Victoria v. Inciong
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Saturnino Victoria, an employee of Far East Broadcasting Company, Inc. (FEBC), co-founded the FEBC Employees Association. FEBC, a non-profit, non-stock, and religious corporation, refused to recognize the association, asserting it was not covered by Republic Act 875. Despite advice from the Department of Labor, Victoria and other union members declared a strike on September 6, 1972, seeking recognition. FEBC filed a case for damages and injunction, later amended to seek a declaration of the strike's illegality. The strike was eventually declared illegal by the Court of First Instance of Bulacan. 2. Procedural History: Following the strike, the ad hoc National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) took cognizance of related cases. Arbitrator Flavio Aguas ordered the reinstatement of striking members, subject to the outcome of the Court of First Instance case. This decision was affirmed by the NLRC, the Secretary of Labor, and the Office of the President. Subsequently, the Court of First Instance of Bulacan declared the strike illegal on April 23, 1975. Based on this ruling, FEBC dismissed Saturnino Victoria on April 24, 1975. Victoria filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with the NLRC, alleging a violation of Article 267 of the Labor Code, which requires clearance for termination. Labor Arbiter Manuel B. Lorenzo ruled in Victoria's favor, ordering reinstatement with backwages. The NLRC affirmed this decision. However, upon appeal to the Secretary of Labor, the NLRC's decision was set aside, and an order was issued on June 6, 1978, holding that a mere report of termination was sufficient, not a clearance. 3. The Petition: Saturnino Victoria filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court, challenging the Acting Secretary of Labor's order. The petition argued that a clearance from the Secretary of Labor was still necessary before his dismissal, notwithstanding the restrictive condition in the arbitrator's decision and the Court of First Instance's ruling declaring the strike illegal. Victoria contended that Article 267(b) of the Labor Code mandates prior written clearance for any dismissal, regardless of the grounds. The Supreme Court considered whether the Secretary of Labor's prior affirmations of the arbitrator's decision and his subsequent order constituted substantial compliance with the clearance requirement, ultimately affirming the Acting Secretary of Labor's decision that a report was sufficient and that FEBC acted in good faith.
Issue(s)
Whether a clearance from the Secretary of Labor is necessary before the dismissal of petitioner, considering the restrictive condition in the decision of the compulsory arbitrator. Whether the decision of the Court of First Instance of Bulacan in Civil Case No. 750-V ipso facto gave the respondent company authority to dismiss petitioner without clearance from the Secretary of Labor.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed. The decision of the Acting Secretary of Labor is affirmed in toto.
Ratio Decidendi
On Whether a clearance from the Secretary of Labor is necessary before the dismissal of petitioner, considering the restrictive condition in the decision of the compulsory arbitrator: The Court affirmed the Acting Secretary of Labor's finding that a mere report of termination was sufficient, not a clearance. While Article 267(b) of the Labor Code requires clearance for dismissal, the Court found substantial compliance. The Secretary of Labor had twice manifested conformity to petitioner's dismissal. First, by affirming the arbitrator's decision in NLRC Cases Nos. 0021 and 0285, which ordered reinstatement subject to the CFI's decision on the strike's legality. This affirmance, coupled with the CFI's subsequent declaration of illegality, effectively granted authority to dismiss. Second, the Secretary of Labor's own order in the present case, stating that clearance was not required but only a report, and that even an application for clearance would have been treated as a report, served as a ratification of the dismissal. The rationale behind the clearance requirement, which is to afford the Secretary ample opportunity to examine the reasonableness of the request, was met by these manifestations. Therefore, the mandatory rule on clearance need not be strictly applied in this instance. On Whether the decision of the Court of First Instance of Bulacan in Civil Case No. 750-V ipso facto gave the respondent company authority to dismiss petitioner without any clearance from the Secretary of Labor: The Court agreed that the CFI's decision declaring the strike illegal provided a valid and reasonable ground for dismissal. The strike was deemed futile as FEBC, a non-profit organization, was not covered by Republic Act 875. As a union leader, petitioner bore the responsibility for the union's activities, including declaring a strike for recognition that was not legally demandable. The CFI's decision, by declaring the strike illegal, meant that the strikers, including petitioner, had forfeited their employment status under existing laws and jurisprudence. This prevented strikers from staging illegal strikes with impunity. Consequently, FEBC acted in good faith when it terminated petitioner's employment based on the CFI's ruling. The Court reiterated that strikers must accept the risks attendant upon their choice to strike, and if they fail, they cannot invoke the protection of the law unless the right vindicated is one the law will protect and enforce. In this case, the right sought (recognition of a union in a non-profit entity under RA 875) was not legally protectable.
Main Doctrine
While technical non-compliance with the clearance requirement for dismissal may exist, the rationale behind the clearance requirement is deemed met if the Secretary of Labor is apprised of the termination and manifests conformity, either through affirmance of a conditional reinstatement order or subsequent ratification, especially when the dismissal stems from an illegal strike against a non-profit entity not covered by the Industrial Peace Act.