procedural reBuire*ents,

then the sa*e is a violation of the No Stri%eNo 4oc%out Polic2 in the

e=istin1 !>+. Respectin1 the second stri%e, "here the <nion co*plied "ith

procedural reBuire*ents, the sa*e "as not a violation of the No Stri%e No

4oc%out provisions, as a No Stri%eNo 4oc%out provision in the !ollective

>ar1ainin1 +1ree*ent !>+- is a valid stipulation but *a2 be invo%ed onl2

b2 e*plo2er "hen the stri%e is econo*ic in nature or one "hich is

conducted to force "a1e or other concessions fro* the e*plo2er that are not

*andated to be 1ranted b2 the la". It "ould be inapplicable to prevent a

stri%e "hich is 1rounded on unfair labor practice. )(E In the present case,

the <nion believed in 1ood faith that petitioner co**itted unfair labor

practice "hen it "ent on stri%e on account of the 3(da2 suspension *eted

to the stri%in1 *echanics, dis*issal of a union officer and perceived union

bustin1, a*on1 others. +s held in &alayan Samahan n ma

&anaa$a sa &. 2reenfield v. Ramos;))E

On the sub*ission that the stri%e "as ille1al for bein1 1rounded

on a nonstri%eable issue, that is, the intraunion conflict

bet"een the federation and the local union, it bears reiteratin1

that 6e* re:po*+e*t omp)*= +:m::e+ te *o* oer:,

te ::e 6): tr)*:orme+ *to ) term*)to* +:pte )*+

bro<t re:po*+e*t omp)*= *to te ptre. Petitioners

believed in 1ood faith that in dis*issin1 the* upon reBuest b2

the federation, respondent co*pan2 "as 1uilt2 of unfair labor

practice in that it violated the petitioners ri1ht to self

or1aniCation. The stri%e "as sta1ed to protest respondent

co*pan2s act of dis*issin1 the union officers. E?e* te

);;e<)to*: o *)r ;)bor pr)te )re :b:ee*t;= o*+

ot to be *tre, te pre:mpto* o ;e<);t= o te :tr>e

pre?);:. *phasis supplied-







>e that as it *a2, the !ourt holds that the second stri%e beca*e

invalid due to the co**ission of ille1al action in its course.



It is hornboo% principle that the e=ercise of the ri1ht of private sector

e*plo2ees to stri%e is not absolute. Thus Section 3 of +rticle JIII of the

!onstitution provides;

S!TION 3. = = =

It shall 1uarantee the ri1hts of all "or%ers to self

or1aniCation, collective bar1ainin1 and ne1otiations and

peaceful concerted activities, includin1 the r<t to :tr>e

* )or+)*e 6t ;)6. The2 shall be entitled to securit2 of

tenure, hu*ane conditions of "or%, and a livin1 "a1e. The2

shall also participate in polic2 and decision*a%in1 processes

affectin1 their ri1hts and benefits as *a2 be provided b2la". *phasis and underscorin1 supplied-

Indeed, even if the purpose of a stri%e is valid, the stri%e *a2 still be

held ille1al "here the means e*plo2ed are ille1al. Thus, the e*plo2*ent of

violence, inti*idation, restraint or coercion in carr2in1 out concerted

activities "hich are in7urious to the ri1ht to propert2 renders a stri%e

ille1al. +nd so is pic%etin1 or the obstruction to the free use of propert2 or

the co*fortable en7o2*ent of life or propert2, "hen acco*panied b2inti*idation, threats, violence, and coercion as to constitute nuisance.)'E

A#ro#os is the follo"in1 rulin1 in Su"hothai uisine v. ourt of

A##eals;)3E

5ellsettled is the rule that even if the stri%e "ere to be

declared valid because its ob7ective or purpose is la"ful,

the stri%e *a2 still be declared invalid "here the *eans

e*plo2ed are ille1al. +*on1 such li*its are the prohibitedactivities under +rticle ':# of the 4abor !ode, particularl2

para1raph e-, "hich states that no person en1a1ed in pic%etin1

shall;







a- co**it an2 act of violence, coercion,

or inti*idation or

b- obstruct the free in1ress to or e1ress

fro* the e*plo2er?s pre*ises for la"ful

purposes, or

c- obstruct public thorou1hfares.

Te o;;o6*< )t: )?e bee* e;+ to be probte+

)t?te:; "here the :tr>er: :ote+ :;)*+ero: )*+

:rr;o: 6or+: )<)*:t te o6*er: of the vessels8 "here

the :tr>er: :e+ **ee::)r= )*+ ob:e*e ;)*<)<e or

eptet: to pre?e*t oter ;)borer: to <o to 6or> , and

circulated ;be;o: :t)teme*t: )<)*:t te emp;o=er 6

:o6 )t); m);e8 "here the prote:tor: :e+ )b:?e )*+tre)te**< ;)*<)<e to6)r+: te p)tro*: o ) p;)e o

b:*e:: or )<)*:t oemp;o=ee:, 1oin1 be2ond the *ere

atte*pt to persuade custo*ers to "ithdra" their patrona1e8

"here the stri%ers for*ed a hu*an cordon and bloc%ed all the

"a2s and approaches to the launches and vessels of the vicinit2

of the "or%place and perpetrated acts of violence and coercion

to prevent "or% fro* bein1 perfor*ed8 and "here the :tr>er:

:oo> ter :t: )*+ tre)te*e+ *o*:tr>*< emp;o=ee:

6t bo+;= )rm te= per::te+ to proee+ to te6or>p;)e. Perm::b;e )t?te: o te p>et*< 6or>er:

+o *ot *;+e ob:trto* o )e:: o :tomer:. e*phasis

supplied-

The appellate court found in the present case, as in fact it is not

dis#uted , that the acts co*plained of "ere the follo"in1;)#E

). On '9 October )99A, "hile Robertus M. !ohen,

personnel *ana1er of the !o*pan2, "as eatin1 at the

canteen, petitioner Rodolfo Ra*os :ote+ *:;t: )*+

oter )b:?e, ?;<)r )*+ o;mote+ 6or+ 6t te

:e o ) me<)po*e, : ):, sige, ubusin mo yung

pagkain, kapal ng mukha mo; that "hen he left the

canteen to 1o bac% to his office e 6): :p;):e+ 6t

6)ter rom be*+ :o t)t : 6o;e b)> 6):





+re*e+8 that "hen he confronted that stri%ers at the

pic%et line acco*panied b2 three 3- securit2 1uards, to

find out "ho "as responsible, he "as told b2 petitioner

Os"ald spion "ho "as then holdin1 a thic% piece of

"ood appro=i*atel2 t"o '- feet lon1 to leave.

'. On the sa*e da2, '9 October )99A, petitioners

&ulius Var1as, &effre2 Neri, and Rodolfo Ra*os, to1ether

"ith &ose >rin, shouted to !apt. >en Hur /o*eC, the

chief operatin1 officer of the !o*pan2, in this

"ise, Matanda ka na, balatuba ka pa

rin. Mangungurakot ka sa kompanya!

3. In the *ornin1 of )) Nove*ber )99A, petitioner

Ra*os "as reported to have shouted to Mr. Ma=i*o!ruC, the Mechanical and n1ineerin1 Mana1er of the

!o*pan2, Max, magresign ka na, ang baho ng

bunganga mo!

#. In the afternoon of the sa*e da2, )) Nove*ber

)99A, petitioner &effre2 Neri "as said to have shouted

these "ords Max, magresign ka na, ang baho ng

bunganga mo! to Mr. Maximo ru";

$. On )' Nove*ber )99A. petitioners &ulius Var1as,

&effre2 Neri, Os"ald spion, Ra2*ond >arco, to1ether

"ith &ose >rin, "ere reported to have shouted to !apt.

/o*eC and Mr. Ma=i*o !ruC, Matanda ka na, balatuba

ka pa rin! Max, ang baho ng bunganga mo, kasing

baho ng ugali mo!

:. On the sa*e da2, )' Nove*ber )99A, petitioner

Os"ald spion "as said to have :ote+ to te *o*

:tr>*< emp;o=ee: )*+ oer: o teComp)*=, putangina ninyo!

A. +lso, on )' Nove*ber )99A, petitioner Os"ald

spion "as reported to have thro"n <r)?e; )*+ :)*+ to

te )r o6*e+ b= Ce;:o (;;)mor GomeJ, ;e)+ m)* o

te Comp)*=, ): te :)+ )r 6): tr)?e;*< );o*<



omp)*= prem:e: *e)r te p>et ;*e8 apart fro* the

*ar%s of *ud, 1ravel and sand found on the entire bod2

of the car, no heav2 da*a1es, ho"ever, appears to have

been sustained b2 the car-.

0. On (0 Dece*ber )99A, petitioners &ulius Var1as,

Re2 spero, Re2 >arr2, /al*ier >alisbis, Rodolfo

Ra*os, Sonn2 >a"asanta and +rturo Ines, to1ether "ith

&ose >rin, shouted, Max, ang sama mo talaga, lumabas

ka dito at pipitpitin ko ang mukha mo! ohen, inutil ka

talaga. #agpahaba ka pa ng balbas para kang

tsonggo! ohen, lumabas ka dito at hahalikan kita.

9. On )( Dece*ber )99A, petitioners Var1as and

spion "ere reported to have shouted to Mr. Ma=i*ino!ruC, $oy, Max ru", %ala kang alam dyan, hu%ag

kang popormaporma dyan! )*+ te* ;):e+ te +rt=

*<er )t m8

)(. On )$ Dece*ber )99A, petitioner Neri "as said to

have :ote+ to *o*:tr>*< emp;o=ee: )t te

)*tee*, $oy, mga iskerol, kain lang ng kain, mga

putangina ninyo!

)). +lso on )$ Dece*ber )99A, petitioners Var1as,

Neri, spion, Mar Ni*uan, Ra*ir 4icuanan, +lbert

+1uila and Sonn2 >a"asanta, to1ether "ith &ose

>rin,:p;):e+ 6)ter o?er E+m*+ C. M)*bo<, $r.,

:ert= <)r+ o te Comp)*=8

)'. On '( Dece*ber )99A, the :tr>er: )+mtte+;= ;t

)*+ tre6 rer)>er: prporte+;= ot:+e te

Comp)*= prem:e:, ): p)rt o ) *o:e b)rr)<e, 6;e

te Comp)*= 6): )?*< t: Cr:tm): p)rt= *:+ete Comp)*= prem:e:8

)3. On )# &anuar2 )990, "hen !hris +. Oballas,

collector of the !o*pan2, boarded a public utilit2

7eepne2 "here &ose >rin, a stri%er, "as also passen1er,

&ose >rin "as said to have shouted to the other



passen1ers and driver of the 7eepne2, Mga pasahero,

driver, itong tao ito sherol, ang kapal ng mukha. &yong

pinagtrabahuhan namin kinakain nito, ibenebent[a]

kami nito, hudas ito! Mga pasahero, tingnan niyo,

hindi makatingintingin sa akin, hindi

makapagsalita. $oy, tingin ka sa akin, napahiya ka sa

mga ginaga%a mo ano' )*+, t)t 6e* Cr: Ob);;):

6): );<t*< rom te eep*e=, e 6): >>e+ o* :

;e< b2 &ose >rin8 and,

)#. On )$ &anuar2 )990, "hile &ulio To*as, +vionics

Technician of the !o*pan2, and his 1irlfriend, liCabeth

/ali, also an e*plo2ee of the !o*pan2, "ere "aitin1 for

their ride, several union *e*bers shouted to liCabeth

/ali, (eth i%anan mo na yang taong yan, %alang k%entang tao yan! (eth, paano na yung pinagsamahan

natin' ir%ed, &ulio To*as upon boardin1 the passen1er

7eepne2 "ith his 1irlfriend thre" a P'.(( coin in the

direction of the pic%eters, the coin hit the "indshield of a

privatel2o"ned 7eepne2 belon1in1 to petitioner spion

"hich "as par%ed alon1side the pre*ises of the stri%e

area8 The act of To*as, provo%ed the petitioners spion

and +*i*ita to follo" To*as, "ho "hen left alone

inside the tric2cle after his 1irlfriend too% a separate

tric2cle to her ho*e, "as approached b2 petitioners

spion and +*i*ita8 petitioner spion then thre"

a P'.(( coin at hi*, and "hile pointin1 a baseball bat to

his face shouted, $u%ag mong uulitin yung gina%a mo

kundi tatamaan ka sa akin! *phasis and italics in the

ori1inal-

The !ourt notes that the placards and banners put up b2 the stri%in1

"or%ers in the co*pan2 pre*ises read; +NDRS SORI+NO +VI+TION,

IN!. !+</HT IN TH +!T, +TTMPTIN/ TO >RI> /OVRNMNT

O66I!I+4S >5+R, NO5 + N+M KO< !+N TR+SH, +S+I

DTRIOR+TIN/ S+6TK R!ORD I44S ' D+D V+RIO<S IN

P4+N !R+SH- 64I/HT MISH+PS >5+R, 64K +T KO<R O5N

RIS, +NDRS SORI+NO +VI+TION, IN!. DTRIOR+TIN/



S+6TK R!ORD I44S INNO!NT POP4 IN P4+N !R+SH,

TH !+<S; <NTR+IND M!H+NI!S DOIN/ +IR!R+6T

R4+S, TH RS<4T; S4IPSHOD M+INTN+N! +ND S4OPPK

P4+N INSP!TION,5+NN+ 64K >4IND, >NH<R /OM

DR+/S !OMP+NK TO D>T +ND SH+M6<4 JPRIN!M+HIK+ + N+M+N, OK-, +. SORI+NO +VI+TION, IN!., D+D

POP4 IN P4+N !R+SH, 4K >ONI6+!IO M+S+IT +N/

TOTOO- M+/N+N++5 N/ PIKS+, P+4IT+N N+ RIN TIN/N+N

NKO <N/ N+/N+N++5, M+NIO D ROP4+NO K

H<4/+ <N VI+& D P4I/RO, +IR!R+6T M+N+/MNT

><4O8 +. SORI+NO +VI+TION I44S POP4 6OR 4+J

OVRSI/HT O6 S+6TK PRO!. 4K >ONI6+!IOP+T+4SIIN N+

RIN, M+ND+R+M>ON/ M<H+N/ 5+RT+, S++N MO DIN+4++N/ DORNIR SP!I+4 TOO4S I+5 H+-, 4K >ONI6+!IO

+5+T+N >+NT+K S+4++K, +M+NP<4O +ND 4 NIDO /<STS,

>5+R O6 +S+I 64I/HTS, +IR!R+6T M!H+NI!S STI44 ON

STRI, /OIN/ TO >OR+!+K +ND 4 NIDO IS /OOD ><T 64KIN/

5ITH +. SORI+NO +VI+TION THIN T5I! +!HT<N/; +

SORI+NO +VI+TION D+D POP4 IN P4+N !R+SH INS<R+N!

NTIT4MNTS DNID D< TO !+R VIO4+TIONS, <NDRSS

SORI+NO +VI+TION, IN!. <NR4I+>4 6IJD >+SD OPR+TOR

I44S POP4 6OR 4+J OVRSI/HT O6 S+6TK PRO!D<RS.

It cannot be 1ainsaid that b2 the aboveenu*erated undisputed acts,

the <nion co**itted ille1al acts durin1 the stri%e. The <nion *e*bers

repeated na*ecallin1, harass*ent and threats of bodil2 har* directed

a1ainst co*pan2 officers and nonstri%in1 e*plo2ees and, more

sinificantly, the puttin1 up of placards, banners and strea*ers "ith vul1ar

state*ents i*putin1 cri*inal ne1li1ence to the co*pan2, "hich put to doubt

reliabilit2 of its operations, co*e "ithin the purvie" of ille1al acts under +rt. ':# and 7urisprudence.

That the alle1ed acts of violence "ere co**itted in nine non

consecutive da2s durin1 the al*ost ei1ht *onths that the stri%e "as on

1oin1 does not render the violence less pervasive or "idespread to be



e=cusable. No"here in +rt. ':# does it reBuire that violence *ust be

continuous or that it should be for the entire duration of the stri%e.

The appellate court too% a1ainst petitioner its filin1 of its co*plaint to

have the stri%e declared ille1al al*ost ei1ht *onths fro* the ti*e itco**enced. +rt. ':# does not, ho"ever, state for purposes of havin1 a

stri%e declared as ille1al that the e*plo2er should i**ediatel2 report the

sa*e. It onl2 lists "hat acts are prohibited. It is thus absurd to e=pect an

e*plo2er to file a co*plaint at the first instance that an act of violence is

alle1ed to be co**itted, especiall2, as in the present case, "hen an earlier

co*plaint to have the refusal of the individual respondents to "or% overti*e

declared as an ille1al stri%e "as still pendin1 an issue resolved in its favor

onl2 on Septe*ber '$, )990.

The records sho" that the <nion "ent on stri%e on October '', )99A,

and the first reported harass*ent incident occurred on October '9, )99A,

"hile the last occurred in &anuar2, )990. Those instances *a2 have been

sporadic, but as found b2 the 4abor +rbiter and the N4R!, the displa2 of

placards, strea*ers and banners even up to the ti*e the appeal "as bein1

resolved b2 the N4R! "or%s a1ainst the <nions favor.

The acts co*plained of includin1 the displa2 of placards and bannersi*putin1 cri*inal ne1li1ence on the part of the co*pan2 and its officers,

apparentl2 "ith the end in vie" of inti*idatin1 the co*pan2s clientele, are,

1iven the nature of its business, that serious as to *a%e the second stri%e

ille1al. Specificall2 "ith respect to the puttin1 up of those banners and

placards, coupled "ith the na*ecallin1 and harass*ent, the sa*e indicates

that it "as resorted to to coerce the resolution of the dispute the ver2 evil

"hich +rt. ':# see%s to prevent.

5hile the stri%e is the *ost pree*inent econo*ic "eapon of "or%ers

to force *ana1e*ent to a1ree to an eBuitable sharin1 of the 7oint product of

labor and capital, it e=erts so*e disBuietin1 effects not onl2 on the

relationship bet"een labor and *ana1e*ent, but also on the 1eneral peace

and pro1ress of societ2 and econo*ic "ellbein1 of the State. )$E If such





"eapon has to be used at all, it *ust be used sparin1l2 and "ithin the bounds

of la" in the interest of industrial peace and public "elfare.

+s to the issue of loss of e*plo2*ent of those "ho participated in the ille1alstri%e, Su"hothai):E instructs;

In the deter*ination of the liabilities of the individual

respondents, the applicable provision is +rticle ':#a- of the

4abor !ode;

+rt. ':#. Prohibited Activities a- = = =

= = = =

= = = = A*= *o* oer 6o >*o6*<;= p)rtp)te:

* )* ;;e<); :tr>e )*+ )*= 6or>er or *o* oer 6o

>*o6*<;= p)rtp)te: * te omm::o* o;;e<); )t:

+r*< )* ;;e<); :tr>e m)= be +e;)re+ to )?e ;o:t :

emp;o=me*t :t)t:5 Pro?+e+, T)t mere p)rtp)to* o )

6or>er * ) ;)6; :tr>e :);; *ot o*:ttte :e*t

<ro*+ or term*)to* o : emp;o=me*t, even if a

replace*ent had been hired b2 the e*plo2er durin1 such la"fulstri%e.

= = = =

In Samahan &anaa$a sa Sul#icio Lines, Inc.

'A1LU v. Sul#icio Lines, Inc., this !ourt e=plained that the

effects of such ille1al stri%es, outlined in +rticle ':#, *a%e a

distinction bet"een "or%ers and union officers "ho participate

therein; an ordinar2 stri%in1 "or%er cannot be ter*inated for *ere participation in an ille1al. Tere m:t be proo t)t e

or :e ommtte+ ;;e<); )t: +r*< ) :tr>e. A *o*

oer, o* te oter )*+, m)= be term*)te+ rom 6or>

6e* e >*o6*<;= p)rtp)te: * )* ;;e<); :tr>e, )*+ ;>e

oter 6or>er:, 6e* e ommt: )* ;;e<); )t +r*< )*

;;e<); :tr>e. I* );; ):e:, te :tr>er m:t be +e*te+. >ut





proof be2ond reasonable doubt is not reBuired. Substantial

evidence available under the attendant circu*stances, "hich

*a2 7ustif2 the i*position of the penalt2 of dis*issal, *a2

suffice.)AE *phasis supplied-

The liabilit2 for prohibited acts has thus to be deter*ined on an

individual basis. + perusal of the 4abor +rbiters Decision, "hich "as

affir*ed in toto b2 the N4R!, sho"s that on account of the sta1in1 of the

ille1al stri%e, individual respondents "ere all dee*ed to have lost their

e*plo2*ent, "ithout distinction as to their respective participation.

Of the participants in the ille1al stri%e, "hether the2 %no"in1l2 participated in the ille1al stri%e in the case of union officers or %no"in1l2

participated in the co**ission of violent acts durin1 the ille1al stri%e in the

case of union members, the records do not indicate. 5hile respondent &ulius

Var1as "as identified to be a union officer, there is no indication if he

%no"in1l2 participated in the ille1al stri%e. The !ourt not bein1 a trier of

facts, the re*and of the case to the N4R! is in order onl2 for the purpose of

deter*inin1 the status in the <nion of individual respondents and their

respective liabilit2, if an2.

-ERE4ORE, the petition is GRANTE%. The !ourt of

+ppeals Decision and Resolution dated +pril ):, '((# and &anuar2 '$,

'(($, respectivel2, areRE(ERSE% and SET ASI%E. The Resolutions

dated October 3), '(() and Dece*ber )#, '(() of the National 4abor

Relations !o**ission affir*in1 the Decision of the 4abor +rbiter in

N4R!N!R !ase No. (((:(#09(90 are A44IRME% "ith

the MO%I4ICATION in li1ht of the fore1oin1 discussions.

The case is accordin1l2 REMAN%E% to the N)to*); L)bor

Re;)to*: Comm::o* for the purpose of deter*inin1 the <nion status and

respective liabilities, if an2, of the individual respondents.

SO OR%ERE%.





G.R. No. !333, $*e 18, !10

4LORENCIO LIBONGCOGON, 4ELIPE (ILLAREAL AN%

AL4ONSO CLAU%IO, Petitioners, v.P-IMCO IN%USTRIES,

INC., Res#ondent.

% E C I S I O N

BRION, J.5

5e resolve the present petition for revie" on certiorari) "hich see%s to

nullif2 the a*ended decision'dated +u1ust 3(, '()' of the !ourt of +ppeals

in !+/.R. ))$'9$.

Te A*tee+e*t:

The Phi*co Industries, Inc. PHI&4- is a do*estic corporation en1a1ed in

the production of *atches. The Phi*co 4abor +ssociation PILA- is the

e=clusive collective bar1ainin1 representative of the PHIM!O re1ular ran%

andfile e*plo2ees. Due to a bar1ainin1 deadloc% "ith PHIM!O, PI4+

sta1ed a stri%e on +pril '), )99$.

The National 4abor Relations !o**ission 'LR - issued a te*porar2

restrainin1 order on &une '3, )99$, but the stri%e continued, "ith the stri%ers

bloc%in1 the co*pan2?s points of in1ress and e1ress. Three da2s later or, on

&une ':, )99$, PHIM!O served dis*issal notices on the stri%ers for the

alle1ed ille1al acts the2 co**itted durin1 the stri%e. !onseBuentl2, PI4+

filed a co*plaint for ille1al dis*issal and unfair labor practice a1ainst

PHIM!O illeal dismissal case- under N4R! N!R !ase No. (((A(#A($

9$. PHIM!O, for its part, filed a petition to declare the stri%e ille1al illeal

stri"e case-, doc%eted as N4R! !ase No. (((0(:(3)9$.

Then +ctin1 Secretar2 &ose >rillantes of the Depart*ent of 4abor and

*plo2*ent assu*ed 7urisdiction over the stri%e and issued a returnto

"or% order. PI4+ ended its stri%e and PHIM!O resu*ed its operations.

4ater, PHIM!O laid off ') of its e*plo2ees and i*ple*ented a retire*ent

pro1ra* coverin1 $3 other e*plo2ees. T"ent2t"o out of the $3 Buestioned



the le1alit2 of their retire*ent. 6urther, PI4+ found out that seven other

"or%ers "ho "ere also dis*issed on &une ':, )99$U6lorencio

4ibon1co1on, 6elipe Villareal, Mario Perea, +n1elito De7an, Mariano

Rosales, Ro1er !aber, and +lfonso !laudio "ere not included in the ille1al

dis*issal case.

In vie" of these develop*ents, PI4+ filed another co*plaint N4R! N!R

!ase No. (((A(#A'39A- a1ainst PHIM!O "ith the follo"in1 causes of

action; )- the ille1al dis*issal of the A e*plo2ees8 '- the forced retire*ent

of $3 e*plo2ees8 and 3- the la2off of ') e*plo2ees.

The !o*pulsor2 +rbitration Rulin1s and Related Incidents

In a decision3 dated +u1ust $, )990, 4abor +rbiter LA- 6elipe P. Pati

dis*issed N4R! !ase No. (((A(#A'39A. PI4+ filed an appeal "hich the N4R! dis*issed throu1h its decision# dated &ul2 3(, )999. PI4+ sou1ht

relief fro* the !+ throu1h a petition for certiorari !+/.R. SP No. $A900-.

The !+ Special )'th Division rendered a decision$ on 6ebruar2 'A, '(()

partl2 1rantin1 the petition. It found the A e*plo2ees to have been ille1all2

dis*issed. It ruled that as ordinar2 union *e*bers, the A *ust have been

sho"n to have co**itted ille1al acts durin1 the stri%e to "arrant their

dis*issal, but there "as no such sho"in1. Havin1 been ille1all2 dis*issed,

the A "ere entitled to reinstate*ent, full bac%"a1es inclusive of allo"ances,

and other benefits, co*puted fro* &une ':, )99$ up to the ti*e of theiractual reinstate*ent.

Thereafter, PHIM!O appealed to this !ourt throu1h a petition for revie"

on certiorari "hich the !ourt denied in its Resolution: dated October 3,

'((). The resolution beca*e final and e=ecutor2 on Dece*ber #,

'(().A PI4+ then filed a *otion for the co*putation of bac%"a1es and

benefits of the A union *e*bers, the !+ decision in !+/.R. SP No. $A900

li%e"ise havin1 beco*e final and e=ecutor2.

On October )0, '((', the N4R! N!R +rbitration >ranch sub*itted a

co*putation of the bac%"a1es for &une ':, )99$ to October ', '((' in the

total a*ount of P$)9,9(A.)( for each of the A e*plo2ees. The a*ount of

P)A#,3($.0# received b2 !aber for "hich he e=ecuted a Buitclai*-, "as

deducted fro* the co*putation of his bac%"a1es. On &anuar2 A, '((3, 4+

Pati ordered the issuance of a "rit of e=ecution in favor of 4ibon1co1on,



Villareal, !laudio, Peria and De7an, e=cludin1 !aber and Rosales "ho

passed a"a2 and "hose heirs had received financial assistance fro* the

co*pan2 for "hich the2 e=ecuted the correspondin1 Buitclai*s and release.

PHIM!O appealed, but the N4R! denied the appeal, as "ell as PHIM!O?s

subseBuent *otion for reconsideration.

On March :, '((#, De7an *oved for the dis*issal of the case as far as he

"as concerned, *anifestin1 that he voluntaril2 e=ecuted a Buitclai* and

release in the co*pan2?s favor before 4+ Pati- in consideration of

P):#,('$.0$. PI4+ *oved for e=ecution of the !+ rulin1.

PHIM!O, on the other hand, filed a *otion for the co*putation of the

bac%"a1es of 4ibon1co1on, Villareal and !laudio, clai*in1 that their

for*er positions no lon1er e=isted as of &une ':, )99$, *a%in1 theirreinstate*ent ph2sicall2 i*possible. It ar1ued that under Section #b-, Rule

I, >oo% VI of the O*nibus Rules I*ple*entin1 the 4abor !ode, its

obli1ation to the three e*plo2ees "as onl2 to pa2 the* separation pa2 up to

&une ':, )99$.

+cco*pan2in1 PHIM!O?s *otion for co*putation "as a certification

issued b2 its !hief +ccountant, Nestor Sebastian, statin1 that in )993, the

co*pan2 shifted to the bu2in1 of splints #alito- and s%illets match bo6es-

instead of bu2in1 lo1s and *a%in1 the *aterials in the co*pan2 itself. In the

*iddle of &une )99$, PHIM!O stopped the splint and s%illet processin1 in

its Sta. +na factor2, resultin1 in the abolition on &une ':, )99$ of the 7obs of

Perea, Villareal and !laudio. 4ater, PHIM!O closed one *atch auto*atic

line due to reduced sales of *atches. The closure also resulted in the

abolition of the 7obs of eleven ))- other e*plo2ees, includin1 4ibon1co1on.

Throu1h a supple*ent to the *otion for co*putation, PHIM!O *aintained

that the separation pa2 of the re*ainin1 four e*plo2ees should be as

follo"s; 4ibon1co1on, PA),'09.((8 Villareal, P))3,$$:.((8 Perea,

P)#3,0(9.((8 and !laudio, P3$,30$.((.

In an order 0 dated March '0, '(($, 4+ +li*an D. Man1ando1, "ho too%

over the case due to 4+ Pati?s inhibition fro* further handlin1 the dispute,

upheld PHIM!O?s position and declared that the reinstate*ent of the A

union *e*bers had been rendered i*possible because of the abolition of

their positions in )99$. 6urther, 4+ Man1ando1 noted that three of the A had

"ithdra"n their clai*s a1ainst the co*pan2 !aber and Rosales "ho died



durin1 the pendenc2 of the caseE and De7an-. He ordered PHIM!O to pa2

4ibon1co1on, Villareal, Perea and !laudio separation pa2 of one *onth?s

salar2 for ever2 2ear of service fro* date of their e*plo2*ent up to &une

)99$, plus financial assistance of onehalf *onth?s pa2 for each of the*.

+fter receipt of cop2 of 4+ Man1ando1?s order, Perea *oved to "ithdra"

his clai* a1ainst PHIM!O, statin1 that he voluntaril2 e=ecuted a Buitclai*

and release in favor of the co*pan2 in consideration of P)#3,A)).3'. PI4+

filed a *otion for reconsideration of the order "hich the N4R! treated as an

appeal.

On &une 3(, '((9, the N4R! issued a resolution9 reversin1 4+ Man1ando1?s

rulin1. It declared that PHIM!O had not sho"n an2 clear basis to *odif2

the !+ decision of 6ebruar2 'A, '(())( orderin1 the reinstate*ent of the A

dis*issed union *e*bers, "hich had lon1 beco*e final and e=ecutor2. Itconsidered 4+ Man1ando1?s order "hich *odified the !+ decision a nullit2.

It then re*anded the records of the case to its Re1ional +rbitration >ranch

for the issuance of a "rit of e=ecution to strictl2 enforce the !+ decision of

6ebruar2 'A, '(().

PHIM!O *oved for reconsideration. On &ul2 '), '()(, the N4R! issued

another resolution))*odif2in1 its resolution of &une 3(, '((9. It dis*issed

the case "ith pre7udice "ith respect to Rosales, !aber, De7an and Perea as

the2 or their heirs e=ecuted Buitclai*s in favor of PHIM!O. It a1ain

re*anded the records to its arbitration branch for the issuance of a "rit of

e=ecution in the follo"in1 a*ounts; )- P0'A,0#'.'3 for 4ibon1co1on8 '-

P),(:),$)'.A( for Villareal8 and 3- P0)),03$.#A for !laudio.

<ndaunted, PHIM!O appealed to the !+ on 1rounds that the N4R!

co**itted 1rave abuse of discretion "hen )- it too% co1niCance of the A

e*plo2ees? *otion for reconsideration despite its nonco*pliance "ith the

reBuire*ents for perfectin1 an appeal8 '- ordered the reinstate*ent of t"o

of the A "ho "ere alread2 deceased and t"o "ho filed *otions to dis*iss

the case8 and 3- ruled that the2 "ere entitled to bac%"a1es and accruedsalaries fro* &une ':, )99$ to Dece*ber 3), '((#.

5ith respect to the procedural Buestion, PHIM!O ar1ued that the N4R!

should not have accepted the e*plo2ees? appeal since it failed to co*pl2

"ith the reBuire*ents for perfection of an appeal. It pointed out that the

appeal lac%ed a verification and certification of nonforu* shoppin1 and "as



not acco*panied b2 an appeal fee. On the *erits of the case, PHIM!O

reiterated its ar1u*ent that the for*er positions of the A e*plo2ees "ere

alread2 abolished and the *achines that the2 "ere usin1 "ere dis*antled as

earl2 as &une )99$, renderin1 their reinstate*ent a le1al i*possibilit2. <nder

such a situation, it *aintained, their bac%"a1es should be co*puted onl2 up

to the date their positions "ere abolished.

PHIM!O further ar1ued that the March '0, '(($ resolution)' of 4+

Man1ando1 did not *odif2 the 6ebruar2 'A, '(($ decision)3 of the !+ in

!+/.R. SP No. $A900. The Man1ando1 resolution, it e=plained, si*pl2

applied Section #, Rule ), >oo% VI of the O*nibus Rules I*ple*entin1 the

4abor !ode, reBuirin1 the pa2*ent of separation pa2 in case the

establish*ent "here the e*plo2ee is to be reinstated has closed or has

ceased operations or "here his or her for*er position no lon1er e=ists at the

ti*e of reinstate*ent, for reasons not attributable to the fault of thee*plo2er.

Te CA %e:o*

In its first assailed decision,)# the !+ denied the petition and upheld the

N4R! rulin1s. It found that the N4R! co**itted no 1rave abuse of

discretion "hen it accepted the e*plo2ees? *otion for reconsideration as an

appeal. It stressed that the circu*stances obtainin1 in the case "arrant a

liberal application of the rules of procedure considerin1 the seriousness of

the issue that had to be resolved, involvin1 no less the alteration b2 4+Man1ando1 of a final and e=ecutor2 decision of the !+. 6urther, it sustained

the N4R!?s dis*issal of the co*plaint "ith respect to Rosales, !aber, De7an

and Perea, as the2 or their heirs e=ecuted Buitclai*s in PHIM!O?s favor.

The !+ e*phasiCed that the decision of its Special )'th Division in !+/.R.

SP No. $A900 beca*e final and e=ecutor2 on Dece*ber #, '(()8 thus, there

is nothin1 *ore left to be done but to enforce it. It re7ected PHIM!O?s

ar1u*ent that since there "ere no *ore positions the re*ainin1 3 e*plo2ees

could 1o bac% to, its onl2 obli1ation "as to 1ive the* separation pa2. +t an2rate, it opined, even on the assu*ption that the e*plo2ees? positions had

been abolished in &une )99$, that this circu*stance "ould not 7ustif2 a

*odification of the N4R!?s final and e=ecutor2 reinstate*ent order

inas*uch as )- the abolition of the "or%ers? positions occurred before the

7ud1*ent had attained finalit28 and '- the issue "as raised onl2 durin1 the

e=ecution sta1e.



PHIM!O *oved for reconsideration of the !+ decision. It ar1ued in the

*ain that independent of the issue on the abolition of the e*plo2ees?

positions, their reinstate*ent should not have been upheld in vie" of the

rulin1 of this !ourt in /.R. No. )A(03(, )him*o &ndustries, &n*. v. )him*o

&ndustries +abor sso*iation -)&+)$ ille1al stri%e case- pro*ul1ated on

+u1ust )), '()(, as "ell as the !ourt?s Resolution in /.R. No.

)9'0A$, )him*o &ndustries +abor sso*iation -)&+ et al, v. )him*o

&ndustries, &n*.): ille1al dis*issal case- issued on &anuar2 )9, '()).

PHIM!O *aintained that in the ille1al stri%e case, the !ourt?s 3 rd Division

ruled that the co*pan2 had a 7ust cause to dis*iss the affected union

*e*bers as the2 co**itted ille1al acts durin1 the stri%e. In the ille1al

dis*issal case, on the other hand, the !ourt?s 'nd Division too% into

consideration the 3rd Division?s rulin1 in the ille1al stri%e case "hich, itnoted, had alread2 beco*e final and e=ecutor2. +ccordin1l2, the 'nd Division

denied PI4+?s petition see%in1 )- the reinstate*ent of the stri%in1

e*plo2ees8 and '- the reversal of the decision of the !+ )Ath Division in

!+/.R. No. 03$:9 declarin1 the dis*issal of the concerned e*plo2ees

valid.

PI4+, for its part, ar1ued that the procedural issue had alread2 been passed

upon b2 the !+ in its decision of Dece*ber 9, '()) and PHIM!O had not

presented an2 fresh ar1u*ent to "arrant a reconsideration. On the *erits of

the case, PI4+ *aintained that since the reinstate*ent order of the !+

Special )'th Division had beco*e final and e=ecutor2 lon1 before this

!ourt?s decision in /.R. No. )A(03( and its resolution in /.R. No. )9'0A$

"ere rendered, the rulin1s of the !ourt should not have affected the

dis*issed e*plo2ees.

Te CA Ame*+e+ %e:o*

Throu1h its a*ended decision of +u1ust 3(, '()')A on further

reconsideration-, the !+ 1ranted PHIM!O?s *otion for reconsideration,althou1h it reaffir*ed its findin1 that the N4R! co**itted no 1rave abuse

of discretion in issuin1 its assailed resolutions of &une 3(, '((9 and &ul2 '),

'()( as the2 "ere rendered in line "ith the rulin1 of the !+ Special )'th

Division in !+/.R. SP No. $A900.

Invo%in1 this !ourt?s rulin1 in /avid v. ,)0 the !+ held that "hile the



7ud1*ent in !+/.R. SP No. $A900 sou1ht to be enforced b2 the

challen1ed N4R! resolutions- had attained finalit2, there "ere facts andor

events "hich transpired after the 7ud1*ent "as issued, "hich presented a

supervenin1 cause that rendered the final and e=ecutor2 decision no lon1er

enforceable. Te :per?e**< ):e CA )+ * m*+ reerre+

pr*p);;= to t: CortH: 3r+ %?:o*D r;*< * te ;;e<); :tr>e ):e

G.R. No. 17!83!D prom;<)te+ o* A<:t 11, !1! t)t PILAH:

member: 6ere ?);+;= +:m::e+ ): te= ommtte+ *;)6; )t: +r*<

te :tr>e. It also cited the !ourt?s 'nd Division- resolution in the ille1al

dis*issal case /.R. No. )9'0A$- issued on &anuar2 )9, '()) reco1niCin1

that the !ourt?s decision in the ille1al stri%e case had alread2 beco*e final

and e=ecutor2. The !ourt, in effect, +e*e+ PILAH: pr)=er * G.R. No.

1987 to )?e te +:m::e+ *o* member: 6o p)rtp)te+ * te

:tr>e re*:t)te+, tereb= )>*o6;e+<*< t)t te= )+ bee* ?);+;=

+:m::e+.

The !+ too% note that PHIM!O "as able to identif2 the union *e*bers

"ho participated and co**itted ille1al acts ille1all2 bloc%in1 in1ress to

and e1ress fro* the co*pan2 pre*ises durin1 the stri%e- throu1h the

affidavits of co*pan2 e*plo2ees and its personnel *ana1er, as "ell as

throu1h photo1raphs of the stri%e scene, as stated in the !ourt?s decision in

the ille1al stri%e case.)9Te +e*te+ *o* member: *;+e+

Lbo*<o<o*, (;;)re); )*+ C;)+o, te rem)**< emp;o=ee: 6o 6ere

o*te:t*< ter +:m::);.

>2 a*endin1 its decision dated Dece*ber 9, '()), reversed the assailed

N4R! resolutions in so far as the2 pertain to the reinstate*ent or pa2*ent

of accrued "a1es, )3th *onth pa2 and service incentive leave pa2 of

4ibon1co1on, Villareal and !laudio.

Te Petto*

+11rieved, 4ibon1co1on, Villareal and !laudio no" appeal to this !ourt on

1rounds that the !+ co**itted 1rave abuse of discretion "hen )- it setaside its previous decision and 1ranted PHIM!O?s *otion for

reconsideration and petition for certiorari despite its clear findin1 that the

N4R! co**itted no 1rave abuse of discretion in its assailed resolutions8

and '- it applied in the present case the decisions of this !ourt in /.R. No.

)A(03( and /.R. No. )9'0A$.



The petitioners be"ail the !+?s 1rant of certiorari to the co*pan2, "hich it

had denied in its decision of Dece*ber 9, '()) "hen it found that the

N4R! did not co**it an2 1rave abuse of discretion in its appealed rulin1s-.

The2 find no 7ustification for the !+?s chan1e of *ind considerin1 that even

in its a*ended decision of +u1ust 3(, '()', the appellate court reiterated its

opinion that the N4R! co**itted no 1rave abuse of discretion in its

assailed resolutions of &une 3(, '((9'( and &ul2 '), '()(.') The2 contend

that the !+ a*ended decision had no le1al basis on both substantive and

procedural 1rounds8 it ran counter to both the basic tenet of a Rule :$

petition for certiorari, and re"arded PHIM!O for undul2 derailin1 the

enforce*ent of a final and e=ecutor2 decision rendered "a2 bac% in '(().

The three dis*issed e*plo2ees "ere surprised that despite the lac% of an2

1rave abuse of discretion in the N4R! resolutions, the !+ reversed its

previous decision and set aside said resolutions F*erel2 b2 reason of theHon. Supre*e !ourt?s subseBuent decisions in /.R. No. )A(03( and /.R.

No. )9'0A$ "hich the appellate court considered as supervenin1

events,F'' in relation to its decision of 6ebruar2 'A, '(() decreein1 their

reinstate*ent. The2 sub*it that this !ourt?s decisions "ere not raised b2

PHIM!O in its petition for certiorari before the !+ and thus cannot be

*ade a basis of the appellate court?s decision. The2 *aintain that the present

case is separate and distinct fro* the cases in /.R. No )A(03( and /.R. No.

)9'0A$ "hich "as decided *ore than a decade ahead of the decisions of the

!ourt invo%ed b2 the !+ in its a*ended decision.

The petitioners entreat the !ourt to rectif2 the situation Fif onl2 to forestall a

bad precedent to debase the sanctit2 of final and e=ecutor2

7ud1*ents.F'3 The2 ur1e that the doctrine of immutability o0 0inal

1udgments be respected in their case The2 tell the !ourt that the

Fsupervenin1 eventF PHIM!O raised at this point in the proceedin1s does

not fall under an2 of the e=ceptions to the doctrine and these are; the

correction of clerical errors, the so called nunc #ro tune entries "hich cause

no pre7udice to an2 part2, void 7ud1*ents, and circu*stances "hich

transpire after the finalit2 of the decision and "hich render the e=ecutionun7ust and ineBuitable.'#crala"red

The !ase for PHIM!O

In its !o**ent on the petition-,'$ the respondent PHIM!O as%s for the

dis*issal of the petition on 1rounds that; )- the !+ is correct in rel2in1 on



the decisions of this !ourt in the ille1al stri%e case /.R. No. )A(03(- and

the ille1al dis*issal case /.R. No. )9'0A$- as basis for its a*ended

decision8 and '- the rule on Fcommonality of interestsF is applicable to the

petitioners.

PHIM!O ta%es e=ception to the petitioners? clai* that it never raised "ith

the !+ the issue of Fsupervenin1 event.F It contends that ri1ht after the filin1

of its Petition for ertiorari "ith Pra2er for the Issuance of a 5rit of

Preli*inar2 In7unction andor Te*porar2 Restrainin1 Order dated +u1ust 9,

'()( "ith the !+, it filed an <r1ent Motion for the Issuance of a Te*porar2

Restrainin1 Order dated +u1ust ):, '()(-': to en7oin the enforce*ent of the

assailed N4R! resolutions.

PHIM!O *aintains that "hen the !+ denied its ur1ent *otion, it filed on

October #, '()( a Motion for Reconsideration "ith a Repl2 to the co**entof the e*plo2ees'A "here it first atte*pted to raise the Fsupervenin1 eventF

issue b2 *anifestin1 before the !+ that this !ourt?s decision in the ille1al

stri%e case /.R. No. )A(03(- positivel2 identified the petitioners

4ibon1co1on, Villareal and !laudio as a*on1 the union *e*bers "ho

participated in the stri%e and "ho co**itted ille1al acts durin1 the stri%e. It

adds that for this reason, the !ourt declared U in the ille1al stri%e case U

that the2 had been validl2 dis*issed.

Thereafter, several other related incidents ensued "here it a1ain called

attention to the Fsupervenin1 eventF issue, one such incident bein1 the filin1

of the parties? *e*oranda'0 on its petition. PHIM!O sub*its that the entr2

of the !ourt?s rulin1 in the stri%e case in the >oo% of ntries of

&ud1*ents'9 put an end to the issue of petitioners? ille1al dis*issal as upheld

b2 the !ourt in its decision in the ille1al dis*issal case /.R. No. )9'0A$-.

<nder the circu*stances, PHIM!O e=plains, the !+ correctl2 2ielded to the

pronounce*ents of the !ourt in the t"o cases on the 1round of res

1udi*ata as the t"o cases and the present one had identit2 of parties and

issues. It thus *aintains that the !+ correctl2 considered in its a*endeddecision of +u1ust 3(, '()' the !ourt?s rulin1s in the ille1al stri%e and

ille1al dis*issal cases as supervenin1 events "hich rendered the e=ecution

of the N4R! resolution dated &ul2 '), '()(3( un7ust and ineBuitable.

6inall2, PHIM!O ar1ues that there is co**onalit2 of interests bet"een the

petitioners and the respondents in the ille1al stri%e case as found b2 4+



Man1ando1 since their ri1hts and obli1ations ori1inate fro* the sa*e source

Utheir status as PHIM!O e*plo2ees and PI4+ *e*bers and, their

participation in the ille1al stri%e.

Te CortH: R;*<

5e no" resolve the core issue of 6eter te CA ommtte+ ) re?er:b;e

error or <r)?e )b:e o +:reto* * re;=*< o* t: CortH: r;*<: *

te ;;e<); :tr>e ):e G.R. No. 17!83!D )*+ te ;;e<); +:m::); ):e

G.R. No. 1987D ): b):: or t: )me*+e+ +e:o* o A<:t 3!, !1.

2he do*trine o0 immutability o0 0inal

1udgments

The petitioners contend that the !+ contravened the doctrineof immutability o0 0inal 1udgments"hen it issued its a*ended decision of

+u1ust 3(, '()' nullif2in1 the final and e=ecutor2 decision of its Special

)'th Division declarin1 their dis*issal ille1al. The2 insist that the !+ rulin1

had beco*e i**utable and unalterable and *a2 no lon1er be *odified in

an2 respect, even if the *odification is *eant to correct erroneous

conclusions of fact and la", re1ardless of "hether it "ill be *ade b2 the

court that rendered it or b2 the hi1hest court of the land. The2 invo%e the

!ourt?s pronounce*ent in 3illiman 4niversity v. 5ontelo)aalan,3) in

support of their position. The2 sub*it that for this reason, even the !ourt?s

rulin1s in the ille1al stri%e case and the ille1al dis*issal case cannot alter thefact that the2 had been ille1all2 dis*issed.

e +:)<ree 6t te petto*er:.

+s the petitioners the*selves ac%no"led1e, the doctrine of immutability o0

0inal 1udgmentsad*its of certain e=ceptions as e=plained in $ulst v. )6

(uilders, &n*.,3' "hich the2 cite to prove their case. One reco1niCed

e=ception is the e=istence of a supervenin1 cause or event "hich renders the

enforce*ent of a final and e=ecutor2 decision un7ust and ineBuitable. In this particular case, a supervenin1 event transpired, "hich *ust be considered in

the e=ecution of the !+ decision in !+/.R. SP No. $A900 in order not to

create an in7ustice to or an ineBuitable treat*ent of "or%ers "ho, li%e the

petitioners, participated in a stri%e "here this !ourt found the co**ission of

ille1al acts b2 the stri%ers, a*on1 the* the petitioners.



+s the !+ pointed out in its a*ended decision, the evidence in the ille1al

stri%e case clearl2 identified the petitioners as a*on1 the union *e*bers

"ho, in concert "ith the other identified union *e*bers, bloc%ed the points

of in1ress and e1ress of PHIM!O throu1h a hu*an bloc%ade and the

*ountin1 of ph2sical obstructions in front of the co*pan2?s *ain

1ate.33 This is a prohibited act under the la".3# F6or participatin1 in ille1all2

bloc%in1 in1ress to and e1ress fro* co*pan2 pre*ises, this !ourt?s 3rd

Division declared in the ille1al stri%e case these union *e*bers dis*issed

for their ille1al acts in the conduct of the union?s stri%e.F3$crala"red

+s "e earlier stated, the rulin1 of the !ourt?s 3rd Division in the ille1al

stri%e case "hich attained finalit2 on Nove*ber '(, '()(3:- beca*e the

basis of the !ourt?s 'nd Division in re7ectin1 PI4+?s pra2er for the

reinstate*ent of the dis*issed union *e*bers in the ille1al dis*issal case,

thereb2 reco1niCin1 the validit2 of their dis*issal. !onsiderin1 that the petitioners had been positivel2 identified to be a*on1 the union *e*bers

"ho co**itted ille1al acts durin1 the stri%e, these petitioners "ere therefore

validl2 dis*issed. It "as in this conte=t that the !+ opined that the !ourt?s

rulin1s in the ille1al stri%e case and in the ille1al dis*issal case constituted

an intervenin1 cause or event that *ade the !+ Special )'th Division?s final

and e=ecutor2 decision in !+/.R. SP No. $A900 unenforceable.

+ stri%e is a concerted union action for purposes of collective bar1ainin1 or

for the "or%ers? *utual benefit and protection.3A It is *anifested in a "or%

stoppa1e "hose *ain ob7ective is to paral2Ce the operations of the e*plo2er

establish*ent. >ecause of its potential adverse conseBuences to the stri%in1

"or%ers and the e*plo2er, as "ell as the co**unit2, a stri%e en7o2s

reco1nition and respect onl2 "hen it co*plies "ith the conditions laid do"n

b2 la". One of these conditions, as far as union *e*bers are concerned, is

the avoidance of ille1al acts durin1 the stri%e30 such as those co**itted b2

the petitioners, in concert "ith the other union *e*bers, durin1 the

PHIM!O stri%e in )99$.39crala"red

The petitioners "ere in the sa*e footin1 as the other union *e*bers "ho"ere identified to have co**itted ille1al acts durin1 the stri%e and "hose

dis*issal "as upheld b2 this !ourt in the ille1al stri%e and ille1al dis*issal

cases. Nevertheless, the2 "ould "ant to be spared fro* liabilit2 for the

ille1al acts the2 co**itted durin1 the stri%e b2 invo%in1 the doctrine

of mmt)b;t= o *); +<me*t:. This is unfair, as the !+ sa" it,

stressin1 that it "ould create an iniBuitous situation in relation to the union



*e*bers "ho lost their e*plo2*ent because of the ille1al acts the2

co**itted durin1 the stri%e.

e )ppre)te te CAH: o*er*. The petitioners "ere also respondents in

the ille1al stri%e case,#(2et throu1h the e=pedient of filin1 an ille1al dis*issal

case separate fro* the *ain ille1al dis*issal action filed b2 PI4+ involvin1

all the other union *e*bers dis*issed b2 the co*pan2, the2 "ould 1o scot

free for their co**ission of ille1al acts durin1 the stri%e.

It should be recalled that the !+ Special )'th Division declared the

petitioners to have been ille1all2 dis*issed "hen it issued its 6ebruar2 'A,

'(() decision based on its findin1 that there "as no sho"in1 at the ti*e that

the2 co**itted ille1al acts durin1 the stri%e. This !ourt?s decision in the

ille1al stri%e case proved other"ise, inas*uch as the petitioners "ere

positivel2 found to have co**itted ille1al acts durin1 the stri%e.

!onsiderin1 the substantial financial losses suffered b2 the co*pan2 on

account of the stri%e, it "ould indeed be un7ust to the co*pan2 and the

dis*issed union *e*bers to allo" the reinstate*ent of the petitioners and to

re"ard the* "ith bac%"a1es and other *onetar2 benefits. 5e thus find no

reversible error or 1rave abuse of discretion in the !+ a*ended decision.

5e stress as our last point that the fact that the decision has beco*e final

does not necessaril2 preclude its *odification or alteration8 even "ith the

finalit2 of 7ud1*ent, "hen its e=ecution beco*es i*possible or un7ust due to

supervenin1 facts, it *a2 be *odified or altered to har*oniCe it "ith

de*ands of 7ustice and the altered *aterial circu*stances not e=istin1 "hen

the decision "as ori1inall2 issued.#)crala"red

I* *e, 6e *+ te petto* 6tot mert.

-ERE4ORE, pre*ises considered, the petition is %ISMISSE% for lac%

of *erit. The a*ended decision dated +u1ust 3(, '()' of the !ourt of

+ppeals is A44IRME%.

SO OR%ERE%.




SUPREME COURT

Manila

THIRD DIVISION

G.R. No:. 103!!3 $)*)r= 0, !!7

SANTA ROSA COCACOLA PLANT EMPLO&EES UNION,

%ONRICO (. SEBASTIAN, EULOGIO G. BATINO, SAMUEL A.

ATAN#UE, MANOLO C. 'ABAL$AUREGUI, %IONISIO TENORIO,

E%IN P. RELLORES, LUIS B. NATI(I%A%, M&RNA PETINGCO,

4ELICIANO TOLENTINO, RO%OL4O A. AMANTE, $R., CIPRIANO

C. BELLO, RONAL%O T. ESPINO, E4REN GALAN, )*+ $UN

CARMELITO SANTOS, Petitioners,vs.

COCACOLA BOTTLERS P-ILS., INC., Respondent.

D ! I S I O N

CALLE$O, SR., J.:

This is a petition for revie" on certiorari of the Decision) of the !ourt of

+ppeals !+- in !+/.R. SP Nos. A#)A# and A#0:(, "hich affir*ed the

rulin1 of the National 4abor Relations !o**ission N4R!- in N4R! !+ No. (3(#'#(', and the 4abor +rbiter in N4R! !ase No. R+>IV)(

))$A9994.

The +ntecedents

The Sta. Rosa !oca!ola Plant *plo2ees <nion <nion- is the sole and

e=clusive bar1ainin1 representative of the re1ular dail2 paid "or%ers and the

*onthl2 paid nonco**issionearnin1 e*plo2ees of the !oca!ola >ottlers

Philippines, Inc. !o*pan2- in its Sta. Rosa, 4a1una plant. The individual

petitioners are <nion officers, directors, and shop ste"ards.

The <nion and the !o*pan2 had entered into a three2ear !ollective

>ar1ainin1 +1ree*ent !>+- effective &ul2 ), )99: to e=pire on &une 3(,

)999. <pon the e=piration of the !>+, the <nion infor*ed the !o*pan2 of

its desire to rene1otiate its ter*s. The !>+ *eetin1s co**enced on &ul2

':, )999, "here the <nion and the !o*pan2 discussed the 1round rules of

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jan2007/gr_164302_2007.html#fnt1




the ne1otiations. The <nion insisted that representatives fro* the +l2ansa n1

*1a <n2on sa !oca!ola be allo"ed to sit do"n as observers in the !>+

*eetin1s. The <nion officers and *e*bers also insisted that their "a1es be

based on their "or% shift rates. 6or its part, the !o*pan2 "as of the vie"

that the *e*bers of the +l2ansa "ere not *e*bers of the bar1ainin1 unit.

The +l2ansa "as a *ere a11re1ate of e*plo2ees of the !o*pan2 in its

various plants8 and is not a re1istered labor or1aniCation. Thus, an i*passe

ensued.'

On +u1ust 3(, )999, the <nion, its officers, directors and si= shop ste"ards

filed a FNotice of Stri%eF "ith the National !onciliation and Mediation

>oard N!M>- Re1ional Office in Southern Ta1alo1, I*us, !avite. The

petitioners relied on t"o 1rounds; a- deadloc% on !>+ 1round rules8 and

b- unfair labor practice arisin1 fro* the co*pan2s refusal to bar1ain. The

case "as doc%eted as N!M>R>IVNS(0(#:99.3

The !o*pan2 filed a Motion to Dis*iss# alle1in1 that the reasons cited b2

the <nion "ere not valid 1rounds for a stri%e. The <nion then filed an

+*ended Notice of Stri%e on Septe*ber )A, )999 on the follo"in1 1rounds;

a- unfair labor practice for the co*pan2s refusal to bar1ain in 1ood faith8

and b- interference "ith the e=ercise of their ri1ht to selfor1aniCation.$

Mean"hile, on Septe*ber )$, )999, the <nion decided to participate in a

*ass action or1aniCed b2 the +l2ansa n1 *1a <n2on sa !oca!ola in front

of the !o*pan2s pre*ises set for Septe*ber '), )999. )(: <nion*e*bers, officers and *e*bers of the >oard of Directors, and shop

ste"ards, individuall2 filed applications for leave of absence for Septe*ber

'), )999. !ertain that its operations in the plant "ould co*e to a co*plete

stop since there "ere no sufficient trained contractual e*plo2ees "ho "ould

ta%e over, the !o*pan2 disapproved all leave applications and notified the

applicants accordin1l2.: + da2 before the *ass action, so*e <nion *e*bers

"ore 1ears, red ta1 cloths statin1 FKS +MI S+ STRIF as head1ears

and on the different parts of their unifor*, shoulders and chests.

The Office of the Ma2or issued a per*it to the <nion, allo"in1 it Fto

conduct a *ass protest action "ithin the peri*eter of the !oca!ola plant on

Septe*ber '), )999 fro* 9;(( a.*. to )';(( noon.FA Thus, the <nion

officers and *e*bers held a pic%et alon1 the front peri*eter of the plant on

Septe*ber '), )999. +ll of the )# personnel of the n1ineerin1 Section of

the !o*pan2 did not report for "or%, and A) production personnel "ere also















absent. +s a result, onl2 one of the three bottlin1 lines operated durin1 the

da2 shift. +ll the three lines "ere operated durin1 the ni1ht shift "ith

cu*ulative do"nti*e of five $- hours due to lac% of *annin1, co*ple*ent

and s%ills reBuire*ent. The volu*e of production for the da2 "as short b2

:(,((( ph2sical casesE versus bud1et.0

On October )3, )999, the !o*pan2 filed a FPetition to Declare Stri%e

Ille1alF9 alle1in1, inter alia, the follo"in1; there "as a deadloc% in the !>+

ne1otiations bet"een the <nion and !o*pan2, as a result of "hich a Notice

of Stri%e "as filed b2 the <nion8 pendin1 resolution of the Notice of Stri%e,

the <nion *e*bers filed applications for leave on Septe*ber '), )999

"hich "ere disapproved because operations in the plant *a2 be disrupted8

on Septe*ber '(, )999, one da2 prior to the *ass leave, the <nion sta1ed a

protest action b2 "earin1 red ar* bands denouncin1 the alle1ed antilabor

practices of the co*pan28 on Septe*ber '), )999, "ithout observin1 thereBuire*ents *andated b2 la", the <nion pic%eted the pre*ises of the

!o*pan2 in clear violation of +rticle ':' of the 4abor !ode8 because of the

slo"do"n in the "or%, the !o*pan2 suffered losses a*ountin1

toP',A33,3::.'98 the *assprotest action conducted on Septe*ber '), )999

"as clearl2 a stri%e8 since the <nion did not observe the reBuire*ents

*andated b2 la", i.e., stri%e vote, coolin1off period and reportin1

reBuire*ents, the stri%e "as therefore ille1al8 the <nion also violated the

provision of the !>+ on the 1rievance *achiner28 there bein1 a direct

violation of the !>+, the <nions action constituted an unfair labor practice8

and the officers "ho %no"in1l2 participated in the co**ission of ille1al

acts durin1 the stri%e should be declared to have lost their e*plo2*ent

status. The !o*pan2 pra2ed that 7ud1*ent be rendered as follo"s;

). Declarin1 the stri%e ille1al8

'. Declarin1 the officers of respondent <nion or the individual

respondents to have lost their e*plo2*ent status8

3. Declarin1 respondent <nion, its officers and *e*bers 1uilt2 of

unfair labor practice for violation of the !>+8 and

#. Orderin1 the respondents to pa2 petitioner the follo"in1 clai*s for

da*a1es;

a. +ctual Da*a1es in the a*ount of P #,A33,3::.'9







b. Moral Da*a1es in the a*ount of 6ive $- Million Pesos8 and

c. =e*plar2 Da*a1es in the a*ount of T"o '- Million

Pesos.)(

The <nion filed an +ns"er "ith a Motion to Dis*iss andor to SuspendProceedin1s)) alle1in1 therein that the *ass action conducted b2 its officers

and *e*bers on Septe*ber '), )999 "as not a stri%e but 7ust a valid

e=ercise of their ri1ht to pic%et, "hich is part of the ri1ht of free e=pression

as 1uaranteed b2 the !onstitution8 several thousands of "or%ers nation"ide

had launched si*ilar *ass protest actions to de*onstrate their continuin1

indi1nation over the ill effects of *artial rule in the Philippines.)' It pointed

out that even the officers and *e*bers of the +l2ansa n1 *1a <n2on sa

!oca!ola had si*ilarl2 or1aniCed *ass protest actions. The <nion insisted

that officers and *e*bers filed their applications for leave for Septe*ber'), )999 %no"in1 full2 "ell that there "ere no bottlin1 operations scheduled

on Septe*ber ') and '', )9998 the2 even secured a Ma2ors per*it for the

purpose. The "or%ers, includin1 the petitioners, *erel2 *arched to and fro

at the side of the hi1h"a2 near one of the 1ates of the Sta. Rosa Plant, the

loadin1 ba2 for public vehicles. +fter 3 hours, ever2one returned to "or%

accordin1 to their respective shiftin1 schedules. The <nion averred that the

petition filed b2 the !o*pan2 "as desi1ned to harass and its officers and

*e*bers in order to "ea%en the <nions position in the on1oin1 collective

bar1ainin1 ne1otiations.

In a letter to the <nion President dated October ':, )999, the N!M> stated

that based on their alle1ations, the real issue bet"een the parties "as not the

proper sub7ect of a stri%e, and should be the sub7ect of peaceful and

reasonable dialo1ue. The N!M> reco**ended that the Notice of Stri%e of

the <nion be converted into a preventive *ediation case. +fter conciliation

proceedin1s failed, the parties "ere reBuired to sub*it their respective

position papers.)3 In the *eanti*e, the officers and directors of the <nion

re*ained absent "ithout the reBuisite approved leaves. On October )),

)999, the2 "ere reBuired to sub*it their e=planations "h2 the2 should not be declared +5O4.)#

On Nove*ber ':, )999, the 4abor +rbiter rendered a Decision)$ 1rantin1 the

petition of the !o*pan2. He declared that the Septe*ber '), )999 *ass

leave "as actuall2 a stri%e under +rticle ')' of the 4abor !ode for the

follo"in1 reasons; based on the reports sub*itted b2 the Production and















n1ineerin1 Depart*ent of the !o*pan2, there "as a te*porar2 "or%

stoppa1eslo"do"n in the co*pan28): out of the usual three 3- lines for

production for the da2 shift, onl2 one line operated b2 probationar2

e*plo2ees "as functional and there "as a cu*ulative do"nti*e of five $-

hours attributed to the lac% of *annin1 co*ple*ent and s%ills reBuire*ent.

The 4abor +rbiter further declared;

= = = TEhe Septe*ber '), )999 activit2 of the union and the individual

respondents herein fell "ithin the fore1oin1 definition of a stri%e. 6irstl2, the

union itself had ad*itted the fact that on the date in Buestion, respondent

officers, to1ether "ith their union *e*bers and supporters fro* the +l2ansa

n1 *1a <n2on sa !oca!ola, did not report for their usual "or%. Instead,

the2 all asse*bled in front of the Sta. Rosa Plant and pic%eted the pre*ises.

Ver2 clearl2, there "as a concerted action here on the part of the respondents

brou1ht about a te*porar2 stoppa1e of "or% at t"o out of three bottlin1lines at the Sta. Rosa Plant. +ccordin1 to d"in &aranilla, the n1ineerin1

Superintendent +nne= H, petition-, all of his depart*ents )# en1ineerin1

personnel did not report for "or% on Septe*ber '), )999, and that onl2 4ine

' operated on the da2 shift. Honorio Tacla, the Production Superintendent,

testified +nne= H)-, that A) production personnel "ere li%e"ise absent

fro* their respective "or% stations on Septe*ber '), )999, and that onl2

4ine ' operated on the da2 shift. Si*ilarl2, 6ederico >or7a, Ph2sical

Distribution Superintendent, stated under oath +nne= H'- that )'

personnel fro* his depart*ent did not report for "or% on Septe*ber '),

)999, and that no for%lift servicin1 "as done on 4ines ) and 3. 6ro* the

fore1oin1 testi*onies, it is evident that respondents concerted activit2

resulted in a te*porar2 stoppa1e of "or% at the Sta. Rosa Plant of the

co*pan2. Thirdl2, such concerted activit2 b2 respondents "as b2 reason of a

labor dispute. arlier, the union had filed a Notice of Stri%e a1ainst the

co*pan2 on account of a disa1ree*ent "ith the latter re1ardin1 !>+ 1round

rules, i.e., the de*and of the <nion for +l2ansa *e*bers fro* other plants

to attend as observers durin1 the !>+ ne1otiation, and for the *e*bers of

the ne1otiatin1 panel to be paid their "a1es based on their "or% shift rate.

Moreover, on Septe*ber '(, )999, one da2 before respondents *ass leavefro* "or% and concerted action, the2 had "orn red ta1 cloth *aterials on

different parts of their unifor* "hich contained the "ords, FKS %a*i sa

stri%eF8 FProtesta %a*iF8 FSahod, %arapatan, *an11a1a"a ipa1labanF8 and

F<nion bustin1 iti1il.F +nne=es /, /), /' /3-. These indicated that

the concerted action ta%en b2 respondents a1ainst !!>PI "as a result of or

on account of a labor dispute.)A







+ccordin1 to the 4abor +rbiter, the stri%e conducted b2 the <nion "as

ille1al since there "as no sho"in1 that the <nion conducted a stri%e vote,

observed the prescribed coolin1off period, *uch less, sub*itted a stri%e

vote to the DO4 "ithin the reBuired ti*e. !onseBuentl2, for %no"in1l2

participatin1 in the ille1al stri%e, the individual petitioners "ere considered

to have lost their e*plo2*ent status.)0

The <nion appealed the decision to the N4R!. On &ul2 3), '((', the N4R!

affir*ed the decision of the 4abor +rbiter "ith the *odification that <nion

Treasurer !harlita M. +bri1o, "ho "as on bereave*ent leave at the ti*e,

should be e=cluded fro* the list of those "ho participated in the ille1al

stri%e. She "as thus ordered reinstated to her for*er position "ith full

bac%"a1es and benefits.)9

The <nion and its officers, directors and the shop ste"ards, filed a petitionfor certiorari in the !+. The case "as doc%eted as !+/.R. SP No. A#)A#.

+nother petition "as filed b2 Ric%2 /. /anarial and +l*ira Ro*o, doc%eted

as !+/.R. SP No. A#0:(. The t"o cases "ere consolidated in the :th

Division of the !+.

Petitioners alle1ed the follo"in1 in their respective petitions;

I

TH N4R! !OMMITTD /R+V +><S O6 DIS!RTION+MO<NTIN/ TO 4+! O6 &<RISDI!TION 6OR H+VIN/

D!4+RD PTITIONRS TO H+V 4OST THIR MP4OKMNT

5HN 6+!TS 5O<4D SHO5 PTITIONRS 5R NOT +66ORDD

D< PRO!SS

II

TH N4R! !OMMITTD /R+V +><S O6 DIS!RTION

+MO<NTIN/ TO 4+! O6 &<RISDI!TION IN D!4+RIN/ TH

P+!6<4 PI!TIN/ !OND<!TD >K TH <NION +S I44/+4STRI DSPIT +>SN! O6 S<>ST+NTI+4 VIDN! ON TH

INTNT TO !R+T TMPOR+RK 5OR STOPP+/

III







TH N4R! !OMMITTD /R+V +><S O6 DIS!RTION

+MO<NTIN/ TO 4+! O6 &<RISDI!TION IN D!4+RIN/ TH+T

PTITIONRS H+V 4OST THIR MP4OKMNT 6OR

NO5IN/4K P+RTI!IP+TIN/ IN +N I44/+4 STRI DSPIT

TH 6+!T TH+T PTITIONRS +R NOT 4!TD O66I!RS O6

TH <NION +ND +R MR SHOP ST5+RDS +ND DSPIT TH

6+!T TH+T THR 5+S NO PROO6 TH+T THK !OMMITTD

I44/+4 +!TS.'(

The petitioners, li%e"ise, raised the follo"in1, to "it;

5HTHR OR NOT P<>4I! RSPONDNT N4R! H+S /R+V4K

+><SD ITS DIS!RTION +MO<NTIN/ TO J!SS OR 4+! O6

&<RISDI!TION IN +66IRMIN/ TH D!ISION O6 TH 4+>OR

+R>ITR + G<O 5HO !OMMITTD SRIO<S RRORS IN HIS6INDIN/S O6 6+!TS 5HN H D!4+RD TH+T TH STRI

!OND<!TD >K TH RSPONDNTS ON SPTM>R '), )999 IS

I44/+4.

5HTHR OR NOT P<>4I! RSPONDNT N4R! H+S /R+V4K

+><SD ITS DIS!RTION +MO<NTIN/ TO J!SS OR 4+! O6

&<RISDI!TION IN +66IRMIN/ TH D!ISION O6 TH 4+>OR

+R>ITR + G<O 5HO !OMMITTD SRIO<S RRORS IN HIS

6INDIN/S O6 6+!TS 5HN H D!4+RD TH+T INDIVID<+4

RSPONDNTS NO5 PTITIONRS-, IN!4<DIN/ SIJ :- <NIONSHOP ST5+RDS, +R !ONSIDRD TO H+V 4OST THIR

MP4OKMNT ST+T<S J!PT !H+R4IT+ +>RI/O- 6OR

NO5IN/4K P+RTI!IP+TIN/ IN S+ID I44/+4 STRI.')

On Septe*ber )(, '((3, the !+ rendered 7ud1*ent dis*issin1 the petition

for lac% of *erit. It also declared that petitioners, in !+/.R. SP No. A#0:(,

"ere 1uilt2 of foru* shoppin1.

Petitioners filed a *otion for reconsideration "hich the appellate court

denied8 hence, the instant petition "as filed based on the follo"in1 1rounds;

)- TH HONOR+>4 !O<RT O6 +PP+4S H+S /R+V4K

+><SD ITS DIS!RTION IN DISMISSIN/ TH PTITION

>6OR IT 6OR 4+! O6 MRIT 5HN IT IS !4+R 6ROM

TH VIDN! ON R!ORD TH+T TH S<>&!T M+SS

+!TION 5+S + V+4ID JR!IS O6 TH 5ORRS







!ONSTIT<TION+4 RI/HT TO PI!T 5HI!H IS P+RT O6

TH RI/HT TO 6R JPRSSION.

'- TH N4R! /R+V4K +><SD ITS DIS!RTION IN

+66IRMIN/ TH D!ISION O6 TH 4+>OR +R>ITR + G<O

5HN IT !ON!4<DD TH+T +S + !ONSG<N! O6 TH

I44/+4ITK O6 TH STRI, TH DISMISS+4 O6 TH

O66I!RS O6 TH <NION IS &<STI6ID +ND V+4ID, IS NOT

IN +!!ORD 5ITH 6+!TS +ND VIDN! ON R!ORD.

3- VN +SS<MIN/ +R/<NDO TH+T TH PROTST M+SS

+!TION ST+/D >K PTITIONRS ON SPTM>R '), )999

!ONSTIT<TS + STRI, TH N4R! SRIO<S4K RRD

5HN IT +66IRMD TH 4+>OR +R>ITRS D!ISION

D!4+RIN/ TH 6OR6IT<R O6 MP4OKMNT ST+T<SO6 <NION O66I!RS +ND SHOP ST5+RDS 5HO H+V

NOT !OMMITTD +NK I44/+4 +!T D<RIN/ TH

!OND<!T O6 TH S+ID M+SS +!TION- 6OR H+VIN/

NO5IN/4K P+RTI!IP+TD IN +N I44/+4 STRI.''

The threshold issues in these cases are; a- "hether the Septe*ber '), )999

*ass action sta1ed b2 the <nion "as a stri%e8 b- if, in the affir*ative,

"hether it "as le1al8 and c- "hether the individual officers and shop

ste"ards of petitioner <nion should be dis*issed fro* their e*plo2*ent.

On the first and second issues, petitioners *aintain that the Septe*ber '),

)999 *ass protest action "as not a stri%e but a pic%et, a valid e=ercise of

their constitutional ri1ht to free e=pression and asse*bl2.'3 It "as a peaceful

*ass protest action to dra*atiCe their le1iti*ate 1rievances a1ainst

respondent. The2 did not intend to have a "or% stoppa1e since the2 %ne"

beforehand that no bottlin1 operations "ere scheduled on Septe*ber '),

)999 pursuant to the 4o1istics Plannin1 Services Me1a Manila Production

Plan dated Septe*ber )$, )999.'#Thus, the2 applied for leaves of absences

for Septe*ber '), )999 "hich, ho"ever, "ere not approved. The2 also

obtained a *a2ors per*it to hold the pic%et near the hi1h"a2, and the2

faithfull2 co*plied "ith the conditions set therein. The protestin1 "or%ers

"ere *erel2 *archin1 to and fro at the side of the hi1h"a2 or the loadin1

ba2 near one of the 1ates of the !o*pan2 plant, certainl2 not bloc%in1 in

an2 "a2 the in1ress or e1ress fro* the !o*pan2s pre*ises. Their reBuest to

hold their activit2 "as for four #- hours, "hich "as reduced to three 3-









hours. Thereafter, the2 all "ent bac% to "or%. The bottlin1 operations of the

!o*pan2 "as not stopped, even te*poraril2. Since petitioner <nion did not

intend to 1o on stri%e, there "as no need to observe the *andator2 le1al

reBuire*ents for the conduct of a stri%e.

Petitioners also point out that *e*bers belon1in1 to the I>MM< at the

San 6ernando !oca!ola bottlin1 plant sta1ed si*ultaneous "al%out fro*

their "or% assi1n*ents for t"o consecutive da2s, on October A and 0, )999.

Ho"ever, the Secretar2 of 4abor and *plo2*ent SO4- declared that the

"al%out "as considered a *ass action, not a stri%e, and the officers of the

I>MM< "ere onl2 *eted a threeda2 suspension. Respondent accepted

the decision of the SO4 and no lon1er appealed the decision. Petitioners

insist that this should, li%e"ise, appl2 in the resolution of the issue of

"hether petitioners sta1ed a stri%e or not, and "hether the penalt2 of

dis*issal fro* the e*plo2*ent "ith the respondent is 7ust and eBuitable.

Petitioners also insist that the2 "ere denied the ri1ht to due process because

the decision of the 4abor +rbiter "as i*ple*ented even "hile their appeal

"as pendin1 in the N4R!. The decision of the 4abor +rbiter a1ainst the*

"as to beco*e final and e=ecutor2 onl2 until after the N4R! shall have

resolved their appeal "ith finalit2.

On the third issue, petitioners aver that even assu*in1 that the2 had indeed

sta1ed a stri%e, the penalt2 of dis*issal is too harsh. The2 insist that the2

acted in 1ood faith. >esides, under +rticle ':# of the 4abor !ode, thedis*issal of the <nion officers "ho participated in an ille1al stri%e is

discretionar2 on the e*plo2er. Moreover, si= :- of the petitioners "ere shop

ste"ards "ho "ere *ere *e*bers of the <nion and not officers thereof.

In its co**ent on the petition, respondent avers that the issues raised b2

petitioners are factual8 hence, inappropriate in a petition for revie" on

certiorari. >esides, the findin1s of the 4abor +rbiter had been affir*ed b2

the N4R! and the !+, and are, thus, conclusive on this !ourt.

Respondent further avers that the la" offers no discretion as to the proper

penalt2 that should be i*posed a1ainst a <nion official participatin1 in an

ille1al stri%e. !ontrar2 to the contention of petitioners, shop ste"ards are

also <nion officers. To support its clai*, respondent cited Sa*ahan n1

Man11a1a"a sa Molde= Products, Inc. v. National 4abor Relations

!o**ission,'$ International >rotherhood of Tea*sters, !hauffeurs,





5arehouse*en and Helpers of +*erica v. Hoffa8': and !ole*an v.

>rotherhood of Rail"a2 and Stea*ship !ler%s, etc.'A

The petition is denied for lac% of *erit.

The rulin1 of the !+ that petitioners sta1ed a stri%e on Septe*ber '), )999,and not *erel2 a pic%et is correct.

It bears stressin1 that this is a findin1 *ade b2 the 4abor +rbiter "hich "as

affir*ed b2 the N4R!'0 and the !+.'9 The settled rule is that the factual

findin1s and conclusions of tribunals, as lon1 as the2 are based on

substantial evidence, are conclusive on this !ourt.3( The raison detre is that

Buasi7udicial a1encies, li%e the 4abor +rbiter and the N4R!, have acBuired

a uniBue e=pertise since their 7urisdictions are confined to specific *atters.

>esides, under Rule #$ of the Rules of !ourt, the factual issues raised b2 the petitioner are inappropriate in a petition for revie" on certiorari. 5hether

petitioners sta1ed a stri%e or not is a factual issue.

Petitioners failed to establish that the N4R! co**itted 1rave abuse of its

discretion a*ountin1 to e=cess or lac% of 7urisdiction in affir*in1 the

findin1s of the 4abor +rbiter that petitioners had indeed sta1ed a stri%e.

+rticle ')'o- of the 4abor !ode defines stri%e as a te*porar2 stoppa1e of

"or% b2 the concerted action of e*plo2ees as a result of an industrial or

labor dispute. In >an1alisan v. !ourt of +ppeals,3)

the !ourt ruled that Fthefact that the conventional ter* Wstri%e "as not used b2 the stri%in1

e*plo2ees to describe their co**on course of action is inconseBuential,

since the substance of the situation, and not its appearance, "ill be dee*ed

to be controllin1.F3' The ter* Fstri%eF enco*passes not onl2 concerted "or%

stoppa1es, but also slo"do"ns, *ass leaves, sitdo"ns, atte*pts to da*a1e,

destro2 or sabota1e plant eBuip*ent and facilities, and si*ilar activities.33

Pic%etin1 involves *erel2 the *archin1 to and fro at the pre*ises of the

e*plo2er, usuall2 acco*panied b2 the displa2 of placards and other si1ns

*a%in1 %no"n the facts involved in a labor dispute.3# +s applied to a labordispute, to pic%et *eans the stationin1 of one or *ore persons to observe

and atte*pt to observe. The purpose of pic%ets is said to be a *eans of

peaceable persuasion.3$

+ labor dispute includes an2 controvers2 or *atter concernin1 ter*s or

conditions of e*plo2*ent or the association or representation of persons in























ne1otiatin1, fi=in1, *aintainin1, chan1in1 or arran1in1 the ter*s and

conditions of e*plo2*ent, re1ardless of "hether the disputants stand in the

pro=i*ate relation of e*plo2er and e*plo2ee.3:

That there "as a labor dispute bet"een the parties, in this case, is not an

issue. Petitioners notified the respondent of their intention to sta1e a stri%e,

and not *erel2 to pic%et. Petitioners insistence to sta1e a stri%e is evident in

the fact that an a*ended notice to stri%e "as filed even as respondent *oved

to dis*iss the first notice. The basic ele*ents of a stri%e are present in this

case; )(: *e*bers of petitioner <nion, "hose respective applications for

leave of absence on Septe*ber '), )999 "ere disapproved, opted not to

report for "or% on said date, and 1athered in front of the co*pan2 pre*ises

to hold a *ass protest action. Petitioners deliberatel2 absented the*selves

and instead "ore red ribbons, carried placards "ith slo1ans such as; FKS

+MI S+ STRI,F FPROTST+ +MI,F FS+HOD, +R+P+T+N N/M+N//+/+5+ IP+/4+>+N,F F!>+W5+/ >+>OKIN,F FSTOP

<NION ><STIN/.F The2 *arched to and fro in front of the co*pan2s

pre*ises durin1 "or%in1 hours. Thus, petitioners en1a1ed in a concerted

activit2 "hich alread2 affected the co*pan2s operations. The *ass

concerted activit2 constituted a stri%e.

The bare fact that petitioners "ere 1iven a Ma2ors per*it is not conclusive

evidence that their actionactivit2 did not a*ount to a stri%e. The Ma2ors

description of "hat activities petitioners "ere allo"ed to conduct is

inconseBuential. To repeat, "hat is definitive of "hether the action sta1ed b2 petitioners is a stri%e and not *erel2 a pic%et is the totalit2 of the

circu*stances surroundin1 the situation.

+ stri%e is the *ost po"erful of the econo*ic "eapons of "or%ers "hich

the2 unsheathe to force *ana1e*ent to a1ree to an eBuitable sharin1 of the

7oint product of labor and capital. It is a "eapon that can either breathe life

to or destro2 the <nion and its *e*bers in their stru11le "ith *ana1e*ent

for a *ore eBuitable due to their labors.3A The decision to declare a stri%e

*ust therefore rest on a rational basis, free fro* e*otionalis*, envisa1ed b2the te*pers and tantru*s of a fe" hot heads, and finall2 focused on the

le1iti*ate interests of the <nion "hich should not, ho"ever, be antithetical

to the public "elfare, and, to be valid, a stri%e *ust be pursued "ithin le1al

bounds. The ri1ht to stri%e as a *eans of attain*ent of social 7ustice is never

*eant to oppress or destro2 the e*plo2er .30










Since stri%es cause disparit2 effects not onl2 on the relationship bet"een

labor and *ana1e*ent but also on the 1eneral peace and pro1ress of societ2,

the la" has provided li*itations on the ri1ht to stri%e. 6or a stri%e to be

valid, the follo"in1 procedural reBuisites provided b2 +rt. ':3 of the 4abor

!ode *ust be observed; a- a notice of stri%e filed "ith the DO4 3( da2s

before the intended date thereof, or )$ da2s in case of unfair labor practice8

b- stri%e vote approved b2 a *a7orit2 of the total union *e*bership in the

bar1ainin1 unit concerned obtained b2 secret ballot in a *eetin1 called for

that purpose, c- notice 1iven to the DO4 of the results of the votin1 at

least seven da2s before the intended stri%e. These reBuire*ents are

*andator2 and the failure of a union to co*pl2 there"ith renders the stri%e

ille1al.39 It is clear in this case that petitioners totall2 i1nored the statutor2

reBuire*ents and e*bar%ed on their ille1al stri%e. 5e Buote, "ith approval,

the rulin1 of the !+ "hich affir*ed the decisions of the N4R! and of the

4abor +rbiter;

Since it beco*es undisputed that the *ass action "as indeed a stri%e, the

ne=t issue is to deter*ine "hether the sa*e "as le1al or not. Records reveal

that the said stri%e did not co*pl2 "ith the reBuire*ents of +rticle ':3 6-

in relation to +rticle ':# of the 4abor !ode, "hich specificall2 provides,

thus;

+RT. ':3. STRIS, PI!TIN/, +ND 4O!O<TS

=== === === ===

f- + decision to declare a stri%e *ust be approved b2 a *a7orit2 of the total

union *e*bership in the bar1ainin1 unit concerned, obtained b2 secret

ballot in *eetin1s or referenda called for that purpose. + decision to declare

a loc%out *ust be approved b2 a *a7orit2 of the board of directors of the

corporation or association or of the partners in a partnership, obtained b2

secret ballot in a *eetin1 called for that purpose. The decision shall be valid

for the duration of the dispute based on substantiall2 the sa*e 1rounds

considered "hen the stri%e or loc%out vote "as ta%en. The Ministr2 *a2 at

its o"n initiative or upon the reBuest of an2 affected part2, supervise the

conduct of the secret ballotin1. In ever2 case, the union or the e*plo2er shall

furnish the Ministr2 the results of the votin1 at least seven da2s before the

intended stri%e or loc%out, sub7ect to the coolin1off period herein provided.

+RT. ':#. PROHI>ITD +!TIVITIS





a- No labor or1aniCation or e*plo2er shall declare a stri%e or loc%out

"ithout first havin1 bar1ained collectivel2 in accordance "ith Title VII of

this >oo% or "ithout first havin1 filed the notice reBuired in the precedin1

article or "ithout the necessar2 stri%e or loc%out vote first havin1 been

obtained and reported to the Ministr2.

No stri%e or loc%out shall be declared after assu*ption of 7urisdiction b2 the

President or the Minister or after certification or sub*ission of the dispute to

co*pulsor2 or voluntar2 arbitration or durin1 the pendenc2 of cases

involvin1 the sa*e 1rounds for the stri%e or loc%out.

+n2 "or%er "hose e*plo2*ent has been ter*inated as a conseBuence or an

unla"ful loc%out shall be entitled to reinstate*ent "ith full bac%"a1es. +n2

union officer "ho %no"in1l2 participates in an ille1al stri%e and an2 "or%er

or union officer "ho %no"in1l2 participates in the co**ission of ille1al actsdurin1 a stri%e *a2 be declared to have lost his e*plo2*ent status;

Provided, That *ere participation of a "or%er in a la"ful stri%e shall not

constitute sufficient 1round for ter*ination of his e*plo2*ent, even if a

replace*ent had been hired b2 the e*plo2er durin1 such la"ful stri%e.

=== === === ===

+ppl2in1 the aforecited *andator2 reBuire*ents to the case at bench, the

4abor +rbiter found, thus;

In the present case, there is no evidence on record to sho" that respondents

had co*plied "ith the above *andator2 reBuire*ents of la" for a valid

stri%e. Particularl2, there is no sho"in1 that respondents had observed the

prescribed coolin1off period, conducted a stri%e vote, *uch less sub*itted a

stri%e vote report to the Depart*ent of 4abor "ithin the reBuired ti*e. This

bein1 the case, respondents stri%e on Septe*ber '), )999 is ille1al. In the

recent case of !!>PI Post*i= 5or%ers <nion vs. N4R!, '999 sic- S!R+

#)(, the Supre*e !ourt had said; FIt bears stressin1 that the stri%e

reBuire*ents under +rticle ':# and ':$ of the 4abor !ode are *andator2

reBuisites, "ithout "hich, the stri%e "ill be considered ille1al. The evidence

sic- intention of the la" in reBuirin1 the stri%e notice and stri%evote report

as *andator2 reBuire*ents is to reasonabl2 re1ulate the ri1ht to stri%e "hich

is essential to the attain*ent of le1iti*ate polic2 ob7ectives e*bodied in the

la". Veril2, substantial co*pliance "ith a *andator2 provision "ill not

suffice. Strict adherence to the *andate of the la" is reBuired.



+side fro* the above infir*it2, the stri%e sta1ed b2 respondents "as,

further, in violation of the !>+ "hich stipulated under Section ), +rticle VI,

thereof that,

S!TION ). The <NION a1rees that there shall be no stri%e, "al%out,

stoppa1e or slo"do"n of "or%, bo2cott, secondar2 bo2cott, refusal to

handle an2 *erchandise, pic%etin1, sitdo"n stri%es of an2 %ind, s2*pathetic

or 1eneral stri%e, or an2 other interference "ith an2 of the operations of the

!OMP+NK durin1 the ter* of this +1ree*ent, so lon1 as the 1rievance

procedure for "hich provision is *ade herein is follo"ed b2 the

!OMP+NK.

Here, it is not disputed that respondents had not referred their issues to the

1rievance *achiner2 as a prior step. Instead, the2 chose to 1o on stri%e ri1ht

a"a2, thereb2 b2passin1 the reBuired 1rievance procedure dictated b2 the!>+.#(

On the second and third issues, the rulin1 of the !+ affir*in1 the decisions

of the N4R! and the 4abor +rbiter orderin1 the dis*issal of the petitioners

officers, directors and shop ste"ards of petitioner <nion is correct.

