G.R. No. 125195 July 17, 1997
SAMAHAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA BANDOLINO-LMLC (represented by Lauro de Leon, President) and ROMEO REYES, LAURO DE LEON, JAIME SIBUG, ROLANDO RAMOS, FREDDIE ACAMPADO, REYNALDO DE LA PAZ, ELIAS CABRIA, JOHNNY FLORENCIO, EMELITA BATOON, CORAZON REYES, DANIEL MARISCOTES, REGOLITO BANAGA, JOSELITO TAPAR, JOSE TUGAY, MARCIAL B. FRANCO, SALVADOR LLABRES, LIGAYA FRANCO, AUREA B. BONON, ADORACION C. BROZO, CAMILA TUGA, ROMULO G. ALMONITE, JACINTO RODRIGUEZ, JR., ROSALINDA FLORENCIO, and EMMA BROZO, petitioners,

vs.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, BANDOLINO SHOE CORPORATION and/or GERMAN ALCANTARA, AIDA ALCANTARA, and MIMI ALCANTARA, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners are former employees of Bandolino Shoe Corporation and members of the Samahan ng Manggagawa sa Bandolino-LMLC. On June 4, 1990, petitioners Marcial Franco, Johnny Florencio, and Romeo Reyes were directed to take a two-week leave due to a strike at Shoemart, Bandolino’s biggest customer. That same day, Ligaya Franco (Marcial’s wife) was dismissed, followed by three other relatives. On June 9, 1990, the other petitioners were informed of their termination and asked to surrender their IDs. When petitioners attempted to return to work after two weeks, they were refused entry. Management claimed this was to prevent incidents between petitioner union and another union. Petitioners filed a notice of strike and later a complaint for illegal dismissal and unfair labor practice. The Labor Arbiter found illegal dismissal and unfair labor practice, ordering reinstatement and payment of monetary claims. Private respondents appealed to the NLRC, which reversed the Labor Arbiter’s decision, dismissing the unfair labor practice finding and modifying monetary awards. Petitioners then filed this petition for certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether the National Labor Relations Commission committed grave abuse of discretion in reversing the Labor Arbiter’s decision which found that petitioners were illegally dismissed due to unfair labor practice.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court set aside the NLRC decision and reinstated the Labor Arbiter’s decision with modifications. The Court found that the NLRC disregarded established facts and applicable jurisprudence. The evidence showed that petitioners were dismissed for union activities. Private respondents’ claim of a “rotation scheme” was belied by the fact that petitioners were not recalled even after the Shoemart strike ended, and only union members were targeted. The imposition of illegal conditions for reinstatement—requiring petitioners to forego their strike, withdraw their certification petition, and recognize another union—constituted unfair labor practice. The Court held that an employer may be guilty of unfair labor practice for interfering with the right to self-organization even before a union is formally registered. On monetary awards, the Court modified the Labor Arbiter’s decision: all petitioners (except Jaime Sibug) are piece-rate workers entitled to minimum wage, salary differentials, and 13th-month pay; only Jaime Sibug is entitled to holiday pay. All petitioners are entitled to full backwages from the time compensation was withheld until actual reinstatement.