G.R. No. 101539 September 4, 1992
CECILE DE OCAMPO, ET AL., petitioners, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and BALIWAG MAHOGANY CORPORATION, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners are employees and members/officers of the Baliwag Mahogany Corporation Union-CFW at the Baliwag Mahogany Corporation. In 1988, the company and union entered into a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA). In November 1989, the union requested cash conversion of unused vacation and sick leaves for 1987-1988 and 1988-1989. The company allowed payment for 1987-1988 but disallowed 1988-1989. On January 3, 1990, the company suspended 20 employees for three days for failure to render overtime work. On the same day, the union filed a notice of strike citing unfair labor practice, specifically non-payment of unused leaves and illegal dismissal of seven employees in November 1989. On January 13, 1990, the company terminated three union members (Cecile de Ocampo, Rene Villanueva, and Marcelo dela Cruz) on grounds of redundancy and cost reduction. The union conducted a picket on January 18, 1990. On January 19, 1990, Cecile de Ocampo was elected union president. After a strike vote, the union staged a strike on February 6, 1990. The Secretary of Labor certified the dispute to the NLRC for compulsory arbitration on February 15, 1990, ordering striking workers to return to work and management to accept them back. The company extended the return-to-work deadline to March 15, 1990. The NLRC, in its October 23, 1990 decision, declared the strikes illegal but ordered the reinstatement of union officers/members without backwages and the reinstatement of the three terminated employees with backwages. Upon the company’s motion for reconsideration, the NLRC issued a resolution on July 8, 1991, modifying its decision. It declared the February 6, 1990 strike illegal and held that the union officers/members who participated and committed prohibited acts lost their employment status. It also directed the company to pay separation pay to Cecile de Ocampo, Rene Villanueva, and Marcelo dela Cruz, and to reinstate without backwages union members not found to have committed prohibited acts.

ISSUE

1. Whether there is legal basis for declaring the loss of employment status by petitioners on account of the strike.
2. Whether the dismissals of petitioners Cecile de Ocampo, Rene Villanueva, and Marcelo dela Cruz on the ground of redundancy were done in good faith.
3. Whether the NLRC acted correctly in allowing the company to submit additional evidence in support of its Motion for Reconsideration and in giving credence to said evidence.

RULING

1. Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the NLRC’s finding that the strike was illegal due to the existence of a no-strike clause in the CBA and the lack of a genuine strikeable issue, as the disputed matters were grievable under the CBA’s grievance machinery. The Court upheld the NLRC’s ruling that union officers and members who participated in the illegal strike and committed prohibited acts lost their employment status.
2. Yes. The Court found the dismissals based on redundancy to be done in good faith. The company’s decision to contract the services of Gemac Machineries for maintenance and repair, rendering the positions of the terminated mechanics redundant, was a legitimate exercise of business judgment and management prerogative aimed at cost-saving and efficiency. In the absence of proof of abuse of discretion or malicious action, the Court will not interfere.
3. The Supreme Court did not specifically address this procedural issue in the provided text. However, it affirmed the NLRC’s resolution in its entirety, stating that the assailed resolution was not tainted with arbitrariness nor grave abuse of discretion. The Court also accorded respect and finality to the factual findings of the NLRC, supported by substantial evidence.
The petition was DISMISSED for lack of merit, and the NLRC resolution dated July 8, 1991, was AFFIRMED.