G.R. Nos. L-75271-73 and L-77567, June 27, 1988
CATALINO N. SARMIENTO, ET AL. vs. HON. JUDGE ORLANDO R. TUICO, ET AL. and ASIAN TRANSMISSION CORPORATION vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

FACTS

The consolidated cases arose from a labor dispute at Asian Transmission Corporation (ATC). Following the termination of union vice-president Catalino Sarmiento on May 7, 1986, the Bisig ng Asian Transmission Labor Union (BATU) filed a notice of strike. The Ministry of Labor and Employment (MOLE), deeming the dispute to affect national interest, certified it to the NLRC for compulsory arbitration on June 9, 1986, enjoining any strike or lockout. Despite this, workers staged a strike and picketed the premises. Due to a lack of quorum at the NLRC, the MOLE directly assumed jurisdiction on September 9, 1986, ordering ATC to accept returning workers. This order was later set aside, and the case was returned to the NLRC on November 24, 1986, with a directive for the strikers to return to work immediately.
Consequently, the NLRC issued resolutions on January 13 and February 12, 1987, ordering ATC to reinstate 44 workers on payroll, which ATC challenged in G.R. No. 77567. Separately, criminal complaints for illegal strike and coercion were filed against the striking workers in the Municipal Trial Court of Calamba, Laguna. Warrants of arrest were issued, leading to the detention of several workers. The workers petitioned in G.R. Nos. 75271-73 to restrain the criminal proceedings, arguing they fell under the primary jurisdiction of the NLRC.

ISSUE

The issues are: (1) Whether the NLRC validly issued a return-to-work order pending determination of the strike’s legality; and (2) Whether criminal prosecutions against persons involved in the strike may be validly restrained pending such determination.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled affirmatively on both issues. On the first issue, the Court upheld the NLRC’s authority to issue the return-to-work order. This power is anchored on Article 264(g) of the Labor Code, as amended, which allows the Minister of Labor to assume jurisdiction or certify a dispute to the NLRC when it adversely affects national interest. The provision explicitly states that such certification to the NLRC shall have the effect of automatically enjoining the intended or impending strike or lockout. The Court clarified that the return-to-work order is a statutory mandate that takes effect immediately upon the assumption of jurisdiction or certification order, and it is not a prejudgment of the strike’s legality. Its purpose is to restore the status quo and preserve the rights of the parties during the arbitration, ensuring industrial peace. The order for reinstatement on payroll was a proper interim measure to enforce this statutory return-to-work directive.
On the second issue, the Court sustained the restraint of the criminal prosecutions. It cited Ministry of Justice Circulars Nos. 15 and 9, which require government prosecutors to secure clearance from the MOLE or the Office of the President before initiating criminal complaints arising from or related to a labor dispute. This policy aims to prevent the use of criminal prosecution to harass workers and to allow labor tribunals to first resolve the underlying dispute, thereby fostering industrial peace. The record showed no such clearance was obtained before filing the complaints for illegal strike and coercion. Therefore, the criminal proceedings were prematurely initiated and should be restrained until the completion of the compulsory arbitration proceedings before the NLRC. The Court emphasized that these rulings were without prejudice to the eventual resolution of the labor dispute and criminal charges on their merits.