Pasvil/pascual Liner, Inc., Workers Union-naflu v. National Labor Relations Commission
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner PASVIL/Pascual Liner, Inc., Workers Union-NAFLU (UNION) filed a notice of strike against private respondent PASVIL/Pascual Liner, Inc. (PASVIL) for alleged unfair labor practices, including union busting, discrimination, and discouraging union membership. The National Conciliation and Mediation Board-National Capital Region (NCMB-NCR) noted that the issues raised were dismissal of the Union President and a pending certification election case, deeming them not proper subjects for a Notice of Strike but for Preventive Mediation. Despite failed conciliation, the UNION staged a strike on February 18, 1995. Procedural History: On February 21, 1995, the Secretary of Labor and Employment, Ma. Nieves R. Confesor, assumed jurisdiction over the dispute due to its impact on the national interest and certified it to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) for compulsory arbitration. She ordered striking workers to return to work within twenty-four hours and PASVIL to accept them back. Despite this order, the UNION continued to picket and barricade the premises. The Secretary reiterated her directive and deputized law enforcement. Conciliation conferences before the NLRC failed, and parties were ordered to submit Position Papers. PASVIL moved for early resolution, citing ongoing revenue losses. After several hearings and motions, the NLRC denied the UNION's motion for a formal trial, finding sufficient evidence on record. On January 15, 1996, the NLRC declared the strike illegal and deemed the UNION officers who led it to have lost their employment status, dismissing the unfair labor practice charge for lack of merit. Reconsideration was denied on January 31, 1996. The Petition: Petitioners questioned the NLRC's actions, alleging grave abuse of discretion in ruling on the legality of the strike, refusing a formal trial, holding PASVIL not guilty of unfair labor practice, and declaring the strike illegal and petitioners as having lost their employment status. They argued that the NLRC lacked jurisdiction to rule on the strike's legality, which falls under the Labor Arbiter's exclusive jurisdiction, citing Philippine Airlines, Inc. v. Secretary of Labor and Employment.
Issue(s)
Whether the NLRC acted with grave abuse of discretion in ruling on the legality of the strike. Whether the NLRC erred in refusing to hold a formal trial. Whether PASVIL was guilty of unfair labor practice. Whether the strike was illegal and consequently, the petitioners lost their employment status.
Ruling
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming the NLRC's decision declaring the strike illegal and the petitioners as having lost their employment status, and dismissing the charge of unfair labor practice against PASVIL.
Ratio Decidendi
On the NLRC's jurisdiction to rule on the legality of the strike: The Court held that the NLRC did not act with grave abuse of discretion. While Article 217 of the Labor Code grants Labor Arbiters original and exclusive jurisdiction over cases involving the legality of strikes, Article 263(g) provides an exception. When the Secretary of Labor and Employment assumes jurisdiction over a labor dispute in an industry indispensable to the national interest, or certifies it to the NLRC for compulsory arbitration, the NLRC is empowered to resolve all questions arising therefrom, including the legality of the strike. In this case, the Secretary of Labor certified the entire labor dispute, including the ongoing strike, to the NLRC, necessitating a ruling on its legality. The Court distinguished this case from Philippine Airlines, Inc. v. Secretary of Labor and Employment, where the Secretary's assumption of jurisdiction was limited to the issues involved in the dispute, not the legality of the strike itself. On the refusal to hold a formal trial: The Court found no grave abuse of discretion in the NLRC's denial of the motion for a formal trial. The NLRC reasoned that the UNION's counsel repeatedly failed to appear at hearings, suggesting a dilatory tactic. Furthermore, the NLRC meticulously reviewed the submitted documents and proofs, finding sufficient evidence to reach a conclusion without the need for further oral arguments. The Court emphasized that parties are expected to submit all supporting documents, including affidavits, with their position papers, as per Rule V, Section 3 of the NLRC Rules of Procedure, and cannot later allege facts or present evidence not previously included. On PASVIL's alleged unfair labor practice: The Court affirmed the NLRC's finding that PASVIL was not guilty of unfair labor practice. While PASVIL did not prove the sale of the twenty-four buses, there was sufficient evidence, including PASVIL's letters to its employees and an ocular inspection by the NCMB-NCR, showing that a sufficient number of buses remained available for operation. The petitioners failed to explain why they did not man these remaining buses. The Court found no semblance of good faith on the part of the petitioners to justify their belief that PASVIL committed unfair labor practices. On the illegality of the strike and loss of employment status: The Court upheld the NLRC's declaration that the strike was illegal. The petitioners failed to comply with the Secretary of Labor's return-to-work order. Their claim that PASVIL refused to reinstate them was contradicted by the Secretary's finding that the UNION continued to picket and barricade the premises, preventing workers from entering. Furthermore, a letter from petitioner Bugtong to the Social Security System certified that the employees were on strike, binding the petitioners and rendering their pretension to the contrary insignificant. Under Article 264(a) of the Labor Code, a worker who defies a return-to-work order is deemed to have abandoned their job and knowingly participated in an illegal act, thus losing their employment status.
Main Doctrine
A strike is legal only when waged on account of a labor dispute. In the absence thereof, the employees who engage in a work stoppage commit an illegal strike and should face the consequences. Union officers who knowingly participate in an illegal strike may lose their employment status.