Steel Corporation of the Philippines v. Steel Corporation of the Philippines Employees Union-National Federation of Labor Unions
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Steel Corporation of the Philippines (SCP) is a major domestic supplier of construction materials. The case originated from a petition for Certification Election filed by SCP-Federated Union of the Energy Leaders - General and Allied Services (FUEL-GAS) to represent SCP's rank-and-file employees. Respondent SCP Employees Union (SCPEU) - National Federation of Labor Unions (NAFLU) intervened but was denied participation. A subsequent consent election was declared a failure. FUEL-GAS protested the election's irregularities, while NAFLU filed its own petition for Certification Election. The Med-Arbiter denied FUEL-GAS's protest and granted NAFLU's petition, ordering an election between NAFLU and "NO UNION." Both SCP and FUEL-GAS appealed to the Secretary of Labor. Procedural History: The Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) Undersecretary ordered a certification election with "FUEL-GAS," respondent, and "NO UNION" as choices, which was later denied reconsideration. SCP and FUEL-GAS appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA). A certification election was held, which respondent won, leading to another protest by FUEL-GAS. The CA annulled the Undersecretary's decision and ordered a certification election with "FUEL-GAS" and "NO UNION" as choices, excluding respondent. The Med-Arbiter dismissed FUEL-GAS's protest but deferred declaring respondent the winner. Respondent appealed to the Labor Secretary and filed a manifestation with the CA, which was dismissed. The Undersecretary later certified respondent as the exclusive bargaining agent, but motions for reconsideration were filed. Respondent filed a Notice of Strike alleging unfair labor practice (ULP) due to SCP's refusal to bargain. The labor dispute was certified to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). Respondent filed another Notice of Strike for non-recognition, refusal to bargain, and other ULP charges, which was consolidated with the certified case. The Med-Arbiter recommended another certification election, but the Labor Secretary dismissed the motion. The NLRC issued a resolution in the first certified case, declaring SCP had no obligation to recognize respondent and dismissing the ULP charge. SCP filed a motion for partial reconsideration, and respondent filed its own. Respondent filed yet another Notice of Strike for refusal to bargain and union busting, leading to a strike and the certification of the dispute to the NLRC. The NLRC ordered SCP to bargain collectively with respondent and reinstated dismissed employees. SCP's motion for reconsideration was denied. These decisions became the subject of petitions before the CA in CA-G.R. SP Nos. 79446 and 82314, which were consolidated. The Petition: Petitioner Steel Corporation of the Philippines (SCP) filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, seeking to set aside the CA's Decision and Resolution. The CA denied the petition in CA-G.R. SP No. 79446 and partially granted the petition in CA-G.R. SP No. 82314. SCP argued that the CA gravely abused its discretion in ordering the reinstatement of union officers despite concluding the strike was illegal, in failing to declare the February 4, 2003 strike illegal, in failing to invalidate the order for reinstatement of strikers who defied a return-to-work order, in ruling that the NLRC reconsidered its conclusion on the illegality of a prior strike, and in concluding that the NLRC could reconsider a decision in a case that had become final and executory. SCP contended that the February 2003 strike was illegal because it was a union-recognition strike and was declared after the dispute was certified for compulsory arbitration and in violation of a return-to-work order. SCP also argued that the union officers who participated in the illegal strike should have lost their employment status, and that the CA erred in affirming the NLRC decision ordering the reinstatement of employees dismissed for defying the return-to-work order.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals departed from law and jurisprudence by affirming the reinstatement of officers who participated in an illegal strike. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in failing to declare the strike held by the union on February 4, 2003, as illegal, particularly considering the Secretary of Labor's return-to-work order. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in failing to invalidate the order of the National Labor Relations Commission directing the reinstatement of strikers who defied the Secretary of Labor's return-to-work order. Whether the Court of Appeals committed a serious error when it ruled that the NLRC reconsidered its conclusion on the illegality of the March 2001 strike, and whether such reconsideration was permissible given the principle of res judicata. Whether the Court of Appeals committed a serious error regarding the second certification election and its impact on the union's right to demand collective bargaining.
Ruling
The petition is partly granted. The decision of the Court of Appeals dated February 28, 2005, and its Resolution dated September 22, 2005, are modified. The strike in question is found illegal, and the order to reinstate the union officers who participated in the illegal strike is reversed and set aside.
Ratio Decidendi
On the reinstatement of officers who participated in an illegal strike: The strike undertaken by the officers of the respondent union was illegal because it was a union-recognition strike without a validly established bargaining agent status and was conducted in defiance of the Secretary of Labor's return-to-work order. Union officers who knowingly participate in an illegal strike may be terminated, and the NLRC's order for reinstatement was therefore erroneous. On the illegality of the strike and the return-to-work order: The strike was illegal because it was a union-recognition strike aimed at compelling the petitioner to recognize the respondent union as the collective bargaining agent, a purpose not sanctioned by labor laws. The strike was conducted in utter defiance of the Secretary of Labor's return-to-work order and after the labor dispute had been certified for compulsory arbitration, violating Article 263(g) of the Labor Code. The Court reiterated that a return-to-work order imposes a duty that must be discharged, and workers who choose not to obey do so at the risk of severing their employment relationship. On the defiance of the return-to-work order and reinstatement: The Court reiterated that a return-to-work order imposes a duty that must be discharged, and workers who choose not to obey do so at the risk of severing their employment relationship. The strike in this case was staged in direct contravention of the Secretary's return-to-work order, making it illegal. Consequently, the reinstatement of employees who defied this order was improper. On the NLRC's reconsideration of decisions and res judicata: The Court found that the CA erred in its conclusion that the NLRC could reconsider its decision in the first certified case (Cert. Case No. 000200-01) in the second certified case (NLRC NCR CC No. 00253-03) which had become final and executory. The principle of res judicata applies, preventing the relitigation of issues already decided with finality. The issues concerning the illegality of the strike and the recognition of the union were already passed upon in the first certified case. Therefore, the NLRC could not revisit these matters in the subsequent case. On the CA's ruling on the second certification election and collective bargaining: The CA correctly noted that its prior decision in CA-G.R. SP No. 55721 had annulled and set aside the certification election where respondent emerged as the winner. Since the CA did not recognize that particular certification election, the respondent had no basis to claim recognition as the duly-elected bargaining agent and consequently, no right to demand that the petitioner collectively bargain with it. The CA's partial granting of the petition in CA-G.R. SP No. 82314 was therefore proper, as it effectively nullified the basis for the respondent's claim to represent the rank-and-file employees.
Main Doctrine
A strike is illegal if it is a union-recognition strike, undertaken after a dispute has been certified for compulsory arbitration, or in violation of a return-to-work order. Union officers knowingly participating in an illegal strike may be terminated from employment.