G.R. No. 178409 & G.R. No. 178434, June 8, 2011
YOLITO FADRIQUELAN, ET AL., Petitioners, vs. MONTEREY FOODS CORPORATION, Respondent.

MONTEREY FOODS CORPORATION, Petitioner, vs. BUKLURAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA MONTEREY-ILAW AT BUKLOD NG MANGGAGAWA, ET AL., Respondents.

FACTS

The collective bargaining agreement (CBA) between Bukluran ng Manggagawa sa Monterey-Ilaw at Buklod ng Manggagawa (the union) and Monterey Foods Corporation (the company) expired on April 30, 2002. After negotiations reached a deadlock, the union filed a notice of strike on March 28, 2003. On April 30, 2003, the company filed a petition for the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) Secretary to assume jurisdiction over the dispute. The DOLE Secretary issued an Order dated May 12, 2003, assuming jurisdiction and enjoining any strike. Despite this order, a work slowdown occurred at the company’s Batangas and Cavite farms on May 26, 2003. The company subsequently terminated 17 union officers for defying the assumption order. The DOLE upheld the dismissals. On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) upheld the termination of 10 officers but declared the dismissal of the other 7 illegal. Both parties filed petitions before the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

1. Whether the CA erred in holding that slowdowns actually transpired at the company’s farms.
2. Whether the CA erred in holding that union officers committed illegal acts that warranted their dismissal from work.

RULING

1. On the occurrence of the slowdown: The Supreme Court affirmed the CA’s finding that a slowdown strike occurred on May 26, 2003, despite the DOLE Secretary’s assumption of jurisdiction on May 12, 2003. The evidence showed union officers and members simultaneously stopped work at the company’s farms at 7:00 a.m. The Court rejected the union’s claim that the gatherings were merely informational meetings, noting the coordinated timing and the fact they were held during work hours without company prohibition against after-work meetings.
2. On the liability of the union officers: The Court distinguished between ordinary workers and union officers. A union officer can be terminated upon mere proof of knowing participation in an illegal strike, but the participating officers must be properly identified. The Court modified the CA decision as follows:
* Illegally Dismissed (Reinstatement not ordered; awarded separation pay): The company failed to present substantial evidence connecting Alberto Castillo, Nemesio Agtay, Carlito Abacan, and Yolito Fadriquelan to the slowdown. For Fadriquelan (the union president), the evidence against him actually referred to another employee, and sworn statements showed he advised members not to aggravate the situation.
* Validly Dismissed: The identity and participation in the slowdown of the following officers were properly established: Arturo Eguna, Armando Malaluan, Danilo Alonso, Romulo Dimaano, Roel Mayuga, Wilfredo Rizaldo, Romeo Suico, Domingo Escamillas, and Domingo Bautro.
* Regarding other officers named by the CA as illegally dismissed (Ruben Alvarez, John Asotigue, Danilo Rolle, and Juanito Tenorio), the Supreme Court found their excuses for absence during the slowdown not credible, implying their termination was valid, though this group is not explicitly listed in the final dispositive portion modifying the CA ruling.
The Court held that the burden of proving just cause for dismissal rests on the employer. Where reinstatement is no longer practical, separation pay is an appropriate relief. The Court ordered the company to pay separation pay equivalent to one month’s salary per year of service to the four illegally dismissed officers (Castillo, Agtay, Abacan, and Fadriquelan), plus 10% attorney’s fees and legal interest.