G.R. No. 106316 May 5, 1997
FIRST CITY INTERLINK TRANSPORTATION CO., INC., doing business under the name and style FIL TRANSIT, petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE SECRETARY MA. NIEVES ROLDAN-CONFESOR, in her capacity as Secretary of Labor and Employment, and NAGKAKAISANG MANGGAGAWA NG FIL TRANSIT-NATIONAL FEDERATION OF LABOR (NMF-NFL), respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner First City Interlink Transportation Co., Inc. (Fil Transit) is a public utility corporation. Respondent Nagkakaisang Manggagawa ng Fil Transit-National Federation of Labor (NMF-NFL) is the labor union of its employees. In 1986, the union filed notices of strike alleging unfair labor practices and staged strikes on June 17 and July 27. The then Minister of Labor assumed jurisdiction and issued a Return to Work Order on September 16, 1986, directing all striking and dismissed employees to return and for management to accept them under the same terms. Petitioner challenged this order, but the Supreme Court ultimately upheld it. A writ of execution was issued in 1987.
The Secretary of Labor later found that Fil Transit imposed onerous preconditions for reinstatement, such as new medical exams and clearances, effectively barring full compliance. Consequently, in 1990 and 1991, the Secretary issued orders awarding backwages to the employees and later directed the submission of position papers on the computation of backwages and other issues. The union subsequently sought separation pay in lieu of reinstatement. Petitioner argued the strike was illegal and that it had substantially complied with the return to work order.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the Secretary of Labor committed grave abuse of discretion in ordering the payment of backwages and separation pay to the striking employees, and whether the strike was illegal.

RULING

The Supreme Court set aside the Secretary of Labor’s order. The legal logic proceeds from an analysis of strike legality and the consequences of non-compliance with a return to work order. The Court found the strike illegal on two grounds. First, the union failed to comply with the mandatory procedural requirements under Article 264 of the Labor Code, as no strike vote was obtained and reported to the Department of Labor before the strike was commenced. Second, the commission of illegal acts during the strike, such as violence and coercion, rendered it illegal. Consequently, union officers who knowingly participated in the illegal strike, and any worker guilty of illegal acts, are deemed to have lost their employment status.
Regarding compliance with the Return to Work Order, the Court held that while some requirements imposed by management (like medical exams) were reasonable prerogatives, others were unreasonable for employees not being newly hired. However, this imposition did not constitute a refusal to comply tantamount to an illegal lockout justifying backwages. Both parties were at fault or in pari delicto; the employees also refused to return under the imposed conditions. Since reinstatement was no longer feasible, the Court ordered the payment of separation pay, but only to the rank-and-file employees who did not participate in any illegal acts during the strike, computed only up to the date set for their return. The award of backwages was deleted for lack of basis, as the employer’s actions did not amount to a refusal to reinstate warranting such payment.