G.R. No. 160303; September 13, 2007
G & S TRANSPORT CORPORATION, Petitioner, vs. TITO S. INFANTE, MELOR VELASCO, JR., JJ. BORBO, and DANILO CASTAÑEDA, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner G & S Transport Corporation, a coupon taxi concessionaire at NAIA, dismissed two drivers on 9 May 1990 upon a union demand. On 16 May 1990, a work stoppage occurred as several drivers protested the dismissals. Petitioner alleged this was an illegal strike, involving barring entry and paralyzing operations. Respondents Infante, Borbo, and Castañeda were among 37 drivers charged. They denied participation, claiming they reported for work but were either unable to find their assigned taxis or were later refused entry by security. Petitioner filed a case for illegal strike; the drivers countered with illegal dismissal.
The Labor Arbiter ruled the concerted action was an illegal strike due to the absence of a notice of strike and a violation of the CBA’s no-strike clause. However, the Arbiter did not dismiss the participating respondents (including Infante, Borbo, and Castañeda) but only ordered petitioner to pay them separation pay without backwages, citing petitioner’s eventual cessation of operations. The NLRC affirmed this decision. The Court of Appeals reversed, declaring the respondents illegally dismissed and ordering reinstatement with full backwages, finding no substantial evidence of their actual participation in the strike.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the NLRC and finding that respondents were illegally dismissed instead of having participated in an illegal strike.

RULING

Yes, the Court of Appeals erred. The Supreme Court reinstated the NLRC decision. The legal logic centers on the distinction between the existence of an illegal strike and the individual liability of participants. The Labor Arbiter and NLRC correctly found an illegal strike occurred based on the concerted work stoppage without the required notice and in breach of the CBA. The findings of these quasi-judicial agencies, when supported by substantial evidence, are accorded respect and finality.
Regarding individual liability, the NLRC’s finding that respondents participated in the illegal strike is a factual determination supported by evidence, including petitioner’s consistent allegations and the circumstances of the work stoppage. The Court emphasized that in certiorari proceedings, the appellate court does not re-evaluate the evidence but only checks for grave abuse of discretion. No such abuse was found in the NLRC’s ruling. Consequently, while participation in an illegal strike is a valid ground for dismissal, the penalty imposed by the Labor Arbiter—separation pay without backwages due to the company’s cessation—was within the realm of reasonable discretion and was thus reinstated.