It bears stressin1, ho"ever, that the la" *a%es a distinction bet"een union

*e*bers and union officers. + "or%er *erel2 participatin1 in an ille1al

stri%e *a2 not be ter*inated fro* e*plo2*ent. It is onl2 "hen he co**its

ille1al acts durin1 a stri%e that he *a2 be declared to have lost e*plo2*entstatus.#) 6or %no"in1l2 participatin1 in an ille1al stri%e or participates in the

co**ission of ille1al acts durin1 a stri%e, the la" provides that a union

officer *a2 be ter*inated fro* e*plo2*ent.#' The la" 1rants the e*plo2er

the option of declarin1 a union officer "ho participated in an ille1al stri%e as

havin1 lost his e*plo2*ent. It possesses the ri1ht and prero1ative to

ter*inate the union officers fro* service.#3

5e Buote, "ith approval, the follo"in1 rulin1 of the !ourt of +ppeals;

+s to the i*position of the penalt2 provided for should an ille1al stri%e bedeclared as such, 5e find no le1al or factual reason to di1ress fro* the

follo"in1 disBuisition of the 4abor +rbiter, to "it;

No doubt, the stri%e conducted b2 respondents on Septe*ber '), )999 is

ille1al. <nder +rticle ':#a- of the 4abor !ode, it is stated that, W+n2 union

officer "ho %no"in1l2 participates in the co**ission of ille1al acts durin1 a











stri%e *a2 be declared to have lost his e*plo2*ent status. ===. In the

present case, !!>PI had alread2 pro*ptl2 notified respondents and their

*e*bers of the disapproval of their leave. In fact, in the co*pan2 notice of

the disapproval of their leave-, !!>PI e*phasiCed that Foperations "ill

co*e to a co*plete stop on Septe*ber '), )999 if all the applications are

approved.F The2 "ere further infor*ed that, Wthere are no sufficientl2

trained contractual e*plo2ees "ho can ta%e over as replace*ents on that

da2 +nne=es F!,F F!)F to F!)0F-. In other "ords, respondents had

%no"n beforehand that their planned *ass leave "ould definitel2 result in a

stoppa1e of the operations of the co*pan2 for Septe*ber '), )999. Still,

respondents %no"in1l2 and deliberatel2 proceeded "ith their *ass action,

un*indful of the ill effects thereof on the business operations of the

co*pan2. In the case of +ssociation of Independent <nions in the

Philippines v. N4R!, 3($ S!R+ ')9, the Supre*e !ourt had ruled that,

<nion officers are dut2bound to 1uide their *e*bers to respect the la". If

instead of doin1 so, the officers ur1e the *e*bers to violate the la" and

def2 the dul2 constituted authorities, their dis*issal fro* the service is 7ust

penalt2 or sanction for their unla"ful acts. The officers responsibilit2 is

1reater than that of the *e*bers.

Here, the la" reBuired respondents to follo" a set of *andator2 procedures

before the2 could 1o on "ith their stri%e. >ut obviousl2, rather than call on

their *e*bers to co*pl2 there"ith, respondents "ere the first ones to

violate the sa*e.##

Petitioners cannot find solace in the Order of the Secretar2 of 4abor and

*plo2*ent SO4- in OS+&((3399, N!M>R> )))NS)(##99 and

))$)99 involvin1 the labor dispute bet"een the !o*pan2 and the <nion

therein the Ila" at >u%lod n1 Man11a1a"a 4ocal No. ), representin1 the

dail2 paid ran% and file *e*bers of the respondent, as "ell as the plant

based route helpers and drivers at its San 6ernando Plant-. In said case, the

SO4 found that the si*ultaneous "al%out sta1ed on October A and 0, )999

"as indeed a *ass action, initiated b2 the <nion leaders. The acts of the<nion leaders "ere, ho"ever, found to be ille1al "hich "arranted their

dis*issal, "ere it not for the presence of *iti1atin1 factors,

i.e., the "al%out "as sta1ed in support of their leaders in the course of the

!>+ ne1otiation "hich "as pendin1 for *ore than nine 9- *onths8 the

Plant "as not full2 disrupted as the !o*pan2 "as able to operate despite the





severe action of the <nion *e*bers, "ith the e*plo2*ent of casual and

contractual "or%ers8 the <nion had co*plied "ith the reBuire*ents of a

stri%e and refrained fro* sta1in1 an actual stri%e.#$

Neither can the petitioners find refu1e in the rulin1s of this !ourt in Pana2

lectric !o*pan2 v. N4R!#: or in 4apanda2 5or%ers <nion v. N4R!.#A In

the Pana2 case, the !ourt *eted the suspension of the union officers, instead

of ter*inatin1 their e*plo2*ent status since the N4R! found no sufficient

proof of bad faith on the part of the union officers "ho too% part in the stri%e

to protest the dis*issal of their fello" "or%er, nriBue Hu2an "hich "as

found to be ille1al. In 4apanda2, the !ourt actuall2 affir*ed the dis*issal of

the union officers "ho could not clai* 1ood faith to e=culpate the*selves.

The officers, in fact, ad*itted %no"led1e of the la" on stri%e, includin1 its

procedure in conductin1 the sa*e. The !ourt held that the officers cannot

violate the la" "hich "as desi1ned to pro*ote their interests.

6inall2, the contention of petitioners lenette Moises, +l*ira Ro*o, 4ouie

4aba2ani, Ric%2 /anarial, fren /alan and &un !ar*elito Santos "ho "ere

appointed as shop ste"ards of the <nion that the2 "ere *ere *e*bers and

not the officers of petitioner <nion is barren of *erit.

5e a1ree "ith the observation of respondent that under Section $()a- and

b- of the 4andru* /riffin +ct of )9$9,#0 shop ste"ards are officers of the

<nion;

Sec. $() a- The officers, a1ents, shop ste"ards, and other representatives of

a labor or1aniCation occup2 positions of trust in relation to such or1aniCation

and its *e*bers as a 1roup. It is, therefore, the dut2 of each such person,

ta%in1 into account the special proble*s and functions of a labor

or1aniCation, to hold its *one2 and propert2 solel2 for the benefit of the

or1aniCation and its *e*bers and to *ana1e, invest, and e=pend the sa*e in

accordance "ith its constitution and b2la"s and an2 resolutions of the

1overnin1 bodies adopted thereunder, to refrain fro* dealin1 "ith such

or1aniCation as an adverse part2 in an2 *atter connected "ith his duties and

fro* holdin1 or acBuirin1 an2 pecuniar2 or personal interest "hich conflicts

"ith the interest of such or1aniCation, and to account to the or1aniCation for

an2 profit received b2 hi* in "hatever capacit2 in connection "ith

transactions conducted b2 hi* or under his direction on behalf of the

or1aniCation. + 1eneral e=culpator2 resolution of a 1overnin1 bod2











purportin1 to relieve an2 such person of liabilit2 for breach of the duties

declared b2 this section shall be void as a1ainst public polic2.

b- 5hen an2 officer, a1ent, shop ste"ard, or representative of an2 labor

or1aniCation is alle1ed to have violated the duties declared in subsection a-

of this section and the labor or1aniCation or its 1overnin1 board or officers

refuse or fail to sue or recover da*a1es or secure an accountin1 or other

appropriate relief "ithin a reasonable ti*e after bein1 reBuested to do so b2

an2 *e*ber of the labor or1aniCation, such *e*ber *a2 sue such officer,

a1ent, shop ste"ard, or representative in an2 district court of the <nited

States or in an2 State court of co*petent 7urisdiction to recover da*a1es or

secure an accountin1 or other appropriate relief for the benefit of the labor

or1aniCation.#9

<nder said +ct, Section 3B- thereof provides, as follo"s;

B- FOfficer, a1ent, shop ste"ard, or other representativeF, "hen used "ith

respect to a labor or1aniCation, includes elected officials and %e2

ad*inistrative personnel, "hether elected or appointed such as business

a1ents, heads of depart*ents or *a7or units, and or1aniCers "ho e=ercise

substantial independent authorit2-, but does not include salaried non

supervisor2 professional staff, steno1raphic, and service personnel.$(

+d*ittedl2, there is no si*ilar provision in the 4abor !ode of the

Philippines8 nonetheless, petitioners "ho are shop ste"ards are consideredunion officers.

Officers nor*all2 *ean those "ho hold defined offices. +n officer is an2

person occup2in1 a position identified as an office. +n office *a2 be

provided in the constitution of a labor union or b2 the union itself in its !>+

"ith the e*plo2er. +n office is a "ord of fa*iliar usa1e and should be

construed accordin1 to the sense of the thin1.$)

Irrefra1abl2, under its !onstitution and >24a"s, petitioner <nion has

principal officers and subordinate officers, "ho are either elected b2 its*e*bers, or appointed b2 its president, includin1 the standin1 co**ittees

each to be headed b2 a *e*ber of the >oard of Directors. Thus, under

Section ), +rticle VI of petitioner <nions !onstitution and >24a"s, the

principal officers and other officers, as "ell as their functionsduties and

ter*s of office, are as follo"s;









+RTI!4 VI

PRIN!IP+4 O66I!RS

S!TION ). The 1overnin1 bod2 of the <NION shall be the follo"in1

officers "ho shall be elected throu1h secret ballot b2 the 1eneral

*e*bership;

President +uditor

VicePresidentX t"o '- Public Relations Officer

Secretar2 Ser1eantat+r*s

Treasurer >oard of Directors X nine 9-

S!TION '. The above officers shall ad*inister <nions affairs, for*ulate

policies and i*ple*ent pro1ra*s to effectivel2 carr2 out the ob7ectives of

the <NION and the 4abor !ode of the Philippines and *ana1e all the

*onies and propert2 of the <NION.

S!TION 3. The officers of the <NION and the *e*bers of the >oard of

Directors shall hold office for a period of five $- 2ears fro* the date of their

election until their successors shall have been dul2 elected and Bualified8

provided that the2 re*ain *e*bers of the <NION in 1ood standin1.$'

Section :, +rticle II of the !>+ of petitioner <nion and respondent defines

the position of shop ste"ard, thus;

S!TION :. Shop Ste"ards. The <NION shall certif2 a total of ei1ht 0-

shop ste"ards and shall infor* *ana1e*ent of the distribution of these

ste"ards a*on1 the depart*ents concerned.9avv#hi9.net

Shop Ste"ards, union officers and *e*bers or e*plo2ees shall not lose pa2

for attendin1 <nionMana1e*ent 4abor dialo1ues, investi1ations and1rievance *eetin1s "ith *ana1e*ent.$3

Section :, Rule JIJ of the I*ple*entin1 Rules of >oo% V of the 4abor

!ode *entions the functions and duties of shop ste"ards, as follo"s;







Section '. Procedures in handlin1 1rievances. X In the absence of a specific

provision in the collective bar1ainin1 a1ree*ent prescribin1 for the

procedures in handlin1 1rievance, the follo"in1 shall appl2;

a- +n e*plo2ee shall present this 1rievance or co*plaint orall2 or in

"ritin1 to the shop ste"ard. <pon receipt thereof, the shop ste"ard

shall verif2 the facts and deter*ine "hether or not the 1rievance is

valid.

b- If the 1rievance is valid, the shop ste"ard shall i**ediatel2 brin1

the co*plaint to the e*plo2ees i**ediate supervisor. The shop

ste"ard, the e*plo2ee and his i**ediate supervisor shall e=ert efforts

to settle the 1rievance at their level.

c- If no settle*ent is reached, the 1rievance shall be referred to the1rievance co**ittee "hich shall have ten )(- da2s to decide the

case.

5here the issue involves or arises fro* the interpretation or i*ple*entation

of a provision in the collective bar1ainin1 a1ree*ent, or fro* an2 order,

*e*orandu*, circular or assi1n*ent issued b2 the appropriate authorit2 in

the establish*ent, and such issue cannot be resolved at the level of the shop

ste"ard or the supervisor, the sa*e *a2 be referred i**ediatel2 to the

1rievance co**ittee.

+ll 1rievance unsettled or unresolved "ithin seven A- calendar da2s fro*

the date of its sub*ission to the last step in the 1rievance *achiner2 shall

auto*aticall2 be referred to a voluntar2 arbitrator chosen in accordance "ith

the provisions of the collective bar1ainin1 a1ree*ent, or in the absence of

such provisions, b2 *utual a1ree*ent of the parties.$#

Thus, a shop ste"ard is appointed b2 the <nion in a shop, depart*ent, or

plant serves as representative of the <nion, char1ed "ith ne1otiatin1 and

ad7ust*ent of 1rievances of e*plo2ees "ith the supervisor of the

e*plo2er .$$ He is the representative of the <nion *e*bers in a buildin1 orother "or%place. >lac%s 4a" Dictionar2 defines a shop ste"ard as a union

official "ho represents *e*bers in a particular depart*ent. His duties

include the conduct of initial ne1otiations for settle*ent of 1rievances.$: He

is to help other *e*bers "hen the2 have concerns "ith the e*plo2er or

other "or%related issues. He is the first person that "or%ers turn to for










assistance or infor*ation. If so*eone has a proble* at "or%, the ste"ard

"ill help the* sort it out or, if necessar2, help the* file a co*plaint.$A In the

perfor*ance of his duties, he has to ta%e co1niCance of and resolve, in the

first instance, the 1rievances of the *e*bers of the <nion. He is e*po"ered

to decide for hi*self "hether the 1rievance or co*plaint of a *e*ber of the

petitioner <nion is valid, and if valid, to resolve the sa*e "ith the

supervisor failin1 "hich, the *atter "ould be elevated to the /rievance

!o**ittee.

It is Buite clear that the 7urisdiction of shop ste"ards and the supervisors

includes the deter*ination of the issues arisin1 fro* the interpretation or

even i*ple*entation of a provision of the !>+, or fro* an2 order or

*e*orandu*, circular or assi1n*ents issued b2 the appropriate authorit2 in

the establish*ent.9a$#hi9.net In fine, the2 are part and parcel of the

continuous process of 1rievance resolution desi1ned to preserve and*aintain peace a*on1 the e*plo2ees and their e*plo2er. The2 occup2

positions of trust and laden "ith a"eso*e responsibilities.

In this case, instead of pla2in1 the role of Fpeace*a%ersF and 1rievance

solvers, the petitionersshop ste"ards participated in the stri%e. Thus, li%e

the officers and directors of petitioner <nion "ho 7oined the stri%e,

petitionersshop ste"ards also deserve the penalt2 of dis*issal fro* their

e*plo2*ent.

IN 4I/HT O6 +44 TH 6OR/OIN/, the petition is DNID for lac% of*erit. The Decision of the !ourt of +ppeals is +66IRMD. No costs.

SO ORDRD.


S<PRM !O<RT

Manila

S!OND DIVISION

G.R. No:. 1878 18789





Present;

G<IS<M>IN/, *., !hairperson,

!+RPIO,

!+RPIO MOR+4S,

TIN/+, and

V4+S!O, &R., **.

T

O

&

O

T

A

M

O

T

O

R P

-

I

LS

. C

O

R



P

.

O

R

K

E

R

S A

S

S

OC

I

A

T

I

O

N

TM

P

C

A

D

, E

% C

U

B

E

L



O

, E

%

I

N A

L

A

R

A

NA

, A

L

E

" A

LE

$

O

, E

R

I

N A

L

4

O

N



S

O

, M

E

L

(

I

N A

P

O

ST

O

L

, %

A

N

I

EL A

R

O

L

L

A

%

O, %

O

M

I



N

A

%

O

R A

R

R

I

O

L

A

,

L

E

S

T

E

R A

T

UN

, R

O

L

A

N

%

O B

A

L

U

&



O

T

, R

O

%

E

R

I

C

K B

A&

A

N

I

, A

B

E

L B

E

R

C

E

S

,

BE

N

N

& B



E

R

I

N

G

, M

E

L

C

-

O

R

B

L

A

N

C

O

, $

ER

R

& B

O

L

O

C

ON

, E

L

M



E

R B

U

L

A

N

, N

E

L

S

ON C

A

B

A

-

U

G

, $

E

S

S

I

E C

AB

A

T

A

&

,



M

A

R

C

E

L

O C

A

B

E

'

AS

, R

O

#

U

E

CA

N

%

E

L

A

R

I

O

, $

R

.

,



L

O

R

E

N

'

O C

A

R

A

#

U

EO

, %

E

N

N

I

S

C

A

R

I

N

G

A

L

, G

I

E

N

E

L



L C

A

S

A

B

A

, C

-

R

I

ST

O

P

-

E

R C

A

TA

P

U

S

A

N

, R

IC

O C

A

T



R

A

L

, $

U

L

I

U

S C

O

ME

T

A

, $

A

&

AN

T

O

N

I

O C

O

R A

L

, R

E



&

N

A

L

%

O C

U

E

(

A

S

,

B

E

N

I

G

N

O %

A(

I

%

, $

R

.

,

$

O

E

& %





S

A

N

T

O

S

, $

O

S

E

L

IT

O %

E O

C

A

MP

O

, 4

R

A

N

K

M

A

N

U

E

L



%

I

A

,

A

N

T

O

N

I

O %

I

M

A

&

U

G

A

,

AR

M

A

N

%

O E

R

CI

L

L

O

,



%

E

L

M

A

R E

S

P

A

%

I

L

LA

, %

E

N

N

I

S

E

S

P

E

L

O

A

,

$A

S

O

N 4



A

$

I

L

A

G

U

T

A

N

, $

O

-N 4

A

$

U

R

A

,

M

E

L

E

N

C

I

O

4R

A

N

C

O

,



%

E

"

T

E

R 4

U

L

G

A

R

, E

%

U

A

R

%

O

GA

%

O

, E

R

I

N G

A

L

A

N



G

, R

O

B

I

N G

A

R

C

E

S, A

R

I

E

L G

AR

C

I

A

, R

O

N

AL

% G

A

S



P

I

, A

N

G

E

L

O G

A

(

AR

R

A

, R

E

&

N

AL

%

O G

O

$

A

R

, E

%

G

A

R



-

I

L

A

N

G

A

, E

U

G

E

NE $

A

& -

O

N

%R

A

%

A

, A

L

E

$A

N

%

R

O



I

M

P

E

R

I

A

L

, 4

E

R

%

IN

A

N

% $

A

E

N

, $

O

E

&

$

A

(

I

L

L

O

N

A

R



, B

A

S

I

L

I

O L

A

#

U

I, A

L

B

E

R

T

O

L

O

M

B

O

&

, $

U%

E $

O

N



O

B

E

L

L L

O

'

A

%

A

,

$O

-

N

N

& L

U

C

I%

O

, R

O

M

M

E

L M

A

C

A

L



I

N

%

O

N

G

, N

I

"

O

N

MA

%

R

A

'

O

, R

OG

E

L

I

O M

A

G

IS

T

R

A

%

O



, $

R

.

, P

-

I

L

I

P $

O

-

N M

A

G

N

A

&E

, A

L

L

A

N

$O

-

N M

A



L

A

B

A

N

A

N

, R

O

L

A

N

%O M

A

L

A

L

U

A

N, $

R

.

, P

A

UL

I

N

O M



A

L

E

O

N

, M

A

N

U

E

L

MA

N

A

L

O

, $

R

., $

O

N

A

M

A

R

M

A

N

A

O

G



, $

O

(

I

T

O M

A

N

E

C

LA

N

G

, B

A

&

A

NI M

A

N

G

U

I

L

, $

R

.

,



C

A

R

L

I

T

O M

A

R

A

S

I

GA

N

, R

O

M

M

E

L M

A

R

I

A

N

O

, B

O

B

I

T



M

E

N

%

O

'

A

, E

R

I

C

S

ON M

O

N

T

E

R

O

, M

A

R

L

A

M

ON

T

E

R

O

,



E

%

I

N N

I

C

A

N

O

R

, R

O

%

E

R

I

C

K

N

I

E

R

(

E

S

,

LO

L

I

T

O



N

U

N

E

'

, 4

E

L

I

M

O

N

O

R

T

I

'

, E

%

I

N P

E

C

A

&

O

, E

R

I

N



P

E

N

A

, $

O

A

L

% P

E

N

A

M

A

N

T

E

,

$

O

R

G

E P

O

L

UT

A

N

, E



%

%

I

E R

A

M

O

S

, R

O

LA

N

%

O R

E

&

E

S, P

-

I

L

I

P

R O

"

A

S

,



%

A

(

I

% S

A

L

L

A

N

,

$R

.

, B

E

R

N

A

R %

O S

A

L

(

A

%

OR

, B

A

L



%

I

N S

A

N P

A

B

L

O

, $

E

4

4

R

E

&

SA

N

G

A

L

A

N

G

,

B

E

R

N

A

B



E S

A

#

U

I

L

A

B

O

N

,

AL

E

" S

I

E

R

R

A, R

O

M

U

A

L

%

O S

I

M

B

O



R

I

O

, E

%

I

N T

A

B

LI

'

O

, P

E

T

R

ON

I

O T

A

C

L

A

N, $

R

.

,



R

O

%

E

L T

O

L

E

N

T

I

NO

, R

O

M

M

E

L

T

O

L

E

N

T

I

N

O

, G

R

A

N

T



R

O

B

E

R

T T

O

R

A

L

, 4

E

%

E

R

I

C

O

TO

R

R

E

S

, $

R

., E

M

A

N



N

U

E

L T

U

L

I

O

, N

E

ST

O

R U

M

I

T

E

N, $

R

.

, A

P

OL

L

O (

I



O

L

E

T

A

, S

R

.

, %

O

MI

N

A

%

O

R '

A

MO

R

A

, $

R

.

,

R

O

M

M

E

L



A

R

C

E

T

A

, A

N

T

O

N

IO B

O

R

S

I

G

U

E, E

M

I

L

I

O

CO

M

P

L

E

T



O

, R

A

N

%

& C

O

N

S

I

GN

A

%

O

, B

A

S

IL

I

O %

E

L

A

CR

U

'

, A



L

E

"

A

N

%

E

R E

S

T

E

(

A, N

I

K

K

O 4

R A

N

C

O

, R

O

%

EL G

A

M

I



T

, R

O

B

E

R

T

O G

O

N

'A

L

E

S

, P

-

I

LI

P $

A

L

E

A

,

$

O

E

& L



L

A

N

E

R

A

, G

E

R

O

N

I

MO L

O

P

E

'

,

R U

E

L M

A

N

E

G

O, E

%

I



N M

A

N

'

A

N

I

L

L

A

,

K E

N

N

E

T

- N

A

TI

(

I

%

A

%

, L

AR

R

& O

R



M

I

L

L

A

, C

O

R

N

E

L

I

O P

L

A

T

O

N

,

PA

U

L A

R

T

-

U

R S

A

L

E

S



, A

L

E

$

A

N

%

R

O S

A

MP

A

N

G

, L

A

U

R O S

U

L

I

T

,

R O

L

A

N

%

O



T

O

M

A

S

, $

O

S

E R

O

M

M

E

L T

R

A

'

ON

A

, M

I

C

-

A

EL T

E

%

%



& &

A

N

G

&

O

N

, M

A

"

IM

I

N

O C

R

U

'

, (

I

R

G

I

L

I

O

C

O

L

A

N

%



O

G

, R

O

M

M

E

L %

I

G

MA

, $

O

S

E

L

I

TO -

U

G

O

, )

*+ R

I

C

K



& C

-

A

(

E

'

,

P

e

t

i

t

io

n

e

r

s

,

versus

G.R. No:. 1879899

Pro*ul1ated;

October )9, '((A

N

A



T

I

O

N

A

L L

A

B

O

R R

EL

A

T

I

O

N

S C

OM

M

I

S

S

I

O

N

,

N

L

R

C



N

%

%

I

(

I

S

I

O

N

D

,

-

O

N

. C

O

M

M

IS

S

I

O

N

E

R

S

5 (

I

C

T

O



R

I

N

O C

A

L

A

&

C

A

&

,

A

N

G

E

L

I

T

A

GA

C

U

T

A

N

, )

*+ R

A

U

L



A

#

U

I

N

O

, T

O

&

O

T

A M

O

T

O

R P

-

IL

I

P

P

I

N

E

S

CO

R

P

O

R

A



T

I

O

N

, T

A

K

E

S

-

I

4U

K

U

%

A

, )

*

+ %

A

(

I

% G

O

,R

e

s

p

o

n



d

e

n

t

s

,

==

TO&OTA MOTOR P-ILIPPINES

CORPORATION,

Petitioner,

versus

TO

&

O

T

A M

O

T

O

R P

-

I

L

I

P

PI

N

E

S C



O

R

P

.

O

R

K

E

R

S A

SS

O

C

I

A

T

I

O

N

T

M

P

C

A

D

,

Respondent.

==

% E C I S I O N

(ELASCO, $R., J.5



Te C):e

In the instant petition under Rule #$ sub7ect of /.R. Nos. )$0A0: and

)$0A09, To2ota Motor Philippines !orporation 5or%ers +ssociation <nion-

and its dis*issed officers and *e*bers see% to set aside the 6ebruar2 'A,

'((3 Decision)E of the !ourt of +ppeals !+- in !+/.R. SP Nos. :A)((

and :A$:), "hich affir*ed the +u1ust 9, '(() Decision'E and Septe*ber )#,

'(() Resolution3E of the National 4abor Relations !o**ission N4R!-,

declarin1 ille1al the stri%es sta1ed b2 the <nion and upholdin1 the dis*issal

of the ''A <nion officers and *e*bers.

On the other hand, in the related cases doc%eted as /.R. Nos. )$0A9099,

To2ota Motor Philippines !orporation To2ota- pra2s for the recall of thea"ard of severance co*pensation to the ''A dis*issed e*plo2ees, "hich

"as 1ranted under the &une '(, '((3 !+ Resolution#E in !+/.R. SP Nos.

:A)(( and :A$:).

In vie" of the fact that the parties are petitioners and respondents and vice

versa in the four #- interrelated cases, the2 "ill be referred to as si*pl2

the <nionand To2ota hereafter.

Te 4)t:

The <nion is a le1iti*ate labor or1aniCation dul2 re1istered "ith the

Depart*ent of 4abor and *plo2*ent DO4- and is the sole and e=clusive

bar1ainin1 a1ent of all To2ota ran% and file e*plo2ees.$E

To2ota, on the other hand, is a do*estic corporation en1a1ed in the

asse*bl2 and sale of vehicles and parts.:E It is a >oard of Invest*ents >OI-

participant in the !ar Develop*ent Pro1ra* and the !o**ercial VehicleDevelop*ent Pro1ra*. It is li%e"ise a >OIpreferred nonpioneer e=port

trader of auto*otive parts and is under the Special cono*ic one +ct of

)99$. It is one of the lar1est *otor vehicle *anufacturers in the countr2

e*plo2in1 around ),#(( "or%ers for its plants in >icutan and Sta. Rosa,

4a1una. It is clai*ed that its assets a*ount to PhP $.$'$ billion, "ith net

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/october2007/158786_158789.htm#_ftn1














sales of PhP )#.:#: billion and provisions for inco*e ta= of PhP )'(.9

*illion.

On 6ebruar2 )#, )999, the <nion filed a petition for certification election

a*on1 the To2ota ran% and file e*plo2ees "ith the National !onciliationand Mediation >oard N!M>-, "hich "as doc%eted as !ase No. N!ROD

M99('((). Med+rbiter Ma. osi*a !. 4a*e2ra denied the petition, but,

on appeal, the DO4 Secretar2 1ranted the <nions pra2er, and, throu1h the

&une '$, )999 Order, directed the i**ediate holdin1 of the certification

election.AE

+fter To2otas plea for reconsideration "as denied, the certification election

"as conducted. Med+rbiter 4a*e2ras Ma2 )', '((( Order certifiedthe <nion as the sole and e=clusive bar1ainin1 a1ent of all the To2ota ran%

and file e*plo2ees. To2ota challen1ed said Order via an appeal to the DO4

Secretar2.0E

In the *eanti*e, the <nion sub*itted its !ollective >ar1ainin1 +1ree*ent

!>+- proposals to To2ota, but the latter refused to ne1otiate in vie" of its

pendin1 appeal. !onseBuentl2, the <nion filed a notice of stri%e on &anuar2

):, '(() "ith the N!M>, doc%eted as N!M>N!RNS()())(), based

on To2otas refusal to bar1ain. On 6ebruar2 $, '((), the N!M>N!R converted the notice of stri%e into a preventive *ediation case on the 1round

that the issue of "hether or not the <nion is the e=clusive bar1ainin1 a1ent

of all To2ota ran% and file e*plo2ees "as still unresolved b2 the DO4

Secretar2.

In connection "ith To2otas appeal, To2ota and the <nion "ere reBuired to

attend a hearin1 on 6ebruar2 '), '(() before the >ureau of 4abor Relations

>4R- in relation to the e=clusion of the votes of alle1ed supervisor2e*plo2ees fro* the votes cast durin1 the certification election. The 6ebruar2

'), '(() hearin1 "as cancelled and reset to 6ebruar2 '', '((). On 6ebruar2

'), '((), )3$ <nion officers and *e*bers failed to render the reBuired

overti*e "or%, and instead *arched to and sta1ed a pic%et in front of the

>4R office in Intra*uros, Manila.9E The <nion, in a letter of the sa*e date,

also reBuested that its *e*bers be allo"ed to be absent on 6ebruar2 '',










'(() to attend the hearin1 and instead "or% on their ne=t scheduled rest da2.

This reBuest ho"ever "as denied b2 To2ota.

Despite denial of the <nions reBuest, *ore than '(( e*plo2ees sta1ed *ass

actions on 6ebruar2 '' and '3, '(() in front of the >4R and the DO4offices, to protest the partisan and antiunion stance of To2ota. Due to the

deliberate absence of a considerable nu*ber of e*plo2ees on 6ebruar2 '' to

'3, '((), To2otae=perienced acute lac% of *anpo"er in its *anufacturin1

and production lines, and "as unable to *eet its production 1oals resultin1

in hu1e losses of PhP $3,0#9,99).

Soon thereafter, on 6ebruar2 'A, '((), To2ota sent individual letters to so*e

3:( e*plo2ees reBuirin1 the* to e=plain "ithin '# hours "h2 the2 shouldnot be dis*issed for their obstinate defiance of the co*pan2s directive to

render overti*e "or% on 6ebruar2 '), '((), for their failure to report for

"or% on 6ebruar2 '' and '3, '((), and for their participation in the

concerted actions "hich severel2 disrupted and paral2Ced the plants

operations.)(E These letters specificall2 cited Section D, para1raph : of the

!o*pan2s !ode of !onduct, to "it;

Incitin1 or participatin1 in riots, disorders, alle1ed stri%es, or concerted actions detri*ental to To2otasE interest.

)st offense dis*issal.))E

Mean"hile, a 6ebruar2 'A, '(() Manifesto "as circulated b2

the <nion "hich ur1ed its *e*bers to participate in a stri%epic%et and to

abandon their posts, the pertinent portion of "hich reads, as follo"s;

+A'I2 sa "anyan "om#ortablen u#uan

an *ana1e*ent n TOKOT+. And datin ta"ot, "imi, at

mahiyain manaa$a ay $alan ta"ot na namartsa at

na#rotesta laban sa des#eradon #atatan"an bauhin an

desisyon n DO4 na #abor sa U'+4'. Sa tatlon ara$ na

#rotesta, mahiit sa tatlon daan manaa$a an lumaho".







= = = =

$#/ na tayong lumabas anumang oras kung

patuloy na ipagkakait ng m)*)<eme*t ang CBA. o maari

tayong masaktan sa %elga. o, maari tayong magutom sa

piketlayn. Subalit may #a"a"aiba ba ito sa untiuntin

#a#atay sa atin sa loob n 97 taon ma"abalin li"od n

#atatrabaho: Ilan taon na lan ay ma"a"abutas na an

atin ma baa sa ma ali#ato at uso" n "eldin1. Ilan taon

na lan ay maru#o" na an atin ma buto sa "abubuhat. ;un

dumatin na an #anahon ito at $ala #a tayon !>+, #aano

na: Hahayaan ba natin an "um#anya lan an ma"inaban

sa yaman li"ha n hiit sa isan de"adan #a#a#aal natin:

HU!A2 %I%I/I! SA 'ASI&ULA'2 /A2U&PA+<

PAI2/I'2I' A'2 PA;I;I%A;A PARA SA ISA'2

&A;A/ARU'2A'2 !>+

HI2I/ PA'2 PA/A/A2I' A'2 PA2;A;AISA '2 &2A

&A'22A2A!A SA TOKOT+)'E *phasis supplied.-

On the ne=t da2, the <nion filed "ith the N!M> another notice of

stri%e doc%eted as N!M>N!RNS('(:)() for union bustin1 a*ountin1

to unfair labor practice.On March ), '((), the <nion nonetheless sub*itted an e=planation in

co*pliance "ith the 6ebruar2 'A, '(() notices sent b2 To2ota to the errin1

e*plo2ees. The <nion *e*bers e=plained that their refusal to "or% on their

scheduled "or% ti*e for t"o consecutive da2s "as si*pl2 an e=ercise of

their constitutional ri1ht to peaceabl2 asse*ble and to petition the

1overn*ent for redress of 1rievances. It further ar1ued that the

de*onstrations sta1ed b2 the e*plo2ees on 6ebruar2 '' and '3, '(() could

not be classified as an ille1al stri%e or pic%et, and that To2ota had alread2

condoned the alle1ed acts "hen it accepted bac% the sub7ect e*plo2ees.)3E

!onseBuentl2, on March ' and $, '((), To2ota issued t"o '- *e*oranda to

the concerned e*plo2ees to clarif2 "hether or not the2 are adoptin1 the

March ), '(() <nions e=planation as their o"n. The e*plo2ees "ere also

reBuired to attend an investi1ative intervie",)#E but the2 refused to do so.










On March ):, '((), To2ota ter*inated the e*plo2*ent of ''A

e*plo2ees)$E for participation in concerted actions in violation of its !ode of

!onduct and for *isconduct under +rticle '0' of the 4abor !ode. The

notice of ter*ination reads;

+fter a careful evaluation of the evidence on hand, and a

thorou1h assess*ent of 2our e=planation, TMP has concluded

that there are over"hel*in1 reasons to ter*inate 2our services

based on +rticle '0' of the 4abor !ode and TMPs !ode of

!onduct.

Kour repeated absences "ithout per*ission on 6ebruar2

'' to '3, '(() to participate in a concerted action a1ainst TMPconstitute abandon*ent of "or% andor ver2 serious *isconduct

under +rticle '0' of the 4abor !ode.

The de1ree of 2our offense is a11ravated b2 the

follo"in1 circu*stances;

). Kou e=pressed to *ana1e*ent that 2ou "ill adopt

the unions letter dated March ), '((), as 2our o"n

e=planation to the char1es contained in the Due Process

6or* dated 6ebruar2 'A, '((). It is evident fro* suche=planation that 2ou did not co*e to "or% because 2ou

deliberatel2 participated to1ether "ith other Tea*

Me*bers in a plan to en1a1e in concerted actions

detri*ental to TMPs interest. +s a result of 2our

participation in the "idespread abandon*ent of "or% b2

Tea* Me*bers fro* 6ebruar2 '' to '3, '((), TMP

suffered substantial da*a1e.

It is si1nificant that the absences 2ou incurred in order toattend the clarificator2 hearin1 conducted b2 the >ureau

of 4abor Relations "ere unnecessar2 because the union

"as a*pl2 represented in the said hearin1s b2 its counsel

and certain *e*bers "ho sou1ht and "ere 1ranted leave

for the purpose. Kour reason for bein1 absent is,

therefore, not acceptable8 and





'. Kour participation in the or1aniCed "or% bo2cott

b2 Tea* Me*bers on 6ebruar2 '' and '3 led to "or%

disruptions that prevented the !o*pan2 fro* *eetin1 its

production tar1ets, resultin1 inE fore1one sales of *ore

than ei1ht2 0(- vehicles, *ostl2 ne"*odel Revos,

valued at *ore than 6ift2 Million Pesos $(,(((,(((.((-.

The fore1oin1 is also a violation of TMPs !ode of !onduct

Section D, Para1raph :- to "it;

Incitin1 or participatin1 in riots, disorders, ille1al stri%es

or concerted actions detri*ental to TMPs interest.

>ased on the above, TMP Mana1e*ent is left "ith no

other recourse but to ter*inate 2our e*plo2*ent effective upon2our receipt thereof.

S1d.E

&OS M+RI+ +4I/+D+

Deput2 Division Mana1er ):E

In reaction to the dis*issal of its union *e*bers and officers,

the <nion "ent on stri%e on March )A, '((). SubseBuentl2, fro* March '0,

'(() to +pril )', '((), the <nion intensified its stri%e b2 barricadin1 the1ates of To2otas >icutan and Sta. Rosa plants. The stri%ers prevented

"or%ers "ho reported for "or% fro* enterin1 the plants. In his +ffidavit, Mr.

duardo Nicolas III, Securit2 Depart*ent Head, stated that;

3. On March )A, '((), *e*bers of the To2ota Motor

Philippines !orporation 5or%ers +ssociation TMP!5+-, in

response to the dis*issal of so*e t"o hundred t"ent2 seven

''A- leaders and *e*bers of TMP!5+ and "ithout observin1

the reBuire*ents *andated b2 the 4abor !ode, refused to reportfor "or% and pic%eted TMP! pre*ises fro* 0;(( a.*. to $;((

p.*. The stri%ers bad*outhed people co*in1 in and hurled

invectives such as ba%eru at &apanese officers of the co*pan2.

The stri%ers li%e"ise pounded the officers vehicle as the2 tried

to enter the pre*ises of the co*pan2.





#. On March '0, '((), the stri%ers intensified their

pic%etin1 and barricaded the 1ates of TMP!s >icutan and Sta.

Rosa plants, thus, bloc%in1 the free in1resse1ress to and fro*

the pre*ises. Shuttle buses and cars containin1 TMP!

e*plo2ees, suppliers, dealers, custo*ers and other people

havin1 business "ith the co*pan2, "ere prevented b2 the

stri%ers fro* enterin1 the plants.

$. +s a standard operatin1 procedure, I instructed *2

*en to ta%e photo1raphs and video foota1es of those "ho

participated in the stri%e. Seen on video foota1es ta%en on

various dates activel2 participatin1 in the stri%e "ere union

officers *ilio !. !o*pleto, +le=ander steva, &oe2 &avellonar

and 4orenCo !araBueo.

:. >ased on the pictures, a*on1 those identified to have

participated in the March '0, '(() stri%e "ere /rant Robert

Toral, &ohn Posadas, +le= Sierra, +llan &ohn Malabanan, +bel

>ersos, rnesto >onavente, +riel /arcia, Pablito +da2a,

6eliciano Mercado, !harlie Oliveria, Philip Ro=as, &une

4a*berte, Man7olito Puno, >ald"in San Pablo, &oseph Na1uit,

6ederico Torres, 4arr2 /erola, Roderic% >a2ani, +llan

Oclarino, Re2naldo !uevas, &or1e Polutan, +r*an rcillo,

&i**2 He*bra, +lbert MariBuit, Ra*il /ecale, &i**2 Palisoc,

Nor*and2 !astalone, &oe2 4lanera, /re1 !astro, 6elicisi*o

scri*adora, Rodolfo >a2, Ra*on !le*ente, Dante >aclino,

+llan Palo*ares, +rturo Murillo and Robert /onCales.

+ttached hereto as +nne=es ) to )0 are the pictures ta%en

on March '0, '(() at the >icutan and Sta. Rosa plants.

A. 6ro* March '9 to 3), '((), the stri%ers continued to

barricade the entrances to TMP!s t"o '- plants. Once a1ain,

the stri%ers hurled nast2 re*ar%s and prevented e*plo2ees

aboard shuttle buses fro* enterin1 the plants. +*on1 thestri%ers "ere !hristopher Saldivar, >asilio 4aBui, Sabas

>ernabise, 6ederico Torres, 6reddie Olit, &osel +1osto, +rthur

Parilla, Richard !alalan1, +riel /arcia, d1ar Hila1a, !harlie

Oliveria, 6erdinand &aen, 5ilfredo Ta1le, +le7andro I*perial,

Man7olito Puno, Del*ar spadilla, Do*in1o &avier, +pollo

Violeta and lvis Tabinao.)AE





On March '9, '((), To2ota filed a petition for in7unction "ith a pra2er for

the issuance of a te*porar2 restrainin1 order TRO- "ith the N4R!, "hich"as doc%eted as N4R! N!R !ase No. IN&((()($#(). It sou1ht free

in1ress to and e1ress fro* its >icutan and Sta. Rosa *anufacturin1

plants. +ctin1 on said petition, the N4R!, on +pril $, '((), issued a TRO

a1ainst the <nion, orderin1 its leaders and *e*bers as "ell as its

s2*pathiCers to re*ove their barricades and all for*s of obstruction to

ensure free in1ress to and e1ress fro* the co*pan2s pre*ises. In addition,

the N4R! re7ected the <nions *otion to dis*iss based on lac% of

7urisdiction.)0E

Mean"hile, To2ota filed a petition to declare the stri%e ille1al "ith the

N4R! arbitration branch, "hich "as doc%eted as N4R! N!R South- !ase

No. 3((#()AA$(), and pra2ed that the errin1 <nion officers, directors,

and *e*bers be dis*issed.)9E

On +pril )(, '((), the DO4 Secretar2 assu*ed 7urisdiction over the labor

dispute and issued an Order '(E certif2in1 the labor dispute to the N4R!. In

said Order, the DO4 Secretar2 directed all stri%in1 "or%ers to return to"or% at their re1ular shifts b2 +pril ):, '((). On the other hand, it

ordered To2ota to accept the returnin1 e*plo2ees under the sa*e ter*s and

conditions obtainin1 prior to the stri%e or at its option, put the* under

pa2roll reinstate*ent. The parties "ere also en7oined fro* co**ittin1 acts

that *a2 "orsen the situation.

The <nion ended the stri%e on +pril )', '((). The union *e*bers and

officers tried to return to "or% on +pril ):, '(() but "ere told

that To2ota opted for pa2rollreinstate*ent authoriCed b2 the Order of the

DO4 Secretar2.

In the *eanti*e, the <nion filed a *otion for reconsideration of the DO4

Secretar2s +pril )(, '(() certification Order, "hich, ho"ever, "as denied

b2 the DO4 Secretar2 in her Ma2 '$, '(() Resolution. !onseBuentl2, a









petition for certiorari "as filed before the !+, "hich "as doc%eted as !+

/.R. SP No. :#990.

In the intervenin1 ti*e, the N4R!, in co*pliance "ith the +pril )(,

'(() Order of the DO4 Secretar2, doc%eted the case as !ertified !ase No.((('(3().

Mean"hile, on Ma2 '3, '((), at around )';(( nn., despite the issuance of

the DO4 Secretar2s certification Order, several pa2rollreinstated *e*bers

of the <nion sta1ed a protest rall2 in front of To2otas >icutan Plant bearin1

placards and strea*ers in defiance of the +pril )(, '(() Order.

Then, on Ma2 '0, '((), around fort2four ##- <nion *e*bers sta1edanother protest action in front of the >icutan Plant. +t the sa*e ti*e, so*e

t"ent2nine '9- pa2rollreinstated e*plo2ees pic%eted in front of the Santa

Rosa Plants *ain entrance, and "ere later 7oined b2 other <nion *e*bers.

On &une $, '((), not"ithstandin1 the certification Order, the <nion filed

another notice of stri%e, "hich "as doc%eted as N!M>N!RNS(:)$(

(). On &une )0, '((), the DO4 Secretar2 directed the second notice of

stri%e to be subsu*ed in the +pril )(, '(() certification Order.

In the *eanti*e, the N4R!, in !ertified !ase No. ((('(3(), ordered both

parties to sub*it their respective position papers on &une 0, '((). The union,

ho"ever, reBuested for abe2ance of the proceedin1s considerin1 that there is

a pendin1 petition for certiorari "ith the !+ assailin1 the validit2 of the

DO4 Secretar2s +ssu*ption of &urisdiction Order.

Thereafter, on &une )9, '((), the N4R! issued an Order, reiteratin1 its

previous order for both parties to sub*it their respective position papers onor before &une ', '((). The sa*e Order also denied the <nions verbal

*otion to defer hearin1 on the certified cases.

On &une 'A, '((), the <nion filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the

N4R!s &une )9, '(() Order, pra2in1 for the defer*ent of the sub*ission of

position papers until its petition for certiorari is resolved b2 the !+.



On &une '9, '((), onl2 To2ota sub*itted its position paper. On &ul2

)), '((), the N4R! a1ain ordered the <nion to sub*it its position paper

b2 &ul2 )9, '((), "ith a "arnin1 that upon failure for it to do so, the case

shall be considered sub*itted for decision.

Mean"hile, on &ul2 )A, '((), the !+ dis*issed the <nions petition

for certiorari in !+/.R. SP No. :#990, assailin1 the DO4 Secretar2s

+pril )(, '(() Order.

Not"ithstandin1 repeated orders to file its position paper, the <nion still

failed to sub*it its position paper on &ul2 )9, '((). !onseBuentl2, the

N4R! issued an Order directin1 the <nion to sub*it its position paper onthe scheduled +u1ust 3, '(() hearin18 other"ise, the case shall be dee*ed

sub*itted for resolution based on the evidence on record.

Durin1 the +u1ust 3, '(() hearin1, the <nion, despite several

acco**odations, still failed to sub*it its position paper. 4ater that da2,

the <nion clai*ed it filed its position paper b2 re1istered *ail.

SubseBuentl2, the N4R!, in its +u1ust 9, '(() Decision, declared the stri%es

sta1ed b2 the <nion on 6ebruar2 ') to '3, '(() and Ma2 '3 and '0, '(() asille1al. The decretal portion reads;

5HR6OR, pre*ises considered, it is hereb2 ordered;

)- Declarin1 the stri%es sta1ed b2 the <nion to be ille1al.

'- Declared sicE that the dis*issal of the ''A "ho participated in the ille1al stri%e on 6ebruar2 ')'3, '(() is

le1al.

3- Ho"ever, the !o*pan2 is ordered to pa2 the ''A <nion

*e*bers, "ho participated in the ille1al stri%e severance

co*pensation in an a*ount eBuivalent to one *onth salar2 for



ever2 2ear of service, as an alternative relief to continued

e*plo2*ent.

#- Declared sicE that the follo"in1 <nion officers and

directors to have forfeited their e*plo2*ent status for havin1

led the ille1al stri%es on 6ebruar2 ')'3, '(() and Ma2 '3 and

'0, '((); d !ubelo, Ma=i*ino !ruC, &r., Ric%2 !haveC,

&oselito Hu1o, Vir1ilio !olando1, Ro**el Di1*a, 4e+ero

Torre:, Em;o Comp;eto, A;e@)*+er E:te?), $oe=

$)?e;;o*)r, Lore*Jo C)r)eo, Ro+er> Nere:, A*to*o

Bor:<e, B)=)* M)*<;, $r., )*+ M)=o M)t).')E

SO ORDRD.''E

The N4R! considered the *ass actions sta1ed on 6ebruar2 ') to '3,

'(() ille1al as the <nion failed to co*pl2 "ith the procedural reBuire*ents

of a valid stri%e under +rt. ':3 of the 4abor !ode.

+fter the DO4 Secretar2 assu*ed 7urisdiction over the To2ota dispute

on +pril )(, '((), the <nion a1ain sta1ed stri%es on Ma2 '3 and '0,

'((). The N4R! found the stri%es ille1al as the2 violated +rt. ':# of the

4abor !ode "hich proscribes an2 stri%e or loc%out after 7urisdiction is

assu*ed over the dispute b2 the President or the DO4 Secretar2.

The N4R! held that both parties *ust have *aintained the status Buo

after the DO4 Secretar2 issued the assu*ptioncertification Order, and

ruled that the <nion did not respect the DO4 Secretar2s directive.

+ccordin1l2, both To2ota and the <nion filed Motions for

Reconsideration, "hich the N4R! denied in its Septe*ber )#,

'(() Resolution.'3E!onseBuentl2, both parties Buestioned the +u1ust 9, '(()

Decision'#E and Septe*ber )#, '(() Resolution of the N4R! in separate

petitions for certiorari filed "ith the !+, "hich "ere doc%eted as !+/.R.











SP Nos. :A)(( and :A$:), respectivel2. The !+ then consolidated the

petitions.

In its 6ebruar2 'A, '((3 Decision,'$E

the !+ ruled that the <nions petition is defective in for* for its failure to append a proper verification and

certificate of nonforu* shoppin1, 1iven that, out of the ''A petitioners, onl2

)$9 si1ned the verification and certificate of nonforu* shoppin1. Despite

the fla", the !+ proceeded to resolve the petitions on the *erits and

affir*ed the assailed N4R! Decision and Resolution "ith a *odification,

ho"ever, of deletin1 the a"ard of severance co*pensation to the dis*issed

<nion *e*bers.

In 7ustif2in1 the recall of the severance co*pensation, the !+

considered the participation in ille1al stri%es as serious *isconduct. It

defined serious*isconduct as a trans1ression of so*e established and

definite rule of action, a forbidden act, a dereliction of dut2, "illful in

character, and i*plies "ron1ful intent and not *ere error in 7ud1*ent. It

cited Panay -lectric om#any, Inc. v. 'LR ,':E "here "e revo%ed the 1rant

of separation benefits to e*plo2ees "ho la"full2 participated in an ille1al

stri%e based on +rt. ':# of the 4abor !ode, "hich states that an2 union

officer "ho %no"in1l2 participates in an ille1al stri%e and an2 "or%er or

union officer "ho %no"in1l2 participates in the co**ission of ille1al acts

durin1 a stri%e *a2 be declared to have lost his e*plo2*ent status.'AE

Ho"ever, in its &une '(, '((3 Resolution,'0E the !+ *odified

its 6ebruar2 'A, '((3 Decision b2 reinstatin1 severance co*pensation to the

dis*issed e*plo2ees based on social 7ustice.

Te I::e:











Petitioner <nion no" co*es to this !ourt and raises the follo"in1

issues for our consideration;

I. 5hether the *ere participation of ordinar2

e*plo2ees in an ille1al stri%e is enou1h reason to "arrant

their dis*issal.

II. 5hether the <nion officers and *e*bers act of

holdin1 the protest rallies in front of the >4R office and

the Office of the Secretar2 of 4abor and *plo2*ent on

6ebruar2 '' and '3, '(() should be held as ille1al

stri%es. In relation hereto, "hether the protests co**itted

on Ma2 '3 and '0, '((), should be held as ille1al stri%es.

4astl2, "hether the <nion violated the +ssu*ption of &urisdiction Order issued b2 the Secretar2 of 4abor and

*plo2*ent.

III. 5hether the dis*issal of ''A <nion officers and

*e*bers constitutes unfair labor practice.

IV. 5hether the !+ erred in affir*in1 the Decision of

the N4R! "hich e=cluded the <nions Position Paper

"hich the <nion filed b2 *ail. In the sa*e vein, "hether

the <nions ri1ht to due process "as violated "hen the

N4R! e=cluded their Position Paper.

V. 5hether the !+ erred in dis*issin1 the <nions

Petition for !ertiorari.

To2ota, on the other hand, presents this sole issue for our

deter*ination;

I. 5hether the !ourt of +ppeals erred in issuin1 its

Resolution dated &une '(, '((3, partiall2 *odif2in1 its

Decision dated 6ebruar2 'A, '((3, and a"ardin1

severance co*pensation to the dis*issed <nion

*e*bers.



In su*, t"o *ain issues are brou1ht to the fore;

)- 5hether the *ass actions co**itted b2 the <nion on different

occasions are ille1al stri%es8 and

'- 5hether separation pa2 should be a"arded to the <nion *e*bers

"ho participated in the ille1al stri%es.

Te Cort: R;*<

The <nion contends that the N4R! violated its ri1ht to due process "hen it

disre1arded its position paper in decidin1 To2otas petition to declare the

stri%e ille1al.

5e rule other"ise.

It is entirel2 the <nions fault that its position paper "as not considered b2the N4R!. Records readil2 reveal that the N4R! "as even too 1enerous in

affordin1 due process to the <nion. It issued no less than three 3- orders for

the parties to sub*it its position papers, "hich the <nion i1nored until the

last *inute. No sufficient 7ustification "as offered "h2 the <nion belatedl2

filed its position paper. In atu -duardo Am#o v. /he Hon. ourt of

A##eals, it "as e=plained that a part2 cannot co*plain of deprivation of due

process if he "as afforded an opportunit2 to participate in the proceedin1s

but failed to do so. If he does not avail hi*self of the chance to be heard,

then it is dee*ed "aived or forfeited "ithout violatin1 the constitutional

1uarantee.'9E Thus, there "as no violation of the<nions ri1ht to due process

on the part of the N4R!.





On a procedural aspect, the <nion faults the !+ for treatin1 its petition as an

unsi1ned pleadin1 and posits that the verification si1ned b2 )$9 out of the

''A petitioners has alread2 substantiall2 co*plied "ith and satisfied the

reBuire*ents under Secs. # and $ of Rule A of the Rules of !ourt.

The <nions proposition is partl2 correct.

Sec. # of Rule A of the Rules of !ourt states;

Sec. #. =erification.=cept "hen other"ise specificall2 reBuired

b2 la" or rule, pleadin1s need not be under oath, verified or

acco*panied b2 affidavit.

+ pleadin1 is verified b2 an affidavit that the affiant has read

the pleadin1 and that the alle1ations therein are true and correct

of his personal %no"led1e or based on authentic records.

+ pleadin1 reBuired to be verified "hich contains a verification

based on infor*ation and belief or upon %no"led1e,

infor*ation and belief, or lac%s a proper verification, shall be

treated as an unsi1ned pleadin1.

The verification reBuire*ent is si1nificant, as it is intended to secure an

assurance that the alle1ations in the pleadin1 are true and correct and not the

product of the i*a1ination or a *atter of speculation.3(E This reBuire*ent is

si*pl2 a condition affectin1 the for* of pleadin1s, and nonco*pliance "ith

the reBuire*ent does not necessaril2 render it fatall2 defective. Indeed,

verification is onl2 a for*al and not a 7urisdictional reBuire*ent.3)E

In this case, the proble* is not the absence but the adeBuac2 of the <nions

verification, since onl2 )$9 out of the ''A petitioners e=ecuted the

verification. <ndeniabl2, the petition *eets the reBuire*ent on the

verification "ith respect to the )$9 petitioners "ho e=ecuted the verification,







attestin1 that the2 have sufficient %no"led1e of the truth and correctness of

the alle1ations of the petition. Ho"ever, their si1natures cannot be

considered as verification of the petition b2 the other :0 na*ed petitioners

unless the latter 1ave "ritten authoriCation to the )$9 petitioners to si1n theverification on their behalf. Thus, in Lo>uias v. 4ffice of the

4mbudsman, "e ruled that the petition satisfies the for*al reBuire*ents

onl2 "ith re1ard to the petitioner "ho si1ned the petition but not his co

petitioner "ho did not si1n nor authoriCe the other petitioner to si1n it on his

behalf.3'E The proper rulin1 in this situation is to consider the petition as

co*pliant "ith the for*al reBuire*ents "ith respect to the parties "ho

si1ned it and, therefore, can be 1iven due course onl2 "ith re1ard to

the*. The other petitioners "ho did not si1n the verification and certificate

a1ainst foru* shoppin1 cannot be reco1niCed as petitioners have no le1al

standin1 before the !ourt. The petition should be dis*issed outri1ht "ith

respect to the nonconfor*in1 petitioners.

In the case at bench, ho"ever, the !+, in the e=ercise of sound discretion,

did not strictl2 appl2 the rulin1 in Lo>uias and instead proceeded to decide

the case on the *erits.

Te );;e<e+ prote:t r);;e: * ro*t o te oe: o BLR )*+ %OLE

Seret)r= )*+ )t te To=ot) p;)*t: o*:ttte+ ;;e<); :tr>e:

5hen is a stri%e ille1al

Noted authorit2 on labor la", 4ud"i1 Teller, lists si= :- cate1ories of

an ille1al stri%e, viC;

)- "hen itE is contrar2 to a specific #rohibition of la$,

such as stri%e b2 e*plo2ees perfor*in1 1overn*ental

functions8 or





'- "hen itE violates a specific re>uirement of la$, such

as +rticle ':3 of the 4abor !ode on the reBuisites of a valid

stri%eE8 or

3- "hen itE is declared for an unla"ful #ur#ose, such as

inducin1 the e*plo2er to co**it an unfair labor practice

a1ainst nonunion e*plo2ees8 or

#- "hen itE e*plo2s unla"ful means in the pursuit of its

ob7ective, such as a "idespread terroris* of nonstri%ers for

e=a*ple, prohibited acts under +rt. ':#e- of the 4abor !odeE8

or

$- "hen itE is declared in violation of ane=istin1 in?unction, such as in7unction, prohibition, or order

issued b2 the DO4 Secretar2 and the N4R! under +rt. ':3 of

the 4abor !odeE8 or

:- "hen itE is contrar2 to an e=istin1 areement , such as

a nostri%e clause or conclusive arbitration clause.33E

Petitioner <nion contends that the protests or rallies conducted on

6ebruar2 ') and '3, '(() are not "ithin the a*bit of stri%es as defined in

the 4abor !ode, since the2 "ere le1iti*ate e=ercises of their ri1ht to

peaceabl2 asse*ble and petition the 1overn*ent for redress of 1rievances.

Mainl2 rel2in1 on the doctrine laid do"n in the case of Phili##ine %loomin

&ills -m#loyees 4rani0ation v. Phili##ine %loomin &ills o., Inc.,3#E it

ar1ues that the protest "as not directed at To2ota but to"ards the

/overn*ent DO4 and >4R-. It e=plains that the protest is not a stri%e as

conte*plated in the 4abor !ode. The <nion points out that in Phili##ine

%loomin &ills -m#loyees 4rani0ation, the *ass action sta1ed in

Malacaan1 to petition the !hief =ecutive a1ainst the abusive behavior of

so*e police officers "as a proper e=ercise of the e*plo2ees ri1ht to spea%







out and to peaceabl2 1ather and as% 1overn*ent for redress of their

1rievances.

The <nions position fails to convince us.

5hile the facts in Phili##ine %loomin &ills -m#loyees

4rani0ation are si*ilar in so*e respects to that of the present case,

the <nion fails to realiCe one *a7or difference; there "as no labor dispute

in Phili##ine %loomin &ills -m#loyees 4rani0ation. In the present case,

there "as an on1oin1 labor dispute arisin1 fro* To2otas refusal to

reco1niCe and ne1otiate "ith the <nion, "hich "as the sub7ect of the notice

of stri%e filed b2 the <nion on &anuar2 ):, '(().Thus, the <nions reliance

on Philili##ine %loomin &ills -m#loyees 4rani0ation is *isplaced, as it

cannot be considered a precedent to the case at bar.

+ stri%e *eans an2 te*porar2 stoppa1e of "or% b2 the concerted

action of e*plo2ees as a result of an industrial or labor dispute. + labor

dispute, in turn, includes an2 controvers2 or *atter concernin1 ter*s or

conditions of e*plo2*ent or the association or representation of persons in

ne1otiatin1, fi=in1, *aintainin1, chan1in1, or arran1in1 the ter*s and

conditions of e*plo2*ent, re1ardless of "hether the disputants stand in the

pro=i*ate relation of the e*plo2er and the e*plo2ee.3$E

In %analisan v. ourt of A##eals, it "as e=plained that tEhe fact that the

conventional ter* stri%e "as not used b2 the stri%in1 e*plo2ees to describe

their co**on course of action is inconseBuential, since the substance of thesituation and not its appearance, "ill be dee*ed controllin1.3:E The ter*

stri%e has been elucidated to enco*pass not onl2 concerted "or% stoppa1es,

but also slo"do"ns, *ass leaves, sitdo"ns, atte*pts to da*a1e, destro2, or

sabota1e plant eBuip*ent and facilities, and si*ilar activities.3AE









+ppl2in1 pertinent le1al provisions and 7urisprudence, "e rule that the

protest actions underta%en b2 the <nion officials and *e*bers on 6ebruar2

') to '3, '(()are not valid and proper e=ercises of their ri1ht to asse*bleand as% 1overn*ent for redress of their co*plaints, but are ille1al stri%es in

breach of the 4abor !ode. The <nions position is "ea%ened b2 the lac% of

per*it fro* the !it2 of Manila to hold rallies. Shrouded as de*onstrations,

the2 "ere in realit2 te*porar2 stoppa1es of "or% perpetrated throu1h the

concerted action of the e*plo2ees "ho deliberatel2 failed to report for "or%

on the convenient e=cuse that the2 "ill hold a rall2 at the >4R and DO4

offices in Intra*uros, Manila, on 6ebruar2 ') to '3, '((). The purported

reason for these protest actions "as to safe1uard their ri1hts a1ainst an2

abuse "hich the *edarbiter *a2 co**it a1ainst their cause. Ho"ever,

the <nion failed to advance convincin1 proof that the *edarbiter "as

biased a1ainst the*. The acts of the *edarbiter in the perfor*ance of his

duties are presu*ed re1ular. Sans a*ple evidence to the contrar2,

the <nion "as unable to 7ustif2 the 6ebruar2 '(() *ass actions. 5hat

co*es to the fore is that the decision not to "or% for t"o da2s "as desi1ned

and calculated to cripple the *anufacturin1 ar* of To2ota. It beco*es

obvious that the real and ulti*ate 1oal of the <nion is to coerce To2ota to

finall2 ac%no"led1e the <nion as the sole bar1ainin1 a1ent of the

co*pan2. This is not a le1al and valid e=ercise of the ri1ht of asse*bl2 and

to de*and redress of 1rievance.

5e sustain the !+s affir*ance of the N4R!s findin1 that the protest

rallies sta1ed on 6ebruar2 ') to '3, '(() "ere actuall2 ille1al stri%es. Theille1alit2 of the <nions *ass actions "as succinctl2 elaborated b2 the labor

tribunal, thus;

5e have stated in our Buestioned decision that such *ass

actions sta1ed before the >ureau of 4abor Relations



on 6ebruar2 ')'3, '(() b2 the union officers and *e*bers fall

sBuarel2 "ithin the definition of a stri%e +rticle ')' o-, 4abor

!ode-. These concerted actions resulted in the te*porar2

stoppa1e of "or% causin1 the latter substantial losses. Thus,

"ithout the reBuire*ents for a valid stri%e havin1 been

co*plied "ith, "e "ere constrained to consider the stri%e

sta1ed on such dates as ille1al and all e*plo2ees "ho

participated in the concerted actions to have conseBuentl2 lost

their e*plo2*ent status.

I 6e )re <o*< to :t)mp ) o;or o ;e<);t= o* te t6o

D /+)=2 6);> otF:tr>e o re:po*+e*t: 6tot ;*< )

*ote o :tr>e, * eet 6e )re <?*< ;e*:e to );; te

*o*: * te o*tr= to p)r);=Je te oper)to*: o ter

omp)*e:Femp;o=er: e?er= tme te= 6: to o;+ )+emo*:tr)to* * ro*t o )*= <o?er*me*t )<e*=. 5hile "e

reco1niCe the ri1ht of ever2 person or a 1roup to peaceabl2

asse*ble and petition the 1overn*ent for redress of 1rievances,

the e=ercise of such ri1ht is 1overned b2 e=istin1 la"s, rules

and re1ulations.

+lthou1h the respondent union ad*ittedl2 *ade earnest

representations "ith the co*pan2 to hold a *ass protest before

the >4R, to1ether "ith their officers and *e*bers, the denial of

the reBuest b2 the *ana1e*ent should have been heeded and

ended their insistence to hold the planned *ass de*onstration.

Veril2, the violation of the co*pan2 rule cannot be dis*issed as

*ere absences of t"o da2s as bein1 su11ested b2 the union are

butE concerted actions detri*ental to Petitioner To2otas interest.30E *phasis supplied.-

It is obvious that the 6ebruar2 ') to '3, '(() concerted actions "ere

underta%en "ithout satisf2in1 the prereBuisites for a valid stri%e under +rt.':3 of the 4abor !ode. The <nion failed to co*pl2 "ith the follo"in1

reBuire*ents; )- a notice of stri%e filed "ith the DO4 3( da2s before the

intended date of stri%e, or )$ da2s in case of unfair labor practice8 39E '-

stri%e vote approved b2 a *a7orit2 of the total union *e*bership in the

bar1ainin1 unit concerned obtained b2 secret ballot in a *eetin1 called for







that purpose8 and 3- notice 1iven to the DO4 of the results of the votin1 at

least seven da2s before the intended stri%e. These reBuire*ents are

*andator2 and the failure of a union to co*pl2 "ith the* renders the stri%e

ille1al.#(E

The evident intention of the la" in reBuirin1 the stri%e notice andthe stri%evote report is to reasonabl2 re1ulate the ri1ht to stri%e, "hich is

essential to the attain*ent of le1iti*ate polic2 ob7ectives e*bodied in the

la".#)E +s the2 failed to confor* to the la", the stri%es on 6ebruar2 '), '',

and '3, '(() "ere ille1al.

Moreover, the afore*entioned 6ebruar2 '(() stri%es are in blatant

violation of Sec. D, par. : of To2otas !ode of !onduct "hich prohibits

incitin1 or participatin1 in riots, disorders, alle1ed stri%es or concerted

actions detri*ental to To2otasE interest. The penalt2 for the offense is

dis*issal. The <nion and its *e*bers are bound b2 the co*pan2 rules, and

the 6ebruar2 '(() *ass actions and deliberate refusal to render re1ular and

overti*e "or% on said da2s violated these rules. In su*, the 6ebruar2 '(()

stri%es and "al%outs "ere ille1al as these "ere in violation of specific

reBuire*ents of the 4abor !ode and a co*pan2 rule a1ainst ille1al stri%es or

concerted actions.

5ith respect to the stri%es co**itted fro* March )A to +pril )',

'((), those "ere initiall2 le1al as the le1al reBuire*ents "ere

*et. Ho"ever, on March '0 to +pril )', '((), the <nion barricaded the

1ates of the >icutan and Sta. Rosa plants and bloc%ed the free in1ress to and

e1ress fro* the co*pan2 pre*ises.To2ota e*plo2ees, custo*ers, and other

people havin1 business "ith the co*pan2 "ere inti*idated and "ere refusedentr2 to the plants. +s earlier e=plained, these stri%es "ere ille1al because

unla"ful *eans "ere e*plo2ed. The acts of the <nion officers and *e*bers

are in palpable violation of +rt. ':#e-, "hich proscribes acts of violence,

coercion, or inti*idation, or "hich obstruct the free in1ress to and e1ress







fro* the co*pan2 pre*ises. <ndeniabl2, the stri%es fro* March '0 to +pril

)', '(() "ere ille1al.

Petitioner <nion also posits that stri%es "ere not co**itted on Ma2'3 and '0, '((). The <nion asserts that the rallies held on Ma2 '3 and '0,

'(() could not be considered stri%es, as the participants "ere the dis*issed

e*plo2ees "ho "ere on pa2roll reinstate*ent. It concludes that there "as no

"or% stoppa1e.

This contention has no basis.

It is clear that once the DO4 Secretar2 assu*es 7urisdiction over the

labor dispute and certifies the case for co*pulsor2 arbitration "ith the

N4R!, the parties have to revert to the status >uo ante the state of thin1s as

it "as before-. The intended nor*alc2 of operations is apparent fro*

the fallo of the +pril )(, '(() Order of then DO4 Secretar2 Patricia +.

Sto. To*as, "hich reads;

-ERE4ORE, PREMISES CONSI%ERE%, this

Office hereb2 CERTI4IES the labor dispute at To2ota MotorsPhilippines !orporation to the N4R!E pursuant to +rticle ':3

1- of the 4abor !ode, as a*ended. This !ertification covers

the current labor cases filed in relation "ith the To2ota stri%e,

particularl2, the Petition for In7unction filed "ith the National

4abor Relations !o**ission entitled /oyota &otor Phili##ines

or#oration vs. /oyota &otor Phili##ines or#oration

!or"ers Association (/&P!A), -d ubelo, et al., N4R!

In7unction !ase No. 3#()($#()8 /oyota &otor Phili##ines

or#oration vs. /oyota &otor Phili##ines or#oration

!or"ers Association, et al., N4R! N!R !ase No. 3((#()AA$(), and such other labor cases that the parties *a2 file relatin1

to the stri%e and its effects "hile this !ertification is in effect.

+s provided under +rticle ':3#1- of the 4abor !ode, all

stri%in1 "or%ers are directed to return to "or% at their re1ular

shifts b2 +pril ):, '(()8 the !o*pan2 is in turn directed to



accept the* bac% to "or% under the sa*e ter*s and conditions

obtainin1 prior to the "or% stoppa1e, sub7ect to the option of

the co*pan2 to *erel2 reinstate a "or%er or "or%ers in the

pa2roll in li1ht of the ne1ative e*otions that the stri%e has

1enerated and the need to prevent the further deterioration of

the relationship bet"een the co*pan2 and its "or%ers.

6urther, te p)rte: )re ereb= or+ere+ to e):e )*+

+e::t rom ommtt*< )*= )t t)t m<t ;e)+ to te

6or:e**< o )* );re)+= +eteror)te+ :t)to*.#'E *phasis

supplied.-

It is e=plicit fro* this directive that the <nion and its *e*bers shallrefrain fro* en1a1in1 in an2 activit2 that *i1ht e=acerbate the tense labor

situation inTo2ota, "hich certainl2 includes concerted actions.

This "as not heeded b2 the <nion and the individual respondents "ho

sta1ed ille1al concerted actions on Ma2 '3 and '0, '(() in contravention of

the Order of the DO4 Secretar2 that no acts should be underta%en b2 the*

to a11ravate the alread2 deteriorated situation.

5hile it *a2 be conceded that there "as no "or% disruption in the

t"o To2ota plants, the fact still re*ains that the <nion and its *e*bers

pic%eted and perfor*ed concerted actions in front of the !o*pan2

pre*ises. This is a patent violation of the assu*ption of 7urisdiction and

certification Order of the DO4 Secretar2, "hich ordered the parties to

cease and desist fro* co**ittin1 an2 act that *i1ht lead to the "orsenin1 of

an alread2 deteriorated situation. 5hile there are no "or% stoppa1es, the

pic%ets and concerted actions outside the plants have a de*oraliCin1 and

even chillin1 effect on the "or%ers inside the plants and can be considered as

veiled threats of possible trouble to the "or%ers "hen the2 1o out of the

co*pan2 pre*ises after "or% and of i*pendin1 disruption of operations to





co*pan2 officials and even to custo*ers in the da2s to co*e. The pictures

presented b2 To2ota undoubtedl2 sho" that the co*pan2 officials and

e*plo2ees are bein1 inti*idated and threatened b2 the stri%ers. In short,

the <nion, b2 its *ass actions, has infla*ed an alread2 volatile situation,"hich "as e=plicitl2 proscribed b2 the DO4 Secretar2s Order. 5e do not

find an2 co*pellin1 reason to reverse the N4R! findin1s that the pic%ets on

Ma2 '3 and '0, '(() "ere unla"ful stri%es.

6ro* the fore1oin1 discussion, "e rule that the 6ebruar2 ') to '3,

'(() concerted actions, the March )A to +pril )', '(() stri%es, and the Ma2

'3 and '0, '(() *ass actions "ere ille1al stri%es.

U*o* oer: )re ;)b;e or *;)6; :tr>e: or ;;e<); )t: +r*< )

:tr>e

+rt. ':# a- of the 4abor !ode provides;

+RT. ':#. PROHI>ITD +!TIVITIS

a- = = =

+n2 "or%er "hose e*plo2*ent has been ter*inated as a

conseBuence of an unla"ful loc%out shall be entitled to

reinstate*ent "ith full bac%"a1es. +n2 union officer "ho

%no"in1l2 participates in an ille1al stri%e and an2 "or%er or

union officer "ho %no"in1l2 participates in the co**ission of

ille1al acts durin1 a stri%e *a2 be declared to have lost his

e*plo2*ent status; Provided , That *ere participation of a

"or%er in a la"ful stri%e shall not constitute sufficient 1round

for ter*ination of his e*plo2*ent, even if a replace*ent had been hired b2 the e*plo2er durin1 such la"ful stri%e.



+rt. ':#a- sanctions the dis*issal of a union officer "ho %no"in1l2

participates in an ille1al stri%e or "ho %no"in1l2 participates in the

co**ission of ille1al acts durin1 a la"ful stri%e.

It is clear that the responsibilit2 of union officials is 1reater than that

of the *e*bers. The2 are tas%ed "ith the dut2 to lead and 1uide the

*e*bership in decision *a%in1 on union activities in accordance "ith the

la", 1overn*ent rules and re1ulations, and established labor practices. The

leaders are e=pected to reco**end actions that are arrived at "ith

circu*spection and conte*plation, and al"a2s %eep para*ount the best

interests of the *e*bers and union "ithin the bounds of la". If the

i*ple*entation of an ille1al stri%e is reco**ended, then the2 "ould

*islead and deceive the *e*bership and the supre*e penalt2 of dis*issal is

appropriate. On the other hand, if the stri%e is le1al at the be1innin1 and the

officials co**it ille1al acts durin1 the duration of the stri%e, then the2

cannot evade personal and individual liabilit2 for said acts.

The <nion officials "ere in clear breach of +rt. ':#a- "hen the2

%no"in1l2 participated in the ille1al stri%es held fro* 6ebruar2 ') to '3,

'((), fro* March )A to +pril )', '((), and on Ma2 '3 and '0, '((). 5e

uphold the findin1s of fact of the N4R! on the involve*ent of said union

officials in the unla"ful concerted actions as affir*ed b2 the !+, thus;

+s re1ards to the <nion officers and directors, there is

over"hel*in1 7ustification to declare their ter*ination fro*

service. Havin1 insti1ated the <nion *e*bers to sta1e and

carr2 out all ille1al stri%es fro* 6ebruar2 ')'3, '((), and Ma2'3 and '0, '((), the follo"in1 <nion officers are hereb2

ter*inated for cause pursuant to +rticle ':#a- of the 4abor

!ode; d !ubelo, Ma=i*ino !ruC, &r., Ric%2 !haveC, &oselito

Hu1o, Vir1ilio !olando1, Ro**el Di1*a, 6ederico Torres,

*ilio !o*pleto, +le=ander steva, &oe2 &avellonar, 4orenCo



!araBueo, Roderic% Nieres, +ntonio >orsi1ue, >a2ani Man1uil,

&r., and Ma2o Mata.#3E

The rule is "ell entrenched in this 7urisdiction that factual findin1s of the labor tribunal, "hen affir*ed b2 the appellate court, are 1enerall2

accorded 1reat respect, even finalit2.##E

4i%e"ise, "e are not dut2bound to delve into the accurac2 of the

factual findin1s of the N4R! in the absence of clear sho"in1 that these "ere

arbitrar2 and bereft of an2 rational basis.#$E In the case at bench, the <nion

failed to convince us that the N4R! findin1s that the <nion officials

insti1ated, led, and %no"in1l2 participated in the series of ille1al stri%es are

not reinforced b2 substantial evidence. Veril2, said findin1s have to be

*aintained and upheld. 5e reiterate, as a re*inder to labor leaders, the rule

that uEnion officers are dut2 bound to 1uide their *e*bers to respect the

la".#:E !ontraril2, if the officers ur1e the *e*bers to violate the la" and

def2 the dul2 constituted authorities, their dis*issal fro* the service is a 7ust

penalt2 or sanction for their unla"ful acts.#AE

Member: ;)b;t= +epe*+: o* p)rtp)to* * ;;e<); )t:

+rt. ':#a- of the 4abor !ode provides that a *e*ber is liable "hen he

%no"in1l2 participates in an ille1al act durin1 a stri%e. 5hile the provision

is silent on "hether the stri%e is le1al or ille1al, "e find that the sa*e is

irrelevant. +s lon1 as the *e*bers co**it ille1al acts, in a le1al or ille1al

stri%e, then the2 can be ter*inated.#0E Ho"ever, "hen union *e*bers

*erel2 participate in an ille1al stri%e "ithout co**ittin1 an2 ille1al act, are

the2 liable















This "as sBuarel2 ans"ered in 2old ity Interated Port Service, Inc.

v. 'LR,#9E "here it "as held that an ordinar2 stri%in1 "or%er cannot be

ter*inated for *ere participation in an ille1al stri%e. This "as an affir*ation

of the rulin1s in %acus v. 4#le$(E

and Proressive !or"ers Union v. Auas,$)E"here it "as held that thou1h the stri%e is ille1al, the ordinar2 *e*ber

"ho *erel2 participates in the stri%e should not be *eted loss of

e*plo2*ent on the considerations of co*passion and 1ood faith and in vie"

of the securit2 of tenure provisions under the !onstitution. In -sso

Phili##ines, Inc. v. &alayan &anaa$a sa -sso (&&-), it "as

e=plained that a *e*ber is not responsible for the unions ille1al stri%e even

if he voted for the holdin1 of a stri%e "hich beca*e ille1al.$'E

Noted labor la" e=pert, Professor !esario +. +Cucena, &r., traced the

histor2 relatin1 to the liabilit2 of a union *e*ber in an ille1al stri%e, startin1

"ith the rule of vicarious liabilit2, thus;

<nder the rule of vicarious liabilit2E, *ere *e*bership

in a labor union serves as basis of liabilit2 for acts of

individuals, or for a labor activit2, done on behalf of the union.

The union *e*ber is *ade liable on the theor2 that all the

*e*bers are en1a1ed in a 1eneral conspirac2, and the unla"ful

acts of the particular *e*bers are vie"ed as necessar2

incidents of the conspirac2. It has been said that in the absence

of statute providin1 other"ise, the rule of vicarious liabilit2

applies.

ven the Industrial Peace +ct, ho"ever, "hich "as in

effect fro* )9$3 to )9A#, did not adopt the vicarious liabilit2

concept. It e=pressl2 provided that; No officer or *e*ber of an2 association or

or1aniCation, and no association or or1aniCation

participatin1 or interested in a labor dispute shall be held

responsible or liable for the unla"ful acts of individual

officers, *e*bers, or a1ents, e=cept upon proof of actual











participation in, or actual authoriCation of, such acts or of

ratif2in1 of such acts after actual %no"led1e thereof.

Replacin1 the Industrial Peace +ct, the 4abor !ode has

not adopted the vicarious liabilit2 rule.$3E

Thus, the rule on vicarious liabilit2 of a union *e*ber "as abandoned

and it is onl2 "hen a stri%in1 "or%er %no"in1l2 participates in the

co**ission of ille1al acts durin1 a stri%e that he "ill be penaliCed "ith

dis*issal.

No", "hat are considered ille1al acts under +rt. ':#a-

No precise *eanin1 "as 1iven to the phrase ille1al acts. It *a2

enco*pass a nu*ber of acts that violate e=istin1 labor or cri*inal la"s, such

as the follo"in1;

)- Violation of +rt. ':#e- of the 4abor !ode "hich provides that

nEo person en1a1ed in pic%etin1 shall co**it an2 act of violence, coercion

or inti*idation or obstruct the free in1ress to or e1ress fro* the e*plo2ers

pre*ises for la"ful purposes, or obstruct public thorou1hfares8

'- !o**ission of cri*es and other unla"ful acts in carr2in1 out the

stri%e8$#E and

3- Violation of an2 order, prohibition, or in7unction issued b2 the

DO4 Secretar2 or N4R! in connection "ith the assu*ption of

7urisdictioncertification Order under +rt. ':31- of the 4abor !ode.

+s earlier e=plained, this enu*eration is not e=clusive and it *a2

cover other breaches of e=istin1 la"s.







In the cases at bench, the individual respondents participated in

several *ass actions, viC;

)- The rallies held at the DO4 and >4R offices on 6ebruar2 '), '',

and '3, '(()8

'- The stri%es held on March )A to +pril )', '(()8 and

3- The rallies and pic%etin1 on Ma2 '3 and '0, '(() in front of the

To2ota >icutan and Sta. Rosa plants.

Did the2 co**it ille1al acts durin1 the ille1al stri%es on 6ebruar2 ')

to '3, '((), fro* March )A to +pril )', '((), and on Ma2 '3 and '0, '(()

The ans"er is in the affir*ative.

+s "e have ruled that the stri%es b2 the <nion on the three different

occasions "ere ille1al, "e no" proceed to deter*ine the individual

liabilities of the affected union *e*bers for acts co**itted durin1 these

forbidden concerted actions.

Our rulin1 in Association of Inde#endent Unions in the Phili##ines v.

'LR la2s do"n the rule on the liabilit2 of the union *e*bers;

Decisive on the *atter is the pertinent provisions of +rticle ':#

a- of the 4abor !ode that; = = =E an2 "or%er = = =E "ho

%no"in1l2 participates in the co**ission of ille1al acts durin1

a stri%e *a2 be declared to have lost his e*plo2*ent status. =

= =E It can be 1leaned unerrin1l2 fro* the aforecited provision

of la" in point, ho"ever, that an ordinar2 stri%in1 e*plo2ee can



not be ter*inated for *ere participation in an ille1al

stri%e. Tere m:t be proo t)t e ommtte+ ;;e<); )t:

+r*< te :tr>e )*+ te :tr>er 6o p)rtp)te+ * te

omm::o* o ;;e<); )t/:2 m:t be +e*te+. Bt proo

be=o*+ re):o*)b;e +obt : *ot rere+. Sb:t)*t);

e?+e*e )?);)b;e *+er te rm:t)*e:, 6 m)=

:t= te mpo:to* o te pe*);t= o +:m::);, m)=

:e.

In the land*ar% case of An /ibay vs. IR, the court

ruled Not onl2 *ust there be so*e evidence to support a

findin1 or conclusion, but the evidence *ust be

substantial. Sb:t)*t); e?+e*e : more t)* ) mere

:*t;;). It me)*: : re;e?)*t e?+e*e t)t ) re):o*)b;e

m*+ m<t )ept ): :e*t to :pport ) o*;:o*.$$E *phasis supplied.-

Thus, it is necessar2 for the co*pan2 to adduce proof on the

participation of the stri%in1 e*plo2ee in the co**ission of ille1al acts

durin1 the stri%es.

+fter a scrutin2 of the records, "e find that the ''A e*plo2ees indeed

7oined the 6ebruar2 '), '', and '3, '(() rallies and refused to render

overti*e "or% or report for "or%. These rallies, as "e earlier ruled, are in

realit2 ille1al stri%es, as the procedural reBuire*ents for stri%es under +rt.

':3 "ere not co*plied "ith. 5orse, said stri%es "ere in violation of the

co*pan2 rule prohibitin1 acts in citin1 or participatin1 in riots, disorders,

alle1ed stri%es or concerted action detri*ental to To2otas interest.

5ith respect to the 6ebruar2 '), '', and '3, '(() concerted actions,

To2ota sub*itted the list of e*plo2ees "ho did not render overti*e "or% on

6ebruar2 '), '(() and "ho did not report for "or% on 6ebruar2 '' and '3,

'(() as sho"n b2 +nne= I of To2otas Position Paper in N4R! !ertified





!ase No. ((('(3() entitled In Re@ Labor is#ute at /oyota &otor

Phili##ines or#. The e*plo2ees "ho participated in the ille1al concerted

actions "ere as follo"s;

). +clan, u1enio8 '. +1osto, &oel8 3. +1ot, Rodelio8 #. +larana,

d"in8 $. +le7o, +le=8 :. +lfonso, r"in8 A. +polinario,

Dennis8 0. +postol, Melvin8 9. +rceta, Ro*el8 )(. +rellano,

Ruel8 )). +riate, +braha*8 )'. +rollado, Daniel8 )3. +rriola,

Do*inador8 )#. +tun, 4ester8 )$. >ala, RiCalino8 ):. >alu2ut,

Rolando8 )A. >anCuela, Tirso &r.8 )0. >a2ani, Roderic%8 )9.

>enabise, Sabas &r.8 '(. >erces, +bel8 '). >erin1, >enn28 ''.

>irondo, +lberto8 '3. >lanco, Melchor8 '#. >olanos, De=ter8

'$. >olocon, &err28 ':. >orebor, Rurel8 'A. >orro*eo, &ubert8

'0. >orsi1ue, +ntonio8 '9. >ulan, l*er8 3(. >usano, 6reddie83). >ustillo, rnesto &r.8 3'. !aali*, +le=ander8 33. !abahu1,

Nelson8 3#. !abata2, &essie8 3$. !abeCas, Marcelo8

3:. !alalan1, Richard8 3A. !andelario, RoBue &r.8 30. !apate,

4eo Nelson8 39. !arandan1, Rest28 #(. !araBueo, 4orenCo8 #).

!arin1al, Dennis8 #'. !asaba, /ienell8 #3. !atapusan,

!hristopher8 ##. !atral, Rico8 #$. !ecilio, 6elipe8 #:. !inense,

&oe28 #A. !o*eta, &ulius8 #0. !o*pleto, *ilio8 #9.

!onsi1nado, Rand28 $(. !oral, &a2 +ntonio8 $). !orrea,

!laudio &r.8 $'. !uevas, Re2naldo8 $3. Dacalcap, +lbert8 $#.Da%a2, R2an8 $$. Dalanon, Herbert8 $:. Dalisa2, Rene8

$A. David, >eni1no &r.8 $0. De /uC*an, &oe28 $9. Dela !ruC,

>asilio8 :(. Dela !ruC, 6erdinand8 :). Dela Torre, Here*o8 :'.

De 4eon, 4eonardo8 :3. Delos Santos, Ro1elio8 :#. De

Oca*po, &oselito8 :$. De Silva, 4eode1ario8 ::. Del Mundo,

+le=8 :A. Del Rio, Re28 :0. Dela Ksla, +le=8 :9. Dia, 6ran%

Manuel8 A(. Di*a2u1a, +ntonio8 A). Din1con1, &essiah8 A'.

Du*ala1, &asper8 A3. Du2a1, +ldrin8 A#. rcillo, +r*ando8 A$.

spadilla, Del*ar8 A:. spe7o, 4ionel8 AA. speloa, Dennis8 A0.

steva, +le=ander8 A9. stole, 6rancisco8 0(. 6a7ardo, /eor1e80). 6a7ila1utan, &ason8 0'. 6a7ura, &ohn8 03. 6ranco, Melencio8

0#. 6ranco, Ni%%o8 0$. 6ul1ar, De=ter8 0:. 6ulo, Dante8 0A.

/ado, duardo8 00. /alan1, r"in8 09. /a*it, Rodel8 9(.

/arces, Robin8 9). /arcia, +riel8 9'. /aspi, Ronald8 93.

/avarra, +n1elo8 9#. /erola, /enaro &r.8 9$. /erola, 4arr28 9:.

/ohilde, Michael8 9A. /o7ar, Re1ino8 90. /o7ar, Re2naldo8 99.



/onCales, Roberto8 )((. /utierreC, >ernabe8 )(). Hila1a,

d1ar8 )('. Hilan1a, Melchor8 )(3. Hondrada, u1ene &a28

)(#. I*perial, +le7andro8 )($. &aen, 6erdinand8 )(:. &alea,

Philip8 )(A. &avillonar, &oe28 )(0. &ulve, 6rederic%8 )(9.

4alisan, Victorio8 ))(. 4andicho, Dann28 ))). 4aBui, >asilio8

))'. 4avide, d1ar8 ))3. 4aCaro, Orlando8 ))#. 4e1aspi, Noel8

))$. 4isin1, Re2naldo &r.8 )):. 4lanera, &oe28 ))A. 4o*bo2,

+lberto8 ))0. 4opeC, /eroni*o8 ))9. 4oCada, &ude &onobell8

)'(. 4ucido, &ohn28 )'). Macalindon1, Ro**el8 )''.

MadraCo, Ni=on8 )'3. Ma1balita, Valentin8 )'#. Ma1istrado,

Ro1elio &r.8 )'$. Ma1na2e, Philip &ohn8 )':. Malabanan, +llan

&ohn8 )'A. Malabri1o, +n1elito8 )'0. Malaluan, Rolando &r.8

)'9. Malate, 4eoncio &r.8 )3(. Maleon, Paulino8 )3). Manai1,

Ro1er8 )3'. Manalan1, &oseph Patric%8 )33. Manalo, Manuel

&r.8 )3#. Manao1, &ona*ar8 )3$. Manao1, Melchor8 )3:.Mandolado, Melvin8 )3A. Maneclan1, &ovito8 )30. Mane1o,

Ruel8 )39. Man1uil, >a2ani &r.8 )#(. Mani1bas, &une8 )#).

Man7ares, +lfred8 )#'. ManCanilla, d"in8 )#3. Marasi1an,

!arlito8 )##. Marcial, Nilo8 )#$. Mariano, Ro**el8 )#:. Mata,

Ma2o8 )#A. MendoCa, >obit8 )#0. MendoCa, Roberto8 )#9.

Milan, &oseph8 )$(. Miranda, duardo8 )$). Miranda, 4uis8

)$'. Montero, ricson8 )$3. Montero, Marla"8 )$#. Montes,

Ruel8 )$$. Morales, Dennis8 )$:. Natividad, enneth8 )$A.

