G.R. No. 113466 December 15, 1997
NATIONAL FEDERATION OF LABOR (NFL), AMADO MAGBANUA AND 141 OTHERS, petitioners,

vs.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION FIFTH DIVISION (NLRC), PERMEX PRODUCER AND EXPORTER CORPORATION, TAN TAY CUAN, JENNIFER PUNZALAN, EDGAR LIM, DOMINIC TAN and GEORGE SYCHUAN, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner National Federation of Labor (NFL) and its 141 members, who were dismissed employees of respondent PERMEX Producer and Exporter Corporation, staged strikes on January 25-26, 1993 and from February 11 to March 29, 1993. The initial strike was triggered when ten union officials were allegedly barred from entering company premises on January 23, 1993, after attending a certification election conference. PERMEX contended this was a disciplinary action for breach of company policy, as the workers did not report for work in the morning before the afternoon conference. On January 25, over 200 workers staged a picket, barricaded the gates, blocked company vehicles, trapped 50 workers inside, and paralyzed operations. A memorandum of agreement was forged on January 27. PERMEX required the workers to explain their participation; most refused and were preventively suspended. Only about 40 who gave satisfactory explanations were allowed back. NFL filed a Notice of Strike alleging unfair labor practices. PERMEX filed a case to declare the January strike illegal. A second strike began on February 11, where workers barricaded gates with ropes and chains, preventing ingress and egress. Acts of coercion, intimidation, and harassment against non-striking workers and officials occurred. The Secretary of Labor assumed jurisdiction and issued a Return-to-Work Order on March 11, but the strikers ignored it until March 29. Labor Arbiters declared the strikes illegal, dismissed the unfair labor practice complaint against PERMEX, held the strikers liable for damages, and upheld the validity of their dismissals. The NLRC affirmed but reduced the damages awarded. Petitioners contend the NLRC disregarded their evidence, failed to conduct hearings, upheld dismissals based on a City Fiscal’s prima facie finding, and relied on unverified company reports for damages.

ISSUE

Whether the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in: (1) affirming the factual findings and decision of the Labor Arbiter without conducting a full-blown trial; (2) upholding the dismissal of the 141 employees; and (3) awarding damages based on insufficient evidence.

RULING

The Supreme Court DISMISSED the petition for lack of merit, finding no grave abuse of discretion by the NLRC.
1. On the factual findings and lack of trial: The Court held that a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 does not allow re-examination of conflicting evidence or re-evaluation of witness credibility. The findings of the Labor Arbiter and NLRC, supported by evidence on record, are accorded finality. Due process does not always require a formal trial-type hearing; it is satisfied when parties have a fair opportunity to explain their side. The records showed petitioners were given ample opportunity to present their position through pleadings and evidence.
2. On the legality of the strikes and the dismissals: The Court ruled the strikes were illegal. The initial work stoppage on January 25-26 was a strike, not a lockout, and was staged without the 30-day cooling-off period and without a strike vote, violating Articles 263 and 264 of the Labor Code. The subsequent strike from February 11 onwards was also illegal as it defied the assumption of jurisdiction and Return-to-Work Order by the Secretary of Labor. The strikers committed illegal acts during the pickets, including barricading gates, obstructing free ingress/egress, and intimidation, which constitute grounds for dismissal under Article 264(a) of the Labor Code. The dismissals were based on these violations, not solely on the City Fiscal’s finding.
3. On the award of damages: The Court found the NLRC did not base the P300,000.00 compensatory damages award on the unverified “company internal reports” of spoiled products. The award was properly characterized as nominal damages, adjudicated to vindicate a violated right when actual damages exist but are not proven with certainty. Given the strike paralyzed operations for nearly 50 days, some injury was certain, making the award just and reasonable.