G.R. No. L-67158, 67159, 67160, 67161, & 67162 May 30, 1988
CLLC E.G. GOCHANGCO WORKERS UNION, ET AL., petitioners, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (NLRC), AND E.G. GOCHANGCO, INC., respondents.

FACTS

The petitioners, comprising the CLLC E.G. Gochangco Workers Union and its individual officer-members, were employees of respondent E.G. Gochangco, Inc., a company with contracts at Clark Air Base. In early 1980, the union was organized and filed a petition for certification election. On February 27, 1980, several union officers and members attended the scheduled hearing for this petition. The following day, the respondent company preventively suspended these employees for alleged abandonment of work. Subsequently, the company filed applications for clearance to terminate them and later dismissed numerous other union members, citing the expiration of its contract with the U.S. Air Force.
The union filed consolidated complaints for unfair labor practice, constructive lockout, and illegal dismissal. The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of the petitioners, finding the dismissals illegal and ordering reinstatement with full backwages. However, the NLRC reversed this decision on appeal, dismissing the complaints for lack of merit. The NLRC found that the dismissals were due to a bona fide termination of the company’s contract and that the employees’ absences to attend the certification election hearing constituted abandonment. The petitioners elevated the case to the Supreme Court via certiorari.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in reversing the Labor Arbiter’s finding that the dismissals of the union members constituted unfair labor practice and were illegal.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversed the NLRC decision, and reinstated the Labor Arbiter’s ruling. The Court held that the NLRC’s findings were not supported by substantial evidence and constituted grave abuse of discretion. On the claim of abandonment, the Court ruled that the employees’ attendance at a certification election hearing, a protected concerted activity, cannot be construed as abandonment, which requires a clear, deliberate, and unjustified intent to sever the employment relationship. Their absence was for a legitimate purpose with prior notice to management.
Regarding the mass termination due to the alleged expiration of the contract, the Court found it to be a pretext for union busting. The timing was highly suspect, following closely the union’s organizational activities. The company failed to substantiate its claim of a bona fide cessation of operations or to comply with the mandatory requirements for termination due to authorized causes, such as serving a written notice to the employees and the Department of Labor. The totality of the company’s actions—preventive suspension, confiscation of gate passes, and sequential dismissals—established a pattern of conduct designed to discourage union membership, constituting unfair labor practice under the Labor Code. Consequently, the dismissals were declared illegal, and the order for reinstatement with full backwages was reinstated.