Nava, Ronaldo8 )$0. Neval1a, +le=ander8 )$9. Nicanor, d"in8

):(. Nierves, Roderic%8 ):). NuneC, +le=8 ):'. NuneC, 4olito8

):3. Obe, Victor8 ):#. Oclarino, +lfonso8 ):$. O7enal, 4eo8

)::. Olit, 6reddie8 ):A. Oliver, Re=8 ):0. Oliveria, !harlie8

):9. Operana, Dann28 )A(. Oriana, +llan8 )A). Or*illa, 4arr28

)A'. OrtiC, 6eli*on8 )A3. Paniterce, +lvin8 )A#. Paralla1,

/erald8 )A$. Peca2o, d"in8 )A:. Pena, r"in8 )AA.

Pena*ante, &o"ald8 )A0. Pia*onte, Melvin8 )A9. Pia*onte,

Ro1elio8 )0(. Platon, !ornelio8 )0). Polutan, &or1e8 )0'.

Posada, &ohn8 )03. Puno, Man7olito8 )0#. Ra*os, ddie8 )0$.

Re2es, Rolando8 )0:. Ro=as, Philip8 )0A. Sales, Paul +rthur8)00. Sallan, David &r.8 )09. Salvador, >ernardo8 )9(. Sa*pan1,

+le7andro8 )9). San Pablo, >ald"in8 )9'. San1alan1, &effre28

)93. Santia1o, ric8 )9#. Santos, Ra2*ond8 )9$. Sapin, +l

&ose8 )9:. SaBuilabon, >ernabe8 )9A. Serrano, +riel8 )90.

Sierra, +le=8 )99. Si*borio, Ro*ualdo8 '((. Sulit, 4auro8 '().

Tabirao, lvisanto8 '('. TabliCo, d"in8 '(3. Taclan, Petronio8



'(#. Ta1ala, Ro**el8 '($. Ta1le, 5ilfredo &r.8 '(:. Tecson

+le=ander8 '(A. Te*plo, !hristopher8 '(0. Tenorio, Roderic%8

'(9. Tolentino, Rodel8 ')(. Tolentino, Ro**el8 ')). Tolentino,

Ro*ulo &r.8 ')'. To*as, Rolando8 ')3. TopaC, +rturo Sr.8 ')#.

Toral, /rant Robert8 ')$. Torres, Dennis8 '):. Torres, 6ederico8

')A. TraCona, &ose Ro**el8 ')0. Tulio, **anuel8 ')9.

<*iten, Nestor &r.8 ''(. Var1as, &oseph8 ''). Ver1ara, +llan8

'''. Ver1ara, sd"in8 ''3. Violeta, +pollo Sr.8 ''#. Vistal,

+le=8 ''$. Kan12on, Michael Tedd28 '':. aldevar,

!hristopher8 and ''A. a*ora, Do*inador &r.

To2otas Position Paper containin1 the list of stri%in1 "or%ers "as

attested to as true and correct under oath b2 Mr. &ose Ma. +li1ada, 6irst Vice

President of the /roup +d*inistration Division of To2ota. Mr. *erito

Du*araos, +ssistant Depart*ent Mana1er of the Production Depart*ent of

To2ota, li%e"ise sub*itted a &une '9, '(() +ffidavit$:E confir*in1 the lo"

attendance of e*plo2ees on 6ebruar2 '), '', and '3, '((), "hich resulted

fro* the intentional absences of the aforelisted stri%in1 "or%ers. The <nion,

on the other hand, did not refute To2otas cate1orical assertions on the

participation of said "or%ers in the *ass actions and their deliberate refusal

to perfor* their assi1ned "or% on 6ebruar2 '), '', and '3, '((). More

i*portantl2, it did not den2 the fact of absence of the e*plo2ees on those

da2s fro* the To2ota *anufacturin1 plants and their deliberate refusal to

render "or%. Their ad*ission that the2 participated in the6ebruar2 ') to '3,

'(() *ass actions necessaril2 *eans the2 "ere absent fro* their "or% on

those da2s.

+nent the March '0 to +pril )', '(() stri%es, evidence is a*ple to

sho" co**ission of ille1al acts li%e acts of coercion or inti*idation and

obstructin1 free in1ress to or e1ress fro* the co*pan2 pre*ises. Mr.

duardo Nicolas III, To2otas Securit2 !hief, attested in his affidavit that the





stri%ers bad*outhed people co*in1 in and shouted invectives such

as ba"eru at &apanese officers of the co*pan2. The stri%ers even pounded

the vehicles of To2ota officials. More i*portantl2, the2 prevented the in1ress

of To2ota e*plo2ees, custo*ers, suppliers, and other persons "ho "anted totransact business "ith the co*pan2. These "ere patent violations of +rt.

':#e- of the 4abor !ode, and *a2 even constitute cri*es under the Revised

Penal !ode such as threats or coercion a*on1 others.

On March '0, '((), the follo"in1 have co**itted ille1al

actsbloc%in1 the in1ress to or e1ress fro* the t"o '- To2ota plants and

preventin1 the in1ress ofTo2ota e*plo2ees on board the co*pan2 shuttle at

the >icutan and Sta. Rosa Plants, viC;

). /rant Robert Toral8 '. &ohn Posadas8 3. +le= Sierra8 #. +llan

&ohn Malabanan8 $. +bel >erces8 :. +riel /arcia8 A. !harlie

Oliveria8 0. Man7olito Puno8 9. >ald"in San Pablo8 )(.

6ederico Torres8 )). 4arr2 /erola8 )'. Roderic% >a2ani8 )3.

+llan Oclarino8 )#. Re2naldo !uevas8 )$. /eor1e Polutan8 ):.

+r*an rcillo8 )A. &oe2 4lanera8 and )0. Roberto /onCales

Photo1raphs "ere sub*itted b2 To2ota *ar%ed as +nne=es ) throu1h

)0 of its Position Paper, vividl2 sho"in1 the participation of the aforelisted

e*plo2ees in ille1al acts.$AE

To further a11ravate the situation, a nu*ber of union *e*bers

co**itted ille1al acts bloc%in1 the in1ress to and e1ress fro* the plant-

durin1 the stri%e sta1ed on March '9, '(() at the To2ota plant in >icutan, to

"it;

). >asilio 4aBui8 '. Sabas >enabise8 3. 6ederico Torres8

#. 6reddie Olit8 and $. &oel +1osto





Pictures *ar%ed as +nne=es ') to '' of To2otas Position Paper reveal

the ille1al acts co**itted b2 the aforelisted "or%ers.$0E

On the ne=t da2, March 3(, '((), several e*plo2ees a1ain co**itted

ille1al acts bloc%in1 in1ress to and e1ress fro* the plant- durin1 the stri%e

at the >icutan plant, to "it;

). +riel /arcia8 '. d1ar Hila1a8 3. !harlie Oliveria8 #.

6erdinand &aen8 $. 5ilfredo Ta1le8 :. +le7andro I*perial8 A.

Man7olito Puno8 0. Del*ar spadilla8 9. +pollo Violeta8 and )(.

lvis Tabirao

Pictures *ar%ed as +nne=es '$ to ': and '0 of To2otas Position Paper

sho" the participation of these "or%ers in unla"ful acts.$9E

On +pril $, '((), seven A- To2ota e*plo2ees "ere identified to have

co**itted ille1al acts bloc%in1 in1ress to and e1ress fro* the plant- durin1

the stri%e held at the >icutan plant, to "it;

). Ra2*und Santos8 '. lvis Tabirao8 3. &oseph Var1as8 #.

>ernardo Salvador8 $. +ntonio Di*a2u1a8 :. Rurel >orebor8

and A. +lberto 4o*bo2

The participations of the stri%ers in ille1al acts are *anifest in the

pictures *ar%ed as +nne=es 3' and 33 of To2otas Position Paper.:(E

On +pril :, '((), onl2 Ro1elio Pia*onte "as identified to have

co**itted ille1al acts bloc%in1 in1ress to and e1ress fro* the To2ota plant-

durin1 the stri%e at the To2ota Santa Rosa plant. :)E Then, on +pril 9, '((),











+lvin Paniterce, Dennis +polinario, and duardo Miranda :'E "ere identified

to have co**itted ille1al acts bloc%in1 in1ress to and e1ress fro*

the To2ota plant- durin1 the stri%e at the To2ota Santa Rosa plant and "ere

validl2 dis*issed b2To2ota.

4astl2, the stri%ers, thou1h on pa2roll reinstate*ent, sta1ed protest

rallies on Ma2 '3, '(() and Ma2 '0, '(() in front of the >icutan and Sta.

Rosa plants.These "or%ers acts in 7oinin1 and participatin1 in the Ma2 '3

and '0, '(() rallies or pic%ets "ere patent violations of the +pril )(, '(()

assu*ption of 7urisdictioncertification Order issued b2 the DO4 Secretar2,

"hich proscribed the co**ission of acts that *i1ht lead to the "orsenin1 of

an alread2 deteriorated situation. +rt. ':31- is clear that stri%ers "ho violate

the assu*ptioncertification Order *a2 suffer dis*issal fro* "or%. This "as

the situation in the Ma2 '3 and '0, '(() pic%ets and concerted actions, "ith

the follo"in1 e*plo2ees "ho co**itted ille1al acts;

a. Stri%ers "ho 7oined the ille1al pic%ets on Ma2 '3, '(() "ere )-

Dennis +polinario8 '- +bel >erces8 3- >enn2 >erin18 #- De=ter >olaos8

$- 6reddie >usano8 :- rnesto >ustillo, &r.8 A- Rand2 !onsi1nado8 0-

Herbert Dalanon8 9- 4eode1ario De Silva8 )(- +le=ander steva8 ))-

&ason 6a7ila1utan8 )'- Ni%%o 6ranco8 )3- /enaro /erola, &r.8 )#- Michael

/ohilde8 )$- Ro1elio Ma1istrado8 ):- Rolando Malaluan, &r.8 )A- 4eoncio

Malate, &r.8 )0- d"in ManCanilla8 )9- Nila Marcial8 '(- Roderic%

Nierves8 ')- 4arr2 Or*illa8 ''- 6ile*on OrtiC8 '3- !ornelio Platon8 '#-

+le7andro Sa*pan18 '$- ric Santia1o8 ':- Ro*ualdo Si*borio8 'A-

4auro Sulit8 and '0- Ro**el Ta1ala.

Pictures sho" the ille1al acts participation in pic%etsstri%es despite

the issuance of a returnto"or% order- co**itted b2 the aforelisted stri%ers.:3E







b. Stri%ers "ho participated in the Ma2 '0, '(() "ere )- &oel +1osto8

'- +le= +le7o8 3- r"in +lfonso8 #- Dennis +polinario8 $- Melvin

+postol8 :- Ro**el +rceta8 A- 4ester +tun8 0- +bel >erces8 9- >enn2>erin18 )(- De=ter >olanos8 ))- Marcelo !abeCas8 )'- Nelson 4eo

!apate8 )3- 4orenCo !araBueo8 )#- !hristopher !atapusan8 )$- Ric%2

!haveC8 ):- Vir1ilio !olando18 )A- !laudio !orrea8 )0- d !ubelo8 )9-

Re2naldo !uevas8 '(- Rene Dalisa28 ')- >eni1no David, &r.8 ''- +le= Del

Mundo8 '3- >asilio Dela !ruC8 '#- Roel Di1*a8 '$- +ldrin Du2a18 ':-

+r*ando rcillo8 'A- Del*ar spadilla8 '0- +le=ander steva8 '9- Ni%%o

6ranco8 3(- De=ter 6ul1ar8 3)- Dante 6ulo8 3'- duardo /ado8 33-

Michael /ohilde8 3#- u1ene &a2 Hondrada II8 3$- &oe2 &avillonar8 3:-

>asilio 4aBui8 3A- +lberto 4o*bo28 30- /eroni*o 4opeC8 39- Ro**el

Macalindo18 #(- Ni=on MadraCo8 #)- Valentin Ma1balita8 #'- +llan &on

Malabanan8 #3- &ona*ar Manao18 ##- >a2ani Man1uil8 #$- &une

Mani1bas8 #:- +lfred Man7ares8 #A- d"in ManCanilla8 #0- Ma2o Mata8

#9- 4eo O7enal8 $(- +llan Oriana8 $)- Ro1elio Pia*onte8 $'- /eor1e

Polutan8 $3- ric Santia1o8 $#- >ernabe SaBuilabon8 $$- +le= Sierra8 $:-

Ro*ualdo Si*borio8 $A- 4auro Sulit8 $0- lvisanto Tabirao8 $9- d"in

TabliCo8 :(- **anuel Tulio8 :)- Nestor <*iten8 :'- &oseph Var1as8 :3-

d"in Ver1ara8 and :#- Michael Tedd2 Kan12on.

To2ota presented photo1raphs "hich sho" said e*plo2ees conductin1

*ass pic%ets and concerted actions.:#E

+nent the 1rant of severance co*pensation to le1all2 dis*issed union*e*bers, To2ota assails the turnaround b2 the !+ in 1rantin1 separation

pa2 in its &une '(, '((3 Resolution after initiall2 den2in1 it in its 6ebruar2

'A, '((3 Decision. The co*pan2 asseverates that based on the !+ findin1

that the ille1al acts of said union *e*bers constitute 1ross *isconduct, not





to *ention the hu1e losses it suffered, then the 1rant of separation pa2 "as

not proper.

The 1eneral rule is that "hen 7ust causes for ter*inatin1 the servicesof an e*plo2ee under +rt. '0' of the 4abor !ode e=ist, the e*plo2ee is not

entitled to separation pa2. The apparent reason behind the forfeiture of the

ri1ht to ter*ination pa2 is that la"brea%ers should not benefit fro* their

ille1al acts. The dis*issed e*plo2ee, ho"ever, is entitled to "hatever ri1hts,

benefits and privile1es sheE *a2 have under the applicable individual or

collective bar1ainin1 a1ree*ent "ith the e*plo2er or voluntar2 e*plo2er

polic2 or practice:$E or under the 4abor !ode and other e=istin1 la"s. This

*eans that the e*plo2ee, despite the dis*issal for a valid cause, retains the

ri1ht to receive fro* the e*plo2er benefits provided b2 la", li%e accrued

service incentive leaves. 5ith respect to benefits 1ranted b2 the !>+

provisions and voluntar2 *ana1e*ent polic2 or practice, the entitle*ent of

the dis*issed e*plo2ees to the benefits depends on the stipulations of the

!>+ or the co*pan2 rules and policies.

+s in an2 rule, there are e=ceptions. One e=ception "here separation

pa2 is 1iven even thou1h an e*plo2ee is validl2 dis*issed is "hen the court

finds 7ustification in appl2in1 the principle of social 7ustice "ell entrenched

in the )90A !onstitution. In Phil. Lon istance /ele#hone o. PL/ - v.

'LR , the !ourt elucidated "h2 social 7ustice can validate the 1rant of

separation pa2, thus;

The reason is that our !onstitution is replete "ith positive

co**ands for the pro*otion of social 7ustice, and particularl2

the protection of the ri1hts of the "or%ers. The enhance*ent of

their "elfare is one of the pri*ar2 concerns of the present

charter. In fact, instead of confinin1 itself to the 1eneral

co**it*ent to the cause of labor in +rticle II on the

Declaration of Principles of State Policies, the ne" !onstitution

contains a separate article devoted to the pro*otion of social





7ustice and hu*an ri1hts "ith a separate subtopic for

labor. +rticle JIII e=pressl2 reco1niCes the vital role of labor,

hand in hand "ith *ana1e*ent, in the advance*ent of the

national econo*2 and the "elfare of the people in 1eneral. The

cate1orical *andates in the !onstitution for the i*prove*ent of

the lot of the "or%ers are *ore than sufficient basis to 7ustif2

the a"ard of separation pa2 in proper cases even if the

dis*issal be for cause.::E

In the sa*e case, the !ourt laid do"n the rule that severance

co*pensation shall be allo"ed onl2 "hen the cause of the dis*issal is other

than serious *isconduct or that "hich reflects adversel2 on the e*plo2ees

*oral character. The !ourt succinctl2 discussed the propriet2 of the 1rant of

separation pa2 in this "ise;

5e hold that henceforth separation pa2 shall be allo"ed

as a *easure of social 7ustice onl2 in those instances "here the

e*plo2ee is validl2 dis*issed for causes other than serious

*isconduct or those reflectin1 on his *oral character. 5here

the reason for the valid dis*issal is, for e=a*ple, habitual

into=ication or an offense involvin1 *oral turpitude, li%e theft

or illicit se=ual relations "ith a fello" "or%er, the e*plo2er

*a2 not be reBuired to 1ive the dis*issed e*plo2ee separation

pa2, or financial assistance, or "hatever other na*e it is called,

on the 1round of social 7ustice.

+ contrar2 rule "ould, as the petitioner correctl2 ar1ues,

have the effect, of re"ardin1 rather than punishin1 the errin1

e*plo2ee for his offense. +nd "e do not a1ree that the

punish*ent is his dis*issal onl2 and that the separation pa2 hasnothin1 to do "ith the "ron1 he has co**itted. Of course it

has. Indeed, if the e*plo2ee "ho steals fro* the co*pan2 is

1ranted separation pa2 even as he is validl2 dis*issed, it is not

unli%el2 that he "ill co**it a si*ilar offense in his ne=t

e*plo2*ent because he thin%s he can e=pect a li%e lenienc2 if

he is a1ain found out. This %ind of *isplaced co*passion is not





1oin1 to do labor in 1eneral an2 1ood as it "ill encoura1e the

infiltration of its ran%s b2 those "ho do not deserve the

protection and concern of the !onstitution.

The polic2 of social 7ustice is not intended to

countenance "ron1doin1 si*pl2 because it is co**itted b2 the

underprivile1ed. +t best it *a2 *iti1ate the penalt2 but it

certainl2 "ill not condone the offense. !o*passion for the poor

is an i*perative of ever2 hu*ane societ2 but onl2 "hen the

recipient is not a rascal clai*in1 an undeserved

privile1e. Social 7ustice cannot be per*itted to be refu1e of

scoundrels an2 *ore than can eBuit2 be an i*pedi*ent to the

punish*ent of the 1uilt2. Those "ho invo%e social 7ustice *a2

do so onl2 if their hands are clean and their *otives bla*eless

and not si*pl2 because the2 happen to be poor. This 1reat polic2 of our !onstitution is not *eant for the protection of

those "ho have proved the2 are not "orth2 of it, li%e the

"or%ers "ho have tainted the cause of labor "ith the ble*ishes

of their o"n character.:AE

=plicit in PL/ are t"o e=ceptions "hen the N4R! or the courts

should not 1rant separation pa2 based on social 7usticeserious *isconduct

"hich is the first 1round for dis*issal under +rt. '0'- or acts that reflect on

the *oral character of the e*plo2ee. 5hat is unclear is "hether the rulin1

li%e"ise precludes the 1rant of separation pa2 "hen the e*plo2ee is validl2

ter*inated fro* "or% on 1rounds laid do"n in +rt. '0' of the 4abor !ode

other than serious *isconduct.

+ recall of recent cases decided bearin1 on the issue reveals that "hen

the ter*ination is le1all2 7ustified on an2 of the 1rounds under +rt. '0',

separation pa2 "as not allo"ed. In Ha +uan Restaurant v. 'LR ,:0E "e

deleted the a"ard of separation pa2 to an e*plo2ee "ho, "hile unprovo%ed,

hit her co"or%ers face, causin1 in7uries, "hich then resulted in a series of

fi1hts and scuffles bet"een the*. 5e vie"ed her act as serious *isconduct







"hich did not "arrant the a"ard of separation pa2. In House of Sara Lee v.

Rey,:9E this !ourt deleted the a"ard of separation pa2 to a branch supervisor

"ho re1ularl2, "ithout authoriCation, e=tended the pa2*ent deadlines of the

co*pan2s sales a1ents. Since the cause for the supervisors dis*issalinvolved her inte1rit2 "hich can be considered as breach of trust-, she "as

not "orth2 of co*passion as to deserve separation pa2 based on her len1th

of service. In 2ustilo v. !yeth Phils., Inc.,A(Ethis !ourt found no e=ceptional

circu*stance to "arrant the 1rant of financial assistance to an e*plo2ee "ho

repeatedl2 violated the co*pan2s disciplinar2 rules and re1ulations and

"hose e*plo2*ent "as thus ter*inated for 1ross and habitual ne1lect of his

duties. In the doctrinal case of San &iuel v. Lao,A)E this !ourt reversed and

set aside the rulin1 of the !+ 1rantin1 retire*ent benefits or separation pa2

to an e*plo2ee "ho "as dis*issed for "illful breach of trust and confidence

b2 causin1 the deliver2 of ra" *aterials, "hich are needed for its 1lass

production plant, to its co*petitor. 5hile a revie" of the case reports does

not reveal a case involvin1 a ter*ination b2 reason of the co**ission of a

cri*e a1ainst the e*plo2er or hisher fa*il2 "hich dealt "ith the issue of

separation pa2, it "ould be addin1 insult to in7ur2 if the e*plo2er "ould still

be co*pelled to shell out *one2 to the offender after the har* done.

In all of the fore1oin1 situations, the !ourt declined to 1rant

ter*ination pa2 because the causes for dis*issal reco1niCed under +rt. '0'

of the 4abor !ode "ere serious or 1rave in nature and attended b2 "illful or

"ron1ful intent or the2 reflected adversel2 on the *oral character of the

e*plo2ees. 5e therefore find that in addition to serious *isconduct, in

dis*issals based on other 1rounds under +rt. '0' li%e "illful disobedience,1ross and habitual ne1lect of dut2, fraud or "illful breach of trust, and

co**ission of a cri*e a1ainst the e*plo2er or his fa*il2, separation pa2

should not be conceded to the dis*issed e*plo2ee.









In analo1ous causes for ter*ination li%e inefficienc2, dru1 use, and

others, the N4R! or the courts *a2 opt to 1rant separation pa2 anchored on

social 7ustice in consideration of the len1th of service of the e*plo2ee, the

a*ount involved, "hether the act is the first offense, the perfor*ance of thee*plo2ee and the li%e, usin1 the 1uideposts enunciated in PL/ on the

propriet2 of the a"ard of separation pa2.

In the case at bench, are the ''A stri%in1 e*plo2ees entitled to

separation pa2

In the instant case, the !+ concluded that the ille1al stri%es co**itted

b2 the <nion *e*bers constituted serious *isconduct.A'E

The !+ ratiocinated in this *anner;

Neter )* :o); :te :t= te )6)r+ to tem o

:e?er)*e ompe*:)to* or )*= oter orm o *)*);

):::t)*e. = = =

= = = =

Co*:+er*< t)t te +:m::); o te emp;o=ee: 6):

+e to ter p)rtp)to* * te ;;e<); :tr>e: ): 6e;; ):

?o;)to* o te Co+e o Co*+t o te omp)*=, te :)me

o*:ttte: :ero: m:o*+t. + serious *isconduct is a

trans1ression of so*e established and definite rule of action, a

forbidden act, a dereliction of dut2, "illful in character, and

i*plies "ron1ful intent and not *ere error in 7ud1*ent. In fact,

in )anay 8le*tri* ompany, &n*. v. #+6 , the Supre*e !ourtnullified the 1rant of separation benefits to e*plo2ees "ho

unla"full2 participated in an ille1al stri%e in li1ht of +rticle

':#, Title VIII, >oo% V of the 4abor !ode, that, an2 union

officer "ho %no"in1l2 participates in an ille1al stri%e and an2

"or%er or union officer "ho %no"in1l2 participates in the





co**ission of ille1al acts durin1 a stri%e *a2 be declared to

have lost his e*plo2*ent status.

Te o*:ttto*); <)r)*tee o* :o); :te : *ot

*te*+e+ o*;= or te poor bt or te r ): 6e;;. It : )

po;= o )r*e:: to bot ;)bor )*+ m)*)<eme*t.A3E *phasis supplied.-

In disposin1 of the <nions plea for reconsideration of its 6ebruar2 'A,

'((3 Decision, the !+ ho"ever perfor*ed a volteface b2 reinstatin1 the

a"ard of separation pa2.

The !+s 1rant of separation pa2 is an erroneous departure fro* our

rulin1 in Phil. Lon istance /ele#hone o. v. 'LR that serious

*isconduct forecloses the a"ard of separation pa2. Secondl2, the advertence

to the alle1ed honest belief on the part of the ''A e*plo2ees

that To2ota co**itted a breach of the dut2 to bar1ain collectivel2 and an

abuse of valid e=ercise of *ana1e*ent prero1ative has not been

substantiated b2 the evidence e=tant on record. There can be no 1ood faith inintentionall2 incurrin1 absences in a collective fashion fro* "or% on

6ebruar2 '' and '3, '(() 7ust to attend the DO4 hearin1s. The <nions

strate12 "as plainl2 to cripple the operations and brin1 To2ota to its %nees

b2 inflictin1 substantial financial da*a1e to the latter to co*pel union

reco1nition.The <nion officials and *e*bers are supposed to %no" throu1h

co**on sense that hu1e losses "ould befall the co*pan2 b2 the

abandon*ent of their re1ular "or%. It "as not disputed that To2ota lost *ore

than PhP $( *illion because of the "illful desertion of co*pan2 operations

in 6ebruar2 '(() b2 the dis*issed union *e*bers. In addition, further

da*a1e "as e=perienced b2 To2ota "hen the <nion a1ain resorted to ille1al

stri%es fro* March '0 to +pril )', '((), "hen the 1ates of To2ota "ere

bloc%ed and barricaded, and the co*pan2 officials, e*plo2ees, and





custo*ers "ere inti*idated and harassed. Moreover, the2 "ere full2 a"are

of the co*pan2 rule on prohibition a1ainst concerted action ini*ical to the

interests of the co*pan2 and hence, their resort to *ass actions on several

occasions in clear violation of the co*pan2 re1ulation cannot be e=cused nor 7ustified. 4astl2, the2 blatantl2 violated the assu*ptioncertification Order of

the DO4 Secretar2, e=hibitin1 their lac% of obeisance to the rule of

la". These acts indeed constituted serious *isconduct.

+ painsta%in1 revie" of case la" renders obtuse the <nions clai* for

separation pa2. In a sle" of cases, this !ourt refrained fro* a"ardin1

separation pa2 or financial assistance to union officers and *e*bers "ho

"ere separated fro* service due to their participation in or co**ission of

ille1al acts durin1 stri%es. In the recent case of Pili#ino /ele#hone

or#oration v. Pili#ino /ele#hone -m#loyees Association (PIL/-A),A#E this

!ourt upheld the dis*issal of union officers "ho participated and openl2

defied the returnto"or% order issued b2 the DO4 Secretar2. No

separation pa2 or financial assistance "as 1ranted. In Su"hothai uisine and

Restaurant v. ourt of A##eals,A$E this !ourt declared that the union officers

"ho participated in and the union *e*bers "ho co**itted ille1al acts

durin1 the ille1al stri%e have lost their e*plo2*ent status. In this case, the

stri%e "as held ille1al because it violated a1ree*ents providin1 for

arbitration. +1ain, there "as no a"ard of separation pa2 nor financial

assistance. In Phili##ine iamond Hotel and Resort, Inc. v. &anila

iamond Hotel -m#loyees Union,A:E the stri%e "as declared ille1al because

the *eans e*plo2ed "as ille1al. 5e upheld the validit2 of dis*issin1 union

*e*bers "ho co**itted ille1al acts durin1 the stri%e, but a1ain, "ithouta"ardin1 separation pa2 or financial assistance to the errin1

e*plo2ees. In Samahan &anaa$a sa Sul#icio Lines, Inc. v. Sul#icio

Lines,AAE this !ourt upheld the dis*issal of union officers "ho participated

in an ille1al stri%e sans an2 a"ard of separation pa2. arlier, in 2rand











%oulevard Hotel v. 2enuine Labor 4rani0ation of !or"ers in Hotel,

Restaurant and Allied Industries,A0E "e affir*ed the dis*issal of the <nions

officers "ho participated in an ille1al stri%e "ithout a"ardin1 separation

pa2, despite the N4R!s declaration ur1in1 the co*pan2 to 1ive financialassistance to the dis*issed e*plo2ees.A9E In Inter#hil Laboratories Union

11!, et al. v. Inter#hil Laboratories, Inc.,0(E this !ourt affir*ed the

dis*issal of the union officers "ho led the concerted action in refusin1 to

render overti*e "or% and causin1 "or% slo"do"ns. Ho"ever, no separation

pa2 or financial assistance "as allo"ed. In%PI Postmi6 !or"ers Union v.

'LR ,0)E this !ourt affir*ed the dis*issal of union officers "ho

participated in the stri%e and the union *e*bers "ho co**itted ille1al acts

"hile on stri%e, "ithout a"ardin1 the* separation pa2 or financial

assistance. In )99:, in Allied %an"in or#oration v. 'LR ,0'E this !ourt

affir*ed the dis*issal of <nion officers and *e*bers, "ho sta1ed a stri%e

despite the DO4 Secretar2s issuance of a return to "or% order but did not

a"ard separation pa2. In the earlier but *ore relevant case of hua v. 'LR ,03E this !ourt deleted the N4R!s a"ard of separation benefits to an

e*plo2ee "ho participated in an unla"ful and violent stri%e, "hich stri%e

resulted in *ultiple deaths and e=tensive propert2 da*a1e. In hua, "e

vie"ed the infractions co**itted b2 the union officers and *e*bers as a

serious *isconduct "hich resulted in the deletion of the a"ard of separation

pa2 in confor*ance to the rulin1 in PL/ . >ased on e=istin1 7urisprudence,

the a"ard of separation pa2 to the <nion officials and *e*bers in the instant

petitions cannot be sustained.

One last point to considerit is hi1h ti*e that e*plo2er and e*plo2eecease to vie" each other as adversaries and instead reco1niCe that theirs is a

s2*biotic relationship, "herein the2 *ust rel2 on each other to ensure the

success of the business. 5hen the2 consider onl2 their o"n selfinterests,

and "hen the2 act onl2 "ith their o"n benefit in *ind, both parties suffer















fro* shortsi1htedness, failin1 to realiCe that the2 both have a sta%e in the

business. The e*plo2er "ants the business to succeed, considerin1 the

invest*ent that has been *ade. The e*plo2ee in turn, also "ants the

business to succeed, as continued e*plo2*ent *eans a livin1, and thechance to better ones lot in life. It is clear then that the2 both have the sa*e

1oal, even if the benefit that results *a2 be 1reater for one part2 than the

other. If this beco*es a source of conflict, there are various, *ore a*icable

*eans of settlin1 disputes and of balancin1 interests that do not add fuel to

the fire, and instead open avenues for understandin1 and cooperation

bet"een the e*plo2er and the e*plo2ee. ven thou1h stri%es and loc%outs

have been reco1niCed as effective bar1ainin1 tools, it is an antiBuated notion

that the2 are trul2 beneficial, as the2 onl2 provide shortter* solutions b2

forcin1 concessions fro* one part28 but sta1in1 such stri%es "ould da*a1e

the "or%in1 relationship bet"een e*plo2ers and e*plo2ees, thus

endan1erin1 the business that the2 both "ant to succeed. The *ore

pro1ressive and trul2 effective *eans of dispute resolution lies in *ediation,

conciliation, and arbitration, "hich do not increase tension but instead

provide relief fro* the*. In the end, an at*osphere of trust and

understandin1 has *uch *ore to offer a business relationship than the

traditional en*it2 that has lon1 divided the e*plo2er and the e*plo2ee.

-ERE4ORE, the petitions in /.R. Nos. )$0A0: and )$0A09

are %ENIE% "hile those in /.R. Nos. )$0A9099 are GRANTE%.

The &une '(, '((3 !+ Resolution in !+/.R. SP Nos. :A)(( and

:A$:) restorin1 the 1rant of severance co*pensationis ANNULLE% and SET ASI%E.

The 6ebruar2 'A, '((3 !+ Decision in !+/.R. SP Nos. :A)(( and

:A$:), "hich affir*ed the +u1ust 9, '(() Decision of the N4R! but



deleted the 1rant of severance co*pensation,

is REINSTATE% and A44IRME%.

No costs.

SO OR%ERE%.


SUPREME COURT

Manila

SP!I+4 6IRST DIVISION

G.R. No. 191 $)*)r= 1, !10

(ISA&AS COMMUNIT& ME%ICAL CENTER (CMCD, 4ormer;=

>*o6* ): METRO CEBU COMMUNIT& -OSPITAL

MCC-D, Petitioner,

vs.

ERMA &BALLE, NELIA ANGEL, ELEUTERIA CORTE' )*+E(EL&N ONG, Respondents.

D ! I S I O N

(ILLARAMA, $R., J.:

The present petition "as included in the four consolidated cases previousl2

decided b2 this !ourt.) Ho"ever, its reinstate*ent and separate disposition

beca*e necessar2 due to oversi1ht in the issuance of the order ofconsolidation.

The 6acts





Respondents "ere hired as staff nurses On1 and +n1el- and *id"ives

Kballe and !orteC- b2 petitioner Visa2as !o**unit2 Medical !enter

V!M!-, for*erl2 the Metro !ebu !o**unit2 Hospital, Inc. M!!HI-.

M!!HI is a nonstoc%, nonprofit corporation "hich operates the Metro

!ebu !o**unit2 Hospital M!!H-, a tertiar2 *edical institution o"ned b2the <nited !hurch of !hrist in the Philippines <!!P-.

!onsiderin1 the si*ilar factual settin1, "e Buote the relevant portions of the

narration of facts in our Decision dated Dece*ber A, '()) in +baria v.

N4R!';

The National 6ederation of 4abor N64- is the e=clusive bar1ainin1

representative of the ran%andfile e*plo2ees of M!!HI. <nder the )90A

and )99) !ollective >ar1ainin1 +1ree*ents !>+s-, the si1natories "ere

!iriaco >. Pon1asi, Sr. for M!!HI, and +tt2. +r*ando M. +lforBue N64

4e1al !ounsel- and Paterno +. 4u*ap1uid as President of N64M!!H

!hapter. In the !>+ effective fro* &anuar2 )99# until Dece*ber 3), )99$,

the si1natories "ere Sheila . >uot as >oard of Trustees !hair*an, Rev.

I2o2 as M!!H +d*inistrator and +tt2. 6ernando Ku as 4e1al !ounsel of

N64, "hile Perla Nava, President of Na1%ahiusan1 Ma*u*uo sa M!!H

N+M+M!!HN64- si1ned the Proof of Postin1.

On Dece*ber :, )99$, Nava "rote Rev. I2o2 e=pressin1 the unions desire

to rene" the !>+, attachin1 to her letter a state*ent of proposals

si1nedendorsed b2 )$3 union *e*bers. Nava subseBuentl2 reBuested that

the follo"in1 e*plo2ees be allo"ed to avail of oneda2 union leave "ith

pa2 on Dece*ber )9, )99$; !elia Sabas, &esusa /erona, +lbina >aYeC,

ddie Villa, Ro2 MalaCarte, rnesto !anen, &r., /uiller*a Re*ocaldo,

!atalina +lsado, vel2n On1, Melodia Paulin, Sofia >autista, Hannah

>on1caras, ster Villarin, Ilu*inada 5enceslao and Perla Nava. Ho"ever,

M!!HI returned the !>+ proposal for Nava to secure first the endorse*ent

of the le1al counsel of N64 as the official bar1ainin1 representative of

M!!HI e*plo2ees.

Mean"hile, +tt2. +lforBue infor*ed M!!HI that the proposed !>+

sub*itted b2 Nava "as never referred to N64 and that N64 has not





authoriCed an2 other le1al counsel or an2 person for collective bar1ainin1

ne1otiations. >2 &anuar2 )99:, the collection of union fees chec%off- "as

te*poraril2 suspended b2 M!!HI in vie" of the e=istin1 conflict bet"een

the federation and its local affiliate. Thereafter, M!!HI atte*pted to ta%e

over the roo* bein1 used as union office but "as prevented to do so b2 Nava and her 1roup "ho protested these actions and insisted that

*ana1e*ent directl2 ne1otiate "ith the* for a ne" !>+. M!!HI referred

the *atter to +tt2. +lforBue, N64s Re1ional Director, and advised Nava that

their 1roup is not reco1niCed b2 N64.

In his letter dated 6ebruar2 '#, )99: addressed to Nava, rnesto !anen, &r.,

&esusa /erona, Hannah >on1caras, **a Re*ocaldo, !atalina +lsado and

+lbina >aYeC, +tt2. +lforBue suspended their union *e*bership for serious

violation of the !onstitution and >24a"s. Said letter states;

= = = =

On 6ebruar2 ':, )99:, upon the reBuest of +tt2. +lforBue, M!!HI 1ranted

oneda2 union leave "ith pa2 for )' union *e*bers. The ne=t da2, several

union *e*bers led b2 Nava and her 1roup launched a series of *ass actions

such as "earin1 blac% and red ar*bandsheadbands, *archin1 around the

hospital pre*ises and puttin1 up placards, posters and strea*ers. +tt2.+lforBue i**ediatel2 diso"ned the concerted activities bein1 carried out b2

union *e*bers "hich are not sanctioned b2 N64. M!!HI directed the

union officers led b2 Nava to sub*it "ithin #0 hours a "ritten e=planation

"h2 the2 should not be ter*inated for havin1 en1a1ed in ille1al concerted

activities a*ountin1 to stri%e, and placed the* under i**ediate preventive

suspension. Respondin1 to this directive, Nava and her 1roup denied there

"as a te*porar2 stoppa1e of "or%, e=plainin1 that e*plo2ees "ore their

ar*bands onl2 as a si1n of protest and reiteratin1 their de*and for M!!HI

to co*pl2 "ith its dut2 to bar1ain collectivel2. Rev. I2o2, havin1 been

infor*ed that Nava and her 1roup have also been suspended b2 N64,

directed said officers to appear before his office for investi1ation in

connection "ith the ille1al stri%e "herein the2 reportedl2 uttered slanderous

and scurrilous "ords a1ainst the officers of the hospital, threatenin1 other



"or%ers and forcin1 the* to 7oin the stri%e. Said union officers, ho"ever,

invo%ed the 1rievance procedure provided in the !>+ to settle the dispute

bet"een *ana1e*ent and the union.

On March )3 and )9, )99:, the Depart*ent of 4abor and *plo2*entDO4- Re1ional Office No. A issued certifications statin1 that there is

nothin1 in their records "hich sho"s that N+M+M!!H N64 is a

re1istered labor or1aniCation, and that said union sub*itted onl2 a cop2 of

its !harter !ertificate on &anuar2 3), )99$. M!!HI then sent individual

notices to all union *e*bers as%in1 the* to sub*it "ithin A' hours a

"ritten e=planation "h2 the2 should not be ter*inated for havin1 supported

the ille1al concerted activities of N+M+M!!HN64 "hich has no le1al

personalit2 as per DO4 records. In their collective responsestate*ent

dated March )0, )99:, it "as e=plained that the pic%etin1 e*plo2ees "ore

ar*bands to protest M!!HIs refusal to bar1ain8 it "as also contended that

M!!HI cannot Buestion the le1al personalit2 of the union "hich had

activel2 assisted in !>+ ne1otiations and i*ple*entation.

On March )3, )99:, N+M+M!!HN64 filed a Notice of Stri%e but the

sa*e "as dee*ed not filed for "ant of le1al personalit2 on the part of the

filer. The National !onciliation and Mediation >oard N!M>- Re1ion A

office li%e"ise denied their *otion for reconsideration on March '$, )99:.Despite such rebuff, Nava and her 1roup still conducted a stri%e vote on

+pril ', )99: durin1 "hich an over"hel*in1 *a7orit2 of union *e*bers

approved the stri%e.

Mean"hile, the scheduled investi1ations did not push throu1h because the

stri%in1 union *e*bers insisted on attendin1 the sa*e onl2 as a 1roup.

M!!HI a1ain sent notices infor*in1 the* that their refusal to sub*it to

investi1ation is dee*ed a "aiver of their ri1ht to e=plain their side and

*ana1e*ent shall proceed to i*pose proper disciplinar2 action under the

circu*stances. On March 3(, )99:, M!!HI sent ter*ination letters to union

leaders and other *e*bers "ho participated in the stri%e and pic%etin1

activities. On +pril 0, )99:, it also issued a ceaseanddesist order to the rest

of the stri%in1 e*plo2ees stressin1 that the "ildcat concerted activities



spearheaded b2 the Nava 1roup is ille1al "ithout a valid Notice of Stri%e and

"arnin1 the* that nonco*pliance "ill co*pel *ana1e*ent to i*pose

disciplinar2 actions a1ainst the*. 6or their continued pic%etin1 activities

despite the said "arnin1, *ore than )(( stri%in1 e*plo2ees "ere dis*issed

effective +pril )' and )9, )99:.

<nfaCed, the stri%in1 union *e*bers held *ore *ass actions. The *eans of

in1ress to and e1ress fro* the hospital "ere bloc%ed so that vehicles

carr2in1 patients and e*plo2ees "ere barred fro* enterin1 the pre*ises.

Placards "ere placed at the hospitals entrance 1ate statin1;

FPlease proceed to another hospitalF and F"e are on protest.F *plo2ees and

patients reported acts of inti*idation and harass*ent perpetrated b2 union

leaders and *e*bers. 5ith the intensified at*osphere of violence and

ani*osit2 "ithin the hospital pre*ises as a result of continued protest

activities b2 union *e*bers, M!!HI suffered heav2 losses due to lo"

patient ad*ission rates. The hospitals suppliers also refused to *a%e further

deliveries on credit.

5ith the volatile situation adversel2 affectin1 hospital operations and the

condition of confined patients, M!!HI filed a petition for in7unction in the

N4R! !ebu !it2- on &ul2 9, )99: In7unction !ase No. V(((:9:-. +te*porar2 restrainin1 order TRO- "as issued on &ul2 ):, )99:. M!!HI

presented )' "itnesses hospital e*plo2ees and patients-, includin1 a

securit2 1uard "ho "as stabbed b2 an identified s2*pathiCer "hile in the

co*pan2 of Navas 1roup. M!!HIs petition "as 1ranted and a per*anent

in7unction "as issued on Septe*ber )0, )99: en7oinin1 the Nava 1roup fro*

co**ittin1 ille1al acts *entioned in +rt. ':# of the 4abor !ode.

On +u1ust 'A, )99:, the !it2 /overn*ent of !ebu ordered the de*olition

of the structures and obstructions put up b2 the pic%etin1 e*plo2ees of

M!!HI alon1 the side"al%, havin1 deter*ined the sa*e as a public

nuisance or nuisance per se.



Thereafter, several co*plaints for ille1al dis*issal and unfair labor practice

"ere filed b2 the ter*inated e*plo2ees a1ainst M!!HI, Rev. I2o2, <!!P

and *e*bers of the >oard of Trustees of M!!HI.3

On +u1ust #, )999, =ecutive 4abor +rbiter Re2noso +. >elar*inorendered his Decision# in the consolidated cases "hich included N4R! !ase

No. R+>VII('(3(990 filed b2 herein respondents. The dispositive

portion of said decision reads;

5HR6OR, pre*ises considered, 7ud1*ent is hereb2 rendered

dis*issin1 the clai* of unfair labor practice and ille1al dis*issal and

declarin1 the ter*ination of the follo"in1 as an offshoot of the ille1al stri%e;

Perla Nava, !atalina +lsado, +lbina >aYeC, Hannah >on1caras, rnesto

!anen, &esusa /erona and /uiller*a Re*ocaldo but directin1 the

respondent Metro !ebu !o**unit2 Hospital to pa2 the herein co*plainants

separation pa2 in the su* of THR MI44ION I/HTK 6IV

THO<S+ND I/HT H<NDRD NINTK SVN and #(E)((

P3,(0$,09A.#(- detailed as follo"s;

= = = =

A9. r*a Kballe

:))03 X #)99:; )' 2ears, )( *os. )3 2ears-

P$,(((.(( Z ' = )3 [ 3',$((.((

0(. leuteria !orteC

)')3A#E$ X #)'9:; ') 2ears, # *os. ') 2ears-

P$,(((.(( Z ' = ') [ $',$((.((

0). Nelia +n1el

:()00 X #)'9:; A 2ears, )( *os. 0 2ears-

P$,(((.(( Z ' = 0 [ '(,(((.((

0'. vel2n On1









A(A0: X #)'9:; 9 2ears, 9 *os. )( 2ears-

P$,(((.(( Z ' = )( [ '$,(((.((

= = = =

SO ORDRD.:

=ecutive 4abor +rbiter >elar*ino ruled that M!!HI and its ad*inistrators

"ere not 1uilt2 of unfair labor practice. He li%e"ise upheld the ter*ination

of co*plainants union officers "ho conducted the ille1al stri%e. The rest of

the co*plainants "ere found to have been ille1all2 dis*issed, thus;

5e, ho"ever, see that the N+M+ *e*bers deserve a different treat*ent. +s

the !ourt said, *e*bers of a union cannot be held responsible for an ille1alstri%e on the sole basis of such *e*bership, or even on an account of their

affir*ative vote authoriCin1 the sa*e. The2 beco*e liable onl2 if the2

actuall2 participated therein SSO Phil., Inc. vs. Mala2an1 Man11a1a"a sa

sso A$ S!R+ A3-. >ut the ille1alit2 of their participation is placed in a state

of doubt the2, bein1 *erel2 follo"ers. <nder the circu*stances, 5e resort to

+rt. # of the 4abor !ode favorin1 the "or%in1*an in case of doubt in the

interpretation and i*ple*entation of la"s.

Obviousl2 s"a2ed b2 the actuations of their leaders, herein co*plainants

ou1ht to be reinstated as a *atter of polic2 but "ithout bac%"a1es for the2

cannot be co*pensated havin1 s%ipped "or% durin1 the ille1al stri%e

National 6ederation of Su1ar 5or%ers vs. Overseas et al. ))# S!R+ 3$#-.

>ut "ith their positions alread2 ta%en over b2 their replace*ents and "ith

strained relations bet"een the parties havin1 ta%en place, 5e dee* it fair

that co*plainants e=cept for the seven officers, should be paid separation

pa2 of onehalf )'- *onth for ever2 2ear of service b2 the respondent

hospital.A

Respondents and their coco*plainants filed their respective appeals before

the National 4abor Relations !o**ission N4R!- !ebu !it2. On 6ebruar2

)$, '((), respondents and M!!HI 7ointl2 *oved to defer resolution of their

appeal N4R! !ase No. V(()(#'99- in vie" of a possible co*pro*ise.







!onseBuentl2, in its Decision0dated March )#, '((), the N4R!s 6ourth

Division !ebu !it2- resolved onl2 the appeals filed b2 respondents co

co*plainants. The dispositive portion of said decision reads;

5HR6OR, pre*ises considered, the decision of the =ecutive 4abor+rbiter dis*issin1 the co*plaint for unfair labor practice and ille1al

dis*issal is +66IRMD "ith MODI6I!+TIONS declarin1 the dis*issal of

all the co*plainants in R+> !ase No. (A('(39#90 and R+> !ase No.

(A(3($9:90 valid and le1al. Necessaril2, the a"ard of separation pa2 and

attorne2s fees are hereb2 Deleted.

Resolution on R+> !ase No. (A('(3(990 is hereb2 Deferred upon &oint

Motion of the parties.

SO ORDRD.9

The N4R! denied the *otion for reconsideration of the above decision

under its Resolution)( dated &ul2 ', '(().

Havin1 failed to reach a settle*ent, respondents counsel filed a *otion to

resolve their appeal on &anuar2 ', '((3. Thus, on March )', '((3, the

N4R!!ebu !it2 6ourth Division rendered its Decision,)) as follo"s;

5HR6OR, pre*ises considered, the decision of the =ecutive 4abor

+rbiter dis*issin1 the co*plaint for unfair labor practice and ille1al

dis*issal is +66IRMD "ith MODI6I!+TIONS declarin1 all the

co*plainants to have been validl2 dis*issed. Necessaril2, the a"ard of

separation pa2 and attorne2s fees are hereb2 Deleted.

SO ORDRD.)'

In deletin1 the a"ard of separation pa2 and attorne2s fees, the N4R!

e*phasiCed that respondents and their coco*plainants are 1uilt2 of

insubordination, havin1 persisted in their ille1al concerted activities even

after M!!HI had sent the* individual notices that the stri%e "as ille1al as it

"as filed b2 N+M+M!!HN64 "hich is not a le1iti*ate labor

or1aniCation. It held that under the circu*stances "here the stri%in1















this !ourt in separate petitions; /.R. No. )0AAA0 Perla Nava, et al. v.

N4R!, et al.- and /.R. No. )0A0:) Metro !ebu !o**unit2 Hospital v.

Perla Nava, et al.-. Herein respondents also filed in the !+ a petition for

certiorari assailin1 the March )', '((3 Decision and +pril )3, '((#

Resolution of the N4R!, doc%eted as !+/.R. SP No. 0#990 !ebu !it2-.>2 Decision)A dated Nove*ber A, '((0, the !+ 1ranted their petition, as

follo"s;

5HR6OR, the challen1ed Decision of public respondent dated March

)', '((3 and its Resolution dated +pril )3, '((# are hereb2RVRSD

+ND ST +SID. Private respondent Metro !ebu !o**unit2 Hospital is

ordered to reinstate petitioners r*a Kballe, leuteria !ortes, Nelia +n1el

and vel2n On1 "ithout loss of seniorit2 ri1hts and other privile1es8 to pa2

the* their full bac%"a1es inclusive of their allo"ances and other benefits

co*puted fro* the ti*e of their dis*issal up to the ti*e of their actual

reinstate*ent.

No pronounce*ent as to costs.

SO ORDRD.)0

Petitioner filed a *otion for reconsideration "hich the !+ denied in its6ebruar2 '', '()) Resolution.)9

The !ase

The present petition /.R. No. )9:)$:- "as filed on +pril 'A, '()). Records

sho"ed that as earl2 as +u1ust 3, '((9, /.R. Nos. )0A0:) and )0AAA0 "ere

consolidated "ith /.R. No. )$#))3 pendin1 "ith the Third Division.'(+s to

the present petition, it "as initiall2 denied under the &une 0, '())

Resolution')

issued b2 the Second Division for failure to sho" an2 reversibleerror co**itted b2 the !+. Petitioner filed a *otion for reconsideration to

"hich respondents filed an opposition. Said *otion for reconsideration of

the earlier dis*issal &une 0, '())- re*ained unresolved b2 the Second

Division "hich, on &une '9, '()), issued a resolution orderin1 the transfer

of the present case to the Third Division.''















It is further recalled that on &une '3, '()), petitioner *oved to consolidate

the present case "ith /.R. Nos. )$#))3, )0A0:) and )0AAA0 "hich "as

opposed b2 respondents. <nder Resolution dated +u1ust ), '()), the Third

Division denied the *otion for consolidation, citin1 the earlier dis*issal of

the petition on &une 0, '()).'3Ho"ever, on *otion for reconsideration filed b2 petitioner, said resolution "as set aside on October )9, '()) and the

present case "as ordered consolidated "ith /.R. Nos. )$#))3, )0AAA0 and

)0A0:) and transferred to the 6irst Division "here the latter cases are

pendin1.'#

On Dece*ber A, '()), the Decision'$ in the consolidated cases /.R. Nos.

)$#))3, )0AAA0, )0A0:) and )9:)$:- "as rendered, the dispositive portion

of "hich states;

5HR6OR, the petition for revie" on certiorari in /.R. No. )0A0:) is

DNID "hile the petitions in /.R. Nos. )$#))3, )0AAA0 and )9:)$: are

P+RT4K /R+NTD. The Decision dated October )A, '((0 of the !ourt of

+ppeals in !+/.R. SP No. ::$#( is hereb2 +66IRMD "ith

MODI6I!+TIONS in that M!!HI is ordered to pa2 the petitioners in /.R.

Nos. )$#))3 and )0AAA0, e=cept the petitioners "ho are union officers,

separation pa2 eBuivalent to one *onth pa2 for ever2 2ear of service, and

reasonable attorne2s fees in the a*ount ofP$(,(((.((. The Decision dated Nove*ber A, '((0 is li%e"ise +66IRMD "ith MODI6I!+TIONS in that

M!!HI is ordered to pa2 the private respondents in /.R. No. )9:)$:

separation pa2 eBuivalent to one *onth pa2 for ever2 2ear of service, and

that the a"ard of bac% "a1es is D4TD.

The case is hereb2 re*anded to the =ecutive 4abor +rbiter for the

reco*putation of separation pa2 due to each of the petitioners union

*e*bers in /.R. Nos. )$#))3, )0AAA0 and )9:)$: e=cept those "ho have

e=ecuted co*pro*ise a1ree*ents approved b2 this !ourt.

No pronounce*ent as to costs.

SO ORDRD.':











On 6ebruar2 A, '()', respondents filed a Motion for Reconsideration "ith

Motion for Severance and Re*and'Aassertin1 that the2 "ere denied due

process as the2 had no opportunit2 to file a co**ent on the petition prior to

the rendition of the Decision dated Dece*ber A, '()). The2 also point out

that the issues in the present case are different fro* those raised in the petitions filed b2 their coco*plainants.

On &une )0, '()', this !ourt issued a Resolution )- reinstatin1 the petition

and reBuirin1 the respondents to file their co**ent on the petition8 and '-

den2in1 the *otion for re*and to the Second Division.'0 Respondents thus

filed their !o**ent, to "hich petitioner filed its Repl2. Thereafter, the

parties sub*itted their respective *e*oranda.

Issues

In their Me*orandu*, respondents sub*it that since the Decision dated

Dece*ber A, '()) in the consolidated cases of +baria v. N4R! have alread2

declared the dis*issal of co*plainants union *e*bers as ille1al but

a"arded separation pa2 and reasonable attorne2s fees, the re*ainin1 issue

to be resolved in this case is "hether respondents are entitled to bac% "a1es

and da*a1es.

Petitioner, ho"ever, further assail the !+ in a- allo"in1 respondents to

chan1e their theor2 on appeal, b- findin1 that respondents did not co**it

ille1al acts durin1 the stri%e and c- increasin1 the a"ard of separation pa2 to

one *onth pa2 for ever2 2ear of service as held in the Dece*ber A, '())

Decision in vie" of the da*a1es suffered b2 petitioner.

Respondents +r1u*ent

Respondents *aintain that there "as no iota of evidence presented b2 petitioner that the2 too% part in the ille1al stri%e conducted b2 the Nava

1roup or co**itted ille1al acts li%e the bloc%in1 of in1ress and e1ress in the

hospital pre*ises. The2 clai* that the2 "ere never involved in "or%

stoppa1e but instead "ere loc%ed out b2 petitioner as the2 "ere unable to







resu*e "or% because hospital securit2 personnel prevented the* fro*

enterin1 the hospital upon petitioners instructions.

!lai*in1 that the2 have consistentl2 *anifested their non participation in

the ille1al stri%e before the re1ional arbitration branch, N4R! and the !+,respondents ar1ue that there is absolutel2 no reason to delete the a"ards of

bac% "a1es and separation pa2 in lieu of reinstate*ent.

Petitioners +r1u*ent

Petitioner contends that respondents have surreptitiousl2 chan1ed their

position fro* ad*ittin1 in their pleadin1s before the N4R! their

participation in the ille1al stri%e to that of *ere "earin1 of ar* bands and

alle1ed nonreceipt of the notices in their appeal before the !+. The2 stressthe established facts on record that; )- respondents si1ned the March )0,

)99: collective repl2 of the union officers and *e*bers to the notices sent

b2 petitioner re1ardin1 their ille1al concerted activities, thus provin1 that

the2 received the said notices8 '- ac%no"led1ed Perla Nava as their union

leader "hich belies respondents belated atte*pt to distance the*selves fro*

the Nava 1roup "ho led the ille1al stri%e8 and 3- respondents did not, in

their *otion for reconsideration of the N4R! Decision dated March )',

'((3, *a%e an2 denial of their participation in the ille1al stri%e but even 7ustified their resort thereto due to the prevailin1 labor dispute.

5ith the Decision in the consolidated cases +baria v. N4R!- havin1

alread2 upheld the consistent rule that dis*issed e*plo2ees "ho

participated in an ille1al stri%e are not entitled to bac% "a1es, petitioner

pra2s that the previous rulin1s in Philippine Dia*ond Hotel and Resort, Inc.

Manila Dia*ond Hotel- v. Manila Dia*ond Hotel *plo2ees <nion,'9 /

S Transport !orporation v. Infante,3( Philippine Marine Officers /uild v.

!o*paYia Mariti*a, et al.,3) and scario v. National 4abor Relations

!o**ission Third Division-3' be li%e"ise applied in this case.

Our Rulin1

The petition is partl2 *eritorious.











Para1raph 3, +rticle ':#a- of the 4abor !ode provides that F. . .an2 union

officer "ho %no"in1l2 participates in an ille1al stri%e and an2 "or%er or

union officer "ho %no"in1l2 participates in the co**ission of ille1al acts

durin1 a stri%e *a2 be declared to have lost his e*plo2*ent status . . .F In

the Decision dated Dece*ber A, '()), "e declared as invalid the dis*issalof M!!H e*plo2ees "ho participated in the ille1al stri%e conducted b2

N+M+M!!HN64 "hich is not a le1iti*ate labor or1aniCation. Since

there "as no sho"in1 that the co*plainants co**itted an2 ille1al act durin1

the stri%e, the2 *a2 not be dee*ed to have lost their e*plo2*ent status b2

their *ere participation in the ille1al stri%e. On the other hand, the union

leaders Nava 1roup- "ho conducted the ille1al stri%e despite %no"led1e

that N+M+M!!HN64 is not a dul2 re1istered labor union "ere declared

to have been validl2 ter*inated b2 petitioner.

5e stress that the la" *a%es a distinction bet"een union *e*bers and

union officers. + "or%er *erel2 participatin1 in an ille1al stri%e *a2 not be

ter*inated fro* e*plo2*ent. It is onl2 "hen he co**its ille1al acts durin1

a stri%e that he *a2 be declared to have lost e*plo2*ent status.33 In

contrast, a union officer *a2 be ter*inated fro* e*plo2*ent for %no"in1l2

participatin1 in an ille1al stri%e or participates in the co**ission of ille1al

acts durin1 a stri%e. The la" 1rants the e*plo2er the option of declarin1 a

union officer "ho participated in an ille1al stri%e as havin1 lost his

e*plo2*ent. It possesses the ri1ht and prero1ative to ter*inate the union

officers fro* service.3#

In this case, the N4R! affir*ed the findin1 of the 4abor +rbiter that

respondents supported and too% part in the ille1al stri%e and further declared

that the2 "ere 1uilt2 of insubordination. It noted that the stri%in1 e*plo2ees

"ere deter*ined to force *ana1e*ent to ne1otiate "ith their union and

proceeded "ith the stri%e despite %no"led1e that N+M+M!!HN64 is nota le1iti*ate labor or1aniCation and "ithout re1ard to the conseBuences of

their acts consistin1 of displa2in1 placards and *archin1 noisil2 inside the

hospital pre*ises, and bloc%in1 the entr2 of vehicles and persons.







On appeal, the !+ reversed the rulin1s of the 4abor +rbiter and N4R!,

ordered the reinstate*ent of respondents and the pa2*ent of their full bac%

"a1es. The !+ found that respondents participation "as li*ited to the

"earin1 of ar*band and thus, citin1 >ascon v. !+,3$ declared respondents

ter*ination as invalid in the absence of an2 evidence that the2 co**ittedan2 ille1al act durin1 the stri%e.

In the Decision dated Dece*ber A, '()), "e li%e"ise ruled that the *ass

ter*ination of co*plainants "as ille1al, not"ithstandin1 the ille1alit2 of the

stri%e in "hich the2 participated. Ho"ever, since reinstate*ent "as no

lon1er feasible, "e ordered M!!HI to pa2 the dis*issed e*plo2ees

separation pa2 eBuivalent to one *onth pa2 for ever2 2ear of service. The

clai* for bac% "a1es "as denied, consistent "ith e=istin1 la" and

7urisprudence. Respondents ar1ue that the !+ correctl2 a"arded the* bac%

"a1es because "hile the2 Fsupported the protest actionF the2 "ere not part

of the Nava 1roup "ho "ere char1ed "ith bloc%in1 the free in1ress and

e1ress of the hospital, threatenin1 and harassin1 persons enterin1 the

pre*ises, and *a%in1 boisterous and unpleasant re*ar%s. The2 den2 an2

participation in the ille1al stri%e and assert that no evidence of their actual

participation in the stri%e "as sho"n b2 petitioner.

5e are not persuaded b2 respondents atte*pt to dissociate the*selves fro*the Nava 1roup "ho led the ille1al stri%e. In their *otion for reconsideration

filed before the N4R!, respondents no lon1er denied havin1 participated in

the stri%e but si*pl2 ar1ued that no ter*ination of e*plo2*ent in

connection "ith the stri%e Fsta1ed b2 co*plainantsF cannot be le1all2

sustained because M!!HI Fdid not file a co*plaint or petition to declare the

stri%e of co*plainants ille1al or declare that ille1al acts "ere co**itted in

the conduct of the stri%e.F Respondents further assailed the N4R!s findin1

that the2 "ere 1uilt2 of insubordination since Fthe pro=i*ate cause of theacts of co*plainants "as the prevailin1 labor dispute and the conseBuent

resort b2 co*plainants of sicE a stri%e action.F3: 5hen the case "as elevated

to the !+, respondents shifted course and a1ain insisted that the2 did not

participate in the stri%e nor receive the March )$, )99: individual notices

sent b2 petitioner to the stri%in1 e*plo2ees.







Respondents inconsistent posture cannot be sanctioned. 5hile there "as

indeed no evidence of an2 ille1al act co**itted b2 respondents durin1 the

stri%e, the 4abor +rbiter and N4R! "ere one in findin1 that respondents

activel2 supported the concerted protest activities, si1ned the collective repl2

of union *e*bers *anifestin1 that the2 launched the *ass actions to protest*ana1e*ents refusal to ne1otiate a ne" !>+, refused to appear in the

investi1ations scheduled b2 petitioner because it "as the unions stand that

the2 "ould onl2 attend these investi1ations as a 1roup, and failed to heed

petitioners final directive for the* to desist fro* further ta%in1 part in the

ille1al stri%e. The !+, on the other hand, found that respondents

participation in the stri%e "as li*ited to the "earin1 of ar*bands. Since an

ordinar2 stri%in1 "or%er cannot be dis*issed for such *ere participation in

the ille1al stri%e, the !+ correctl2 ruled that respondents "ere ille1all2dis*issed. Ho"ever, the !+ erred in a"ardin1 respondents full bac% "a1es

and orderin1 their reinstate*ent despite the prevailin1 circu*stances.

+s a 1eneral rule, bac% "a1es are 1ranted to inde*nif2 a dis*issed

e*plo2ee for his loss of earnin1s durin1 the "hole period that he is out of

his 7ob. !onsiderin1 that an ille1all2 dis*issed e*plo2ee is not dee*ed to

have left his e*plo2*ent, he is entitled to all the ri1hts and privile1es that

accrue to hi* fro* the e*plo2*ent.3A The 1rant of bac% "a1es to hi* is in

furtherance and effectuation of the public ob7ectives of the 4abor !ode, and

is in the nature of a co**and to the e*plo2er to *a%e a public reparation

for his ille1al dis*issal of the e*plo2ee in violation of the 4abor !ode.30

+re respondents then entitled to bac% "a1es This !ourt, in / S Transport

!orporation v. Infante,39 ruled in the ne1ative;

5ith respect to bac%"a1es, the principle of a Ffair da2s "a1e for a fair

da2s laborF re*ains as the basic factor in deter*inin1 the a"ard thereof. If

there is no "or% perfor*ed b2 the e*plo2ee there can be no "a1e or pa2

unless, of course, the laborer "as able, "illin1 and read2 to "or% but "as

ille1all2 loc%ed out, suspended or dis*issed or other"ise ille1all2 prevented

fro* "or%in1. = = = In Philippine Marine Officers /uild v. !o*paYia

Mariti*a, as affir*ed in Philippine Dia*ond Hotel and Resort v. Manila









Dia*ond Hotel *plo2ees <nion, the !ourt stressed that for this e=ception

to appl2, it is reBuired that the stri%e be le1al, a situation that does not obtain

in the case at bar. *phasis supplied-

The alternative relief for union *e*bers "ho "ere dis*issed for havin1 participated in an ille1al stri%e is the pa2*ent of separation pa2 in lieu of

reinstate*ent under the follo"in1 circu*stances; a- "hen reinstate*ent can

no lon1er be effected in vie" of the passa1e of a lon1 period of ti*e or

because of the realities of the situation8 b- reinstate*ent is ini*ical to the

e*plo2ers interest8 c- reinstate*ent is no lon1er feasible8 d- reinstate*ent

does not serve the best interests of the parties involved8 e- the e*plo2er is

pre7udiced b2 the "or%ers continued e*plo2*ent8 f- facts that *a%e

e=ecution un7ust or ineBuitable have supervened8 or 1- strained relations

bet"een the e*plo2er and e*plo2ee.#(

In the Decision dated Dece*ber A, '()), "e held that the 1rant of separation

pa2 to co*plainants is the appropriate relief under the circu*stances, thus;

!onsiderin1 that )$ 2ears had lapsed fro* the onset of this labor dispute,

and in vie" of strained relations that ensued, in addition to the realit2 of

replace*ents alread2 hired b2 the hospital "hich had apparentl2 recovered

fro* its hu1e losses, and "ith *an2 of the petitioners either e*plo2edelse"here, alread2 old and sic%l2, or other"ise incapacitated, separation pa2

"ithout bac% "a1es is the appropriate relief. = = =#)

In fine, "e sustain the !+ in rulin1 that respondents "ho are *ere union

*e*bers "ere ille1all2 dis*issed for participatin1 in the ille1al stri%e

conducted b2 the Nava 1roup. Ho"ever, "e set aside the order for their

reinstate*ent and pa2*ent of full bac% "a1es.

5HR6OR, the petition is P+RT4K /R+NTD. The Decision dated Nove*ber A, '((0 and Resolution dated 6ebruar2 '', '()) of the !ourt of

+ppeals in !+/.R. SP No. 0#990 are hereb2 +66IRMD "ith

MODI6I!+TIONS. In lieu of reinstate*ent, petitioner Visa2as !o**unit2

Medical !enter for*erl2 %no"n as the Metro !ebu !o**unit2 Hospital- is

ordered to P+K respondents r*a Kballe, vel2n On1, Nelia +n1el and







leuteria !orteC separation pa2 eBuivalent to one *onth pa2 for ever2 2ear

of service. The a"ard of bac% "a1es to the said respondents is D4TD.

The case is hereb2 re*anded to the =ecutive 4abor +rbiter for the

reco*putation of separation pa2 due to each of the respondents.

SO ORDRD.

T-IR% %I(ISION

-OTEL ENTERPRISES O4 T-E

P-ILIPPINES, INC. -EPID, o6*er

o -=)tt Re<e*= M)*;),

Petitioner,

versus

SAMA-AN NG MGA

MANGGAGAA SA -&ATT

NATIONAL UNION O4

ORKERS IN T-E -OTEL AN%

RESTAURANT AN% ALLIE%

IN%USTRIES SAMASA-NU-RAIND,

Respondent.

G.R. No. 17

Present;

KN+RS

S+NTI+/O, *.,

hair#erson,

!+RPIO,

!ORON+,

N+!H<R+, and

PR+4T+, **.

Pro*ul1ated;

&une $, '((9

==

%ECISION

NAC-URA, J .5

The !onstitution affords full protection to labor, but the polic2 is not to be

blindl2 follo"ed at the e=pense of capital. +l"a2s, the interests of both sides

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/june2009/165756.htm#_ftn1






*ust be balanced in li1ht of the evidence adduced and the peculiar

circu*stances surroundin1 each case.



This is a petition for revie" on certiorari under Rule #$ of the Rules

of !ourt assailin1 the !ourt of +ppeals !+- Decision )E dated &ul2 '(, '((#

and the Resolution'E dated October '(, '((# in !+/.R. SP No. 0))$3. The

appellate court, in its decision and resolution, reversed the +pril 3, '((3

Resolution3E of the National 4abor Relations !o**ission N4R!- andreinstated the October 3(, '((' Decision#E issued b2 4abor +rbiter +li*an

Man1ando1 upholdin1 the le1alit2 of the stri%e sta1ed b2 the officers and

*e*bers of respondent Sa*ahan n1 *1a Man11a1a"a sa H2attNational

<nion of 5or%ers in the Hotel Restaurant and +llied Industries <nion-.

5e trace the antecedent facts belo".

Respondent <nion is the certified collective bar1ainin1 a1ent of theran%andfile e*plo2ees of H2att Re1enc2 Manila, a hotel o"ned b2

petitioner Hotel nterprises of the Philippines, Inc. HPI-.

In '((), HPIs hotel business suffered a slu*p due to the local and

international econo*ic slo"do"n, a11ravated b2 the events of Septe*ber

)), '(() in the <nited States. +n audited financial report *ade b2 S2cip

/orres Vela2o S/V- !o. on &anuar2 '0, '((' indicated that the hotel

suffered a 1ross operatin1 loss a*ountin1 to P):,)3A,')A.(( in '((),$E a

sta11erin1 decline co*pared to its P#0,:(0,:)'.(( 1ross operatin1 profit:E in

2ear '(((.AE

















'((( '(()

Inco*e fro*

Hotel

Operations

P A0,#3#,)

(3

P )','3(,'#

0

Other Deductions

Provision for

hotel

rehabilitation

'(,(((,((( '(,(((,(((

Provision for

replace*entsof and

additions to

furnishin1s

and

eBuip*ent

9,0'$,#9)

0,3:A,#:$

'9,0'$,#9) '0,3:A,#:$

/ross

Operatin1

Profit 4oss-

P #0,:(0,:

)'

P ):,)3A,')

A-

+ccordin1 to petitioner, the *ana1e*ent initiall2 decided to costcut

b2 i*ple*entin1 ener12savin1 sche*es; prioritiCin1

acBuisitionspurchases8 reducin1 "or% "ee%s in so*e of the hotels

depart*ents8 directin1 the e*plo2ees to avail of their vacation leaves8 and

i*posin1 a *oratoriu* on hirin1 e*plo2ees for the 2ear '(() "henever

practicable.0E

Mean"hile, on +u1ust 3), '((), the <nion filed a notice of stri%e dueto a bar1ainin1 deadloc% before the National !onciliation Mediation >oard

N!M>-, doc%eted as N!M>N!RNS (0'$3().9E In the course of the

proceedin1s, HPI sub*itted its econo*ic proposals for the ran%andfile

e*plo2ees coverin1 the 2ears '((), '((', and '((3. The proposal included

*annin1 and staffin1 standards for the '#0 re1ular ran%andfile







e*plo2ees. The <nion accepted the econo*ic proposals. Hence, a ne"

collective bar1ainin1 a1ree*ent !>+- "as si1ned on Nove*ber '), '((),

adoptin1 the *annin1 standards for the '#0 ran%andfile e*plo2ees.)(E

Then, on Dece*ber '), '((), HPI issued a *e*orandu* offerin1 aSpecial 4i*ited Voluntar2 Resi1nationRetire*ent Pro1ra* S4VRRP- to its

re1ular e*plo2ees. *plo2ees "ho "ere Bualified to resi1n or retire "ere

1iven separation pac%a1es based on the nu*ber of 2ears of service. ))E The

vacant positions, as "ell as the re1ular positions vacated, "ere later filled up

"ith contractual personnel and a1enc2 e*plo2ees.)'E

SubseBuentl2, on &anuar2 '), '((', petitioner decided to i*ple*ent a

do"nsiCin1 sche*e after stud2in1 the operatin1 costs of its differentdivisions to deter*ine the areas "here it could obtain si1nificant savin1s. It

found that the hotel could save on costs if certain 7obs, such as en1ineerin1

services, *essen1erialcourier services, 7anitorial and laundr2 services, and

operation of the e*plo2ees cafeteria, "hich b2 their nature "ere

contractable pursuant to e=istin1 la"s and 7urisprudence, "ere abolished and

contracted out to independent 7ob contractors. +fter evaluatin1 the hotels

*annin1 1uide, the follo"in1 positions "ere identified as redundant or in

e=cess of "hat "as reBuired for the hotels actual operation 1iven the

prevailin1 poor business condition, vi0.; a- house%eepin1 attendantlinen8 b-tailor8 c- roo* attendant8 d- *essen1er*ail cler%8 and e- telephone

technician.)3E The effect "as to be a reduction of the hotels ran%and file

e*plo2ees fro* the a1reed nu*ber of '#0 do"n to 7ust )$( )#E but it "ould

1enerate esti*ated savin1s of around P9,90),':A.(( per 2ear.)$E

On &anuar2 '#, '((', petitioner *et "ith respondent <nion to

for*all2 discuss the do"nsiCin1 pro1ra*.):E The <nion opposed the

do"nsiCin1 plan because no substantial evidence "as sho"n to prove thatthe hotel "as incurrin1 heav2 financial losses, and for bein1 violative of the

!>+, *ore specificall2 the *annin1staffin1 standards a1reed upon b2 both

parties in Nove*ber '(().)AE In a financial anal2sis *ade b2

the <nion based on H2atts financial state*ents sub*itted to the Securities

and =chan1e !o**ission S!-, it noted that the hotel posted a positive

profit *ar1in "ith respect to its 1ross operatin1 and net inco*es for the



















2ears )990, )999, '(((, and even in '(().)0E Moreover, fi1ures co*prisin1

the hotels unappropriated retained earnin1s sho"ed a consistent increase

fro* )990 to '((), an indication that the co*pan2 "as, in fact, earnin1,

contrar2 to petitioners assertion. The net inco*e fro* hotel operations

sli1htl2 dipped fro* PA0,#3#,)(3.(( in '((( to P)','3(,'#0.(( for the 2ear '((), but nevertheless re*ained positive.)9E 5ith this, the <nion, throu1h a

letter, infor*ed the *ana1e*ent of its opposition to the sche*e and

proposed instead several costsavin1 *easures.'(E

Despite its opposition, a list of the positions declared redundant and to

be contracted out "as 1iven b2 the *ana1e*ent to the <nion on March '',

'(('.')E Notices of ter*ination "ere, li%e"ise, sent to #0 e*plo2ees "hose

positions "ere to be retrenched or declared as redundant. The notices "eresent on +pril $, '((' and "ere to ta%e effect on Ma2 $, '(('. ''E + notice of

ter*ination "as also sub*itted b2 the *ana1e*ent to the Depart*ent of

4abor and *plo2*ent DO4- indicatin1 the na*es, positions, addresses,

and salaries of the e*plo2ees to be ter*inated.'3E Thereafter, the hotel

*ana1e*ent en1a1ed the services of independent 7ob contractors to perfor*

the follo"in1 services; )- 7anitorial previousl2, ste"ardin1 and public area

attendants-8 '- laundr28 3- sundr2 shop8 #- cafeteria8'#E and $-

en1ineerin1.'$E So*e e*plo2ees, includin1 one <nion officer, "ho "ere

affected b2 the do"nsiCin1 plan "ere transferred to other positions in order to save their e*plo2*ent.':E

On +pril )', '((', the <nion filed a notice of stri%e based on unfair

labor practice <4P- a1ainst HPI. The case "as doc%eted as N!M>N!R

NS(#)39('.'AE On +pril '$, '((', a stri%e vote "as conducted "ith

*a7orit2 in the bar1ainin1 unit votin1 in favor of the stri%e. '0E The result of

the stri%e vote "as sent to N!M>N!R Director 4eopoldo de &esus also on

+pril '$, '(('.

'9E

On +pril '9, '((', HPI filed a *otion to dis*iss notice of stri%e

"hich "as opposed b2 the <nion. On Ma2 3, '((', the <nion filed a

petition to suspend the effects of ter*ination before the Office of the

Secretar2 of 4abor. On Ma2 $, '((', the hotel *ana1e*ent be1an

i*ple*entin1 its do"nsiCin1 plan i**ediatel2 ter*inatin1 seven A-



























e*plo2ees due to redundanc2 and #) *ore due to retrench*ent or abolition

of positions.3(E +ll "ere 1iven separation pa2 eBuivalent to one )- *onths

salar2 for ever2 2ear of service.3)E

On Ma2 0, '((', conciliation proceedin1s "ere held bet"een petitioner and respondent, but to no avail. On Ma2 )(, '((',

respondent <nion "ent on stri%e. + petition to declare the stri%e ille1al "as

filed b2 petitioner on Ma2 '', '((', doc%eted as N4R!N!R !ase No. ($

(33$('(('.

On &une )#, '((', +ctin1 4abor Secretar2 Manuel I*son issued an

order in N!MN!RNS(#)39(' thence, N4R! !ertified !ase No.

(((''(('-, certif2in1 the labor dispute to the N4R! for co*pulsor2arbitration and directin1 the stri%in1 "or%ers, e=cept the #0 "or%ers earlier

ter*inated, to return to "or% "ithin '# hours. On &une ):, '((', after

receivin1 a cop2 of the order, *e*bers of respondent <nion returned to

"or%.3'E On +u1ust ), '((', HPI filed a *anifestation infor*in1 the

N4R! of the pendin1 petition to declare the stri%e ille1al. >ecause of this,

the N4R!, on Nove*ber )$, '((', issued an order directin1 4abor +rbiter

+li*an Man1ando1 to i**ediatel2 suspend the proceedin1s in the pendin1

petition to declare the stri%e ille1al and to elevate the records of the said case

for consolidation "ith the certified case. 33E Ho"ever, the labor arbiter hadalread2 issued a Decision3#E dated October 3(, '((' declarin1 the stri%e

le1al.3$E +11rieved, HPI filed an appeal ad cautelam before the N4R!

Buestionin1 the October 3(, '((' decision.3:E The <nion, on the other hand,

filed a *otion for reconsideration of the Nove*ber )$, '((' Order on the

1round that a decision "as alread2 issued in one of the cases ordered to be

consolidated.3AE

On appeal, the N4R! reversed the labor arbiters decision. In aResolution30E dated +pril 3, '((3, it 1ave credence to the financial report of

S/V !o. that the hotel had incurred hu1e financial losses necessitatin1

the adoption of a do"nsiCin1 sche*e. Thus, N4R! declared the stri%e

ille1al, suspended all <nion officers for a period of si= :- *onths "ithout

pa2, and dis*issed the <4P char1e a1ainst HPI.39E























Respondent <nion *oved for reconsideration, "hile petitioner HPI

filed its partial *otion for reconsideration. >oth "ere denied in a

Resolution#(Edated Septe*ber '#, '((3.

The <nion filed a petition for certiorari "ith the !+ on Dece*ber )9,'((3#)E Buestionin1 in the *ain the validit2 of the N4R!s reversal of the

labor arbiters decision.#'E >ut "hile the petition "as pendin1, the hotel

*ana1e*ent, on Dece*ber '9, '((3, issued separate notices of suspension

a1ainst each of the )' <nion officers involved in the stri%e in line "ith the

+pril 3, '((3 resolution of the N4R!.#3E

On &ul2 '(, '((#, the !+ pro*ul1ated the assailed Decision,##E

reversin1 the resolution of the N4R! and reinstatin1 the October 3(,'((' decision of the 4abor +rbiter "hich declared the stri%e valid. The !+

also ordered the reinstate*ent of the #0 ter*inated e*plo2ees on account of

the hotel *ana1e*ents ille1al redundanc2 and retrench*ent sche*e and the

pa2*ent of their bac%"a1es fro* the ti*e the2 "ere ille1all2 dis*issed

until their actual reinstate*ent.#$EHPI *oved for reconsideration but the

sa*e "as denied for lac% of *erit.#:E

Hence, this petition.

The issue boils do"n to "hether the !+s decision, reversin1 the

N4R! rulin1, is in accordance "ith la" and established facts.

5e ans"er in the ne1ative.

To resolve the correlative issues i.e., the validit2 of the stri%e8 the

char1es of <4P a1ainst petitioner8 the propriet2 of petitioners act of hirin1

contractual e*plo2ees fro* e*plo2*ent a1encies8 and the entitle*ent of <nion officers and ter*inated e*plo2ees to reinstate*ent, bac%"a1es and

stri%e duration pa2-, "e ans"er first the *ost basic Buestion; 5as petitioners

do"nsiCin1 sche*e valid

















The pertinent provision of the 4abor !ode states;

+RT. '03. = = =

The e*plo2er *a2 also ter*inate the e*plo2*ent of an2e*plo2ee due to the installation of laborsavin1 devices,

redundanc2, retrench*ent to prevent losses or the closin1 or

cessation of operation of the establish*ent or underta%in1

unless the closin1 is for the purpose of circu*ventin1 the

provisions of this Title, b2 servin1 a "ritten notice on the

"or%er and the Depart*entE of 4abor and *plo2*ent at least

one )- *onth before the intended date thereof. In case of

ter*ination due to the installation of labor savin1 devices or

redundanc2, the "or%er affected thereb2 shall be entitled to a

separation pa2 eBuivalent to at least his one )- *onth pa2 or toat least one )- *onth pa2 for ever2 2ear of service, "hichever

is hi1her. In case of retrench*ent to prevent losses and in cases

of closures or cessation of operations of establish*ent or

underta%in1 not due to serious business losses or financial

reverses, the separation pa2 shall be eBuivalent to one )-

*onth pa2 or at least onehalf )'- *onth pa2 for ever2 2ear of

service, "hichever is hi1her. + fraction of at least si= :-

*onths shall be considered as one )- "hole 2ear.

Retrench*ent is the reduction of "or% personnel usuall2 due to poor

financial returns, ai*ed to cut do"n costs for operation particularl2 on

salaries and "a1es.#AE Redundanc2, on the other hand, e=ists "here the

nu*ber of e*plo2ees is in e=cess of "hat is reasonabl2 de*anded b2 the

actual reBuire*ents of the enterprise. #0E >oth are for*s of do"nsiCin1 and

are often resorted to b2 the e*plo2er durin1 periods of business recession,

industrial depression, or seasonal fluctuations, and durin1 lulls in production

occasioned b2 lac% of orders, shorta1e of *aterials, conversion of the plant

for a ne" production pro1ra*, or introduction of ne" *ethods or *ore

efficient *achiner2 or auto*ation.#9E Retrench*ent and redundanc2 are

valid *ana1e*ent prero1atives, provided the2 are done in 1ood faith and the

e*plo2er faithfull2 co*plies "ith the substantive and procedural

reBuire*ents laid do"n b2 la" and 7urisprudence.$(E











6or a valid retrench*ent, the follo"in1 reBuisites *ust be co*plied

"ith; )- the retrench*ent is necessar2 to prevent losses and such losses are

proven8 '- "ritten notice to the e*plo2ees and to the DO4 at least one

*onth prior to the intended date of retrench*ent8 and 3- pa2*ent of separation pa2 eBuivalent to one*onth pa2 or at least onehalf *onth pa2

for ever2 2ear of service, "hichever is hi1her.$)E

In case of redundanc2, the e*plo2er *ust prove that; )- a "ritten

notice "as served on both the e*plo2ees and the DO4 at least one *onth

prior to the intended date of retrench*ent8 '- separation pa2 eBuivalent to at

least one *onth pa2 or at least one *onth pa2 for ever2 2ear of service,

"hichever is hi1her, has been paid8 3- 1ood faith in abolishin1 theredundant positions8 and #- adoption of fair and reasonable criteria in

ascertainin1 "hich positions are to be declared redundant and accordin1l2

abolished.$'E

It is the e*plo2er "ho bears the onus of provin1 co*pliance "ith

these reBuire*ents , retrench*ent and redundanc2 bein1 in the nature of

affir*ative defenses.$3E Other"ise, the dis*issal is not 7ustified.$#E

In the case at bar, petitioner 7ustifies the do"nsiCin1 sche*e on the1round of serious business losses it suffered in '((). So*e positions had to

be declared redundant to cut losses. In this conte=t, "hat *a2 technicall2 be

considered as redundanc2 *a2 veril2 be considered as a retrench*ent

*easure.$$E To substantiate its clai*, petitioner presented a financial report

coverin1 the 2ears '((( and '(() sub*itted b2 the S/V !o., an

independent e=ternal auditin1 fir*.$:E 6ro* an i*pressive 1ross operatin1

profit of P#0,:(0,:)'.(( in '(((, it nosedived to ne1ative P):,)3A,')A.((

the follo"in1 2ear. This "as the sa*e financial report sub*itted to the S!and later on e=a*ined b2 respondent <nions auditor. The onl2 difference is

that, in respondents anal2sis, H2att Re1enc2 Manila "as still earnin1

because its net inco*e fro* hotel operations in '(() "as P)','3(,'#0.((.

Ho"ever, if provisions for hotel rehabilitation as "ell as replace*ent of and

additions to the hotels furnishin1s and eBuip*ents are included, "hich

respondent <nion failed to consider, the result is indeed a sta11erin1 deficit















of *ore than P): *illion. The hotel "as alread2 operatin1 not onl2 on a

slu*p in inco*e, but on a hu1e deficit as "ell. In short, "hile the hotel did

earn, its earnin1s "ere not enou1h to cover its e=penses and other liabilities8

hence, the deficit. 5ith the local and international econo*ic conditions

eBuall2 unstable, beltti1htenin1 *easures lo1icall2 had to be i*ple*entedto forestall eventual cessation of business.

4osses or 1ains of a business entit2 cannot be full2 and satisfactoril2

assessed b2 isolatin1 or hi1hli1htin1 onl2 a particular part of its financial

report. There are reco1niCed accountin1 principles and *ethods b2 "hich a

co*pan2s perfor*ance can be ob7ectivel2 and thorou1hl2 evaluated at the

end of ever2 fiscal or calendar 2ear. 5hat is i*portant is that the assess*ent

is accuratel2 reported, free fro* an2 *anipulation of fi1ures to suit theco*pan2s needs, so that the co*pan2s actual financial condition *a2 be

i*partiall2 and accuratel2 1au1ed.

The audit of financial reports b2 independent e=ternal auditors is

strictl2 1overned b2 national and international standards and re1ulations for

the accountin1 profession.$AE It bears e*phasis that the financial state*ents

sub*itted b2 petitioner "ere audited b2 a reputable auditin1 fir* and are

clear and substantial enou1h to prove that the co*pan2 "as in a precarious

financial condition.

In the co*petitive and hi1hl2 uncertain "orld of business, cash flo"

is as i*portant as and oftenti*es, even *ore critical than profitabilit2. $0E So

lon1 as the hotel has enou1h funds to pa2 its "or%ers and satisf2 costs for

operations, *aintenance and other e=penses, it *a2 survive and brid1e better

da2s for its recover2. >ut to ensure a viable cash flo" a*idst the 1ro"in1

business and econo*ic uncertaint2 is the tric% of the trade. Definitel2, this

cannot be achieved if the costsavin1 *easures continuousl2 fail to cap thelosses. More drastic, albeit painful, *easures have to be ta%en.

This !ourt "ill not hesitate to stri%e do"n a co*pan2s redundanc2

pro1ra* structured to do"nsiCe its personnel, solel2 for the purpose of

"ea%enin1 the union leadership.$9E Our labor la"s onl2 allo" retrench*ent

or do"nsiCin1 as a valid e=ercise of *ana1e*ent prero1ative if all other else









fail. >ut in this case, petitioner did i*ple*ent various costsavin1 *easures

and even transferred so*e of its e*plo2ees to other viable positions 7ust to

avoid the pre*ature ter*ination of e*plo2*ent of its affected "or%ers. It

"as "hen the sa*e proved insufficient and the a*ount of loss beca*e

certain that petitioner had to resort to drastic *easures to staveoff P9,90),':A.(( in losses, and be able to survive.

If "e see reason in allo"in1 an e*plo2er not to %eep all its e*plo2ees

until after its losses shall have full2 *aterialiCed, :(E "ith *ore reason should

"e allo" an e*plo2er to let 1o of so*e of its e*plo2ees to prevent further

financial slide.

This, in turn, 1ives rise to another Buestion; Does the i*ple*entationof the do"nsiCin1 sche*e preclude petitioner fro* availin1 the services of

contractual and a1enc2hired e*plo2ees

In Asian Alcohol or#oration v. 'ational Labor Relations

ommission, :)E "e ans"ered in the ne1ative. 5e said;

In an2 event, "e have held that an e*plo2ers 1ood faith

in i*ple*entin1 a redundanc2 pro1ra* is not necessaril2

destro2ed b2 avail*ent of the services of an independentcontractor to replace the services of the ter*inated

e*plo2ees. 5e have previousl2 ruled that the reduction of the

nu*ber of "or%ers in a co*pan2 *ade necessar2 b2 the

introduction of the services of an independent contractor is

7ustified "hen the latter is underta%en in order to effectuate

*ore econo*ic and efficient *ethods of production. In the case

at bar, private respondent failed to proffer an2 proof that the

*ana1e*ent acted in a *alicious or arbitrar2 *anner in

en1a1in1 the services of an independent contractor to operate

the 4aura "ells. +bsent such proof, the !ourt has no basis tointerfere "ith the bona fide decision of *ana1e*ent to effect

*ore econo*ic and efficient *ethods of production.







