Association of Integrated Security Force v. Paper Industries
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The Association of Integrated Security Force of Bislig-ALU (AISFB-ALU), a labor union composed of regular company-hired security guards of Paper Industries Corporation of the Philippines (PICOP), was formed in 1990. In April 1991, PICOP was advised by the PC Civil Security Force Command to desist from utilizing its Company Guard Force due to failure to renew its license to operate. PICOP's firearms were confiscated, and its armory padlocked. PICOP then issued notices of termination to its security guards, effective May 7, 1991, citing the non-approval of its license renewal application by the PC Civil Security Force Command. PICOP claimed difficulties in complying with requirements, including the unaccounted-for firearms, and suspected some personnel were sympathizers of the NPA. Complainants filed a notice of strike but did not proceed, allegedly due to fear of NPA exploitation and because a majority of the security guards accepted closure and received separation benefits, with many applying for absorption into other PICOP departments. Procedural History: Complainants alleged illegal dismissal and union busting. The labor dispute was certified to the NLRC, which dismissed the complaint for illegal dismissal, finding the closure of the security force valid but ordering PICOP to grant separation pay. AISFB-ALU's motion for reconsideration was denied. A petition for certiorari before the Supreme Court was referred to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the NLRC's decision. AISFB-ALU then filed the present petition for certiorari before the Supreme Court. The Petition: AISFB-ALU sought to annul the Court of Appeals' decision, alleging unsubstantiated findings of fact, serious errors of law and fact, and grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction.
Issue(s)
Whether the petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is the proper remedy given the procedural flaws. Whether the closure of PICOP's Company Guard Force and the consequent termination of employment were valid. Whether PICOP's failure to renew its security license was a deliberate act of union busting.
Ruling
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for certiorari for procedural and substantive flaws. The Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, which in turn affirmed the NLRC's ruling that the closure of PICOP's Company Guard Force and the consequent termination of employment were valid. The Court found that the petition was filed out of time and that petitioner failed to file a motion for reconsideration of the Court of Appeals' decision, thus failing to exhaust plain, speedy, and adequate remedies.
Ratio Decidendi
On the procedural propriety of the petition for certiorari: The Court reiterated the general rule that appeal is the proper remedy for reversal or modification of a judgment on the merits, even if grave abuse of discretion is alleged. The petition was filed beyond the reglementary period for filing a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45. Furthermore, the petitioner failed to file a motion for reconsideration of the Court of Appeals' decision, which is a condition precedent for filing a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65, as it constitutes a plain and adequate remedy. The Court noted that the exceptions to this rule were not present in this case. On the validity of the closure of the security force and termination of employment: The Court found that the closure of PICOP's Company Guard Force was a valid exercise of management prerogative. PICOP was constrained to close its security force due to the non-renewal of its license to operate, a requirement under Republic Act No. 5487. The confiscation of firearms and padlocking of the armory by the PC Civil Security Force Command left PICOP with no legal option but to cease operations of its in-house security force. The Court emphasized that operating without a license would expose PICOP to criminal liability. The Court held that Article 283 of the Labor Code allows an employer to terminate employment due to the closing or cessation of operation of an establishment or undertaking, even if not due to serious business losses or financial reverses, provided that the employer complies with the requirements of serving written notice and paying separation pay. PICOP complied with these requirements by serving notice to the affected workers and the DOLE and by offering separation pay, which a significant number of employees accepted or opted for re-employment. On the allegation of union busting: The Court found no evidence to support the claim that PICOP deliberately failed to comply with the requirements for license renewal to bust the union. The Court noted that PICOP had filed its application for renewal as early as January 1991 and that difficulties arose due to unaccounted firearms and intelligence reports regarding rebel sympathizers within the security force. These findings, affirmed by both the NLRC and the Court of Appeals, were based on substantial evidence and were not a result of deliberate action by PICOP to circumvent the employees' right to organize. The Court stressed that its role was not to re-evaluate factual findings, which were conclusive when affirmed by the appellate court.
Main Doctrine
A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is not a substitute for a lost appeal. Failure to file a motion for reconsideration of the appellate court's decision is a ground for dismissal, absent exceptional circumstances. The Court will not re-evaluate factual findings of the NLRC affirmed by the Court of Appeals, as these are generally conclusive and binding.