GR 120505; (March, 1999) (Digest)
G.R. No. 120505 March 25, 1999
ASSOCIATION OF INDEPENDENT UNIONS IN THE PHILIPPINES (AIUP), JOEL DENSING, HENEDINO MIRAFUENTES, CHRISTOPHER PATENTES, AND ANDRES TEJANA, petitioners, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (NLRC), CENAPRO CHEMICAL CORPORATION and/or GO SING CHAN, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioners were casual employees of CENAPRO Chemical Corporation. Their collective bargaining agreement excluded casuals from the incumbent union. After their demand for regularization was denied, they formed an organization and affiliated with AIUP, which filed a petition for certification election. Following opposition from the company and the incumbent union, AIUP filed a notice of strike citing unfair labor practices. A strike was staged on July 23, 1990, during which illegal acts occurred, including padlocking the company gate, blocking ingress/egress, and preventing non-striking employees from working. The company filed a complaint for illegal strike.
The Labor Arbiter declared the strike illegal. Consequently, five union officers were deemed to have lost their employment status. However, the Labor Arbiter ordered the reinstatement of six workers, including the four petitioners herein, as they were not officers and did not commit illegal acts. The NLRC initially affirmed this decision in toto. Upon the company’s motion for reconsideration, the NLRC modified its decision, deleting the award of backwages, ordering payment of separation pay in lieu of reinstatement, and declaring petitioner Joel Densing to have lost his employment status.
ISSUE
Whether the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in modifying its decision to deny reinstatement and backwages to the petitioners.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition, setting aside the NLRC Resolution. The legal logic is anchored on the distinction between union officers and mere members in an illegal strike. Under the law, union officers who participate in an illegal strike may be declared to have lost their employment status. Mere members, however, may not be terminated for mere participation unless they committed illegal acts during the strike. The Labor Arbiter’s factual findings, affirmed by the NLRC in its first decision, established that petitioners were not union officers and there was no substantial evidence proving they committed illegal acts during the strike. Therefore, they were entitled to reinstatement.
The NLRC’s subsequent finding that Joel Densing lost his employment status lacked factual basis, as it contradicted its own earlier affirmation of the Labor Arbiter’s findings. The Court also held that the company’s unmeritorious appeal unjustly delayed the execution of the reinstatement order. Consequently, petitioners are entitled to full backwages from the date the Labor Arbiter issued the first reinstatement order (October 15, 1993) until full payment. However, due to the passage of over eight years, reinstatement was no longer feasible. Thus, the Court ordered the payment of separation pay equivalent to one month’s pay for every year of service, in lieu of reinstatement, in addition to the full backwages without deduction.