5ith petitioners do"nsiCin1 sche*e bein1 valid, and the avail*ent of

contractual and a1enc2hired e*plo2ees le1al, the stri%e sta1ed b2 officers

and *e*bers of respondent <nion is, perforce, ille1al.

/iven the fore1oin1 findin1, the onl2 re*ainin1 Buestion that be1sresolution is "hether the stri%e "as sta1ed in 1ood faith. On this issue, "e

find for the respondent.

Procedurall2, a stri%e to be valid *ust co*pl2 "ith +rticle ':3 of the

4abor !ode, "hich pertinentl2 reads;

+rticle ':3. = = =

= = = =

c- In cases of bar1ainin1 deadloc%s, the dul2 certified or

reco1niCed bar1ainin1 a1ent *a2 file a notice of stri%e or the

e*plo2er *a2 file a notice of loc%out "ith the Depart*entE at

least 3( da2s before the intended date thereof. In cases of unfair

labor practice, the period of notice shall be )$ da2s and in the

absence of a dul2 certified or reco1niCed bar1ainin1 a1ent, the

notice of stri%e *a2 be filed b2 an2 le1iti*ate labor

or1aniCation in behalf of its *e*bers. Ho"ever, in case of dis*issal fro* e*plo2*ent of union officers dul2 elected in

accordance "ith the union constitution and b2la"s, "hich *a2

constitute union bustin1 "here the e=istence of the union is

threatened, the )$da2 coolin1off period shall not appl2 and

the union *a2 ta%e action i**ediatel2.

d- The notice *ust be in accordance "ith such

i*ple*entin1 rules and re1ulations as the Secretar2E of 4abor

and *plo2*ent *a2 pro*ul1ate.

e- Durin1 the coolin1off period, it shall be the dut2 of

the Depart*entE to e=ert all efforts at *ediation and

conciliation to effect a voluntar2 settle*ent. Should the dispute

re*ain unsettled until the lapse of the reBuisite nu*ber of da2s



fro* the *andator2 filin1 of the notice, the labor union *a2

stri%e or the e*plo2er *a2 declare a loc%out.

f- + decision to declare a stri%e *ust be approved b2 a

*a7orit2 of the total union *e*bership in the bar1ainin1 unit

concerned, obtained b2 secret ballot in *eetin1s or referenda

called for that purpose. + decision to declare a loc%out *ust be

approved b2 a *a7orit2 of the board of directors of the

corporation or association or of the partners in a partnership,

obtained b2 secret ballot in a *eetin1 called for the

purpose. The decision shall be valid for the duration of the

dispute based on substantiall2 the sa*e 1rounds considered

"hen the stri%e or loc%out vote "as ta%en. The Depart*entE

*a2 at its o"n initiative or upon the reBuest of an2 affected

part2, supervise the conduct of the secret ballotin1. In ever2case, the union or the e*plo2er shall furnish the Depart*entE

the results of the votin1 at least seven da2s before the intended

stri%eor loc%out, sub7ect to the coolin1off period herein

provided.

+ccordin1l2, the reBuisites for a valid stri%e are; a- a notice of stri%e

filed "ith the DO4 3( da2s before the intended date thereof or )$ da2s in

case of <4P8 b- a stri%e vote approved b2 a *a7orit2 of the total union*e*bership in the bar1ainin1 unit concerned obtained b2 secret ballot in a

*eetin1 called for that purpose8 and c- a notice to the DO4 of the results

of the votin1 at least seven A- da2s before the intended stri%e.:'E The

reBuire*ents are *andator2 and failure of a union to co*pl2 there"ith

renders the stri%e ille1al.:3E

In this case, respondent full2 satisfied the procedural reBuire*ents

prescribed b2 la"; a stri%e notice filed on +pril )', '(('8 a stri%e vote

reached on +pril '$, '(('8 notification of the stri%e vote filed also on +pril

'$, '(('8 conciliation proceedin1s conducted on Ma2 0, '((('8 and the

actual stri%e on Ma2 )(, '(('.

Substantivel2, ho"ever, there appears to be a proble*. + valid and

le1al stri%e *ust be based on stri%eable 1rounds, because if it is based on a







nonstri%eable 1round, it is 1enerall2 dee*ed an ille1al stri%e. !orollaril2, a

stri%e 1rounded on <4P is ille1al if no acts constitutin1 <4P actuall2 e=ist.

+s an e=ception, even if no such acts are co**itted b2 the e*plo2er, if the

e*plo2ees believe in 1ood faith that <4P actuall2 e=ists, then the stri%e held

pursuant to such belief *a2 be le1al. +s a 1eneral rule, therefore, "herea union believes that an e*plo2er co**itted <4P and the surroundin1

circu*stances "arranted such belief in 1ood faith, the resultin1 stri%e *a2

be considered le1al althou1h, subseBuentl2, such alle1ations of unfair labor

practices "ere found to be 1roundless.:#E

Here, respondent <nion "ent on stri%e in the honest belief that

petitioner "as co**ittin1 <4P after the latter decided to do"nsiCe its

"or%force contrar2 to the staffin1*annin1 standards adopted b2 both parties under a !>+ for1ed onl2 four #- short *onths earlier. The belief

"as bolstered "hen the *ana1e*ent hired )(( contractual "or%ers to

replace the #0 ter*inated re1ular ran%andfile e*plo2ees "ho "ere all

<nion *e*bers.:$E Indeed, those circu*stances sho"ed #rima facie that the

hotel co**itted <4P. Thus, even if technicall2 there "as no le1al 1round to

sta1e a stri%e based on <4P, since the attendant circu*stances support the

belief in 1ood faith that petitioners retrench*ent sche*e "as structured to

"ea%en the bar1ainin1 po"er of the <nion, the stri%e, b2 e=ception, *a2 be

considered le1al.

>ecause of this, "e vie" the N4R!s decision to suspend all the

<nion officers for si= :- *onths "ithout pa2 to be too harsh a punish*ent.

+ suspension of t"o '- *onths "ithout pa2 should have been *ore

reasonable and 7ust. >e it noted that the stri%in1 "or%ers are not entitled to

receive stri%eduration pa2, the <4P alle1ation a1ainst the e*plo2er bein1

unfounded. >ut since reinstate*ent is no lon1er feasible, the hotel havin1

per*anentl2 ceased operations on &ul2 ', '((A,

::E

"e hereb2 order the 4abor +rbiter to instead *a%e the necessar2 ad7ust*ents in the co*putation of the

separation pa2 to be received b2 the <nion officers concerned.

Si1nificantl2, the Manifestations:AE filed b2 petitioner "ith respect to

the Buitclai*s e=ecuted b2 *e*bers of respondent <nion state that 3# of the

#0 e*plo2ees ter*inated on account of the do"nsiCin1 pro1ra* have











alread2 e=ecuted Buitclai*s on various dates.:0E 5e, ho"ever, ta%e 7udicial

notice that 33 of these Buitclai*s failed to indicate the a*ounts received b2

the ter*inated e*plo2ees.:9E >ecause of this, petitioner leaves us no choice

but to invalidate and set aside these Buitclai*s. Ho"ever, the actual a*ount

received b2 the e*plo2ees upon si1nin1 the said docu*ents shall bededucted fro* "hatever re*ainin1 a*ount is due the* to avoid double

recover2 of separation pa2 and other *onetar2 benefits. 5e hereb2 order the

4abor +rbiter to effect the necessar2 co*putation on this *atter.

6or this reason, this !ourt stron1l2 ad*onishes petitioner and its

counsel for *a%in1 its for*er e*plo2ees si1n Buitclai* docu*ents "ithout

indicatin1 therein the consideration for the release and "aiver of their

e*plo2ees ri1hts. Such conduct on the part of petitioner and its counsel isreprehensible and puts in serious doubt the candor and fairness reBuired of

the* in their relations "ith their hapless e*plo2ees. The2 are re*inded to

observe co**on decenc2 and 1ood faith in their dealin1s "ith their

unsuspectin1 e*plo2ees, particularl2 in underta%in1s that ulti*atel2 lead to

"aiver of "or%ers ri1hts. This !ourt "ill not rene1e on its dut2 to protect the

"ea% a1ainst the stron1, and the 1ullible a1ainst the "ic%ed, be it for labor

or for capital.

Ho"ever, "ith respect to the second batch of Buitclai*s si1ned b2 0$of the re*ainin1 ):( e*plo2ees "ho "ere ter*inated follo"in1 H2atts

per*anent closure,A(E "e hold that these are valid and bindin1 underta%in1s.

The said docu*ents indicate that the a*ount received b2 each of the

e*plo2ees represents a reasonable settle*ent of their *onetar2 clai*s

a1ainst petitioner and "ere even si1ned in the presence of a DO4

representative. + Buitclai*, "ith clear and una*bi1uous contents and

e=ecuted for a valid consideration received in full b2 the e*plo2ee "ho

si1ned the sa*e, cannot be later invalidated because its si1nator2 clai*s thathe "as pressured into si1nin1 it on account of his dire financial need. 5hen

it is sho"n that the person e=ecutin1 the "aiver did so voluntaril2, "ith full

understandin1 of "hat he "as doin1, and the consideration for the Buitclai*

is credible and reasonable, the transaction *ust be reco1niCed as a valid and

bindin1 underta%in1.A)E











-ERE4ORE, the petition is PARTL& GRANTE%. The

do"nsiCin1 sche*e i*ple*ented b2 petitioner is hereb2 declared a valid

e=ercise of *ana1e*ent prero1ative. The penalt2 of si= :- *onths

suspension "ithout pa2 i*posed in the +pril 3, '((3 N4R! Resolution A'E is

hereb2 reduced to t"o '- *onths, to be considered in the 4abor +rbitersco*putation of the separation pa2 to be received b2 the <nion officers

concerned. The first batch of Buitclai*s si1ned b2 33 of the #0 ter*inated

e*plo2ees is hereb2 declared invalid and ille1al for failure to state the

proper consideration therefor, but the a*ount received b2 the e*plo2ees

concerned, if an2, shall be deducted fro* their separation pa2 and other

*onetar2 benefits, sub7ect to the co*putation to be *ade b2 the 4abor

+rbiter. The second batch of Buitclai*s si1ned b2 0$ of the ):( ter*inated

e*plo2ees, follo"in1 H2att Re1enc2 Manilas per*anent closure, is declaredvalid and bindin1.

SO OR%ERE%.


SUPREME COURT

Manila

6IRST DIVISION

G.R. No:. 1711819 M)r !, !!9

$ACKBILT IN%USTRIES, INC., Petitioner,

vs.

$ACKBILT EMPLO&EES ORKERS UNIONNA4LU

KMU, Respondent.

D ! I S I O N

CORONA, J .5

This petition for revie" on certiorari) see%s to reverse and set aside the &ul2

)3, '(($ decision' and 6ebruar2 9, '((: resolution3 of the !ourt of +ppeals

in !+/.R. SP No. :$'(0 and !+/.R. SP No. :$#'$.


http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_171618_2009.html#fnt1









Due to the adverse effects of the +sian econo*ic crisis on the construction

industr2 be1innin1 )99A, petitioner &ac%bilt Industries, Inc. decided to

te*poraril2 stop its business of producin1 concrete hollo" bloc%s,

co*pellin1 *ost of its e*plo2ees to 1o on leave for si= *onths. #

Respondent &ac%bilt *plo2ees 5or%ers <nionN+64<M< i**ediatel2

protested the te*porar2 shutdo"n. >ecause its collective bar1ainin1

a1ree*ent "ith petitioner "as e=pirin1 durin1 the period of the shutdo"n,

respondent clai*ed that petitioner halted production to avoid its dut2 to

bar1ain collectivel2. The shutdo"n "as alle1edl2 *otivated b2 antiunion

senti*ents.

+ccordin1l2, on March 9, )990, respondent "ent on stri%e. Its officers and

*e*bers pic%eted petitioners *ain 1ates and deliberatel2 prevented persons

and vehicles fro* 1oin1 into and out of the co*pound.

On March )9, )990, petitioner filed a petition for in7unction$ "ith a pra2er

for the issuance of a te*porar2 restrainin1 order TRO- in the National

4abor Relations !o**ission N4R!-. It sou1ht to en7oin respondent fro*

obstructin1 free entr2 to and e=it fro* its production facilit2.:

On +pril )#, )990, the N4R! issued a TRO directin1 the respondents torefrain fro* preventin1 access to petitioners propert2.

The reports of both the i*ple*entin1 officer and the investi1atin1 labor

arbiter revealed, ho"ever, that respondent union violated the +pril )#, )990

order. <nion *e*bers, on various occasions, stopped and inspected private

vehicles enterin1 and e=itin1 petitioners production facilit2. Thus, in a

decision dated &ul2 )A, )990, the N4R! ordered the issuance of a "rit of

preli*inar2 in7unction.A

Mean"hile, petitioner sent individual *e*oranda to the officers and

*e*bers of respondent "ho participated in the stri%e0 orderin1 the* to

e=plain "h2 the2 should not be dis*issed for co**ittin1 ille1al acts in the

course of a stri%e.9 Ho"ever, respondent repeatedl2 i1nored petitioners

*e*oranda despite the e=tensions 1ranted.)( Thus, on Ma2 3(, )990,


















petitioner dis*issed the concerned officers and *e*bers and barred the*

fro* enterin1 its pre*ises effective &une ), )990.

+11rieved, respondent filed co*plaints for ille1al loc%out, runa"a2 shop

and da*a1es,))

unfair labor practice, ille1al dis*issal and attorne2sfees,)' and refusal to bar1ain)3 on behalf of its officers and *e*bers a1ainst

petitioner and its corporate officers. It ar1ued that there "as no basis for the

te*porar2 partial shutdo"n as it "as underta%en b2 petitioner to avoid its

dut2 to bar1ain collectivel2.

Petitioner, on the other hand, asserted that because respondent conducted a

stri%e "ithout observin1 the procedural reBuire*ents provided in +rticle ':3

of the 4abor !ode,)# the March 9, )990 stri%e "as ille1al. 6urther*ore, in

vie" of the &ul2 )A, )990 decision of the N4R! "hich found that

respondent obstructed the free in1ress to and e1ress fro* petitioners

pre*ises-, petitioner validl2 dis*issed respondents officers and e*plo2ees

for co**ittin1 ille1al acts in the course of a stri%e.

In a decision dated October )$, )999, )$ the labor arbiter dis*issed the

co*plaints for ille1al loc%out and unfair labor practice for lac% of *erit.

Ho"ever, because petitioner did not file a petition to declare the stri%e

ille1al):

before ter*inatin1 respondents officers and e*plo2ees, it "as found1uilt2 of ille1al dis*issal. The dispositive portion of the decision read;

-ERE4ORE, 7ud1*ent is hereb2 rendered findin1 petitioner and its

corporate officersE liable for the ille1al dis*issal of the :) union officer and

*e*bers of respondentE and conco*itantl2, petitioner and its corporate

officersE are hereb2 7ointl2 and severall2 ordered to pa2 respondents

officers and *e*bersE li*ited bac%"a1es fro* &une ), )990 to October #,

)990.

Petitioner and its corporate officersE are further ordered to pa2

respondents officers and *e*bersE separation pa2 based on L salar2 for

ever2 2ear of credited service, a fraction of at least : *onths to be

considered as one "hole 2ear in lieu of reinstate*ent.















The co*plaint for unfair labor practice, *oral and e=e*plar2 da*a1es and

runa"a2 shop are hereb2 disallo"ed for lac% of *erit.

SO ORDRD.

On Dece*ber '0, '(((, the N4R!, on appeal, *odified the decision of the

labor arbiter. It held that onl2 petitioner should be liable for *onetar2

a"ards 1ranted to respondents officers and *e*bers.)A

>oth petitioner and respondent *oved for reconsideration but the2 "ere

denied for lac% of *erit.)0

+11rieved, petitioner assailed the Dece*ber '0, '((( decision of the N4R!

via a petition for certiorari)9

in the !+. It asserted that the N4R! co**itted1rave abuse of discretion in disre1ardin1 its &ul2 )A, )990 decision'("herein

respondents officers and e*plo2ees "ere found to have co**itted ille1al

acts in the course of the March 9, )990 stri%e. In vie" thereof and pursuant

to +rticle ':#a-3- of the 4abor !ode,') petitioner validl2 ter*inated

respondents officers and e*plo2ees.

The !+ dis*issed the petition but *odified the Dece*ber '0, '((( decision

of the N4R!.'' >ecause *ost of affected e*plo2ees "ere union *e*bers,

the !+ held that the te*porar2 shutdo"n "as *oved b2 antiunion

senti*ents. Petitioner "as therefore 1uilt2 of unfair labor practice and,

conseBuentl2, "as ordered to pa2 respondents officers and e*plo2ees

bac%"a1es fro* March 9, )990 instead of &une ), )990- to October #, )990

and separation pa2 of one *onth salar2 for ever2 2ear of credited service.

Petitioner *oved for reconsideration but it "as denied.'3 Thus, this recourse.

The pri*ordial issue in this petition is "hether or not the filin1 of a petition"ith the labor arbiter to declare a stri%e ille1al is a condition sine >ua

non for the valid ter*ination of e*plo2ees "ho co**it an ille1al act in the

course of such stri%e.

















Petitioner asserts that the filin1 of a petition to declare the stri%e ille1al "as

unnecessar2 since the N4R!, in its &ul2 )A, )990 decision, had alread2

found that respondent co**itted ille1al acts in the course of the stri%e.

5e 1rant the petition.

The principle of conclusiveness of 7ud1*ent, e*bodied in Section #Ac-,

Rule 39 of the Rules of !ourt,'# holds that the parties to a case are bound b2

the findin1s in a previous 7ud1*ent "ith respect to *atters actuall2 raised

and ad7ud1ed therein.'$

+rticle ':#e- of the 4abor !ode prohibits an2 person en1a1ed in pic%etin1

fro* obstructin1 the free in1ress to and e1ress fro* the e*plo2ers

pre*ises. Since respondent "as found in the &ul2 )A, )990 decision of the N4R! to have prevented the free entr2 into and e=it of vehicles fro*

petitioners co*pound, respondents officers and e*plo2ees clearl2

co**itted ille1al acts in the course of the March 9, )990 stri%e.9a$#hi9

The use of unla"ful *eans in the course of a stri%e renders such stri%e

ille1al.': Therefore, pursuant to the principle of conclusiveness of 7ud1*ent,

the March 9, )990 stri%e "as i#so facto ille1al. The filin1 of a petition to

declare the stri%e ille1al "as thus unnecessar2.

!onseBuentl2, "e uphold the le1alit2 of the dis*issal of respondents

officers and e*plo2ees. +rticle ':# of the 4abor !ode'A further provides that

an e*plo2er *a2 ter*inate e*plo2ees found to have co**itted ille1al acts

in the course of a stri%e.'0 Petitioner clearl2 had the le1al ri1ht to ter*inate

respondents officers and e*plo2ees.'9

-ERE4ORE, the petition is hereb2 1ranted. The &ul2 )3, '(($ decision

and 6ebruar2 9, '((: resolution of the !ourt of +ppeals in !+/.R. SP No.:$'(0 and !+/.R. SP No. :$#'$ are hereb2 RE(ERSE% and SET

ASI%E.

The Dece*ber '0, '((( and March :, '(() resolutions of the National

4abor Relations !o**ission in N4R!!+ No. ('':)#'(((















are MO%I4IE% insofar as the2 affir*ed the October )$, )999 decision of

the labor arbiter in N4R!N!R!ase No. (((:($()A90 findin1 petitioner

&ac%bilt Industries, Inc. 1uilt2 of ille1al dis*issal for ter*inatin1

respondents officers and e*plo2ees. Ne" 7ud1*ent is hereb2

entered %ISMISSING N4R!N!R!ase No. (((:($()A90 for lac% of*erit.

SO ORDRD.


Spreme Cort

Manila

EN BANC

REPUBLIC O4 T-E

P-ILIPPINES,

repre:e*te+ b= te

CI(IL SER(ICE

COMMISSION,

Petitioner,

versus

G.R. No. 178!1

Present;

!ORON+, .*.,

!+RPIO,

V4+S!O, &R.,4ON+RDOD

!+STRO,

>RION,

PR+4T+,

>RS+MIN,

D4 !+STI44O,

+>+D,

VI44+R+M+, &R.,

PR,MNDO+,

SRNO,

RKS, and

PR4+S>RN+>, ** .



MINER(A M.P.

PAC-EO,

Respondent.

Pro*ul1ated;

&anuar2 '$, '()'

=

=

% E C I S I O N

MEN%O'A, J .5

>efore this !ourt is a petition for revie" on certiorari under Rule #$

of the Rules of !ourt filed b2 petitioner Republic of the Philippines,

represented b2 the Office of the Solicitor /eneral (4S2), "hich assails the

6ebruar2 '', '((A Decision)E and the Ma2 )$, '((A Resolution 'E of the

!ourt of +ppeals (A) in !+/.R. SP No. 93A0). The !+ reversed the

Nove*ber '), '(($ Resolution of the !ivil Service

!o**ission (S) declarin1 the reassi1n*ent of respondent Minerva M.P.

Pacheos (Pacheo) not valid and orderin1 her reinstate*ent to her ori1inalstation but "ithout bac%"a1es under the principle of no "or%, no pa2.

Te 4)t:

Pacheo "as a Revenue +ttorne2 IV, +ssistant !hief of the 4e1al

Division of the >ureau of Internal Revenue (%IR) in Revenue Re1ion No.

A (RR),GueCon !it2.

On Ma2 A, '((', the >IR issued Revenue Travel +ssi1n*ent

Order (R/A4) No. '$'((',3E orderin1 the reassi1n*ent of Pacheo as

+ssistant !hief, 4e1al Division fro* RRA in GueCon !it2 to RR# in San

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/january2012/178021.htm#_ftn1








6ernando, Pa*pan1a. The >IR cited e=i1encies of the revenue service as

basis for the issuance of the said RT+O.

Pacheo Buestioned the reassi1n*ent throu1h her 4etter dated Ma2 9,'(('#E addressed to Rene /. >aneC, then !o**issioner of Internal

Revenue (IR). She co*plained that the transfer "ould *ean econo*ic

dislocation since she "ould have to spend '((.(( on dail2 travel e=penses₱

or appro=i*atel2 #,(((.(( a *onth. It "ould also *ean ph2sical burden on₱

her part as she "ould be co*pelled to "a%e up earl2 in the *ornin1 for her

dail2 travel fro* GueCon !it2 to San 6ernando, Pa*pan1a, and to return

ho*e late at ni1ht fro* San 6ernando, Pa*pan1a to GueCon !it2. She "as

of the vie" that that her reassi1n*ent "as *erel2 intended to harass and

force her out of the >IR in the 1uise of e=i1encies of the revenue service. In

su*, she considered her transfer fro* GueCon !it2 to Pa*pan1a as

a*ountin1 to a constructive dis*issal.

Due to the then inaction of the >IR, Pacheo filed a

co*plaint$E dated Ma2 3(, '((', before the !S! National !apital

Re1ion (S'R), pra2in1 for the nullification of RT+O No. '$'(('. In

its &ul2 '', '((' Order,:E the !S!N!R treated Pacheos !o*plaint as an

appeal and dis*issed the sa*e, "ithout pre7udice, for failure to co*pl2 "ith

Sections A3 and A# of Rule Vb- of the <nifor* Rules on +d*inistrative

!ases in the !ivil Service.AE

In its 4etterrepl20E dated Septe*ber )3, '((', the >IR, throu1h its

Deput2 !o**issioner for 4e1al and Inspection /roup, d*undo P./uevara(2uevara), denied Pacheos protest for lac% of *erit. It contended

that her reassi1n*ent could not be considered constructive dis*issal as she

*aintained her position as Revenue +ttorne2 IV and "as desi1nated as

+ssistant !hief of 4e1al Division. It e*phasiCed that her appoint*ent to the













position of Revenue +ttorne2 IV "as "ithout a specific station.

!onseBuentl2, she could properl2 be reassi1ned fro* one or1aniCational unit

to another "ithin the >IR. 4astl2, she could not validl2 clai* a vested ri1ht

to an2 specific station, or a violation of her ri1ht to securit2 of tenure.

Not in confor*it2 "ith the rulin1 of the >IR, Pacheo appealed her

case before the !S!.

On Nove*ber '), '(($, the !S! issued Re:o;to* No.

!1979E 1rantin1 Pacheos appeal, the dispositive portion of "hich reads;

-ERE4ORE, the instant appeal of Minerva M.P.Pacheo is hereb2 GRANTE%. The >ureau of Internal Revenue

Revenue Travel +ssi1n*ent Order No. '$'((' dated Ma2 A,

'((', on the reassi1n*ent of Pacheo to the 4e1al Division

Revenue Re1ion No. # San 6ernanado, Pa*pan1a, is hereb2

declaredNOT (ALI%. +!!ORDIN/4K, Pacheo should no"

be recalled to her ori1inal station. This !o**ission, ho"ever

rules and so holds that the "ithholdin1 b2 the >IR of Pacheos

salar2 for the period she did not report to "or% is 7ustified.

The !S!RO No. III is directed to *onitor the

i*ple*entation of this Resolution.

In 1rantin1 Pacheos appeal, the !S! e=plained;

On the second issue, this !o**ission finds *erit in

appellants contention that her reassi1n*ent in not valid.

Of pertinent application thereto is R;e III, Seto* o

CSC Memor)*+m Cr;)r No. 0!, :ere: o 1998,

+)te+ %eember 10, 1998, "hich provides;

Section :. Other Personnel Move*ents. The

follo"in1 personnel *ove*ents "hich "ill not





reBuire issuance of an appoint*ent shall

nevertheless reBuire an office order b2 dul2

authoriCed official.

a. Reassi1n*ent Move*ent of an e*plo2ee

fro* one or1aniCational unit to another in the sa*e

depart*ent or a1enc2 "hich does not involve

reduction in ran%, status or salar2. If reassi1n*ent

is done "ithout consent of the e*plo2ee bein1

reassi1ned it shall be allo"ed for a *a=i*u*

period of one 2ear. Reassi1n*ent is presu*ed to

be re1ular and *ade in the interest of public

service unless proven other"ise or it constitutes

constructive dis*issal.

No assi1n*ent shall be underta%en if done

indiscri*inatel2 or "hi*sicall2 because the la" is

not intended as a convenient shield for the

appointin1 disciplinin1 authorit2 to harass or

oppress a subordinate on the prete=t of advancin1

and pro*otin1 public interest.

Reassi1n*ent of s*all salaried e*plo2ee is

not per*issible if it causes si1nificant financial

dislocation.

+lthou1h reassi1n*ent is a *ana1e*ent prero1ative, the

sa*e *ust be done in the e=i1enc2 of the service "ithout

di*inution in ran%, status and salar2 on the part of the officer or

e*plo2ee bein1 te*poraril2 reassi1ned. Reassi1n*ent of small

salaried e*plo2ees, ho"ever is not allo"ed if it "ill cause

si1nificant financial dislocation to the e*plo2ee reassi1ned.

Other"ise the !o**ission "ill have to intervene.

The pri*ar2 purpose of e*phasiCin1 small salaried

em#loyees in the fore1oin1 rule is to protect the ran" and

file e*plo2ees fro* possible abuse b2 the *ana1e*ent in the

1uise of transferreassi1n*ent. The Supre*e !ourt in A;J)te ?.

M)bt):, $) O./. '#$'- ruled;



= = = B/Che #rotection aainst invalid

transfer is es#ecially needed by lo$er ran"in

em#loyees. /he ourt em#hasi0ed this need $hen

it ruled that officials in the unclassified service,

#residential a##ointees, men in the overnment set

u# occu#y #ositions in the hiher echelon should

be entitled to security of tenure, un>uestionable a

lesser solBciCitude cannot be meant for the little

men, that reat mass of ommon under#rivileed

em#loyeesthousand there are of them in the lo$er

brac"et, $ho enerally are $ithout connections

and $ho #in their ho#es of advancement on the

merit system instituted by our civil service la$.

In other "ords, in order to be e*braced in theter* smallsalaried em#loyees, the latter *ust belon1 to

the ran" and file8 and, hisher salar2 "ould be si1nificantl2

reduced b2 virtue of the transferreassi1n*ent. Ran" and

file "as cate1oriCed as those occup2in1 the position of Division

!hief and belo", pursuant to CSC Re:o;to* No. 1, :ere: o

1991, +)te+ $)*)r= 8, 1991.

The facts established on record sho" that Pacheo belon1s

to the ran% and file receivin1 an avera1e *onthl2 salar2 of

T"ent2 Thousand Pesos '(,(((.((- under the salar2₱

standardiCation la" and a *onthl2 ta%e ho*e pa2 of 6ourteen

Thousand Pesos )#,(((.((-. She has to spend around 6our ₱

Thousand Pesos #,(((.((- a *onth for her transportation₱

e=penses as a conseBuence of her reassi1n*ent, rou1hl2 t"ent2

ei1ht percent '0@- of her *onthl2 ta%e ho*e pa2. !learl2,

Pacheos salar2 shall be si1nificantl2 reduced as a result of her

reassi1n*ent.

In ANORE, M). Tere:) 4., this !o**ission ruled;



Anore, a lo$ly salaried em#loyee, $as

reassined to an isolated island 9D "ilometers

a$ay from her oriinal #lace of assinment. She

has to travel by boat $ith only one tri# a day to

re#ort to her ne$ #lace of assinment in an office

$ithout any facilities, e6ce#t its bare structure.

!orst, the munici#ality did not #rovide her $ith

trans#ortation allo$ance. She $as forced to be

se#arated from her family, loo" for a boardin

house $here she can stay $hile in the island and

s#end for her board and lodin. /he

circumstances surroundin Anores reassinment is

e6actly the "ind of reassinment that is bein

fro$ned u#on by la$.

This !o**ission, ho"ever, rules and so holds that the

"ithholdin1 b2 the >IR of her salaries is 7ustified as she is not

entitled thereto since she is dee*ed not to have perfor*ed an2

actual "or% in the 1overn*ent on the principle of no "or% no

pa2.

+ccordin1l2, Pacheo should no" be reinstated to her

ori1inal station "ithout an2 ri1ht to clai* bac% salar2 as she did

not report to "or% either at her ne" place of assi1n*ent or at

her ori1inal station.)(E *phases in the ori1inalE

Still not satisfied, Pacheo *oved for reconsideration. She ar1ued that

the !S! erred in not findin1 that she "as constructivel2 dis*issed and,

therefore, entitled to bac% salar2.

On March A, '((:, the !S! issued Resolution No. (:(39A ))E den2in1

Pacheos *otion for reconsideration.

<ndaunted, Pacheo sou1ht recourse before the !+ via a petition for

revie".







In its 6ebruar2 '', '((A Decision, the !+ reversed the !S!

Resolution and ruled in favor of Pacheo, the fallo of "hich states;

-ERE4ORE, the petition is GRANTE%. Resolution

nos. ED9FG and EFEG dated Nove*ber '), '(($ and MarchA, '((:, respectivel2, of the !ivil Service !o**ission

are RE(ERSE% and SET ASI%E. + ne" 7ud1*ent is hereb2

entered findin1 petitioner to have been constructivel2 dis*issed

and orderin1 her i**ediate reinstate*ent "ith full bac%"a1es

and benefits.

SO OR%ERE%.)'E

In settin1 aside !S! Resolution Nos. ($):9A and (:(39A, the !+

held that;

5hile this !ourt a1rees that petitioners reassi1n*ent "as not

valid considerin1 that a diminution in salary is enouh to

invalidate such reassinment, 5e cannot a1ree that the latter

has not been constructivel2 dis*issed as a result thereof.

It is "ell to re*e*ber that constructive dis*issal does not

al"a2s involve forthri1ht dis*issal or di*inution in ran%,

co*pensation, benefits and privile1es.6or an act of clear discri*ination, insensibilit2, or disdain b2 an e*plo2er *a2

beco*e so unbearable on the part of the e*plo2ee that it could

foreclose an2 choice b2 hi* e=cept to for1o his continued

e*plo2*ent.

The *ana1e*ent prero1ative to transfer personnel *ust be

e=ercised "ithout 1rave abuse of discretion and puttin1 to *ind

the basic ele*ents of 7ustice and fair pla2. The e*plo2er *ust

be able to sho" that the transfer is not unreasonable,

inconvenient, or pre7udicial to the e*plo2ee.

In this case, petitioners reassi1n*ent "ill result in the reduction

of her salar2, not to *ention the ph2sical burden that she "ould

suffer in "a%in1 up earl2 in the *ornin1 to travel dail2

fro* GueCon !it2 to San 6ernando, Pa*pan1a and in co*in1

ho*e late at ni1ht.





!learl2, the insensibilit2 of the e*plo2er is deducible fro* the

fore1oin1 circu*stances and petitioner *a2 have no other

choice but to fore1o her continued e*plo2*ent.

Moreover, it "ould be inconsistent to hold that the

reassi1n*ent "as not valid due to the si1nificant reduction in

petitioners salar2 and then rule that there is no constructive

dis*issal 7ust because said reduction in salar2 "ill not render

petitioner penniless if she "ill report to her ne" place of

assi1n*ent. It *ust be noted that there is constructive dis*issal

"hen the reassi1n*ent of an e*plo2ee involves a di*inution in

pa2.

Havin1 deter*ined that petitioner has been

constructivel2 dis*issed as a result of her reassi1n*ent, 5e

shall resolve "hether or not she is entitled to bac%"a1es.

In den2in1 petitioners clai* for bac%"a1es, the !S! held;

This !o**ission, ho"ever, rules and so holds that

the "ithholdin1 b2 the >IR of her salaries is

7ustified as she is not entitled thereto since she is

dee*ed not to have perfor*ed an2 actual "or% in

the 1overn*ent on the principle of no "or% no pa2.

+ccordin1l2, Pacheo should no" be reinstated to

her ori1inal station "ithout an2 ri1ht to clai* bac%

salar2 as she did not report for "or% either at her

ne" place of assi1n*ent or at her ori1inal station.

Pacheo, "hile belon1in1 to the ran%andfilee*plo2ees, is holdin1 a responsible position as an

+ssistant Division !hief, "ho could not 7ust

abandon her duties *erel2 because she protested

her reassi1n*ent and filed an appeal after"ards.



!e do not aree.

If there is no "or% perfor*ed b2 the e*plo2ee there can

be no "a1e or pa2, unless of course the laborer "as able,

"illin1 and read2 to "or% but "as ille1all2 loc%ed

out, dismissed or suspended. The No "or%, no pa2 principle

conte*plates a no "or% situation "here the e*plo2ees

voluntaril2 absent the*selves.

In this case, petitioner "as forced to fore1o her continued

e*plo2*ent and did not 7ust abandon her duties. In fact, she

lost no ti*e in protestin1 her reassi1n*ent as a for* of

constructive dis*issal. It is settled that the filin1 of a co*plaint

for ille1al dis*issal is inconsistent "ith a char1e of

abandon*ent.The filin1 of the co*plaint is proof enou1h of hisdesire to return to "or%, thus ne1atin1 an2 su11estion of

abandon*ent.

Neither do "e a1ree "ith the OS/ "hen it opined that;

No one in the !ivil Service should be allo"ed to

decide on "hether she is 1oin1 to accept or not an2

"or% dictated upon b2 the e=i1enc2 of the

service. One should consider that public office is a

public trust and that the act of respondent !IR

en7o2s the presu*ption of re1ularit2. To uphold the

failure of respondent to heed the RT+O "ould

result in chaos. ver2 e*plo2ee "ould put his or

her vested interest or personal opinion over and

above the s*ooth functionin1 of the bureaucrac2.

Securit2 of tenure is a ri1ht of para*ount value as

reco1niCed and 1uaranteed under Sec. 3, +rt. JIII of the )90A!onstitution.

The State shall afford full protection to labor, ===

and pro*ote full e*plo2*ent and eBualit2 of

e*plo2*ent opportunities for all . It shall



1uarantee the ri1hts of all "or%ers to === securit2

of tenure ===

Such constitutional ri1ht should not be denied on *ere

speculation of an2 si*ilar unclear and nebulous basis.

In 2arcia, et al. v. Le?ano, et al ., the Supre*e !ourt

re7ected the OS/s opinion that $hen the transfer is motivated

solely by the interest of the service of such act cannot be

considered violative of the onstitution, thus;

5e do not a1ree to this vie". 5hile

te*porar2 transfers or assi1n*ents *a2 be *ade

of the personnel of a bureau or depart*ent "ithout

first obtainin1 the consent of the e*plo2eeconcerned "ithin the scope of Section A9 D- of

the +d*inistrative !ode "hich part2 provides that

The Depart*ent Head also *a2, fro* ti*e to ti*e,

in the interest of the service, chan1e the

distribution a*on1 the several >ureaus and offices

of his Depart*ent of the e*plo2ees or

subordinates authoriCed b2 la", such cannot be

underta%en "hen the transfer of the e*plo2ee is

"ith a vie" to his re*oval. Such cannot be done

"ithout the consent of the e*plo2ee. +nd if the

transfer is resorted to as a sche*e to lure the

e*plo2ee a"a2 fro* his per*anent position, such

attitude is i*proper as it "ould in effect result in a

circu*vention of the prohibition "hich safe1uards

the tenure of office of those "ho are in the civil

service. It is not "ithout reason that this !ourt

*ade the follo"in1 observation;

To per*it circu*vention of the constitutional prohibition in Buestion b2 allo"in1 re*oval fro*

office "ithout la"ful cause, in the for* or 1uise of

transfers fro* one office to another, or fro* one

province to another, "ithout the consent of the

transferee, "ould blast the hopes of these 2oun1

civil service officials and career *en and "o*en,



destro2 their securit2 and tenure of office and

*a%e for a subservient, discontented and

inefficient civil service force that s"a2s "ith ever2

political "ind that blo"s and pla2s up to "hatever

political part2 is in the saddle. That "ould be far

fro* "hat the fra*ers of our !onstitution

conte*plated and desired. Neither "ould that be

our concept of a free and efficient /overn*ent

force, possessed of selfrespect and reasonable

a*bition.

!learl2, the principle of no "or%, no pa2 does not appl2

in this case. +s held in 'eeland v. =illanueva, *r ;

5e also cannot den2 bac% salaries and other

econo*ic benefits on the 1round that respondent

!ler% of !ourt did not "or%. 6or the principle of

no "or%, no pa2 does not appl2 "hen the

e*plo2ee hi*self "as forced out of 7ob. J==

Indeed, it is not al"a2s true that bac% salaries are

paid onl2 "hen "or% is done. J== 6or another, the

poor e*plo2ee could offer no "or% since he "as

forced out of "or%. Thus, to al"a2s reBuire

co*plete e=oneration or perfor*ance of "or%

"ould ulti*atel2 leave the dis*issalunco*pensated no *atter ho" 1rossl2

disproportionate the penalt2 "as. !learl2, it does

not serve 7ustice to si*pl2 restore the dis*issed

e*plo2ee to his position and den2 hi* his clai*

for bac% salaries and other econo*ic benefits on

these 1rounds. 5e "ould other"ise be servin1

7ustice in halves.

+n ille1all2 dis*issed 1overn*ent e*plo2ee "ho is later ordered reinstated is entitled to bac% "a1es and other *onetar2

benefits fro* the ti*e of his ille1al dis*issal up to his

reinstate*ent. This is onl2 fair and sensible because an

e*plo2ee "ho is reinstated after havin1 been ille1all2

dis*issed is considered as not havin1 left his office and should



be 1iven a co*parable co*pensation at the ti*e of his

reinstate*ent.

5hen a 1overn*ent official or e*plo2ee in the classified

civil service had been ille1all2 dis*issed, and his reinstate*enthad later been ordered, for all le1al purposes he is considered as

not havin1 left his office, so that he is entitled to all the ri1hts

and privile1es that accrue to hi* b2 virtue of the office that he

held.)3E

The !S! *oved for reconsideration but its *otion "as denied b2 the !+ in

its Ma2 )$, '((A Resolution.


T-E ISSUES

-ET-ER OR NOT T-E ASSAILE% %ECISION IS

LEGALL& CORRECT IN %ECLARING T-AT

RESPON%ENT AS CONSTRUCTI(EL& %ISMISE%

AN% ENTITLE% TO BACK AGES,

NOTIT-STAN%ING RESPON%ENTS RE4USAL TO

COMPL& IT- BIR RTAO No. !! -IC- ISIMME%IATEL& E"ECUTOR& PURSUANT TO

SECTION 0 4D O4 P.%. 8!7.

-ET-ER OR NOT RESPON%ENT SU44ERE% A

%IMINUTION IN -ER SALAR& IN RELATION TO

SECTION , RULE III O4 CSC MEMORAN%UM





CIRCULAR No. 0!, SERIES O4 1998, %ATE%

%ECEMBER 10, 1998, AS A RESULT O4 T-E ISSUANCE

/O42 BIR RTAO No. !! OR%ERING -ER

REASSIGNMENT 4ROM BIR RR No. 7 IN #UE'ON

CIT& TO BIR RR No. 0 IN SAN 4ERNAN%O,

PAMPANGA.)#E

In her Me*orandu*,)$E Pacheo asserts that RT+O No. '$'((', on the

pretense of the e=i1encies of the revenue service, "as solel2 *eant to harass

her and force her to resi1n. +s a result of her invalid reassi1n*ent, she "as

constructivel2 dis*issed and, therefore, entitled to her bac% salaries and

*onetar2 benefits fro* the ti*e of her ille1al dis*issal up to her

reinstate*ent.

In its o"n Me*orandu*,):E the !S!, throu1h the OS/, ar1ues that

constructive dis*issal is not applicable in this case because it "as Pacheo

herself "ho ada*antl2 refused to report for "or% either in her ori1inal

station or ne" place of assi1n*ent in clear violation of Section '# f- of

Presidential Decree (P) No. 0(A.)AE !itin1 7urisprudence,)0E the !S! avers

that the RT+O is i**ediatel2 e=ecutor2, unless other"ise ordered b2 the

!S!. Therefore, Pacheo should have first reported to her ne" place of

assi1n*ent and then appealed her case to the !S! if she indeed believed

that there "as no 7ustification for her reassi1n*ent. Since Pacheo did not

report for "or% at all, she is not entitled to bac%"a1es follo"in1 the

principle of no "or%, no pa2.

T-E COURTS RULING

The petition fails to persuade.













It appears undisputed that the reassi1n*ent of Pacheo "as not valid.

In its *e*orandu*, the OS/ initiall2 ar1ues for the validit2 of RT+O No.

'$'((' authoriCin1 Pacheos reassi1n*ent fro* GueCon !it2 to San

6ernando, Pa*pan1a. 4ater, ho"ever, it specificall2 pra2s for the

reinstate*ent of !S! Resolution Nos. ($):9A and (:(39A, "hichcate1oricall2 declared RT+O No. '$'((' as not valid. In see%in1 such

relief, the OS/ has effectivel2 accepted the findin1 of the !S!, as affir*ed

b2 the !+, that Pacheos reassi1n*ent "as indeed invalid. Since the issue of

Pacheos reassi1n*ent is alread2 settled, the !ourt finds it futile to pass upon

the sa*e at this point.

The Buestion that re*ains to be resolved is "hether or not Pacheos

assi1n*ent constitutes constructive dis*issal and, thus, entitlin1 her to

reinstate*ent and bac%"a1es. 5as Pacheo constructivel2 dis*issed b2

reason of her reassi1n*ent

The !ourt a1rees "ith the !+ on this point.

5hile a te*porar2 transfer or assi1n*ent of personnel is per*issible

even "ithout the e*plo2ee?s prior consent, it cannot be done "hen the

transfer is a preli*inar2 step to"ard his re*oval, or a sche*e to lure hi*

a"a2 fro* his per*anent position, or "hen it is desi1ned to indirectl2

ter*inate his service, or force his resi1nation. Such a transfer "ould in effect

circu*vent the provision "hich safe1uards the tenure of office of those "ho

are in the !ivil Service.)9E

Si1nificantl2, Section :, Rule III of !S! Me*orandu* !ircular No.

#(, series of )990, defines constructive dis*issal as a situation "hen an

e*plo2ee Buits his "or% because of the a1enc2 heads unreasonable,

hu*iliatin1, or de*eanin1 actuations "hich render continued "or%

i*possible. Hence, the e*plo2ee is dee*ed to have been ille1all2 dis*issed.

This *a2 occur althou1h there is no di*inution or reduction of salar2 of the

e*plo2ee. It *a2 be a transfer fro* one position of di1nit2 to a *ore servile

or *enial 7ob.





The !S!, throu1h the OS/, contends that the deliberate refusal of Pacheo to

report for "or% either in her ori1inal station in GueCon !it2 or her ne" place

of assi1n*ent in San 6ernando, Pa*pan1a ne1ates her clai* of constructive

dis*issal in the present case bein1 in violation of Section '# f- of P.D. 0(A

no" =ecutive Order (-4) '9', >oo% V, Title ), Subtitle +, !hapter $,

Section ': :-E.'(E It further ar1ues that the sub7ect RT+O "as i**ediatel2

e=ecutor2, unless other"ise ordered b2 the !S!. It "as, therefore,

incu*bent on Pacheo to have reported to her ne" place of assi1n*ent and

then appealed her case to the !S! if she indeed believed that there "as no

7ustification for her reassi1n*ent.

+nent the first ar1u*ent of !S!, the !ourt cannot sustain the

proposition. It "as le1all2 i*possible for Pacheo to report to her ori1inal

place of assi1n*ent in GueCon !it2 considerin1 that the sub7ect RT+O No.

'$'((' also reassi1ned +*ado Re2 >. Pa1ari1an (Paarian) as +ssistant

!hief, 4e1al Division, fro* RR#, San 6ernando, Pa*pan1a to RRA, GueCon

!it2, the ver2 sa*e position Pacheo for*erl2 held. The reassi1n*ent of

Pa1ari1an to the sa*e position palpabl2 created an i*pedi*ent to Pacheos

return to her ori1inal station.

The !ourt finds Itself unable to a1ree to !S!s ar1u*ent that the

sub7ect RT+O "as i**ediatel2 e=ecutor2. The !ourt dee*s it necessar2 to

distin1uish bet"een a detail and reassi1n*ent, as the2 are 1overned b2

different rules.

+ detail is defined and 1overned b2 =ecutive Order '9', >oo% V,

Title ), Subtitle +, !hapter $, Section ': :-, thus;

:- etail . + detail is the *ove*ent of an e*plo2ee fro* one

a1enc2 to another "ithout the issuance of an appoint*ent and

shall be allo"ed, onl2 for a li*ited period in the case of

e*plo2ees occup2in1 professional, technical and scientific





positions. If the e*plo2ee believes that there is no 7ustification

for the detail, he *a2 appeal his case to the !o**ission.

Pendin1 appeal, the decision to detail the e*plo2ee shall be

e=ecutor2 unless other"ise ordered b2 the !o**ission.

<nderscorin1 suppliedE

On the other hand, a reassinment is defined and 1overned b2 .O.

'9', >oo% V, Title ), Subtitle +, !hapter $, Section ': A-, thus;

A- Reassinment .+n e*plo2ee *a2 be reassi1ned fro* one

or1aniCational unit to another in the sa*e a1enc28 Provided ,

That such reassi1n*ent shall not involve a reduction in ran%,

status or salaries. <nderscorin1 suppliedE

The principal distinctions bet"een a detail and reassi1n*ent lie in the

place "here the e*plo2ee is to be *oved and in its effectivit2 pendin1

appeal "ith the !S!. >ased on the definition, a detail reBuires a *ove*ent

fro* one a1enc2 to another "hile a reassi1n*ent reBuires a *ove*ent

"ithin the sa*e a1enc2. Moreover, pendin1 appeal "ith the !S!, an order to

detail is i**ediatel2 e=ecutor2, "hereas a reassi1n*ent order does not

beco*e i**ediatel2 effective.

In the case at bench, the lateral *ove*ent of Pacheo as +ssistant !hief,

4e1al Division fro* GueCon !it2 to San 6ernando, Pa*pan1a "ithin

the sa*e a1enc2 is undeniabl2 a reassi1n*ent. The OS/ posits that she

should have first reported to her ne" place of assi1n*ent and then

subseBuentl2 Buestion her reassi1n*ent. It is clear, ho"ever, fro* .O. '9',

>oo% V, Title ), Subtitle +, !hapter $, Section ': A- that there is no suchdut2 to first report to the ne" place of assi1n*ent prior to Buestionin1 an

alle1ed invalid reassi1n*ent i*posed upon an e*plo2ee. Pacheo "as "ell

"ithin her ri1ht not to report i**ediatel2 to RR#, San 6ernando, Pa*pan1a,

and to Buestion her reassi1n*ent.



Reassi1n*ents involvin1 a reduction in ran%, status or salar2 violate

an e*plo2ees securit2 of tenure, "hich is assured b2 the !onstitution, the

+d*inistrative !ode of )90A, and the O*nibus !ivil Service Rules and

Re1ulations. Securit2 of tenure covers not onl2 e*plo2ees re*oved "ithout

cause, but also cases of unconsented transfers and reassi1n*ents, "hich aretanta*ount to ille1alconstructive re*oval.')E

The !ourt is not una"are that the >IR is authoriCed to assi1n or reassi1n

internal revenue officers and e*plo2ees as the e=i1encies of service *a2

reBuire. This authorit2 of the >IR, ho"ever, should be prudentl2 e=ercised in

accordance "ith e=istin1 civil service rules.

Havin1 ruled that Pacheo "as constructivel2 dis*issed, is she entitled

to reinstate*ent and bac% "a1es The !ourt a1rees "ith the !+ that she is

entitled to reinstate*ent, but finds Itself unable to sustain the rulin1 that she

is entitled to full bac% "a1es and benefits. It is a settled 7urisprudence ''E that

an ille1all2 dis*issed civil service e*plo2ee is entitled to bac% salaries but

li*ited onl2 to a *a=i*u* period of five $- 2ears, and not full bac%

salaries fro* his ille1al dis*issal up to his reinstate*ent.

-ERE4ORE, the petition is %ENIE%. The assailed 6ebruar2 '',

'((A Decision and Ma2 )$, '((A Resolution of the !ourt of +ppeals, in !+

/.R. SP No. 93A0), are

hereb2 A44IRME% "ith MO%I4ICATION that respondent Minerva

M.P. Pacheo is hereb2 ordered reinstated "ithout loss of seniorit2 ri1hts but

is onl2 entitled to the pa2*ent of bac% salaries correspondin1 to five $-

2ears fro* the date of her invalid reassi1n*ent on Ma2 A, '(('.

SO OR%ERE%.

6IRST DIVISION







/G.R. No. 109371. Apr; 13, !!2

ABER%EEN COURT, INC., )*+ RIC-AR% NG, petitioners,

vs. MATEO C. AGUSTIN $R., respondent .

% E C I S I O N

A'CUNA, J.5

This is a petition for revie" on certiorari under Rule #$ of the )99A

Rules of !ivil Procedure, assailin1 the Decision of the !ourt of +ppeals in

!+/.R. SP No. :(''3, entitled Mateo +1ustin &r. v. National 4abor

Relations !o**ission 6irst Division-, +berdeen !ourt, Inc. and Ricardo

N1, dated &anuar2 3), '((), and the Resolution of +u1ust )(, '(() den2in1the *otion for reconsideration therein.

On Septe*ber ):, )99:, +berdeen !ourt, Inc. +berdeen-, one of the

petitioners, e*plo2ed Mateo !. +1ustin +1ustin-, herein respondent, for

the purpose of trouble shootin1 the electrical proble*s in said petitioners

establish*ent. +1ustin "as en1a1ed on a si=*onth probationar2 basis. The

e*plo2*ent contract provided, inter alia, that;

Should *2 perfor*ance be considered unsatisfactor2 at an2 ti*e b2*ana1e*ent durin1 *2 probationar2 period, I understand and a1ree that the

*ana1e*ent can ter*inate *2 services at an2 ti*e, even before the

ter*ination of the a1reed si=*onth period.)E

On &anuar2 )' and )3, )99A the personnel of !enti1rade Industries, Inc.

perfor*ed a readin1 of the e=haust air balancin1 at the fifth and si=th floors

of +berdeens pre*ises. Petitioners clai* that +1ustin "as placed in char1e

of the underta%in1. On the other hand, +1ustin asserts that n1r. +bad*erel2 reBuested hi* to acco*pan2 the aforesaid personnel to sho" the

location of the e=haust air outlet at the fifth and si=th floors of the pre*ises.

He avers that;

The reBuest of n1r. +bad is actuall2 the responsibilit2 of the co*pan2s

*echanical en1ineers. Despite the fact that the reBuest of n1r. +bad is not a





part of his 7ob since he is not a *echanical en1ineer and there "ere three 3-

other *echanical en1ineers on dut2 in the co*pan2 pre*ises, petitioner

herein respondentE, bein1 a subordinate of n1r. +bad, obli1ed and

acco*panied the afore*entioned personnel to the location. There "ere no

other specific instructions fro* n1r. +bad to petitioner "ith respect to theconduct or actual readin1 to be *ade b2 the !enti1rade personnel.

It *ust be noted that the readin1 of e=haust air balancin1 is under the

cate1or2 of heatin1, ventilatin1 and air conditionin1 HV+!- "hich are

"ithin the real* of field of "or% of *echanical en1ineers. >ein1 an

electrical en1ineer, petitioner obviousl2 has no %no"led1e of the procedure

and the eBuip*ent used b2 *echanical en1ineers in the conduct of the

readin1 of the e=haust air balancin1.'E

+fter the !enti1rade personnel finished their 7ob, the2 sub*itted their

report to +1ustin. Petitioners alle1e that +1ustin accepted and si1ned the

report, "ithout verif2in1 its correctness. n1ineer +bad later chec%ed the

"or% of the !enti1rade e*plo2ees onl2 to find out that four roo*s in the

fifth floor and five roo*s in the si=th floor "ere incorrectl2 done.3E In

contrast, +1ustin states that after the report "as handed to hi*, he too% the

sa*e to n1r. +bad, "ho he clai*s "as responsible for evaluatin1 and

confir*in1 the said report. +lle1edl2, instead of si1nin1 it hi*self, n1r.+bad directed respondent to si1n it, 1ivin1 the reason that +1ustin "as

present "hen the readin1 "as conducted. Respondent +1ustin co*plied, but

he no" points out that his si1nature "as not acco*panied b2 an2

Bualification that he accepted the report on behalf of +berdeen. He clai*s

that he si1ned *erel2 to evidence that he received a cop2 of the report.#E

The parties also differ on the occurrences t"o da2s after the si1nin1 of

the report or on &anuar2 )$, )99A. +ccordin1 to petitioners, +berdeen

*ana1e*ent confronted +1ustin "ith his failure to chec% the 7ob and as%ed

hi* to e=plain his side. +1ustin alle1edl2 i1nored *ana1e*ent and left the

co*pan2, "hich *ade it i*possible for +berdeen to trans*it an2 further

notice to hi*.$E

Ho"ever, +1ustin clai*s that;











On &anuar2 )$, )99A or t"o da2s after the report "as sub*itted b2

!enti1rade Industries, petitioner herein respondentE "as su**aril2

dis*issed. In the afternoon of that da2, he received a telephone call fro* the

personnel office of respondent co*pan2 orderin1 hi* to report to that office

after his tour of dut2. +t about seven p.*. at the personnel office, Ms. 4ani!arlos of the Personnel Depart*ent, infor*ed hi* that +berdeen !ourt is

ter*inatin1 his services as electrical en1ineer. Petitioner "as flabber1asted.

Ms. !arlos then infor*ed hi* that he could 1et his t"o '- "ee%s salar2 in

the a*ount of P#,(((, *ore or less, on the condition that he "ill si1n so*e

docu*ents "hich provides that the co*pan2 has no *ore liabilit2 and that

he is voluntaril2 resi1nin1 fro* +berdeen !ourt. +"are of his ri1hts,

petitioner did not si1n the offered docu*ents. He "as then hurriedl2 led to

the door b2 Ms. !arlos.

The follo"in1 da2 or on &anuar2 ):, )99A, petitioner reBuested assistance

fro* the Depart*ent of 4abor and *plo2*ent DO4-. + DO4

personnel told hi* to report for "or% since private respondents did not serve

hi* a notice of ter*ination. +s instructed, petitioner reported for "or% on

the sa*e da2. <pon arrivin1 at the co*pan2 pre*ises, petitioner as%ed Ms.

!arlos if he could still report for "or% but private respondents personnel

officer told hi* that he cannot do so.:E

5ithin the sa*e *onth of that 2ear, respondent +1ustin filed a

co*plaint for ille1al dis*issal "hich "as doc%eted as N4R! N!R !ase No.

((()((#::9A.

In an undated decision, the labor arbiter rendered 7ud1*ent in favor of

herein respondent, declarin1 that +1ustin "as ille1all2 dis*issed, thus;

5HR6OR, 7ud1*ent is hereb2 rendered;

). Orderin1 respondent +>RDN !O<RT, IN!. to reinstate to

his for*er position "ithout loss of seniorit2 ri1hts co*plainant

M+TO !. +/<STIN, &R.





'. Orderin1 respondent to pa2 to co*plainant bac%"a1es in the su*

of PHP P)A$,933.33.AE

Petitioners appealed the decision to the National 4abor Relations

!o**ission N4R!-. On 6ebruar2 '9, '(((, the N4R! reversed thedecision of the 4abor +rbiter and held that +1ustin had not been ille1all2

dis*issed, disposin1 thus;

5HR6OR, for and on account of the reasons abovediscussed, the

decision appealed fro* is hereb2 reversed and set aside and a ne" one

entered dis*issin1 the co*plaint for lac% of *erit.0E

6ro* the N4R! decision, +1ustin filed a petition for certiorari under

Rule :$ of the Rules of !ourt "ith the !ourt of +ppeals. The appellate courtruled in favor of +1ustin and reasoned thus;

!onstructive dis*issal is defined as a Buittin1 because continued

e*plo2*ent is rendered i*possible, unreasonable or unli%el2, as an offer

involvin1 de*otion in ran% and a di*inution in pa2 &arcia Machine Shop

and +uto Suppl2, Inc. vs. National 4abor Relations !o**ission, ':: S!R+

9A, )(0-. +s there is no sho"in1 in the record of an2 circu*stance to support

the proposition that the petitioner "as constructivel2 dis*issed, the privaterespondents correctl2 point out the fla" in the first 1round proffered b2 the

petitioner in support of his petition. >e that as it *a2, the petitioners

erroneous choice of ter*inolo12 does not, to our *ind, preclude a findin1 of

ille1al dis*issal. +lon1side the private respondents contention that it "as

the petitioner "ho uncere*oniousl2 Buit his e*plo2*ent after bein1

confronted "ith his ne1li1ence, 1reater stoc% *aE2 be ta%en of the

petitioners i**ediate recourse for assistance fro* the Depart*ent of 4abor

and his subseBuent filin1 of his co*plaint. The rule is settled that the

i**ediate filin1 of a co*plaint for ille1al dis*issal is inconsistent "ith

abandon*ent Pa*pan1a Su1ar Develop*ent !o*pan2, Inc. vs. National

4abor Relations !o**ission, 'A' S!R+ A3A, A#A- and, in such cases, the

burden of proof to establish the validit2 of the dis*issal of an e*plo2ee lies

on the e*plo2er /onpu Services !orporation vs. National 4abor Relations

!o**ission, ':: S!R+ :$A, ::'-. Rather than the e*plo2ee "ho *ust



http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/jan1997/118045.htm


http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/may1997/112650.htm










prove its invalidit2, it is the e*plo2er "ho should prove the validit2 of a

dis*issal. San2o Travel !orporation vs. National 4abor Relations

!o**ission, '0( S!R+ )'9, )30- and failure to do so "ill result in a

findin1 that the dis*issal "as unfounded Refor*ist <nion of R.>. 4iner,

Inc. vs. National 4abor Relations !o**issions, ':: S!R+ A)3, A':-.

Our perusal of the record 2ielded no sho"in1 of satisfactor2 atte*pt on the

part of the private respondents to prove the validit2 of the petitioners

dis*issal. It bears e*phasiCin1 that, to be la"ful, the e*plo2ees dis*issal

*ust co*pl2 "ith the follo"in1 reBuire*ents a- the dis*issal *ust be for

an2 of the causes provided in +rticle '9' of the 4abor !ode8 and, b- the

e*plo2ee *ust be 1iven an opportunit2 to be heard and defend hi*self

Molato vs. National 4abor Relations !o**ission, ':: S!R+ #', #$-. The

e*plo2er *ust first affir*ativel2 sho" rationall2 adeBuate evidence that the

dis*issal "as for a 7ustifiable cause >rah* Industries, Inc. vs. National

4abor Relations !o**ission, '0( S!R+ 0'0,030-.

It is our considered vie" that the private respondents did not succeed in

dischar1in1 the aforesaid onus. +1ainst the petitioners contention that

e=haust air balancin1 is neither covered b2 his duties nor co*petence, there

is no sho"in1 that the private respondents even atte*pted to prove the

e=tent of the petitioners technical responsibilities. ven assu*in1 that thetas% properl2 pertained to the petitioner, an e*plo2ee "here, as in the case at

bench, the offense appears to be the first co**itted b2 the e*plo2ee, "as

devoid of *alice and, *ore i*portantl2, "as not his sole responsibilit2

Tu*bi1a vs. National 4abor Relations !o**ission, 'A# S!R+ 330, 3#0-.

The fact that the petitioner "as still in his probationar2 period of

e*plo2*ent did not lessen the burden of proof the la" i*poses on the

private respondents. Probationar2 e*plo2ees are protected b2 the securit2 of

tenure provision of the !onstitution and cannot, li%e"ise, be re*oved fro*

their position unless for cause Pines !it2 ducational !enter vs. National

4abor Relations !o**ission, ''A S!R+ :$$, ::3-. +rticle '0) of the 4abor

!ode of the Philippines, as a*ended provides;

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/oct1997/121449.htm







http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/jun1997/121429.htm











+rt. '0). Probationar2 e*plo2*ent. Probationar2 e*plo2*ent shall not

e=ceed si= :- *onths fro* the date the e*plo2ee started "or%in1 unless it

is covered b2 an apprenticeship a1ree*ent stipulatin1 a lon1er period. The

services of an e*plo2ee "ho has been en1a1ed on a probationar2 basis *a2

be ter*inated for 7ust cause or "hen he fails to Bualif2 as a re1ular e*plo2eein accordance "ith reasonable standards *ade %no"n b2 the e*plo2er to the

e*plo2ee at the ti*e of his en1a1e*ent. +n e*plo2ee "ho is allo"ed to

"or% after a probationar2 period shall be considered a re1ular e*plo2ee.

+side fro* failin1 to sho" a 7ust cause for the ter*ination of the petitioners

services, the private respondents appear not to have even dei1ned to sho"

such reasonable standards the petitioners failure to *easure up alon1side

"hich "ould have 7ustified his dis*issal fro* e*plo2*ent.

Neither did the private respondents successfull2 sho" their co*pliance "ith

the second reBuire*ent for the validit2 of the ter*ination of petitioners

e*plo2*ent. Their contention that it "as the latter "ho abandoned his 7ob

cannot be ta%en at face value in vie" of the fact that an e*plo2ee "ho

forth"ith ta%es steps to protest his la2off cannot, b2 an2 lo1ic, be said to

have abandoned his "or% NaCal vs. National 4abor Relations !o**ission,

'A# S!R+ 3$(, 3$$-. ven "ithout the petitioners affir*ative alle1ation that

he returned to his "or%place after bein1 so advised at the Depart*ent of4abor and *plo2*ent, "e find the dearth of an2 notice of ter*ination sent

to the petitioner or, at the ver2 least, his address in the respondent

corporations record dero1ator2 of ele*entar2 reBuire*ents of due process. +

valid dis*issal presupposes not onl2 the validit2 of its cause, but also the

validit2 of the *anner b2 "hich dis*issal is done Dela !ruC vs. National

4abor Relations !o**ission, 'AA, S!R+ $:3, $A3- and failure to prove the

observance of due process as in the case at bench taints the

dis*issal +Buinas School vs. Ma1na2e, 'A0 S!R+ :(', :)'-.

Havin1 been ille1all2 dis*issed fro* e*plo2*ent, the petitioner is as

initiall2 ruled b2 the 4abor +rbiter entitled to reinstate*ent and bac%"a1es

in accordance "ith the 4abor !ode of the Philippines Ma1calas vs. National

4abor Relations !o**ission, ':9 S!R+ #$3, #A(-.9E


http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/aug1997/115527.htm


http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/sep1997/110062.htm

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/mar1997/100333.htm






http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/sep1997/110062.htm






The dispositive portion of the aforesaid Decision of the !ourt of

+ppeals, dated &anuar2 3), '((), states;

-ERE4ORE, the instant petition is GRANTE% and the assailed

decision dated 6ebruar2 '9, '((( of the 6irst Division of the National 4aborRelations !o**ission is RE(ERSE%and SET ASI%E. In lieu thereof, the

undated decision of 4abor +rbiter !elenito N. Dain1 rendered in N4R!

N!R !ase No. ((()((#::9A is REINSTATE%. No costs.)(E

Petitioners filed a *otion for reconsideration dated 6ebruar2 '(, '((),

"hich the !ourt of +ppeals denied in its Resolution of +u1ust )(, '(().

<nsatisfied, petitioners filed the instant petition on +u1ust '9, '(() and

raised the follo"in1 assi1n*ents of error;

). TH HONOR+>4 !O<RT O6 +PP+4S !OMMITTD +N RROR

O6 4+5 IN RVRSIN/ TH D!ISION O6 TH N+TION+4 4+>OR

R4+TIONS !OMMISSION +NNJ - 5HOS 6INDIN/ O6 6+!TS

+R >K 4+5 +!!ORDD D< RSP!T +ND VN 6IN+4ITK,

+66IRMIN/ TH+T O6 TH 4+>OR +R>ITR. S<!H RVRS+4 O6

TH !OMMISSIONS D!ISION IS >+SD ON SP!<4+TION.

'. TH HONOR+>4 !O<RT O6 +PP+4S !OMMITTD +N RROR

O6 4+5 IN NOT NTRT+ININ/ OR VN RSO4VIN/ TH ISS<

POSD >K PTITIONRS TH+T IT IS NOT 6OR TH !O<RT TO

R/<4+RI TH MP4OKMNT O6 + PRO>+TION+RK

MP4OK +ND +SS<MIN/ HIS DISMISS+4 IS I44/+4 HIS

>+!5+/S SHO<4D NOT /O >KOND HIS PRO>+TION+RK

MP4OKMNT.

3. +ND +SS<MIN/ TH RINST+TMNT O6 RSPONDNT IS4/+4, HIS >+!5+/S SHO<4D NOT /O >KOND ON )-

MONTH 6ROM S<>MISSION 6OR D!ISION +PRI4 3(, )99A-.))E

Petitioners ar1ue, as follo"s;







It has been ruled that findin1s of fact of the N4R!, e=cept "here there is

1rave abuse of discretion co**itted b2 it, are conclusive on the Supre*e

!ourt. 'ational Union of !or"ers in Hotels, Restaurants and Allied

Industries vs. 'ational Labor Relations ommissions , 7 SRA 9G7.

6actual findin1s of the Buasi7udicial a1encies li%e the National 4abor

Relations !o**ission, "hich have acBuired e=pertise because their

7urisdiction is confined to specific *atters, are 1enerall2 accorded not onl2

respect but even finalit2. Suare0 vs. 'ational Labor Relations ommission ,

7G SRA 8GF .

6indin1s of fact of Buasi7udicial bodies, li%e the National 4abor Relations

!o**ission, are accorded "ith respect, even finalit2, if supported b2

substantial evidence. /ravelaire 3 /ours or#oration vs. 'ational Labor

Relations ommission , 7G8 SRA DED.)'E

Petitioners also contend that the !ourt of +ppeals has no le1al ri1ht to

re1ulariCe the e*plo2*ent of a probationar2 e*plo2ee "ithout assessin1 the

e*plo2ees perfor*ance. Petitioners clai* that the !ourt of +ppeals

co**itted an error of la" "hen it ordered the reinstate*ent of respondent

be2ond March )$, )99A, "hich is si= :- *onths fro* the ti*e respondent

co**enced "or%in1. Petitioners contend that the reinstate*ent of +1ustin be2ond that date resulted in re1ulariCin1 his e*plo2*ent.)3E /oin1 further,

petitioners Buote the stipulation in the contract of probationar2 e*plo2*ent

that respondent si1ned, earlier adverted to.)#E

Petitioners, finall2, raise +rticle '0) of the 4abor !ode "hich reads, as

follo"s;

Probationar2 e*plo2*ent shall not e=ceed si= :- *onths fro* the date the

e*plo2ee started "or%in1, unless it is covered b2 an apprenticeshipa1ree*ent stipulatin1 a lon1er period. The services of an e*plo2ee "ho has

been en1a1ed on a probationar2 basis *a2 be ter*inated for a 7ust cause or

"hen he fails to Bualif2 as a re1ular e*plo2ee in accordance "ith reasonable

standards *ade %no"n b2 the e*plo2er to the e*plo2ee at the ti*e of his

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/mar%201998/125561.htm


http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jul1998/124723.htm

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/aug%201998/131523.htm







http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jul1998/124723.htm








en1a1e*ent. +n e*plo2ee "ho is allo"ed to "or% after a probationar2

period shall be considered a re1ular e*plo2ee.

It can be 1leaned fro* +rticle '0) of the 4abor !ode that there are t"o

1rounds to le1all2 ter*inate a probationar2 e*plo2ee. It *a2 be done either;a- for a 7ust cause or b- "hen e*plo2ee fails to Bualif2 as a re1ular e*plo2ee

in accordance "ith reasonable standards *ade %no"n b2 the e*plo2er to the

e*plo2ee at the start of the e*plo2*ent.

Petitioners sa2 that +1ustin "as ter*inated because he failed to Bualif2

as a re1ular e*plo2ee. Petitioners, ho"ever, alle1edl2 did not sho" that

respondent "as apprised of these reasonable standards at the start of the

e*plo2*ent.

In Servidad v. 'LR et al .,)$E "here effectivel2 the probationar2 period

"as for one 2ear, the !ourt stated;

If the nature of the 7ob did actuall2 necessitate at least one 2ear for the

e*plo2ee to acBuire the reBuisite trainin1 and e=perience, still, the sa*e

could not be a valid probationar2 e*plo2*ent as it falls short of the

reBuire*ent of +rticle '0) of the 4abor !ode. It "as not brou1ht to li1ht that

the petitioner "as dul2 infor*ed at the start of his e*plo2*ent, of thereasonable standards under "hich he could Bualif2 as a re1ular e*plo2ee.

The rudi*ents of due process de*and that an e*plo2ee should be apprised

beforehand of the conditions of his e*plo2*ent and the basis for his

advance*ent.

Si*ilarl2, in Secon Phili##ines Ltd. v. 'LR ,):E the dis*issal of the

e*plo2ee "as declared ille1al b2 the !ourt because the e*plo2er did not

prove that the e*plo2ee "as properl2 apprised of the standards of the 7ob at

the ti*e of his en1a1e*ent and, naturall2, the e*plo2er could not sho" thatthe e*plo2ee failed to *eet such standards.

The I*ple*entin1 Rules of the 4abor !ode in >oo% VI, Rule I, Section

:, also provides;











Prob)to*)r= emp;o=me*t. There is probationar2 e*plo2*ent "here the

e*plo2ee, upon his en1a1e*ent, is *ade to under1o a trial period durin1

"hich the e*plo2er deter*ines his fitness to Bualif2 for re1ular

e*plo2*ent, based on reasonable standards *ade %no"n to hi* at the ti*e

of en1a1e*ent.

Probationar2 e*plo2*ent shall be 1overned b2 the follo"in1 rules;

. . .

c- The services of an e*plo2ee "ho has been en1a1ed on probationar2

basis *a2 be ter*inated onl2 for a 7ust cause, "hen he fails to Bualif2 as a

re1ular e*plo2ee in accordance "ith the reasonable standards prescribed b2

the e*plo2er.

d- In all cases of probationar2 e*plo2*ent, the e*plo2er shall *a%e %no"n

to the e*plo2ee the standards under "hich he "ill Bualif2 as a re1ular

e*plo2ee at the ti*e of his en1a1e*ent. 5here no standards are *ade

%no"n to the e*plo2ee at that ti*e, he shall be dee*ed a re1ular

e*plo2ee. )AE

The above rule, ho"ever, should not be used to e=culpate a probationar2

e*plo2ee "ho acts in a *anner contrar2 to basic %no"led1e and co**on

sense, in re1ard to "hich there is no need to spell out a polic2 or standard to

be *et. This is "hat the N4R! found to be the fact in this case. Said the

N4R!;

It bears stressin1 that even if technicall2 the readin1 of air e=haust balancin1

is not "ithin the real* of e=pertise of the co*plainant, still it ou1ht not to be

*issed that prudence and due dili1ence i*posed upon hi* not to readil2

accept the report handed to hi* b2 the "or%ers of !enti1rade Industries.ReBuired of the co*plainant "as that he hi*self proceed to the "or% area,

inBuire fro* the "or%ers as to an2 difficulties encountered, proble*s fi=ed

and other"ise observe for hi*self the pro1ress andor conditionBualit2 of

the "or% perfor*ed.





+s it is, 5e find it hard to believe that co*plainant "ould 7ust have been

*ade to si1n the report to si1nif2 his presence. >2 sa2in1 so, co*plainant is

inadvertentl2 de1radin1 hi*self fro* an electrical en1ineer to a *ere

"atchdo1. It is in this re1ard that 5e concur "ith the respondents that b2 his

o*ission, lac% of concern and 1rasp of basic %no"led1e and co**on sense,co*plainant has sho"n hi*self to be undeservin1 of continued e*plo2*ent

fro* probationar2 e*plo2ee to re1ular e*plo2ee.)0E

Nevertheless, it appears that petitioners violated due process in the

dis*issal of respondent, b2 not affordin1 hi* the reBuired notice. +s this

!ourt held in Aabon, et al. v. 'LR, et al .,)9E an e*plo2er "ho dis*isses

an e*plo2ee for 7ust cause but does so "ithout notice, is liable for no*inal

da*a1es in the a*ount of P3(,(((.

-ERE4ORE, the petition is partl2 /R+NTD and the assailed

Decision and Resolution of the !ourt of +ppeals are MODI6ID in that

respondent is declared dis*issed for 7ust cause but petitioners are ordered to

pa2 hi* no*inal da*a1es in the a*ount of P3(,(((.

No costs.

SO OR%ERE%.

avide, *r., .*., (hairman), Juisumbin, +nares

Santiao, and ar#io, **., concur .


Supreme Court

Manila

SECON% %I(ISION


http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/nov2004/158693.htm



http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/nov2004/158693.htm




MANILA ELECTRIC

COMPAN&,

Petitioner,

versus

$AN CARLO GALA,

Respondent.

G.R. Nos. 191288 &

191304

Present;

!+RPIO, *.,

hair#erson,

>RION,

PR,

SRNO, and

RKS, **.

Pro*ul1ated;

March A, '()'

==



% E C I S I O N

BRION, J .5

5e resolve the petition for revie" on certiorari,)E see%in1 to annul the

decision'E dated +u1ust '$, '((9 and the resolution3E dated 6ebruar2 )(,

'()( of the !ourt of +ppeals !+- rendered in !+/.R. SP. Nos. )($9#3

and )(:(').

The +ntecedents

The facts are su**ariCed belo".

On March ', '((:, respondent &an !arlo /ala co**enced e*plo2*ent "ith

the petitioner Meralco lectric !o*pan2 &eralco- ): ) prob)to*)r=

;*em)*. He "as assi1ned at Meralcos ValenCuela Sector. He initiall2 served

as *e*ber of the cre" of Meralcos Truc% No. )0'3 supervised b2 6ore*an

Narciso Matis. +fter one *onth, he 7oined the cre" of Truc% No. )03A under

the supervision of 6ore*an Ra2*undo ui1a, Sr.

On &ul2 'A, '((:, barel2 four *onths on the 7ob, /ala "as dis*issed for

alle1ed co*plicit2 in pilfera1es of Meralcos electrical supplies, particularl2,

for the incident "hich too% place on Ma2 '$, '((:. On that da2, /ala and

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/march2012/191288%20&%20191304.htm#_ftn1








other Meralco "or%ers "ere instructed to replace a "ornout electrical pole

at the Pacheco Subdivision in ValenCuela !it2. /ala and the other line*en

"ere directed to 7oin Truc% No. )09), under the supervision of 6ore*an

Ne*ecio Hipolito.

5hen the2 arrived at the "or%site, /ala and the other "or%ers sa" that

Truc% No. )03A, supervised b2 ui1a, "as alread2 there. The line*en of

Truc% No. )03A "ere alread2 at "or%. /ala and the other *e*bers of the

cre" of Truc% No. )09) "ere instructed to help in the di11in1 of a hole for

the pole to be installed.

5hile the Meralco cre" "as at "or%, one Noberto >in1 4lanes, a non

Meralco e*plo2ee, arrived. He appeared to be %no"n to the Meralco

fore*en as the2 "ere seen conversin1 "ith hi*. 4lanes boarded the truc%s,

"ithout bein1 stopped, and too% out "hat "ere later found as electrical

supplies. +side fro* /ala, the fore*en and the other line*en "ho "ere at

the "or%site "hen the pilfera1e happened "ere later char1ed "ith

*isconduct and dishonest2 for their involve*ent in the incident.

<n%no"n to /ala and the rest of the cre", a Meralco surveillance tas% force

"as *onitorin1 their activities and recordin1 ever2thin1 "ith a Son2 video

ca*era. The tas% force "as co*posed of &oseph +1uilar, +riel Dola and

6rederic% Riano.

Meralco called for an investi1ation of the incident and as%ed /ala to e=plain.

/ala denied involve*ent in the pilfera1e, contendin1 that even if hissuperiors *i1ht have co**itted a "ron1doin1, he had no participation in

"hat the2 did. He clai*ed that; )- he "as at so*e distance a"a2 fro* the

truc%s "hen the pilfera1e happened8 '- he did not have an in%lin1 that an

ille1al activit2 "as ta%in1 place since his supervisors "ere conversin1 "ith



4lanes, 1ivin1 hi* the i*pression that the2 %ne" hi*8 3- he did not call the

attention of his superiors because he "as not in a position to do so as he "as

a *ere line*an8 and #- he "as 7ust follo"in1 instructions in connection

"ith his "or% and had no control in the disposition of co*pan2 supplies and*aterials. He *aintained that his *ere presence at the scene of the incident

"as not sufficient to hold hi* liable as a conspirator.

Despite /alas e=planation, Meralco proceeded "ith the investi1ation and

eventuall2 ter*inated his e*plo2*ent on &ul2 'A, '((:.#E /ala responded

b2 filin1 an ille1al dis*issal co*plaint a1ainst Meralco.$E

The !o*pulsor2 +rbitration Rulin1s

In a decision dated Septe*ber A, '((A,:E 4abor +rbiter Teresita D. !astillon

4ora dis*issed the co*plaint for lac% of *erit. She held that /alas

participation in the pilfera1e of Meralcos propert2 rendered hi* unBualified

to beco*e a re1ular e*plo2ee.

/ala appealed to the National 4abor Relations !o**ission 'LR -. In its

decision of Ma2 ', '((0,AE the N4R! reversed the labor arbiters

rulin1. It found that /ala had been ille1all2 dis*issed, since there "as no

concrete sho"in1 of co*plicit2 "ith the alle1ed *isconductdishonest2.E0E The N4R!, ho"ever, ruled out /alas reinstate*ent, statin1 that his tenure

lasted onl2 up to the end of his probationar2 period. It a"arded hi*

bac%"a1es and attorne2s fees.

>oth parties *oved for partial reconsideration8 /ala, on the 1round that he

should have been reinstated "ith full bac%"a1es, da*a1es and interests8 and

Meralco, on the 1round that the N4R! erred in findin1 that /ala had been

ille1all2 dis*issed. The N4R! denied the *otions. Rel2in1 on the sa*e













1rounds, /ala and Meralco elevated the case to the !+ throu1h a petition

for certiorari under Rule :$ of the Rules of !ourt.

The !+ Decision

In its decision of +u1ust '$, '((9,9E the !+ denied Meralcos petition for

lac% of *erit and partiall2 1ranted /alas petition. It concurred "ith the

N4R! that /ala had been ille1all2 dis*issed, a rulin1 that "as supported b2

the evidence. It opined that nothin1 in the records sho" /alas %no"led1e of

or co*plicit2 in the pilfera1e. It found insufficient the 7oint affidavit)(E of the

*e*bers of Meralcos tas% force testif2in1 that /ala and t"o other line*en

%ne" 4lanes.

The !+ *odified the N4R! decision of Ma2 ', '((0))E and ordered /alas

reinstate*ent "ith full bac%"a1es and other benefits. The !+ also denied

Meralcos *otion for reconsideration. Hence, the present petition for revie"

on certiorari.)'E

The Petition

The petition is anchored on the 1round that the !+ seriousl2 erred and

1ravel2 abused its discretion in

). rulin1 that /ala "as ille1all2 dis*issed8 and

'. directin1 /alas reinstate*ent despite his probationar2

status.

Meralco faults the !+ for not 1ivin1 credit to its "itnesses +1uilar,

Dola and Riano, and instead treated their 7oint affidavit Samasaman

Sinum#aan Salaysay- as inconclusive to establish /alas participation

in the pilfera1e of co*pan2 propert2 on Ma2 '$, '((:. It sub*its that the











affidavit of the three Meralco e*plo2ees disproves the !+s findin1s,

considerin1 that their state*ents "ere based on their firsthand account of

the incident durin1 their da2lon1 surveillance on Ma2 '$, '((:. It points

out that the three Meralco e*plo2ees cate1oricall2 stated that all of theco*pan2s fore*en and line*en present at that ti*e, includin1 /ala,

had %no"led1e of the pilfera1e that "as happenin1 at the ti*e. +ccordin1 to

+1uilar, Dola and Riano, the truc%s cre", includin1 /ala, "as fa*iliar "ith

4lanes "ho acted as if his presence particularl2, that of freel2 collectin1

*aterials and supplies "as a re1ular occurrence durin1 their operations.

Meralco *aintains that /ala hi*self ad*itted in his o"n

testi*on2)3E that he had been fa*iliar "ith 4lanes even before the Ma2 '$,

'((: incident "here he sa" ui1a, the fore*an of Truc% No. )03A,

conversin1 "ith 4lanes. Meralco sub*its that /alas ad*ission, instead of

de*onstratin1 his fei1ned innocence,)#E even hi1hli1hts his 1uilt, especiall2

considerin1 that b2 desi1n, his *isfeasance assisted 4lanes in pilferin1

co*pan2 propert28 /ala neither intervened to stop 4lanes, nor did he report

the incident to the Meralco *ana1e*ent.

Meralco posits that because of his undeniable %no"led1e of, if not

participation in, the pilfera1e activities done b2 their 1roup, the co*pan2

"as "ell "ithin its ri1ht in ter*inatin1 his e*plo2*ent as a probationar2

e*plo2ee for his failure to *eet the basic standards for his re1ulariCation.

The standards, it points out, "ere dul2 e=plained to hi* and outlined in his

probationar2 e*plo2*ent contract. 6or this reason and due to the e=piration

of /alas probationar2 e*plo2*ent, the !+ should not have ordered hisreinstate*ent "ith full bac%"a1es.







6inall2, Meralco ar1ues that even if /ala "as ille1all2 dis*issed, he

"as entitled to 7ust his bac%"a1es for the une=pired portion of his

e*plo2*ent contract "ith the co*pan2.

/alas !ase

>2 "a2 of his !o**ent to the Petition- dated Septe*ber ', '()(, )$E /ala

as%s for a denial of the petition because of )- serious and fatal infir*ities in

the petition8 '- unreliable state*ents of Meralcos "itnesses8 and 3- clear

lac% of basis to support the ter*ination of his e*plo2*ent.

/ala contends, in re1ard to the alle1ed procedural defects of the petition,

that the Verification and !ertification, Secretar2s !ertificate and +ffidavit of

Service do not contain the details of the !o**unit2 or Residence Ta=

!ertificates of the affiants, in violation of Section : of !o**on"ealth +ct

No. #:$ an +ct to I*pose a Residence Ta=-. +dditionall2, the la"2ers "ho

si1ned the petition failed to indicate their updated Mandator2 !ontinuin1

4e1al ducation &L- - certificate nu*bers, in violation of the rules.

5ith respect to the *erits of the case, /ala be"ails Meralcos reliance on

the 7oint affidavit):E of +1uilar, Dola and Riano not onl2 because it "as

presented for the first ti*e on appeal to the !+, but also because it "as a

*ere afterthou1ht. He e=plains that +1uilar and Dola "ere the ver2 sa*e

persons "ho e=ecuted a *uch earlier s"orn state*ent or transcription

dated &ul2 A, '((:. This earlier state*ent did not even *ention /ala, but the

later 7oint affidavit splashes /+4+s na*e in a desperate atte*pt to lin% hi*to an i*a1ined "ron1doin1.)AE

eroin1 in on "hat he believes as lac% of credibilit2 of Meralcos evidence,

/ala posits that there is clear lac% of basis for the ter*ination of his









e*plo2*ent. Thus, he "onders "h2 Meralco did not present as evidence the

video foota1e of the entire incident "hich it clai*s e=ists. He suspects that

the foota1e "as adverse to Meralcos position in the case.

/ala adds that the alle1ations of a reported pilfera1e or ra*pant theft or

pilfera1e co**itted prior to Ma2 '$, '((: b2 his superiors "ere not

established, for even the labor arbiter did not *a%e a findin1 on the

fore*ens involve*ent in the incident. He stresses that the sa*e is true in his

case as there is no proof of his participation in the pilfera1e.

/ala further sub*its that even if he sa" 4lanes on Ma2 '$, '((: at about

the ti*e of the occurrence of the pilfera1e near or around the Meralco

truc%s, he "as not a"are that a "ron1doin1 "as bein1 co**itted or "as

about to be co**itted. He points out at that precise ti*e, his superiors "ere

*uch nearer to the truc%s than he as he "as a*on1 the cre" di11in1 a

hole. He presu*ed at the ti*e that his o"n superiors, bein1 the *ore senior

e*plo2ees, could be trusted to protect co*pan2 propert2.

6inall2, /ala posits that his reinstate*ent "ith full bac%"a1es is but a

conseBuence of the ille1alit2 of his dis*issal. He ar1ues that even if he "as

on probation, he is entitled to securit2 of tenure. !itin1 Phili##ine

&an#o$er Services, Inc. v. 'LR ,)0E he clai*s that in the absence of an2

7ustification for the ter*ination of his probationar2 e*plo2*ent, he is

entitled to continued e*plo2*ent even be2ond the probationar2 period.

The !ourts Rulin1

/he #rocedural issue

/ala "ould "ant the petition to be dis*issed outri1ht on procedural

1rounds, clai*in1 that the Verification and !ertification, Secretar2s





!ertificate and +ffidavit of Service acco*pan2in1 the petition do not

contain the details of the !o**unit2 Ta= !ertificates of the affiants, and

that the la"2ers "ho si1ned the petition failed to indicate their updated

M!4 certificate nu*bers, in violation of e=istin1 rules.

5e stress at this point that it is the spirit and intention of labor

le1islation that the N4R! and the labor arbiters shall use ever2 reasonable

*eans to ascertain the facts in each case speedil2 and ob7ectivel2, "ithout

re1ard to technicalities of la" or procedure, provided due process is dul2

observed.)9E In %eepin1 "ith this polic2 and in the interest of substantial

7ustice, "e dee* it proper to 1ive due course to the petition, especiall2 in

vie" of the conflict bet"een the findin1s of the labor arbiter, on the one

hand, and the N4R! and the !+, on the other. +s "e said in S.S. =entures

International, Inc. v. S.S. =entures Labor Union,'(E the application of

technical rules of procedure in labor cases *a2 be rela=ed to serve the

de*ands of substantial 7ustice.

/he substantive as#ect of the case

e *+ mert * te petto*.

