Rural Bank of Alaminos Employees Union v. National Labor Relations Commission
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: This case involves three consolidated labor disputes. The first dispute arose from Ismael Tamayo, Sr.'s claim of illegal dismissal against Rural Bank of Alaminos, Inc. (RBAI) after his termination following a compromise agreement for reinstatement. The second dispute was initiated by RBAI against the Rural Bank of Alaminos Employees Union (RBAEU) seeking a declaration of illegality of a strike and damages. The third dispute was filed by the RBAEU against RBAI for unfair labor practice and damages, alleging constructive dismissal of its members due to the strike. Procedural History: The three cases were consolidated and decided by Labor Arbiter Ricardo N. Olairez. The Labor Arbiter found Tamayo's dismissal illegal, declared the strike legal, and held RBAI guilty of unfair labor practice and constructive dismissal of union members. RBAI appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). The NLRC, in a Resolution dated January 31, 1991, set aside the Labor Arbiter's decision and remanded all three cases for further proceedings. A subsequent motion for reconsideration by the petitioners was denied. The Petition: The petitioners, RBAEU and Ismael Tamayo, Sr., filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court with the Supreme Court, assailing the NLRC's Resolutions for grave abuse of discretion. They argued that the NLRC erred in remanding Case No. 0059-89 (RBAI's petition for declaration of strike illegality) despite the Labor Arbiter's finding of legality, which was affirmed by the NLRC. They also contended that the NLRC improperly remanded Case No. 0097-89 (RBAEU's unfair labor practice complaint) despite RBAI failing to appeal the finding of illegal lock-out and that the NLRC's claim of not knowing the exact number of employees was contradicted by the record. Regarding Case No. 0049-89 (Tamayo's illegal dismissal), they argued that the NLRC erred in remanding it for further proceedings, as the Labor Arbiter's decision was based on submitted position papers and the right to cross-examination was not a matter of right. Finally, they questioned the denial of their motion for reconsideration, alleging they were not properly notified of the NLRC's resolution.
Issue(s)
Whether the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in remanding NLRC Case No. 0059-89 (RBAI vs. Union for declaration of illegality of strike) for further proceedings, despite affirming the Labor Arbiter's finding that the strike was legal. Whether the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in remanding NLRC Case No. 0097-89 (Union vs. RBAI for unfair labor practice) for further proceedings, despite the bank not appealing the finding of unfair labor practice, and despite the existence of evidence regarding the number of employees. Whether the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in remanding NLRC Case No. 0049-89 (Tamayo vs. RBAI for illegal dismissal) for further proceedings, on the ground that the bank was denied the right to cross-examine Tamayo. Whether the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the motion for reconsideration for being filed out of time, considering the circumstances of notice. Whether the petitioners' right to speedy disposition of justice was violated by the remand of the cases.
Ruling
The Supreme Court partly granted the petition. It set aside the NLRC's order to remand NLRC Cases No. 0049-89 (Tamayo vs. RBAI) and No. 0059-89 (RBAI vs. Union), but upheld the NLRC's order to remand NLRC Case No. 0097-89 (Union vs. RBAI) for further proceedings. No pronouncement as to costs was made.
Ratio Decidendi
On the remand of NLRC Case No. 0059-89 (Legality of Strike): The Court found merit in the petitioners' contention that the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in remanding this case. The Labor Arbiter had found the strike legal, and this finding was affirmed by the NLRC itself in its resolution. The NLRC's own resolution stated that the Union had duly observed the mandatory cooling-off period, thus complying with the Labor Code requirements, and declared the strike legal. Since the strike was adjudged legal, the charges of unfair labor practice and damages, which were consequences of the strike, were negated and bereft of basis. Therefore, remanding the case for further proceedings was unnecessary and constituted grave abuse of discretion. On the remand of NLRC Case No. 0097-89 (Unfair Labor Practice): The Court held that the remand of this case was in order. The Labor Arbiter had concluded that the bank employed means to delay the resolution, creating a scenario of an illegal lock-out. However, the NLRC correctly found that evidence of an illegal lock-out was wanting, and the Union failed to present sufficient proof that the bank refused them employment during the strike. The Court also addressed the NLRC's concern about the exact number of constructively dismissed employees, noting that while the Union attached a list of employees in Case No. 0059-89, the NLRC considered it separate. The Supreme Court clarified that since the cases were consolidated and the Union's complaint was a countercharge, the list could be considered as evidence in Case No. 0097-89, but the lack of conclusive evidence on the illegal lock-out justified the remand for further reception of evidence. The Court also clarified that the bank's appeal did cover issues related to unfair labor practice, specifically the alleged violation of the duty to bargain collectively, illegal lock-out, and illegal dismissal. On the remand of NLRC Case No. 0049-89 (Illegal Dismissal and Due Process): The Court found that the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in remanding this case based on the denial of the bank's right to cross-examine Ismael Tamayo, Sr. The Court reiterated that the holding of a formal trial is discretionary on the part of the Labor Arbiter and cannot be demanded as a right. The submission of position papers, as done in this case, satisfies the requirements of due process. The Court emphasized that the absence of a formal hearing is not a cause for imputing grave abuse of discretion, and a decision based on sufficient position papers meets the requirements of a fair hearing. The fact that Tamayo's position paper was unverified was deemed a formal, not jurisdictional, defect, which is not fatal and can be easily corrected. Therefore, the Labor Arbiter did not err in basing the decision on the position papers alone. On the denial of the Motion for Reconsideration: The Court found the petitioners' allegation that the motion for reconsideration was denied due to untimely filing to be without merit. The established rule is that notice to counsel is notice to the party. Since Atty. Toefilo Humilde entered his appearance for the Union and Tamayo, the NLRC correctly sent the resolution to him. The motion for reconsideration was filed on March 13, 1991, which was beyond the ten-day reglementary period after the resolution was received by counsel on February 26, 1991. Thus, the denial was in order. On Speedy Disposition of Justice: While the Court did not explicitly rule on the violation of the right to speedy disposition, its decision to set aside the remand of two cases and uphold the remand of one case indicates a resolution of the merits rather than a perpetual delay through further proceedings.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court partly granted the petition, setting aside the NLRC's order to remand cases concerning illegal dismissal and the legality of a strike, but upholding the remand of the unfair labor practice case for further proceedings.