Arrastre Security Association v. Ople
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The Arrastre Security Association-TUPAS (ASA) represented security employees in the arrastre service at South Harbor, Port Area, Manila, employed by Delgado Brothers, Inc., then by Guacods Marine Terminal and E. Razon, Inc. after they won the bid in May 1966. ASA was certified as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent for these employees. In October 1972, pursuant to Proclamation No. 1081 and Letter Directive M-10 of the Philippine Constabulary, company guards were required to obtain a 'License to Exercise Profession.' ASA requested employment certifications from Guacods and E. Razon, which were initially refused, with the employers claiming the guards were employees of ASA, though they later acknowledged an employer-employee relationship. Acting Deputy Commissioner of Customs Pedro Mendoza issued a memorandum directing the Customs Metropolitan Police Service (CMPS) to take over the functions of ASA, citing Republic Act 5487 as amended by Presidential Decree No. 11. Procedural History: Petitioners filed a 'Request for Assistance In Dispute Settlement' alleging union busting and unfair labor practices. A conciliation conference led to the employers' willingness to issue certifications. However, the CMPS continued to perform the arrastre security functions, preventing the reinstatement of petitioners. ASA filed a complaint with the Ad Hoc National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) for unfair labor practices, seeking reinstatement with backwages and cessation of unfair labor practices. An arbitrator found the respondent corporations guilty and ordered reinstatement with full backwages. E. Razon, Inc. appealed to the Ad Hoc NLRC, which modified the arbitrator's decision, stating the respondents did not commit unfair labor practice as the lay-off was due to a valid state act under martial law. The NLRC considered the guards temporarily laid off without pay until reinstatement and denied backwages. The union appealed to the Secretary of Labor, limiting the appeal to the denial of backwages. The Secretary of Labor denied the appeal and motion for reconsideration but ordered financial assistance equivalent to one month's salary for each laid-off worker. The Petition: Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari seeking to set aside the order and resolution of the Minister of Labor and the decision of the Ad Hoc NLRC, praying for the reinstatement of the arbitrator's decision ordering reinstatement with full backwages.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court has jurisdiction over the case. Whether the appeal of E. Razon, Inc. to the National Labor Relations Commission was timely filed. Whether the Deputy Commissioner of Customs was a proper party to the initial complaint and whether the arbitrator's decision was final and executory against him. Whether the National Labor Relations Commission erred in reviewing the entire case despite Guacods Marine Terminal not appealing. Whether the security guards were barred from working due to a valid martial law measure, thus absolving the respondents of unfair labor practice charges. Whether the security guards are entitled to reinstatement with full backwages. Whether the security guards are entitled to separation pay. Whether the denial of backwages and reinstatement by the NLRC and Secretary of Labor constituted grave abuse of discretion. Whether the financial assistance ordered by the Secretary of Labor was sufficient. Whether Article 244 of the Labor Code and Section 11, Rule II, Book V of the Implementing Rules are unconstitutional, and whether the individual petitioners were deprived of their property rights to employment without due process of law.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed for lack of merit. The resolution of the respondent Secretary of Labor is modified to entitle the three hundred fifty (350) security guards-petitioners to separation pay according to the terms of their collective bargaining agreement or the pertinent provisions of the Labor Code and implementing rules and regulations, but in no event to be less than the one month salary ordered by the respondent Secretary.
Ratio Decidendi
On Jurisdiction: The Court asserted its jurisdiction to review decisions of administrative agencies on questions of law and jurisdiction, even if no right of review is given by statute, citing Kapisanan Ng Mga Manggagawa Sa La Suerte Foitaf v. Noriel and San Miguel Corporation v. Secretary of Labor. This is to keep agencies within their jurisdiction and protect substantial rights. On Timeliness of Appeal: The Court found E. Razon, Inc.'s appeal to the NLRC to be timely filed, noting that the petitioners did not raise the issue of timeliness in their appeal to the Secretary of Labor. The issue was deemed new and unpleaded before the Court, thus not proper for consideration. Furthermore, the appeal was filed within the reglementary period provided by the NLRC Rules and Regulations. On Deputy Commissioner of Customs as Party: The Court ruled that the Deputy Commissioner of Customs was not a proper party to the initial complaint as he was not impleaded, and his memorandum was not an issue in the original complaint. Therefore, the arbitrator's decision could not be considered final and executory against him. On NLRC Review: The NLRC correctly reviewed the entire case in the interest of justice, even though Guacods Marine Terminal did not appeal, because the respondents were uniformly situated and a contrary holding would lead to an untenable situation. The decision ordering reinstatement was rendered moot by supervening events. On Martial Law Measure and Unfair Labor Practice: The Court held that the security guards were barred from the customs area due to a martial law measure implemented by the Bureau of Customs, pursuant to directives from the Department of National Defense. This action was considered a valid act of state, taken to address anomalies like pilferage and corruption. Consequently, the respondents did not commit unfair labor practice by terminating the employment of the security guards, as the dismissal was not in derogation of their right to self-organization or union activities but was necessitated by a government measure for national interest and public service. On Reinstatement and Backwages: The Court affirmed the NLRC's decision that the security guards were temporarily laid off without pay. Reinstatement was impossible because their functions were taken over by the Customs Metropolitan Police Service, and they were barred from the customs zone. Awarding backwages would be penalizing the respondents for a turn of events over which they had no control, making it unfair and unjust. The Court noted that the respondents were virtually deprived of control over their area of operation due to the government's actions under martial law. On Separation Pay: The Court modified the Secretary of Labor's resolution to entitle the petitioners to separation pay according to their collective bargaining agreement or the Labor Code, not less than one month's salary. This was deemed more appropriate than backwages, considering the termination of employment as part of a reduction in force occasioned by the cessation of operations in the customs premises. On Denial of Backwages and Reinstatement: Awarding backwages would be penalizing the respondents for a turn of events over which they had no control, making it unfair and unjust. The Court noted that the respondents were virtually deprived of control over their area of operation due to the government's actions under martial law. On Financial Assistance: The Court modified the Secretary of Labor's resolution to entitle the petitioners to separation pay according to their collective bargaining agreement or the Labor Code, not less than one month's salary. On Constitutionality and Due Process: The Court found no need to pass upon the alleged unconstitutionality of Article 244 of PD 442 and Section 11, Rule II, Book V of the Implementing Rules, as the petition could be resolved without touching upon the constitutional issue. The Court also implicitly found no deprivation of property rights without due process, as the actions taken were justified by a valid state measure.
Main Doctrine
The Court affirmed the decision of the Secretary of Labor, holding that the security guards were temporarily laid off without compensation due to a martial law measure and were entitled to separation pay, not backwages, as the respondents did not commit unfair labor practice.