!ontrar2 to the conclusions of the !+ and the N4R!, there is

substantial evidence supportin1 Meralcos position that /ala had beco*e

unfit to continue his e*plo2*ent "ith the co*pan2. /ala "as found, after

an ad*inistrative investi1ation, to have failed to *eet the standards e=pected

of hi* to beco*e a re1ular e*plo2ee and this failure "as *ainl2 due to hisundeniable %no"led1e, if not participation, in the pilfera1e activities done b2

their 1roup, all to the pre7udice of the !o*pan2s interests.')E









/ala insists that he cannot be sanctioned for the theft of co*pan2 propert2

on Ma2 '$, '((:. He *aintains that he had no direct participation in the

incident and that he "as not a"are that an ille1al activit2 "as 1oin1 on as he

"as at so*e distance fro* the truc%s "hen the alle1ed theft "as bein1co**itted. He adds that he did not call the attention of the fore*en because

he "as a *ere line*an and he "as focused on "hat he "as doin1 at the

ti*e. He ar1ues that in an2 event, his *ere presence in the area "as not

enou1h to *a%e hi* a conspirator in the co**ission of the pilfera1e.

G);) m::e: te po*t. He for1ets that as a probationar2 e*plo2ee, his

overall 7ob perfor*ance and his behavior "ere bein1 *onitored and

*easured in accordance "ith the standards i.e., the ter*s and conditions-

laid do"n in his probationar2 e*plo2*ent a1ree*ent. ''E <nder para1raph 0

of the a1ree*ent, he "as sub7ect to strict co*pliance "ith, and nonviolation

of the !o*pan2 !ode on *plo2ee Discipline, Safet2 !ode, rules and

re1ulations and e=istin1 policies.Par. )( reBuired hi* to observe at all ti*es

the hi1hest de1ree of transparenc2, selflessness and inte1rit2 in the

perfor*ance of his duties and responsibilities, free fro* an2 for* of conflict

or contradictin1 "ith his o"n personal interest.

The evidence on record established /alas presence in the "or%site "here

the pilfera1e of co*pan2 propert2 happened. It also established that it "as

not onl2 onMa2 '$, '((: that 4lanes, the pilferer, had been seen durin1 a

Meralco operation. He had been previousl2 noticed b2 Meralco e*plo2ees,

includin1 /ala based on his ad*ission-,'3E in past operations. If /ala had

seen 4lanes in earlier pro7ects or operations of the co*pan2, it is incredulousfor hi* to sa2 that he did not %no" "h2 4lanes "as there or "hat ui1a and

4lanes "ere tal%in1 about. To our *ind, the Meralco cre" the fore*en and

the line*en- allo"ed or could have even as%ed 4lanes to be there durin1

their operations for one and onl2 purpose to serve as their conduit for







pilfered co*pan2 supplies to be sold to read2 bu2ers outside Meralco

"or%sites.

The fa*iliarit2 of the Meralco cre" "ith 4lanes, a nonMeralco e*plo2ee"ho had been present in Meralco field operations, does not contradict at all

but rather support the Meralco sub*ission that there had been reported

pilfera1e or ra*pant theft, b2 the cre", of co*pan2 propert2 even

before Ma2 '$, '((:. /ala do"npla2s this particular point "ith the

ar1u*ent that the labor arbiter *ade no such findin1 as she *erel2 assu*ed

it to be a fact,'#E her onl2 basis bein1 the state*ent that may natana# na

balita na an ma cre$ na ito ay #alaian hindi nasasauli n ma

electric facilities na "anilan inaamit o #ina#alitan ba"us ito ay ibinenta

#alabas.'$E /ala i*pu1ns the state*ent as hearsa2. He also "onders "h2

Meralcos supposed video foota1e of the incident on Ma2 '$, '((: "as never

presented in evidence.

The established fact that 4lanes, a nonMeralco e*plo2ee, "as often seen

durin1 co*pan2 operations, conversin1 "ith the fore*en, for reason or

reasons connected "ith the on1oin1 co*pan2 operations, 1ives rise to the

Buestion; "hat "as he doin1 there +pparentl2, he had been visitin1 Meralco

"or%sites, at least in the ValenCuela Sector, not si*pl2 to socialiCe, but to do

so*ethin1 else. +s testified to b2 "itnesses, he "as pic%in1 up unused

supplies and *aterials that "ere not returned to the co*pan2. 6ro* these

factual pre*ises, it is not hard to conclude that this activit2 "as for the

*utual pecuniar2 benefit of hi*self and the cre" "ho tolerated the practice.

6or one "or%in1 at the scene "ho had seen or "ho had sho"n fa*iliarit2"ith 4lanes a nonMeralco e*plo2ee-, not to have %no"n the reason for his

presence is to disre1ard the obvious, or at least the ver2 suspicious.







5e consider, too, and "e find credible the co*pan2 sub*ission that the

Meralco cre" "ho "or%ed at the Pacheco Subdivision

in ValenCuela !it2 on Ma2 '$, '((: had not been returnin1 unused supplies

and *aterials, to the pre7udice of the co*pan2. 6ro* all these, the alle1edl2hearsa2 evidence that is not co*petent in 7udicial proceedin1s as noted

above-, ta%es on special *eanin1 and relevance.

5ith respect to the video foota1e of the Ma2 '$, '((: incident, /ala

hi*self ad*itted that he vie"ed the tape durin1 the ad*inistrative

investi1ation, particularl2 in connection "ith the accusation a1ainst hi* that

he allo"ed 4lanes binatilyon may "a#ansanan sa bibi - to board the

Meralco truc%s.':E The choice of evidence belon1s to a part2 and the *ere

fact that the video "as sho"n to /ala indicates that the video "as not an

evidence that Meralco "as tr2in1 to suppress. /ala could have, if he had

"anted to, served a subpoena for the production of the video foota1e as

evidence. The fact that he did not does not stren1then his case nor "ea%en

the case of Meralco.

On the "hole, the totalit2 of the circu*stances obtainin1 in the case

convinces us that /ala could not but have %no"led1e of the pilfera1e of

co*pan2 electrical supplies on Ma2 '$, '((:8 he "as co*plicit in its

co**ission, if not b2 direct participation, certainl2, b2 his inaction "hile it

"as bein1 perpetrated and b2 not reportin1 the incident to co*pan2

authorities. Thus, "e find substantial evidence to support the conclusion that

/ala does not deserve to re*ain in Meralcos e*plo2 as a re1ular e*plo2ee.

He violated his probationar2 e*plo2*ent a1ree*ent, especiall2 the

reBuire*ent for hi* to observe at all ti*es the hi1hest de1ree of transparenc2, selflessness and inte1rit2 in the perfor*ance of their duties and

responsibilities.E'AE He failed to Bualif2 as a re1ular e*plo2ee.'0E









6or i1norin1 the evidence in this case, the N4R! co**itted 1rave abuse of

discretion and, in sustainin1 the N4R!, the !+ co**itted a reversible error.

-ERE4ORE, pre*ises considered, the petition is GRANTE%. Theassailed decision and resolution of the !ourt of +ppeals are SET ASI%E.

The co*plaint is %ISMISSE% for lac% of *erit.

SO OR%ERE%.


S<PRM !O<RT

>a1uio !it2

THIRD DIVISION

ARMAN%O ALILING,

Petitioner,

versus

$OSE B. 4ELICIANO,

MANUEL>RS+MIN, **.4. SAN MATEO III, $OSEP-

R.

LARIOSA, )*+ I%E

I%EPro*ul1ated;

ORL% E"PRESS

CORPORATION,

Respondents.

G.R. No. 1889

Present;

V4+S!O, &R., * .,

!hairperson

PR+4T+,

+>+D,

MNDO+, andPR4+S>RN+>, *

* .

Pro*ul1ated;

+pril '$, '()'

==

% E C I S I O N

(ELASCO, $R., J.5

Te C):e



This Petition for Revie" on !ertiorari under Rule #$ assails and see%s

to set aside the &ul2 3, '((0 Decision)E and Dece*ber )$, '((0

Resolution'E of the !ourt of +ppeals !+-, in !+/.R. SP No. )()3(9,

entitled Armando Alilin v. 'ational Labor Relations ommission, !ide!ide !orld -6#ress or#oration, *ose %. 1eliciano, &anuel 1. San &ateo

III and *ose#h R. Lariosa. The assailed issuances *odified the Resolutions

dated Ma2 3), '((A3E and +u1ust 3), '((A#E rendered b2 the National 4abor

Relations !o**ission N4R!- in N4R! N!R !ase No. (()()))::'((#,

affir*in1 the Decision dated +pril '$, '((:$E of the 4abor +rbiter.

Te 4)t:

Via a letter dated &une ', '((#,:E respondent 5ide 5ide 5orld =press

!orporation 555!- offered to e*plo2 petitioner +r*ando +lilin1

+lilin1- as Account -6ecutive (Seafreiht Sales), "ith the follo"in1

co*pensation pac%a1e; a *onthl2 salar2 of PhP )3,(((, transportation

allo"ance of PhP 3,(((, clothin1 allo"ance of PhP 0((, cost of livin1

allo"ance of PhP $((, each pa2able on a per *onth basis and a )# th *onth

pa2 dependin1 on the profitabilit2 and availabilit2 of financial resources of

the co*pan2. The offer ca*e "ith a si= :-*onth probation period

condition "ith this e=press caveat; Performance durin BsicC #robationary

#eriod shall be made as basis for confirmation to Reular or Permanent Status.

On &une )), '((#, +lilin1 and 555! in%ed an -m#loyment

ontract AE under the follo"in1 ter*s, a*on1 others;

!onversion to re1ular status shall be deter*ined on the basis of

"or% perfor*ance8 and

*plo2*ent services *a2, at an2 ti*e, be ter*inated for 7ustcause or in accordance "ith the standards defined at the ti*e of

en1a1e*ent.0E

Trainin1 then started. Ho"ever, instead of a Seafrei1ht Sale

assi1n*ent, 555! as%ed +lilin1 to handle /round =press /J-, a ne"

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/april2012/185829.htm#_ftn1


















co*pan2 product launched on &une )0, '((# involvin1 do*estic car1o

for"ardin1 service for 4uCon. Mar%etin1 this product and findin1 dail2

contracts for it for*ed the core of +lilin1s ne" assi1n*ent.

>arel2 a *onth after, Manuel 6. San Mateo III San Mateo-,555! Sales and Mar%etin1 Director, e*ailed +lilin19E to e=press

dissatisfaction "ith the latters perfor*ance, thus;

+r*and,

M2 e=pectations is sicE that /J Shuttles should be 0(@ full b2

the 3rd "ee% +u1ust $- after launch &ul2 )$-. Pls. *a%e that

happen. It has been *ore than a *onth since 2ou ca*e in. I a*

e=pectin1 sales to be pu*pin1 in b2 no". Than%s.

Nonon1

Thereafter, in a letter of Septe*ber '$, '((#,)(E &oseph R. 4ariosa 4ariosa-,

Hu*an Resources Mana1er of 555!, as%ed +lilin1 to report to the

Hu*an Resources Depart*ent to e=plain his absence ta%en "ithout leave

fro* Septe*ber '(, '((#.

+lilin1 responded t"o da2s later. He denied bein1 absent on the da2s inBuestion, attachin1 to his repl2letter ))E a cop2 of his ti*esheet)'E "hich

sho"ed that he "or%ed fro* Septe*ber '( to '#, '((#. +lilin1s e=planation

ca*e "ith a Buer2 re1ardin1 the "ithholdin1 of his salar2 correspondin1 to

Septe*ber )) to '$, '((#.

In a separate letter dated Septe*ber 'A, '((#,)3E +lilin1 "rote San

Mateo statin1; Pursuant to 2our instruction on Septe*ber '(, '((#, I hereb2

tender *2 resi1nation effective October )$, '((#. 5hile 555! too% noaction on his tender, +lilin1 nonetheless de*anded reinstate*ent and a

"ritten apolo12, clai*in1 in a subseBuent letter dated October ), '((#)#E to

*ana1e*ent that San Mateo had forced hi* to resi1n.















4ariosas responseletter of October ), '((#, )$E infor*ed +lilin1 that his case

"as :t;; * te proe:: o be*< e?);)te+ . On October :, '((#,):E 4ariosa

a1ain "rote, this ti*e to advise +lilin1 of the ter*ination of his services

effective as of that date o"in1 to his nonsatisfactory #erformance durin1

his probationar2 period. Records sho" that +lilin1, for the period indicated,"as paid his outstandin1 salar2 "hich consisted of;

PhP #,900.)0 salar2 for the Septe*ber '$, '((# pa2roll-

),90A.'0 salar2 for # da2s in October '((#-

PhP :,9A$.#: Total

arlier, ho"ever, or on October #, '((#, +lilin1 filed a !o*plaint )AE for

ille1al dis*issal due to forced resi1nation, nonpa2*ent of salaries as "ell as

da*a1es "ith the N4R! a1ainst 555!. +ppended to the co*plaint "as

+lilin1s +ffidavit dated Nove*ber )', '((#, )0E in "hich he stated; D. At the

time of my enaement, res#ondents did not ma"e "no$n to me the

standards under $hich I $ill >ualify as a reular em#loyee.

Refutin1 +lilin1s basic posture, 555! stated in its Position Paper

dated Nove*ber '', '((#)9E that, in addition to the letteroffer and

e*plo2*ent contract adverted to, 555! and +lilin1 have si1ned a letter

of appoint*ent

'(E

on &une )), '((# containin1 the follo"in1 ter*s of en1a1e*ent;

+dditionall2, po* te eet?t= o =or prob)to*, =o )*+

=or mme+)te :peror )re rere+ to o*t;= +e*e =or

obet?e: co*pared "ith the 7ob reBuire*ents of the position.

>ased on the prea1reed ob7ectives, =or perorm)*e :);;

be re?e6e+ o* te 3r+ mo*t to )::e:: =or ompete*e )*+

6or> )ttt+e. Te t mo*t Perorm)*e Appr):); :);;

be te b):: * e;e?)t*< or o*rm*< =or emp;o=me*t

:t)t: rom Prob)to*)r= to Re<;)r.

6ailure to *eet the 7ob reBuire*ents durin1 the probation sta1e

*eans that 2our services *a2 be ter*inated "ithout prior

notice and "ithout recourse to separation pa2.















555! also attached to its Position Paper a *e*o dated Septe*ber '(,

'((#')E in "hich San Mateo as%ed +lilin1 to e=plain "h2 he should not be

ter*inated for failure to *eet the e=pected 7ob perfor*ance, considerin1 that

the load factor for the /J Shuttles for the period &ul2 to Septe*ber "as onl2

(.)0@ as opposed to the alle1edl2 a1reed upon load of 0(@ tar1eted for +u1ust $, '((#. +ccordin1 to 555!, +lilin1, instead of e=plainin1

hi*self, si*pl2 sub*itted a resi1nation letter.

In a Repl2+ffidavit dated Dece*ber )3, '((#,''E +lilin1 denied havin1

received a cop2 of San Mateos Septe*ber '(, '((# letter.

Issues havin1 been 7oined, the 4abor +rbiter issued on +pril '$, '((:'3E a

Decision declarin1 +lilin1s ter*ination as un7ustified. In its pertinent parts,the decision reads;

The 1rounds upon "hich co*plainants dis*issal "as based did

not confor* not onl2 the standard but also the co*pliance

reBuired under +rticle '0) of the 4abor !ode, Necessaril2,

co*plainants ter*ination is not 7ustified for failure to co*pl2

"ith the *andate the la" reBuires. Respondents should be

ordered to p)= :);)re: orre:po*+*< to te *e@pre+

porto* o te o*tr)t o emp;o=me*t and all other benefits

a*ountin1 to a total of THIRTK 6IV THO<S+ND I/HTH<NDRD 4VN PSOS P3$,0)).((- coverin1 the

period fro* October : to Dece*ber A, '((#, co*puted as

follo"s;

<ne=pired Portion of the !ontract;

>asic Salar2 P)3,(((.((

Transportation 3,(((.((!lothin1 +llo"ance 0((.((

!O4+ $((.((

P17,3!!.!!









1!F!F!0 1F!7F!0

P17,3!!.!! @ .7 mo:. P3,811.!!

!o*plainants )3th *onth pa2 proportionatel2 for '((# "as not

sho"n to have been paid to co*plainant, respondent be *ade

liable to hi* therefore co*puted at SIJ THO<S+ND 6IV

H<NDRD THIRTK T5O PSOS +ND $()(( P:,$3'.$(-.

6or en1a1in1 the services of counsel to protect his interest,

co*plainant is li%e"ise entitled to a )(@ attorne2s fees of the

7ud1*ent a*ount. Such other clai*s for lac% of basis sufficient

to support for their 1rant are un"arranted.

5HR6OR, 7ud1*ent is hereb2 rendered orderin1

respondent co*pan2 to pa2 co*plainant +r*ando +lilin1 thesu* of THIRTK 6IV THO<S+ND I/HT H<NDRD

4VN PSOS P3$,0)).((- representin1 his salaries and

other benefits as discussed above.

Respondent co*pan2 is li%e"ise ordered to pa2 said

co*plainant the a*ount of TN THO<S+ND SVN

H<NDRD SIJTK SIJ PSOS +ND 0$)(( ON4K

)(.A::.0$- representin1 his proportionate )3th *onth pa2 for

'((# plus )(@ of the total 7ud1*ent as and b2 "a2 of attorne2s

fees.

Other clai*s are hereb2 denied for lac% of *erit. *phasis

supplied.-

The labor arbiter 1ave credence to +lilin1s alle1ation about not receivin1

and, therefore, not bound b2, San Mateos purported Septe*ber '(, '((#

*e*o. The *e*o, to reiterate, supposedl2 apprised +lilin1 of the sales

Buota he "as, but failed, to *eet. Pushin1 the point, the labor arbiter

e=plained that +lilin1 cannot be validl2 ter*inated for nonco*pliance "ith

the Buota threshold absent a prior advisor2 of the reasonable standards upon

"hich his perfor*ance "ould be evaluated.

>oth parties appealed the above decision to the N4R!, "hich affir*ed the

Decision in toto in its Resolution dated Ma2 3), '((A. The separate *otions



for reconsideration "ere also denied b2 the N4R! in its Resolution dated

+u1ust 3), '((A.

Therefro*, +lilin1 "ent on certiorari to the !+, "hich eventuall2 rendered

the assailed Decision, the dispositive portion of "hich reads;5HR6OR, the petition is P+RT4K /R+NTD. The

assailed Resolutions of respondent Third Division- National

4abor Relations !o**ission are +66IRMD, "ith the

follo"in1 MODI6I!+TION!4+RI6I!+TION; Respondents

5ide 5ide 5orld =press !orp. and its officers, &ose >.

6eliciano, Manuel 6. San Mateo III and &oseph R. 4ariosa,

are o*t;= )*+ :e?er);;= ;)b;e to pa2 petitioner +r*ando

+lilin1; +- the su* of 6ort2 T"o Thousand Three Hundred

Thirt2 Three $()(( P#',333.$(- as the total *one2 7ud1*ent, >- the su* of 6our Thousand T"o Hundred Thirt2

Three 3$)(( P#,'33.3$- as attorne2s fees, and !- the

additional su* eBuivalent to onehalf )'- *onth of petitioners

salar2 as separation pa2.

SO ORDRD.'#E *phasis supplied.-

The !+ anchored its assailed action on the stren1th of the follo"in1

pre*ises; a- respondents failed to prove that +lilin1s dis*al perfor*ance

constituted 1ross and habitual ne1lect necessar2 to 7ustif2 his dis*issal8 b-

not havin1 been infor*ed at the ti*e of his en1a1e*ent of the reasonable

standards under "hich he "ill Bualif2 as a re1ular e*plo2ee, +lilin1 "as

dee*ed to have been hired fro* da2 one as a re1ular e*plo2ee8 and c- the

strained relationship e=istin1 bet"een the parties ar1ues a1ainst the propriet2

of reinstate*ent.

+lilin1s *otion for reconsideration "as re7ected b2 the !+ throu1h theassailed Resolution dated Dece*ber )$, '((0.

Hence, the instant petition.

Te I::e:





+lilin1 raises the follo"in1 issues for consideration;

+. The failure of the !ourt of +ppeals to order

reinstate*ent despite its findin1 that petitioner "as ille1all2dis*issed fro* e*plo2*ent- is contrar2 to la" and applicable

7urisprudence.

>. The failure of the !ourt of +ppeals to a"ard

bac%"a1es even if it did not order reinstate*ent- is contrar2 to

la" and applicable 7urisprudence.

!. The failure of the !ourt of +ppeals to a"ard *oral

and e=e*plar2 da*a1es despite its findin1 that petitioner "as

dis*issed to prevent the acBuisition of his re1ular status- is

contrar2 to la" and applicable 7urisprudence.'$E

In their !o**ent,':E respondents reiterated their position that

555! hired petitioner on a probationar2 basis and fired hi* before he

beca*e a re1ular e*plo2ee.

Te Cort: R;*<

The petition is partl2 *eritorious.

Petto*er : ) re<;)r emp;o=ee

On a procedural *atter, petitioner +lilin1 ar1ues that 555!, not

havin1 appealed fro* the 7ud1*ent of !+ "hich declared +lilin1 as a

re1ular e*plo2ee fro* the ti*e he si1ned the e*plo2*ent contract, is no"

precluded fro* Buestionin1 the appellate courts deter*ination as to the

nature of his e*plo2*ent.

Petitioner errs. The !ourt has, "hen a case is on appeal, the authorit2

to revie" *atters not specificall2 raised or assi1ned as error if their

consideration is necessar2 in reachin1 a 7ust conclusion of the case. 5e said

as *uch in Sociedad -uro#ea de 1inanciacion, SA v. ourt of A##eals ,'AE It

is a=io*atic that an appeal, once accepted b2 this !ourt, thro"s the entire









case open to revie", and that this !ourt has the authorit2 to revie" *atters

not specificall2 raised or assi1ned as error b2 the parties, if their

consideration is necessar2 in arrivin1 at a 7ust resolution of the case.

The issue of "hether or not petitioner "as, durin1 the period *aterial,

a probationar2 or re1ular e*plo2ee is of pivotal i*port. Its resolution is

doubtless necessar2 at arrivin1 at a fair and 7ust disposition of the

controvers2.

The 4abor +rbiter cr2pticall2 held in his decision dated +pril '$, '((:

that;

>e that as it *a2, there appears no sho"in1 that indeed

the said Septe*ber '(, '((# Me*orandu* addressed to

co*plainant "as received b2 hi*. Moreover, co*plainants

tas%ed "here he "as assi1ned "as a ne" developed service. In

this re1ard, it is noted;

Due process dictates that an e*plo2ee be apprised

beforehand of the conditions of his e*plo2*ent and of

the ter*s of advance*ent therein. Precisel2, i*plicit in

+rticle '0) of the 4abor !ode is the reBuire*ent thatreasonable standards be previousl2 *ade %no"n b2 the

e*plo2er to the e*plo2ee at the ti*e of his en1a1e*ent

Ibid, citin1 Sa*eer Overseas Place*ent +1enc2, Inc. vs.

N4R!, /.R. No. )3'$:#, October '(, )999-.'0E

6ro* our revie", it appears that the labor arbiter, and later the N4R!,

considered +lilin1 a probationar2 e*plo2ee despite findin1 that he "as not

infor*ed of the reasonable standards b2 "hich his probationar2 e*plo2*ent

"as to be 7ud1ed.

The !+, on the other hand, citin1 ielo v. 'ational Labor Relations

ommission,'9E ruled that petitioner "as a re1ular e*plo2ee fro* the outset

inas*uch as he "as not infor*ed of the standards b2 "hich his probationar2

e*plo2*ent "ould be *easured. The !+ "rote;







Petitioner "as re1ulariCed fro* the ti*e of the e=ecution

of the e*plo2*ent contract on &une )), '((#, althou1h

respondent co*pan2 had arbitraril2 shortened his tenure. +s

pointed out, re:po*+e*t omp)*= ++ *ot m)>e >*o6* tere):o*)b;e :t)*+)r+: *+er 6 e 6;; );= ): )

re<;)r emp;o=ee )t te tme o : e*<)<eme*t. -e*e, e

6): +eeme+ to )?e bee* re+ rom +)= o*e ): ) re<;)r

emp;o=ee.3(E *phasis supplied.-

555!, ho"ever, e=cepts on the ar1u*ent that it put +lilin1 on

notice that he "ould be evaluated on the 3rd and $th *onths of his

probationar2 e*plo2*ent. To 555!, its efforts translate to sufficient

co*pliance "ith the reBuire*ent that a probationar2 "or%er be apprised of the reasonable standards for his re1ulariCation. 555! invo%es the

ensuin1 holdin1 in Alcira v. 'ational Labor Relations ommission3)E to

support its case;

!onversel2, an e*plo2er is dee*ed to substantiall2

co*pl2 "ith the rule on notification of standards if he apprises

the e*plo2ee that he "ill be sub7ected to a perfor*ance

evaluation on a particular date after his hirin1. 5e a1ree "ith

the labor arbiter "hen he ruled that;

In the instant case, petitioner cannot successfull2

sa2 that he "as never infor*ed b2 private respondent of

the standards that he *ust satisf2 in order to be converted

into re1ular status. T: r)*: :D o*ter to te

)<reeme*t bet6ee* te p)rte: t)t )ter ?e mo*t:

o :er?e te petto*er: perorm)*e 6o;+ be

e?);)te+. It is onl2 but natural that the evaluation

should be *ade visvis the perfor*ance standards for

the 7ob. Private respondent Trifona Ma*aradlo spea%s of such standard in her affidavit referrin1 to the fact that

petitioner did not perfor* "ell in his assi1ned "or% and

his attitude "as belo" par co*pared to the co*pan2s

standard reBuired of hi*. *phasis supplied.-







555!s contention is untenable.

Alcira is cast under a different factual settin1. There, the labor arbiter,

the N4R!, the !+, and even finall2 this !ourt "ere one in their findin1s

that the e*plo2ee concerned %ne", havin1 been dul2 infor*ed durin1 hisen1a1e*ent, of the standards for beco*in1 a re1ular e*plo2ee. This is in

star% contrast to the instant case "here the ele*ent of bein1 infor*ed of the

re1ulariCin1 standards does not obtain. +s such, Alcira cannot be *ade to

appl2 to the instant case.

To note, the &une ', '((# letteroffer itself states that the

re1ulariCation standards or the perfor*ance nor*s to be used are :t;; to be

)<ree+ po* b= A;;*< )*+ : :per?:or. 555! has failed to provethat an a1ree*ent as re1ards thereto has been reached. !learl2 then, there

"ere actuall2 no perfor*ance standards to spea% of. +nd lest it be

overloo%ed, +lilin1 "as assi1ned to /J truc%in1 sales, an activit2 entirel2

different to the Seafrei1ht Sales he "as ori1inall2 hired and trained for.

Thus, at the ti*e of his en1a1e*ent, the standards relative to his assi1n*ent

"ith /J sales could not have plausibl2 been co**unicated to hi* as he

"as under Seafrei1ht Sales. ven for this reason alone, the conclusion

reached in Alcira is of little relevant to the instant case.

>ased on the facts established in this case in li1ht of e=tant

7urisprudence, the !+s holdin1 as to the %ind of e*plo2*ent petitioner

en7o2ed is correct. So "as the N4R! rulin1, affir*ator2 of that of the labor

arbiter. In the final anal2sis, one co**on thread runs throu1h the holdin1 of

the labor arbiter, the N4R! and the !+, i.e., petitioner +lilin1, albeit hired

fro* *ana1e*ents standpoint as a probationar2 e*plo2ee, "as dee*ed a

re1ular e*plo2ee b2 force of the follo"in1 selfe=planator2 provisions;

Art;e 81 o te L)bor Co+e

+RT. '0). Probationary em#loyment . Probationar2

e*plo2*ent shall not e=ceed si= :- *onths fro* the date the

e*plo2ee started "or%in1, unless it is covered b2 an

apprenticeship a1ree*ent stipulatin1 a lon1er period. The



services of an e*plo2ee "ho has been en1a1ed on a

probationar2 basis *a2 be ter*inated for a 7ust cause or "hen

he fails to Bualif2 as a re1ular e*plo2ee in accordance 6t

re):o*)b;e :t)*+)r+: m)+e >*o6* b= te emp;o=er to te

emp;o=ee )t te tme o : e*<)<eme*t.+n e*plo2ee "ho is

allo"ed to "or% after a probationar2 period shall be considered

a re1ular e*plo2ee. *phasis supplied.-

Seto* +D o te Imp;eme*t*< R;e: o Boo> (I, R;e

(IIIA o te L)bor Co+e

Sec. :. Probationary em#loyment . There is probationar2

e*plo2*ent "here the e*plo2ee, upon his en1a1e*ent, is

*ade to under1o a trial period "here the e*plo2ee deter*ines

his fitness to Bualif2 for re1ular e*plo2*ent, based onreasonable standards *ade %no"n to hi* at the ti*e of

en1a1e*ent.

Probationar2 e*plo2*ent shall be 1overned b2 the

follo"in1 rules;

= = = =

+D I* );; ):e: of probationar2 e*plo2*ent, te

emp;o=er :);; m)>e >*o6*to the e*plo2ee

te :t)*+)r+:*+er 6 e 6;; );= ): ) re<;)r emp;o=ee )t te

tme o : e*<)<eme*t. ere *o :t)*+)r+: )re m)+e

>*o6* to te emp;o=ee )t t)t tme, e shall be +eeme+ )

re<;)r emp;o=ee. *phasis supplied.-

To repeat, the labor arbiter, N4R! and the !+ are a1reed, on the basis

of docu*entar2 evidence adduced, that respondent 555! did not infor*

petitioner +lilin1 of the reasonable standards b2 "hich his probation "ould

be *easured a1ainst at the ti*e of his en1a1e*ent. The !ourt is loathed tointerfere "ith this factual deter*ination. +s 5e have held;

Sett;e+ : te r;e t)t te *+*<: o te L)bor

Arbter, 6e* )rme+ b= te NLRC )*+ te Cort o

Appe);:, )re b*+*< o* te Spreme Cort, *;e:: p)te*t;=

erro*eo:. It is not the function of the Supre*e !ourt to



anal2Ce or "ei1h all over a1ain the evidence alread2 considered

in the proceedin1s belo". The 7urisdiction of this !ourt in a

petition for revie" on certiorari is li*ited to revie"in1 onl2

errors of la", not of fact, unless the factual findin1s bein1

assailed are not supported b2 evidence on record or the

i*pu1ned 7ud1*ent is based on a *isapprehension of facts.3'E

The *ore recent Peafrancia /ours and /ravel /rans#ort, Inc., v.

Sarmiento33E has reaffir*ed the above rulin1, to "it;

6inall2, the !+ affir*ed the rulin1 of the N4R! and

adopted as its o"n the latter?s factual findin1s. 4on1established

is the doctrine that findin1s of fact of Buasi7udicial bodies = = =

are accorded respect, even finalit2, if supported b2 substantialevidence. 5hen passed upon and upheld b2 the !+, the2 are

bindin1 and conclusive upon this !ourt and "ill not nor*all2

be disturbed. Thou1h this doctrine is not "ithout e=ceptions,

the !ourt finds that none are applicable to the present case.

555! also cannot validl2 ar1ue that te )t); *+*<: be*<

)::);e+ )re *ot :pporte+ b= e?+e*e o* reor+ or te mp<*e+

+<me*t : b):e+ o* ) m:)ppree*:o* o )t:. Its ver2 o"n letteroffer

of e*plo2*ent ar1ues a1ainst its above posture. =cerpts of the letteroffer;

+dditionall2, upon the effectivit2 of 2our probation, =o

)*+ =or mme+)te :peror )re rere+ to o*t;= +e*e

=or obet?e: omp)re+ 6t te ob rereme*t: o te

po:to*. >ased on the prea1reed ob7ectives, 2our perfor*ance

shall be revie"ed on the 3rd *onth to assess 2our co*petence

and "or% attitude. The $th *onth Perfor*ance +ppraisal shall

be the basis in elevatin1 or confir*in1 2our e*plo2*ent status

fro* Probationar2 to Re1ular.

6ailure to *eet the 7ob reBuire*ents durin1 the probation

sta1e *eans that 2our services *a2 be ter*inated "ithout prior

notice and "ithout recourse to separation pa2. *phasis

supplied.-







Respondents further alle1e that San Mateos e*ail dated &ul2 ):, '((#

sho"s that the standards for his re1ulariCation "ere *ade %no"n to

petitioner +lilin1 at the ti*e of his en1a1e*ent. To recall, in that e*ail

*essa1e, San Mateo re*inded +lilin1 of the sales Buota he ou1ht to *eet asa condition for his continued e*plo2*ent, i.e., that the /J truc%s should

alread2 be 0(@ full b2 +u1ust $, '((#. !ontrar2 to respondents

contention, San Mateos e*ail cannot support their alle1ation on +lilin1

bein1 infor*ed of the standards for his continued e*plo2*ent, such as the

sales Buota, )t te tme o : e*<)<eme*t. +s it "ere, the e*ail *essa1e

"as sent to +lilin1 *ore than a *onth after he si1ned his e*plo2*ent

contract "ith 555!. The aforeBuoted Section : of the I*ple*entin1

Rules of >oo% VI, Rule VIII+ of the !ode specificall2 reBuires the

e*plo2er to infor* the probationar2 e*plo2ee of such reasonable

standards)t te tme o : e*<)<eme*t, not at an2 ti*e later8 else, the

latter shall be considered a re1ular e*plo2ee. Thus, pursuant to the e=plicit

provision of +rticle '0) of the 4abor !ode, Section :d- of the

I*ple*entin1 Rules of >oo% VI, Rule VIII+ of the 4abor !ode and settled

7urisprudence, petitioner +lilin1 is dee*ed a re1ular e*plo2ee as of &une )),

'((#, the date of his e*plo2*ent contract.

Petto*er 6): ;;e<);;= +:m::e+

To 7ustif2 full2 the dis*issal of an e*plo2ee, the e*plo2er *ust, as a

rule, prove that the dis*issal "as for a 7ust cause and that the e*plo2ee "as

afforded due process prior to dis*issal. +s a co*ple*entar2 principle, the

e*plo2er has the onus of provin1 "ith clear, accurate, consistent, and

convincin1 evidence the validit2 of the dis*issal.3#E

555! had failed to dischar1e its t"in burden in the instant case.

6irst off, the attendant circu*stances in the instant case aptl2 sho"

that the issue of petitioners alle1ed failure to achieve his Buota, as a 1round

for ter*inatin1 e*plo2*ent, stri%es the !ourt as a *ere afterthou1ht on the





part of 555!. !onsider; 4ariosas letter of Septe*ber '$, '((# alread2

betra2ed *ana1e*ents intention to dis*iss the petitioner for alle1ed

unauthoriCed absences. +lilin1 "as in fact *ade to e=plain and he did so

satisfactoril2. >ut, lo and behold, 555! nonetheless proceeded "ith its

plan to dis*iss the petitioner for nonsatisfactor2 perfor*ance, althou1h thecorrespondin1 ter*ination letter dated October :, '((# did not even

specificall2 state +lilin1s nonsatisfactor2 perfor*ance, or that +lilin1s

ter*ination "as b2 reason of his failure to achieve his set Buota.

5hat 555! considered as the evidence purportedl2 sho"in1 it

1ave +lilin1 the chance to e=plain his inabilit2 to reach his Buota "as a

purported Septe*ber '(, '((# *e*o of San Mateo addressed to the latter.

Ho"ever, +lilin1 denies havin1 received such letter and 555! has failedto refute his contention of nonreceipt. In net effect, 555! "as at a loss

to e=plain the e=act 7ust reason for dis*issin1 +lilin1.

+t an2 event, assu*in1 for ar1u*ent that the petitioner indeed failed

to achieve his sales Buota, his ter*ination fro* e*plo2*ent on that 1round

"ould still be un7ustified.

+rticle '0' of the 4abor !ode considers an2 of the follo"in1 acts or

o*ission on the part of the e*plo2ee as 7ust cause or 1round for ter*inatin1e*plo2*ent;

a- Serious *isconduct or "illful disobedience b2 the

e*plo2ee of the la"ful orders of his e*plo2er or representative

in connection "ith his "or%8

bD Gro:: )*+ )bt); *e<;et b= te emp;o=ee o :

+te:

c- 6raud or "illful breach b2 the e*plo2ee of the trust

reposed in hi* b2 his e*plo2er or dul2 authoriCed

representative8



d- !o**ission of a cri*e or offense b2 the e*plo2ee

a1ainst the person of his e*plo2er or an2 i**ediate *e*ber of

his fa*il2 or his dul2 authoriCed representatives8 and

eD Oter ):e: )*);o<o: to te ore<o*<. *phasis

supplied-

In Lim v. 'ational Labor Relations ommission,3$E the !ourt

considered inefficienc2 as an analo1ous 7ust cause for ter*ination of

e*plo2*ent under +rticle '0' of the 4abor !ode;

e )**ot bt )<ree 6t PEPSI t)t <ro::

*ee*= );;: 6t* te pr?e6 o oter ):e:

)*);o<o: to te ore<o*<, t: o*:ttte:, tereore, :t

):e to term*)te )* emp;o=ee *+er Art;e 8 o te

L)bor Co+e. One is analo1ous to another if it is susceptible of

co*parison "ith the latter either in 1eneral or in so*e specific

detail8 or has a close relationship "ith the latter. /ross

inefficienc2 is closel2 related to 1ross ne1lect, for both involve

specific acts of o*ission on the part of the e*plo2ee resultin1

in da*a1e to the e*plo2er or to his business. In %uiser vs.

Leoardo, this !ourt ruled that failure to observed prescribed

standards to inefficienc2 *a2 constitute 7ust cause for

dis*issal. *phasis supplied.-

It did so ane" in Leonardo v. 'ational Labor Relations

ommission3:E on the follo"in1 rationale;

+n e*plo2er is entitled to i*pose productivit2 standards for

its "or%ers, and in fact, nonco*pliance *a2 be visited "ith a

penalt2 even *ore severe than de*otion. Thus,

/t2e pr)te o ) omp)*= * ;)=*< o 6or>er:

be):e te= );e+ to m)>e te 6or> ot) ): bee*reo<*Je+ * t: r:+to*. Philippine +*erican

*broideries vs. *broider2 and /ar*ent 5or%ers, ':

S!R+ :3#, :39-. In the case at bar, the petitioners? failure

to *eet the sales Buota assi1ned to each of the*

constitute a 7ust cause of their dis*issal, re1ardless of the

per*anent or probationar2 status of their







e*plo2*ent. 4);re to ob:er?e pre:rbe+ :t)*+)r+:

o 6or>, or to ;;; re):o*)b;e 6or> )::<*me*t: +e

to *ee*= m)= o*:ttte :t ):e or

+:m::);. Such inefficienc2 is understood to *ean

failure to attain "or% 1oals or "or% Buotas, either b2

failin1 to co*plete the sa*e "ithin the

allotted reasonable period, or b2 producin1 unsatisfactor2

results. T: m)*)<eme*t prero<)t?e o rer*<

:t)*+)r+: m)= be )?);e+ o :o ;o*< ): te= )re

e@er:e+ * <oo+ )t or te )+?)*eme*t o te

emp;o=erH: *tere:t.*phasis supplied.-

In fine, an e*plo2ees failure to *eet sales or "or% Buotas falls under

the concept of 1ross inefficienc2, "hich in turn is analo1ous to 1ross ne1lect

of dut2 that is a 7ust cause for dis*issal under +rticle '0' of the !ode.

Ho"ever, in order for the Buota i*posed to be considered a valid

productivit2 standard and thereb2 validate a dis*issal, *ana1e*ents

prero1ative of fi=in1 the Buota *ust be e=ercised in 1ood faith for the

advance*ent of its interest. The dut2 to prove 1ood faith, ho"ever, rests

"ith 555! as part of its burden to sho" that the dis*issal "as for a 7ust

cause. 555! *ust sho" that such Buota "as i*posed in 1ood faith. This

555! failed to do, perceptibl2 because it could not. The fact of the

*atter is that the alle1ed i*position of the Buota "as a desperate atte*pt tolend a se*blance of validit2 to +lilin1s ille1al dis*issal. It *ust be stressed

that even 555!s sales *ana1er, ve +*ador +*ador-, in an internal e

*ail to San Mateo, hed1ed on "hether petitioner perfor*ed belo" or above

e=pectation;

!ould not Buantif2 level of perfor*ance as he as "as tas%ed to

handle a ne" product /J-. Revenue report is not 2et

ad*inistered b2 IT on a *onthto*onth basis. Moreover, this

in a "a2 is an e=peri*ental activit2. Practicall2 2ou have aclose *onitorin1 "ith +r*and "ith re1ards to his perfor*ance.

Kour assess*ent of hi* "ould be *ore accurate.

>ein1 an e=peri*ental activit2 and havin1 been launched for the first

ti*e, the sales of /J services could not be reasonabl2 Buantified. This



"ould e=plain "h2 +*ador i*plied in her e*ail that other bases besides

sales fi1ures "ill be used to deter*ine +lilin1s perfor*ance. +nd 2et,

despite such a neutral observation, +lilin1 "as still dis*issed for his dis*al

sales of /J services. In an2 event, 555! failed to de*onstrate the

reasonableness and the bona fideson the Buota i*position.

*plo2ees *ust be re*inded that "hile probationar2 e*plo2ees do

not en7o2 per*anent status, the2 en7o2 the constitutional protection of

securit2 of tenure. The2 can onl2 be ter*inated for cause or "hen the2

other"ise fail to *eet the reasonable standards *ade %no"n to the* b2 the

e*plo2er at the ti*e of their en1a1e*ent.3AE Respondent 555!

*iserabl2 failed to prove the ter*ination of petitioner "as for a 7ust cause

nor "as there substantial evidence to de*onstrate the standards "ere *ade%no"n to the latter at the ti*e of his en1a1e*ent. Hence, petitioners ri1ht to

securit2 of tenure "as breached.

A;;*<: r<t to proe+r); +e proe:: 6): ?o;)te+

+s earlier stated, to effect a le1al dis*issal, the e*plo2er *ust sho"

not onl2 a valid 1round therefor, but also that procedural due process has

properl2 been observed. 5hen the 4abor !ode spea%s of procedural due

process, the reference is usuall2 to the t"o '-"ritten notice rule envisa1edin Section ' III-, Rule JJIII, >oo% V of the O*nibus Rules I*ple*entin1

the 4abor !ode, "hich provides;

Section '. Standard of due #rocess@ re>uirements of

notice. In all cases of ter*ination of e*plo2*ent, the follo"in1

standards of due process shall be substantiall2 observed.

I. 6or ter*ination of e*plo2*ent based on 7ust causes as

defined in +rticle '0' of the !ode;a- + "ritten notice served on the e*plo2ee

specif2in1 the 1round or 1rounds for ter*ination, and

1ivin1 to said e*plo2ee reasonable opportunit2 "ithin

"hich to e=plain his side8





b- + hearin1 or conference durin1 "hich the

e*plo2ee concerned, "ith the assistance of counsel if the

e*plo2ee so desires, is 1iven opportunit2 to respond to

the char1e, present his evidence or rebut the evidence

presented a1ainst hi*8 and

c- + "ritten notice ofE ter*ination served on the

e*plo2ee indicatin1 that upon due consideration of all

the circu*stance, 1rounds have been established to

7ustif2 his ter*ination.

In case of ter*ination, the fore1oin1 notices shall be

served on the e*plo2ees last %no"n address.

&22 &arine Services, Inc. v. 'LR 30E tersel2 described the

*echanics of "hat *a2 be considered a t"opart due process reBuire*ent

"hich includes the t"onotice rule, = = = one, of the intention to dis*iss,

indicatin1 therein his acts or o*issions co*plained a1ainst, and t"o, notice

of the decision to dis*iss8 and an opportunit2 to ans"er and rebut the

char1es a1ainst hi*, in bet"een such notices.

;in of ;ins /rans#ort, Inc. v. &amac39E e=pounded on this procedural

reBuire*ent in this *anner;

)- The r:t 6rtte* *ote to be served on the

e*plo2ees should contain the specific causes or 1rounds for

ter*ination a1ainst the*, and a directive that the e*plo2ees are

1iven the opportunit2 to sub*it their "ritten e=planation "ithin

a reasonable period. Reasonable opportunit2 under the

O*nibus Rules *eans ever2 %ind of assistance that

*ana1e*ent *ust accord to the e*plo2ees to enable the* to prepare adeBuatel2 for their defense. This should be construed

as a period of at least five calendar da2s fro* receipt of the

notice ==== Moreover, in order to enable the e*plo2ees to

intelli1entl2 prepare their e=planation and defenses, the notice

should contain a detailed narration of the facts and

circu*stances that "ill serve as basis for the char1e a1ainst the







e*plo2ees. + 1eneral description of the char1e "ill not

suffice. Lastly, the notice should specificall2 *ention "hich

co*pan2 rules, if an2, are violated andor "hich a*on1 the

1rounds under +rt. '00 of the 4abor !odeE is bein1 char1ed

a1ainst the e*plo2ees

'- +fter servin1 the first notice, the e*plo2ees should

schedule and conduct a e)r*< or o*ere*e "herein the

e*plo2ees "ill be 1iven the opportunit2 to )- e=plain and

clarif2 their defenses to the char1e a1ainst the*8 '- present

evidence in support of their defenses8 and 3- rebut the evidence

presented a1ainst the* b2 the *ana1e*ent. Durin1 the hearin1

or conference, the e*plo2ees are 1iven the chance to defend

the*selves personall2, "ith the assistance of a representative or

counsel of their choice = = =.

3- +fter deter*inin1 that ter*ination is 7ustified, the

e*plo2er shall serve the e*plo2ees a 6rtte* *ote o

term*)to* indicatin1 that; )- all the circu*stances involvin1

the char1e a1ainst the e*plo2ees have been considered8 and '-

1rounds have been established to 7ustif2 the severance of their

e*plo2*ent. *phasis in the ori1inal.-

Here, the first and second notice reBuire*ents have not been properl2observed, thus taintin1 petitioners dis*issal "ith ille1alit2.

The adverted *e*o dated Septe*ber '(, '((# of 555!

supposedl2 infor*in1 +lilin1 of the li%elihood of his ter*ination and

directin1 hi* to account for his failure to *eet the e=pected 7ob perfor*ance

"ould have had constituted the char1e sheet, sufficient to ans"er for the first

notice reBuire*ent, but for the fact that there is no proof such letter had been

sent to and received b2 hi*. In fact, in his Dece*ber )3, '((# !o*plainants

Repl2 +ffidavit , +lilin1 1oes on to ta1 such letter*e*orandu* as

fabrication. 555! did not adduce proof to sho" that a cop2 of the letter

"as dul2 served upon +lilin1. !learl2 enou1h, 555! did not co*pl2

"ith the first notice reBuire*ent.



Neither "as there co*pliance "ith the i*peratives of a hearin1 or

conference. The !ourt need not d"ell at len1th on this particular breach of

the due procedural reBuire*ent. Suffice it to point out that the record is

devoid of an2 sho"in1 of a hearin1 or conference havin1 been conducted.

On the contrar2, in its October ), '((# letter to +lilin1, or barel2 five $-da2s after it served the notice of ter*ination, 555! ac%no"led1ed that

it "as still evaluatin1 his case. +nd the "ritten notice of ter*ination itself

did not indicate all the circu*stances involvin1 the char1e to 7ustif2

severance of e*plo2*ent.

A;;*< : e*tt;e+ to b)>6)<e:

)*+ :ep)r)to* p)= * ;e o re*:t)teme*t

+s *a2 be noted, the !+ found +lilin1s dis*issal as havin1 been

ille1all2 effected, but nonetheless concluded that his e*plo2*ent ceased at

the end of the probationar2 period. Thus, the appellate court *erel2 affir*ed

the *onetar2 a"ard *ade b2 the N4R!, "hich consisted of the pa2*ent of

that a*ount correspondin1 to the unserved portion of the contract of

e*plo2*ent.

The case disposition on the a"ard is erroneous.

+s earlier e=plained, +lilin1 cannot be ri1htfull2 considered as a *ere probationar2 e*plo2ee. +ccordin1l2, the probationar2 period set in the

contract of e*plo2*ent dated &une )), '((# "as of no *o*ent. In net

effect, as of that date &une )), '((#, +lilin1 beca*e part of the 555!

or1aniCation as a re1ular e*plo2ee of the co*pan2 "ithout a fi=ed ter* of

e*plo2*ent. Thus, he is entitled to bac%"a1es rec%oned fro* the ti*e he

"as ille1all2 dis*issed on October :, '((#, "ith a PhP )A,3((.(( *onthl2

salar2, until the finalit2 of this Decision. This disposition he"s "ith the

!ourts ensuin1 holdin1 in *avellana v. %elen@#(E

+rticle 'A9 of the 4abor !ode, as a*ended b2 Section 3#

of Republic +ct :A)$ instructs;

+rt. 'A9. Securit2 of Tenure. In cases of re1ular

e*plo2*ent, the e*plo2er shall not ter*inate the





services of an e*plo2ee e=cept for a 7ust cause or "hen

authoriCed b2 this Title. A* emp;o=ee 6o : *:t;=

+:m::e+ rom 6or> :);; be e*tt;e+ to re*:t)teme*t

6tot ;o:: o :e*ort= r<t: )*+ oter pr?;e<e:

)*+ to : ;; b)>6)<e:, *;:?e o );;o6)*e:, )*+

to : oter be*et: or ter mo*et)r= e?);e*t

ompte+ rom te tme : ompe*:)to* 6):

6te;+ rom m p to te tme o : )t);

re*:t)teme*t. *phasis supplied-

!learl2, the la" intends the a"ard of bac%"a1es and

si*ilar benefits to accu*ulate past the date of the 4abor

+rbiters decision until the dis*issed e*plo2ee is actuall2

reinstated. >ut if, as in this case, reinstate*ent is no lon1er

possible, t: Cort ): o*::te*t;= r;e+ t)t b)>6)<e::);; be ompte+ rom te tme o ;;e<); +:m::); *t; te

+)te te +e:o* beome: *);. *phasis supplied.-

+dditionall2, +lilin1 is entitled to separation pa2 in lieu of

reinstate*ent on the 1round of :tr)*e+ re;)to*:p.

In 2olden Ace %uilders v. /alde,#)E the !ourt ruled;

The basis for the pa2*ent of bac%"a1es is different fro*that for the a"ard of separation pa2. Separation pa2 is 1ranted

"here reinstate*ent is no lon1er advisable because of strained

relations bet"een the e*plo2ee and the e*plo2er. >ac%"a1es

represent co*pensation that should have been earned but "ere

not collected because of the un7ust dis*issal. The basis for

co*putin1 bac%"a1es is usuall2 the len1th of the e*plo2ee?s

service "hile that for separation pa2 is the actual period "hen

the e*plo2ee "as unla"full2 prevented fro* "or%in1.

+s to ho" both a"ards should be co*puted, &acasero v.

Southern Industrial 2ases Phili##ines instructs;

TEhe a"ard of separation pa2 is inconsistent "ith

a findin1 that there "as no ille1al dis*issal, for under

+rticle 'A9 of the 4abor !ode and as held in a catena of





cases, an e*plo2ee "ho is dis*issed "ithout 7ust cause

and "ithout due process is entitled to bac%"a1es and

reinstate*ent or pa2*ent of separation pa2 in lieu

thereof;

T:, )* ;;e<);;= +:m::e+ emp;o=ee :

e*tt;e+ to t6o re;e:5 b)>6)<e: )*+

re*:t)teme*t. Te t6o re;e: pro?+e+ )re

:ep)r)te )*+ +:t*t. I* *:t)*e: 6ere

re*:t)teme*t : *o ;o*<er e):b;e be):e o

:tr)*e+ re;)to*: bet6ee* te emp;o=ee )*+ te

emp;o=er, :ep)r)to* p)= : <r)*te+. I* eet,

)* ;;e<);;= +:m::e+ emp;o=ee : e*tt;e+ to

eter re*:t)teme*t, ?)b;e, or :ep)r)to* p)=

re*:t)teme*t : *o ;o*<er ?)b;e, )*+b)>6)<e:.

The nor*al conseBuences of respondents

ille1al dis*issal, then, are reinstate*ent "ithout

loss of seniorit2 ri1hts, and pa2*ent of bac%"a1es

co*puted fro* the ti*e co*pensation "as

"ithheld up to the date of actual reinstate*ent.

5here reinstate*ent is no lon1er viable as an

option, separation pa2 eBuivalent to one )- *onth

salar2 for ever2 2ear of service should be a"arded

as an alternative. The pa2*ent of separation pa2 is

in addition to pa2*ent of bac%"a1es. = = =

=elasco v. 'ational Labor Relations

ommission e*phasiCes;

The accepted doctrine is that separation pa2 *a2

avail in lieu of reinstate*ent if reinstate*ent is no lon1er

practical or in the best interest of the parties. Separation

pa2 in lieu of reinstate*ent *a2 li%e"ise be a"arded if the e*plo2ee decides not to be reinstated. e*phasis in

the ori1inal8 italics supplied-

U*+er te +otr*e o :tr)*e+ re;)to*:, te p)=me*t

o :ep)r)to* p)= : o*:+ere+ )* )ept)b;e );ter*)t?e to

re*:t)teme*t 6e* te ;)tter opto* : *o ;o*<er +e:r)b;e



or ?)b;e. On one hand, such pa2*ent liberates the e*plo2ee

fro* "hat could be a hi1hl2 oppressive "or% environ*ent. On

the other hand, it releases the e*plo2er fro* the 1rossl2

unpalatable obli1ation of *aintainin1 in its e*plo2 a "or%er it

could no lon1er trust.

Str)*e+ re;)to*: m:t be +emo*:tr)te+ ): )

)t, ho"ever, to be adeBuatel2 supported b2 evidence

substantial evidence to sho" that the relationship bet"een the

e*plo2er and the e*plo2ee is indeed strained as a necessar2

conseBuence of the 7udicial controvers2.

I* te pre:e*t ):e, te L)bor Arbter o*+ t)t

)t); )*mo:t= e@:te+ bet6ee* petto*er AJ; )*+

re:po*+e*t ): ) re:;t o te ;*< o te ;;e<); +:m::);):e. S *+*<, e:pe);;= 6e* )rme+ b= te

)ppe;;)te ort ): * te ):e )t b)r, : b*+*< po* te

Cort, o*::te*t 6t te pre?);*< r;e: t)t t: Cort

6;; *ot tr= )t: )*e6 )*+ t)t *+*<: o )t: o ):

+); bo+e: )re )or+e+ <re)t re:pet, e?e*

*);t=. *phasis supplied.-

+s the !+ correctl2 observed, To reinstate petitioner +lilin1E "ould

onl2 create an at*osphere of anta1onis* and distrust, *ore so that he hadonl2 a short stint "ith respondent co*pan2.#'E The !ourt need not belabor

the fact that the patent ani*osit2 that had developed bet"een e*plo2er and

e*plo2ee 1enerated "hat *a2 be considered as the arbitrar2 dis*issal of the

petitioner.

6ollo"in1 the pronounce*ents of this !ourt Saales v. Rustans

ommercial or#oration,#3E the co*putation of separation pa2 in lieu of

reinstate*ent includes the period for "hich bac%"a1es "ere a"arded;

Thus, in lieu of reinstate*ent, it is but proper to a"ard

petitioner :ep)r)to* p)= ompte+ )t o*emo*t :);)r= or

e?er= =e)r o :er?e, ) r)to* o )t ;e):t :@ D mo*t:

o*:+ere+ ): o*e 6o;e =e)r. I* te ompt)to* o







:ep)r)to* p)=, te pero+ 6ere b)>6)<e: )re )6)r+e+

m:t be *;+e+. *phasis supplied.-

Thus, +lilin1 is entitled to both bac%"a1es and separation pa2 in lieu

of reinstate*entin the a*ount of one )- *onths salar2 for ever2 2ear of service, that is, fro* &une )), '((# date of e*plo2*ent contract- until the

finalit2 of this decision "ith a fraction of a 2ear of at least si= :- *onths to

be considered as one )- "hole 2ear. +s deter*ined b2 the labor arbiter, the

basis for the co*putation of bac%"a1es and separation pa2 "ill be +lilin1s

*onthl2 salar2 at PhP )A,3((.

6inall2, +lilin1 is entitled to an a"ard of PhP 3(,((( as no*inal

da*a1es in consonance "ith prevailin1 7urisprudence ##E for violation of due

process.

Petto*er : *ot e*tt;e+ to mor); )*+ e@emp;)r= +)m)<e:

In 'a0areno v. ity of umauete,#$E the !ourt e=pounded on the

reBuisite ele*ents for a liti1ants entitle*ent to *oral da*a1es, thus;

Moral da*a1es are a"arded if the follo"in1 ele*ents

e=ist in the case; )- an in7ur2 clearl2 sustained b2 the clai*ant8'- a culpable act or o*ission factuall2 established8 3- a

"ron1ful act or o*ission b2 the defendant as the pro=i*ate

cause of the in7ur2 sustained b2 the clai*ant8 and #- the a"ard

of da*a1es predicated on an2 of the cases stated +rticle '')9

of the !ivil !ode. In addition, the person clai*in1 *oral

da*a1es *ust prove the e=istence of bad faith b2 clear and

convincin1 evidence for the la" al"a2s presu*es 1ood faith. It

is not enou1h that one *erel2 suffered sleepless ni1hts, *ental

an1uish, and serious an=iet2 as the result of the actuations of

the other part2. Invariabl2 such action *ust be sho"n to have been "illfull2 done in bad faith or "ith ill *otive. B)+ )t,

*+er te ;)6, +oe: *ot :mp;= o**ote b)+ +<me*t or

*e<;<e*e. It mport: ) +:o*e:t prpo:e or :ome mor);

ob;t= )*+ o*:o: +o*< o ) 6ro*<, ) bre) o )

>*o6* +t= tro< :ome mot?e or *tere:t or ;; 6;; t)t

p)rt)>e: o te *)tre o r)+. *phasis supplied.-







In alle1in1 that 555! acted in bad faith, +lilin1 has the burden of

proof to present evidence in support of his clai*, as ruled in ulili v.

-astern /elecommunications Phili##ines, Inc.;#:E

+ccordin1 to 7urisprudence, basic is the principle that

1ood faith is presu*ed and he "ho alle1es bad faith has the

dut2 to prove the sa*e. >2 i*putin1 bad faith to the actuations

of TPI, !ulili has the burden of proof to present substantial

evidence to support the alle1ation of unfair labor practice.

!ulili failed to dischar1e this burden and his bare alle1ations

deserve no credit.

This "as reiterated in United laimants Association of '-A(U'IA') v. 'ational -lectrification Administration ('-A),#AE in this "ise;

It *ust be noted that the burden of provin1 bad faith rests

on the one alle1in1 it. +s the !ourt ruled in ulili v. -astern

/elecommunications, Inc., +ccordin1 to 7urisprudence, basic is

the principle that 1ood faith is presu*ed and he "ho alle1es

bad faith has the dut2 to prove the sa*e. Moreover, in S#ouses

Palada v. Solidban" or#oration, the !ourt stated, +lle1ations

of bad faith and fraud *ust be proved b2 clear and convincin1evidence.

Si*ilarl2, +lilin1 has failed to overco*e such burden to prove bad

faith on the part of 555!. +lilin1 has not presented an2 clear and

convincin1 evidence to sho" bad faith. The fact that he "as ille1all2

dis*issed is insufficient to prove bad faith. Thus, the !+ correctl2 ruled that

tEhere "as no sufficient sho"in1 of bad faith or abuse of *ana1e*ent

prero1atives in the personal action ta%en a1ainst petitioner.#0E In Lambert

Pa$nbro"ers and *e$elry or#oration v. %inamira,#9E the !ourt ruled;

+ dis*issal *a2 be contrar2 to la" but b2 itself alone, it

does not establish bad faith to entitle the dis*issed e*plo2ee to

*oral da*a1es. The a"ard of *oral and e=e*plar2 da*a1es

cannot be 7ustified solel2 upon the pre*ise that the e*plo2er











dis*issed his e*plo2ee "ithout authoriCed cause and due

process.

Te oer: o EC )**ot be e;+ o*t;= )*+ :e?er);;= ;)b;e 6t te omp)*=

The !+ held the president of 555!, &ose >. 6eliciano, San

Mateo and 4ariosa 7ointl2 and severall2 liable for the *onetar2 a"ards of

+lilin1 on the 1round that the officers are considered e*plo2ers actin1 in the

interest of the corporation. The !+ cited '+; International ;nit$ear

or#oration Phili##ines '+; - v. 'ational Labor Relations

ommission$(E in support of its ar1u*ent. Notabl2, '+; in turn cited A..

Ransom Labor UnionLU v. 'LR .$)E

Such rulin1 has been reversed b2 the !ourt in Alba v. +u#anco,$'E "here the !ourt ruled;

>2 Order of Septe*ber $, '((A, the 4abor +rbiter denied

respondents *otion to Buash the 3rd alias "rit. >rushin1 aside

respondents contention that his liabilit2 is *erel2 7oint, the

4abor +rbiter ruled;

Such issue re1ardin1 the personal liabilit2 of the officers

of a corporation for the pa2*ent of "a1es and *one2 clai*s to

its e*plo2ees, as in the instant case, has lon1 been resolved b2

the Supre*e !ourt in a lon1 list of cases A.. Ransom Labor

UnionLU vs. 'LR )#' S!R+ ':9- and reiterated in the

cases of hua vs. 'LR )0' S!R+ 3$3-, 2ude0 vs.

'LR )03 S!R+ :##-E. In the afore*entioned cases, the

Supre*e !ourt has e=pressl2 held that the irresponsible officer

of the corporation e.1. President- is liable for the corporationsobli1ations to its "or%ers. Thus, respondent Kupan1co, bein1

the president of the respondent K4 4and and <ltra Motors

!orp., is properl2 7ointl2 and severall2 liable "ith the defendant

corporations for the labor clai*s of !o*plainants +lba and De

/uC*an. = = =









= = = =

+s reflected above, the 4abor +rbiter held that

respondents liabilit2 is solidar2.

There is solidar2 liabilit2 "hen the obli1ation e=pressl2

so states, "hen the la" so provides, or "hen the nature of the

obli1ation so reBuires. &A& Realty evelo#ment or#oration

v. 'LR , on solidar2 liabilit2 of corporate officers in labor

disputes, enli1htens;

= = = + corporation bein1 a 7uridical entit2, *a2 act

onl2 throu1h its directors, officers and e*plo2ees.

Obli1ations incurred b2 the*, actin1 as such corporate

a1ents are not theirs but the direct accountabilities of thecorporation the2 represent. True solidar2 liabilities *a2

at ti*es be incurred but onl2 "hen e=ceptional

circu*stances "arrant such as, 1enerall2, in the

follo"in1 cases;

). 5hen directors and trustees or, in

appropriate cases, the officers of a corporation;

a- vote for or assent to patentl2 unla"ful

acts of the corporation8

b- act in bad faith or "ith 1ross ne1li1ence

in directin1 the corporate affairs8

= = = =

In labor cases, for instance, the !ourt has held corporate

directors and officers solidaril2 liable "ith the corporation for

the ter*ination of e*plo2*ent of e*plo2ees done "ith *aliceor in bad faith.

+ revie" of the facts of the case does not reveal a*ple and

satisfactor2 proof that respondent officers of 55! acted in bad faith or

"ith *alice in effectin1 the ter*ination of petitioner +lilin1. ven



assu*in1 aruendo that the actions of 555! are illconceived and

erroneous, respondent officers cannot be held 7ointl2 and solidaril2 "ith

it. Hence, the rulin1 on the 7oint and solidar2 liabilit2 of individual

respondents *ust be recalled.

A;;*< : e*tt;e+ to Attor*e=: 4ee: )*+ Le<); I*tere:t

Petitioner +lilin1 is also entitled to attorne2s fees in the a*ount of ten

percent )(@- of his total *onetar2 a"ard, havin1 been forced to liti1ate in

order to see% redress of his 1rievances, pursuant to +rticle ))) of the 4abor

!ode and follo"in1 our rulin1 in -6odus International onstruction

or#oration v. %iscocho,$3E to "it;

In Ruta>uio v. 'ational Labor Relations ommission, this

!ourt held that;

It is settled that in actions for recover2 of "a1es or "here

an e*plo2ee "as forced to liti1ate and, thus, incur

e=penses to protect his ri1hts and interest, the a"ard of

attorne2s fees is le1all2 and *orall2 7ustifiable.

In Producers %an" of the Phili##ines v. ourt of

A##eals this !ourt ruled that;

+ttorne2s fees *a2 be a"arded "hen a part2 is

co*pelled to liti1ate or to incur e=penses to protect his

interest b2 reason of an un7ustified act of the other part2.

5hile in Lambert Pa$nbro"ers and *e$elry or#oration,$#E the !ourt

specificall2 ruled;

Ho"ever, the a"ard of attorne2s fee is "arranted

pursuant to +rticle ))) of the 4abor !ode. Ten )(@- percent of the total a"ard is usuall2 the reasonable a*ount of attorne2s

fees a"arded. It is settled that "here an e*plo2ee "as forced to

liti1ate and, thus, incur e=penses to protect his ri1hts and

interest, the a"ard of attorne2s fees is le1all2 and *orall2

7ustifiable.









R S O 4 < T I O N

PERLASBERNABE, J.:

6or resolution is respondent Pearlie +nn +lcaraC?s +lcaraC- Motion forReconsideration dated +u1ust '3, '()3 of the !ourt?s Decision dated &ul2

'3, '()3 Decision-.)

+t the outset, there appears to be no substantial ar1u*ent in the said *otion

sufficient for the !ourt to depart fro* the pronounce*ents *ade in the

initial rulin1. >ut if onl2 to address +%araC?s novel assertions, and to so

placate an2 doubt or *isconception in the resolution of this case, the !ourt

proceeds to shed li1ht on the *atters indicated belo".

+. Manner of revie".

+lcaraC contends that the !ourt should not have conducted a re"ei1hin1 of

evidence since a petition for revie" on certiorari under Rule #$ of the Rules

of !ourt Rules- is li*ited to the revie" of Buestions of la". She sub*its

that since "hat "as under revie" "as a rulin1 of the !ourt of +ppeals !+-

rendered via a petition for certiorari under Rule :$ of the Rules, the !ourt

should onl2 deter*ine "hether or not the !+ properl2 deter*ined that the

National 4abor Relations !o**ission N4R!- co**itted a 1rave abuse of

discretion.

The assertion does not 7ustif2 the reconsideration of the assailed Decision.

+ careful perusal of the Buestioned Decision "ill reveal that the !ourt

actuall2 resolved the controvers2 under the abovestated fra*e"or% of

anal2sis. ssentiall2, the !ourt found the !+ to have co**itted an error in

holdin1 that no 1rave abuse of discretion can be ascribed to the N4R! sincethe latter arbitraril2 disre1arded the le1al i*plication of the attendant

circu*stances in this case "hich should have si*pl2 resulted in the findin1

that +lcaraC "as apprised of the perfor*ance standards for her

re1ulariCation and hence, "as properl2 a probationar2 e*plo2ee. +s the

!ourt observed, an e*plo2ees failure to perfor* the duties and

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/apr2014/gr_192571_2014.html#fnt1




responsibilities "hich have been clearl2 *ade %no"n to hi* constitutes a

7ustifiable basis for a probationar2 e*plo2ees nonre1ulariCation. +s

detailed in the Decision, +lcaraC "as "ellapprised of her duties and

responsibilities as "ell as the probationar2 status of her e*plo2*ent;

a- On &une 'A, '((#, +bbott 4aboratories, Philippines +bbott-E

caused the publication in a *a7or broadsheet ne"spaper of its need for

a Re1ulator2 +ffairs Mana1er, indicatin1 therein the 7ob description

for as "ell as the duties and responsibilities attendant to the aforesaid

position8 this pro*pted +lcaraC to sub*it her application to +bbott on

October #, '((#8

b- In +bbotts Dece*ber A, '((# offer sheet, it "as stated that

+lcaraC "as to be e*plo2ed on a probationar2 status8

c- On 6ebruar2 )', '(($, +lcaraC si1ned an e*plo2*ent contract

"hich specificall2 stated, inter alia, that she "as to be placed on

probation for a period of si= :- *onths be1innin1 6ebruar2 )$, '(($

to +u1ust )#, '(($8

d- On the da2 +lcaraC accepted +bbotts e*plo2*ent offer, >ernardo

sent her copies of +bbotts or1aniCational structure and her 7obdescription throu1h e*ail8

e- +lcaraC "as *ade to under1o a pree*plo2*ent orientation "here

+llan /. +l*aCarE infor*ed her that she had to i*ple*ent +bbotts

!ode of !onduct and office policies on hu*an resources and finance

and that she "ould be reportin1 directl2 to ell2 5alshE8

f- +lcaraC "as also reBuired to under1o a trainin1 pro1ra* as part of

her orientation8

1- +lcaraC received copies of +bbotts !ode of !onduct and

Perfor*ance Modules fro* Maria Olivia T. KabutMisaE "ho

e=plained to her the procedure for evaluatin1 the perfor*ance of



probationar2 e*plo2ees8 she "as further notified that +bbott had onl2

one evaluation s2ste* for all of its e*plo2ees8 and

h- Moreover, +lcaraC had previousl2 "or%ed for another

phar*aceutical co*pan2 and had ad*itted to have an Fe=tensivetrainin1 and bac%1roundF to acBuire the necessar2 s%ills for her 7ob.'

!onsiderin1 the fore1oin1 incidents "hich "ere readil2 observable fro* the

records, the !ourt reached the conclusion that the N4R! co**itted 1rave

abuse of discretion, viC.;

IEn holdin1 that +lcaraC "as ille1all2 dis*issed due to her status as a

re1ular and not a probationar2 e*plo2ee, the !ourt finds that the N4R!

co**itted a 1rave abuse of discretion.

To elucidate, records sho" that the N4R! based its decision on the pre*ise

that +lcaraCs receipt of her 7ob description and +bbotts !ode of !onduct

and Perfor*ance Modules "as not eBuivalent to bein1 actuall2 infor*ed of

the perfor*ance standards upon "hich she should have been evaluated on.

It, ho"ever, overloo%ed the le1al i*plication of the other attendant

circu*stances as detailed herein "hich should have "arranted a contrar2

findin1 that +lcaraC "as indeed a probationar2 and not a re1ular e*plo2ee X*ore particularl2 the fact that she "as "ella"are of her duties and

responsibilities and that her failure to adeBuatel2 perfor* the sa*e "ould

lead to her nonre1ulariCation and eventuall2, her ter*ination.3

!onseBuentl2, since the !+ found that the N4R! did not co**it 1rave

abuse of discretion and denied the certiorari petition before it, the reversal of

its rulin1 "as thus in order.

+t this 7uncture, it bears e=position that "hile N4R! decisions are, b2 theirnature, final and e=ecutor2# and, hence, not sub7ect to appellate revie",$ the

!ourt is not precluded fro* considerin1 other Buestions of la" aside fro*

the !+s findin1 on the N4R!s 1rave abuse of discretion. 5hile the focal

point of anal2sis revolves on this issue, the !ourt *a2 deal "ith ancillar2

issues X such as, in this case, the Buestion of ho" a probationar2 e*plo2ee is











dee*ed to have been infor*ed of the standards of his re1ulariCation X if onl2

to deter*ine if the concepts and principles of labor la" "ere correctl2

applied or *isapplied b2 the N4R! in its decision. In other "ords, the

!ourts anal2sis of the N4R!s interpretation of the environ*ental

principles and concepts of labor la" is not co*pletel2 prohibited in X as it isco*ple*entar2 to X a Rule #$ revie" of labor cases.

6inall2, if onl2 to put to rest +lcaraCs *is1ivin1s on the *anner in "hich

this case "as revie"ed, it bears pointin1 out that no Ffactual appellate

revie"F "as conducted b2 the !ourt in the Decision. Rather, the !ourt

proceeded to interpret the relevant rules on probationar2 e*plo2*ent as

applied to settled factual findin1s. >esides, even on the assu*ption that a

scrutin2 of facts "as underta%en, the !ourt is not alto1ether barred fro*

conductin1 the sa*e. This "as e=plained in the case of !areer Philippines

Ship*ana1e*ent, Inc. v. Serna: "herein the !ourt held as follo"s;

+ccordin1l2, "e do not ree=a*ine conflictin1 evidence, reevaluate the

credibilit2 of "itnesses, or substitute the findin1s of fact of the N4R!, an

ad*inistrative bod2 that has e=pertise in its specialiCed field. Nor do "e

substitute our Fo"n 7ud1*ent for that of the tribunal in deter*inin1 "here

the "ei1ht of evidence lies or "hat evidence is credible.F The factual

findin1s of the N4R!, "hen affir*ed b2 the !+, are 1enerall2 conclusiveon this !ourt.

Nevertheless, there are e=ceptional cases "here "e, in the e=ercise of our

discretionar2 appellate 7urisdiction *a2 be ur1ed to loo% into factual issues

raised in a Rule #$ petition. 6or instance, "hen the petitioner persuasivel2

alle1es that there is insufficient or insubstantial evidence on record to

support the factual findin1s of the tribunal or court a Buo, as Section $, Rule

)33 of the Rules of !ourt states in e=press ter*s that in cases filed before

ad*inistrative or Buasi7udicial bodies, a fact *a2 be dee*ed established

onl2 if supported b2 substantial evidence.A *phasis supplied-

>. Standards for re1ulariCation8

conceptual underpinnin1s.







+lcaraC posits that, contrar2 to the !ourts Decision, ones 7ob description

cannot b2 and of itself be treated as a standard for re1ulariCation as a

standard denotes a *easure of Buantit2 or Bualit2. >2 "a2 of e=a*ple,

+lcaraC cites the case of a probationar2 salesperson and as%s ho" does such

e*plo2ee achieve re1ular status if he does not %no" ho" *uch he needs tosell to reach the sa*e.

The ar1u*ent is untenable.

6irst off, the !ourt *ust correct +lcaraCs *ista%en notion; it is not the

probationar2 e*plo2ees 7ob description but the adeBuate perfor*ance of his

duties and responsibilities "hich constitutes the inherent and i*plied

standard for re1ulariCation. To echo the funda*ental point of the Decision, if

the probationar2 e*plo2ee had been full2 apprised b2 his e*plo2er of these

duties and responsibilities, then basic %no"led1e and co**on sense dictate

that he *ust adeBuatel2 perfor* the sa*e, else he fails to pass the

probationar2 trial and *a2 therefore be sub7ect to ter*ination.0

The deter*ination of FadeBuate perfor*anceF is not, in all cases, *easurable

b2 Buantitative specification, such as that of a sales Buota in +lcaraCs

e=a*ple. It is also hin1ed on the Bualitative assess*ent of the e*plo2ees

"or%8 b2 its nature, this lar1el2 rests on the reasonable e=ercise of thee*plo2ers *ana1e*ent prero1ative. 5hile in so*e instances the standards

used in *easurin1 the Bualit2 of "or% *a2 be conve2ed X such as "or%ers

"ho construct tan1ible products "hich follo" particular *etrics, not all

standards of Bualit2 *easure*ent *a2 be reducible to hard fi1ures or are

readil2 articulable in specific preen1a1e*ent descriptions. + 1ood e=a*ple

"ould be the case of probationar2 e*plo2ees "hose tas%s involve the

application of discretion and intellect, such as X to na*e a fe" X la"2ers,

artists, and 7ournalists. In these %inds of occupation, the best that the

e*plo2er can do at the ti*e of en1a1e*ent is to infor* the probationar2

e*plo2ee of his duties and responsibilities and to orient hi* on ho" to

properl2 proceed "ith the sa*e. The e*plo2er cannot bear out in e=actin1

detail at the be1innin1 of the en1a1e*ent "hat he dee*s as FBualit2 "or%F

especiall2 since the probationar2 e*plo2ee has 2et to sub*it the reBuired





output. In the ulti*ate anal2sis, the co**unication of perfor*ance

standards should be perceived "ithin the conte=t of the nature of the

probationar2 e*plo2ees duties and responsibilities.

The sa*e lo1ic applies to a probationar2 *ana1erial e*plo2ee "ho is tas%edto supervise a particular depart*ent, as +lcaraC in this case.9K$#hi9 It is

hardl2 possible for the e*plo2er, at the ti*e of the e*plo2ees en1a1e*ent,

to *ap into technical indicators, or conve2 in precise detail the Bualit2

standards b2 "hich the latter should effectivel2 *ana1e the depart*ent.

6actors "hich 1au1e the abilit2 of the *ana1erial e*plo2ee to either deal

"ith his subordinates e.1., ho" to spur their perfor*ance, or co**and

respect and obedience fro* the*-, or to or1aniCe office policies, are hardl2

conve2able at the outset of the en1a1e*ent since the e*plo2ee has 2et to be

i**ersed into the "or% itself. /iven that a *ana1erial role essentiall2

connotes an e=ercise of discretion, the Bualit2 of effective *ana1e*ent can

onl2 be deter*ined throu1h subseBuent assess*ent. 5hile at the ti*e of

en1a1e*ent, reason dictates that the e*plo2er can onl2 infor* the

probationar2 *ana1erial e*plo2ee of his duties and responsibilities as such

and provide the allo"able para*eters for the sa*e. Veril2, as stated in the

Decision, the adeBuate perfor*ance of such duties and responsibilities is, b2

and of itself, an i*plied standard of re1ulariCation.

In this relation, it bears *entionin1 that the perfor*ance standard

conte*plated b2 la" should not, in all cases, be contained in a specialiCed

s2ste* of feedbac%s or evaluation. The !ourt ta%es 7udicial notice of the fact

that not all e*plo2ers, such as si*ple businesses or s*allscale enterprises,

have a sophisticated for* of hu*an resource *ana1e*ent, so *uch so that

the adoption of technical indicators as utiliCed throu1h Fco**ent cardsF or

FappraisalF tools should not be treated as a prereBuisite for ever2 case of

probationar2 en1a1e*ent. In fact, even if a s2ste* of such %ind is e*plo2edand the procedures for its i*ple*entation are not follo"ed, once an

e*plo2er deter*ines that the probationar2 e*plo2ee fails to *eet the

standards reBuired for his re1ulariCation, the for*er is not precluded fro*

dis*issin1 the latter. The rule is that "hen a valid cause for ter*ination

e=ists, the procedural infir*it2 attendin1 the ter*ination onl2 "arrants the



pa2*ent of no*inal da*a1es. This "as the principle laid do"n in the

land*ar% cases of +1abon v. N4R!9 +1abon- and &a%a 6ood Processin1

!orporation v. Pacot)( &a%a-. In the assailed Decision, the !ourt actuall2

e=tended the application of the +1abon and &a%a rulin1s to breaches of

co*pan2 procedure, not"ithstandin1 the e*plo2ers co*pliance "ith thestatutor2 reBuire*ents under the 4abor !ode.)) Hence, althou1h +bbott did

not co*pl2 "ith its o"n ter*ination procedure, its nonco*pliance thereof

"ould not detract fro* the findin1 that there subsists a valid cause to

ter*inate +lcaraCs e*plo2*ent. +bbott, ho"ever, "as penaliCed for its

contractual breach and thereb2 ordered to pa2 no*inal da*a1es.

+s a final point, +lcaraC cannot ta%e refu1e in +lilin1 v. 6eliciano)' +lilin1-

since the sa*e is not sBuarel2 applicable to the case at bar. The e*plo2ee in

+lilin1, a sales e=ecutive, "as belatedl2 infor*ed of his Buota reBuire*ent.

Thus, considerin1 the nature of his position, the fact that he "as not

infor*ed of his sales Buota at the ti*e of his en1a1e*ent chan1ed the

co*ple=ion of his e*plo2*ent. !ontraril2, the nature of +lcaraC?s duties and

responsibilities as Re1ulator2 +ffairs Mana1er ne1ates the application of the

fore1oin1. Records sho" that +lcaraC "as ter*inated because she a- did not

*ana1e her ti*e effectivel28 b- failed to 1ain the trust of her staff and to

build an effective rapport "ith the*8 c- failed to train her staff effectivel28

and d- "as not able to obtain the %no"led1e and abilit2 to *a%e sound

7ud1*ents on case processin1 and article revie" "hich "ere necessar2 for

the proper perfor*ance of her duties.)3 Due to the nature and variet2 of these

*ana1erial functions, the best that +bbott could have done, at the ti*e of

+lcaraC?s en1a1e*ent, "as to infor* her of her duties and responsibilities,

the adeBuate perfor*ance of "hich, to repeat, is an inherent and i*plied

standard for re1ulariCation8 this is unli%e the circu*stance in +lilin1 "here a

Buantitative re1ulariCation standard, in the ter* of a sales Buota, "as readil2

articulable to the e*plo2ee at the outset. Hence, since the reasonableness of+lcaraC?s assess*ent clearl2 appears fro* the records, her ter*ination "as

7ustified. >ear in *ind that the Buantu* of proof "hich the e*plo2er *ust

dischar1e is onl2 substantial evidence "hich, as defined in case la", *eans

that a*ount of relevant evidence as a reasonable *ind *i1ht accept as

adeBuate to support a conclusion, even if other *inds, eBuall2 reasonable,













*i1ht conceivabl2 opine other"ise.)# To the !ourt?s *ind, this threshold of

evidence +bbott a*pl2 overca*e in this case.

+ll told, the !ourt hereb2 denies the instant *otion for reconsideration and

thereb2 upholds the Decision in the *ain case.

5HR6OR, the *otion for reconsideration dated +u1ust '3, '()3 of the

!ourt?s Decision dated &ul2 '3, '()3 in this case is hereb2 DNID.

SO ORDRD.

SECON% %I(ISION

ABESCO CONSTRUCTION AN% G.R. No. 10118

%E(ELOPMENT CORPORATION

)*+ MR. OSCAR BAN'ON,

Ge*er); M)*)<er,

Petto*er:, Present;

P<NO, *., !hairperson,

S+NDOV+4/<TIRR,

? e r : : !ORON+,

+!<N+ and

/+R!I+, **.

ALBERTO RAMIRE', BERNAR%O

%IA, MANUEL LO&OLA,

RE&NAL%O P. ACO%ESIN,





ALE"AN%ER BAUTISTA,

E%GAR TA$ONERA )*+

GAR& %ISON,

Re:po*+e*t:. Present;

+pril )(, '((:

@ @

6 8 3 + 4 2 & #

CORONA, J.5

Petitioner co*pan2 "as en1a1ed in a construction business "here

respondents "ere hired on different dates fro* )9A: to )99' either as

laborers, road roller operators, painters or drivers.

In )99A, respondents filed t"o separate co*plaints)E for ille1al

dis*issal a1ainst the co*pan2 and its /eneral Mana1er, Oscar >anCon,

before the 4abor +rbiter 4+-. Petitioners alle1edl2 dis*issed the* "ithout

a valid reason and "ithout due process of la". The co*plaints also included

clai*s for nonpa2*ent of the )3 th *onth pa2, five da2s service incentive

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/april2006/G.R.%20No.%20141168.htm#_ftn1






leave pa2, pre*iu* pa2 for holida2s and rest da2s, and *oral and e=e*plar2

da*a1es. The 4+ later on ordered the consolidation of the t"o co*plaints.'E

Petitioners denied liabilit2 to respondents and countered that respondents

"ere pro7ect e*plo2ees since their services "ere necessar2 onl2 "hen the

co*pan2 had pro7ects to be co*pleted. Petitioners ar1ued that, bein1 pro7ect

e*plo2ees, respondents e*plo2*ent "as coter*inous "ith the pro7ect to

"hich the2 "ere assi1ned. The2 "ere not re1ular e*plo2ees "ho en7o2ed

securit2 of tenure and entitle*ent to separation pa2 upon ter*ination fro*

"or%.

After trial, the A !eclare! respon!ents as re"ular

e#plo$ees because the$ belon"e! to a %or pool fro# %hich

the co#pan$ !re% %orers for assi"n#ent to !i'erent

pro(ects, at its !iscretion. )e rule! that respon!ents %ere

hire! an! re*hire! o+er a perio! of 18 $ears, hence, the$

%ere !ee#e! to be re"ular e#plo$ees. )e lie%ise foun!

that their e#plo$#ent %as ter#inate! %ithout (ust cause. n

a !ecision !ate! -anuar$ , 1998, he state!/

5HR6OR, 7ud1*ent is hereb2 rendered declarin1

respondents 1uilt2 of ille1al dis*issal and orderin1 the latter to

reinstate co*plainants to their for*er positions

"ith bac%"a1es and other benefits fro* the ti*e their





co*pensation "as "ithheld fro* the* up to the ti*e their

actual reinstate*ent "hich as of the date of this decision

a*ounted to;

N+M

). +lberto Ra*ireC P#9,A:#.((

'. Manuel >. 4o2ola #:,:9$.''

3. Hernando Di"a #9,A:#.((

#. Re2naldo +codesin #:,:9$.''

$. +le=ander >autista #$,'0$.'#

:. d1ar Ta7onera :',90$.((

A. /ar2 Dison $3,9)).((

TOT+4 P 3$$,(99.:0

Ho"ever, if reinstate*ent is no lon1er feasible, a one*onth

salar2 shall be a"arded as a for* of separation pa2, in addition

to the afore*entioned a"ard.

Respondents are li%e"ise ordered to pa2 co*plainants

the follo"in1;



N+M

<

N

P

+

ID

S

+

4

+

R

K

S+4

+RK

DI66

R

NTI+4

)3T

H

M

ON

THP+

K

$

D

+

KS

S

RV

I!

IN

!

NT

IV

4

+V

SP

+R

+TI

ON

P+K

).Her

nando

Di"a

P

A

:

$

.(

(

P),

'A#

.((

P#,

)#A.

((

'.+le

=ande

r

>autis

ta

P'3,

(00.

((

)),

)#)

.((

P',

((

$.(

(

#$,:

)A.(

(

3.+lb

erto

Ra*ir

eC

)),

)#)

.((

',(

($.

((

A#,:

#:.(

(

#.Man )), ',( #),)



uel >.

4o2ol

a

)#)

.((

'(.

((

A(.(

(

$.Re2naldo

+cod

esin

)),)#)

.((

',('(.

((

'(,A3$.(

(

:.d1

ardoT

a7oner

a

)9,

$((

.((

3,A

$(.

((

)3(,

(((.

((

A./ar

2 Dis

on

)),

)#)

.((

',(

'(.

((

'9,(

'9.(

(

P

A

:

$

.(

(

P '3,

(00.

((

P A

:,#

A9.

((

P )

3,0

'(.

((

P 3#

$,3#

#.((

===

+ll other clai*s are hereb2 dis*issed for lac% of *erit.3E

Petitioners appealed to the National 4abor Relations !o**ission N4R!-

"hich affir*ed the 4+s decision.#E







SubseBuentl2, petitioners filed a petition for revie" in the !ourt of +ppeals

!+- ar1uin1 that the2 "ere not liable for ille1al dis*issal since respondents

services "ere *erel2 put on hold until the resu*ption of their business

operations. The2 also averred that the2 had paid respondents their full "a1es

and benefits as provided b2 la", hence, the latter had no *ore ri1ht to

further benefits.

The !+ "as not convinced and dis*issed petitioners appeal. It held;

5e note that the petitioners are ta%in1 a ne" tac% in

ar1uin1, for the first ti*e, that the respondentsE "ere not

dis*issed but their e*plo2*ent "as *erel2 suspended.

Previous to this, their defense "as that the respondentsE "ere

pro7ect e*plo2ees "ho "ere not entitled to securit2 of tenure.

The petitioners are barred fro* raisin1 a ne" defense at this

sta1e of the case.

=== === ===

5HR6OR, the petition for certiorari is

hereb2 DISMISSD, for lac% of *erit.$E





Petitioners filed a *otion for reconsideration but it "as dis*issed b2

the !+.:E

n this petition for re+ie% un!er Rule 4 of the Rules of ourt,

petitioners raise the follo%in" issues for resolution/ 1

%hether respon!ents %ere pro(ect e#plo$ees or re"ular

e#plo$ees an! 2 %hether respon!ents %ere ille"all$

!is#isse!.

On the first issue, "e rule that respondents "ere re1ular e*plo2ees.

Ho"ever, "e ta%e e=ception to the reasons cited b2 the 4+ "hich both the

N4R! and the !+ affir*edin considerin1 respondents as re1ular

e*plo2ees and not as pro7ect e*plo2ees.

