GR 154591; (March, 2007) (Digest)
G.R. No. 154591 , March 5, 2007
Manila Hotel Employees Association (MHEA) and its members, Petitioners, vs. Manila Hotel Corporation, Respondent.
FACTS
The Manila Hotel Employees Association (MHEA) filed a Notice of Strike on grounds of unfair labor practice. The Secretary of Labor and Employment (SOLE) certified the dispute to the NLRC for compulsory arbitration on November 24, 1999, issuing an order that expressly enjoined any strike or lockout. Despite this order and subsequent reminders during NLRC conferences, MHEA conducted a strike on February 10, 2000. The NLRC then issued a return-to-work order on February 11, 2000. While the hotel complied, only six striking employees returned. MHEA contested the NLRC’s jurisdiction, arguing its pending motion for reconsideration of the SOLE’s certification order deprived the NLRC of authority.
ISSUE
The primary issue is whether the strike conducted by MHEA was illegal, and the consequential issue is the employment status of the striking officers and members following their defiance of a return-to-work order.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision declaring the strike illegal and ruling that both the incumbent officers and participating members of MHEA lost their employment status. The legal logic is twofold. First, the strike was illegal for being conducted in defiance of a valid assumption of jurisdiction order by the SOLE, which had the effect of prohibiting any strike. The pendency of a motion for reconsideration does not suspend the enforceability of such an order; it remains effective unless restrained by a higher authority. Second, the striking employees’ failure to comply with the NLRC’s subsequent return-to-work order justified the termination of their employment. The Court rejected the NLRC’s initial distinction between officers and members, finding that the return-to-work order was duly served at the picket lines and was a matter of public knowledge. The defiant refusal to return constituted a valid ground for dismissal, as it amounted to abandonment of work and a willful breach of the legal order meant to restore industrial peace. The award of separation pay in lieu of reinstatement was also deleted, as the employees were validly dismissed for cause.