GR 82088; (October, 1989) (Digest)
G.R. No. 82088 October 13, 1989
Zamboanga Wood Products, Inc., petitioner, vs. The National Labor Relations Commission, National Federation of Labor, Dionisio Estioca and The Strikers, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Zamboanga Wood Products, Inc. terminated the employment of Dionisio Estioca, its Personnel Supervisor and president of the respondent union, National Federation of Labor (NFL), on April 30, 1982, for loss of trust and confidence. The dismissal stemmed from Estioca posting a bulletin criticizing the company’s budget for an athletic event and urging a boycott, which contained an incorrect monetary figure. Subsequently, the NFL filed a notice of strike citing Estioca’s illegal dismissal, unfair labor practice, non-payment of living allowances, and employment of unpermitted alien personnel. The employees went on strike on May 23, 1982. The company later dismissed the strikers for serious misconduct and abandonment. The Secretary of Labor certified the dispute for compulsory arbitration. The NLRC ruled the strike was legal, ordered the reinstatement of Estioca and the strikers with backwages, and fined the company.
ISSUE
The primary issue was whether the strike declared by the respondents was legal, thereby entitling the strikers to reinstatement and backwages.
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition and affirmed the NLRC with modification. The Court held the strike was legal based on the existence of a valid ground, specifically the company’s unfair labor practice. While the claim for living allowances was not a legal strike ground due to its pending arbitration, the charge of union busting constituted a valid ground. The NLRC’s finding of union busting, based on unrebutted testimony that company officials solicited employees to withdraw union membership, was sustained. This act is an unfair labor practice under Article 248 of the Labor Code, justifying the strike. Consequently, the dismissal of the strikers was illegal. The company’s refusal to accept the workers upon a return-to-work order was unjustified, making it liable for backwages from the date they offered to return until their readmission in August 1984. For Estioca, his illegal dismissal entitled him to reinstatement and backwages, but not exceeding three years from his termination date. The fine imposed on the company for non-compliance with the return-to-work order was also affirmed.