!ontrar2 to the disBuisitions of the 4+, e*plo2ees li%e respondents-

"ho "or% under different pro7ect e*plo2*ent contracts for several 2ears do

not auto*aticall2 beco*e re1ular e*plo2ees8 the2 can re*ain as pro7ect

e*plo2ees re1ardless of the nu*ber of 2ears the2 "or%. AE 4en1th of service

is not a controllin1 factor in deter*inin1 the nature of ones e*plo2*ent.0E

Moreover, e*plo2ees "ho are *e*bers of a "or% pool fro* "hich a

co*pan2 li%e petitioner corporation- dra"s "or%ers for deplo2*ent to its

different pro7ects do not beco*e re1ular e*plo2ees b2 reason of that fact









alone. The !ourt has enunciated in so*e cases 9E that *e*bers of a "or%

pool can either be pro7ect e*plo2ees or re1ular e*plo2ees.

/he #rinci#al test for determinin $hether em#loyees are #ro?ect

em#loyees or reular em#loyees is $hether they are assined to carry out a

s#ecific #ro?ect or underta"in, the duration and sco#e of $hich are

s#ecified at the time they are enaed for that #ro?ect.)(E Such duration, as

"ell as the particular "or%service to be perfor*ed, is defined in an

e*plo2*ent a1ree*ent and is *ade clear to the e*plo2ees at the ti*e of

hirin1.))E

In this case, petitioners did not have that %ind of a1ree*ent "ith

respondents. Neither did the2 infor* respondents of the nature of the

latters "or% at the ti*e of hirin1. Hence, for failure of petitioners to

substantiate their clai* that respondents "ere pro7ect e*plo2ees, "e areconstrained to declare the* as re1ular e*plo2ees.

6urther*ore, petitioners cannot belatedl2 ar1ue that respondents

continue to be their e*plo2ees so as to escape liabilit2 for ille1al

dis*issal-. >efore the 4+, petitioners staunchl2 postured that respondents

"ere onl2 pro7ect e*plo2ees "hose e*plo2*ent tenure "as coter*inous

"ith the pro7ects the2 "ere assi1ned to. Ho"ever, before the !+, the2 too% a

different stance b2 insistin1 that respondents continued to be their

e*plo2ees. Petitioners inconsistent and conflictin1 positions on their true









relation "ith respondents *a%e it all the *ore evident that the latter "ere

indeed their re1ular e*plo2ees.

On the issue of ille1al dis*issal, "e hold that petitioners failed to

adhere to the t"onotice rule "hich reBuires that "or%ers to be dis*issed

*ust be furnished "ith; )- a notice infor*in1 the* of the particular acts for

"hich the2 are bein1 dis*issed and '- a notice advisin1 the* of the

decision to ter*inate the e*plo2*ent.)'E Respondents "ere never 1iven

such notices.

-ERE4ORE, the petition is hereb2 %ENIE%.

!osts a1ainst petitioners.

SO OR%ERE%.


SUPREME COURT

Manila

6IRST DIVISION

G.R. No. 17019 No?ember 7, !13

GMA NETORK, INC., Petitioner,

vs.CARLOS P. PABRIGA, GEO44RE& 4. ARIAS, KIRB& N. CAMPO,

ARNOL% L. LAGA-IT, )*+ ARMAN%O A. CATUBIG, Respondents.

D ! I S I O N

LEONAR%O%E CASTRO, J.:





This is a Petition for Revie" on !ertiorari filed b2 petitioner /M+ Net"or%

Inc. assailin1 the Decision) of the !ourt of +ppeals dated Septe*ber 0, '((:

and the subseBuent Resolution' dated &anuar2 '' '((A den2in1

reconsideration in !+/.R. SP No. A3:$'.

The !ourt of +ppeals su**ariCed the facts of the case as follo"s;

On &ul2 )9 )999 due to the *iserable "or%in1 conditions private

respondents "ere forced to file a co*plaint a1ainst petitioner before the

National 4abor Relations !o**ission Re1ional +rbitration >ranch No. VII

!ebu !it2 assailin1 their respective e*plo2*ent circu*stances as follo"s;

N+M D+T HIRD POSITION

!arlos Pabri1a ' Ma2 )99A Television Technicians

/eoffre2 +rias ' Ma2 )99A Television Technicians

irb2 !a*po ) Dec. )993 Television Technicians

+rnold 4a1anit )) 6eb. )99: Television Technicians

+r*and !atubi1 ' March )99A Television Technicians

Private respondents "ere en1a1ed b2 petitioner to perfor* the follo"in1

activities, to "it;

)- Mannin1 of Technical Operations !enter;

a- Responsible for the airin1 of local co**ercials8 and

b- 4o11in1*onitorin1 of national co**ercials satellite-

'- +ctin1 as Trans*itterVTR *en;

a- Prepare tapes for local airin18

b- +ctual airin1 of co**ercials8

c- Plu11in1 of station pro*o8

d- 4o11in1 of trans*itter readin18 and







e- In case of po"er failure, start up 1enerator set to resu*e

pro1ra*8

3- +ctin1 as Maintenance staff8

a- !hec%in1 of eBuip*ent8

b- 5ar*in1 up of 1enerator8

c- 6illin1 of oil, fuel, and "ater in radiator8 and

#- +ctin1 as !a*era*en

On # +u1ust )999, petitioner received a notice of hearin1 of the co*plaint.

The follo"in1 da2, petitioners n1ineerin1 Mana1er, Ro2 Villacastin,

confronted the private respondents about the said co*plaint.

On 9 +u1ust )999, private respondents "ere su**oned to the office of

petitioners +rea Mana1er, Mrs. Susan +liYo, and the2 "ere *ade to e=plain

"h2 the2 filed the co*plaint. The ne=t da2, private respondents "ere barred

fro* enterin1 and reportin1 for "or% "ithout an2 notice statin1 the reasons

therefor.

On )3 +u1ust )999, private respondents, throu1h their counsel, "rote a

letter to Mrs. Susan +liYo reBuestin1 that the2 be recalled bac% to "or%.

On '3 +u1ust )999, a repl2 letter fro* Mr. >ienvenido >ustria, petitioners

head of Personnel and 4abor Relations Division, ad*itted the nonpa2*ent

of benefits but did not *ention the reBuest of private respondents to be

allo"ed to return to "or%.

On )$ Septe*ber )999, private respondents sent another letter to Mr. >ustria

reiteratin1 their reBuest to "or% but the sa*e "as totall2 i1nored. On 0

October )999, private respondents filed an a*ended co*plaint raisin1 the

follo"in1 additional issues; )- <nfair 4abor Practice8 '- Ille1al dis*issal8and 3- Da*a1es and +ttorne2s fees.

On '3 Septe*ber )999, a *andator2 conference "as set to a*icabl2 settle

the dispute bet"een the parties, ho"ever, the sa*e proved to be futile. +s a

result, both of the* "ere directed to file their respective position papers.



On )( Nove*ber )999, private respondents filed their position paper and on

' March '(((, the2 received a cop2 of petitioners position paper. The

follo"in1 da2, the 4abor +rbiter issued an order considerin1 the case

sub*itted for decision.3

In his Decision dated +u1ust '#, '(((, the 4abor +rbiter dis*issed the

co*plaint of respondents for ille1al dis*issal and unfair labor practice, but

held petitioner liable for )3th *onth pa2. The dispositive portion of the

4abor +rbiters Decision reads;

5HR6OR, the fore1oin1 pre*ises considered, 7ud1*ent is hereb2

rendered dis*issin1 the co*plaints for ille1al dis*issal and unfair labor

practice.

Respondents are, ho"ever, directed to pa2 the follo"in1 co*plainants their proportionate )3th *onth pa2, to "it;

). irb2 !a*po P A,A):.(#

'. +rnold 4a1ahit A,9'$.90

3. +r*and !atubi1 #,'33.:0

#. !arlos Pabri1a #,300.)9

$. /eoffre2 +rias #,$:'.()

P'0,0':.)#

)(@ +ttorne2s fees ',00'.:)

/R+ND TOT+4 P3),A(0.A$

+ll other clai*s are, hereb2, dis*issed for failure to substantiate the sa*e.#

Respondents appealed to the National 4abor Relations !o**ission

N4R!-. The N4R! reversed the Decision of the 4abor +rbiter, and held

thus;

5HR6OR, "e *a%e the follo"in1 findin1s;

a- +ll co*plainants are re1ular e*plo2ees "ith respect to the particular

activit2 to "hich the2 "ere assi1ned, until it ceased to e=ist. +s such, the2







are entitled to pa2*ent of separation pa2 co*puted at one )- *onth salar2

for ever2 2ear of service8

b- The2 are not entitled to overti*e pa2 and holida2 pa28 and

c- The2 are entitled to )3th *onth pa2, ni1ht shift differential and serviceincentive leave pa2.

6or purposes of accurate co*putation, the entire records are RM+NDD

to the Re1ional +rbitration >ranch of ori1in "hich is hereb2 directed to

reBuire fro* respondent the production of additional docu*ents "here

necessar2.

Respondent is also assessed the attorne2s fees of ten percent )(@- of all

the above a"ards.$

Petitioner elevated the case to the !ourt of +ppeals via a Petition for

!ertiorari. On Septe*ber 0, '((:, the appellate court rendered its Decision

den2in1 the petition for lac% of *erit.

Petitioner filed the present Petition for Revie" on !ertiorari, based on the

follo"in1 1rounds;

I.

TH !O<RT O6 +PP+4S /R+V4K RRD 6INDIN/

RSPONDNTS +R R/<4+R MP4OKS O6 TH

PTITIONR +ND +R NOT PRO&!T MP4OKS.

II.

TH !O<RT O6 +PP+4S /R+V4K RRD IN +5+RDIN/

SP+R+TION P+K TO RSPONDNTS +>SNT + 6INDIN/

TH+T RSPONDNTS 5R I44/+44K DISMISSD.

III.


NI/HT SHI6T DI66RNTI+4 P+K !ONSIDRIN/ TH

+>SN! O6 VIDN! 5HI!H 5O<4D NTIT4 THM TO

S<!H +N +5+RD.





IV.


+TTORNKS 6S TO RSPONDNTS.:

The parties havin1 e=tensivel2 elaborated on their positions in theirrespective *e*oranda, "e proceed to dispose of the issues raised.

6ive !lassifications of *plo2*ent

+t the outset, "e should note that the nature of the e*plo2*ent is

deter*ined b2 la", re1ardless of an2 contract e=pressin1 other"ise. The

supre*ac2 of the la" over the no*enclature of the contract and the

stipulations contained therein is to brin1 to life the polic2 enshrined in the

!onstitution to afford full protection to labor. 4abor contracts, bein1 i*bued

"ith public interest, are placed on a hi1her plane than ordinar2 contracts and

are sub7ect to the police po"er of the State.A

Respondents clai* that the2 are re1ular e*plo2ees of petitioner /M+

Net"or%, Inc. The latter, on the other hand, interchan1eabl2 characteriCe

respondents e*plo2*ent as pro7ect and fi=ed periodfi=ed ter*

e*plo2*ent. There is thus the need to clarif2 the fore1oin1 ter*s.

The ter*s re1ular e*plo2*ent and pro7ect e*plo2*ent are ta%en fro*

+rticle '0( of the 4abor !ode, "hich also spea%s of casual and seasonale*plo2*ent;

+RTI!4 '0(. Re1ular and casual e*plo2*ent. X The provisions of "ritten

a1ree*ent to the contrar2 not"ithstandin1 and re1ardless of the oral

a1ree*ent of the parties, an e*plo2*ent shall be dee*ed to be re1ular

"here the e*plo2ee has been en1a1ed to perfor* activities "hich are

usuall2 necessar2 or desirable in the usual business or trade of the e*plo2er,

e=cept "here the e*plo2*ent has been fi=ed for a specific pro7ect or

underta%in1 the co*pletion or ter*ination of "hich has been deter*ined at

the ti*e of the en1a1e*ent of the e*plo2ee or "here the "or% or services to be perfor*ed is seasonal in nature and e*plo2*ent is for the duration of the

season.

+n e*plo2*ent shall be dee*ed to be casual if it is not covered b2 the

precedin1 para1raph; Provided, That, an2 e*plo2ee "ho has rendered at

least one 2ear of service, "hether such service is continuous or bro%en, shall







be considered a re1ular e*plo2ee "ith respect to the activit2 in "hich he is

e*plo2ed and his e*plo2*ent shall continue "hile such activit2 actuall2

e=ist.

+ fifth classification, that of a fi=ed ter* e*plo2*ent, is not e=pressl2

*entioned in the 4abor !ode. Nevertheless, this !ourt ruled in >rent

School, Inc. v. a*ora,0 that such a contract, "hich specifies that

e*plo2*ent "ill last onl2 for a definite period, is not per se ille1al or

a1ainst public polic2.

5hether respondents are re1ular or pro7ect e*plo2ees

Pursuant to the aboveBuoted +rticle '0( of the 4abor !ode, e*plo2ees

perfor*in1 activities "hich are usuall2 necessar2 or desirable in the

e*plo2ers usual business or trade can either be re1ular, pro7ect or seasonale*plo2ees, "hile, as a 1eneral rule, those perfor*in1 activities not usuall2

necessar2 or desirable in the e*plo2ers usual business or trade are casual

e*plo2ees. The reason for this distinction *a2 not be readil2

co*prehensible to those "ho have not carefull2 studied these provisions;

onl2 e*plo2ers "ho constantl2 need the specified tas%s to be perfor*ed can

be 7ustifiabl2 char1ed to uphold the constitutionall2 protected securit2 of

tenure of the correspondin1 "or%ers. The conseBuence of the distinction is

found in +rticle 'A9 of the 4abor !ode, "hich provides;

+RTI!4 'A9. Securit2 of tenure. X In cases of re1ular e*plo2*ent, thee*plo2er shall not ter*inate the services of an e*plo2ee e=cept for a 7ust

cause or "hen authoriCed b2 this Title. +n e*plo2ee "ho is un7ustl2

dis*issed fro* "or% shall be entitled to reinstate*ent "ithout loss of

seniorit2 ri1hts and other privile1es and to his full bac%"a1es, inclusive of

allo"ances, and to his other benefits or their *onetar2 eBuivalent co*puted

fro* the ti*e his co*pensation "as "ithheld fro* hi* up to the ti*e of his

actual reinstate*ent.

On the other hand, the activities of pro7ect e*plo2ees *a2 or *a2 not be

usuall2 necessar2 or desirable in the usual business or trade of the e*plo2er,

as "e have discussed in +4<T<!P v. National 4abor Relations

!o**ission,9 and recentl2 reiterated in 4e2te /eother*al Po"er

Pro1ressive *plo2ees <nion+4<T<!P v. Philippine National Oil

!o*pan2ner12 Develop*ent !orporation.)( In said cases, "e clarified the









ter* Fpro7ectF in the test for deter*inin1 "hether an e*plo2ee is a re1ular

or pro7ect e*plo2ee;

It is evidentl2 i*portant to beco*e clear about the *eanin1 and scope of the

ter* Fpro7ectF in the present conte=t. The Fpro7ectF for the carr2in1 out of

"hich Fpro7ect e*plo2eesF are hired "ould ordinaril2 have so*e

relationship to the usual business of the e*plo2er. =ceptionall2, the

Fpro7ectF underta%in1 *i1ht not have an ordinar2 or nor*al relationship to

the usual business of the e*plo2er. In this latter case, the deter*ination of

the scope and para*eters of the Fpro7ectF beco*es fairl2 eas2. It is unusual

but still conceivable- for a co*pan2 to underta%e a pro7ect "hich has

absolutel2 no relationship to the usual business of the co*pan28 thus, for

instance, it "ould be an unusual steel*a%in1 co*pan2 "hich "ould

underta%e the breedin1 and production of fish or the cultivation of

ve1etables. 6ro* the vie"point, ho"ever, of the le1al characteriCation proble* here presented to the !ourt, there should be no difficult2 in

desi1natin1 the e*plo2ees "ho are retained or hired for the purpose of

underta%in1 fish culture or the production of ve1etables as Fpro7ect

e*plo2ees,F as distin1uished fro* ordinar2 or Fre1ular e*plo2ees,F so lon1

as the duration and scope of the pro7ect "ere deter*ined or specified at the

ti*e of en1a1e*ent of the Fpro7ect e*plo2ees.F 6or, as is evident fro* the

provisions of +rticle '0( of the 4abor !ode, Buoted earlier, the principal test

for deter*inin1 "hether particular e*plo2ees are properl2 characteriCed as

Fpro7ect e*plo2eesF as distin1uished fro* Fre1ular e*plo2ees,F is "hether

or not the Fpro7ect e*plo2eesF "ere assi1ned to carr2 out a Fspecific pro7ect

or underta%in1,F the duration and scope- of "hich "ere specified at the ti*e

the e*plo2ees "ere en1a1ed for that pro7ect.

In the real* of business and industr2, "e note that Fpro7ectF could refer to

one or the other of at least t"o '- distin1uishable t2pes of activities. 6irstl2,

a pro7ect could refer to a particular 7ob or underta%in1 that is "ithin the

re1ular or usual business of the e*plo2er co*pan2, but "hich is distinct and

separate, and identifiable as such, fro* the other underta%in1s of the

co*pan2. Such 7ob or underta%in1 be1ins and ends at deter*ined ordeter*inable ti*es. The t2pical e=a*ple of this first t2pe of pro7ect is a

particular construction 7ob or pro7ect of a construction co*pan2. +

construction co*pan2 ordinaril2 carries out t"o or *ore distinctE

identifiable construction pro7ects; e.1., a t"ent2fivestore2 hotel in Ma%ati8

a residential condo*iniu* buildin1 in >a1uio !it28 and a do*estic air

ter*inal in Iloilo !it2. *plo2ees "ho are hired for the carr2in1 out of one



of these separate pro7ects, the scope and duration of "hich has been

deter*ined and *ade %no"n to the e*plo2ees at the ti*e of e*plo2*ent,

are properl2 treated as Fpro7ect e*plo2ees,F and their services *a2 be

la"full2 ter*inated at co*pletion of the pro7ect.

The ter* Fpro7ectF could also refer to, secondl2, a particular 7ob or

underta%in1 that is not "ithin the re1ular business of the corporation. Such a

7ob or underta%in1 *ust also be identifiabl2 separate and distinct fro* the

ordinar2 or re1ular business operations of the e*plo2er. The 7ob or

underta%in1 also be1ins and ends at deter*ined or deter*inable ti*es. = =

=.)) *phases supplied, citation o*itted.-

Thus, in order to safe1uard the ri1hts of "or%ers a1ainst the arbitrar2 use of

the "ord Fpro7ectF to prevent e*plo2ees fro* attainin1 the status of re1ular

e*plo2ees, e*plo2ers clai*in1 that their "or%ers are pro7ect e*plo2eesshould not onl2 prove that the duration and scope of the e*plo2*ent "as

specified at the ti*e the2 "ere en1a1ed, but also that there "as indeed a

pro7ect. +s discussed above, the pro7ect could either be )- a particular 7ob or

underta%in1 that is "ithin the re1ular or usual business of the e*plo2er

co*pan2, but "hich is distinct and separate, and identifiable as such, fro*

the other underta%in1s of the co*pan28 or '- a particular 7ob or underta%in1

that is not "ithin the re1ular business of the corporation. +s it "as "ith

re1ard to the distinction bet"een a re1ular and casual e*plo2ee, the purpose

of this reBuire*ent is to delineate "hether or not the e*plo2er is in constant

need of the services of the specified e*plo2ee. If the particular 7ob orunderta%in1 is "ithin the re1ular or usual business of the e*plo2er co*pan2

and it is not identifiabl2 distinct or separate fro* the other underta%in1s of

the co*pan2, there is clearl2 a constant necessit2 for the perfor*ance of the

tas% in Buestion, and therefore said 7ob or underta%in1 should not be

considered a pro7ect.

>rief e=a*ples of "hat *a2 or *a2 not be considered identifiabl2 distinct

fro* the business of the e*plo2er are in order. In Philippine 4on1 Distance

Telephone !o*pan2 v. Kla1an,

)'

this !ourt held that accountin1 duties "erenot sho"n as distinct, separate and identifiable fro* the usual underta%in1s

of therein petitioner P4DT. +lthou1h essentiall2 a telephone co*pan2,

P4DT *aintains its o"n accountin1 depart*ent to "hich respondent "as

assi1ned. This "as one of the reasons "h2 the !ourt held that respondent in

said case "as not a pro7ect e*plo2ee. On the other hand, in San Mi1uel

!orporation v. National 4abor Relations !o**ission,)3 respondent "as









hired to repair furnaces, "hich are needed b2 San Mi1uel !orporation to

*anufacture 1lass, an inte1ral co*ponent of its pac%a1in1 and

*anufacturin1 business. The !ourt, findin1 that respondent is a pro7ect

e*plo2ee, e=plained that San Mi1uel !orporation is not en1a1ed in the

business of repairin1 furnaces. +lthou1h the activit2 "as necessar2 to enable

petitioner to continue *anufacturin1 1lass, the necessit2 for such repairs

arose onl2 "hen a particular furnace reached the end of its life or operatin1

c2cle. Respondent therein "as therefore considered a pro7ect e*plo2ee.

In the case at bar, as discussed in the state*ent of facts, respondents "ere

assi1ned to the follo"in1 tas%s;

)- Mannin1 of Technical Operations !enter;

a- Responsible for the airin1 of local co**ercials8 and

b- 4o11in1*onitorin1 of national co**ercials satellite-

'- +ctin1 as Trans*itterVTR *en;

a- Prepare tapes for local airin18

b- +ctual airin1 of co**ercials8

c- Plu11in1 of station pro*o8

d- 4o11in1 of trans*itter readin18 and

e- In case of po"er failure, start up 1enerator set to resu*e

pro1ra*8

3- +ctin1 as Maintenance staff8

a- !hec%in1 of eBuip*ent8

b- 5ar*in1 up of 1enerator8

c- 6illin1 of oil, fuel, and "ater in radiator8 and

#- +ctin1 as !a*era*en)#





These 7obs and underta%in1s are clearl2 "ithin the re1ular or usual business

of the e*plo2er co*pan2 and are not identifiabl2 distinct or separate fro*

the other underta%in1s of the co*pan2. There is no den2in1 that the *annin1

of the operations center to air co**ercials, actin1 as trans*itterVTR *en,

*aintainin1 the eBuip*ent, and actin1 as ca*era*en are not underta%in1s

separate or distinct fro* the business of a broadcastin1 co*pan2.

Petitioners alle1ation that respondents "ere *erel2 substitutes or "hat the2

call pinchhitters "hich *eans that the2 "ere e*plo2ed to ta%e the place of

re1ular e*plo2ees of petitioner "ho "ere absent or on leave- does not

chan1e the fact that their 7obs cannot be considered pro7ects "ithin the

purvie" of the la". ver2 industr2, even public offices, has to deal "ith

securin1 substitutes for e*plo2ees "ho are absent or on leave. Such tas%s,

"hether perfor*ed b2 the usual e*plo2ee or b2 a substitute, cannot be

considered separate and distinct fro* the other underta%in1s of the co*pan2.5hile it is *ana1e*ents prero1ative to device a *ethod to deal "ith this

issue, such prero1ative is not absolute and is li*ited to s2ste*s "herein

e*plo2ees are not in1eniousl2 and *ethodicall2 deprived of their

constitutionall2 protected ri1ht to securit2 of tenure. 5e are not convinced

that a bi1 corporation such as petitioner cannot device a s2ste* "herein a

sufficient nu*ber of technicians can be hired "ith a re1ular status "ho can

ta%e over "hen their collea1ues are absent or on leave, especiall2 "hen it

appears fro* the records that petitioner hires socalled pinchhitters

re1ularl2 ever2 *onth.

In affir*in1 the Decision of the N4R!, the !ourt of +ppeals further*ore

noted that if respondents "ere indeed pro7ect e*plo2ees, petitioner should

have reported the co*pletion of its pro7ects and the dis*issal of respondents

in its finished pro7ects;

There is another reason "h2 "e should rule in favor of private respondents.

No"here in the records is there an2 sho"in1 that petitioner reported the

co*pletion of its pro7ects and the dis*issal of private respondents in its

finished pro7ects to the nearest Public *plo2*ent Office as per Polic2Instruction No. '()$ of the Depart*ent of 4abor and *plo2*ent DO4E.

&urisprudence abounds "ith the consistent rule that the failure of an

e*plo2er to report to the nearest Public *plo2*ent Office the ter*ination

of its "or%ers services ever2ti*e a pro7ect or a phase thereof is co*pleted

indicates that said "or%ers are not pro7ect e*plo2ees.





In the e=tant case, petitioner should have filed as *an2 reports of

ter*ination as there "ere pro7ects actuall2 finished if private respondents

"ere indeed pro7ect e*plo2ees, considerin1 that the latter "ere hired and

a1ain rehired fro* )99: up to )999. Its failure to sub*it reports of

ter*ination cannot but sufficientl2 convince us further that private

respondents are trul2 re1ular e*plo2ees. I*portant to note is the fact that

private respondents had rendered *ore than one )- 2ear of service at the

ti*e of their dis*issal "hich overturns petitioners alle1ations that private

respondents "ere hired for a specific or fi=ed underta%in1 for a li*ited

period of ti*e.): !itations o*itted.-

5e are not una"are of the decisions of the !ourt in Philippine 4on1

Distance Telephone !o*pan2 v. Kla1an)Aand +>S!>N >roadcastin1

!orporation v. NaCareno)0 "hich held that the e*plo2ers failure to report

the ter*ination of e*plo2ees upon pro7ect co*pletion to the DO4Re1ional Office havin1 7urisdiction over the "or%place "ithin the period

prescribed *ilitates a1ainst the e*plo2ers clai* of pro7ect e*plo2*ent,

even outside the construction industr2. 5e have also previousl2 stated in

another case that the !ourt should not allo" circu*vention of labor la"s in

industries not fallin1 "ithin the a*bit of Polic2 Instruction No.

'(Depart*ent Order No. )9, thereb2 allo"in1 the prevention of acBuisition

of tenurial securit2 b2 pro7ect e*plo2ees "ho have alread2 1ained the status

of re1ular e*plo2ees b2 the e*plo2ers conduct.)9

5hile it *a2 not be proper to revisit such past pronounce*ents in this case,"e nonetheless find that petitioners theor2 of pro7ect e*plo2*ent fails the

principal test of de*onstratin1 that the alle1ed pro7ect e*plo2ee "as

assi1ned to carr2 out a specific pro7ect or underta%in1, the duration and

scope of "hich "ere specified at the ti*e the e*plo2ee is en1a1ed for the

pro7ect.'(

The !ourt of +ppeals also ruled that even if it is assu*ed that respondents

are pro7ect e*plo2ees, the2 "ould nevertheless have attained re1ular

e*plo2*ent status because of their continuous rehirin1;

>e that as it *a2, a pro7ect e*plo2ee *a2 also attain the status of a re1ular

e*plo2ee if there is a continuous rehirin1 of pro7ect e*plo2ees after the

stoppa1e of a pro7ect8 and the activities perfor*ed are usual andE custo*ar2

to the business or trade of the e*plo2er. The Supre*e !ourt ruled that a













pro7ect e*plo2ee or a *e*ber of a "or% pool *a2 acBuire the status of a

re1ular e*plo2ee "hen the follo"in1 concur;

)- There is a continuous rehirin1 of pro7ect e*plo2ees even after

cessation of a pro7ect8 and

'- The tas%s perfor*ed b2 the alle1ed pro7ect e*plo2ee are vital,

necessar2 and indispensable to the usual business or trade of the

e*plo2er.

The circu*stances set forth b2 la" and the 7urisprudence is present in this

case. In fine, even if private respondents are to be considered as pro7ect

e*plo2ees, the2 attained re1ular e*plo2*ent status, 7ust the

sa*e.') !itation o*itted.-

+nent this issue of attain*ent of re1ular status due to continuous rehirin1,

petitioner advert to the fi=ed period alle1edl2 desi1nated in e*plo2*ent

contracts and reflected in vouchers. Petitioner cites our pronounce*ents in

>rent, St. Theresas School of Novaliches 6oundation v. National 4abor

Relations !o**ission,'' and 6abela v. San Mi1uel !orporation,'3 and ar1ues

that respondents "ere full2 a"are and freel2 entered into a1ree*ents to

underta%e a particular activit2 for a specific len1th of ti*e.'# Petitioner

apparentl2 confuses pro7ect e*plo2*ent fro* fi=ed ter* e*plo2*ent. The

discussions cited b2 petitioner in >rent, St. Theresas and 6abela all refer to

fi=ed ter* e*plo2*ent, "hich is sub7ect to a different set of reBuire*ents.

5hether the reBuisites of a valid fi=ed ter* e*plo2*ent are *et

+s stated above, petitioner interchan1eabl2 characteriCes respondents

service as pro7ect and fi=ed ter* e*plo2*ent. These t2pes of e*plo2*ent,

ho"ever, are not the sa*e. 5hile the for*er reBuires a pro7ect as

restrictivel2 defined above, the duration of a fi=edter* e*plo2*ent a1reed

upon b2 the parties *a2 be an2 da2 certain, "hich is understood to be Fthat

"hich *ust necessaril2 co*e althou1h it *a2 not be %no"n "hen.F'$ The

decisive deter*inant in fi=edter* e*plo2*ent is not the activit2 that thee*plo2ee is called upon to perfor* but the da2 certain a1reed upon b2 the

parties for the co**ence*ent and ter*ination of the e*plo2*ent

relationship.':

!o1niCant of the possibilit2 of abuse in the utiliCation of fi=edter*

e*plo2*ent contracts, "e e*phasiCed in >rent that "here fro* the















circu*stances it is apparent that the periods have been i*posed to preclude

acBuisition of tenurial securit2 b2 the e*plo2ee, the2 should be struc% do"n

as contrar2 to public polic2 or *orals.'A 5e thus laid do"n indications or

criteria under "hich Fter* e*plo2*entF cannot be said to be in

circu*vention of the la" on securit2 of tenure, na*el2;

)- The fi=ed period of e*plo2*ent "as %no"in1l2 and voluntaril2

a1reed upon b2 the parties "ithout an2 force, duress, or i*proper

pressure bein1 brou1ht to bear upon the e*plo2ee and absent an2

other circu*stances vitiatin1 his consent8 or

'- It satisfactoril2 appears that the e*plo2er and the e*plo2ee dealt

"ith each other on *ore or less eBual ter*s "ith no *oral do*inance

e=ercised b2 the for*er or the latter.'0 !itation o*itted.-

These indications, "hich *ust be read to1ether, *a%e the >rent doctrine

applicable onl2 in a fe" special cases "herein the e*plo2er and e*plo2ee

are on *ore or less in eBual footin1 in enterin1 into the contract. The reason

for this is evident; "hen a prospective e*plo2ee, on account of special s%ills

or *ar%et forces, is in a position to *a%e de*ands upon the prospective

e*plo2er, such prospective e*plo2ee needs less protection than the ordinar2

"or%er. 4esser li*itations on the parties freedo* of contract are thus

reBuired for the protection of the e*plo2ee. These indications "ere applied

in Pure 6oods !orporation v. National 4abor Relations !o**ission,'9"here

"e discussed the patent ineBualit2 bet"een the e*plo2er and e*plo2eestherein;

IEt could not be supposed that private respondents and all other socalled

FcasualF "or%ers of the petitionerE NO5IN/4K and VO4<NT+RI4K

a1reed to the $*onth e*plo2*ent contract. !anner2 "or%ers are never on

eBual ter*s "ith their e*plo2ers. +l*ost al"a2s, the2 a1ree to an2 ter*s of

an e*plo2*ent contract 7ust to 1et e*plo2ed considerin1 that it is difficult

to find "or% 1iven their ordinar2 Bualifications. Their freedo* to contract is

e*pt2 and hollo" because theirs is the freedo* to starve if the2 refuse to

"or% as casual or contractual "or%ers. Indeed, to the une*plo2ed, securit2

of tenure has no value. It could not then be said that petitioner and private

respondents Fdealt "ith each other on *ore or less eBual ter*s "ith no

*oral do*inance "hatever bein1 e=ercised b2 the for*er over the latter.









To recall, it is doctrinall2 entrenched that in ille1al dis*issal cases, the

e*plo2er has the burden of provin1 "ith clear, accurate, consistent, and

convincin1 evidence that the dis*issal "as valid.3( It is therefore the

e*plo2er "hich *ust satisfactoril2 sho" that it "as not in a do*inant

position of advanta1e in dealin1 "ith its prospective e*plo2ee. Thus, in

Philips Se*iconductors Phils.-, Inc. v. 6adriBuela,3) this !ourt re7ected the

e*plo2ers insistence on the application of the >rent doctrine "hen the sole

7ustification of the fi=ed ter*s is to respond to te*porar2 albeit freBuent

need of such "or%ers;

5e re7ect the petitioners sub*ission that it resorted to hirin1 e*plo2ees for

fi=ed ter*s to au1*ent or supple*ent its re1ular e*plo2*ent Ffor the

duration of pea% loadsF durin1 shortter* sur1es to respond to c2clical

de*ands8 hence, it *a2 hire and retire "or%ers on fi=ed ter*s, ad infinitu*,

dependin1 upon the needs of its custo*ers, do*estic and international.<nder the petitioner?s sub*ission, an2 "or%er hired b2 it for fi=ed ter*s of

*onths or 2ears can never attain re1ular e*plo2*ent status. = = =.

Si*ilarl2, in the case at bar, "e find it un7ustifiable to allo" petitioner to hire

and rehire "or%ers on fi=ed ter*s, ad infinitu*, dependin1 upon its needs,

never attainin1 re1ular e*plo2*ent status. To recall, respondents "ere

repeatedl2 rehired in several fi=ed ter* contracts fro* )99: to )999. To

prove the alle1ed contracts, petitioner presented cash disburse*ent vouchers

si1ned b2 respondents, statin1 that the2 "ere *erel2 hired as pinchhitters. It

is apparent that respondents "ere in no position to refuse to si1n thesevouchers, as such refusal "ould entail not 1ettin1 paid for their services.

Plainl2, respondents as FpinchhittersF cannot be considered to be in eBual

footin1 as petitioner corporation in the ne1otiation of their e*plo2*ent

contract.

In su*, "e affir* the findin1s of the N4R! and the !ourt of +ppeals that

respondents are re1ular e*plo2ees of petitioner.9K$#hi9 +s re1ular

e*plo2ees, the2 are entitled to securit2 of tenure and therefore their services

*a2 be ter*inated onl2 for 7ust or authoriCed causes. Since petitioner failedto prove an2 7ust or authoriCed cause for their ter*ination, "e are

constrained to affir* the findin1s of the N4R! and the !ourt of +ppeals that

the2 "ere ille1all2 dis*issed.

Separation Pa2, Ni1ht Shift Differential and +ttorne2s 6ees







Petitioner ad*its that respondents "ere not 1iven separation pa2 and ni1ht

shift differential. Petitioner, ho"ever, clai*s that respondents "ere not

ille1all2 dis*issed and "ere therefore not entitled to separation pa2. +s

re1ards ni1ht shift differential, petitioner clai*s that its ad*ission in its

+u1ust '3, )999 letter as to the nonpa2*ent thereof is Bualified b2 its

alle1ation that respondents are not entitled thereto. Petitioner points out that

respondents failed to specif2 the period "hen such benefits are due, and did

not present additional evidence before the N4R! and the !ourt of +ppeals.3'

In li1ht, ho"ever, of our rulin1 that respondents "ere ille1all2 dis*issed, "e

affir* the findin1s of the N4R! and the !ourt of +ppeals that respondents

are entitled to separation pa2 in lieu of reinstate*ent. 5e Buote "ith

approval the discussion of the !ourt of +ppeals;

Ho"ever, since petitioner refused to accept private respondents bac% to"or%, reinstate*ent is no lon1er practicable. +llo"in1 private respondents to

return to their "or% *i1ht onl2 sub7ect the* to further e*barrass*ent,

hu*iliation, or even harass*ent.

Thus, in lieu of reinstate*ent, the 1rant of separation pa2 eBuivalent to one

)- *onth pa2 for ever2 2ear of service is proper "hich public respondent

actuall2 did. 5here the relationship bet"een private respondents and

petitioner has been severel2 strained b2 reason of their respective

i*putations of accusations a1ainst each other, to order reinstate*ent "ould

no lon1er serve an2 purpose. In such situation, pa2*ent of separation pa2instead of reinstate*ent is in order.33 !itations o*itted.-

+s re1ards ni1ht shift differential, the 4abor !ode provides that ever2

e*plo2ee shall be paid not less than ten percent )(@- of his re1ular "a1e

for each hour of "or% perfor*ed bet"een ten ocloc% in the evenin1 and si=

ocloc% in the *ornin1.3# +s e*plo2ees of petitioner, respondents are

entitled to the pa2*ent of this benefit in accordance "ith the nu*ber of

hours the2 "or%ed fro* )(;(( p.*. to :;(( a.*., if an2. In the Decision of

the N4R! affir*ed b2 the !ourt of +ppeals, the records "ere re*anded to

the Re1ional +rbitration >ranch of ori1in for the co*putation of the ni1ht

shift differential and the separation pa2. The Re1ional +rbitration >ranch of

ori1in "as li%e"ise directed to reBuire herein petitioner to produce

additional docu*ents "here necessar2. Therefore, "hile "e are affir*in1

that respondents are entitled to ni1ht shift differential in accordance "ith the

nu*ber of hours the2 "or%ed fro* )(;(( p.*. to :;(( a.*., it is the









Re1ional +rbitration >ranch of ori1in "hich should deter*ine the

co*putation thereof for each of the respondents, and a"ard no ni1ht shift

differential to those of the* "ho never "or%ed fro* )(;(( p.*. to :;(( a.*.

It is also "orth"hile to note that in the N4R! Decision, it "as herein

petitioner /M+ Net"or%, Inc. respondent therein- "hich "as tas%ed to

produce additional docu*ents necessar2 for the co*putation of the ni1ht

shift differential. This is in accordance "ith our rulin1 in Dansart Securit2

6orce +llied Services !o*pan2 v. >a1o2,3$"here "e held that it is

entirel2 "ithin the e*plo2er?s po"er to present such e*plo2*ent records

that should necessaril2 be in their possession, and that failure to present such

evidence *ust be ta%en a1ainst the*.

Petitioner, ho"ever, is correct that the a"ard of attorne2?s fees is contrar2 to

7urisprudence. In De las Santos v. &ebsen Mariti*e Inc.,3:

"e held;

4i%e"ise le1all2 correct is the deletion of the a"ard of attorne2?s fees, the

N4R! havin1 failed to e=plain petitioner?s entitle*ent thereto. +s a *atter

of sound polic2, an a"ard of attorne2?s fees re*ains the e=ception rather

than the rule. It *ust be stressed, as aptl2 observed b2 the appellate court,

that it is necessar2 for the trial court, the N4R! in this case, to *a%e e=press

findin1s of facts and la" that "ould brin1 the case "ithin the e=ception. In

fine, the factual, le1al or eBuitable 7ustification for the a"ard *ust be set

forth in the te=t of the decision. The *atter of attorne2?s fees cannot be

touched once and onl2 in the fallo of the decision, else, the a"ard should bethro"n out for bein1 speculative and con7ectural. In the absence of a

stipulation, attorne2?s fees are ordinaril2 not recoverable8 other"ise a

pre*iu* shall be placed on the ri1ht to liti1ate. The2 are not a"arded ever2

ti*e a part2 "ins a suit. !itations o*itted.-

In the case at bar, the factual basis for the a"ard of attorne2?s fees "as not

discussed in the te=t of N4R! Decision. 5e are therefore constrained to

delete the sa*e.

5HR6OR the Decision of the !ourt of +ppeals dated Septe*ber 0,

'((: and the subseBuent Resolution den2in1 reconsideration dated &anuar2

'', '((A in !+/.R. SP No. A3:$', are hereb2 +66IRMD "ith the

MODI6I!+TION that the a"ard of attorne2?s fees in the affir*ed Decision

of the National 4abor Relations !o**ission is hereb2 D4TD.

SO ORDRD.









SUPREME COURT

Manila

S!OND DIVISION

G.R. No. 7918 September 11, 1991

PNOCENERG& %E(ELOPMENT CORPORATION, petitioner,

vs.

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION Tr+ %?:o*D

)*+ %ANILO MERCA%O, respondents.

%acorro 3 Associates for #etitioner.

Alberto L. almacion for #rivate res#ondent.

PARAS, J.:p

This is a petition for certiorari to set aside the Resolution dated &ul2 3,

)90A of respondent National 4abor Relations !o**ission N4R! for brevit2- "hich affir*ed the decision dated +pril 3(, )90: of 4abor +rbiter

Vito &. Minoria of the N4R!, Re1ional +rbitration >ranch No. VII at !ebu

!it2 in !ase No. R+>VII($$:0$ entitled FDanilo Mercado, !o*plainant,

vs. Philippine National Oil !o*pan2ner12 Develop*ent !orporation,

RespondentF, orderin1 the reinstate*ent of co*plainant Danilo Mercado

and the a"ard of various *onetar2 clai*s.

The factual bac%1round of this case is as follo"s;

Private respondent Danilo Mercado "as first e*plo2ed b2 herein petitioner

Philippine National Oil !o*pan2ner12 Develop*ent !orporation

PNO!D! for brevit2- on +u1ust )3, )9A9. He held various positions

ran1in1 fro* cler%, 1eneral cler% to shippin1 cler% durin1 his e*plo2*ent at

its !ebu office until his transfer to its establish*ent at Pali*pinon,



Du*a1uete, Oriental Ne1ros on Septe*ber $, )90#. On &une 3(, )90$,

private respondent Mercado "as dis*issed. His last salar2 "as P),$0$.(( a

*onth basic pa2 plus P0((.(( livin1 allo"ance 4abor +rbiter?s Decision,

+nne= FF of Petition, Rollo, p. $'-.

The 1rounds for the dis*issal of Mercado are alle1edl2 serious acts of

dishonest2 co**itted as follo"s;

). On +priI )', )90$, Danilo Mercado "as ordered to purchase

),#(( pieces of nipa shin1les fro* Mrs. 4eonardo Nodado of

>anilad, Du*a1uete !it2, for the total purchase price of

Pl,:0(.((. +1ainst co*pan2 polic2, re1ulations and specific

orders, Danilo Mercado "ithdre" the nipa shin1les fro* the

supplier but paid the a*ount of P),(((.(( onl2. Danilo

Mercado appropriated the balance of P:0(.(( for his personal

use8

'. In the sa*e transaction stated above, the supplier a1reed to

1ive the co*pan2 a discount of PA(.(( "hich Danilo Mercado

did not report to the co*pan28

3. On March '0, )90$, Danilo Mercado "as instructed tocontract the services of 6red R. Melon of Du*a1uete !it2, for

the fabrication of rubber sta*ps, for the total a*ount of P'0.::.

Danilo Mercado paid the a*ount of P'(.(( to 6red R. Melon

and appropriated for his personal use the balance of P0.::.

In addition, private respondent, Danilo Mercado violated

co*pan2 rules and re1ulations in the follo"in1 instances;

). On &une $, )90$, Danilo Mercado "as absent fro* "or%"ithout leave, "ithout proper turnover of his "or%, causin1

disruption and dela2 of co*pan2 "or% activities8



'. On &une )$, )90$, Danilo Mercado "ent on vacation leave

"ithout prior leave, a1ainst co*pan2 polic2, rules and

re1ulations. Petitioner?s Me*orandu*, Rollo, p. )9$-.

On Septe*ber '3, )90$, private respondent Mercado filed a co*plaint forille1al dis*issal, retire*ent benefits, separation pa2, unpaid "a1es, etc.

a1ainst petitioner PNO!D! before the N4R! Re1ional +rbitration

>ranch No. VII doc%eted as !ase No. R+>VII($$:0$.

+fter private respondent Mercado filed his position paper on Dece*ber ):,

)90$ +nne= F>F of the Petition, Rollo, pp. '0#(-, petitioner PNO!D!

filed its Position PaperMotion to Dis*iss on &anuar2 )$, )90:, pra2in1 for

the dis*issal of the case on the 1round that the 4abor +rbiter andor the

N4R! had no 7urisdiction over the case +nne= F!F of the Petition, Rollo,

pp. #)#$-, "hich "as assailed b2 private respondent Mercado in his

Opposition to the Position PaperMotion to Dis*iss dated March )', )90:

+nne= FDF of the Petition, Rollo, pp. #:$(-.

The 4abor +rbiter ruled in favor of private respondent Mercado. The

dispositive onion of said decision reads as follo"s;

5HR6OR, in vie" of the fore1oin1, respondents arehereb2 ordered;

)- To reinstate co*plainant to his for*er position "ith full bac%

"a1es fro* the date of his dis*issal up to the ti*e of his actual

reinstate*ent "ithout loss of seniorit2 ri1hts and other

privile1es8

'- To pa2 co*plainant the a*ount of P)(,(((.(( representin1

his personal share of his savin1s account "ith the respondents8

3- To pa2 co*plainants the a*ount of P3(,(((.(( *oral

da*a1es8 P'(,(((.(( e=e*plar2 da*a1es and P$,(((.((

attorne2?s fees8



#- To pa2 co*plainant the a*ount of PA9'.$( as his

proportionate )3th *onth pa2 for )90$.

Respondents are hereb2 further ordered to deposit the

afore*entioned a*ounts "ith this Office "ithin ten da2s fro*receipt of a cop2 of this decision for further disposition.

SO ORDRD.

4abor +rbiter?s Decision, Rollo, p. $:-

The appeal to the N4R! "as dis*issed for lac% of *erit on &ul2 3, )90A and

the assailed decision "as affir*ed.


The issues raised b2 petitioner in this instant petition are;

). 5hether or not *atters of e*plo2*ent affectin1 the PNO!

D!, a 1overn*ento"ned and controlled corporation, are

"ithin the 7urisdiction of the 4abor +rbiter and the N4R!.

'. +ssu*in1 the affir*ative, "hether or not the 4abor +rbiter

and the N4R! are 7ustified in orderin1 the reinstate*ent of private respondent, pa2*ent of his savin1s, and proportionate

)3th *onth pa2 and pa2*ent of da*a1es as "ell as attorne2?s

fee.

Petitioner PNO!D! alle1es that it is a corporation "holl2 o"ned and

controlled b2 the 1overn*ent8 that the ner12 Develop*ent !orporation is a

subsidiar2 of the Philippine National Oil !o*pan2 "hich is a 1overn*ent

entit2 created under Presidential Decree No. 33#, as a*ended8 that bein1 a

1overn*ento"ned and controlled corporation, it is 1overned b2 the !ivil

Service 4a" as provided for in Section ), +rticle JII> of the )9A3

!onstitution, Section $: of Presidential Decree No. 0(A !ivil Service

Decree- and +rticle 'AA of Presidential Decree No. ##', as a*ended 4abor

!ode-.



The )9A3 !onstitution provides;

The !ivil Service e*braces ever2 branch, a1enc2, subdivision

and instru*entalit2 of the 1overn*ent includin1 1overn*ent

o"ned or controlled corporations.

Petitioner PNO!D! ar1ued that since 4abor +rbiter Minoria rendered the

decision at the ti*e "hen the )9A3 !onstitution "as in force, said decision

is null and void because under the )9A3 !onstitution, 1overn*ento"ned

and controlled corporations "ere 1overned b2 the !ivil Service 4a". ven

assu*in1 that PNO!D! has no ori1inal or special charter and Section

'i-, +rticle IJ> of the )90A !onstitution provides that;

The !ivil Service e*braces all branches, subdivision,instru*entalities and a1encies of the /overn*ent, includin1

1overn*ento"ned or controlled corporations "ith ori1inal

charters.

such circu*stances cannot 1ive validit2 to the decision of the 4abor +rbiter

Ibid ., pp. )9')93-.

This issue has alread2 been laid to rest in the case of P'4- vs.

Leoardo, )A$ S!R+ ': &ul2 $, )909-, involvin1 the sa*e petitioner and

the sa*e issue, "here this !ourt ruled that the doctrine that e*plo2ees of

1overn*ento"ned andor con controlled corporations, "hether created b2

special la" or for*ed as subsidiaries under the /eneral !orporation la" are

1overned b2 the !ivil Service 4a" and not b2 the 4abor !ode, has been

supplanted b2 the present !onstitution. FThus, under the present state of the

la", the test in deter*inin1 "hether a 1overn*ento"ned or controlled

corporation is sub7ect to the !ivil Service 4a" are the *anner of its creation,

such that 1overn*ent corporations created b2 special charter are sub7ect toits provisions "hile those incorporated under the /eneral !orporation 4a"

are not "ithin its covera1e.F

Specificall2, the PNO!D! havin1 been incorporated under the /eneral

!orporation 4a" "as held to be a 1overn*ent o"ned or controlled



corporation "hose e*plo2ees are sub7ect to the provisions of the 4abor

!ode Ibid .-.

The fact that the case arose at the ti*e "hen the )9A3 !onstitution "as still

in effect, does not deprive the N4R! of 7urisdiction on the pre*ise that it isthe )90A !onstitution that 1overns because it is the !onstitution in place at

the ti*e of the decision N+S!O v. N4R!, /.R. No. :90A(, ):0 S!R+

)'' )900E-.

In the case at bar, the decision of the N4R! "as pro*ul1ated on &ul2 3,

)90A. +ccordin1l2, this case falls sBuarel2 under the rulin1s of the

afore*entioned cases.

+s re1ards the second issue, the record sho"s that PNO!D!?s accusationsof dishonest2 and violations of co*pan2 rules are not supported b2

evidence. Nonetheless, "hile ac%no"led1in1 the rule that ad*inistrative

bodies are not 1overned b2 the strict rules of evidence, petitioner PNO!

D! alle1es that the labor arbiter?s propensit2 to decide the case throu1h the

position papers sub*itted b2 the parties is violative of due process thereb2

renderin1 the decision null and void Ibid ., p. )9:-.

On the other hand, private respondent contends that as can be seen fro* petitioner?s Motion for Reconsideration andor +ppeal dated &ul2 '0, )90:

+nne= F6F of the Petition, Rollo, pp. $A :#-, the latter never Buestioned the

findin1s of facts of the 4abor +rbiter but si*pl2 li*ited its ob7ection to the

lac% of le1al basis in vie" of its stand that the N4R! had no 7urisdiction

over the case Private Respondent?s Me*orandu*, Rollo, p. )(#-.

Petitioner PNO!D! filed its Position PaperMotion to Dis*iss dated

&anuar2 )$, )90: +nne= F!F of the Petition Rollo, pp. #)#$- before the

Re1ional +rbitration >ranch No. VII of !ebu !it2 and its Motion forReconsideration andor +ppeal dated &ul2 '0, )90: +nne= F6F of the

Petition, Rollo, pp. $A:#- before the N4R! of !ebu !it2. Indisputabl2, the

reBuire*ents of due process are satisfied "hen the parties are 1iven an

opportunit2 to sub*it position papers. 5hat the funda*ental la" abhors is

not the absence of previous notice but rather the absolute lac% of opportunit2



to ventilate a part2?s side. There is no denial of due process "here the part2

sub*itted its position paper and flied its *otion for reconsideration Odin

Securit2 +1enc2 vs. De la Serna, )0' S!R+ #A' 6ebruar2 '), )99(E-.

Petitioner?s subseBuent Motion for Reconsideration andor +ppeal has the

effect of curin1 "hatever irre1ularit2 *i1ht have been co**itted in the proceedin1s belo" T.H. Valdera*a and Sons, Inc. vs. Drilon, )0) S!R+

3(0 &anuar2 '', )99(E-.

6urther*ore, it has been consistentl2 held that findin1s of ad*inistrative

a1encies "hich have acBuired e=pertise because their 7urisdiction is confined

to specific *atters are accorded not onl2 respect but even finalit2 +sian

!onstruction and Develop*ent !orporation vs. N4R!, )0A S!R+ A0# &ul2

'A, )99(E8 4opeC Su1ar !orporation vs. 6ederation of 6ree 5or%ers, )09

S!R+ )A9 +u1ust 3(, )99(E-. &udicial revie" b2 this !ourt does not 1o so

far as to evaluate the sufficienc2 of the evidence but is li*ited to issues of

7urisdiction or 1rave abuse of discretion 6ilipinas Manufacturers >an% vs.

N4R!, )0' S!R+ 0#0 6ebruar2 '0, )99(E-. + careful stud2 of the records

sho"s no substantive reason to depart fro* these established principles.

5hile it is true that loss of trust or breach of confidence is a valid 1round for

dis*issin1 an e*plo2ee, such loss or breach of trust *ust have so*e basis

/ubac v. N4R!, )0A S!R+ #)' &ul2 )3, )99(E-. +s found b2 the 4abor+rbiter, the accusations of petitioner PNO!D! a1ainst private respondent

Mercado have no basis. Mrs. 4eonardo Nodado, fro* "ho* the nipa

shin1les "ere purchased, sufficientl2 e=plained in her affidavit Rollo, p. 3:-

that the total purchase price of P),:0(.(( "as paid b2 respondent Mercado

as a1reed upon. The alle1ed discount 1iven b2 Mrs. Nodado is not supported

b2 evidence as "ell as the alle1ed appropriation of P0.:: fro* the cost of

fabrication of rubber sta*ps. The 4abor +rbiter, li%e"ise, found no evidence

to support the alle1ed violation of co*pan2 rules. On the contrar2, he foundrespondent Mercado?s e=planation in his affidavit Rollo, pp. 30#(- as to the

alle1ed violations to be satisfactor2. Moreover, these findin1s "ere never

contradicted b2 petitioner petitioner PNO!D!.



PRMISS !ONSIDRD, the petition is DNID and the resolution of

respondent N4R! dated &ul2 3, )90A is +66IRMD "ith the *odification

that the *oral da*a1es are reduced to Ten Thousand P)(,(((.((- Pesos,

and the e=e*plar2 da*a1es reduced to 6ive Thousand P$,(((.((- Pesos.

SO ORDRD.


Supreme Court

Baguio City

SECON% %I(ISION

%.M. CONSUN$I, INC. )*+For

%A(I%

M. CONSUN$I,

Petitioners,

versus

G.R. No. 19214

Present;

!+RPIO, *.,

hair#erson,

>RION,

PR+4T+,

PR, and

SRNO, **.





ESTELITO L. $AMIN,

Respondent.

Pro*ul1ated;

+pril )0, '()'

==

% E C I S I O N

BRION, J .5

5e resolve the present appeal)E fro* the decision'E dated 6ebruar2 ':,

'()( and the resolution3E dated &une 3, '()( of the !ourt of +ppeals A- in

!+/.R. SP No. )(((99.









Te A*tee+e*t:

On Dece*ber )A, )9:0, petitioner D.M. !onsun7i, Inc. &I -, aconstruction co*pan2, hired respondent stelito 4. &a*in as a laborer.

So*eti*e in )9A$, &a*in beca*e a helper carpenter. Since his initial hirin1,

&a*ins e*plo2*ent contract had been rene"ed a nu*ber of ti*es.#E On March '(, )999, his "or% at DM!I "as ter*inated due to the

co*pletion of the SM Manila pro7ect. This ter*ination *ar%ed the end of

his e*plo2*ent "ith DM!I as he "as not rehired a1ain.

On +pril $, )999, &a*in filed a co*plaint$E for ille1al dis*issal, "ith

several *one2 clai*s includin1 attorne2s fees-, a1ainst DM!I and its

President/eneral Mana1er, David M. !onsun7i. &a*in alle1ed that DM!I

ter*inated his e*plo2*ent "ithout a 7ust and authoriCed cause at a ti*e

"hen he "as alread2 $$ 2ears old and had no independent source of

livelihood. He clai*ed that he rendered service to DM!I continuousl2 for

al*ost 3) 2ears. In addition to the schedule of pro7ects "here he "as

assi1ned- sub*itted b2 DM!I to the labor arbiter,:E he alle1ed that he

"or%ed for three other DM!I pro7ects; T"in To"ers, RitC To"ers, fro* &ul2

'9, )90( to &une )', )90'8 Ne" Istana Pro7ect, >.S.>. >runei, fro* &une '3,

)90' to 6ebruar2 ):, )90#8 and Ne" Istana Pro7ect, >.S.>. >runei, fro*

&anuar2 '#, )90: to Ma2 '$, )90:.

DM!I denied liabilit2. It ar1ued that it hired &a*in on a pro7ecttopro7ect

basis, fro* the start of his en1a1e*ent in )9:0 until the co*pletion of itsSM Manila pro7ect on March '(, )999 "here &a*in last "or%ed. 5ith the

co*pletion of the pro7ect, it ter*inated &a*ins e*plo2*ent. It alle1ed that it

sub*itted a report to the Depart*ent of 4abor and *plo2*ent 4L- -

ever2ti*e it ter*inated &a*ins services.









Te Comp;:or= Arbtr)to* R;*<:

In a decision dated Ma2 'A, '((',AE

4abor +rbiter 6rancisco +. Roblesdis*issed the co*plaint for lac% of *erit. He sustained DM!Is position that

&a*in "as a pro7ect e*plo2ee "hose services had been ter*inated due to

the co*pletion of the pro7ect "here he "as assi1ned. The labor arbiter added

that ever2ti*e DM!I rehired &a*in, it entered into a contract of

e*plo2*ent "ith hi*. Moreover, upon co*pletion of the phase of the

pro7ect for "hich &a*in "as hired or upon co*pletion of the pro7ect itself,

the co*pan2 served a notice of ter*ination to hi* and a ter*ination report

to the DO4 Re1ional Office. The labor arbiter also noted that &a*in had to

file an application if he "anted to be rehired.

On appeal b2 &a*in, the National 4abor Relations !o**ission 'LR -, in

its decision of +pril )0, '((A,0E dis*issed the appeal and affir*ed the labor

arbiters findin1 that &a*in "as a pro7ect e*plo2ee. &a*in *oved for

reconsideration, but the N4R! denied the *otion in a resolution dated Ma2

3(, '((A.9E &a*in sou1ht relief fro* the !+ throu1h a petition

for certiorari under Rule :$ of the Rules of !ourt.

Te CA %e:o*

On 6ebruar2 ':, '()(, the !+ Special 6ourth Division rendered the disputed

decision)(E reversin1 the co*pulsor2 arbitration rulin1s. It e;+ t)t $)m*

6): ) re<;)r emp;o=ee. It based its conclusion on; )- &a*ins repeated andsuccessive rehirin1 in DM!Is various pro7ects8 and '- the nature of his

"or% in the pro7ects he "as perfor*in1 activities necessar2 or desirable in

DM!Is construction business. Invo%in1 the !ourts rulin1 in an earlier case,))E the !+ declared that the pattern of &a*ins rehirin1 and the recurrin1 need













for his services are sufficient evidence of the necessit2 and indispensabilit2

of such services to DM!Is business or trade, a %e2 indicator of re1ular

e*plo2*ent. It opined that althou1h &a*in started as a pro7ect e*plo2ee, the

circu*stances of his e*plo2*ent *ade it re1ular or, at the ver2 least, hasripened into a re1ular e*plo2*ent.

The !+ considered the pro7ect e*plo2*ent contracts &a*in entered into

"ith DM!I for al*ost 3) 2ears not definitive of his actual status in the

co*pan2. It stressed that the e=istence of such contracts is not al"a2s

conclusive of a "or%ers e*plo2*ent status as this !ourt e=plained

in Lian0a v. R%L Shi#yard or#oration, et al.)'E It found added support

fro* Interated ontractor and Plumbin !or"s, Inc. v. 'LR,)3E "here the

!ourt said that "hile there "ere several e*plo2*ent contracts bet"een the

"or%er and the e*plo2er, in all of the*, the "or%er perfor*ed tas%s "hich

"ere usuall2 necessar2 or desirable in the usual business or trade of the

e*plo2er and, a revie" of the "or%ers assi1n*ents sho"ed that he belon1ed

to a "or% pool, *a%in1 his e*plo2*ent re1ular.

!ontrar2 to DM!Is sub*ission and the labor arbiters findin1s, the !+ noted

that DM!I failed to sub*it a report to the DO4 Re1ional Office ever2ti*e

&a*ins e*plo2*ent "as ter*inated, as reBuired b2 DO4 Polic2

Instructions No. '(. The !+ opined that DM!Is failure to sub*it the reports

to the DO4 is an indication that &a*in "as not a pro7ect e*plo2ee. It

further noted that DO4 Depart*ent Order No. )9, Series of )993, "hich

superseded DO4 Polic2 Instructions No. '(, provides that the ter*ination

report is one of the indicators of pro7ect e*plo2*ent.)#E

Havin1 found &a*in to be a re1ular e*plo2ee, the !+ declared his dis*issal

ille1al as it "as "ithout a valid cause and "ithout due process. It found that

DM!I failed to provide &a*in the reBuired notice before he "as dis*issed.









+ccordin1l2, the !+ ordered &a*ins i**ediate reinstate*ent "ith

bac%"a1es, and "ithout loss of seniorit2 ri1hts and other benefits.

DM!I *oved for reconsideration, but the !+ denied the *otion in itsresolution of &une 3, '()(.)$E DM!I is no" before the !ourt throu1h a

petition for revie" on certiorari under Rule #$ of the Rules of !ourt.):E

Te Petto*

DM!I see%s a reversal of the !+ rulin1s on the 1round that the appellate

court co**itted a 1rave error in annullin1 the decisions of the labor arbiter

and the N4R!. It presents the follo"in1 ar1u*ents;

). The !+ *isapplied the phrase usuall2 necessar2 or desirable in the usual

business or trade of the e*plo2er "hen it considered &a*in a re1ular

e*plo2ee. The definition of a re1ular e*plo2ee under +rticle '0( of the

4abor !ode does not appl2 to pro7ect e*plo2*ent or e*plo2*ent "hich has

been fi=ed for a specific pro7ect, as interpreted b2 the Supre*e !ourt

in 1ernande0 v. 'ational Labor Relations ommission)AE and .&.

onsun?i, Inc. v. 'LR.)0E It *aintains the sa*e pro7ect e*plo2*ent

*ethodolo12 in its business operations and it cannot understand "h2 a

different rulin1 or treat*ent "ould be handed do"n in the present case.

'. There is no "or% pool in DM!Is roster of pro7ect e*plo2ees. The !+

erred in insinuatin1 that &a*in belon1ed to a "or% pool "hen it

cited Interated ontractor and Plumbin !or"s, Inc. rulin1.)9E +t an2 rate,&a*in presented no evidence to prove his *e*bership in an2 "or% pool at

DM!I.













3. The !+ *isinterpreted the rules reBuirin1 the sub*ission of ter*ination

of e*plo2*ent reports to the DO4. 5hile the report is an indicator of

pro7ect e*plo2*ent, as noted b2 the !+, it is onl2 one of several indicators

under the rules.'(E

In an2 event, the !+ penaliCed DM!I for a fe" lapses inits sub*ission of reports to the DO4 "ith a ver2 ri1id application of the

rule despite the al*ost unani*ous proofs surroundin1 the circu*stances of

private respondent bein1 a pro7ect e*plo2ee as sho"n b2 petitioners

docu*entar2 evidence.')E

#. The !+ erred in holdin1 that &a*in "as dis*issed "ithout due process for

its failure to serve hi* notice prior to the ter*ination of his e*plo2*ent. +s

&a*in "as not dis*issed for cause, there "as no need to furnish hi* a

"ritten notice of the 1rounds for the dis*issal and neither is there a need for

a hearin1. 5hen there is no *ore 7ob for &a*in because of the co*pletion of

the pro7ect, DM!I, under the la", has the ri1ht to ter*inate his e*plo2*ent

"ithout incurrin1 an2 liabilit2. Pursuant to the rules i*ple*entin1 the 4abor

!ode,''E if the ter*ination is brou1ht about b2 the co*pletion of the contract

or phase thereof, no prior notice is reBuired.

6inall2, DM!I ob7ects to the !+s reversal of the findin1s of the labor arbiter

and the N4R! in the absence of a sho"in1 that the labor authorities

co**itted a 1rave abuse of discretion or that evidence had been disre1arded

or that their rulin1s had been arrived at arbitraril2.

Te C):e or $)m*

In his !o**ent to the Petition-,'3E &a*in pra2s that the petition be denied

for havin1 been filed out of ti*e and for lac% of *erit.











He clai*s, in support of his plea for the petitions outri1ht dis*issal, that

DM!I received a cop2 of the !+ decision dated 6ebruar2 ':, '()(-

on March #, '()(, as stated b2 DM!I itself in its *otion for reconsideration

of the decision.'#E

Since DM!I filed the *otion "ith the !+ on March '','()(, it is obvious, &a*in stresses, that the *otion "as filed three da2s

be2ond the )$da2 re1le*entar2 period, the last da2 of "hich fell on March

)9, '()(. He *aintains that for this reason, the !+s 6ebruar2 ':, '()(

decision had beco*e final and e=ecutor2, as he ar1ued before the !+ in his

!o**ent and Opposition to DM!Is Motion for Reconsideration-.'$E

On the *erits of the case, &a*in sub*its that the !+ co**itted no error in

nullif2in1 the rulin1s of the labor arbiter and the N4R!. He contends that

DM!I *isread this !ourts rulin1s in 1ernande0 v. 'ational Labor Relations

ommission, et al.':E and .&. onsun?i, Inc. v. 'LR ,'AE cited to support its

position that &a*in "as a pro7ect e*plo2ee.

&a*in ar1ues that in 1ernande0 , the !ourt e=plained that the #roviso in the

second para1raph of +rticle '0( of the 4abor !ode relates onl2 to ):);

emp;o=ee:"ho shall be considered re1ular e*plo2ees if the2 have rendered

at least one 2ear of service, "hether such service is continuous or bro%en. He

further ar1ues that in 1ernande0, the !ourt held that inas*uch as the

docu*entar2 evidence clearl2 sho"ed 1aps of a *onth or *onths bet"een

the hirin1 of Ricardo 6ernandeC in the nu*erous pro7ects "here he "as

assi1ned, it "as the !ourts conclusion that 6ernandeC had not continuousl2

"or%ed for the co*pan2 but onl2 inter*ittentl2 as he "as hired solel2 for

specific pro7ects.'0E +lso, in 1ernande0 , the !ourt affir*ed its rulin1s inearlier cases that the failure of the e*plo2er to report to the nearestE

e*plo2*ent office the ter*ination of "or%ers ever2ti*e a pro7ect is

co*pleted proves that the e*plo2ees are not pro7ect e*plo2ees.'9E

















reconsideration "as onMarch )9, '()( )$ da2s fro* receipt of cop2 of the

decision-, but it "as filed onl2 on March '', '()( or three da2s late.

!learl2, te moto* or reo*:+er)to* 6): ;e+ ot o tme, tereb=

re*+er*< te CA +e:o* *); )*+ e@etor=.

Necessaril2, DM!Is petition for revie" on certiorari is also late as it had

onl2 fifteen )$- da2s fro* notice of the !+ decision to file the petition or

the denial of its *otion for reconsideration filed in due ti*e.33E The

rec%onin1 date is March #, '()(, since DM!Is *otion for reconsideration

"as not filed in due ti*e. 5e see no point in e=ercisin1 liberalit2 and

disre1ardin1 the late filin1 as "e did in 4ro0co v. 1ifth ivision of the ourt

of A##eals,3#E "here "e ruled that tEechnicalit2 should not be allo"ed to

stand in the "a2 of eBuitabl2 and co*pletel2 resolvin1 the ri1hts and

obli1ations of the parties. The petition lac%s *erit for its failure to sho"

that te CA ommtte+ )*= re?er:b;e error or <r)?e )b:e o +:reto*

6e* t re?er:e+ te *+*<: o te ;)bor )rbter )*+ te NLRC.

+s earlier *entioned, &a*in "or%ed for DM!I for al*ost 3) 2ears, initiall2

as a laborer and, for the *ost part, as a carpenter. Throu1h all those 2ears,

DM!I treated hi* as a pro7ect e*plo2ee, so that he never obtained tenure.

On the surface and at first 1lance, DM!I appears to be correct. &a*in

entered into a contract of e*plo2*ent actuall2 an appoint*ent paper to

"hich he si1nified his confor*it2- "ith DM!I either as a field "or%er, a

te*porar2 "or%er, a casual e*plo2ee, or a pro7ect e*plo2ee ever2ti*e

DM!I needed his services and a ter*ination of e*plo2*ent paper "as

served on hi* upon co*pletion of ever2 pro7ect or phase of the pro7ect"here he "or%ed.3$E DM!I "ould then sub*it ter*ination of e*plo2*ent

reports to the DO4, containin1 the na*es of a nu*ber of e*plo2ees

includin1 &a*in.3:E The N4R! and the !+ "ould later on sa2, ho"ever, that

DM!I failed to sub*it ter*ination reports to the DO4.











The !+ pierced the cover of &a*ins pro7ect e*plo2*ent contract and

declared hi* a re1ular e*plo2ee "ho had been dis*issed "ithout cause and

"ithout notice. To reiterate, the !+s findin1s "ere based on; )- &a*insrepeated and successive en1a1e*ents in DM!Is construction pro7ects, and

'- &a*ins perfor*ance of activities necessar2 or desirable in DM!Is usual

trade or business.

e )<ree 6t te CA. In Lian0a v. R%L Shi#yard or#oration,3AE the

!ourt held t)t /)2::m*<, 6tot <r)*t*</,2 t)t /te2 petto*er 6):

*t);;= re+ or :pe proet: or *+ert)>*<:, te repe)te+ re

r*< )*+ o*t**< *ee+ or : :er?e: or o?er e<t 8D =e)r: )?e

*+e*)b;= m)+e m ) re<;)r emp;o=ee. 5e find the Lian0a rulin1

sBuarel2 applicable to this case, considerin1 that for al*ost 3) 2ears, DM!I

had repeatedl2, continuousl2 and successivel2 en1a1ed &a*ins services since

he "as hired on Dece*ber )A, )9:0 or for a total of 30 ti*es 3$ as sho"n b2

the schedule of pro7ects sub*itted b2 DM!I to the labor arbiter 30E and three

*ore pro7ects or en1a1e*ents added b2 &a*in, "hich he clai*ed DM!I

intentionall2 did not include in its schedule so as to *a%e it appear that there

"ere "ide 1aps in his en1a1e*ents. One of the three pro7ects "as local,

the Rit0 /o$ers,39E fro* &ul2 '9, )90( to &une )', )90', "hile the other t"o

"ere overseas the 'e$ Istana Pro?ect in >runei, Darussala*, fro* &une '3,

)90' to 6ebruar2 ):, )90#8#(E and a1ain, the 'e$ Istana Pro?ect , fro*

&anuar2 '#, )90: to Ma2 '$, )90:.#)E

5e revie"ed &a*ins e*plo2*ent contracts as the !+ did and "e noted that"hile the contracts indeed sho" that &a*in had been en1a1ed as a pro7ect

e*plo2ee, there "as an al*ost unbro%en strin1 of &a*ins rehirin1

fro* Dece*ber )A, )9:0 up to the ter*ination of his e*plo2*ent on March

'(, )999. 5hile the histor2 of &a*ins e*plo2*ent schedule of pro7ects-













#'E relied upon b2 DM!I sho"s a 1ap of al*ost four 2ears in his

e*plo2*ent for the period bet"een &ul2 '0, )90( the supposed co*pletion

date of the Midto"n PlaCa pro7ect- and &une )3, )90# the start of the IRRI

Dor* IV pro7ect-, the 1ap "as caused b2 the co*pan2s o*ission of thethree pro7ects above *entioned.

6or not disclosin1 that there had been other pro7ects "here DM!I en1a1ed

his services, &a*in accuses the co*pan2 of suppressin1 vital evidence that

supports his contention that he rendered service in the co*pan2s

construction pro7ects continuousl2 and repeatedl2 for *ore than three

decades. The nondisclosure *i1ht not have constituted suppression of

evidence it could 7ust have been overloo%ed b2 the co*pan2 but the

oversi1ht is unfair to &a*in as the noninclusion of the three pro7ects 1ives

the i*pression that there "ere substantial 1aps not onl2 of several *onths

but 2ears in his e*plo2*ent "ith DM!I.

Thus, as &a*in e=plains, the RitC To"er Pro7ect &ul2 '9, )90( to &une )',

)90'- and the Ne" Istana Pro7ect &une '3, )90' to 6ebruar2 ):, )90#-

"ould e=plain the 1ap bet"een the Midto"n PlaCa pro7ect Septe*ber 3,

)9A9 to &ul2 '0, )90(- and the IRRI Dor* IV pro7ect &une )3, )90# to

March )', )90$- and the other Ne" Istana Pro7ect &anuar2 '#, )90: to Ma2

'$, )90:- "ould e=plain the 1ap bet"een P. $): Han1er Septe*ber )3,

)90$ to &anuar2 '3, )90:- and P. $): Maint Ma2 ':, )90: to Nove*ber )0,

)90A-.

To reiterate, &a*ins e*plo2*ent histor2 "ith DM!I stands out for hiscontinuous, repeated and successive rehirin1 in the co*pan2s construction

pro7ects. In all the 30 pro7ects "here DM!I en1a1ed &a*ins services, the

tas%s he perfor*ed as a carpenter "ere indisputabl2 necessar2 and desirable

in DM!Is construction business. He *i1ht not have been a *e*ber of a





"or% pool as DM!I insisted that it does not *aintain a "or% pool, but his

continuous rehirin1 and the nature of his "or% un*ista%abl2 *ade hi* a

re1ular e*plo2ee. In &arauinot, *r. v. 'LR,#3E the !ourt held that once

a proet or 6or> poo; emp;o=ee has been; )- continuousl2, as opposed tointer*ittentl2, rehired b2 the sa*e e*plo2er for the sa*e tas%s or nature of

tas%s8 and '- these tas%s are vital, necessar2 and indispensable to the usual

business or trade of the e*plo2er, te* te emp;o=ee m:t be +eeme+ )

re<;)r emp;o=ee.

6urther, as "e stressed in Lian0a,##E rEespondent capitaliCes on our rulin1

in .&. onsun?i, Inc. v. 'LR "hich reiterates the rule that the len1th of

service of a pro7ect e*plo2ee is not the controllin1 test of e*plo2*ent

tenure but "hether or not the e*plo2*ent has been fi=ed for a specific

pro7ect or underta%in1 the co*pletion or ter*ination of "hich has been

deter*ined at the ti*e of the en1a1e*ent of the e*plo2ee.

Surel2, len1th of ti*e is not the controllin1 test for pro7ect

e*plo2*ent. Nevertheless, it is vital in deter*inin1 if the e*plo2ee "as

hired for a specific underta%in1 or tas%ed to perfor* functions vital,

necessar2 and indispensable to the usual business or trade of the e*plo2er.

Here, privateE respondent had been a pro7ect e*plo2ee several ti*es over.

His e*plo2*ent ceased to be coter*inous "ith specific pro7ects "hen he

"as repeatedl2 rehired due to the de*ands of petitioners business.#$E 5ithout doubt, &a*ins case fits sBuarel2 into the e*plo2*ent situation

7ust Buoted.

/he termination re#orts

5ith our rulin1 that &a*in had been a re1ular e*plo2ee, the issue of "hether

DM!I sub*itted ter*ination of e*plo2*ent reports, pursuant to Polic2









Instructions No. '( <ndated#:E-, as superseded b2 DO4 Depart*ent Order

No. )9 series of )993-, has beco*e acade*ic. DO4 Polic2 Instructions

No. '( provides in part;

Pro7ect e*plo2ees are not entitled to ter*ination pa2 if the2 are

ter*inated as a result of the co*pletion of the pro7ect or an2

phase thereof in "hich the2 are e*plo2ed, re1ardless of the

nu*ber of pro7ects in "hich the2 have been e*plo2ed b2 a

particular construction co*pan2. Moreover, the co*pan2 is not

reBuired to obtain a clearance fro* the Secretar2 of 4abor in

connection "ith such ter*ination. 5hat is reBuired of the

co*pan2 is a report to the nearest Public *plo2*ent Office

for statistical purposes.#AE

To set the records strai1ht, DM!I indeed sub*itted reports to the

DO4 but as pointed out b2 &a*in, the sub*issions started onl2 in )99'.#0E DM!I e=plained that it sub*itted the earlier reports )90'-, but it lost

and never recovered the reports. It reconstituted the lost reports and

sub*itted the* to the DO4 in October )99'8 thus, the dates appearin1 in

the reports.#9E

Is avid &. onsun?i, &Is

President2eneral &anaer, liable

for *amins dismissal:











5hile there is no Buestion that the co*pan2 is liable for &a*ins dis*issal,"e note that the !+ *ade no pronounce*ent on "hether DM!Is

President/eneral Mana1er, a copetitioner "ith the co*pan2, is also liable.$(E Neither had the parties brou1ht the *atter up to the !+ nor "ith this

!ourt. +s there is no e=press findin1 of Mr. !onsun7is involve*ent in

&a*ins dis*issal, "e dee* it proper to absolve hi* of liabilit2 in this case.

+s a final point, it is "ell to reiterate a cautionar2 state*ent "e *ade

in &arauinot ,$)E thus;

+t this ti*e, "e "ish to alla2 an2 fears that this decision undul2

burdens an e*plo2er b2 i*posin1 a dut2 to rehire a pro7ect

e*plo2ee even after co*pletion of the pro7ect for "hich he "as

hired. The i*port of this decision is not to i*pose a positive

and s"eepin1 obli1ation upon the e*plo2er to rehire pro7ect

e*plo2ees. 5hat this decision *erel2 acco*plishes is a

7udicial reco1nition of the e*plo2*ent status of a pro7ect or

"or% pool e*plo2ee in accordance "ith "hat is fait

accom#li, i.e., the continuous rehirin1 b2 the e*plo2er of

pro7ect or "or% pool e*plo2ees "ho perfor* tas%s necessar2 or

desirable to the e*plo2ers usual business or trade.







In su*, "e den2 the present appeal for havin1 been filed late and for lac% of

an2 reversible error. 5e see no point in e=tendin1 an2 liberalit2 b2

disre1ardin1 the late filin1 as the petition lac%s *erit.

-ERE4ORE, pre*ises considered, the petition is hereb2 %ENIE% for

late filin1 and for lac% of *erit. The decision dated 6ebruar2 ':, '()( and

the resolution dated &une 3, '()( of the !ourt of +ppeals are A44IRME%.

Petitioner David M. !onsun7i is absolved of liabilit2 in this case.

SO OR%ERE%.

/G.R. No. 1!!333. M)r 13, 19972

-ILARIO MAGCALAS, PROSPERO MARIN%A, CELSO GAMALO,

EPI4ANIO OMEGA, (IRGILIO CAMPOS, ANTONIO

LLAGAS, BERNAR% BEN%ANILLO, S-AL%& AUTENCIO,

CIRIACO RE&ES, $UANITO %E LEON, E%MUN%O

GU'MAN, AL4RE%O SANTOS, BENE%ICTO %AGCUTAN,

NORBIE LOPENA, ISMAEL ALON'O, ELMER BALETA,

GENITO %ALMERO, )*+ CESAR LE%ESMA, petitioners, vs.

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION )*+

KOPPEL, INC., respondents.

% E C I S I O N

PANGANIBAN, J .5

Ma2 re1ular e*plo2*ent be restricted to a definite or fi=ed ter* <pon

the e=piration of such ter*, *a2 the e*plo2*ent be dee*ed ter*inated

upon pa2*ent of separation pa2 The respondent N4R! ans"ered these

Buestions in the affir*ative but the labor arbiter held other"ise that such

ter*ination constituted ille1al dis*issal, thereb2 entitlin1 the petitioners to

reinstate*ent, bac%"a1es and attorne2?s fees.



This diver1ence of position bet"een the N4R! and the labor arbiter "ill

no" be ruled upon b2 this !ourt as it resolves this petition for certiorari

challen1in1 the Decision)E and Resolution'E of public

respondent3E pro*ul1ated on +pril $, )99), and Ma2 )3, )99),

respectivel2. The Decision of public respondent reversed that of the labor arbiter "hile the Resolution denied the *otion for reconsideration. The

dispositive portion of the i*pu1ned Decision reads;#E

F5HR6OR, pre*ises considered, the appealed decision is

hereb2 set aside, and a ne" 7ud1*ent is entered, orderin1 the

respondent to pa2 separation pa2 to herein co*plainants, as

e=plained above.F

On the other hand, the dispositive portion of the reversed decision of the

labor arbiter $E reads;:E

F5HR6OR, in vie" of all the fore1oin1 considerations,

7ud1*ent is hereb2 rendered, orderin1 the respondent to reinstate all

the individual co*plainants na*ed in the above entitled case to their

for*er positions "ithout loss of seniorit2 ri1hts and privile1es, and

to pa2 the* bac%"a1es fro* the ti*e of their dis*issalter*ination

to their actual reinstate*ent, plus attorne2?s fee eBuivalent to TenPercent )(@- of the total *onetar2 a"ard8 the clai* for le1al

interest is dis*issed for lac% of *erit.F

Te 4)t:

The facts are set out in the decision of the labor arbiter, as follo"s;AE

FIn their basic co*plaint and counter position paper, the

co*plainants alle1ed inter alia- that the2 "ere all re1ular e*plo2eesof the respondent co*pan2, havin1 rendered continuous services in

various capacities, ran1in1 fro* lead*an, tins*ith, tradeshelper to

1eneral cler%8 that the respondent has been en1a1ed in the business of

installin1 air conditionin1 should be airconditionin1- and

refri1eration eBuip*ent in its different pro7ects and 7obsites "here

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/mar1997/100333.htm#_edn1
















the co*plainants have been assi1ned8 that the co*plainants have

"or%ed for a nu*ber of 2ears, the *ini*u* of "hich "as one and a

half 2ears and the *a=i*u* "as- ei1ht 2ears under several

supervisors8 that on +u1ust 3(, )900, the2 "ere dis*issed en masse-

"ithout prior notice and investi1ation, and that their dis*issals "ereeffected for no other cause than their persistent de*ands for pa2*ent

of *one2 clai*s as- *andated b2 la".

On the other hand, the respondents interposed the defense of

contractpro7ect e*plo2*ent and averred the follo"in1 state*ent of

facts in support thereof;

?The respondent co*pan2 is en1a1ed in the business of

*anufacturin1 and installation of air- conditionin1 and

refri1eration eBuip*ents sic-.

The *anufacturin1 aspect of its operation is handled b2 its

re1ular e*plo2ees, "hile the installation aspect, b2 reason of

its inter*ittence, is carried out b2 its pro7ect or contract

e*plo2ees.

The installation of the air-conditionin1 eBuip*ent at the+sian Develop*ent >an% >uildin1 and the- Interban%

buildin1 "as a"arded to the respondent herein. The

co*plainants herein "ere a*on1 the contract e*plo2ees hired

b2 the respondent to install the air- conditionin1 eBuip*ent

at the +sian Develop*ent >an% and Interban% pro7ects. Their

specific assi1n*ents "ere as follo"s;

Na*e Position Pro7ect

). HI4+RIO M+/!+4+S 4ead*an +sian Dev. >an%

'. PROSPRO M+RIND+ Tins*ith +sian Dev. >an%

3. VIR/I4IO !+MPOS Tradeshelper F



#. +NTONIO 44+/+S F F

$. >RN+RD >ND+NI44O F F

:. ISM+4 +4ONO F F

A. SH+4DK +<TN!IO F F

0. !IRI+!O RKS F Interban%

9. !4SO /+M+4O F F

)(. PI6+NIO OM/+ F F

)). DM<NDO /<M+N F F

)'. +46RDO S+NTOS F F

)3. &<+NITO D 4ON F F

)#. >NDI!TO D+/!<T+N F F

)$. 4MR >+4T+ F F

):. /NITO D+4MRO F F

)A. !S+R 4DSM+ Tins*ith F

)0. NOR>-I 4OPN+ /eneral !ler% F

The aforesaid e*plo2ees "ere en1a1ed to "or% on sic- the

installation pro7ects until +u1ust 3), )900, "hen their tas%

"as e=pected to be co*pleted. This is evidenced b2 theirrespective e*plo2*ent contracts, copies of "hich are hereto

attached as +NNJS ) to )0.

5ith the co*pletion of their tas% on +u1ust 3), )900 in

their respective installation pro7ects, the e*plo2*ent of the



co*plainants i#so facto- e=pired as the2 had no *ore "or%

to do. The2 no" clai* that the2 "ere ille1all2 dis*issed.?

Repl2 b2 the respondent and re7oinder b2 the co*plainants "ere

subseBuentl2 filed, after "hich the case "as considered as sub*ittedfor decision based on the pleadin1s and evidences sic- on record.F

+s earlier stated, public respondent reversed the decision of the labor

arbiter favorable to herein petitioners. Hence, this petition for certiorari.

Te I::e:

Petitioners raise and ar1ue the follo"in1 issues in their Me*orandu*;0E

Fa- "hether p-etitioners "ere- re1ular "or%ers under the

conte*plation of +rt. '0( of the 4abor !ode8 and,

b- "hether p-etitioners? ter*ination andor cessation of their

e*plo2*ents on +u1ust 3(th, sic- )900 "ere 7ustified under the

conte*plation of +rt. 'A9 of the 4abor !ode as a*ended.F

Petitioners contend that the2 "ere re1ular e*plo2ees because Ft-he 7ob

of installin1 and-or repairin1 its *anufactured units and eBuip*ents sic-to its different custo*ers are not *erel2 ad7unct but are necessar2 activities

of p-rivate r-espondent?s dail2 business operations.F 9E The2 *aintain that

their e*plo2*ent is re1ular because of Fthe nature of the activities the2-

perfor*ed,F)(E re1ardless of the stipulation in their 7ob contracts. Petitioners

ar1ue that the phrase Fspecific pro7ect or underta%in1F in +rticle '0( of the

4abor !ode *eans Fspecial t2pe of venture or underta%in1F that is not

Fusuall2 necessar2 or desirable in the e*plo2er?s business operation and

activities.F

))E

Petitioners add that doubts as to their e*plo2*ent status *ust be resolved in their favor .)'E

The Solicitor /eneral FSol. /en.F-, invo%in1 the case of Orbos vs. !ivil

Service !o**ission,)3E sided "ith petitioners. He ar1ues that Ft-o sa2 that

petitioners "ere- re1ular e*plo2ees and 2et sub7ect to a definite or fi=ed

ter* is incon1ruous, inconsistent, or illo1ical. = = = Indeed, a "or%er is
















either re1ular or casual8 i-f he is e*plo2ed onl2 for a specific pro7ect or

underta%in1, then he is considered a casual e*plo2ee and *a2 be dis*issed

at the ti*e of the co*pletion of the pro7ect.F)#E >esides, the Fr-ecords

cannot den2 that petitioners "or%ed continuousl2, "ithout a sin1le da2 of

interruption, in not 7ust one, but on the various 7obsites assi1ned tothe*. So*e of the* have even "or%ed continuousl2 for ei1ht 0- 2ears,

"ithout an2 stoppa1e.F)$E ven ad*ittin1 that petitioners "ere pro7ect

e*plo2ees, the Sol. /en. states that Fno iota of proof "as ever presented b2

private respondent to refute petitioners? clai* that the +D> and Interban%

pro7ects "ere still in operation "hen the2 "ere ter*inated or, viceversa, to

support its clai* that these pro7ects "ere alread2 ter*inated.F):E

On the other hand, private respondent contends that certiorari is not

proper in this case. FThe findin1s and conclusions of fact and la" of the

respondent N4R! are supported b2 substantial evidence and "ere not

arrived at arbitraril2.F)AE It adds that Fpetitioners

"ere pro7ect or contract "or%ers "ho "ere hired "henever private

respondent "as able to obtain subcontracts for the installation of air-

conditionin1 and ventilation s2ste* or refri1eration eBuip*ent in

construction or buildin1 pro7ects = = =. The2 "ere last hired in the +sian

Develop*ent >an% and Interban% air-conditionin1 and ventilation s2ste*

pro7ects "hich "ere co*pletel2 turned over in +u1ust )909 and on-

Nove*ber )3, )909, respectivel2. Please see +nne=es ?'? and ?3? hereof-.)0E

>ecause of the position ta%en b2 the Sol. /en., public respondent filed

its o"n !o**ent. It ar1ues that Fthe factual findin1s of respondent

!o**ission "ere- based on substantial evidence and supported b2 the clear

letter of the la" as "ell as pertinent 7urisprudence on the *atter.F)9E Thus,

public respondent contends that the petition should be dis*issed and the

challen1ed 7ud1*ent should be upheld as a proper e=ercise of the po"ersconferred upon it b2 la".'(E

Public respondent ruled a1ainst petitioners thus;')E

F+ cursor2 readin1 of the !ollective >ar1ainin1 +1ree*ent bet"een

the respondent co*pan2 and the oppel *plo2ees +ssociation



















sho"s that it reco1niCed !ontract *plo2ees as one of the three

cate1ories of e*plo2ees in the !o*pan2. +rticle IV, Section ), of the

said !ollective >ar1ainin1 +1ree*ent defines a ?!ontract *plo2ee?

as ?one hired on individual e*plo2*ent contract basis to perfor*

"or% on specific pro7ects or as indicated in his contract ofe*plo2*ent. The duration of such e*plo2*ent is deter*ined b2 and

indicated in his contract of e*plo2*ent.? Record, pa1e #9-

+rticle '0( of the 4abor !ode provides;

?+rt. '0(. Re1ular and !asual *plo2*ent. The provisions

of "ritten a1ree*ent to the contrar2 not"ithstandin1 and

re1ardless of the oral a1ree*ents of the parties, an

e*plo2*ent shall be dee*ed to be re1ular "here the e*plo2ee

has been en1a1ed to perfor* activities "hich are usuall2

necessar2 or desirable in the usual business or trade of the

e*plo2er e=cept "here the e*plo2*ent has been fi=ed for a

specific pro7ect or underta%in1 the co*pletion of "hich has

been deter*ined at the ti*e of the en1a1e*ent of the

e*plo2ee or "here the "or% or services to be perfor*ed is

seasonal in nature and the e*plo2*ent is for the duration of

the season.? <nderscorin1 supplied-

The above provision is intended for all industries e=cept the

construction industr2. Polic2 Instruction No. '( "as precisel2

pro*ul1ated for the reason that the proble*s of re1ularit2 of

e*plo2*ent in the construction industr2 has continued to pla1ue

it. The polic2 i*ple*ents the e=ception to +rticle '0( of the 4abor

!ode. Ma1ante v. N4R!, )0$ S!R+ ') -

!o*plainant herein "ere en1a1ed b2 the respondent to handle the

installation of air-conditionin1 and refri1eration eBuip*ents sic- in

the construction pro7ects at the +sian Develop*ent >an% and

Interban% buildin1s. +s the nature and character of their "or% is

necessar2 or desirable of sic- the usual business of the respondent,

"hich is to *anufacture and install air-conditionin1 and



refri1eration eBuip*ents sic- in buildin1s, co*plainants? 7obs can be

cate1oriCed as re1ular "or%ers should be "or%- but sub7ect to a

definite or fi=ed ter*. >ut their services "ere not ter*inated at the

end of the pro7ect or contract. +s the +D> and Interban% pro7ects

have been co*pleted, their la2off has resulted in the ter*ination oftheir e*plo2*ent for lac% of "or%8 hence, the2 are entitled to

separation pa2 eBuivalent to one *onth pa2 or onehalf *onth pa2

for ever2 2ear of service, "hichever is 1reater, and a fraction of si=

*onths or *ore to be considered as one 2ear.

