Allied Banking Corporation v. National Labor Relations Commission
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The dispute arose from the failure to amicably settle the renewal of the collective bargaining agreement between Allied Banking Corporation (Bank) and Allied Banking Employees Union-NUBE (Union). The Union filed a notice of strike. On December 16, 1984, the Minister of Labor and Employment (MOLE) assumed jurisdiction, enjoining strikes and lockouts. Despite this, the Union proceeded with a strike on January 3, 1985. The MOLE issued a return-to-work order on January 6, 1985. When negotiations failed, the MOLE issued an order on January 31, 1985, directing the incorporation of awards into the CBA. On February 11, 1985, certain Union members resumed the strike, leading to acts of violence and the filing of criminal charges. The Bank published notices for striking employees to return to work by February 13, 1985, but respondents failed to comply, citing dissatisfaction with the MOLE's decision. The Bank issued termination notices. The MOLE modified his order on March 7, 1985, and the Union lifted its picket lines, but the Bank refused to accept them back, citing their dismissal for abandonment. An order on June 5, 1985, directed provisional reinstatement except for those who accepted separation pay, union officers, and those with pending criminal charges. Subsequent petitions and resolutions led to remands to the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) for resolution of factual issues, including the legality of the strike and the roles of individual respondents. Procedural History: The Labor Arbiter declared the strikes illegal, ordered the dismissal of union officers, and declared the dismissal of 163 other employees illegal, ordering reinstatement with back wages and damages. The Labor Arbiter also ordered the reinstatement of 41 counter-complainants with back wages, damages, and attorney's fees. The Bank appealed, and the respondents filed a partial appeal. The Labor Arbiter issued a writ of execution, which the Bank moved to quash. The NLRC, in its decision dated May 20, 1994, affirmed the illegality of the strikes and the dismissal of union members but remanded the issue of back wages for the 41 respondents to the Labor Arbiter. The NLRC's subsequent order dated July 8, 1994, denied motions for reconsideration. The Petition: The Bank questioned the NLRC's remand of the issue of back wages for the 41 respondents. The respondents contended that the NLRC gravely abused its discretion in affirming the validity of their dismissal.
Issue(s)
Whether the strikes staged by the Union were illegal. Whether the respondents, by failing to comply with the return-to-work orders, committed abandonment of work and were thus validly dismissed. Whether the National Labor Relations Commission committed grave abuse of discretion in remanding the issue of back wages for the 41 respondents to the Labor Arbiter despite finding their dismissal valid.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the NLRC's finding that the private respondents were validly dismissed. However, it annulled and set aside the NLRC's disposition remanding the issue of reinstatement and computation of back wages to the Labor Arbiter, finding it inconsistent with the valid dismissal.
Ratio Decidendi
On the illegality of the strikes: The Court affirmed the NLRC's finding that the strikes were illegal. The strikes staged on January 3-4, 1985, and February 11 to March 11, 1985, were conducted despite the assumption of jurisdiction by the Minister of Labor and Employment on December 16, 1984, and the subsequent return-to-work orders. Article 263(g) of the Labor Code mandates that an assumption of jurisdiction by the Secretary of Labor automatically enjoins any strike or lockout, and if one has already taken place, all striking employees shall immediately return to work. The Union's contention that they were unaware of the legal mandate or that the assumption order was a mere scrap of paper was rejected, as compliance with such orders is mandatory and cannot be excused by ignorance. The Court reiterated that a strike undertaken despite an assumption or certification order is a prohibited and illegal activity. On abandonment of work and valid dismissal: The Court held that the respondents were validly dismissed due to their defiance of the return-to-work orders. The failure to comply with the return-to-work orders, issued pending the determination of the strike's legality, constituted abandonment of work. The Court distinguished this from abandonment under Article 282(b) of the Labor Code, emphasizing that defiance of a DOLE Secretary's assumption order, as clearly spelled out in Article 263(g) and Article 264(a), is a distinct ground for dismissal. The Court cited jurisprudence stating that returning to work after an assumption order is not a matter of option but an obligation, and failure to do so, without proper justification, forfeits the right to reinstatement. The Court found that the respondents' arguments regarding self-defense, unfair labor practices, or good faith belief in the strike's legality were insufficient to justify their defiance of the return-to-work orders. On the NLRC's remand of back wages: The Court found the NLRC's disposition remanding the issue of reinstatement and back wages to the Labor Arbiter to be an illogical consequence of the finding of valid dismissal. The Court noted that its previous resolutions, which the NLRC relied upon for the remand, were issued when the legality of the strike was still pending. Once the NLRC declared the strike illegal and upheld the dismissal, the factual matters remanded became moot and academic. An award of back wages is incompatible with a finding of valid dismissal. Therefore, the NLRC's disposition was deemed to have been issued with grave abuse of discretion and was annulled and set aside.
Main Doctrine
Defiance of a return-to-work order issued by the Secretary of Labor and Employment, following the assumption of jurisdiction over a labor dispute, constitutes a valid ground for dismissal, as such defiance renders the strike illegal and the employees liable for abandonment of work.