GR 122743; (December, 1997) (Digest)
G.R. No. 122743 & 127215 December 12, 1997
TELEFUNKEN SEMICONDUCTORS EMPLOYEES UNION — FFW, petitioner, vs. SECRETARY OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT AND TEMIC TELEFUNKEN MICRO-ELECTRONICS (PHILS.), INC., respondent. TEMIC TELEFUNKEN MICRO-ELECTRONICS (PHIL.), INC., petitioner, vs. HON. LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING in his capacity as Secretary of Labor & Employment, and TELEFUNKEN SEMICONDUCTORS EMPLOYEES UNION — FFW, respondents.
FACTS
A deadlock in collective bargaining negotiations led the Telefunken Semiconductors Employees Union-FFW (UNION) to file a Notice of Strike on August 28, 1995. On September 8, 1995, Acting Secretary of Labor Jose S. Brillantes assumed jurisdiction over the dispute due to its national interest. Despite this, the UNION struck on September 14, 1995. Acting Secretary Brillantes issued a return-to-work order on September 16, 1995, but the strikers defied it and continued picketing. Violence erupted on September 23, 1995, resulting in criminal complaints against strikers. The company sent show-cause memoranda and, after hearings, terminated striking workers who failed to return to work. On October 27, 1995, Acting Secretary Brillantes ordered the company to accept back all striking workers, except the union officers, shop stewards, and those with pending criminal charges, whose termination was to be among the issues heard by a designated hearing officer. Both parties filed motions for reconsideration. On November 24, 1995, the Acting Secretary modified his order but affirmed the exclusion. The UNION filed a petition for certiorari ( G.R. No. 122743 ) challenging this exclusion as tantamount to dismissal without due process. Meanwhile, on December 7, 1995, a clarificatory order stated that “those with pending criminal charges” covered only workers with charges pending at the time of the October 27, 1995 Order. Later, Secretary of Labor Leonardo A. Quisumbing issued a Writ of Execution to enforce the reinstatement order. The company filed a Motion to Quash, which was denied, and an alias writ was issued. The company then filed its own petition for certiorari (G.R. No. 127215) seeking to set aside the writ of execution.
ISSUE
1. Whether the Secretary of Labor and Employment gravely abused his discretion in excluding union officers, shop stewards, and those with pending criminal charges from the order to accept back all striking workers.
2. Whether the Secretary of Labor gravely abused his discretion in issuing a writ of execution pending resolution of a related petition for certiorari before the Supreme Court.
3. Whether the Secretary of Labor gravely abused his discretion in holding that complaints lodged with police authorities before October 27, 1995, but filed with the provincial prosecutor after that date, are not within the phrase “with pending criminal charges.”
RULING
1. Yes. The Supreme Court ruled that the Secretary of Labor gravely abused his discretion in excluding the union officers, shop stewards, and those with pending criminal charges. Citing Batangas Laguna Tayabas Bus Company v. NLRC, the Court held that the mere filing of charges does not justify dismissal; the charges must be proved at an investigation where the employee is given an opportunity to defend himself. The exclusion was effectively a termination without the required due process hearing. The Court ordered the company to accept back all striking workers without exception.
2. No. The Supreme Court found no grave abuse of discretion in issuing the writ of execution. The order to reinstate was immediately executory, and the pendency of a petition for certiorari did not automatically stay its execution.
3. The Supreme Court, in dismissing the company’s petition, implicitly upheld the Secretary’s clarification. The phrase “pending criminal charges” in the October 27, 1995 Order referred only to charges pending at the time of its issuance. Complaints filed with the prosecutor after that date were not covered.
The petition in G.R. No. 122743 was GRANTED, and the company was ordered to accept back all striking workers immediately without exception. The petition in G.R. No. 127215 was DISMISSED for lack of merit. The Secretary of Labor was directed to ensure enforcement of the writ and determine the legality of the strike and individual liabilities with dispatch. The union members were warned against repeating similar mass demonstrations.