Te CortH: R;*<

5e find for petitioners.

4r:t I::e5 re )etitioners 6egular 9orkers'

In certiorari proceedin1s under Rule :$, this !ourt does not, as a rule,

evaluate the sufficienc2 of evidence upon "hich the labor arbiter and public

respondent based their deter*inations. The inBuir2 is li*ited essentiall2 to

"hether or not said public respondent acted "ithout or in e=cess of its

7urisdiction or "ith 1rave abuse of discretion.''E Ho"ever, "here the

findin1s of the N4R! are contrar2 to those of the tribunal belo", the !ourt in the e=ercise of its eBuit2 7urisdiction *a2 "ade into and reevaluate

such findin1s,'3E as in the present instance.

In this case, Public Respondent N4R! did not sufficientl2 indicate the

evidentiar2 basis for its reversal of the labor arbiter?s decision. +fter citin1

provisions in the collective bar1ainin1 a1ree*ent !>+- concernin1

contract "or%ers and Polic2 Instruction No. '(, public respondent correctl2

stated that petitioners "ere perfor*in1 "or% necessar2 or desirable in the

usual business of private respondent. 6ro* this undisputed fact, the N4R! 7u*ped to stran1e and strained inferences. 6irst, it held that the e*plo2*ent

of the petitioners "as sub7ect to fi=ed ter*s. It then leapt to the non

se>uitur conclusion that petitioners "ere pro7ect e*plo2ees. /oin1 further, it

held that the2 "ere entitled to separation pa2, overloo%in1 that under the

ver2 la" it invo%ed, Fpro7ect e*plo2ees are not entitled to ter*ination







pa2.F'#E This convolution of facts and la" cannot reverse the decision of the

labor arbiter "hich is 1rounded on docu*entar2 evidence sub*itted b2 the

parties.

Indeed, an e=a*ination of the assailed Decision reveals that publicrespondent failed to bac% up its conclusions "ith substantial evidence, or

that "hich a reasonable *ind *a2 accept as adeBuate to 7ustif2 a

conclusion. This Buantu* of evidence is reBuired to establish a fact in cases

before ad*inistrative and Buasi7udicial bodies.'$E

Thus, a *ere provision in the !>+ reco1niCin1 contract e*plo2*ent

does not sufficientl2 establish that petitioners "ere i#so facto contractual or

pro7ect e*plo2ees. In the sa*e vein, the invocation of Polic2 No. '(

1overnin1 the e*plo2*ent of pro7ect e*plo2ees in the construction industr2

does not, b2 itself, auto*aticall2 classif2 private respondent as part of the

construction industr2 and entitle it to dis*iss petitioners at the end of each

pro7ect. These facts cannot be presu*ed8 the2 *ust be supported b2

substantial evidence.

On the other hand, private respondent did not even alle1e, *uch less did

it see% to prove, that petitioners had been hired on a pro7ecttopro7ect basis

durin1 the entire len1th of their e*plo2*ent. Rather, it *erel2 sou1ht toestablish that petitioners had been hired to install the airconditionin1

eBuip*ent at +sian Develop*ent >an% and Interban% and that the2 "ere

le1all2 dis*issed upon the conclusion of these pro7ects.

Private respondent did not even traverse, and public respondent did not

controvert, the labor arbiter?s findin1 that petitioners "ere continuousl2

e*plo2ed "ithout interruption, fro* the date of their hirin1 up to the date of

their dis*issal, in spite of the alle1ed co*pletion of the socalled pro7ects in

"hich the2 had been hired.':E The undisputed findin1 of the labor arbiter on

this continuous e*plo2*ent of petitioners is "orth Buotin1;'AE

FT-he record discloses that the co*plainants "or%ed not onl2 in one

special pro7ect, either at the +sian Develop*ent >an% or the

Interban% buildin1, as the evidence of the respondent tends to prove,











but also variabl2 in other pro7ects7obsites contracted b2 oppel

Incorporated; such as the PN> on Ro=as >oulevard, Manila8 MI+

no" N+I+8 PI!!8 and San Mi1uel !o*ple= on Orti1as +venue,

Pasi1, Metro Manila. So*e of the*, after their tour of dut2 on these

different 7obsites, "ere reassi1ned to the respondent?s plant atoppel !o*pound, Para-aBue, Metro Manila, as sho"n b2 the

individual co*plainants?- affidavits attached to their position paper.

+ close e=a*ination of the record further reveals that the ?special

pro7ects? at the +sian Develop*ent >an% and Interban% to "hich the

co*plainants "ere last assi1ned b2 the respondent "ere still in

operation before their alle1ed ter*ination fro* e*plo2*ent. <nder

these factual *ilieu, "e believe that the2 had been en1a1ed to "or%

and perfor* activities "hich "ere necessar2 and desirable in theair-conditionin1 and refri1eration installationrepair business of the

respondent e*plo2er, especiall2 "here, as in this case, the ver2

nature of such trade indicates that it can hardl2 fall under the

e=ception of Polic2 Instruction No. '( "hich applies onl2 to the

construction industr2. 6or this reason, and considerin1 that the facts

narrated in the co*plainants?- s"orn state*ents "ere neither

disputed nor refuted b2 contrar2 evidence b2 the respondent, it

beco*es apparent and increasin1l2- clear that indeed the2 "ould

and ou1ht to be classified as re1ular e*plo2ees. = = =F <nderscorin1

supplied.-

Petitioners "ere hired on different dates. So*e of the* "or%ed for ei1ht

0- 2ears, "hile others for onl2 one and a half )- 2ears. Private respondent,

on the other hand, insisted that petitioners "ere hired on per pro7ect

basis. Private respondent, ho"ever, did not present an2 evidence to sho" the

ter*ination of the e*plo2*ent contracts at the end of each pro7ect. Onl2

before public respondent and in this petition did private respondent alle1e,throu1h a photocop2 of an affidavit'0E of Mr. &ose 4ecaros, the /eneral

Mana1er of oppel, Inc., that the +sian Develop*ent >an% and the

Interban% pro7ects had been co*pleted. This affidavit as "ell as the other

anne=es'9E cannot be 1iven "ei1ht in this petition because this !ourt is not a

trier of facts. In an2 case, private respondent had not proved, b2 the said







affidavit, that the ter*ination of each pro7ect had invariabl2 resulted in the

dis*issal of its alle1ed pro7ect e*plo2ees.

Re1ular e*plo2ees cannot at the sa*e ti*e be pro7ect

e*plo2ees. +rticle '0( of the 4abor !ode states that re1ular e*plo2ees arethose "hose "or% is necessar2 or desirable to the usual business of the

e*plo2er. The t"o e=ceptions follo"in1 the 1eneral description of re1ular

e*plo2ees refer to either pro7ect or seasonal e*plo2ees. It has been ruled in

the case of +4<T<!P vs. National 4abor Relations !o**ission that;3(E

FIn the real* of business and industr2, "e note, that ?pro7ect? could

refer to one or the other of at least t"o '- distin1uishable t2pes of

activities. 6irstl2, a pro7ect could refer to particular 7ob or

underta%in1 that is "ithin the re1ular or usual business of the

e*plo2er co*pan2, but "hich is distinct and separate, and

identifiable as such, fro* the other underta%in1s of the

co*pan2. Such 7ob or underta%in1 be1ins and ends at deter*ined or

deter*inable ti*es. The t2pical e=a*ple of this first t2pe of pro7ect

is a particular construction 7ob or pro7ect of a construction

co*pan2. + construction co*pan2 ordinaril2 carries out t"o or *ore

discrete should be distinct- identifiable construction pro7ects;e.1., a

t"ent2fivestore2 hotel in Ma%ati8 a residential condo*iniu* buildin1 in >a1uio !it28 and a do*estic air ter*inal in Iloilo

!it2. *plo2ees "ho are hired for the carr2in1 out of one of these

separate pro7ects, the scope and duration of "hich has been

deter*ined and *ade %no"n to the e*plo2ees at the ti*e of

e*plo2*ent, are properl2 treated as ?pro7ect e*plo2ees,? and their

services *a2 be la"full2 ter*inated at co*pletion of the

pro7ect.F <nderscorin1 supplied-.

The e*plo2*ent of seasonal e*plo2ees, on the other hand, le1all2 ends

upon co*pletion of the pro7ect or the season, thus;3)E

F!learl2, therefore, petitioners bein1 pro7ect e*plo2ees, or to use the

correct ter*, seasonal e*plo2ees, their e*plo2*ent le1all2 ends







upon co*pletion of the pro7ect or the season.The ter*ination of their

e*plo2*ent cannot and should not constitute an ille1al dis*issal.F

In ter*s of ter*inatin1 e*plo2*ent, this !ourt has alread2

distin1uished pro7ect fro* re1ular e*plo2ees, to "it;3'E

FThe basic issue is thus "hether or not petitioners are properl2

characteriCed as ?pro7ect e*plo2ees? rather than ?re1ular e*plo2ees?

of NS!. This issue relates, of course, to an i*portant

conseBuence; the services of pro7ect e*plo2ees are coter*inous

"ith the pro7ect and *a2 be ter*inated upon the end or co*pletion

of the pro7ect for "hich the2 "ere hired.33E Re1ular e*plo2ees, in

contrast, are le1all2 entitled to re*ain in the service of their

e*plo2er until that service is ter*inated b2 one or another of the

reco1niCed *odes of ter*ination of service under the 4abor

!ode.F3#E

The over"hel*in1 fact of petitioners? continuous e*plo2*ent as found

b2 the labor arbiter ineludibl2 sho"s that the petitioners "ere re1ular

e*plo2ees. On the other hand, "e find that substantial evidence, applicable

la"s and 7urisprudence do not support the rulin1 in the assailed Decision that

petitioners "ere pro7ect e*plo2ees. The !ourt here reiterates the rule that alldoubts, uncertainties, a*bi1uities and insufficiencies should be resolved in

favor of labor. It is a "ellentrenched doctrine that in ille1al dis*issal cases,

the e*plo2er has the burden of proof. This burden "as not dischar1ed in the

present case.

Seo*+ I::e5 &s round 0or /ismissal alid'

+s re1ular e*plo2ees, petitioners? e*plo2*ent cannot be ter*inated at

the "hi* of the e*plo2er. 6or a dis*issal of an e*plo2ee to be valid, t"oreBuisites *ust be *et; )- the e*plo2ee is afforded due process, *eanin1,

he is 1iven notice of the cause of his dis*issal and an adeBuate opportunit2

to be heard and to defend hi*self8 and '- the dis*issal is for a valid cause

as indicated in +rticle '0'3$E of the 4abor !ode.3:E The services of

petitioners "ere #ur#ortedly ter*inated at the end of the +D> and Interban%













pro7ects, but this could not have been a valid cause for, as discussed above,

the2 "ere re1ular and not pro7ect e*plo2ees. Thus, the !ourt does not

hesitate to conclude that petitioners "ere ille1all2 dis*issed.

+s a conseBuence of their ille1al ter*ination, petitioners are entitled toreinstate*ent and bac%"a1es in accordance "ith the 4abor !ode. The

bac%"a1es ho"ever are to be co*puted onl2 for three 2ears fro* +u1ust 3(,

)900, the date of their dis*issal, "ithout deduction or Bualification. 5here

the ille1al dis*issal transpired before the effectivit2 of R+ :A)$,3AE or before

March '), )909, the a"ard of bac%"a1es in favor of the dis*issed

e*plo2ees is li*ited to three 3- 2ears "ithout deduction or Bualification.30E

-ERE4ORE, pre*ises considered, the petition is 2RA'/-. The

assailed Decision and Resolution are R-=-RS- and S-/ ASI- and the

decision of the labor arbiter is R-I'S/A/-, "ith bac%"a1es to be

co*puted as above discussed. No costs.

SO OR%ERE%.


SUPREME COURT

Manila

S!OND DIVISION

G.R. No. 1!8 4ebr)r= 9, !!7

NOELITO 4ABELA, MARCELO %ELA CRU' III, ROGELIO

LASAT, -ENR& MALIANAG, MANUEL %ELOS SANTOS, )*+

ROMMEL #UINES, Petitioners,

vs.

SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION )*+ ARMAN -ICARTE, Respondents.

D ! I S I O N

CARPIO MORALES, J.:







On revie" is the &ul2 3(, '(() Decision of the !ourt of +ppeals reversin1

the rulin1 of the National 4abor Relations !o**ission N4R!- and the

4abor +rbiter findin1 petitioners to have been ille1all2 dis*issed.

Petitioners, alon1 "ith &oselito de 4ara and &ohn +lovera, "ere hired b2

respondent San Mi1uel !orporation SM!- as FRelief Sales*enF for the

/reater Manila +rea /M+- under separate but al*ost si*ilarl2 "orded

F!ontracts of *plo2*ent 5ith 6i=ed Period.F +fter havin1 entered into

successive contracts of the sa*e nature "ith SM!, the services of

petitioners, as "ell as de 4ara and +lovera, "ere ter*inated after SM! no

lon1er a1reed to for1e another contract "ith the*.

The dates of hirin1 of petitioners, et al. and the ter*ination of their

e*plo2*ent are set forth belo";)

N+M D+T HIRD

D+T O6

TRMIN+TION O6

MP4OKMNT

NO4ITO

6+>4+M+K, )99' +</<ST, )99:

RO/4IO

4+S+T

+</<ST,

)99$SPTM>R, )99A

HNRKM+4I5+N+/

M+K, )99$ SPTM>R, )99A

M+N<4

D4OS S+NTOSM+K, )99$ SPTM>R, )99A

&OS4ITO D

4+R+M+K, )99# &<4K 3(,)99A

ROMM4

G<INS

O!TO>R,

)99#SPTM>R, )99A

M+R!4OD4+ !R<

D!M>R,)99)

M+K, )99A

&OHN

+4OVR+&<N, )99' M+K, )99A

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_150658_2007.html#fnt1




Respondent SM! and its corespondent +r*an Hicarte, "ho "as its Hu*an

Resources Mana1er, clai*ed that the hirin1 of petitioners "as not intended

to be per*anent, as the sa*e "as *erel2 occasioned b2 the need to fill in a

vacuu* arisin1 fro* SM!s 1radual transition to a ne" s2ste* of sellin1

and deliverin1 its products.

Respondents e=plained that SM! previousl2 operated under the FRoute

S2ste*,F' but be1an i*ple*entin1 in )993 the FPreSellin1 S2ste*F3 in

"hich the sales*en under the earlier s2ste* "ould be replaced b2 +ccounts

Specialists "hich called for up1raded Bualifications.#

In support of their clai*, respondents presented the affidavit of Mariano N.

4opeC, +ssistant Vice President and +rea Sales Mana1er for the /M+ Sales

Operations of San Mi1uel >re"in1 Philippines.$

5hile so*e of the Bualified re1ular sales*en "ere readil2 up1raded to the

position of +ccounts Specialist, respondents clai*ed that SM! still had to

sell its beer products usin1 the conventional routin1 s2ste* durin1 the

transition sta1e, thus 1ivin1 rise to the need for te*porar2 e*plo2ees8 and

the *e*bers of the re1ular Route !re" then e=istin1 "ere reBuired to

under1o a trainin1 pro1ra* to deter*ine "hether the2 possessed or could be

trained for the necessar2 attitude and aptitude reBuired of an +ccounts

Specialist, hence, the hirin1 of petitioners and others for a fi=ed period, co

ter*inus "ith the co*pletion of the transition period and Trainin1 Pro1ra*

for all prospective +ccounts Specialists.:

!lai*in1 that the2 "ere ille1all2 dis*issed, petitioners, as "ell as de 4ara

and +lovera, filed separate co*plaints for ille1al dis*issal a1ainst

respondents. The co*plaints "ere consolidated.

>2 Decision dated Septe*ber '3, )990, 4abor +rbiter Manuel P. +suncion

held that e=cept for de 4ara and +lovera, the co*plainantsherein petitioners

"ere ille1all2 dis*issed. Thus the decision disposed;

IN 4I/HT O6 TH 6OR/OIN/ !ONSIDR+TIONS, the respondentsare hereb2 ordered to reinstate Marcelo Dela !ruC, Norlito 6abela, Henr2

Mali"ana1, Ro1elio 4asat, Manuel Delos Santos and Ro**el Guines to

their for*er positions "ith full bac%"a1es fro* the ti*e their salaries "ere

"ithheld until the2 are actuall2 reinstated. +s of this date, their bac%"a1es

has reached the su* of P$:',33:.:#. See attached co*putation-. The













co*plaints of &un +lovera and &oselito De 4ara *ust be dis*issed for lac%

of *erit.

SO ORDRD.

The Decision of the 4abor +rbiter "as affir*ed on appeal b2 the N4R!, b2Resolution of +pril '0, '(((. Respondents Motion for Reconsideration "as

denied, hence, the2 filed a Petition for !ertiorari "ith the !ourt of +ppeals

before "hich the2 contended that herein petitioners "ere validl2 hired for a

fi=ed period "hich "as not rene"ed, hence, the ter*ination of their services

"as valid.

>2 Decision of &ul2 3(, '((),A the !ourt of +ppeals 1ranted respondents

petition and accordin1l2 reversed the decision of the 4abor +rbiter and of

the N4R!. The appellate court accordin1l2 dis*issed petitionersco*plaints. In 1rantin1 respondents petition, the appellate court

ratiocinated;

+t bar, there is not an2 least indication that the e*plo2*ent contract "as not

%no"in1l2 and voluntaril2 a1reed upon bet"een the parties nar2 an2 force

or i*proper pressure upon the e*plo2ee nor an2 circu*stances vitiatin1 his

consent. Neither is there an2 indication or si1nal of i*proper pressure in the

e=ecution of the contract nor that the e*plo2er and the e*plo2ee did not

deal "ith each other on eBual ter*s absent an2 *oral do*inance b2 the

e*plo2er upon the e*plo2ee. 6inall2, at the ti*e the contracts "ere enteredinto, the parties "ere prett2 a"are of the da2 certain "hich *ust necessaril2

co*e althou1h still un%no"n "hen at "hich ti*e the contract "ill self

e=pire.0 <nderscorin1 supplied-

Their *otion for reconsideration havin1 been denied b2 the !ourt of

+ppeals b2 Resolution of October '9, '((), petitioners filed the present

petition.

The validit2 of the ter*ination of petitioners services depends on "hether

the2 "ere hired for a fi=ed period, as clai*ed b2 respondents, or as re1ulare*plo2ees "ho *a2 not be dis*issed e=cept for 7ust or authoriCed causes.

+rticle '0( of the 4abor !ode defines re1ular e*plo2*ent as follo"s;

+RT. '0(. Re1ular and casual e*plo2*ent. X The provisions of "ritten








a1ree*ent of the parties, an e*plo2*ent shall be dee*ed to be re1ular

"here the e*plo2ee has been en1a1ed to perfor* activities "hich are

usuall2 necessar2 or desirable in the usual business or trade of the

e*plo2er, e@ept 6ere te emp;o=me*t ): bee* @e+ or ) :pe

proet or *+ert)>*< te omp;eto* or term*)to* o 6 ): bee*

+eterm*e+ )t te tme o te e*<)<eme*t o te emp;o=ee or "here the

"or% or services to be perfor*ed is seasonal in nature and the e*plo2*ent

is for the duration of the season.

+n e*plo2*ent shall be dee*ed to be ):); if it is not covered b2 the

precedin1 para1raph; Provided , That )*= emp;o=ee 6o ): re*+ere+ )t

;e):t o*e =e)r o :er?e, 6eter : :er?e : o*t*o: or bro>e*,

:);; be o*:+ere+ ) re<;)r emp;o=ee "ith respect to the activit2 in

"hich he is e*plo2ed and his e*plo2*ent shall continue "hile such activit2

actuall2 e=ists. *phasis, italics and underscorin1 supplied-

In Pure 1oods or#. v. 'LR ,9 this !ourt held that under the aboveBuoted

provision, there are t"o %inds of re1ular e*plo2ees, na*el2; )- those "ho

are en1a1ed to perfor* activities "hich are necessar2 or desirable in the

usual business or trade of the e*plo2er, and '- those casual e*plo2ees "ho

have rendered at least one 2ear of service, "hether continuous or bro%en,

"ith respect to the activit2 in "hich the2 are e*plo2ed.

+rticle '0( also reco1niCes pro7ect e*plo2ees, those "hose Fe*plo2*ent

has been fi=ed for a specific pro7ect or underta%in1.F <nderscorin1supplied-

Pro7ect e*plo2*ent is distinct fro* casual e*plo2*ent referred to in the

second para1raph of +rticle '0( for, as clarified in &ercado, Sr. v.

'LR ,)( the proviso that Fan2 e*plo2ee "ho has rendered at least one 2ear

of service . . . shall be considered a re1ular e*plo2eeF does not appl2 to

pro7ect e*plo2ees, but onl2 to casual e*plo2ees.

+lthou1h +rticle '0( does not e=pressl2 reco1niCe e*plo2*ent for a

fi=ed period, "hich is distinct fro* e*plo2*ent "hich has been fi=ed for a

specific pro7ect or underta%in1, %rent School, Inc. v. Mamora)) has clarified

that e*plo2*ent for a fi=ed period is not in itself ille1al, viC;

There can of course be no Buarrel "ith the proposition that 6ere rom te

rm:t)*e: t : )pp)re*t t)t pero+: )?e bee* mpo:e+ to pre;+e

):to* o te*r); :ert= b= te emp;o=ee, te= :o;+ be :tr>









+o6* or +:re<)r+e+ ): o*tr)r= to pb; po;=, mor);:, et. Bt 6ere

*o : *te*t to rm?e*t te ;)6 : :o6*, or :t)te+ oter6:e,

6ere te re):o* or te ;)6 +oe: *ot e@:t, e.<.,6ere t : *+ee+ te

emp;o=ee m:e; 6o *::t: po* ) pero+ or 6ere te *)tre o te

e*<)<eme*t : : t)t, 6tot be*< :e):o*); or or ) :pe proet,

) +e*te +)te o term*)to* : ) sine <ua non, 6o;+ )* )<reeme*t

@*< ) pero+ e::e*t);;= e?; or ;;t, tereore )*)tem)5ould such

an a1ree*ent co*e "ithin the scope of +rticle '0( "hich ad*ittedl2 "as

enacted Fto prevent the circu*vention of the ri1ht of the e*plo2ee to be

secured in = = his- e*plo2*entF

= = = =

+ccordin1l2, and since the entire purpose behind the develop*ent of

le1islation cul*inatin1 in the present +rticle '0( of the 4abor !ode clearl2appears to have been,. as alread2 observed, to prevent circu*vention of the

e*plo2ees ri1ht to be secure in his tenure, te ;):e in said

article indiscri*inatel2 and co*pletel2 rulin1 out all "ritten or oral

a1ree*ents conflictin1 "ith the concept of re1ular e*plo2*ent as defined

therein should be construed to refer to the substantive evil that the !ode

itself has sin1led out; a1ree*ents entered into precisel2 to circu*vent

securit2 of tenure. It should have no application to instances "here a fi=ed

period of e*plo2*ent "as a1reed upon %no"in1l2 and voluntaril2 b2 the

parties, "ithout an2 force, duress or i*proper pressure bein1 brou1ht to bear

upon the e*plo2ee and absent an2 other circu*stances vitiatin1 his consent,or "here it satisfactoril2 appears that the e*plo2er and e*plo2ee dealt "ith

each other on *ore or less eBual ter*s "ith no *oral do*inance "hatever

bein1 e=ercised b2 the for*er over the latter. = = = *phasis and

underscorin1 supplied-9a$#hi9.net

Thus, even if the duties of an e*plo2ee consist of activities usuall2

necessar2 or desirable in the usual business of the e*plo2er, it does not

necessaril2 follo" that the parties are forbidden fro* a1reein1 on a period of

ti*e for the perfor*ance of such activities throu1h a contract of e*plo2*entfor a fi=ed ter*.)'

Respondents, "ithout disputin1 that the duties of petitioners consisted of

activities necessar2 or desirable in its usual business or trade, clai* that the

contracts of e*plo2*ent entered into b2 respondent SM! "ith the herein

petitioners are valid fi=edter* contracts under the %rent doctrine.





+lbeit the !ourt of +ppeals ruled in respondents favor on the basis of a

findin1 that petitioners "ere validl2 hired

as pro7ect e*plo2ees,)3 respondents den2 that petitioners "ere pro7ect

e*plo2ees, assertin1 that the2 "ere hired onl2 as fi=edter* e*plo2ees.)#

Since respondents attribute the ter*ination of petitioners e*plo2*ent to the

e=piration of their respective contracts, a deter*ination of "hether

petitioners "ere hired as pro7ect or seasonal e*plo2ees, or as fi=edter*

e*plo2ees "ithout an2 force, duress or i*proper pressure havin1 been

e=erted a1ainst the* is in order. If petitioners fall under an2 of these

cate1ories, then indeed their ter*ination follo"s fro* the e=piration of their

contracts.

Since, as earlier stated, respondents the*selves den2 that petitioners "ere

pro7ect e*plo2ees, and the2 do not alle1e that the2 "ere seasonale*plo2ees, "hat re*ains for deter*ination is "hether petitioners "ere

fi=edter* e*plo2ees under the %rent doctrine.

+s the resolution of this issue necessaril2 involves a calibration of

respondents evidence, the factual findin1s of the 4abor +rbiter and the

N4R! assu*e i*portance.)$

This !ourt has consistentl2 adhered to the rule that in revie"in1

ad*inistrative decisions such as those rendered b2 the N4R!, te *+*<:

o )t m)+e tere* )re to be )or+e+ *ot o*;= <re)t 6e<t )*+re:pet, bt e?e* *);t=, or ): ;o*< ): te= )re :pporte+ b=

:b:t)*t); e?+e*e. It is not the function of the !ourt to once a1ain revie"

and "ei1h the conflictin1 evidence, deter*ine the credibilit2 of the

"itnesses or other"ise substitute its o"n 7ud1*ent for that of the

ad*inistrative a1enc2 on the sufficienc2 of the evidence. Nevertheless,

"hen the inference *ade or the conclusion dra"n on the basis of certain

state of facts is *anifestl2 *ista%en, the !ourt is not estopped fro*

e=ercisin1 its po"er of revie". *phasis and underscorin1 supplied-

Si1nificantl2, both the 4abor +rbiter and the N4R! found that petitioners

"ere all re1ular e*plo2ees. The N4R! even e=plicitl2 stated that the

periods stated in petitioners contracts "ere fi=ed not because of te*porar2

e=i1encies but because of a sche*e to preclude petitioners fro* acBuirin1

tenurial securit2.









The !ourt of +ppeals, ho"ever, found that FaEll indications and established

facts lead to the inevitable conclusion that the contracts of e*plo2*ent

sub7ect *atter of this case "ere e=ecuted in 1ood faith and for a la"ful and

*oral purpose,F): and thus concluded that the N4R! co**itted 1rave abuse

of discretion for holdin1 other"ise.

+ considered assess*ent of the findin1s of the 4abor +rbiter and the N4R!,

ho"ever, sho"s that the sa*e are supported b2 substantial evidence.

Respondents contention that there are fi=ed periods stated in the contracts of

e*plo2*ent does not lie. %rent instructs that a contract of e*plo2*ent

stipulatin1 a fi=edter*, even if clear as re1ards the e=istence of a period, is

invalid if it can be sho"n that the sa*e "as e=ecuted "ith the intention of

circu*ventin1 securit2 of tenure, and should thus be i1nored. +nd so does

Pa1uio v. N4R!,)A

thus;

= = = + stipulation for a fi=edter*E in an a1ree*ent can be i1nored as and

"hen it is utiliCed to deprive the e*plo2ee of his securit2 of tenure. The

sheer ineBualit2 that characteriCes e*plo2ere*plo2ee relations, "here the

scales 1enerall2 tip a1ainst the e*plo2ee, often scarcel2 provides hi* real

and better options.

Indeed, substantial evidence e=ists in the present case sho"in1 that the

sub7ect contracts "ere utiliCed to deprive petitioners of their securit2 of

tenure.

The contract of e*plo2*ent of petitioner 6abela, for instance, states that the

transition period fro* the Route S2ste* to the PreSellin1 S2ste* "ould be

t"elve )'- *onths fro* +pril #, )99$, thus;

5HR+S, the 6IRST P+RTK San Mi1uel !orporationE is underta%in1 a

pro7ect to *ana1e the transition in full2 i*ple*entin1 the presellin1

s2ste*8

5HR+S, durin1 te tr)*:to* pero+, 6 : t6e;?e 1Dmo*t: before the ne" s2ste* "ill be full2 i*ple*ented in the districts

planned for in )99$, the 6IRST P+RTK "ill conduct a trainin1 for the

re1ular Sales*en and "ill continue to sell its therefore sic- beer products

usin1 the conventional s2ste* and "ill therefore need to hire relief

personnel to underta%e the activities thereinafter *entioned "hich are to be







underta%enperfor*ed for a li*itedspecific period "hich activities shall

hereinafter be referred to as PRO&!T +!TIVITIS.

= = = =

S!TION ON; FTRM O6 !ONTR+!TF

The 6IRST P+RTK hereb2 hires the S!OND P+RTK as FPRO&!T

R4I6 S+4SM+NF to perfor*underta%e the activities listed in +nne=

F+F hereof at its /reater Manila +rea Sales Operations, San Mi1uel >re"in1

/roup and the latter hereb2 accepts and a1rees such underta%in1 for a period

of t"elve )'- *onths, startin1 fro* Apr; 0, 199 to Apr; 3, 199 or po*

omp;eto* o te proet ere*)ter reerre+ to, 6e?er ome: r:t,

sub7ect to the 1eneral supervision, order, advice and directions of the 6IRST

P+RTK.

= = = =)0 *phasis and underscorin1 supplied-

It bears notin1, ho"ever, that petitioner 6abela, besides bein1 hired a1ain for

another fi=ed period of four #- *onths after the lapse in +pril )99: of the

one2ear contract, had alread2 been "or%in1 for respondent SM! on a fi=ed

ter* basis as earl2 as )99', or one 2ear before respondent SM! even be1an

its shift to the Presellin1 S2ste* in )993.

Si*ilarl2, petitioner Marcelo dela !ruC III "as hired prior to the alle1edtransition to the ne" s2ste*. In fact, he "as hired in Dece*ber )99), even

earlier than petitioner 6abela.

The N4R!, therefore, had sufficient basis to believe that the shift of SM! to

the PreSellin1 S2ste* "as not the real basis for the for1in1 of fi=edter*

contracts of e*plo2*ent "ith petitioners and that the periods "ere fi=ed

onl2 as a *eans to preclude petitioners fro* acBuirin1 securit2 of tenure.

Moreover, other than the earlier*entioned affidavit of Mariano N. 4opeC,

respondents have presented no evidence that the shift to the PreSellin1S2ste* occurred as earl2 as )993. The e*plo2*ent contracts presented b2

respondents in support of their clai* that petitioners "ere hired onl2 for the

transition sta1e are dated not earlier than +pril )99$.)9 ven the contract of

petitioner 6abela e=pressl2 states that the transition period ist6e;?e mo*t:,

be1innin1 in 199, rather than )993. If the shift to the ne" s2ste* onl2

be1an in )99$, ho"ever, then not onl2 petitioners 6abela and dela !ruC "ere







hired prior to the transition, but also petitioner Guines, "ho "as hired in

)99#.

+s %rent pronounces, a fi=edter* e*plo2*ent is valid onl2 under certain

circu*stances, such as "hen the e*plo2ee hi*self insists upon the period,

or "here the nature of the en1a1e*ent is such that, "ithout bein1 seasonal

or for a specific pro7ect, a definite date of ter*ination is a sine >ua non.

That petitioners the*selves insisted on the one2ear fi=edter* is not even

alle1ed b2 respondents. In fact, the sustained desire of each of the petitioners

to enter into another e*plo2*ent contract upon the ter*ination of the earlier

ones clearl2 indicates their interest in continuin1 to "or% for SM!.

Moreover, respondents have not established that the en1a1e*ent of

petitioners services, "hich is not in the nature of a pro7ect e*plo2*ent,reBuired a definite date of ter*ination as a sine Bua non.

In fine, the findin1 of the 4abor +rbiter and the N4R! that the e=ecution of

the contracts "as *erel2 intended to circu*vent petitioners securit2 of

tenure *erits this !ourts concurrence.

5HR6OR, the petition is /R+NTD. The assailed Decision of the

!ourt of +ppeals is ST +SID. The Decision dated Septe*ber '3, )990 of

the 4abor +rbiter, "hich "as affir*ed b2 the National 4abor Relations

!o**ission b2 Resolution of +pril '0, '(((, is RINST+TD.

SO ORDRD.


SUPREME COURT

Manila

S!OND DIVISION

G.R. No. 18039 $)*)r= 1, !10

UNI(ERSAL ROBINA SUGAR MILLING CORPORATION )*+

RENE CABATI, Petitioners,

vs.

4ER%INAN% ACIBO, ROBERTO AGUILAR, E%%IE BAL%O'A,



RENE ABELLAR, %IOME%ES ALICOS, MIGUEL ALICOS,

ROGELIO AMA-IT, LARR& AMASCO, 4ELIPE BALANSAG,

ROMEO BALANSAG, MANUEL BANGOT, AN%& BAN$AO,

%IONISIO BEN%I$O, $R., $O(ENTINO BROCE, ENRICO

LITERAL, RO%GER RAMIRE', BIEN(ENI%O RO%RIGUE',%IOCITO PALAGTI, ERNIE SABLAN, RIC-AR% PANC-O,

RO%RIGO ESTRABELA, %ANN& KA%USALE )*+ ALL&ROB&L

OLPUS, Respondents.

D ! I S I O N

BRION, J.:

5e resolve in this petition for revie" on certiorari) the challen1e to the Nove*ber '9, '((A decision' and the &anuar2 '', '((9 resolution3 of the

!ourt of +ppeals !+- in !+/.R. !>SP No. ('('0. This !+ decision

affir*ed "ith *odification the &ul2 '', '(($ decision# and the +pril '0,

'((: resolution$ of the National 4abor Relations !o**ission N4R!- in

N4R! !ase No. V((((:(3 "hich, in turn, reversed the October 9, '(('

decision: of the 4abor +rbiter 4+-. The 4+s decision dis*issed the

co*plaint filed b2 co*plainants 6erdinand +cibo, et al.A a1ainst petitioners

<niversal Robina Su1ar Millin1 !orporation <RS<M!O- and Rene!abati.

The 6actual +ntecedents

<RS<M!O is a do*estic corporation en1a1ed in the su1ar cane *illin1

business8 !abati is <RS<M!Os >usiness <nit /eneral Mana1er.

The co*plainants "ere e*plo2ees of <RS<M!O. The2 "ere hired on

various dates bet"een 6ebruar2 )900 and +pril )99:- and on differentcapacities,0 i.e., drivers, crane operators, buc%et hoo%ers, "elders,

*echanics, laborator2 attendants and aides, steel "or%ers, laborers,

carpenters and *asons, a*on1 others. +t the start of their respective

en1a1e*ents, the co*plainants si1ned contracts of e*plo2*ent for a period

of one )- *onth or for a 1iven season. <RS<M!O repeatedl2 hired the



















co*plainants to perfor* the sa*e duties and, for ever2 en1a1e*ent,

reBuired the latter to si1n ne" e*plo2*ent contracts for the sa*e duration

of one *onth or a 1iven season.

On +u1ust '3, '((',9

the co*plainants filed before the 4+ co*plaints forre1ulariCation, entitle*ent to the benefits under the e=istin1 !ollective

>ar1ainin1 +1ree*ent !>+-,and attorne2s fees.

In the decision)( dated October 9, '((', the 4+ dis*issed the co*plaint for

lac% of *erit. The 4+ held that the co*plainants "ere seasonal or pro7ect

"or%ers and not re1ular e*plo2ees of <RS<M!O. The 4+ pointed out that

the co*plainants "ere reBuired to perfor*, for a definite period, phases of

<RS<M!Os several pro7ects that "ere not at all directl2 related to the

latters *ain operations. +s the co*plainants "ere pro7ect e*plo2ees, the2

could not be re1ulariCed since their respective e*plo2*ents "ere

coter*inous "ith the phase of the "or% or special pro7ect to "hich the2 "ere

assi1ned and "hich e*plo2*ents end upon the co*pletion of each pro7ect.

+ccordin1l2, the co*plainants "ere not entitled to the benefits 1ranted

under the !>+ that, as provided, covered onl2 the re1ular e*plo2ees of

<RS<M!O.

Of the t"ent2t"o ori1inal co*plainants before the 4+, seven appealed the4+s rulin1 before the N4R!, na*el2; respondents 6erdinand +cibo, ddie

>aldoCa, +nd2 >an7ao, Dionisio >endi7o, &r., Rod1er Ra*ireC, Diocito

Pala1ti", Dann2 adusale and +ll2rob2l Olpus.

The Rulin1 of the N4R!

In its decision)) of &ul2 '', '(($, the N4R! reversed the 4+s rulin18 it

declared the co*plainants as re1ular <RS<M!O e*plo2ees and 1ranted

their *onetar2 clai*s under the !>+. The N4R! pointed out that theco*plainants perfor*ed activities "hich "ere usuall2 necessar2 and

desirable in the usual trade or business of <RS<M!O, and had been

repeatedl2 hired for the sa*e underta%in1 ever2 season. Thus, pursuant to

+rticle '0( of the 4abor !ode, the N4R! declared that the co*plainants

"ere re1ular e*plo2ees. +s re1ular e*plo2ees, the N4R! held that the









co*plainants "ere entitled to the benefits 1ranted, under the !>+, to the

re1ular <RS<M!O e*plo2ees.

The petitioners *oved to reconsider this N4R! rulin1 "hich the N4R!

denied in its +pril '0, '((: resolution.)'

The petitioners elevated the case tothe !+ via a petition for certiorari.)3

The Rulin1 of the !+

In its Nove*ber '9, '((A decision,)# the !+ 1ranted in part the petition8 it

affir*ed the N4R!s rulin1 findin1 the co*plainants to be re1ular

e*plo2ees of <RS<M!O, but deleted the 1rant of *onetar2 benefits under

the !>+.

The !+ pointed out that the pri*ar2 standard for deter*inin1 re1ular

e*plo2*ent is the reasonable connection bet"een a particular activit2

perfor*ed b2 the e*plo2ee vis\vis the usual trade or business of the

e*plo2er. This connection, in turn, can be deter*ined b2 considerin1 the

nature of the "or% perfor*ed and the relation of this "or% to the business or

trade of the e*plo2er in its entiret2.

In this re1ard, the !+ held that the various activities that the co*plainants

"ere tas%ed to do "ere necessar2, if not indispensable, to the nature of

<RS<M!Os business. +s the co*plainants had been perfor*in1 their

respective tas%s for at least one 2ear, the !+ held that this repeated and

continuin1 need for the co*plainants perfor*ance of these sa*e tas%s,

re1ardless of "hether the perfor*ance "as continuous or inter*ittent,

constitutes sufficient evidence of the necessit2, if not indispensabilit2, of the

activit2 to <RS<M!Os business.

6urther, the !+ noted that the petitioners failed to prove that the2 1ave theco*plainants opportunit2 to "or% else"here durin1 the offseason, "hich

opportunit2 could have Bualified the latter as seasonal "or%ers. Still, the !+

pointed out that even durin1 this offseason period, seasonal "or%ers are not

separated fro* the service but are si*pl2 considered on leave until the2 are

ree*plo2ed. Thus, the !+ concluded that the co*plainants "ere re1ular









e*plo2ees "ith respect to the activit2 that the2 had been perfor*in1 and

"hile the activit2 continued.

On the clai* for !>+ benefits, the !+, ho"ever, ruled that the

co*plainants "ere not entitled to receive the*. The !+ pointed out that"hile the co*plainants "ere considered re1ular, albeit seasonal, "or%ers,

the !>+covered re1ular e*plo2ees of <RS<M!O "ere perfor*in1 tas%s

needed b2 the latter for the entire 2ear "ith no re1ard to the chan1in1 su1ar

*illin1 season. Hence, the co*plainants did not belon1 to and could not be

1rouped to1ether "ith the re1ular e*plo2ees of <RS<M!O, for collective

bar1ainin1 purposes8 the2 constitute a bar1ainin1 unit separate and distinct

fro* the re1ular e*plo2ees. !onseBuentl2, the !+ declared that the

co*plainants could not be covered b2 the !>+.

The petitioners filed the present petition after the !+ denied their *otion for

partial reconsideration)$ in the !+s &anuar2 '', '((9 resolution.):

The Issues

The petition essentiall2 presents the follo"in1 issues for the !ourts

resolution; )- "hether the respondents are re1ular e*plo2ees of

<RS<M!O8 and '- "hether affir*ative relief can be 1iven to the fifteen)$- of the co*plainants "ho did not appeal the 4+s decision. )A

The !ourts Rulin1

5e resolve to partiall2 /R+NT the petition.

On the issue of the status of the respondents e*plo2*ent

The petitioners *aintain that the respondents are contractual or

pro7ectseasonal "or%ers and not re1ular e*plo2ees of <RS<M!O. The2

thus ar1ue that the !+ erred in appl2in1 the le1al para*eters and 1uidelines

for re1ular e*plo2*ent to the respondents case. The2 contend that the le1al

standards X len1th of the e*plo2ees en1a1e*ent and the desirabilit2 or

necessit2 of the e*plo2ees "or% in the usual trade or business of the

e*plo2er X appl2 onl2 to re1ular e*plo2ees under para1raph ), +rticle '0(









of the 4abor !ode, and, under para1raph ' of the sa*e article, to casual

e*plo2ees "ho are dee*ed re1ular b2 their len1th of service.

The respondents, the petitioners point out, "ere specificall2 en1a1ed for a

fi=ed and predeter*ined duration of, on the avera1e, one )- *onth at a ti*ethat coincides "ith a particular phase of the co*pan2s business operations

or su1ar *illin1 season. >2 the nature of their en1a1e*ent, the respondents

e*plo2*ent le1all2 ends upon the end of the predeter*ined period8 thus,

<RS<M!O "as under no le1al obli1ation to rehire the respondents.

In their co**ent,)0 the respondents *aintain that the2 are re1ular e*plo2ees

of <RS<M!O. Rel2in1 on the N4R! and the !+ rulin1s, the2 point out

that the2 have been continuousl2 "or%in1 for <RS<M!O for *ore than one

2ear, perfor*in1 tas%s "hich "ere necessar2 and desirable to <RS<M!Os

business. Hence, under the abovestated le1al para*eters, the2 are re1ular

e*plo2ees.

5e disa1ree "ith the petitioners position.9K$#hi9 5e find the respondents

to be re1ular seasonal e*plo2ees of <RS<M!O.

+s the !+ has e=plained in its challen1ed decision, +rticle '0( of the 4abor

!ode provides for three %inds of e*plo2*ent arran1e*ents, na*el2;re1ular, pro7ectseasonal and casual. Re1ular e*plo2*ent refers to that

arran1e*ent "hereb2 the e*plo2ee Fhas been en1a1ed to perfor* activities

"hich are usuall2 necessar2 or desirable in the usual business or trade of the

e*plo2er.EF)9 <nder the definition, the pri*ar2 standard that deter*ines

re1ular e*plo2*ent is the reasonable connection bet"een the particular

activit2 perfor*ed b2 the e*plo2ee and the usual business or trade of the

e*plo2er8'( the e*phasis is on the necessit2 or desirabilit2 of the e*plo2ees

activit2. Thus, "hen the e*plo2ee perfor*s activities considered necessar2

and desirable to the overall business sche*e of the e*plo2er, the la"

re1ards the e*plo2ee as re1ular.

>2 "a2 of an e=ception, para1raph ', +rticle '0( of the 4abor !ode also

considers re1ular a casual e*plo2*ent arran1e*ent "hen the casual

e*plo2ees en1a1e*ent has lasted for at least one 2ear, re1ardless of the









en1a1e*ents continuit2. The controllin1 test in this arran1e*ent is the

len1th of ti*e durin1 "hich the e*plo2ee is en1a1ed.

+ pro7ect e*plo2*ent, on the other hand, conte*plates on arran1e*ent

"hereb2 Fthe e*plo2*ent has been fi=ed for a specific pro7ect orunderta%in1 "hose co*pletion or ter*ination has been deter*ined at the

ti*e of the en1a1e*ent of the e*plo2ee.EF') T"o reBuire*ents, therefore,

clearl2 need to be satisfied to re*ove the en1a1e*ent fro* the presu*ption

of re1ularit2 of e*plo2*ent, na*el2; )- desi1nation of a specific pro7ect or

underta%in1 for "hich the e*plo2ee is hired8 and '- clear deter*ination of

the co*pletion or ter*ination of the pro7ect at the ti*e of the e*plo2ees

en1a1e*ent.'' The services of the pro7ect e*plo2ees are le1all2 and

auto*aticall2 ter*inated upon the end or co*pletion of the pro7ect as the

e*plo2ees services are coter*inous "ith the pro7ect.

<nli%e in a re1ular e*plo2*ent under +rticle '0( of the 4abor !ode,

ho"ever, the len1th of ti*e of the asserted Fpro7ectF e*plo2ees en1a1e*ent

is not controllin1 as the e*plo2*ent *a2, in fact, last for *ore than a 2ear,

dependin1 on the needs or circu*stances of the pro7ect. Nevertheless, this

len1th of ti*e or the continuous rehirin1 of the e*plo2ee even after the

cessation of the pro7ect- *a2 serve as a bad1e of re1ular e*plo2*ent "hen

the activities perfor*ed b2 the purported Fpro7ectF e*plo2ee are necessar2and indispensable to the usual business or trade of the e*plo2er .'3 In this

latter case, the la" "ill re1ard the arran1e*ent as re1ular e*plo2*ent.'#

Seasonal e*plo2*ent operates *uch in the sa*e "a2 as pro7ect

e*plo2*ent, albeit it involves "or% or service that is seasonal in nature or

lastin1 for the duration of the season.'$ +s "ith pro7ect e*plo2*ent,

althou1h the seasonal e*plo2*ent arran1e*ent involves "or% that is

seasonal or periodic in nature, the e*plo2*ent itself is not auto*aticall2

considered seasonal so as to prevent the e*plo2ee fro* attainin1 re1ular

status. To e=clude the asserted FseasonalF e*plo2ee fro* those classified as

re1ular e*plo2ees, the e*plo2er *ust sho" that; )- the e*plo2ee *ust be

perfor*in1 "or% or services that are seasonal in nature8 and '- he had been

e*plo2ed for the duration of the season.': Hence, "hen the FseasonalF
















"or%ers are continuousl2 and repeatedl2 hired to perfor* the sa*e tas%s or

activities for several seasons or even after the cessation of the season, this

len1th of ti*e *a2 li%e"ise serve as bad1e of re1ular e*plo2*ent.'A In fact,

even thou1h deno*inated as Fseasonal "or%ers,F if these "or%ers are called

to "or% fro* ti*e to ti*e and are onl2 te*poraril2 laid off durin1 the offseason, the la" does not consider the* separated fro* the service durin1 the

offseason period. The la" si*pl2 considers these seasonal "or%ers on leave

until ree*plo2ed.'0

!asual e*plo2*ent, the third %ind of e*plo2*ent arran1e*ent, refers to

an2 other e*plo2*ent arran1e*ent that does not fall under an2 of the first

t"o cate1ories, i.e., re1ular or pro7ectseasonal.

Interestin1l2, the 4abor !ode does not *ention another e*plo2*ent

arran1e*ent X contractual or fi=ed ter* e*plo2*ent or e*plo2*ent for a

ter*- X "hich, if not for the fi=ed ter*, should fall under the cate1or2 of

re1ular e*plo2*ent in vie" of the nature of the e*plo2ees en1a1e*ent,

"hich is to perfor* an activit2 usuall2 necessar2 or desirable in the

e*plo2ers business.

In >rent School, Inc. v. a*ora,'9 the !ourt, for the first ti*e, reco1niCed

and resolved the ano*al2 created b2 a narro" and literal interpretation of+rticle '0( of the 4abor !ode that appears to restrict the e*plo2ees ri1ht to

freel2 stipulate "ith his e*plo2er on the duration of his en1a1e*ent. In this

case, the !ourt upheld the validit2 of the fi=edter* e*plo2*ent a1reed

upon b2 the e*plo2er, >rent School, Inc., and the e*plo2ee, Dorotio +le1re,

declarin1 that the restrictive clause in +rticle '0( Fshould be construed to

refer to the substantive evil that the !ode itself = = = sin1led out; a1ree*ents

entered into precisel2 to circu*vent securit2 of tenure. It should have no

application to instances "here theE fi=ed period of e*plo2*ent "as a1reed

upon %no"in1l2 and voluntaril2 b2 the parties = = = absent an2 = = =

circu*stances vitiatin1 the e*plo2eesE consent, or "here the facts

satisfactoril2 sho"E that the e*plo2er and theE e*plo2ee dealt "ith each

other on *ore or less eBual ter*s.EF3( The indispensabilit2 or desirabilit2 of

the activit2 perfor*ed b2 the e*plo2ee "ill not preclude the parties fro*











enterin1 into an other"ise valid fi=ed ter* e*plo2*ent a1ree*ent8 a

definite period of e*plo2*ent does not essentiall2 contradict the nature of

the e*plo2ees duties3) as necessar2 and desirable to the usual business or

trade of the e*plo2er.

Nevertheless, F"here the circu*stances evidentl2 sho" that the e*plo2er

i*posed the period precisel2 to preclude the e*plo2ee fro* acBuirin1

tenurial securit2, the la" and this !ourt "ill not hesitate to stri%e do"n or

disre1ard the period as contrar2 to public polic2, *orals, etc.F3' In such a

case, the 1eneral restrictive rule under +rticle '0( of the 4abor !ode "ill

appl2 and the e*plo2ee shall be dee*ed re1ular.

!learl2, therefore, the nature of the e*plo2*ent does not depend solel2 on

the "ill or "ord of the e*plo2er or on the procedure for hirin1 and the

*anner of desi1natin1 the e*plo2ee. Rather, the nature of the e*plo2*ent

depends on the nature of the activities to be perfor*ed b2 the e*plo2ee,

considerin1 the nature of the e*plo2ers business, the duration and scope to

be done,33 and, in so*e cases, even the len1th of ti*e of the perfor*ance

and its continued e=istence.

In li1ht of the above le1al para*eters laid do"n b2 the la" and applicable

7urisprudence, the respondents are neither pro7ect, seasonal nor fi=edter*e*plo2ees, but re1ular seasonal "or%ers of <RS<M!O. The follo"in1

factual considerations fro* the records support this conclusion;

6irst, the respondents "ere *ade to perfor* various tas%s that did not at all

pertain to an2 specific phase of <RS<M!Os strict *illin1 operations that

"ould ulti*atel2 cease upon co*pletion of a particular phase in the *illin1

of su1ar8 rather, the2 "ere tas%ed to perfor* duties re1ularl2 and habituall2

needed in <RS<M!Os operations durin1 the *illin1 season. The

respondents duties as loader operators, hoo%ers, crane operators and drivers

"ere necessar2 to haul and transport the su1arcane fro* the plantation to the

*ill8 laborator2 attendants, "or%ers and laborers to *ill the su1ar8 and

"elders, carpenters and utilit2 "or%ers to ensure the s*ooth and continuous

operation of the *ill for the duration of the *illin1 season, as distin1uished

fro* the production of the su1arcane "hich involves the plantin1 and raisin1









of the su1arcane until it ripens for *illin1. The production of su1arcane, it

*ust be e*phasiCed, reBuires a different set of "or%ers "ho are e=perienced

in far* or a1ricultural "or%. Needless to sa2, the2 perfor* the activities that

are necessar2 and desirable in su1arcane production. +s in the *illin1 of

su1arcane, the plantation "or%ers perfor* their duties onl2 durin1 the plantin1 season.

Second, the respondents "ere re1ularl2 and repeatedl2 hired to perfor* the

sa*e tas%s 2ear after 2ear. This re1ular and repeated hirin1 of the sa*e

"or%ers t"o different sets- for t"o separate seasons has put in place,

principall2 throu1h 7urisprudence, the s2ste* of re1ular seasonal

e*plo2*ent in the su1ar industr2 and other industries "ith a si*ilar nature

of operations.

<nder the s2ste*, the plantation "or%ers or the *ill e*plo2ees do not "or%

continuousl2 for one "hole 2ear but onl2 for the duration of the 1ro"in1 of

the su1arcane or the *illin1 season. Their seasonal "or%, ho"ever, does not

detract fro* considerin1 the* in re1ular e*plo2*ent since in a litan2 of

cases, this !ourt has alread2 settled that seasonal "or%ers "ho are called to

"or% fro* ti*e to ti*e and are te*poraril2 laid off durin1 the offseason are

not separated fro* the service in said period, but are *erel2 considered on

leave until ree*plo2*ent.3# >e this as it *a2, re1ular seasonal e*plo2ees,li%e the respondents in this case, should not be confused "ith the re1ular

e*plo2ees of the su1ar *ill such as the ad*inistrative or office personnel

"ho perfor* their tas%s for the entire 2ear re1ardless of the season. The

N4R!, therefore, 1ravel2 erred "hen it declared the respondents re1ular

e*plo2ees of <RS<M!O "ithout Bualification and that the2 "ere entitled

to the benefits 1ranted, under the !>+, to <RS<M!OS re1ular e*plo2ees.

Third, "hile the petitioners assert that the respondents "ere free to "or%

else"here durin1 the offseason, the records do not support this assertion.

There is no evidence on record sho"in1 that after the co*pletion of their

tas%s at <RS<M!O, the respondents sou1ht and obtained e*plo2*ent

else"here.





!ontrar2 to the petitioners position, Mercado, Sr. v. N4R!, 3rd Div.3$ is not

applicable to the respondents as this case "as resolved based on different

factual considerations. In Mercado, the "or%ers "ere hired to perfor*

phases of the a1ricultural "or% in their e*plo2ers far* for a definite period

of ti*e8 after"ards, the2 "ere free to offer their services to an2 other far*o"ner. The "or%ers "ere not hired re1ularl2 and repeatedl2 for the sa*e

phases- of a1ricultural "or%, but onl2 inter*ittentl2 for an2 sin1le phase.

+nd, *ore i*portantl2, the e*plo2er in Mercado sufficientl2 proved these

factual circu*stances. The !ourt reiterated these sa*e observations in Hda.

6ati*a v. Natl 6ed. of Su1arcane 5or%ers6ood and /en. Trade3: and

Hacienda >inoHortencia Star%e, Inc. v. !uenca.3A

+t this point, "e reiterate the settled rule that in this 7urisdiction, onl2

Buestions of la" are allo"ed in a petition for revie" on certiorari.30 This

!ourts po"er of revie" in a Rule #$ petition is li*ited to resolvin1 *atters

pertainin1 to an2 perceived le1al errors, "hich the !+ *a2 have co**itted

in issuin1 the assailed decision.39 In revie"in1 the le1al correctness of the

!+s Rule :$ decision in a labor case, "e e=a*ine the !+ decision in the

conte=t that it deter*ined, i.e., the presence or absence of 1rave abuse of

discretion in the N4R! decision before it and not on the basis of "hether the

N4R! decision on the *erits of the case "as correct.#( In other "ords, "e

have to be %eenl2 a"are that the !+ undertoo% a Rule :$ revie", not a

revie" on appeal, of the N4R! decision challen1ed before it.#)

Vie"ed in this li1ht, "e find the need to place the !+s affir*ation, albeit

"ith *odification, of the N4R! decision of &ul2 '', '(($ in perspective. To

recall, the N4R! declared the respondents as re1ular e*plo2ees of

<RS<M!O.#' 5ith such a declaration, the N4R! in effect 1ranted the

respondents pra2er for re1ulariCation and, conco*itantl2, their pra2er for

the 1rant of *onetar2 benefits under the !>+ for <RS<M!Os re1ulare*plo2ees. In its challen1ed rulin1, the !+ concurred "ith the N4R!

findin1, but "ith the respondents characteriCed as re1ular seasonal

e*plo2ees of <RS<M!O.

















The !+ *isappreciated the real i*port of the N4R! rulin1. The labor

a1enc2 did not declare the respondents as re1ular seasonal e*plo2ees, but as

re1ular e*plo2ees. This is the onl2 conclusion that can be dra"n fro* the

N4R! decisions dispositive portion, thus;

5HR6OR, pre*ises considered, the appeal is hereb2 /R+NTD.

!o*plainants are declared re1ular e*plo2ees of respondent.9K$#hi9 +s

such, the2 are entitled to the *onetar2 benefits 1ranted to re1ular e*plo2ees

of respondent co*pan2 based on the !>+, rec%oned three 3- 2ears bac%

fro* the filin1 of the aboveentitled case on '3 +u1ust '((' up to the

present or to their entire service "ith respondent after the date of filin1 of

the said co*plaint if the2 are no lon1er connected "ith respondent

co*pan2.#3

It is, therefore, clear that the issue brou1ht to the !+ for resolution is

"hether the N4R! 1ravel2 abused its discretion in declarin1 the respondents

re1ular e*plo2ees of <RS<M!O and, as such, entitled to the benefits under

the !>+ for the re1ular e*plo2ees.

>ased on the established facts, "e find that the !+ 1rossl2 *isread the

N4R! rulin1 and *issed the i*plications of the respondents re1ulariCation.

To reiterate, the respondents are re1ular seasonal e*plo2ees, as the !+ itself opined "hen it declared that Fprivate respondents "ho are re1ular "or%ers

"ith respect to their seasonal tas%s or activities and "hile such activities

e=ist, cannot auto*aticall2 be 1overned b2 the !>+ bet"een petitioner

<RS<M!O and the authoriCed bar1ainin1 representative of the re1ular and

per*anent e*plo2ees.F## !itin1 7urisprudential standards,#$ it then proceeded

to e=plain that the respondents cannot be lu*ped "ith the re1ular e*plo2ees

due to the differences in the nature of their duties and the duration of their

"or% visavis the operations of the co*pan2.

The N4R! "as "ell a"are of these distinctions as it ac%no"led1ed that the

respondents "or%ed onl2 durin1 the *illin1 season, 2et it i1nored the

distinctions and declared the* re1ular e*plo2ees, a *ar%ed departure fro*

e=istin1 7urisprudence. This, to us, is 1rave abuse of discretion, as it 1ave no

reason for disturbin1 the s2ste* of re1ular seasonal e*plo2*ent alread2 in









place in the su1ar industr2 and other industries "ith si*ilar seasonal

operations. 6or upholdin1 the N4R!s fla"ed decision on the respondents

e*plo2*ent status, the !+ co**itted a reversible error of 7ud1*ent.

In su*, "e find the co*plaint to be devoid of *erit. The issue of 1rantin1affir*ative relief to the co*plainants "ho did not appeal the !+ rulin1 has

beco*e acade*ic.

5HR6OR, pre*ises considered, the petition is P+RTI+44K

/R+NTD. =cept for the denial of the respondents? clai* for !>+

benefits, the Nove*ber '9, '((A decision and the &anuar2 '', '((9

resolution of the !ourt of +ppeals are ST +SID. The co*plaint is

DISMISSD for lac% of *erit.

SO ORDRD.

SECON% %I(ISION

KA& PRO%UCTS, INC. )*+For G.R. No. 107

KA& LEE,

Petitioners,

Present;

P<NO, *., hairman,

versus +<STRI+M+RTIN,

!+44&O, SR.,



TIN/+, and

!HI!ON++RIO, ** .

-ONORABLE COURT O4

APPEALS, KA& PRO%UCTS

EMPLO&EES UNION, M&RNA

ABILA, 4LOR%ELI'A Pro*ul1ated;

MORANTE )*+ 4E REGI%OR,

Respondents. &ul2 '0, '(($

= =

% E C I S I O N

CALLE$O, SR., J .5



>efore us is a petition for revie" on certiorari under Rule #$ of the

Rules of !ourt of the Decision )E of the !ourt of +ppeals !+- in !+/.R.

SP No. A3('0 and its resolution den2in1 the *otion for reconsideration of its

decision b2 petitioners a2 Products, Incorporated PI- and a2 4ee.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jul2005/162472.htm#_ftn1




Te A*tee+e*t:

The e*plo2ees of PI had a *eetin1 for the purpose of for*in1 a

union "ithin their "or%place. +*on1 those in attendance "ere M2rna +bila,

6lordeliCa Morante, 6e Re1idor, Ro"ena scuadro and &eofre2 del Valle,

"ho "ere e*plo2ed b2 PI as factor2 se"ers in &une to +u1ust )999.

5hen the *ana1e*ent of PI 1ot "ind of the e*plo2ees plan to for*

a union, it called a *eetin1 to announce that the said e*plo2ees "ere to be

transferred to an e*plo2*ent a1enc2 "ith "hich it had a *anpo"er

contract, the /errico Resources Manpo"er Services, Inc. /RMSI-.

Throu1h a Me*orandu*'E dated &ul2 )3, '(((, PI, throu1h its president,

Mr. a2 K. 4ee, pro*ised that the e*plo2ees "ould receive bi11er and

better benefits under /RMSI as re1ular e*plo2ees thereof. On &ul2 )#,

'(((, PI directed all e*plo2ees concerned to si1n resi1nation letters

preparator2 to their e*plo2*ent "ith /RMSI. Thus, the e*plo2ees

sub*itted hand"ritten letters of resi1nation, and PI too% custod2 of their

identification cards.

The e*plo2ees continued to report for "or% in the PI factor2 but

received less "a1essalaries. On &ul2 3), '(((, PI issued a

Me*orandu*3E to the e*plo2ees, statin1 that /RMSI had been dissolved







and that there "as a need for the* to si1n separate contracts "ith R!V&,

another corporation "ith "hich PI had a *anpo"er contract.

This ti*e, so*e e*plo2ees, includin1 +bila, Morante, Re1idor,scuadro and Del Valle, refused to si1n an2 contract "ith R!V&.

In the *eanti*e, the e*plo2ees of PI "ere able to or1aniCe their

union, the a2 Products *plo2ees <nion, and affiliated the*selves to the

Philippine Transport /eneral 5or%ers Or1aniCation PT/5O- on &ul2 '$,

'(((.#E

On +u1ust '$, '(((, sevent2three A3- e*plo2ees, to1ether "ith the

a2 Products *plo2ees <nionPT/5O, filed a !o*plaint $E "ith Re1ional

+rbitration >ranch No. IV of the Depart*ent of 4abor and *plo2*ent

DO4- a1ainst the petitioners. The e*plo2ees clai*ed that the petitioners

"ere 1uilt2 of unfair labor practice <4P-, underpa2*ent of salaries and

service incentive leave pa2, and failure to classif2 the* as re1ular

e*plo2ees. The case "as doc%eted as N4R! !ase No. R+>IV0)'0'9((

4.

On Septe*ber #, '(((, the e*plo2ees "ere ordered to ta%e a t"o

"ee% leave fro* "or% "ithout pa2. The e*plo2ees co*plained. 5hen the2

tried to report for "or% after the t"o"ee% period, the2 "ere refused entr2

and "ere told that the2 had ceased to be PI e*plo2ees since the2 had

resi1ned upon a1reein1 to be e*plo2ed b2 /RMSI.







On October )0, '(((, the e*plo2ees and their union a*ended their

co*plaint doc%eted as N4R! !ase No. R+>IV0)'0'9((4- to ille1al

dis*issal.:E Onl2 +bila, Morante, Re1idor, scuadro and Del Valle, "ho

"ere able to si1n and verif2 the a*ended co*plaint, re*ained as

co*plainants.

In their position paper,AE the co*plainants alle1ed, inter alia, that the2

"ere ille1all2 dis*issed8 their dis*issal "as not 1rounded on an2 7ust andauthoriCed cause under the la", and the2 "ere deprived of their ri1ht to due

process. The2 also asserted that in interferin1 "ith their ri1ht to self

or1aniCation b2 deceitfull2 transferrin1 the* to an e*plo2*ent a1enc2, PI

thereb2 en1a1ed in <4P. The2 clai*ed that such acts "ere in violation of the

principles enunciated under the 4abor !ode of the Philippines. The

co*plainants further contended that the2 "ere coerced and inti*idated into

si1nin1 letters of resi1nation. Moreover, the2 "ere entitled to *one2 clai*s,

particularl2 )3th *onth pa2, service incentive leave pa2, vacation and sic%

leave pa2 fro* the ti*e of their ille1al dis*issal until their reinstate*ent.







On the other hand, the petitioners denied the *aterial alle1ations of

the co*plainants, and *aintained that the latter voluntaril2 resi1ned fro*

their "or%. The2 asserted that aside fro* the t2pe"ritten resi1nation letter,

the co*plainants also "rote other letters in their o"n hand"ritin1. The2

pointed out that the co*plainants voluntaril2 secured their clearances fro*

PI, transferred to R!V&, and never "ent bac% to "or%. PI asserted that

it never interfered "ith its "or%ers ri1ht to selfor1aniCation or an2 of their

plans to for* an2 union. Hence, in vie" of their voluntar2 resi1nations, the

co*plainants "ere not entitled to reinstate*ent, bac%"a1es, *oral and

e=e*plar2 da*a1es, and attorne2s fees.

On Septe*ber '0, '((), the 4abor +rbiter 0E rendered his decision.

The decretal portion reads as follo"s;

5HR6OR, pre*ises considered, 7ud1*ent is hereb2

rendered dis*issin1 co*plainants char1e for ille1al dis*issal

and for <4P for lac% of *erit. Ho"ever, in vie" of their

i*plied ad*ission of co*plainants entitle*ent thereto,

respondent is hereb2 ordered to pa2 the correspondin1

)3th *onth pa2 and service incentive leave pa2 due the

co*plainants herein.

SO ORDRD.9E







The 4abor +rbiter declared that the co*plainants "rote their

resi1nation letters in their o"n hand, and found no sho"in1 of force or

inti*idation in so doin1. He declared that if there "as, indeed, force or

inti*idation, the co*plainants ou1ht to have *ade their real senti*ents or

opposition thereto on record b2 "ritin1 under protest, "ith reservations, or

other "ords to that effect either belo", beside, or so*e"here near their

si1natures. Moreover, the fact that the contents of their resi1nation letters

"ere dictated "ould not 7ustif2 the conclusion that the2 had tendered their

resi1nation a1ainst their "ill. On the contrar2, the 4abor +rbiter observed

that this "as *ore convenient on the part of the parties.



On Ma2 3), '((', the National 4abor Relations !o**ission N4R!-

Third Division rendered its Decision)(E affir*in1 the 4abor +rbiters decision

and dis*issin1 the appeal for lac% of *erit;

5HR6OR, pre*ises considered, the appeal fro* the

Decision dated Septe*ber '0, '(() is hereb2 DISMISSD for

lac% of *erit and the Decision +66IRMD.

SO ORDRD.))E

The N4R! declared that the co*plainants act of sub*ittin1

resi1nation letters and acco*plishin1 their respective clearances fro* PI

ne1ated involuntariness. The N4R! also noted so*e inconsistencies in thea*ended co*plaint and the position paper of the co*plainants, vi0.;

!o*plainants alle1ed that the2 still "or%ed for several

*onths "ith respondent as re1ular e*plo2ees thereof even after

the e=ecution of their resi1nation letter. This alle1ation of

co*plainants deserves scant consideration. Records sho" that

co*plainantsE filed the instant case on +u1ust '$, '(((. It is"orth stressin1 that co*plainantsE failed to indicate in their

co*plaint the date the2 "ere alle1edl2 dis*issed. Records, p.

)- TEhen, in their a*ended co*plaint Records, p. )'- and

position paper Records, p. )0-, the2 clai*ed that the2 "ere

dis*issed on Septe*ber #, '(((. If it is reall2 true that the2







"ere dis*issed on Septe*ber #, '(((, ho" co*e the2 char1ed

respondents of ille1al dis*issal on +u1ust '$, '(((E These

apparent inconsistencies of co*plainants onl2 1oes sic- to

sho" the "ea%ness of their alle1ations.)'E

+ *otion for reconsideration "as filed, "hich "as denied for lac% of

*erit.)3E







Private respondents M2rna +bila, 6lordeliCa Morante and 6e Re1idor,

thereafter, filed a petition for certiorari "ith the !+, assailin1 the

decision and resolution of the N4R!. The appellate court rendered 7ud1*ent

on Dece*ber ):, '((3, reversin1 the decision of the N4R!. The fallo of the

decision reads;

5HR6OR, 7ud1*ent is hereb2 rendered;

)- RVRSIN/ the assailed resolutions of public

respondent "ith respect to its findin1s that petitioners "ere not

ille1all2 dis*issed8 and,

'- +66IRMIN/ the assailed resolutions of public

respondent N4R! "ith respect to the petitioners char1e for

unfair labor practices.

5ithout costs in this instance.

SO ORDRD.)#E

The appellate court ruled that the private respondents "ere re1ular

e*plo2ees, since the2 "ere perfor*in1 activities nor*all2 necessar2 or

desirable in the usual business or trade of PI for *ore than a 2ear until

their severance fro* "or% on Septe*ber #, '(((. The !+ declared that as

re1ular e*plo2ees, their services could onl2 be ter*inated for 7ust and





authoriCed causes under the 4abor !ode, as a*ended. The e*plo2ees

transfer to an e*plo2*ent a1enc2 put PIs *otive in Buestion and 1ave

credence to the alle1ation that the e*plo2ees had been ille1all2 ter*inated

or dis*issed.

+nent the char1e of unfair labor practice, the !+ absolved the

respondent therein of said char1e.



The PI filed a *otion for the reconsideration of the above decision,

"hich the appellate court denied, as the ar1u*ents in support thereof had

been dul2 addressed and resolved b2 it.)$E

In the present recourse, petitioners ascribe to the !+ the follo"in1 as

errors;

I

TH P<>4I! RSPONDNT !OMMITTD + SRIO<S

RROR O6 4+5 IN HO4DIN/ PRIV+T RSPONDNTS

RSI/N+TIONS NOT VO4<NT+RK DSPIT THIR

!ON6IRM+TION IN THIR O5N H+ND5RITIN/.

II

TH P<>4I! RSPONDNT !OMMITTD + SRIO<S

RROR O6 4+5 IN D!4+RIN/ TH+T PRIV+T

RSPONDNTS DISMISS+4 5+S I44/+4.):E







The petitioners reiterated their clai* that the private respondents "ere

not coerced, threatened, or inti*idated into filin1 their resi1nation letters.

The2 clai* that the !+ erred in findin1 that the petitioners forced or

inti*idated the private respondents into si1nin1 blan% sheets of paper "hich

"ere used as their resi1nation letters. The petitioners contend that such

findin1 is not supported b2 an2 evidence. The2 rel2 on the 4abor +rbiters

conclusion that if the private respondents had reall2 been forced to render

their resi1nation, the2 should have "ritten under protest, "ith reservations or

other "ords to that effect near their si1natures to sho" their real senti*ents

or opposition. Moreover, the fact that the private respondents "aited for one

)- *onth and t"elve )'- da2s, before filin1 their co*plaint "ith the

DO4, casts doubt on the inte1rit2 of their position.

+nent the second issue, the petitioners ar1ue that the !+ erred in

declarin1 that the private respondents had been ille1all2 dis*issed, and that

there "as nothin1 to support such conclusion. The2 contend that the

appellate court disre1arded the findin1s of the 4abor +rbiter and the N4R!,

and instead should have accorded respect and finalit2 to such findin1s,

supported as the2 "ere b2 substantial evidence. The petitioners cited the

cases of Pan Pacific Industrial Sales o., Inc. v. 'LR ,)AE Aboiti0 Shi##in

or#oration v. ela Serna)0E and Rabao v. 'LR ,)9E "here this !ourt held

that findin1s of ad*inistrative a1encies are accorded respect and evenfinalit2 if the2 are supported b2 substantial evidence. Thus, the petitioners

pra2 that the !+ decision be reversed and set aside, and the decisions of the

4abor +rbiter and the N4R! reinstated.









On the other hand, the private respondents *aintain that the2 "ere

inti*idated and coerced into si1nin1 their respective resi1nation letters and

clearances, and that the findin1s of the 4abor +rbiter and the N4R! "ere

based on fli*s2 1rounds. The private respondents clai* that the2 had to

secure clearances as the2 "ere needed for the release of "hatever benefits

due the*. The2 *aintain that the appellate court did not err in its findin1

that the2 "ere ille1all2 dis*issed.



The petition is bereft of *erit.

Preli*inaril2, the re*ed2 resorted to b2 the petitioners is a petition for

revie" under Rule #$ of the Rules of !ourt, "hich allo"s onl2 Buestions of

la". 6indin1s of fact of the lo"er courts are conclusive, e=cept in the

follo"in1 instances; )- "hen the findin1s are 1rounded entirel2 on

speculation, sur*ises, or con7ectures8 '- "hen the inference *ade is

*anifestl2 *ista%en, absurd, or i*possible8 3- "hen there is 1rave abuse of discretion8 #- "hen the 7ud1*ent is based on a *isapprehension of facts8

$- "hen the findin1s of fact are conflictin18 :- "hen in *a%in1 its findin1s

the !+ "ent be2ond the issues of the case, or its findin1s are contrar2 to the

ad*issions of both the appellant and the appellee8 A- "hen the findin1s are

contrar2 to those of the trial court8 0- "hen the findin1s are conclusions

"ithout citation of specific evidence on "hich the2 are based8 9- "hen the

facts set forth in the petition as "ell as in the petitioners *ain and repl2

briefs are not disputed b2 the respondents8 and )(- "hen the findin1s of fact

are pre*ised on the supposed absence of evidence and contradicted b2 the

evidence on record.'(E

In the present case, the 4abor +rbiter and the N4R! ruled that the

private respondents voluntaril2 resi1ned their e*plo2*ent "ith petitioner

PI, in contrast to the appellate courts rulin1 that the2 did not. There is thus

a need for the !ourt to ascertain "hich of the findin1s and conclusions are in

accord "ith the evidence on record and the la".





On the first issue, "e affir* the enco*passin1 and perceptive rulin1

of the appellate court;

To be stressed in the funda*ental pre*ise that petitioners

are re1ular e*plo2ees of private respondents, havin1 been

perfor*in1 activities "hich are nor*all2 necessar2 or desirable

in the usual business or trade of the e*plo2er for *ore than a

2ear alread2, until their severance fro* "or% on Septe*ber #,

'(((. <ndeniabl2, petitioners "ere re1ular e*plo2ees at the

ti*e the2 alle1edl2 voluntaril2 resi1ned on &ul2 )#, '(((. +ssuch re1ular e*plo2ees, the 4abor !ode 1rants petitioners

securit2 of tenure, "hich essentiall2 *eans that their e*plo2er

can not ter*inate their services e=cept for 7ust and authoriCed

causes, as provided for under the 4abor !ode. Vie"ed in this

li1ht, private respondents act or action in transferrin1

petitioners to a *anpo"er a1enc2 /errico Resources then later

on to R!V&- "ith the pro*ise that the2 "ould receive the sa*e

benefits as re1ular e*plo2ees, puts in Buestion privaterespondents real *otive. If an2thin1, it 1ives currenc2 to the

belief that petitioners had been ille1all2 ter*inated or dis*issed

fro* e*plo2*ent.

Turnin1 no" to the Buestion of the voluntariness of the

resi1nation letters; 5e are inclined to a1ree "ith the petitioners

that the2 "ere coerced, threatened or inti*idated into si1nin1 blan% sheets of paper "hich *aterialiCed into resi1nation

letters, the contents of "hich "ere dictated b2 the Director and

Personnel Mana1er of the respondent co*pan2. 6or to us, it is

inconceivable that a "or%er "ho has alread2 attained a re1ular

status in his e*plo2*ent "ould opt to be transferred to another



e*plo2*ent a1enc2, there to start "or% ane" "or% that "ould

rele1ate hi* to a *ere casual laborer or e*plo2ee. Obviousl2,

petitioners "ere not 1iven an2 other choice b2 *ana1e*ent, but

to a1ree to their transfer to /errico Resources, lest the2 lose

their onl2 *eans of livelihood. !onsiderin1 that petitioners areordinar2 se"ers of respondent co*pan2, the fear of losin1 their

7obs cannot but be a serious, le1iti*ate concern. In Rance, et al.

v. 'LR , it "as held that "hen a person has no propert2, his 7ob

*a2 possibl2 be his onl2 possession or *eans of livelihood.

Therefore, he should be protected a1ainst an2 arbitrar2

deprivation of his 7ob. In the sa*e spirit, +rt. '0( of the 4abor

!ode construes securit2 of tenure as *eanin1 that the e*plo2er

shall not ter*inate the services of an e*plo2ee e=cept for a 7ustcause or "hen authoriCed b2 the !ode.')E

The fact that petitioners in this case failed to indicate in

their resi1nation letters the phrase under protest or "ith

reservations is of no *o*ent. To be stressed ane" is the fact

that petitioners "ere ordinar2 factor2 "or%ers "ho could not

and should not be e=pected to %no" the le1al i*port or

si1nificance of so*e such phrase as under protest or "ith

reservations.

+dditionall2, private respondents clai* that petitioners

voluntaril2 resi1ned is belied b2 the fact that the latter

i**ediatel2 filed a co*plaint for re1ulariCation "ith the N4R!upon their supposed transfer to the /errico Resources. 5e note

that "hile petitioners "ere alle1edl2 e*plo2ed "ith /errico

Resources, the2 continued "or%in1 "ith respondent co*pan2

and "ithin the pre*ises of respondent co*pan2 for that *atter.

Hence, it ca*e as no surprise that "hen the2 "ere disallo"ed





entr2 into the pre*ises of respondent co*pan2 on Septe*ber #,

'(((, the2 a*ended their co*plaint to one of ille1al dis*issal.

Therefore, there is so*ethin1 as%e" in public respondents

ratiocination that

!o*plainants alle1ed that the2 still "or%ed

for several *onths "ith respondent as re1ular

e*plo2ees thereof even after the e=ecution of their

resi1nation lettersE. This alle1ation of

co*plainants deserves scant

consideration. Records sho" that co*plainant filed

the instant case on +u1ust '$, '(((. It is "orthstressin1 that co*plainant failed to indicate in their

co*plaint the date the2 "ere alle1edl2 dis*issed.

Records, p. )- Then, in their a*ended co*plaint

Records, p. )'- and position paper Records, p.

)0-, the2 clai*ed that the2 "ere dis*issed on

Septe*ber #, '(((. If it is reall2 true that the2

"ere dis*issed on Septe*ber #, '(((, ho" co*e

the2 char1ed respondents of ille1al dis*issal on+u1ust '$, '(((E These apparent inconsistencies

of co*plainants onl2 1oes sic- to sho" the

"ea%ness of their alle1ations. === underscorin1

supplied-

6or, stoc% can be ta%en of the fact that the co*plaint filed

on +u1ust '$, '((( "as for re1ulariCation, "hile that of

Septe*ber #, '((( "as for ille1al dis*issal and reinstate*ent.

Notabl2, no date "as indicated in the space provided for Date

Dis*issed in the co*plaint for +u1ust '$, '(((, precisel2

because petitioners "ere not 2et dis*issed then8 rather, the2



"ere *erel2 transferred to /errico Resources as contractual

"or%ers.

In &olave /ours v. 'LR , resi1nation has been defined

as the voluntar2 act of an e*plo2ee "ho finds hi*self in a

situation "here he believes that personal reasons cannot be

sacrificed in favor of the e=i1enc2 of the service, then he has no

other choice but to disassociate hi*self fro* his e*plo2*ent.

In the conte=t of Section II, Rule JIV, >oo% V of the Revised

Rules I*ple*entin1 the 4abor !ode, resi1nation is a for*al

pronounce*ent or relinBuish*ent of an office. It *ust be *ade

"ith the deliberate ani*us or intention of relinBuishin1 theoffice acco*panied b2 an act of relinBuish*ent. In the sa*e

case, it "as also held that the voluntariness of a resi1nation is

ne1ated b2 the filin1 of a co*plaint for ille1al dis*issal.

Declared the !ourt;

The fact that private respondent i**ediatel2

filed a co*plaint for ille1al dis*issal a1ainst petitioner and repudiated his alle1ed resi1nation

co*pletel2 ne1ated petitioners clai* that

respondent >olocon voluntaril2 resi1ned. >2

vi1orousl2 pursuin1 the liti1ation of his action

a1ainst petitioner, private respondent clearl2

*anifested that he has no intention of

relinBuishin1 his e*plo2*ent, "hich act is "holl2

inco*patible to petitioners assertion that he

voluntaril2 resi1ned. Neither "as petitioner able to

dischar1e the burden of provin1 that respondent

>olocons e*plo2*ent "as validl2 ter*inated.

Other than the *ute "ords of >olocons alle1ed

letter of resi1nation, the rest of petitioners



evidence failed to establish that >olocon, indeed,

voluntaril2 resi1ned. 5orse, petitioner failed to

refute private respondents alle1ation of force and

inti*idation in the e=ecution of the letter of

resi1nation b2 optin1 not to present the testi*on2of its personnel *ana1er "ho could have

contradicted >olocons version of "hat actuall2

transpired.''E

The !+ "as correct in declarin1 that the private respondents had

attained the status of re1ular e*plo2ees of petitioner PI. It *ust be stressed

that at the ti*e of their dis*issal, the2 had been "or%in1 for the petitioners

for *ore than one )- 2ear. Ho"ever, the !+ failed to rule on "hether the

private respondents should be reinstated and paid bac%"a1es and other

*onetar2 benefits.

5hile the actual re1ulariCation of these e*plo2ees entails the

*echanical act of issuin1 re1ular appoint*ent papers and co*pliance "ith

such other operatin1 procedures as *a2 be adopted b2 the e*plo2er, it is

*ore in %eepin1 "ith the intent and spirit of the la" to rule that the status of

re1ular e*plo2*ent attaches to the casual "or%er on the da2 i**ediatel2

after the end of his first 2ear of service. To rule other"ise, and to instead*a%e their re1ulariCation dependent on the happenin1 of so*e contin1enc2

or the fulfill*ent of certain reBuire*ents, is to i*pose a burden on the

e*plo2ee "hich is not sanctioned b2 la".'3E








+rticle '0( of the 4abor !ode, as a*ended, provides as follo"s;

+rt. '0(. Reular and asual -m#loyment . The

provisions of "ritten a1ree*ent to the contrar2 not"ithstandin1

and re1ardless of the oral a1ree*ent of the parties, an

e*plo2*ent shall be dee*ed to be re1ular "here the e*plo2ee

has been en1a1ed to perfor* activities "hich are usuall2

necessar2 or desirable in the usual business or trade of the

e*plo2er, e=cept "here the e*plo2*ent has been fi=ed for a

specific pro7ect or underta%in1 the co*pletion or ter*ination of

"hich has been deter*ined at the ti*e of the en1a1e*ent of the

e*plo2ee or "here the "or% or services to be perfor*ed is

seasonal in nature and the e*plo2*ent is for the duration of the

season.

+n e*plo2*ent shall be dee*ed to be casual if it is not

covered b2 the precedin1 para1raph; Provided, That, an2

e*plo2ee "ho has rendered at least one 2ear of service,

"hether such service is continuous or bro%en, shall beconsidered a re1ular e*plo2ee "ith respect to the activit2 in

"hich he is e*plo2ed and his e*plo2*ent shall continue "hile

such activit2 e=ists.

+s re1ular e*plo2ees, the private respondents are entitled to securit2of tenure provided under the labor la"s and *a2 onl2 be validl2 ter*inated

fro* service upon co*pliance "ith the le1al reBuisites for dis*issal and

considerin1 that the2 "ere ille1all2 dis*issed, the private respondents



should be reinstated, in accordance "ith the provision of the 4abor !ode, as

a*ended, particularl2 +rticle 'A9, to "it;

+rticle 'A9. Security of /enure. In cases of re1ular

e*plo2*ent, the e*plo2er shall not ter*inate the services of an

e*plo2ee e=cept for a 7ust cause or "hen authoriCed b2 this

Title. +n e*plo2ee "ho is un7ustl2 dis*issed fro* "or% shall

be entitled to reinstatement "ithout loss of seniorit2 ri1hts and

other privile1es and to his full bac%"a1es, inclusive of

allo"ances, and to his other benefits or their *onetar2

eBuivalent co*puted fro* the ti*e his co*pensation "as

"ithheld fro* hi* up to the ti*e of his actual reinstate*ent.'#E





Thus, the said provision provides that ille1all2 dis*issed e*plo2ees

are entitled to bac%"a1es plus other benefits co*puted fro* the ti*e

co*pensation "as "ithheld up to the ti*e of actual reinstate*ent. +n

ille1all2 dis*issed e*plo2ee "ho, in conte*plation of the la", never left his

office, should be 1ranted the co*pensation "hich ri1htfull2 belon1s to

hi* fro* the *o*ent he "as undul2 deprived of it up to the ti*e it "as

restored to hi*8'$E the bac%"a1es to be a"arded should not be di*inished or

reduced b2 earnin1s derived b2 the ille1all2 dis*issed e*plo2ee else"here

durin1 the ter* of his ille1al dis*issal.':E

In their a*ended co*plaint filed "ith the DO4, the private

respondents pra2ed for *oral and e=e*plar2 da*a1es, a*on1 others, but the

!+ failed to a"ard the sa*e. This !ourt has consistentl2 accorded the

"or%in1 class a ri1ht to recover da*a1es for dis*issals tainted "ith bad

faith. The a"ard of such da*a1es is based not on the 4abor !ode but on

+rticle '''( of the !ivil !ode.'AE Indeed, *oral da*a1es are recoverable

"hen the dis*issal of an e*plo2ee is attended b2 bad faith or fraud or

constitutes an act oppressive to labor, or is done in a *anner contrar2 to

1ood *orals, 1ood custo*s or public polic2. =e*plar2 da*a1es *a2 be

a"arded if the dis*issal is effected in a "anton, oppressive or *alevolent

*anner.'0E >ad faith on the part of petitioners *a2 be 1leaned fro* the fact

that the2 transferred the private respondents to t"o '- e*plo2*ent a1encies 7ust so the2 could evade their le1al responsibilit2 as e*plo2ers to accord

the* the status and benefits of re1ular e*plo2ees under the 4abor !ode. The

dis*issal, no doubt, "as effected in a "anton, oppressive or *alevolent

*anner as the private respondents "ere deprived of due process. Thus, the











a*ount of P)(,(((.(( as *oral da*a1es and P$,(((.(( as e=e*plar2

da*a1es are hereb2 a"arded to each private respondent.'9E

Petitioner a2 4ee, as the president, activel2 *ana1ed the business of

PI. In fact, she "as the one "ho decided the private respondents transfer to

the e*plo2*ent a1encies, and si1ned the *e*oranda orderin1 such transfer,

in bad faith, as earlier discussed. In labor cases, particularl2, corporate

directors and officers are solidaril2 liable "ith the corporation for the

ter*ination of e*plo2*ent of corporate e*plo2ees done "ith *alice or in

bad faith.3(E In fact, in 'auiat v. 'LR ,3)E the !ourt held that the president

of a corporation, "ho activel2 *ana1es the business, falls "ithin the

*eanin1 of an e*plo2er as conte*plated b2 the 4abor !ode, and *a2 be

held 7ointl2 and severall2 liable for the obli1ations of the corporation to its

dis*issed e*plo2ees. Thus, in the present case, petitioners a2 4ee and PI

are 7ointl2 and severall2 liable for the latters obli1ations to the private

respondents.









