G.R. Nos. 98295-99. April 10, 1996.
International Container Terminal Services, Inc. (ICTSI), petitioner, vs. National Labor Relations Commission, et al., respondents.

FACTS

The Manila International Container Terminal (MICT) was awarded by the Philippine Ports Authority (PPA) to petitioner ICTSI for management and operation. As per their contract, ICTI was to screen and potentially rehire the existing PPA employees. Over 600 workers were not absorbed. ICTSI commenced CBA negotiations with the incumbent union, APCWU. However, respondent unions ADSULU and LISLU, whose members were not hired by ICTSI, filed a petition for certification election and later a Notice of Strike alleging unfair labor practices, including illegal dismissal. A conciliation agreement was signed but later repudiated by the unions, leading to a strike.
ICTSI filed a petition to certify the labor dispute for compulsory arbitration. The Secretary of Labor issued an assumption of jurisdiction order, directing all striking workers to return. Twenty-seven individual respondents, alleged to be strike leaders, refused to comply and were subsequently dismissed by ICTSI for instigating an illegal strike and defying the return-to-work order.

ISSUE

Whether the National Labor Relations Commission committed grave abuse of discretion in affirming the decision that the dismissal of the 27 employees was illegal.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition and affirmed the NLRC. The legal logic rests on the distinction between mere participation in a strike and leadership therein, and the requisite proof for dismissal. The Court upheld the NLRC’s finding that the strike was initially legal, as it was based on unresolved unfair labor practice charges. The return-to-work order rendered continued strike activity illegal, justifying disciplinary action. However, for dismissal to be valid, the employer must prove the employees committed illegal acts during the strike.
ICTSI failed to substantiate its claim that the 27 respondents were strike leaders who actively defied the return-to-work order. The evidence, primarily the testimony of one witness, merely established that respondents were present at the picket line. The Court ruled that presence and participation, without proof of agitation, cajoling, or leadership, constitute at most insubordination—a charge insufficient to warrant dismissal. The NLRC’s factual findings, supported by substantial evidence, are accorded finality. Thus, the dismissal was illegal for lack of just cause, and the NLRC committed no grave abuse of discretion in ordering reinstatement with backwages.