G & S Transport Corp. v. Infante
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: G & S Transport Corporation (petitioner) operated as the exclusive coupon taxi concessionaire at the Ninoy Aquino International Airport (NAIA) from February 1, 1989, to January 31, 1994. Respondents Tito Infante, Melor Borbo, and Danilo Castañeda were employed as taxi drivers by petitioner. On May 5, 1990, the NAIA Airport Taxi Service Employees Union demanded the dismissal of two drivers, Ricardo Gonzales and Ephraim Alzaga, for alleged disloyalty and acts inimical to the union. Following their termination on May 9, 1990, several drivers, including the respondents, ceased driving their taxis in sympathy, which petitioner alleged constituted an illegal strike accompanied by acts of intimidation and obstruction, paralyzing its operations. Petitioner ordered the striking workers to return to work, but some, including the respondents, refused. 2. Procedural History: On May 22, 1990, petitioner filed an illegal strike case against thirty-seven drivers. Two days later, the drivers filed a case for illegal dismissal. The Labor Arbiter, after consolidating the cases and considering joint affidavits and individual statements from respondents denying participation in the strike or explaining their absence, found that a work stoppage occurred on May 16, 1990, constituting an illegal strike. However, the Labor Arbiter declared the dismissal of three drivers (Mendoza, Dacanay, Sabiniano) illegal, ordering backwages and separation pay. For the respondents (Daramayo, Borbo, Infante, and Castañeda), though found to have participated in the illegal strike, the Labor Arbiter ordered separation pay in lieu of reinstatement without backwages, as petitioner had ceased operations. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) affirmed this decision in its entirety. The respondents then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, which reversed the NLRC and Labor Arbiter decisions, remanding the case for computation of backwages and other monetary benefits, and declaring the dismissal illegal and reinstatement proper. 3. The Petition: Petitioner G & S Transport Corporation seeks review of the Court of Appeals' decision and resolution, arguing that the appellate court erred by acting as a trier of facts and ordering reinstatement with backwages. Petitioner contends that the Court of Appeals improperly substituted its judgment for that of the Labor Arbiter and NLRC, whose findings were based on substantial evidence after a full trial. The core issues presented to the Supreme Court are whether the respondents participated in the illegal strike and whether the order for separation pay in lieu of reinstatement without backwages was proper. Petitioner argues that respondents' refusal to return to work and their alleged presence at the premises constituted participation in the illegal strike. Respondents counter that there was no evidence of their participation in illegal acts during the strike and that the Court of Appeals correctly found their dismissal illegal and reinstatement appropriate, citing a certification from the Securities and Exchange Commission indicating petitioner was still operational.
Issue(s)
Whether respondents participated in the illegal strike. Whether the order for the payment of separation pay, in lieu of reinstatement without backwages, is proper. Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in reversing the NLRC and Labor Arbiter decisions.
Ruling
The petition is GRANTED. The challenged Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals are REVERSED AND SET ASIDE. The Decision of the NLRC, which affirmed that of the Labor Arbiter, is REINSTATED.
Ratio Decidendi
On whether respondents participated in the illegal strike: The Court found that an illegal strike in the form of a sit-down strike occurred in petitioner's premises as a show of sympathy for the dismissed employees. The Court held that the office telegrams informing respondents to return to work went unheeded, and respondents failed to satisfactorily explain their absence. The Court noted that respondents Borbo and Infante did not present records to prove their alleged day-off, and Castañeda could not present a sick leave form. The Court also pointed out that the NLRC and the Court of Appeals were unanimous in sustaining the Labor Arbiter's findings regarding respondents' participation in the illegal strike. Petitioner presented affidavits and testimonies of other employees confirming respondents' participation, and the Court found that respondents remained in the work premises, participating in the illegal strike. On the propriety of separation pay in lieu of reinstatement without backwages: The Court reiterated that mere participation in an illegal strike is not a sufficient ground for termination for ordinary union members; there must be proof that they committed illegal acts during the strike. The Court found that the affidavits of petitioner's witnesses did not constitute substantial evidence to establish that illegal acts were committed by each individual respondent. The Labor Arbiter also made no mention of specific illegal acts committed by respondents. Therefore, the acts of respondents did not merit dismissal from employment. However, the Court noted that the Labor Arbiter, as the proximate trier of fact, found that respondents should not have been meted out the severest penalty of dismissal for their actions. Since the company was no longer operational at the time of the Labor Arbiter's decision, separation pay in lieu of reinstatement was ordered without backwages, considering the period of absence as a penalty. On whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion: The Court found that the Court of Appeals erred in granting the petition for certiorari and reversing the NLRC and Labor Arbiter decisions. The Court held that a petition for certiorari is limited to issues of jurisdiction and grave abuse of discretion, and generally does not include an inquiry into the correctness of the evaluation of evidence. While acknowledging exceptions, the Court found no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the NLRC. The Court also addressed the issue of reinstatement, noting that while the Court of Appeals relied on an SEC certification of petitioner's operational status, the lapse of seventeen (17) years since the dismissal made reinstatement impractical. The Court adopted the precedent of awarding separation pay equivalent to one month's pay for every year of service in lieu of reinstatement when a significant period has passed since the illegal termination.
Main Doctrine
Mere participation in an illegal strike is not a sufficient ground for termination of employment for ordinary union members; there must be proof that they committed illegal acts during the strike. However, where reinstatement is no longer feasible due to the lapse of time, separation pay is an appropriate relief.