G.R. No. L-45402. April 30, 1987.
ROMEO DABUET, GAMIK BARTOLOME, SALVADOR ABESAMIS, MARIANO MALONZO, and ROCHE PRODUCTS LABOR UNION, petitioners, vs. ROCHE PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., ERIC MENTHA, REYNALDO FORMELOZA, and the OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, respondents.

FACTS

The individual petitioners, all officers of the Roche Products Labor Union, wrote a letter to respondent company management on March 1, 1973, expressing union grievances and requesting a conference concerning the prior dismissal of union leaders. During the arranged meeting on March 12, company General Manager Eric Mentha allegedly berated the petitioners, calling the letter and its preparer “stupid.” Feeling alluded to, the union’s counsel filed a grave slander charge against Mentha based on the petitioners’ joint affidavit. In retaliation, the company filed a perjury complaint against the petitioners, alleging false statements in their affidavit. The company then suspended and later sought clearance from the NLRC to terminate the petitioners’ employment, citing breach of trust and confidence. Petitioners opposed this and filed unfair labor practice charges.
The compulsory arbitrator found the dismissal without just cause but found no unfair labor practice, awarding only separation pay. The NLRC, on appeal, ordered reinstatement with two months’ back wages. The Secretary of Labor reversed the NLRC, awarding only severance pay. The Office of the President initially found unfair labor practice and ordered reinstatement with full back wages but, upon reconsideration, reversed itself, ruling no unfair labor practice was committed and awarding only double separation pay.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent company committed unfair labor practice in terminating the employment of the petitioners without just cause.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court ruled that the company committed unfair labor practice. The legal logic centers on the protection of concerted activities for mutual aid under labor law. The petitioners’ initial letter to management, written by union officers concerning labor grievances during a CBA renegotiation period, constituted a protected concerted activity. The subsequent execution of a joint affidavit to support a slander charge against the general manager, which arose directly from his reaction to that protected activity, was an extension of that same concerted action for mutual protection.
The Court, citing Republic Savings Bank vs. CIR, held that interference with such concerted activities, even if not directly part of collective bargaining, constitutes unfair labor practice. The company’s claim of loss of trust and confidence due to the affidavit was deemed a pretext, as there was no showing the perjury charge had prospered. The dismissal effectively decimated the union’s entire remaining leadership, which strongly indicated an anti-union motive. The Court also addressed its power of judicial review over the Office of the President’s decision, finding it proper due to a question of law and the checkered procedural history of the case.
Consequently, the Supreme Court reversed the Office of the President’s decision. It ordered the reinstatement of petitioners with three years’ back wages, without loss of seniority rights and fringe benefits. Should reinstatement be infeasible, the company must pay separation pay of one month for every year of service in addition to the back wages.