G.R. No. L-25420 March 13, 1968
PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE COMPANY, petitioner, vs. FREE TELEPHONE WORKERS UNION and THE COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, respondents.

FACTS

On November 1, 1964, Free Telephone Workers Union (FTWU) declared a strike against Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company (PLDT) over a 20-point demand. On November 3, 1964, the President certified the strike to the Court of Industrial Relations (CIR) under Section 10 of Republic Act 875 as affecting an industry indispensable to the national interest. On November 9, 1964, the CIR issued a partial decision ordering, among other things, a wage increase for one year, directing union members to return to work immediately and the company to accept them under the same terms, and prohibiting any strike or lockout during the pendency of the case. After Republic Act 4180 (increasing the minimum wage) took effect on April 21, 1965, FTWU demanded a corresponding wage adjustment. PLDT stated the issue should be determined by the CIR. FTWU filed a notice of strike, and PLDT petitioned the CIR for a preliminary injunction. On July 6, 1965, the CIR issued a temporary restraining order against the strike. On July 7, 1965, FTWU declared a strike. On July 16, 1965, the CIR ordered FTWU to call off the strike and striking employees to return to work within three days, authorizing PLDT to replace those who failed to return, subject to possible reinstatement by the court. FTWU officials, including Manuel P. Sanchez, Ildefonso L. Abasolo, Jr., and Constantino V. Pastrana, issued directives to maintain picket lines and dissuade return to work. PLDT dismissed 26 officers and members. On November 4, 1965, the CIR ordered the suspension of Sanchez, Abasolo, Jr., and Pastrana for three months, sternly warned the other 23 members, and directed PLDT to reinstate all of them (the three after suspension) without back wages, expressly deferring resolution on the strike’s legality. Both parties moved for reconsideration; the CIR en banc denied them on November 29, 1965. PLDT appealed.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Industrial Relations erred in ordering the reinstatement of the 26 employees who defied its no-strike and return-to-work orders, considering the CIR had authorized their replacement and the issue of the strike’s legality was still unresolved.

RULING

No, the CIR did not err. The Supreme Court affirmed the appealed order and resolution. The case involves a labor dispute certified by the President as affecting an industry indispensable to the national interest. In such certified cases, the CIR acts under broad powers of compulsory arbitration and is granted great discretion to ensure continuity of essential services. The rule against ordering reinstatement pending determination of a strike’s legality (from Philippine Can Company and Latex Products cases) does not apply here, as in certified cases, strikers can be ordered back to work pending resolution, especially when public interest requires. The CIR’s authorization to hire replacements on July 16, 1965, expressly provided that replacements were temporary and subject to the court’s power to order reinstatement later. The suspension and reinstatement without back wages constituted a reasonable interim sanction for defiance, without prejudice to possible dismissal if the strike is later declared illegal. The CIR acted within its discretion to order reinstatement to prevent interruption of the industry’s services in the national interest.