G.R. No. L-46766-7 April 1, 1980
BALAUEZON EMPLOYEES & WORKERS TRANSPORTATION UNION, petitioner, vs. HON. PRESIDENTIAL ASSISTANT FOR LEGAL AFFAIRS RONALDO B. ZAMORA and BATANGAS LAGUNA TAYABAS BUS CO., formerly BATANGAS TRANSPORTATION COMPANY and LAGUNA TAYABAS BUS CO., respondents.

FACTS

This protracted litigation originated from a strike declared by the petitioner union against the respondent bus company in June 1957. The Court of Industrial Relations (CIR) subsequently declared the strike illegal in a 1959 decision, ordering the dismissal of union officers and the reinstatement without backwages of union members should vacancies arise. This Court denied the petition to review that decision. Over the following years, the union filed multiple petitions to enforce reinstatement. After the CIR’s abolition, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) implemented the 1959 decision. A Labor Arbiter in 1976 identified 150 employees eligible for reinstatement and awarded them backwages in lieu of reinstatement, with varying durations. The NLRC en banc modified this to a uniform six months’ backwages for all 150 employees.

ISSUE

The core issues are: (1) Whether the award of six months’ backwages in lieu of reinstatement to the 150 employees constituted a grave abuse of discretion; and (2) Whether the exclusion of 73 other employees from any monetary award was proper.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming the decision of the Presidential Assistant on Legal Affairs. On the first issue, the Court held that the award of six months’ backwages was a proper exercise of equitable discretion and did not constitute grave abuse. The Court emphasized that the backwages were being awarded not as a legal entitlement arising from an illegal dismissal, but on equitable considerations as a form of severance pay or an alternative to reinstatement, which was rendered impracticable by the long passage of time—the dispute being over twenty years old. The Labor Arbiter, NLRC, Secretary of Labor, and Presidential Legal Assistant had all exercised their judgment in fixing the award, with the final determination settling on six months. The Court found no compelling reason to disturb this factual finding and equitable determination by the administrative bodies.
Regarding the second issue, the Court sustained the exclusion of the 73 employees. The union failed to substantiate its claim for their inclusion. The record indicated that these employees were not included in the union’s original petition for reinstatement or in subsequent relevant pleadings. The Labor Arbiter had given the union an opportunity to present evidence supporting their entitlement, but the evidence was insufficient. The union, in its appeal, did not refute the specific findings for each excluded employee nor provide a separate list identifying them. The Court deemed it improper to remand the case for another hearing, as it would further prolong this already protracted litigation without a clear showing of injustice. Thus, the petition was dismissed.