IN (IE O4 T-E 4OREGOING %IS#UISITIONS, the petition

is hereb2 %ENIE%. The !ourt of +ppeals Decision and Resolution in !+

/.R. SP No. A3('0 are hereb2 A44IRME% IT- MO%I4ICATION.

Petitioners a2 Products, Inc. and a2 4ee are OR%ERE% to reinstate

private respondents M2rna +bila, 6lordeliCa Morante and 6e Re1idor, and to

pa2, 7ointl2 and severall2, their full bac%"a1es "ithout deductions fro*

the ti*e of dis*issal to actual reinstate*ent8 if reinstate*ent is no lon1er

practicable or feasible, in lieu thereof, to pa2, 7ointl2 and severall2,

separation pa2 of one )- *onth salar2 for ever2 2ear of their e*plo2*ent,

"ith a fraction of at least si= :- *onths bein1 considered as one )- 2ear. In

addition thereto, petitioners are also hereb2 ordered, 7ointl2 and severall2, to

pa2 the a*ount of Ten Thousand Pesos P)(,(((.((- as *oral da*a1es and

6ive Thousand Pesos P$,(((.((- as e=e*plar2 da*a1es to each of the

private respondents.

SO OR%ERE%.

SECON% %I(ISION

/G.R. NO. 180977 5 %eember 7, !!92

COCACOLA BOTTLERS P-ILIPPINES, INC., Petitioner , v. RICK&

E. %ELA CRU', ROLAN%O M. GUASIS, MANN& C. PUGAL,

RONNIE L. -ERMO, ROLAN%O C. SOMERO, $R., %IBSON %.

%IOCARES, )*+ IAN B. IC-APARE, Res#ondents.

% E C I S I O N

BRION, J.5



The present Petition for Revie" on ertiorari ) challen1es the decision' and

resolution3 of the !ourt of +ppeals A- rendered on +u1ust '9, '((0 and

October )3, '((0, respectivel2, in !+/.R. SP No. )('900.

TH +NT!DNTS

Respondents Ric%2 . Dela !ruC, Rolando M. /uasis, Mann2 !. Pu1al,

Ronnie 4. Her*o, Rolando !. So*ero, &r., Dibson D. Diocares, and Ian

Ichapare respondents- filed in &ul2 '((( t"o separate co*plaints# for

re1ulariCation "ith *one2 clai*s a1ainst !oca!ola >ottlers Philippines,

Inc., petitioner or the co*pan2-. The co*plaints "ere consolidated and

subseBuentl2 a*ended to i*plead Peerless Inte1rated Service, Inc.

Peerless- as a part2respondent.

>efore the 4abor +rbiter, the respondents alle1ed that the2 are route helpers

assi1ned to "or% in the petitioner?s truc%s. The2 1o fro* the !oca !ola

sales offices or plants to custo*er outlets such as sarisari stores, restaurants,

1roceries, super*ar%ets and si*ilar establish*ents8 the2 "ere hired either

directl2 b2 the petitioner or b2 its contractors, but the2 do not en7o2 the full

re*uneration, benefits and privile1es 1ranted to the petitioner?s re1ular sales

force. The2 ar1ued that the services the2 render are necessar2 and desirable

in the re1ular business of the petitioner.$

In defense, the petitioner contended that it entered into contracts of services

"ith Peerless: and =cellent Partners !ooperative, Inc. =cellent-A to

provide allied services8 under these contracts, Peerless and =cellent

retained the ri1ht to select, hire, dis*iss, supervise, control and discipline

and pa2 the salaries of all personnel the2 assi1n to the petitioner8 in return

for these services, Peerless and =cellent "ere paid a stipulated fee. The

petitioner posited that there is no e*plo2ere*plo2ee relationship bet"een

the co*pan2 and the respondents and the co*plaints should be dis*issed

for lac% of 7urisdiction on the part of the National 4abor Relations

!o**ission N4R!-. Peerless did not file a position paper, althou1h

nothin1 on record indicates that it "as ever notified of the a*ended

co*plaint.

http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2009decemberdecisions.php?id=1400#fnt1
















In repl2, the respondents countered that the2 "or%ed under the control and

supervision of the co*pan2?s supervisors "ho prepared their "or% schedules

and assi1n*ents. Peerless and =cellent, too, did not have sufficient capital

or invest*ent to provide services to the petitioner. The respondents thus

ar1ued that the petitioner?s contracts of services "ith Peerless and =cellentare in the nature of Flaboronl2F contracts prohibited b2 la".0

In rebuttal, the petitioner belied the respondents? sub*ission that their 7obs

are usuall2 necessar2 and desirable in its *ain business. It clai*ed that its

*ain business is softdrin%s *anufacturin1 and the respondents? tas%s of

handlin1, loadin1 and unloadin1 of the *anufactured softdrin%s are not part

of the *anufacturin1 process. It stressed that its onl2 interest in the

respondents is in the result of their "or%, and left to the* the *eans and the

*ethods of achievin1 this result. It thus ar1ued that there is no basis for the

respondents? clai* that "ithout the*, there "ould be overproduction in the

co*pan2 and its operations "ould co*e to a halt.9 The petitioner lastl2

ar1ued that in an2 case, the respondents did not present evidence in support

of their clai*s of co*pan2 control and supervision so that these clai*s

cannot be considered and 1iven "ei1ht.)(

The !o*pulsor2 +rbitration Rulin1s

4abor +rbiter &oel S. 4ustria dis*issed the co*plaint for lac% of 7urisdiction

in his decision of Septe*ber '0, '((#,)) after findin1 that the respondents

"ere the e*plo2ees of either Peerless or =cellent and not of the petitioner.

He brushed aside for lac% of evidence the respondents? clai* that the2 "ere

directl2 hired b2 the petitioner and that co*pan2 personnel supervised and

controlled their "or%. The 4abor +rbiter li%e"ise ordered Peerless Fto

accord to the appropriate co*plainants all e*plo2*ent benefits and

privile1es befittin1 its re1ular e*plo2ees.F)'

The respondents appealed to the N4R!.)3 On October 3), '((A, the N4R!

denied the appeal and affir*ed the labor arbiter?s rulin1,)# and subseBuentl2

denied the respondents? *otion for reconsideration.)$ The respondents thus

sou1ht relief fro* the !+ throu1h a Petition for ertiorariunder Rule :$ of

the Rules of !ourt.




















The !+ Decision

The *ain substantive issue the parties sub*itted to the !+ "as "hether

=cellent and Peerless "ere independent contractors or Flaboronl2F

contractors. Procedurall2, the petitioner Buestioned the sufficienc2 of the petition and as%ed for its dis*issal on the follo"in1 1rounds; )- the petition

"as filed out of ti*e8 '- failure to i*plead Peerless and =cellent as

necessar2 parties8 3- absence of the notariCed proof of service that Rule )3

of the Rules of !ourt reBuires8 and #- defective verification and

certification.

The !+ e=a*ined the circu*stances of the contractual arran1e*ents

bet"een Peerless and =cellent, on the one hand, and the co*pan2, on the

other, and found that Peerless and =cellent "ere en1a1ed in laboronl2

contractin1, a prohibited underta%in1.): The appellate court e=plained that

based on the respondents? assertions and the petitioner?s ad*issions, the

contractors si*pl2 supplied the co*pan2 "ith *anpo"er, and that the sale

and distribution of the co*pan2?s products are the sa*e allied services found

b2 this !ourt in Ma1salin v. National Or1aniCation of 5or%in1*en)A to be

necessar2 and desirable functions in the co*pan2?s business.Yrbl

6IRST DIVISION

/G.R. No. 13. %eember 1, 19972

PURE 4OO%S CORPORATON, petitioner , vs. NATIONAL LABOR

RELATIONS COMMISSION, RO%OL4O COR%O(A,

(IOLETA CRUSIS, 82 +.,= respondents.

% E C I S I O N

%A(I%E, $R., J .5









The cru= of this petition for certiorari is the issue of "hether e*plo2ees

hired for a definite period and "hose services are necessar2 and desirable in

the usual business or trade of the e*plo2er are re1ular e*plo2ees.

The private respondents nu*berin1 9(:- "ere hired b2 petitioner Pure6oods !orporation to "or% for a fi=ed period of five *onths at its tuna

canner2 plant in Ta*bler, /eneral Santos !it2. +fter the e=piration of their

respective contracts of e*plo2*ent in &une and &ul2 )99), their services

"ere ter*inated. The2 forth"ith e=ecuted a Release and Guitclai* statin1

that the2 had no clai* "hatsoever a1ainst the petitioner.

On '9 &ul2 )99), the private respondents filed before the National 4abor

Relations !o**ission N4R!- SubRe1ional +rbitration >ranch No. JI,

/eneral Santos !it2, a co*plaint for ille1al dis*issal a1ainst the petitioner

and its plant *ana1er, Marciano +1anon. )E This case "as doc%eted as R+>

))(0$('0#9).

On '3 Dece*ber )99', 4abor +rbiter +rturo P. +ponesto handed do"n a

decision 'E dis*issin1 the co*plaint on the 1round that the private

respondents "ere *ere contractual "or%ers, and not re1ular e*plo2ees8

hence, the2 could not avail of the la" on securit2 of tenure. The ter*ination

of their services b2 reason of the e=piration of their contracts of e*plo2*ent"as, therefore, 7ustified. He pointed out that earlier he had dis*issed a case

entitled 4a%as n1 +na%Pa"is NO5M v. Pure 6oods !orp. !ase No.

R+>))('(((0000- because the co*plainants therein "ere not re1ular

e*plo2ees of Pure 6oods, as their contracts of e*plo2*ent "ere for a fi=ed

period of five *onths. Moreover, in another case involvin1 the sa*e

contractual "or%ers of Pure 6oods !ase No. R)9:ROJI MD <R$$

09-, then Secretar2 of 4abor Ruben Torres held, in a Resolution dated 3(

+pril )99(, that the said contractual "or%ers "ere not re1ular e*plo2ees.

The 4abor +rbiter also observed that an order for private respondents

reinstate*ent "ould result in the ree*plo2*ent of *ore than )(,(((

for*er contractual e*plo2ees of the petitioner. >esides, b2 e=ecutin1 a

Release and Guitclai*, the private respondents had "aived and relinBuished

"hatever ri1ht the2 *i1ht have a1ainst the petitioner.







The private respondents appealed fro* the decision to the National

4abor Relations !o**ission N4R!-, 6ifth Division, in !a1a2an de Oro

!it2, "hich doc%eted the case as N4R! !+ No. M(()3'393.

On '0 October )99#, the N4R! affir*ed the 4abor +rbiter?sdecision. 3E Ho"ever, on private respondents *otion for reconsideration, the

N4R! rendered another decision on 3( &anuar2 )99$ #E vacatin1 and settin1

aside its decision of '0 October )99# and holdin1 that the private

respondents and their coco*plainants "ere re1ular e*plo2ees. It declared

that the contract of e*plo2*ent for five *onths "as a clandestine sche*e

e*plo2ed b2 the petitionerE to stifle private respondentsE ri1ht to securit2

of tenure and should therefore be struc% do"n and disre1arded for bein1

contrar2 to la", public polic2, and *orals. Hence, their dis*issal on account

of the e=piration of their respective contracts "as ille1al.

+ccordin1l2, the N4R! ordered the petitioner to reinstate the private

respondents to their for*er position "ithout loss of seniorit2 ri1hts and other

privile1es, "ith full bac% "a1es8 and in case their reinstate*ent "ould no

lon1er be feasible, the petitioner should pa2 the* separation pa2 eBuivalent

to one*onth pa2 or onehalf*onth pa2 for ever2 2ear of service,

"hichever is hi1her, "ith bac% "a1es and )(@ of the *onetar2 a"ard as

attorne2s fees.

Its *otion for reconsideration havin1 been denied, $E the petitioner ca*e

to this !ourt contendin1 that respondent N4R! co**itted 1rave abuse of

discretion a*ountin1 to lac% of 7urisdiction in reversin1 the decision of the

4abor +rbiter.

The petitioner sub*its that the private respondents are no" estopped

fro* Buestionin1 their separation fro* petitioners e*plo2 in vie" of their

e=press confor*it2 "ith the five*onth duration of their e*plo2*ent

contracts. >esides, the2 fell "ithin the e=ception provided in +rticle '0( of

the 4abor !ode "hich reads; E=cept "here the e*plo2*ent has been fi=ed

for a specific pro7ect or underta%in1 the co*pletion or ter*ination of "hich

has been deter*ined at the ti*e of the en1a1e*ent of the e*plo2ee.









Moreover, the first para1raph of the said article *ust be read and

interpreted in con7unction "ith the proviso in the second para1raph, "hich

reads; Provided that an2 e*plo2ee "ho has rendered at least one 2ear of

service, "hether such service is continuous or bro%en, shall be considered a

re1ular e*plo2ee "ith respect to the activit2 in "hich he is e*plo2ed.... Inthe instant case, the private respondents "ere e*plo2ed for a period of five

*onths onl2. In an2 event, private respondents? pra2er for reinstate*ent is

"ell "ithin the purvie" of the Release and Guitclai* the2 had e=ecuted

"herein the2 unconditionall2 released the petitioner fro* an2 and all other

clai*s "hich *i1ht have arisen fro* their past e*plo2*ent "ith the

petitioner.

In its !o**ent, the Office of the Solicitor /eneral OS/- advances the

ar1u*ent that the private respondents "ere re1ular e*plo2ees, since the2

perfor*ed activities necessar2 and desirable in the business or trade of the

petitioner. The period of e*plo2*ent stipulated in the contracts of

e*plo2*ent "as null and void for bein1 contrar2 to la" and public polic2,

as its purpose "as to circu*vent the la" on securit2 of tenure. The

e=piration of the contract did not, therefore, 7ustif2 the ter*ination of their

e*plo2*ent.

The OS/ further *aintains that the rulin1 of the then Secretar2 of 4abor and *plo2*ent in 4+PNO5M v. Pure 6oods !orporation is not bindin1

on this !ourt8 neither is that rulin1 controllin1, as the said case involved

certification election and not the issue of the nature of private respondents

e*plo2*ent. It also considers private respondents Buitclai* as ineffective to

bar the enforce*ent for the full *easure of their le1al ri1hts.

The private respondents, on the other hand, ar1ue that contracts "ith a

specific period of e*plo2*ent *a2 be 1iven le1al effect provided, ho"ever,

that the2 are not intended to circu*vent the constitutional 1uarantee on

securit2 of tenure. The2 sub*it that the practice of the petitioner in hirin1

"or%ers to "or% for a fi=ed duration of five *onths onl2 to replace the*

"ith other "or%ers of the sa*e e*plo2*ent duration "as apparentl2 to



prevent the re1ulariCation of these socalled casuals, "hich is a clear

circu*vention of the la" on securit2 of tenure.

5e find the petition devoid of *erit.

+rticle '0( of the 4abor !ode defines re1ular and casual e*plo2*ent as

follo"s;

+RT. '0(. Reular and asual -m#loyment . The provisions of "ritten


ar1u*ent of the parties, an e*plo2*ent shall be dee*ed to be re1ular "here

the e*plo2ee has been en1a1ed to perfor* activities "hich are usuall2

necessar2 or desirable in the usual business or trade of the e*plo2er, e=cept

"here the e*plo2*ent has been fi=ed for a specific pro7ect or underta%in1the co*pletion or ter*ination of "hich has been deter*ined at the ti*e of

the en1a1e*ent of the e*plo2ee or "here the "or% or services to be

perfor*ed is seasonal in nature and the e*plo2*ent is for the duration of

the season.

+n e*plo2*ent shall be dee*ed to be casual if it is not covered b2 the

precedin1 para1raph8 Provided, That, an2 e*plo2ee "ho has rendered at

least one 2ear of service, "hether such service is continuous or bro%en, shall be considered a re1ular e*plo2ee "ith respect to the activit2 in "hich he is

e*plo2ed and his e*plo2*ent shall continue "hile such activit2 e=ists.

Thus, the t"o %inds of re1ular e*plo2ees are )- those "ho are en1a1ed

to perfor* activities "hich are necessar2 or desirable in the usual business

or trade of the e*plo2er8 and '- those casual e*plo2ees "ho have rendered

at least one 2ear of service, "hether continuous or bro%en, "ith respect to

the activit2 in "hich the2 are e*plo2ed.:E

In the instant case, the private respondents activities consisted in the

receivin1, s%innin1, loinin1, pac%in1, and casin1up of tuna fish "hich "ere

then e=ported b2 the petitioner. Indisputabl2, the2 "ere perfor*in1 activities

"hich "ere necessar2 and desirable in petitioners business or trade.





!ontrar2 to petitioner?s sub*ission, the private respondents could not be

re1arded as havin1 been hired for a specific pro7ect or underta%in1. The ter*

specific pro7ect or underta%in1 under +rticle '0( of the 4abor !ode

conte*plates an activit2 "hich is not co**onl2 or habituall2 perfor*ed or

such t2pe of "or% "hich is not done on a dail2 basis but onl2 for a specificduration of ti*e or until co*pletion8 the services e*plo2ed are then

necessar2 and desirable in the e*plo2ers usual business onl2 for the period

of ti*e it ta%es to co*plete the pro7ect.AE

The fact that the petitioner repeatedl2 and continuousl2 hired "or%ers to

do the sa*e %ind of "or% as that perfor*ed b2 those "hose contracts had

e=pired ne1ates petitioners contention that those "or%ers "ere hired for a

specific pro7ect or underta%in1 onl2.

No" on the validit2 of private respondents? five*onth contracts of

e*plo2*ent. In the leadin1 case of >rent School, Inc. v. a*ora, 0E "hich

"as reaffir*ed in nu*erous subseBuent cases, 9E this !ourt has upheld the

le1alit2 of fi=edter* e*plo2*ent. It ruled that the decisive deter*inant in

ter* e*plo2*ent should not be the activities that the e*plo2ee is called

upon to perfor* but the da2 certain a1reed upon b2 the parties for the

co**ence*ent and ter*ination of their e*plo2*ent relationship. >ut, this

!ourt "ent on to sa2 that "here fro* the circu*stances it is apparent thatthe periods have been i*posed to preclude acBuisition of tenurial securit2 b2

the e*plo2ee, the2 should be struc% do"n or disre1arded as contrar2 to

public polic2 and *orals.

%rent also laid do"n the criteria under "hich ter* e*plo2*ent cannot

be said to be in circu*vention of the la" on securit2 of tenure;

)- The fi=ed period of e*plo2*ent "as %no"in1l2 and voluntaril2 a1reed

upon b2 the parties "ithout an2 force, duress, or i*proper pressure bein1

brou1ht to bear upon the e*plo2ee and absent an2 other circu*stances

vitiatin1 his consent8 or










'- It satisfactoril2 appears that the e*plo2er and the e*plo2ee dealt "ith

each other on *ore or less eBual ter*s "ith no *oral do*inance e=ercised

b2 the for*er or the latter.

None of these criteria had been *et in the present case. +s pointed out b2the private respondents;

IEt could not be supposed that private respondents and all other socalled

casual "or%ers of the petitionerE NO5IN/4K and VO4<NT+RI4K

a1reed to the $*onth e*plo2*ent contract. !anner2 "or%ers are never on

eBual ter*s "ith their e*plo2ers. +l*ost al"a2s, the2 a1ree to an2 ter*s of

an e*plo2*ent contract 7ust to 1et e*plo2ed considerin1 that it is difficult

to find "or% 1iven their ordinar2 Bualifications. Their freedo* to contract is

e*pt2 and hollo" because theirs is the freedo* to starve if the2 refuse to

"or% as casual or contractual "or%ers. Indeed, to the une*plo2ed, securit2

of tenure has no value. It could not then be said that petitioner and private

respondents Fdealt "ith each other on *ore or less eBual ter*s "ith no

*oral do*inance "hatever bein1 e=ercised b2 the for*er over the latter. )(E

The petitioner does not den2 or rebut private respondents? aver*ents )-

that the *ain bul% of its "or%force consisted of its socalled casual

e*plo2ees8 '- that as of &ul2 )99), casual "or%ers nu*bered ),03$8 andre1ular e*plo2ees, ':38 3- that the co*pan2 hired casual ever2 *onth for

the duration of five *onths, after "hich their services "ere ter*inated and

the2 "ere replaced b2 other casual e*plo2ees on the sa*e five*onth

duration8 and #- that these casual e*plo2ees "ere actuall2 doin1 "or% that

"ere necessar2 and desirable in petitioners usual business.

+s a *atter of fact, the petitioner even stated in its position paper

sub*itted to the 4abor +rbiter that, accordin1 to its records, the previous

e*plo2ees of the co*pan2 hired on a five*onth basis nu*bered about

)(,((( as of &ul2 )99(. This confir*s private respondents alle1ation that it

"as reall2 the practice of the co*pan2 to hire "or%ers on a unifor*l2 fi=ed

contract basis and replace the* upon the e=piration of their contracts "ith

other "or%ers on the sa*e e*plo2*ent duration.





This sche*e of the petitioner "as apparentl2 desi1ned to prevent the

private respondents and the other casual e*plo2ees fro* attainin1 the status

of a re1ular e*plo2ee. It "as a clear circu*vention of the e*plo2ees ri1ht to

securit2 of tenure and to other benefits li%e *ini*u* "a1e, costoflivin1

allo"ance, sic% leave, holida2 pa2, and )3th *onth pa2. ))E Indeed, the petitioner succeeded in evadin1 the application of labor la"s. +lso, it saved

itself fro* the trouble or burden of establishin1 a 7ust cause for ter*inatin1

e*plo2ees b2 the si*ple e=pedient of refusin1 to rene" the e*plo2*ent

contracts.

The five*onth period specified in private respondents e*plo2*ent

contracts havin1 been i*posed precisel2 to circu*vent the constitutional

1uarantee on securit2 of tenure should, therefore, be struc% do"n or

disre1arded as contrar2 to public polic2 or *orals. )'E To uphold the

contractual arran1e*ent bet"een the petitioner and the private respondents

"ould, in effect, per*it the for*er to avoid hirin1 per*anent or re1ular

e*plo2ees b2 si*pl2 hirin1 the* on a te*porar2 or casual basis, thereb2

violatin1 the e*plo2ees securit2 of tenure in their 7obs.)3E

The e=ecution b2 the private respondents of a Release and Guitclai* did

not preclude the* fro* Buestionin1 the ter*ination of their

services. /enerall2, Buitclai*s b2 laborers are fro"ned upon as contrar2 to public polic2 and are held to be ineffective to bar recover2 for the full

*easure of the "or%ers ri1hts. )#E The reason for the rule is that the

e*plo2er and the e*plo2ee do not stand on the sa*e footin1.)$E

Notabl2, the private respondents lost no ti*e in filin1 a co*plaint for

ille1al dis*issal. This act is hardl2 e=pected fro* e*plo2ees "ho

voluntaril2 and freel2 consented to their dis*issal.):E

The N4R! "as, thus, correct in findin1 that the private respondents

"ere re1ular e*plo2ees and that the2 "ere ille1all2 dis*issed fro* their

7obs. <nder +rticle 'A9 of the 4abor !ode and the recent

7urisprudence, )AE the le1al conseBuence of ille1al dis*issal is reinstate*ent

"ithout loss of seniorit2 ri1hts and other privile1es, "ith full bac% "a1es

co*puted fro* the ti*e of dis*issal up to the ti*e of actual reinstate*ent,

















"ithout deductin1 the earnin1s derived else"here pendin1 the resolution of

the case.

Ho"ever, since reinstate*ent is no lon1er possible because the

petitioner?s tuna canner2 plant had, ad*ittedl2, been closed in Nove*ber )99#,)0E the proper a"ard is separation pa2 eBuivalent to one *onth pa2 or

onehalf *onth pa2 for ever2 2ear of service, "hichever is hi1her, to be

co*puted fro* the co**ence*ent of their e*plo2*ent up to the closure of

the tuna canner2 plant. The a*ount of bac% "a1es *ust be co*puted fro*

the ti*e the private respondents "ere dis*issed until the ti*e petitioner?s

canner2 plant ceased operation.)9E

-ERE4ORE, for lac% of *erit, the instant petition is DISMISSD

and the challen1ed decision of 3( &anuar2 )99$ of the National 4abor

Relations !o**ission in N4R! !+ No. M(()3'393 is hereb2

+66IRMD sub7ect to the above *odification on the co*putation of the

separation pa2 and bac% "a1es.

SO OR%ERE%.

%ellosillo, =itu, and ;a#unan, **., concur.

Repb; o te P;pp*e:

Spreme Cort

B)<o Ct=

SECON% %I(ISION

&OLAN%A M. MERCA%O,G.R. No. 1837







C-ARITO S. %E LEON,

%IANA R. LAC-ICA,

MARGARITO M. ALBA,

$R., )*+ 4ELI" A. TONOG,

Petitioners,

versus

AMA COMPUTER

COLLEGEPARAA#UE

CIT&, INC. ,

Respondent.

Present;

!+RPIO , *., hair#erson,

>RION,

D4 !+STI44O,

PR, and

MNDO+, ** .

Pro*ul1ated;

+pril )3, '()(

@

@

% E C I S I O N

BRION, J .;

The petitioners Kolanda M. Mercado &ercado-, !harito S. De 4eon

e Leon-, Diana R. 4achica Lachica-, Mar1arito M. +lba, &r. Alba, *r.,-,

and 6eli= +. Tono1 /ono), all for*er facult2 *e*bers of +M+ !o*puter





!olle1eParaaBue !it2, Inc. A&A - assail in this petition for revie"

on certiorari)E the !ourt of +ppeals A- decision of Nove*ber '9,





'((A'E and its resolution of &une '(, '((03E that set aside the National 4abor

Relations !o**issions 'LR - resolution dated &ul2 )0, '(($.#E

T-E 4ACTUAL ANTECE%ENTS

The bac%1round facts are not disputed and are su**ariCed belo".

+M+!! is an educational institution en1a1ed in co*puterbased

education in the countr2. One of +M+!!s bi11est schools in the countr2 is

its branch atParaaBue !it2. The petitioners "ere facult2 *e*bers "ho

started teachin1 at +M+!! on Ma2 '$, )990. The petitioner Mercado "as

en1a1ed as a Professor 3, "hile petitioner Tono1 "as en1a1ed as an

+ssistant Professor '. On the other hand, petitioners De 4eon, 4achica and

+lba, &r., "ere all en1a1ed as Instructor ).$E The petitioners e=ecuted

individual Teachers !ontracts for each of the tri*esters that the2 "ere

en1a1ed to teach, "ith the follo"in1 co**on stipulation;:E

). POSITION. The T+!HR has a1reed to accept a non

tenured appoint*ent to "or% in the !olle1e of === effective

=== to === or or te +r)to* o te ;):t term t)t te

TEAC-ER : <?e* ) te)*< ;o)+ based on the

assi1n*ent dul2 approved b2 the D+NS+VP!OO.

*phasis suppliedE

6or the school 2ear '((('((), +M+!! i*ple*ented ne" facult2

screenin1 1uidelines, set forth in its /uidelines on the I*ple*entation of

+M+!! 6acult2 Plantilla.AE <nder the ne" screenin1 1uidelines, teachers

"ere to be hired or *aintained based on e=tensive teachin1 e=perience,

capabilit2, potential, hi1h acade*ic Bualifications and research bac%1round.















The perfor*ance standards under the ne" screenin1 1uidelines "ere also

used to deter*ine the present facult2 *e*bers entitle*ent to salar2

increases. Te petto*er: );e+ to obt)* ) p)::*< r)t*< b):e+ o* te

perorm)*e :t)*+)r+: e*e AMACC ++ *ot <?e tem )*= :);)r=

*re):e.0E

>ecause of +M+!!s action on the salar2 increases, the petitioners

filed a co*plaint "ith the +rbitration >ranch of the N4R! on &ul2 '$, '(((,

for underpa2*ent of "a1es, nonpa2*ent of overti*e and overload

co*pensation, )3th *onth pa2, and for discri*inator2 practices.9E

On Septe*ber A, '(((, the petitioners individuall2 received a

*e*orandu* fro* +M+!!, throu1h Hu*an Resources Supervisor Mar2

/race >eronia, infor*in1 the* that "ith the e=piration of their contract to

teach, their contract "ould no lon1er be rene"ed.)(E The

*e*orandu*))E entitled 'otice of 'onRene$al of ontract states in full;

In vie" of the e=piration of 2our contract to teach "ith

+M+!!ParanaBue, 5e "ish to infor* 2ou that 2our contract

shall no lon1er be rene"ed effective Thirt2 3(- da2s upon

receipt of this notice. 5e therefore "ould li%e to than% 2ou for

2our service and "ish 2ou 1ood luc% as 2ou pursue 2our career.

Kou are hereb2 instructed to report to the HRD for

further instruction. Please bear in *ind that as per co*pan2

polic2, 2ou are reBuired to acco*plish 2our clearance and turn

over all docu*ents and accountabilities to 2our i**ediate

superior.

6or 2our infor*ation and 1uidance











The petitioners a*ended their labor arbitration co*plaint to include

the char1e of ille1al dis*issal a1ainst +M+!!. In their Position Paper, the

petitioners clai*ed that their dis*issal "as ille1al because it "as *ade inretaliation for their co*plaint for *onetar2 benefits and discri*inator2

practices a1ainst +M+!!.The petitioners also contended that +M+!!

failed to 1ive the* adeBuate notice8 hence, their dis*issal "as ineffectual.)'E

+M+!! contended in response that the petitioners "or%ed under a

contracted ter* under a nontenured appoint*ent and "ere still "ithin the

three2ear probationar2 period for teachers. Their contracts "ere not

rene"ed for the follo"in1 ter* because the2 failed to pass the Perfor*ance

+ppraisal S2ste* for Teachers PAS/ - "hile others failed to co*pl2 "ith the

other reBuire*ents for re1ulariCation, pro*otion, or increase in salar2. This

*ove, accordin1 to +M+!!, "as 7ustified since the school has to *aintain

its hi1h acade*ic standards.)3E

2he +abor rbiter 6uling

On March )$, '((', 4abor +rbiter LA- 6lorentino R. Darlucio

declared in his decision)#E that the petitioners had been ille1all2 dis*issed,

and ordered +M+!! to reinstate the* to their for*er positions "ithout loss

of seniorit2 ri1hts and to pa2 the* full bac%"a1es, attorne2s fees and

)3th *onth pa2. The 4+ ruled that +rticle '0) of the 4abor !ode on

probationar2 e*plo2*ent applied to the case8 that +M+!! allo"ed the

petitioners to teach for the first se*ester of school 2ear '((('((8 that

+M+!! did not specif2 "ho a*on1 the petitioners failed to pass the P+ST

and "ho a*on1 the* did not co*pl2 "ith the other reBuire*ents of

re1ulariCation, pro*otions or increase in salar28 and that the petitioners

dis*issal could not be sustained on the basis of +M+!!s va1ue and 1eneral

alle1ations "ithout substantial factual basis.)$E Si1nificantl2, the 4+ found

no discrimination in the ad?ustments for the salary rate of the faculty











members based on the #erformance and other >ualification $hich is an

e6ercise of manaement #reroative.):E On this basis, the 4+ paid no heed to

the clai*s for salar2 increases.

2he #+6 6uling

On appeal, the N4R! in a Resolution dated &ul2 )0, '(($)AE denied

+M+!!s appeal for lac% of *erit and affir*ed in toto the 4+s rulin1. The

N4R!, ho"ever, observed that the applicable la" is Section 9' of the

Manual of Re1ulations for Private Schools "hich *andates a probationar2

period of nine consecutive tri*esters of satisfactor2 service for acade*ic personnel in the tertiar2 level "here colle1iate courses are offered on a

tri*ester basis-, not +rticle '0) of the 4abor !ode "hich prescribes a

probationar2 period of si= *onths- as the 4+ ruled. Despite this observation,

the N4R! affir*ed the 4+s findin1 of ille1al dis*issal since the petitioners

"ere ter*inated on the basis of standards that "ere onl2 introduced near the

end of their probationar2 period.

The N4R! ruled that the ne" screenin1 1uidelines for the school 2ear

'((('((() cannot be i*posed on the petitioners and their e*plo2*ent

contracts since the ne" 1uidelines "ere not i*posed "hen the petitioners

"ere first e*plo2ed in )990. +ccordin1 to the N4R!, the i*position of the

ne" 1uidelines violates Section :d- of Rule I, >oo% VI of the I*ple*entin1

Rules of the 4abor !ode, "hich provides that in all cases of probationar2

e*plo2*ent, the e*plo2er shall *a%e %no"n to the e*plo2ee the standards

under "hich he "ill Bualif2 as a re1ular e*plo2ee at the ti*e of his

en1a1e*ent. !itin1 our rulin1 in4rient -6#ress Placement Phili##ines v. 'LR ,)0E the N4R! stressed that the rudi*ents of due process de*and that

e*plo2ees should be infor*ed beforehand of the conditions of their

e*plo2*ent as "ell as the basis for their advance*ent.









+M+!! elevated the case to the !+ via a petition

for certiorari under Rule :$ of the Rules of !ourt. It char1ed that the N4R!

co**itted 1rave abuse of discretion in; )- rulin1 that the petitioners "ere

ille1all2 dis*issed8 '- refusin1 to reco1niCe and 1ive effect to the

petitioners valid ter* of e*plo2*ent8 3- rulin1 that +M+!! cannot appl2the perfor*ance standards 1enerall2 applicable to all facult2 *e*bers8 and

#- orderin1 the petitioners reinstate*ent and a"ardin1 the* bac%"a1es and

attorne2s fees.

2he 6uling

In a decision issued on Nove*ber '9, '((A,)9E the !+ 1ranted

+M+!!s petition for certiorari and dis*issed the petitioners co*plaint for

ille1al dis*issal.

The !+ ruled that under the Manual for Re1ulations for Private

Schools, a teachin1 personnel in a private educational institution )- *ust be

a full ti*e teacher8 '- *ust have rendered three consecutive 2ears of

service8 and 3- such service *ust be satisfactor2 before he or she can

acBuire per*anent status.

The !+ noted that the petitioners had not co*pleted three 3-

consecutive 2ears of service i.e. si= re1ular se*esters or nine consecutive

tri*esters of satisfactor2 service- and "ere still "ithin their probationar2

period8 their teachin1 stints onl2 covered a period of t"o '- 2ears and three

3- *onths "hen +M+!! decided not to rene" their contracts onSepte*ber A, '(((.

The !+ effectivel2 found reasonable basis for +M+!! not to rene"

the petitioners contracts. To the !+, the petitioners "ere not actuall2





dis*issed8 their respective contracts *erel2 e=pired and "ere no lon1er

rene"ed b2 +M+!! because the2 failed to satisf2 the schools standards for

the school 2ear '((('(() that *easured their fitness and aptitude to teach

as re1ular facult2 *e*bers. The !+ e*phasiCed that in the absence of an2

evidence of bad faith on +M+!!s part, the court "ould not disturb or nullif2 its discretion to set standards and to select for re1ulariCation onl2 the

teachers "ho Bualif2, based on reasonable and nondiscri*inator2

1uidelines.

The !+ disa1reed "ith the N4R!s rulin1 that the ne" 1uidelines for

the school 2ear '((('((() could not be i*posed on the petitioners and

their e*plo2*ent contracts. The appellate court opined that +M+!! has theinherent ri1ht to up1rade the Bualit2 of co*puter education it offers to the

public8 part of this pursuit is the i*ple*entation of continuin1 evaluation

and screenin1 of its facult2 *e*bers for acade*ic e=cellence. The !+ noted

that the nature of education +M+!! offers de*ands that the school

constantl2 adopt pro1ressive perfor*ance standards for its facult2 to ensure

that the2 %eep pace "ith the rapid develop*ents in the field of infor*ation

technolo12.

6inall2, the !+ found that the petitioners "ere hired on a nontenured

basis and for a fi=ed and predeter*ined ter* based on the Teachin1 !ontract

e=e*plified b2 the contract bet"een the petitioner 4achica and

+M+!!. The !+ ruled that the nonrene"al of the petitioners teachin1

contracts is sanctioned b2 the doctrine laid do"n in %rent School, Inc. v.

Mamora'(E "here the !ourt reco1niCed the validit2 of contracts providin1 for

fi=edperiod e*plo2*ent.

T-E PETITION

The petitioners cite the follo"in1 errors in the !+ decision;')E

)- The !+ 1ravel2 erred in reversin1 the 4+ and N4R! ille1al

dis*issal rulin1s8 and







'- The !+ 1ravel2 erred in not orderin1 their reinstate*ent "ith

full, bac%"a1es.

The petitioners sub*it that the !+ should not have disturbed the

findin1s of the 4+ and the N4R! that the2 "ere ille1all2 dis*issed8 instead,the !+ should have accorded 1reat respect, if not finalit2, to the findin1s of

these specialiCed bodies as these findin1s "ere supported b2 evidence on

record. !itin1 our rulin1 in Soriano v. 'ational Labor Relations

ommission,''E the petitioners contend that in certiorari proceedin1s under

Rule :$ of the Rules of !ourt, the !+ does not assess and "ei1h the

sufficienc2 of evidence upon "hich the 4abor +rbiter and the N4R! based

their conclusions. The2 sub*it that the !+ erred "hen it substituted its

7ud1*ent for that of the 4abor +rbiter and the N4R! "ho "ere the triers of facts "ho had the opportunit2 to revie" the evidence e=tensivel2.

On the *erits, the petitioners ar1ue that the applicable la" on

probationar2 e*plo2*ent, as e=plained b2 the 4+, is +rticle '0) of the

4abor !ode "hich *andates a period of si= :- *onths as the *a=i*u*

duration of the probationar2 period unless there is a stipulation to the

contrar28 that the !+ should not have disturbed the 4+s conclusion that

the +M+!! failed to support its alle1ation that the2 did not Bualif2 under

the ne" 1uidelines adopted for the school 2ear '((('(()8 and that the2"ere ille1all2 dis*issed8 their e*plo2*ent "as ter*inated based on

standards that "ere not *ade %no"n to the* at the ti*e of their

en1a1e*ent. On the "hole, the petitioners ar1ue that the 4+ and the N4R!

co**itted no 1rave abuse of discretion that the !+ can validl2 cite.

T-E CASE 4OR T-E RESPON%ENT

In their !o**ent,

'3E

+M+!! notes that the petitioners raised no substantialar1u*ent in support of their petition and that the !+ correctl2 found that the

petitioners "ere hired on a nontenured basis and for a fi=ed or

predeter*ined ter*. +M+!! stresses that the !+ "as correct in concludin1

that no actual dis*issal transpired8 it si*pl2 did not rene" the petitioners

respective e*plo2*ent contracts because of their poor perfor*ance and

failure to satisf2 the schools standards.







+M+!! also asserts that the petitioners %ne" ver2 "ell that the

applicable standards "ould be revised and updated fro* ti*e to ti*e 1iven

the nature of the teachin1 profession. The petitioners also %ne" at the ti*e

of their en1a1e*ent that the2 *ust co*pl2 "ith the schools re1ulariCation

policies as stated in the 6acult2 Manual. Spe);;=, te= m:t obt)* )p)::*< r)t*< o* te Perorm)*e Appr):); or Te)er: PASTD te

prm)r= *:trme*t to me):re te perorm)*e o );t= member:.

Since the petitioners "ere not actuall2 dis*issed, +M+!! sub*its

that the !+ correctl2 ruled that the2 are not entitled to reinstate*ent, full

bac%"a1es and attorne2s fees.

T-E COURTS RULING

e *+ te petto* mertoro:.

2he s 6evie% o0 5a*tual

5indings under 6ule >?

5e a1ree "ith the petitioners that, as a rule in certiorari proceedin1s

under Rule :$ of the Rules of !ourt, the !+ does not assess and "ei1h each

piece of evidence introduced in the case. The !+ onl2 e=a*ines the factual

findin1s of the N4R! to deter*ine "hether or not the conclusions are

supported b2 substantial evidence "hose absence points to 1rave abuse of

discretion a*ountin1 to lac% or e=cess of 7urisdiction. '#E In the recent case

of Protacio v. Laya &ananhaya 3 o.,'$E "e e*phasiCed that;

+s a 1eneral rule, in certiorari proceedin1s under Rule :$

of the Rules of !ourt, the appellate court does not assess and

"ei1h the sufficienc2 of evidence upon "hich the 4abor +rbiter







and the N4R! based their conclusion. The Buer2 in this

proceedin1 is li*ited to the deter*ination of "hether or not the

N4R! acted "ithout or in e=cess of its 7urisdiction or "ith

1rave abuse of discretion in renderin1 its decision. -o6e?er, ):

)* e@epto*, te )ppe;;)te ort m)= e@)m*e )*+ me):rete )t); *+*<: o te NLRC te :)me )re *ot

:pporte+ b= :b:t)*t); e?+e*e. Te Cort ): *ot

e:t)te+ to )rm te )ppe;;)te ort: re?er:);: o te

+e:o*: o ;)bor trb*);: te= )re *ot :pporte+ b=

:b:t)*t); e?+e*e. *phasis suppliedE

+s discussed belo", our revie" of the records and of the !+ decision

sho"s that the !+ erred in reco1niCin1 that 1rave abuse of discretion

attended the N4R!s conclusion that the petitioners "ere ille1all2

dis*issed. !onsistent "ith this conclusion, the evidence on record sho" that

+M+!! failed to dischar1e its burden of provin1 b2 substantial evidence

the ?ust cause for the nonrene"al of the petitioners contracts.

In &ontoya v. /ransmed &anila or#oration,':E "e laid do"n our basic approach in the revie" of Rule :$ decisions of the !+ in labor cases,

as follo"s;

In a Rule #$ revie", "e consider the orret*e:: o te

)::);e+ CA +e:o*, in contrast "ith the revie" for

7urisdictional error that "e underta%e under Rule

:$.6urther*ore, Rule #$ li*its us to the revie" ofe:to*: o ;)6 raised a1ainst the assailed !+ decision. In rulin1 for le1al

correctness, "e have to vie" the !+ decision in the sa*e

conte=t that the petition for certiorari it ruled upon "as

presented to it8 6e )?e to e@)m*e te CA +e:o* rom te

pr:m o 6eter t orret;= +eterm*e+ te pre:e*e or





)b:e*e o <r)?e )b:e o +:reto* * te NLRC +e:o*

beore t, *ot o* te b):: o 6eter te NLRC +e:o* o*

te mert: o te ):e 6): orret. In other "ords, "e have to

be %eenl2 a"are that the !+ undertoo% a Rule :$ revie", not a

revie" on appeal, of the N4R! decision challen1ed beforeit. This is the approach that should be basic in a Rule #$ revie"

of a !+ rulin1 in a labor case. I* e:to* orm, te e:to*

to ):> :5 %+ te CA orret;= +eterm*e 6eter te

NLRC ommtte+ <r)?e )b:e o +:reto* * r;*< o* te

):e

6ollo"in1 this approach, our tas% is to deter*ine "hether the !+ correctl2

found that the N4R! co**itted 1rave abuse of discretion in rulin1 that the

petitioners "ere ille1all2 dis*issed.

+egal 8nvironment in the 8mployment o0 2ea*hers

). R;e o* Emp;o=me*t o* Prob)to*)r= St)t:

+ realit2 "e have to face in the consideration of e*plo2*ent on

probationar2 status of teachin1 personnel is that the2 are not 1overned

purel2 b2 the 4abor !ode. The 4abor !ode is supplemented "ith respect to

the period of probation b2 special rules found in the Manual of Re1ulations

for Private Schools.'AE On the *atter of probationary period , Section 9' of

these re1ulations provides;

Section 9'. Probationary Period. Sbet * );; *:t)*e: to

omp;)*e 6t te %ep)rtme*t )*+ :oo; rereme*t:,

the probationar2 period for acade*ic personnel shall not be





*ore than three 3- consecutive 2ears of satisfactor2 service for

those in the ele*entar2 and secondar2 levels, si= :-

consecutive re1ular se*esters of satisfactor2 service for those

in the tertiar2 level, and **e 9D o*:et?e trme:ter: o

:)t:)tor= :er?e or to:e * te tert)r= ;e?e; 6ereo;;e<)te or:e: )re oere+ o* ) trme:ter b)::. *phasis

suppliedE

The !+ pointed this out in its decision as the N4R! also did-, and

"e confir* the correctness of this conclusion. Other than on the period, the

follo"in1 Buoted portion of +rticle '0) of the 4abor !ode still full2 applies;

= = = The services of an e*plo2ee "ho has been en1a1ed on a

probationar2 basis *a2 be ter*inated 0or a 1ust *ause "hen he

fails to Bualif2 as a re1ular e*plo2ee in accordance

"ith reasonable standards made kno%n by the employer to the

employee at the time o0 his engagement . +n e*plo2ee "ho is

allo"ed to "or% after a probationar2 period shall be considered

a re1ular e*plo2ee. *phasis suppliedE

b. 4@e+pero+ Emp;o=me*t

The use of e*plo2*ent for fi=ed periods durin1 the teachers

probationar2 period is li%e"ise an accepted practice in the teachin1

profession. 5e *entioned this in passin1 in &ais +oun Achievers

Learnin enter v. Adelaida P. &analo,'0E albeit a case that involved

ele*entar2, not tertiar2, education, and hence spo%e of a school 2ear rather

than a se*ester or a tri*ester. 5e noted in this case;

Te ommo* pr)te : or te emp;o=er )*+ te

te)er to e*ter *to ) o*tr)t, eet?e or o*e :oo;

=e)r. +t the end of the school 2ear, the e*plo2er has the option





not to rene" the contract, particularl2 considerin1 the teachers

perfor*ance. If the contract is not rene"ed, the e*plo2*ent

relationship ter*inates. If the contract is rene"ed, usuall2 for

another school 2ear, the probationar2 e*plo2*ent

continues. +1ain, at the end of that period, the parties *a2 optto rene" or not to rene" the contract. If rene"ed, this second

rene"al of the contract for another school 2ear "ould then be

the last 2ear since it "ould be the third school 2ear of

probationar2 e*plo2*ent. At te e*+ o t: tr+ =e)r, te

emp;o=er m)= *o6 +e+e 6eter to e@te*+ ) perm)*e*t

)ppo*tme*t to te emp;o=ee, prm)r;= o* te b):: o te

emp;o=ee )?*< met te re):o*)b;e :t)*+)r+: o

ompete*e )*+ ee*= :et b= te emp;o=er. 4or tee*tre +r)to* o t: tree=e)r pero+, te te)er

rem)*: *+er prob)to*. Upo* te e@pr)to* o :

o*tr)t o emp;o=me*t, be*< :mp;= o* prob)to*, e

)**ot )tom)t);;= ;)m :ert= o te*re )*+ ompe;

te emp;o=er to re*e6 : emp;o=me*t o*tr)t. It is "hen

the 2earl2 contract is rene"ed for the third ti*e that Section 93

of the Manual beco*es operative, and the teacher then is

entitled to re1ular or per*anent e*plo2*ent status.

It is i*portant that the contract of probationar2

e*plo2*ent specif2 the period or ter* of its effectivit2. The

failure to stipulate its precise duration could lead to the

inference that the contract is bindin1 for the full three2ear

probationar2 period.

5e have lon1 settled the validit2 of a fi=edter* contract in the case %rent School, Inc. v. Mamora'9E that +M+!! cited. Si1nificantl2, %rent happened

in a school settin1. !are should be ta%en, ho"ever, in readin1 %rent in the

conte=t of this case as %rent did not involve an2 probationar2 e*plo2*ent

issue8 it dealt purel2 and si*pl2 "ith the validit2 of a fi=edter*





e*plo2*ent under the ter*s of the 4abor !ode, then ne"l2 issued and

"hich does not e=pressl2 contain a provision on fi=edter* e*plo2*ent.

. A)+em )*+ M)*)<eme*t Prero<)t?e

4ast but not the least factor in the acade*ic "orld, is that a school

en7o2s acade*ic freedo* a 1uarantee that en7o2s protection fro* the

!onstitution no less. Section $'- +rticle JIV of the !onstitution 1uarantees

all institutions of hi1her learnin1 acade*ic freedo*.3(E

The institutional acade*ic freedo* includes the ri1ht of the school or colle1e to decide and adopt its ai*s and ob7ectives, and to deter*ine ho"

these ob7ections can best be attained, free fro* outside coercion or

interference, save possibl2 "hen the overridin1 public "elfare calls for so*e

restraint. The essential freedo*s subsu*ed in the ter* acade*ic freedo*

enco*pass the freedo* of the school or colle1e to deter*ine for itself; )-

"ho *a2 teach8 '- "ho *a2 be tau1ht8 3- ho" lessons shall be tau1ht8 and

#- "ho *a2 be ad*itted to stud2.3)E

+M+!!s ri1ht to acade*ic freedo* is particularl2 i*portant in the

present case, because of the ne" screenin1 1uidelines for +M+!! facult2

put in place for the school 2ear '((('((). 5e a1ree "ith the !+ that

+M+!! has the inherent ri1ht to establish hi1h standards of co*petenc2

and efficienc2 for its facult2 *e*bers in order to achieve and *aintain

acade*ic e=cellence. The schools prero1ative to provide standards for its

teachers and to deter*ine "hether or not these standards have been *et is in

accordance "ith acade*ic freedo* that 1ives the educational institution the

ri1ht to choose "ho should teach.3'E In Pea v. 'ational Labor Relations

ommission,33E "e e*phasiCed;

It is the prero1ative of the school to set hi1h standards of

efficienc2 for its teachers since Bualit2 education is a *andate












of the !onstitution. +s lon1 as the standards fi=ed are

reasonable and not arbitrar2, courts are not at libert2 to set the*

aside. Schools cannot be reBuired to adopt standards "hich

barel2 satisf2 criteria set for 1overn*ent reco1nition.

The sa*e acade*ic freedo* 1rants the school the autono*2 to decide

for itself the ter*s and conditions for hirin1 its teacher, sub7ect of course to

the overarchin1 li*itations under the 4abor !ode. +cade*ic freedo*, too, is

not the onl2 le1al basis for +M+!!s issuance of screenin1 1uidelines. The

authorit2 to hire is li%e"ise covered and protected b2 its *ana1e*ent

prero1ative the ri1ht of an e*plo2er to re1ulate all aspects of e*plo2*ent,

such as hirin1, the freedo* to prescribe "or% assi1n*ents, "or%in1*ethods, process to be follo"ed, re1ulation re1ardin1 transfer of e*plo2ees,

supervision of their "or%, la2off and discipline, and dis*issal and recall of

"or%ers.3#E Thus, +M+!! has ever2 ri1ht to deter*ine for itself that it shall

use fi=edter* e*plo2*ent contracts as its *ediu* for hirin1 its teachers. It

also acted "ithin the ter*s of the Manual of Re1ulations for Private Schools

"hen it reco1niCed the petitioners to be *erel2 on probationar2 status up to

a *a=i*u* of nine tri*esters.

2he on0li*t: )robationary 3tatus

and 5ixedterm 8mployment

The e=istence of the ter*toter* contracts coverin1 the petitioners

e*plo2*ent is not disputed, nor is it disputed that the2 "ere on probationar2

status not #ermanent or reular status fro* the ti*e the2 "ere e*plo2ed onMa2 '$, )990 and until the e=piration of their Teachin1 !ontracts on

Septe*ber A, '(((. +s the !+ correctl2 found, their teachin1 stints onl2

covered a period of at least seven A- consecutive tri*esters or t"o '- 2ears

and three 3- *onths of service.2his *ase, ho%ever, brings to the 0ore the

essential <uestion o0 %hi*h, bet%een the t%o 0a*tors a00e*ting employment,





should prevail given Ms position that the tea*hers *ontra*ts expired

and it had the right not to rene% them. In other "ords, should the teachers

probationar2 status be disre1arded si*pl2 because the contracts "ere fi=ed

ter*

The provision on e*plo2*ent on probationar2 status under the 4abor

!ode3$E is a pri*ar2 e=a*ple of the fine balancin1 of interests bet"een labor

and *ana1e*ent that the !ode has institutionaliCed pursuant to the

underl2in1 intent of the !onstitution.3:E

On the one hand, e*plo2*ent on probationar2 status affords

*ana1e*ent the chance to full2 scrutiniCe the true "orth of hired personnel

before the full force of the securit2 of tenure 1uarantee of the !onstitutionco*es into pla2.3AE >ased on the standards set at the start of the probationar2

period, *ana1e*ent is 1iven the "idest opportunit2 durin1 the probationar2

period to re7ect hirees "ho fail to *eet its o$n ado#ted but reasonable

standards.30E These standards, to1ether "ith the ?ust 39E and authori0ed

causes#(E for termination of em#loyment the Labor ode e6#ressly #rovides ,

are the 1rounds available to ter*inate the e*plo2*ent of a teacher on

probationar2 status. 6or e=a*ple, the school *a2 i*pose reasonabl2 stricter

attendance or report co*pliance records on teachers on probation, and re7ect

a probationar2 teacher for failin1 in this re1ard, althou1h the sa*eattendance or co*pliance record *a2 not be reBuired for a teacher alread2

on per*anent status. +t the sa*e ti*e, the sa*e 7ust and authoriCes causes

for dis*issal under the 4abor !ode appl2 to probationar2 teachers, so that

the2 *a2 be the first to be laidoff if the school does not have enou1h

students for a 1iven se*ester or tri*ester. Ter*ination of e*plo2*ent on

this basis is an authoriCed cause under the 4abor !ode.#)E

4abor, for its part, is 1iven the protection durin1 the probationar2 period of %no"in1 the co*pan2 standards the ne" hires have to *eet durin1

the probationar2 period, and to be ?uded on the basis of these standards ,

aside fro* the usual standards applicable to e*plo2ees after the2 achieve

per*anent status.<nder the ter*s of the 4abor !ode, these standards should

be *ade %no"n to the teachers on probationar2 status at the start of their

probationar2 period, or at the ver2 least under the circu*stances of the

















present case, at the start of the se*ester or the tri*ester durin1 "hich the

probationar2 standards are to be applied. 4f critical im#ortance in invo"in

a failure to meet the #robationary standards, is that the school should

sho$ as a matter o0 due pro*ess ho$ these standards have been

a##lied . This is effectivel2 the second notice in a dis*issal situation that thela" reBuires as a due process 1uarantee supportin1 the securit2 of tenure

provision,#'E and is in furtherance, too, of the basic rule in e*plo2ee

dis*issal that the e*plo2er carries the burden of 7ustif2in1 a dis*issal.#3E These rules ensure co*pliance "ith the li*ited securit2 of tenure

1uarantee the la" e=tends to probationar2 e*plo2ees.##E

5hen fi=edter* e*plo2*ent is brou1ht into pla2 under the above

probationar2 period rules, the situation as in the present case *a2 at first blush loo% *uddled as fi=edter* e*plo2*ent is in itself a valid

e*plo2*ent *ode under Philippine la" and 7urisprudence. #$E The conflict,

ho"ever, is *ore apparent than real "hen the respective nature of fi=edter*

e*plo2*ent and of e*plo2*ent on probationar2 status are closel2

e=a*ined.

The fi=edter* character of e*plo2*ent essentiall2 refers to the

period a1reed upon bet"een the e*plo2er and the e*plo2ee8 e*plo2*ent

e=ists onl2 for the duration of the ter* and ends on its o"n "hen the ter*e=pires. In a sense, e*plo2*ent on probationar2 status also refers to a

period because of the technical *eanin1 #robation carries in Philippine labor

la" a *a=i*u* period of si= *onths, or in the acade*e, a period of three

2ears for those en1a1ed in teachin1 7obs.Their si*ilarit2 ends there,

ho"ever, because of the overridin1 *eanin1 that bein1 on

#robation connotes, i.e., a process of testin1 and observin1 the character or

abilities of a person "ho is ne" to a role or 7ob.#:E

<nderstood in the above sense, the essentially #rotective character of

#robationary status for manaement can readil2 be appreciated. >ut this

sa*e protective character 1ives rise to the countervailin1 but eBuall2

protective rule that the probationar2 period can onl2 last for a specific

*a=i*u* period and under reasonable, "elllaid and properl2

co**unicated standards. Other"ise stated, "ithin the period of the













probation, an2 e*plo2er *ove based on the #robationary standards and

affectin1 the continuit2 of the e*plo2*ent *ust strictl2 confor* to the

probationar2 rules.

<nder the 1iven facts "here the school 2ear is divided into tri*esters,the school apparentl2 utiliCes its fi=edter* contracts as a convenient

arran1e*ent dictated b2 the tri*estral s2ste* and not because the "or%place

parties reall2 intended to li*it the period of their relationship to an2 fi=ed

ter* and to finish this relationship at the end of that ter*. If "e pierce the

veil, so to spea%, of the parties socalled fi=edter* e*plo2*ent contracts,

"hat undeniabl2 co*es out at the core is a fi=edter* contract convenientl2

used b2 the school to define and re1ulate its relations "ith its

teachers durin their #robationary #eriod .

To be sure, nothin1 is ille1iti*ate in definin1 the schoolteacher

relationship in this *anner. The school, ho"ever, cannot for1et that its

s2ste* of fi=edter* contract is a s2ste* that operates durin1 the

probationar2 period and for this reason is sub7ect to the ter*s of +rticle '0)

of the 4abor !ode. 4nless this re*on*iliation is made, the re<uirements o0

this rti*le on probationary status %ould be 0ully negated as the s*hool

may 0reely *hoose not to rene% *ontra*ts simply be*ause their terms have

expired. 2he inevitable e00e*t o0 *ourse is to %re*k the s*heme that theonstitution and the +abor ode established to balan*e relationships

bet%een labor and management.

/iven the clear constitutional and statutor2 intents, "e cannot but

conclude that in a situation "here the probationar2 status overlaps "ith a

fi=edter* contract not s#ecifically used for the fi6ed term it offers , +rticle

'0) should assu*e pri*ac2 and the fi=edperiod character of the contract

*ust 1ive "a2. This conclusion is i**easurabl2 stren1thened b2 the petitioners and the +M+!!s hardl2 concealed e=pectation that the

e*plo2*ent on probation could lead to per*anent status, and that the

contracts are rene"able unless the petitioners fail to pass the schools

standards.



To hi1hli1ht "hat "e *ean b2 a fi=edter* contract s#ecifically used

for the fi6ed term it offers, a replace*ent teacher, for e=a*ple, *a2 be

contracted for a period of one 2ear to tem#orarily ta%e the place of a

per*anent teacher on a one2ear stud2 leave. The e=piration of the

replace*ent teachers contracted ter*, under the circu*stances, leads to no probationar2 status i*plications as she "as never e*plo2ed on probationar2

basis8 her e*plo2*ent is for a specific purpose "ith particular focus on the

ter* and "ith ever2 intent to end her teachin1 relationship "ith the school

upon e=piration of this ter*.

If the school "ere to appl2 the probationar2 standards as in fact it

sa2s it did in the present case-, these standards *ust not onl2 be reasonable

but *ust have also been co**unicated to the teachers at the start of the probationar2 period, or at the ver2 least, at the start of the period "hen the2

"ere to be applied.These ter*s, in addition to those e6#ressly #rovided by

the Labor ode, "ould serve as the 7ust cause for the ter*ination of the

probationar2 contract. +s e=plained above, the details of this findin1 of 7ust

cause *ust be co**unicated to the affected teachers as a *atter of due

process.

+M+!!, b2 its sub*issions, ad*its that it did not rene" the

petitioners contracts because the2 failed to pass the Perfor*ance +ppraisalS2ste* for Teachers P+ST- and other reBuire*ents for re1ulariCation that

the school underta%es to *aintain its hi1h acade*ic standards.#AE The

evidence is unclear on the e=act ter*s of the standards, althou1h the school

also ad*its that these "ere standards under the /uidelines on the

I*ple*entation of +M+!! 6acult2 Plantilla put in place at the start of

school 2ear '((('(().

5hile "e can 1rant that the standards "ere dul2 co**unicated to the petitioners and could be applied be1innin1 the )st tri*ester of the school 2ear

'((('((), 1larin1 and ver2 basic 1aps in the schools evidence still

e=ist. The e=act ter*s of the standards "ere never introduced as evidence8

neither does the evidence sho" ho" these standards "ere applied to the

petitioners.#0E 5ithout these pieces of evidence effectivel2, the findin1 of

7ust cause for the nonrene"al of the petitioners contracts-, "e have nothin1







to consider and pass upon as valid or invalid for each of the

#etitioners. Inevitabl2, the nonrene"al or effectivel2, the ter*ination of

e*plo2*ent of e*plo2ees on probationar2 status- lac%s the supportin1

findin1 of 7ust cause that the la" reBuires and, hence, is ille1al.

In this li1ht, the !+ decision should be reversed. Thus, the 4+s

decision, affir*ed as to the results b2 the N4R!, should stand as the

decision to be enforced, appropriatel2 reco*puted to consider the period of

appeal and revie" of the case up to our level.

/iven the period that has lapsed and the inevitable chan1e of

circu*stances that *ust have ta%en place in the interi* in the acade*ic

"orld and at +M+!!, "hich chan1es inevitabl2 affect current schooloperations, "e hold that in lieu of reinstate*ent the petitioners should be

paid separation pa2 co*puted on a tri*estral basis fro* the ti*e of

separation fro* service up to the end of the co*plete tri*ester precedin1 the

finalit2 of this Decision.#9E The separation pa2 shall be in addition to the

other a"ards, properl2 reco*puted, that the 4+ ori1inall2 decreed.

-ERE4ORE, pre*ises considered, "e hereb2 GRANT the

petition, and, conseBuentl2, RE(ERSE and SET ASI%E the Decision of the

!ourt of +ppeals dated Nove*ber '9, '((A and its Resolution dated &une '(,

'((0 in !+/.R. SP No. 9:$99. The 4abor +rbiters decision of March )$,

'((', subseBuentl2 affir*ed as to the results b2 the National 4abor Relations

!o**ission, stands and should be enforced "ith appropriate reco*putation

to ta%e into account the date of the finalit2 of this Decision.

In lieu of reinstate*ent, +M+ !o*puter !olle1eParaaBue !it2, Inc. is

hereb2 %IRECTE% to pa2 separation pa2 co*puted on a tri*estral basis

fro* the ti*e of separation fro* service up to the end of the co*plete

tri*ester precedin1 the finalit2 of this Decision. 6or 1reater certaint2, the

petitioners are entitled to;





a- bac%"a1es and )3th *onth pa2 co*puted fro*

Septe*ber A, '((( the date +M+ !o*puter !olle1e

ParaaBue !it2, Inc. ille1all2 dis*issed the petitioners- up to

the finalit2 of this Decision8

b- *onthl2 honoraria if applicable- co*puted

fro* Septe*ber A, '((( the ti*e of separation fro*

service- up to the finalit2 of this Decision8 and

c- separation pa2 on a tri*estral basis fro* Septe*ber A, '((( the

ti*e of separation fro* service- up to the end of the

co*plete tri*ester precedin1 the finalit2 of this Decision.

The labor arbiter is hereb2 OR%ERE% to *a%e another re

co*putation accordin1 to the above directives. No costs.

SO OR%ERE%.


SUPREME COURT

Manila

S!OND DIVISION

G.R. No. 17!388 September 0, !13

COLEGIO %EL SANTISIMO ROSARIO AN% SR. 'ENAI%A S.

MO4A%A, OP, PTITIONRS,

vs.

EMMANUEL RO$O, RSPONDNT.



D ! I S I O N

%EL CASTILLO, J.:

This Petition for Revie" on !ertiorari

)

assails the +u1ust 3), '(($Decision' and the Nove*ber )(, '(($ Resolution3 of the !ourt of +ppeals

!+- in !+/.R. SP No. 0$)00, "hich affir*ed the &ul2 3), '((3

Decision# of the National 4abor Relations !o**ission N4R!-. Said N4R!

Decision affir*ed "ith *odification the October A, '((' Decision$ of the

4abor +rbiter 4+- "hich, in turn, 1ranted respondent **anuel Ro7os

respondent- !o*plaint: for ille1al dis*issal.

6actual +ntecedents

Petitioner !ole1io del Santisi*o Rosario !SR- hired respondent as a hi1h

school teacher on probationar2 basis for the school 2ears )99')993, )993

)99#A and )99#)99$.0

On +pril $, )99$, !SR, throu1h petitioner Sr. enaida S. Mofada, OP

Mofada-, decided not to rene" respondents services.9

Thus, on &ul2 )3, )99$, respondent filed a !o*plaint)( for ille1al dis*issal.

He alle1ed that since he had served three consecutive school 2ears "hich isthe *a=i*u* nu*ber of ter*s allo"ed for probationar2 e*plo2*ent, he

should be e=tended per*anent e*plo2*ent. !itin1 para1raph A$ of the )9A(

Manual of Re1ulations for Private Schools )9A( Manual-, respondent

asserted that Ffull ti*e teachers "ho have rendered three 3- consecutive

2ears of satisfactor2 services shall be considered per*anent.F))

On the other hand, petitioners ar1ued that respondent %ne" that his

Teachers !ontract for school 2ear )99#)99$ "ith !SR "ould e=pire onMarch 3), )99$.)' +ccordin1l2, respondent "as not dis*issed but his

probationar2 contract *erel2 e=pired and "as not rene"ed.)3 Petitioners also

clai*ed that the Fthree 2earsF *entioned in para1raph A$ of the )9A(

Manual refer to F3: *onths,F not three school 2ears.)# +nd since respondent

served for onl2 three school 2ears of )( *onths each or 3( *onths, then he































had not 2et served the Fthree 2earsF or 3: *onths *entioned in para1raph A$

of the )9A( Manual.)$

Rulin1 of the 4abor +rbiter

The 4+ ruled that Fthree school 2earsF *eans three 2ears of )( *onths, not

)' *onths.): !onsiderin1 that respondent had alread2 served for three

consecutive school 2ears, then he has alread2 attained re1ular e*plo2*ent

status. Thus, the nonrene"al of his contract for school 2ear )99$)99:

constitutes ille1al dis*issal.)A

The 4+ also found petitioners 1uilt2 of bad faith "hen the2 treated

respondents ter*ination *erel2 as the e=piration of the third e*plo2*ent

contract and "hen the2 insisted that the school board actuall2 deliberated onthe nonrene"al of respondents e*plo2*ent "ithout sub*ittin1 ad*issible

proof of his alle1ed re1ular perfor*ance evaluation.)0

The dispositive portion of the 4+s Decision)9 reads;

5HR6OR, pre*ises considered, 7ud1*ent is hereb2 rendered orderin1

the petitionersE;

). To pa2 respondentE the total a*ount of P39,'$'.(( correspondin1to his severance co*pensation and )3th *onth pa2, *oral and

e=e*plar2 da*a1es.

'. To pa2 )(@ of the total a*ount due to respondentE as attorne2s

fees.

+ll other clai*s are dis*issed for lac% of *erit.

SO ORDRD.'(

Rulin1 of the National 4abor Relations !o**ission

On appeal, the N4R! affir*ed the 4+s Decision "ith *odification. It held

that after servin1 three school 2ears, respondent had attained the status of















re1ular e*plo2*ent') especiall2 because !SR did not *a%e %no"n to

respondent the reasonable standards he should *eet.'' The N4R! also

a1reed "ith the 4+ that respondents ter*ination "as done in bad faith. It

held that respondent is entitled to reinstate*ent, if viable8 or separation pa2,

if reinstate*ent "as no lon1er feasible, and bac%"a1es, viC;

5HR6OR, pre*ises considered, the appealed Decision is hereb2,

+66IRMD "ith MODI6I!+TION onl2 insofar as the a"ard of separation

pa2 is concerned. Since respondentE had been ille1all2 dis*issed,

petitionerE !ole1io Del Santisi*o Rosario is hereb2 ordered to reinstate

hi* to his for*er position "ithout loss of seniorit2 ri1hts "ith full

bac%"a1es until he is actuall2 reinstated. Ho"ever, if reinstate*ent is no

lon1er feasible, the respondent shall pa2 separation pa2, in additionE to the

pa2*ent of his full bac%"a1es.

The !o*putation Division is hereb2 directed to co*pute respondentsE full

bac%"a1es to be attached and to for* part of this Decision.

The rest of the appealed Decision stands.

SO ORDRD.'3

Petitioners *oved for reconsideration "hich the N4R! denied in its +pril

'0, '((# Resolution'# for lac% of *erit.

Rulin1 of the !ourt of +ppeals

Petitioners filed a Petition for !ertiorari'$ before the !+ alle1in1 1rave

abuse of discretion on the part of the N4R! in findin1 that respondent had

attained the status of a re1ular e*plo2ee and "as ille1all2 dis*issed fro*

e*plo2*ent.

In a Decision': dated +u1ust 3), '(($, the !+ denied the Petition for lac% of

*erit. !itin1 !a1a2an !apitol !olle1e v. National 4abor Relations

!o**ission,'A it held that respondent has satisfied all the reBuire*ents

necessar2 to acBuire per*anent e*plo2*ent and securit2 of tenure viC;

















). The teacher is a fullti*e teacher8

'. The teacher *ust have rendered three 3- consecutive 2ears of

service8 and

3. Such service *ust be satisfactor2.'0

+ccordin1 to the !+, respondent has attained the status of a re1ular

e*plo2ee after he "as e*plo2ed for three consecutive school 2ears as a full

ti*e teacher and had served !SR satisfactoril2. +side fro* bein1 a hi1h

school teacher, he "as also the Prefect of Discipline, a tas% entailin1 *uch

responsibilit2. The onl2 reason 1iven b2 Mofada for not rene"in1

respondents contract "as the alle1ed e=piration of the contract, not an2

unsatisfactor2 service. +lso, there "as no sho"in1 that !SR set perfor*ancestandards for the e*plo2*ent of respondent, "hich could be the basis of his

satisfactor2 or unsatisfactor2 perfor*ance. Hence, there bein1 no reasonable

standards *ade %no"n to hi* at the ti*e of his en1a1e*ent, respondent "as

dee*ed a re1ular e*plo2ee and "as, thus, declared ille1all2 dis*issed "hen

his contract "as not rene"ed.

Petitioners *oved for reconsideration. Ho"ever, the !+ denied the *otion

for lac% of *erit in its Nove*ber )(, '(($ Resolution.

'9

Hence, the instant Petition. Incidentall2, on Ma2 '3, '((A, "e issued a

Resolution3( directin1 the parties to *aintain the status Buo pendin1 the

resolution of the present Petition.

Issue

5HTHR TH !O<RT O6 +PP+4S +S 544 +S TH N+TION+4

4+>OR R4+TIONS !OMMISSIONE !OMMITTD /RIVO<S +NDRVRSI>4 RROR 5HN IT R<4D TH+T + >+SI! D<!+TION

4MNT+RK- T+!HR HIRD 6OR THR 3- !ONS!<TIV

S!HOO4 K+RS +S + PRO>+TION+RK MP4OK

+<TOM+TI!+44K +NDOR >K 4+5 >!OMS + PRM+NNT

MP4OK <PON !OMP4TION O6 HIS THIRD K+R O6









PRO>+TION NOT5ITHST+NDIN/ +E TH PRONO<N!MNT O6

THIS HONOR+>4 !O<RT IN !O4/IO S+N +/<STIN V. N4R!,

'() S!R+ 390 )99) TH+T + PRO>+TION+RK T+!HR +!G<IRS

PRM+NNT ST+T<S FON4K 5HN H IS +44O5D TO 5OR

+6TR TH PRO>+TION+RK PRIODF +ND >E DO4D!S!HDTSD+ ORDR NO. (), S. )99: 5HI!H PROVID TH+T T+!HRS

5HO H+V SRVD TH PRO>+TION+RK PRIOD FSH+44 >

M+D R/<4+R OR PRM+NNT I6 +44O5D TO 5OR +6TR

S<!H PRO>+TION+RK PRIOD.F3)

Petitioners *aintain that upon the e=piration of the probationar2 period, both

the school and the respondent "ere free to rene" the contract or let it lapse.

Petitioners insist that a teacher hired for three consecutive 2ears as a

probationar2 e*plo2ee does not auto*aticall2 beco*e a re1ular e*plo2ee

upon co*pletion of his third 2ear of probation. It is the positive act of the

school X the hirin1 of the teacher "ho has 7ust co*pleted three consecutive

2ears of e*plo2*ent on probation for the ne=t school 2ear X that *a%es the

teacher a re1ular e*plo2ee of the school.

Our Rulin1

5e den2 the Petition.

In Mercado v. +M+ !o*puter !olle1eParaYaBue !it2, Inc.,3' "e had

occasion to rule that cases dealin1 "ith e*plo2*ent on probationar2 status

of teachin1 personnel are not 1overned solel2 b2 the 4abor !ode as the la"

is supple*ented, "ith respect to the period of probation, b2 special rules

found in the Manual of Re1ulations for Private Schools the Manual-. 5ith

re1ard to the probationar2 period, Section 9' of the )99' Manual33 provides;

Section 9'. Probationar2 Period. X Sub7ect in all instances to co*pliance"ith the Depart*ent and school reBuire*ents, the probationar2 period for

acade*ic personnel shall not be *ore than three 3- consecutive 2ears of

satisfactor2 service for those in the ele*entar2 and secondar2 levels, si= :-

consecutive re1ular se*esters of satisfactor2 service for those in the tertiar2

level, and nine 9- consecutive tri*esters of satisfactor2 service for those in











the tertiar2 level "here colle1iate courses are offered on a tri*ester basis.

*phasis supplied-

In this case, petitioners teachers "ho "ere on probationar2 e*plo2*ent

"ere *ade to enter into a contract effective for one school 2ear. Thereafter,it *a2 be rene"ed for another school 2ear, and the probationar2 e*plo2*ent

continues. +t the end of the second fi=ed period of probationar2

e*plo2*ent, the contract *a2 a1ain be rene"ed for the last ti*e.

Such e*plo2*ent for fi=ed ter*s durin1 the teachers probationar2 period is

an accepted practice in the teachin1 profession. In Ma1is Koun1 +chievers

4earnin1 !enter v. Manalo,3# "e noted that;

The co**on practice is for the e*plo2er and the teacher to enter into acontract, effective for one school 2ear. +t the end of the school 2ear, the

e*plo2er has the option not to rene" the contract, particularl2 considerin1

the teachers perfor*ance. If the contract is not rene"ed, the e*plo2*ent

relationship ter*inates. If the contract is rene"ed, usuall2 for another school

2ear, the probationar2 e*plo2*ent continues. +1ain, at the end of that

period, the parties *a2 opt to rene" or not to rene" the contract. If rene"ed,

this second rene"al of the contract for another school 2ear "ould then be the

last 2ear X since it "ould be the third school 2ear X of probationar2e*plo2*ent. +t the end of this third 2ear, the e*plo2er *a2 no" decide

"hether to e=tend a per*anent appoint*ent to the e*plo2ee, pri*aril2 on

the basis of the e*plo2ee havin1 *et the reasonable standards of

co*petence and efficienc2 set b2 the e*plo2er. 6or the entire duration of

this three2ear period, the teacher re*ains under probation. <pon the

e=piration of his contract of e*plo2*ent, bein1 si*pl2 on probation, he

cannot auto*aticall2 clai* securit2 of tenure and co*pel the e*plo2er to

rene" his e*plo2*ent contract. It is "hen the 2earl2 contract is rene"ed for

the third ti*e that Section 93 of the Manual beco*es operative, and the

teacher then is entitled to re1ular or per*anent e*plo2*ent status.

*phases supplied-





Ho"ever, this sche*e Fof fi=edter* contract is a s2ste* that operates

durin1 the probationar2 period and for this reason is sub7ect to +rticle '0) of

the 4abor !ode,F3$ "hich provides;

= = = The services of an e*plo2ee "ho has been en1a1ed on a probationar2 basis *a2 be ter*inated for a 7ust cause or "hen he fails to Bualif2 as a

re1ular e*plo2ee in accordance "ith reasonable standards *ade %no"n b2

the e*plo2er to the e*plo2ee at the ti*e of his en1a1e*ent. +n e*plo2ee

"ho is allo"ed to "or% after a probationar2 period shall be considered a

re1ular e*plo2ee. *phasis suppliedE

In Mercado, "e held that FuEnless this reconciliation is *ade, the

reBuire*ents of +rticle '0) on probationar2 status "ould be full2 ne1ated

as the school *a2 freel2 choose not to rene" contracts si*pl2 because their

ter*s have e=pired.F3: This "ill have an unsettlin1 effect in the eBuilibriu*

visavis the relations bet"een labor and *ana1e*ent that the !onstitution

and 4abor !ode have "or%ed hard to establish.

That teachers on probationar2 e*plo2*ent also en7o2 the protection

afforded b2 +rticle '0) of the 4abor !ode is supported b2 Section 93 of the

)99' Manual "hich provides;

Sec. 93. Re1ular or Per*anent Status. Those "ho have served the

probationar2 period shall be *ade re1ular or per*anent. 6ullti*e teachers

"ho have satisfactoril2 co*pleted their probationar2 period shall be

considered re1ular or per*anent. *phasis supplied-

The above provision clearl2 provides that fullti*e teachers beco*e re1ular

or per*anent e*plo2ees once the2 have satisfactoril2 co*pleted the

probationar2 period of three school 2ears.3A The use of the ter* satisfactoril2

necessaril2 connotes the reBuire*ent for schools to set reasonable standardsto be follo"ed b2 teachers on probationar2 e*plo2*ent. 6or ho" else can

one deter*ine if probationar2 teachers have satisfactoril2 co*pleted the

probationar2 period if standards therefor are not provided









+s such, Fno vested ri1ht to a per*anent appoint*ent shall accrue until the

e*plo2ee has co*pleted the prereBuisite three2ear period necessar2 for the

acBuisition of a per*anent status. Ho"ever, it *ust be e*phasiCed thatE

*ere rendition of service for three consecutive 2ears does not auto*aticall2

ripen into a per*anent appoint*ent. It is also necessar2 that the e*plo2ee be a fullti*e teacher, and that the services he rendered are satisfactor2.F30

In Mercado, this !ourt, spea%in1 throu1h &. >rion, held that;

The provision on e*plo2*ent on probationar2 status under the 4abor !ode

is a pri*ar2 e=a*ple of the fine balancin1 of interests bet"een labor and

*ana1e*ent that the !ode has institutionaliCed pursuant to the underl2in1

intent of the !onstitution.

On the one hand, e*plo2*ent on probationar2 status affords *ana1e*ent

the chance to full2 scrutiniCe the true "orth of hired personnel before the full

force of the securit2 of tenure 1uarantee of the !onstitution co*es into pla2.

>ased on the standards set at the start of the probationar2 period,

*ana1e*ent is 1iven the "idest opportunit2 durin1 the probationar2 period

to re7ect hirees "ho fail to *eet its o"n adopted but reasonable standards.

These standards, to1ether "ith the 7ust and authoriCed causes for ter*ination

of e*plo2*ent "hichE the 4abor !ode e=pressl2 provides, are the 1roundsavailable to ter*inate the e*plo2*ent of a teacher on probationar2 status. =

= =

4abor, for its part, is 1iven the protection durin1 the probationar2 period of

%no"in1 the co*pan2 standards the ne" hires have to *eet durin1 the

probationar2 period, and to be 7ud1ed on the basis of these standards, aside

fro* the usual standards applicable to e*plo2ees after the2 achieve

per*anent status. <nder the ter*s of the 4abor !ode, these standards should

be *ade %no"n to the teachers on probationar2 status at the start of their

probationar2 period, or at the ver2 least under the circu*stances of the

present case, at the start of the se*ester or the tri*ester durin1 "hich the

probationar2 standards are to be applied. Of critical i*portance in invo%in1

a failure to *eet the probationar2 standards, is that the school should sho" X

as a *atter of due process X ho" these standards have been applied. This is





effectivel2 the second notice in a dis*issal situation that the la" reBuires as

a due process 1uarantee supportin1 the securit2 of tenure provision, and is in

furtherance, too, of the basic rule in e*plo2ee dis*issal that the e*plo2er

carries the burden of 7ustif2in1 a dis*issal. These rules ensure co*pliance

"ith the li*ited securit2 of tenure 1uarantee the la" e=tends to probationar2e*plo2ees.

5hen fi=edter* e*plo2*ent is brou1ht into pla2 under the above

probationar2 period rules, the situation X as in the present case X *a2 at first

blush loo% *uddled as fi=edter* e*plo2*ent is in itself a valid

e*plo2*ent *ode under Philippine la" and 7urisprudence. The conflict,

ho"ever, is *ore apparent than real "hen the respective nature of fi=edter*

e*plo2*ent and of e*plo2*ent on probationar2 status are closel2

e=a*ined.

The fi=edter* character of e*plo2*ent essentiall2 refers to the period

a1reed upon bet"een the e*plo2er and the e*plo2ee8 e*plo2*ent e=ists

onl2 for the duration of the ter* and ends on its o"n "hen the ter* e=pires.

In a sense, e*plo2*ent on probationar2 status also refers to a period

because of the technical *eanin1 FprobationF carries in Philippine labor la"

X a *a=i*u* period of si= *onths, or in the acade*e, a period of three

2ears for those en1a1ed in teachin1 7obs. Their si*ilarit2 ends there,ho"ever, because of the overridin1 *eanin1 that bein1 Fon probationF

connotes, i.e., a process of testin1 and observin1 the character or abilities of

a person "ho is ne" to a role or 7ob.

<nderstood in the above sense, the essentiall2 protective character of

probationar2 status for *ana1e*ent can readil2 be appreciated. >ut this

sa*e protective character 1ives rise to the countervailin1 but eBuall2

protective rule that the probationar2 period can onl2 last for a specific

*a=i*u* period and under reasonable, "elllaid and properl2

co**unicated standards. Other"ise stated, "ithin the period of the

probation, an2 e*plo2er *ove based on the probationar2 standards and

affectin1 the continuit2 of the e*plo2*ent *ust strictl2 confor* to the

probationar2 rules.



= = = If "e pierce the veil, so to spea%, of the parties socalled fi=edter*

e*plo2*ent contracts, "hat undeniabl2 co*es out at the core is a fi=edter*

contract convenientl2 used b2 the school to define and re1ulate its relations

"ith its teachers durin1 their probationar2 period.39 *phasis supplied8

italics in the ori1inal-

In the sa*e case, this !ourt has definitivel2 pronounced that Fin a situation

"here the probationar2 status overlaps "ith a fi=edter* contract not

specificall2 used for the fi=ed ter* it offers, +rticle '0) should assu*e

pri*ac2 and the fi=edperiod character of the contract *ust 1ive "a2.F#(

+n e=a*ple 1iven of a fi=edter* contract specificall2 used for the fi=ed

ter* it offers is a replace*ent teacher or a reliever contracted for a period of

one 2ear to te*poraril2 ta%e the place of a per*anent teacher "ho is on

leave. The e=piration of the relievers fi=edter* contract does not have

probationar2 status i*plications as he or she "as never e*plo2ed on

probationar2 basis. This is because his or her e*plo2*ent is for a specific

purpose "ith particular focus on the ter*. There e=ists an intent to end his or

her e*plo2*ent "ith the school upon e=piration of this ter*.#)

Ho"ever, for teachers on probationar2 e*plo2*ent, in "hich case a fi=ed

ter* contract is not specificall2 used for the fi=ed ter* it offers, it isincu*bent upon the school to have not onl2 set reasonable standards to be

follo"ed b2 said teachers in deter*inin1 Bualification for re1ular

e*plo2*ent, the sa*e *ust have also been co**unicated to the teachers at

the start of the probationar2 period, or at the ver2 least, at the start of the

period "hen the2 "ere to be applied. These ter*s, in addition to those

e=pressl2 provided b2 the 4abor !ode, "ould serve as the 7ust cause for the

ter*ination of the probationar2 contract.9K$#hi9 The specific details of this

findin1 of 7ust cause *ust be co**unicated to the affected teachers as a

*atter of due process.#' !orollaril2, should the teachers not have been

apprised of such reasonable standards at the ti*e specified above, the2 shall

be dee*ed re1ular e*plo2ees.

In Ta*sons nterprises, Inc. v. !ourt of +ppeals,#3 "e held that FtEhe la" is

clear that in all cases of probationar2 e*plo2*ent, the e*plo2er shall













conve2E to the e*plo2ee the standards under "hich he "ill Bualif2 as a

re1ular e*plo2ee at the ti*e of his en1a1e*ent. 5here no standards are

*ade %no"n to the e*plo2ee at that ti*e, he shall be dee*ed a re1ular

e*plo2ee.

In this case, 1larin1l2 absent fro* petitioners evidence are the reasonable

standards that respondent "as e=pected to *eet that could have served as

proper 1uidelines for purposes of evaluatin1 his perfor*ance. No"here in

the Teachers !ontract## could such standards be found.#$ Neither "as it

*entioned that the sa*e "ere ever conve2ed to respondent. ven assu*in1

that respondent failed to *eet the standards set forth b2 !SR and *ade

%no"n to the for*er at the ti*e he "as en1a1ed as a teacher on probationar2

status, still, the ter*ination "as fla"ed for failure to 1ive the reBuired notice

to respondent.#: This is because >oo% VI, Rule I, Section ' of the IRR of the

4abor !ode provides;

Section '. Securit2 of Tenure. X a- In cases of re1ular e*plo2*ent, the

e*plo2er shall not ter*inate the services of an e*plo2ee e=cept for 7ust or

authoriCed causes as provided b2 la", and sub7ect to the reBuire*ents of due

process.

b- The fore1oin1 shall also appl2 in cases of probationar2e*plo2*ent8 provided, ho"ever, that in such cases, ter*ination of

e*plo2*ent due to failure of the e*plo2ee to Bualif2 in accordance

"ith the standards of the e*plo2er *ade %no"n to the for*er at the

ti*e of en1a1e*ent *a2 also be a 1round for ter*ination of

e*plo2*ent.

= = = =

d- In all cases of ter*ination of e*plo2*ent, the follo"in1 standardsof due process shall be substantiall2 observed;

= = = =









If the ter*ination is brou1ht about b2 the co*pletion of a contract or phase

thereof, or b2 failure of an e*plo2ee to *eet the standards of the e*plo2er

in the case of probationar2 e*plo2*ent, it shall be sufficient that a "ritten

notice is served the e*plo2ee, "ithin a reasonable ti*e fro* the effective

date of ter*ination. *phasis supplied-

!uriousl2, despite the absence of standards, Mofada *entioned the e=istence

of alle1ed perfor*ance evaluations#A in respondents case. 5e are, ho"ever,

in a Buandar2 as to "hat could have been the basis of such evaluation, as no

evidence "ere adduced to sho" the reasonable standards "ith "hich

respondents perfor*ance "as to be assessed or that he "as infor*ed

thereof. Notabl2 too, none of the supposed perfor*ance evaluations "ere

presented. These fla"s violated respondents ri1ht to due process. +s such,

his dis*issal is, for all intents and purposes, ille1al.

+s a *atter of due process, teachers on probationar2 e*plo2*ent, 7ust li%e

all probationar2 e*plo2ees, have the ri1ht to %no" "hether the2 have *et

the standards a1ainst "hich their perfor*ance "as evaluated. Should the2

fail, the2 also have the ri1ht to %no" the reasons therefor.



Documents

Labor Relations (Strike)