G.R. No. L-53060. November 15, 1982.
ROSARIO T. MAMERTO, et al., petitioners, vs. HON. AMADO G. INCIONG, Deputy Minister, Ministry of Labor, HON. FRANCISCO L. ESTRELLA, Director, National Capital Region, Ministry of Labor and LUCKY GARMENTS MANUFACTURING COMPANY, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners, employees of Lucky Garments Manufacturing Company, filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, alleging termination due to union activities constituting unfair labor practice. The respondent company filed an application for clearance to terminate their services. Respondent Director Francisco L. Estrella dismissed the complaint and granted the clearance. He found that twelve regular employees engaged in a concerted absence from March 7 to 13, 1979, slowing production, which constituted an illegal sit-down strike. They refused to accept a memo asking for an explanation. One employee was dismissed for repeated violations of company rules. Three employees were on AWOL. Eight complainants were apprentices dismissed for failing to meet training standards, and four were domestic helpers of a company officer, not employees of the firm.
On appeal, Deputy Minister Amado G. Inciong affirmed the order. He found the dismissals were for legal cause, noting a paralyzation of production due to concerted worker activity amounting to an illegal strike under P.D. 823. He rejected the petitioners’ claim that their absence was due to fear from a prior incident involving a security guard, noting the presence of military peacekeepers. The petitioners then filed this certiorari petition, alleging grave abuse of discretion and denial of due process, arguing they were not required to submit a position paper.

ISSUE

Whether public respondents committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the complaint for illegal dismissal and granting the clearance to terminate.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, finding no grave abuse of discretion. On procedural due process, the Court held it was undeniable petitioners were given a chance to be heard through hearings where they were represented by counsel. Their failure to present evidence, opting instead to file a motion to certify the case for compulsory arbitration, did not constitute a denial of due process. The nature of the case, involving simple termination issues, did not require compulsory arbitration.
On the substantive merits, the question of whether dismissal was due to union activities is factual. The findings of public respondents, supported by substantial evidence, are conclusive. The record bolstered the finding of dismissal for cause, specifically the petitioners’ participation in an illegal work stoppage that sabotaged production. Petitioners failed to discharge their burden of proving the dismissal was wrongful. The classification of some petitioners as apprentices and domestic helpers was also a factual finding supported by documentary evidence, which the Court will not disturb. Thus, no grave abuse of discretion attended the issuance of the assailed orders.