GR 116128; (July, 1996) (Digest)
G.R. No. 116128 & G.R. No. 116461 July 12, 1996
Allied Banking Corporation, petitioner, vs. National Labor Relations Commission, Hon. Jose G. De Vera, Allied Banking Employees Union NUBE, et al., respondents.
FACTS
Allied Banking Corporation and the Allied Banking Employees Union were parties to a collective bargaining agreement. When negotiations for a new CBA stalled, the Union declared a bargaining deadlock and filed a Notice of Strike. The Secretary of Labor assumed jurisdiction over the dispute and issued a Return-to-Work Order. The Union members defied this order and continued their strike. Subsequently, the Secretary issued a second Return-to-Work Order, which was again ignored by the striking employees. The bank then sent individual notices to the strikers, directing them to return to work and warning of disciplinary action for non-compliance. Despite these notices, the employees persisted in the strike, leading the bank to terminate their employment for willful disobedience and participation in an illegal strike.
ISSUE
Whether the dismissal of the employees for defying the Return-to-Work Orders issued by the Secretary of Labor was valid.
RULING
Yes, the dismissal was valid. The Supreme Court affirmed the NLRC’s finding that the employees were validly dismissed. The legal logic rests on the principle that a Return-to-Work Order issued by the Secretary of Labor under his assumption of jurisdiction powers is immediately executory and must be obeyed. Disobedience constitutes a valid ground for dismissal due to willful insubordination and participation in an illegal strike. The Court emphasized that while social justice leans towards protecting labor, this must be balanced with fairness and justice to the employer. The employees’ defiance was not a mere passive refusal but a deliberate and continued act of disobedience to lawful orders, which disrupted bank operations. The bank acted within its rights to protect its interests after the employees, who were well-informed of the consequences, chose to disregard the orders. The Court cited precedent, noting that willful disobedience to a return-to-work order justifies termination. Consequently, the NLRC’s decision on valid dismissal was upheld, but the order to remand the case for reinstatement and backwages was annulled as inconsistent with the finding of a valid dismissal.