GR 118223; (June, 1998) (Digest)
G.R. No. 118223 June 26, 1998
PNOC DOCKYARD AND ENGINEERING CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, BATAAN REFINERS UNION OF THE PHILIPPINES (BRUP), PNOC-COAL CORPORATION EMPLOYEES’ ASSOCIATION (PCC-ELU), KAPISANAN NG MALAYANG MANGGAGAWA-PNOC DOCKYARD AND ENGINEERING CORPORATION (KMM-PDEC), PNOC SHIPPING AND TRANSPORT CORPORATION EMPLOYEES’ ASSOCIATION (PSTCEA), ERNESTO M. ESTRELLA, FELIMON PAGLINAWAN, RUFINO ANDAYA, GENEROSO MERCADO, JOHNNY CLARIANES and LEO ORRICA, respondents.
FACTS
On November 22, 1991, several unions, including respondent KMM-PDEC, filed a notice of strike against PNOC and its president on grounds of unfair labor practice, specifically discrimination. The dispute arose because a P2,500 monthly salary increase was granted only to Managerial, Professional, and Technical (MPT) employees and not to Non-Managerial, Professional, and Technical (NMPT) employees. Acting Labor Secretary Nieves Confesor certified the dispute to the NLRC for compulsory arbitration on December 13, 1991. The union claimed this order was not properly served, as it was merely left with a guard. On December 18, 1991, the union members decided to report for work, but petitioner, through its Operations Manager, padlocked the gate and refused them entry. Some who entered were escorted out. On December 19, 1991, a return-to-work order was issued. The union filed a complaint for illegal lockout on December 20, 1991. All union members were accepted back to work on December 23, 1991. Subsequently, petitioner filed a petition to declare the strike illegal. On March 3, 1992, after due notice and investigation, union officers Felimon Paglinawan, Leo O. Orrica, Johnny Clariones, and Generoso Mercado, Jr. were dismissed for participation in the work stoppage. They filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. The NLRC, in its Decision dated August 12, 1993, declared the petitioner guilty of illegal dismissal, violation of a Memorandum of Agreement, and unfair labor practice, ordering reinstatement with full backwages or separation pay if reinstatement was unfeasible due to sale of assets. Upon motions for reconsideration, the NLRC modified its decision on December 9, 1994, ordering petitioner to pay separated employees separation benefits equivalent to two months for every year of service, based on company policy and practice. Petitioner seeks to set aside these NLRC decisions.
ISSUE
1. Whether the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in not holding that KMM-PDEC and its officers were guilty of an illegal strike.
2. Whether the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in not finding the termination of the union officers legal and for just cause.
3. Whether the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in not finding that petitioner is entitled to an award of damages.
RULING
The Supreme Court found no grave abuse of discretion committed by the NLRC.
On the first issue, the Court upheld the NLRC’s finding that the strike was legal. The NLRC noted that the notice of strike was filed after the union lost hope for redress of their grievance; the union honestly believed they were discriminated against, as past company practice was to grant increases to all employees; the discriminatory grant appeared to be an unfair labor practice intended to discourage union membership, since MPTs were non-union members; and the unions complied with legal requirements before striking, such as the strike vote, submission of results, filing of notice, and observing the cooling-off period. The Court emphasized that under Rule 65, its review is confined to issues of jurisdiction and grave abuse of discretion, and the NLRC’s factual findings, supported by substantial evidence, are generally conclusive.
On the second issue, the Court affirmed that the dismissal of the union officers was illegal. The NLRC found that the union members reported for work on December 18, 1991, but were prevented from entering by petitioner’s padlocking of the gate, constituting a lockout. The subsequent dismissal of the officers for participation in the work stoppage was therefore unjust. The Court also noted that the grant of salary increases only to non-union members constituted discrimination and an unfair labor practice under Article 248(a) of the Labor Code.
On the third issue, the Court found no basis to award damages to petitioner.
The NLRC’s modification of the separation pay to two months for every year of service, based on established company policy and practice, was also upheld. The petition was dismissed.