Davao Free Workers Front v. Court of Industrial Relations
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute arose from an unfair labor practice complaint filed by the Davao Free Workers Front and its members against the 7-Up Bottling Company of the Philippines. The complaint alleged that the company engaged in union-busting activities, including refusing to bargain with the union, coercing members to join a company-sponsored union, unlawfully dismissing employees, and threatening a lockout. These actions culminated in a strike declared by the Davao Free Workers Front on August 6, 1957. 2. Procedural History: The unfair labor practice complaint was initially heard by the Court of Industrial Relations (CIR), which found the company guilty and ordered the reinstatement of nine unlawfully dismissed employees with full backwages and the return to work of striking members with strike-duration pay. The company appealed this decision to the CIR en banc, which, despite affirming the findings of unfair labor practices, modified the awards for backwages and strike-duration pay through separate opinions. The company then appealed to the Supreme Court (G.R. No. L-29331), which denied their petition for review for being factual and without merit. The present case, G.R. No. L-29356, arises from the union's petition to the Supreme Court seeking to reinstate the trial court's original decision regarding backwages and strike-duration pay. 3. The Petition: The petitioners, the Davao Free Workers Front and its members, petitioned the Supreme Court under Rule 45, seeking to reinstate the original decision of the Court of Industrial Relations. They argue that the en banc modification of the backwages and strike-duration pay awards was improper, given the company's egregious unfair labor practices. Specifically, they contend that the dismissed employees should receive full backwages from the date of dismissal until actual reinstatement without any deductions or exclusions for the period the case was pending, and that the striking members are entitled to strike-duration pay. The petition also addresses the company's belated claim of plant closure as a reason for non-reinstatement, arguing it was a bad-faith attempt to circumvent the court's orders.
Issue(s)
Whether the award of full backwages to the nine unlawfully dismissed employees should be from the date of dismissal until actual reinstatement without exclusion of any period. Whether the striking members of the petitioner union are entitled to strike-duration pay. Whether the unilateral closure of the Davao plant by the respondent company can be used to defeat the judgment for reinstatement and backwages.
Ruling
The petition is granted. The majority en banc resolution of the respondent court is set aside, and the trial court's decision is reinstated, subject to modifications. The case is remanded for further proceedings regarding the closure of the Davao plant. Backwages for dismissed employees are to be computed up to the finality of the judgment. Strike-duration pay for strikers is fixed at five years' net wages.
Ratio Decidendi
On the award of full backwages to the unlawfully dismissed employees: The Court reinstated the trial court's award of full backwages from the date of dismissal until actual reinstatement, without qualification or deduction. It emphasized that the employer's gross unfair labor practices and discriminatory acts fully justified the award. The Court noted that the employer's separate appeal regarding reinstatement and backwages had already been denied by the Supreme Court, settling the matter. The employer's belated claim of plant closure, raised for the first time after the en banc resolution and appeal denial, was deemed an attempt to circumvent the judgment. The Court held that such unilateral closure, if found to be in bad faith or without justifiable cause, could not defeat the final judgment for reinstatement and backwages. The backwages were ordered to be computed up to the date of finality of the present judgment. On the entitlement of striking members to strike-duration pay: The Court found that the strike was justified due to the company's unfair labor practices and discriminatory acts, leaving the union members no alternative but to strike. Therefore, the trial court's original decision ordering the return to work of striking members with strike-duration pay, less earnings elsewhere, was reinstated. The Court fixed this pay at the equivalent of five years' wages, net without deduction or qualification, as a reasonable amount considering the over nine-year period of the strike and the employer's conduct. The Court also addressed the procedural issue of whether strike-duration pay was pleaded, finding that the legality of the strike and the right to such pay were duly litigated by the parties. On the effect of the unilateral closure of the Davao plant: The Court ruled that the alleged unilateral closure of the Davao plant, claimed by the respondent company to have occurred on October 16, 1966, could not be used to defeat the final judgment for reinstatement and backwages if found to be in bad faith or to circumvent the court's order. The Court considered this closure as a new matter raised only after the denial of the motion for reconsideration and the Supreme Court's denial of the employer's appeal. Due to the conflicting claims of the parties regarding the justification for the closure, the case was remanded to determine if the closure was for a justifiable cause, whether reinstatement in other plants was feasible, and the consequences for backwages and strike-duration pay. However, the backwages for the dismissed employees were ordered to continue until the finality of the present judgment, regardless of the closure, unless the closure was found to be justified and other arrangements were made.
Main Doctrine
The employer's gross unfair labor practices and discriminatory acts aimed at eliminating a labor union fully justify a strike, and the union members are entitled to reinstatement with full backwages and strike-duration pay, less earnings elsewhere. The employer cannot use the unilateral closure of a plant as a defense to evade judgment if such closure is found to be in bad faith or to circumvent a reinstatement order.