G.R. Nos. 149158-59 & G.R. No. 156668; July 24, 2007
KIMBERLY INDEPENDENT LABOR UNION FOR SOLIDARITY, ACTIVISM AND NATIONALISM (KILUSAN) – ORGANIZED LABOR ASSOCIATIONS IN LINE INDUSTRIES AND AGRICULTURE (OLALIA), ET AL., Petitioners, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, HON. PEDRO C. RAMOS, KIMBERLY-CLARK (PHIL.), INC., ET AL., Respondents. / KIMBERLY-CLARK (PHILS.), INC., Petitioner, vs. SECRETARY OF LABOR, ET AL., AND KILUSAN-OLALIA, Respondents.

FACTS

The consolidated cases originated from a labor dispute at Kimberly-Clark (Phils.), Inc. Following the expiration of the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) in 1986, a certification election was held where the incumbent union, UKCEO-PTGWO, narrowly defeated KILUSAN-OLALIA. The results were contested due to 64 challenged ballots from casual workers whose regularization status was in question. The Supreme Court, in a 1990 decision (G.R. Nos. 77629 & 78791), ordered the counting of the 64 ballots and the regularization of the concerned casuals, with entitlement to backwages and benefits.
During the pendency of that earlier case, KILUSAN-OLALIA staged a strike on May 17, 1987. Kimberly-Clark filed a complaint to declare the strike illegal and subsequently dismissed numerous employees for alleged illegal strike participation. KILUSAN-OLALIA countered with charges of unfair labor practice. The Labor Arbiter initially ruled the strike illegal and upheld the dismissals. On appeal, the NLRC reversed, declaring the strike legal and ordering the reinstatement of the dismissed employees with full backwages. Kimberly-Clark’s subsequent petitions to the Court of Appeals were dismissed on procedural grounds.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed Kimberly-Clark’s petitions for certiorari, which assailed the NLRC’s reversal and its order for reinstatement with backwages.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ dismissal and reinstated the NLRC’s decision. The legal logic rests on the finality of the Supreme Court’s 1990 ruling in G.R. Nos. 77629 & 78791. In that decision, the Court made a definitive finding that the 64 casual employees were regular employees as of November 13, 1986. This finding constitutes the “law of the case” and is binding on all subsequent proceedings involving the same parties and issue. Consequently, these employees were legitimate union members entitled to participate in union activities, including the strike.
Since the employees were regulars and union members, their participation in the strike was protected activity. The NLRC correctly found that the strike was a valid response to Kimberly-Clark’s refusal to bargain and its dismissal of workers, which constituted unfair labor practice. Therefore, the strike was legal, and the dismissal of the employees for participating in it was unjustified. The NLRC’s order for reinstatement with full backwages was proper. The Court of Appeals did not err in dismissing Kimberly-Clark’s petitions, as they failed to demonstrate any grave abuse of discretion by the NLRC. The Supreme Court emphasized the principle of finality of judgments and the binding effect of the “law of the case” to prevent continued litigation of settled issues.