G.R. No. 53824 June 29, 1989
GELMART INDUSTRIES PHILIPPINES, INC., petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and NATIONAL UNION OF GARMENTS, TEXTILES, CORDAGE AND ALLIED WORKERS OF THE PHILIPPINES (GATCORD), respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Gelmart’s workers, members of respondent union GATCORD, staged a walk-out on August 1, 1977, protesting the non-implementation of a CBA wage increase and an emergency allowance under P.D. No. 1123. The Undersecretary of Labor issued a return-to-work order. Most strikers complied, but 334 did not. Gelmart applied for clearance to terminate these 334 workers, placing them under preventive suspension. The Labor Arbiter later declared the strike illegal and authorized termination, but ordered the reinstatement without backwages of 63 workers found to have been absent for justifiable reasons (e.g., illness) and thus did not participate in the illegal strike.
Respondent union appealed to the NLRC, seeking backwages for the 63 workers. The NLRC modified the Labor Arbiter’s decision, awarding them full backwages from the time of their preventive suspension until actual reinstatement. Gelmart filed this certiorari petition, arguing the NLRC had no jurisdiction because the union’s appeal was filed four days late. The union and the Solicitor General contended Gelmart was estopped from raising this issue, as it received a copy of the appeal memorandum and failed to object for about a year and a half before the NLRC rendered its decision.

ISSUE

Whether the National Labor Relations Commission committed grave abuse of discretion in giving due course to the union’s appeal and in awarding backwages to the 63 employees.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, finding no grave abuse of discretion. On the procedural issue, the Court ruled petitioner Gelmart was estopped from challenging the NLRC’s jurisdiction. Gelmart had received a copy of the appeal memorandum in October 1978 but took no action to question its timeliness for approximately eighteen months until the NLRC decided in April 1980. This failure to seasonably object constituted acquiescence. The Court emphasized that technical rules of procedure are not strictly applied in labor proceedings to serve the ends of substantial justice.
On the merits, the Court upheld the NLRC’s award of backwages. Since the Labor Arbiter himself found the 63 workers did not join the illegal strike due to justified absences, their preventive suspension lacked lawful basis. By suspending them, Gelmart effectively prevented them from working, making them entitled to backwages for the period they were unlawfully kept from their jobs. However, the Court noted that from the 63, seventeen who ignored reinstatement notices had abandoned their employment and thus forfeited their claim. The remaining forty-six, who were reinstated, were properly awarded backwages. The NLRC’s decision was thus affirmed.