G.R. No. 100342-44. October 29, 1999.
RURAL BANK OF ALAMINOS EMPLOYEES UNION (RBAEU) and ISMAEL TAMAYO, SR., petitioners, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, Third Division, Exec. Labor Arbiter JOSE B. BOLISAY and RURAL BANK OF ALAMINOS, Inc., respondents.

FACTS

The petition stems from three consolidated cases before the NLRC. The first case (NLRC Case No. 01-03-7-0049-89) was filed by petitioner Ismael Tamayo, Sr. against Rural Bank of Alaminos, Inc. (RBAI) for illegal dismissal. Tamayo, a long-time employee, was reinstated as internal auditor per a July 13, 1988 compromise agreement but was terminated effective January 1, 1989, leading to his complaint. The second case (NLRC Case No. 01-04-7-0059-89) was filed by RBAI against the Rural Bank of Alaminos Employees Union (the Union) for unfair labor practice, seeking a declaration that the Union’s strike, which began on April 3, 1989 after failed negotiations, was illegal and for damages. The third case (NLRC Case No. 01-06-0097-89) was filed by the Union against RBAI for unfair labor practice and damages, alleging constructive dismissal of its members due to the strike.
Labor Arbiter Ricardo N. Olairez rendered a consolidated decision on December 14, 1989. In the first case, he found Tamayo’s dismissal illegal and, as Tamayo had reached retirable age, awarded him backwages, retirement pay, and attorney’s fees. In the second case, he declared the strike legal and dismissed RBAI’s petition. In the third case, he found RBAI guilty of unfair labor practice (constructive dismissal/illegal lockout), ordering the reinstatement of union members with full backwages and awarding moral and exemplary damages to each.
RBAI appealed to the NLRC, which issued a Resolution on January 31, 1991, setting aside the Labor Arbiter’s decision and remanding all three cases to the Regional Arbitration Branch for further proceedings. The NLRC denied the petitioners’ motion for reconsideration on March 26, 1991. Petitioners then filed this certiorari petition, alleging the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion.

ISSUE

1. Whether the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in remanding NLRC Case No. 0059-89 (declaration of illegality of strike) for further proceedings despite affirming the Labor Arbiter’s finding that the strike was legal.
2. Whether the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in remanding NLRC Case No. 0097-89 (Union’s complaint for unfair labor practice) for further proceedings, given that RBAI did not appeal the Labor Arbiter’s finding of unfair labor practice and the issue of the exact number of employees was allegedly clear from the records.
3. Whether the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in remanding NLRC Case No. 0049-89 (Tamayo’s illegal dismissal case) for further proceedings on the ground that RBAI was denied the right to cross-examine Tamayo.

RULING

The Supreme Court PARTIALLY GRANTED the petition.
1. Regarding NLRC Case No. 0059-89 (Strike Legality): The NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion. Its Resolution affirmed the Labor Arbiter’s finding that the strike was legal. Having made that determination, there was no legal basis to remand the case. The purpose of a petition to declare a strike illegal is solely for such a declaration. Once declared legal, the case should have been terminated. The remand order was set aside.
2. Regarding NLRC Case No. 0097-89 (Union’s Complaint): The NLRC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in remanding this case. The Court upheld the remand for further proceedings to determine the exact number of employees entitled to awards. The Labor Arbiter’s decision did not specify the individual union members or the basis for the monetary awards. The NLRC correctly found it could not properly compute backwages and damages without this fundamental data. The fact that RBAI did not appeal the unfair labor practice finding did not preclude remand for computation, as the final determination of liabilities required specific factual bases.
3. Regarding NLRC Case No. 0049-89 (Tamayo’s Dismissal): The NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion. The ground for remand—that RBAI was denied the right to cross-examine Tamayo—was untenable. The records showed RBAI’s counsel was duly notified of hearings but chose not to attend. A party who chooses not to avail of the opportunity to cross-examine cannot later claim denial of due process. The remand order for this case was set aside.
The Court also found that the NLRC correctly denied the petitioners’ motion for reconsideration as it was filed beyond the reglementary period.
DISPOSITIVE:
The petition was partly GRANTED. The NLRC’s order remanding NLRC Cases No. 0049-89 and No. 0059-89 was SET ASIDE. The order remanding NLRC Case No. 0097-89 for further proceedings was UPHELD. No pronouncement as to costs.