SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 147080. April 26, 2005]

CAPITOL MEDICAL CENTER, INC., petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, JAIME IBABAO, JOSE BALLESTEROS, RONALD CENTENO, NARCISO SARMIENTO, EDUARDO CANAVERAL, SHERLITO DELA CRUZ, SOFRONIO COMANDAO, MARIANO GALICIA, RAMON MOLOD, CARMENCITA SARMIENTO, HELEN MOLOD, ROSA COMANDAO, ANGELITO CUIZON, ALEX MARASIGAN, JESUS CEDRO, ENRICO ROQUE, JAY PERILLA, HELEN MENDOZA, MARY GLADYS GEMPEROSO, NINI BAUTISTA, ELENA MACARUBBO, MUSTIOLA SALVACION DAPITO, ALEXANDER MANABE, MICHAEL EUSTAQUIO, ROSE AZARES, FERNANDO MANZANO, HENRY VERA CRUZ, CHITO MENDOZA, FREDELITA TOMAYAO, ISABEL BRUCAL, MAHALKO LAYACAN, RAINIER MANACSA, KAREN VILLARENTE, FRANCES ACACIO, LAMBERTO CONTI, LORENA BEACH, JUDILAH RAVALO, DEBORAH NAVE, MARILEN CABALQUINTO, EMILIANA RIVERA, MA. ROSARIO URBANO, ROWENA ARILLA, CAPITOL MEDICAL CENTER EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION-AFW, GREGORIO DEL PRADO, ARIEL ARAJA, and JESUS STA. BARBARA, JR., respondents. DECISION
CALLEJO, SR., J.:

This is a petition for review of the Decision[1] of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 57500 and its Resolution denying the motion for reconsideration thereof. The Antecedents[2] Whether the respondent Capitol Medical Center Employees Association-Alliance of Filipino Workers (the Union, for brevity) was the exclusive bargaining agent of the rankand-file employees of the petitioner Capitol Medical Center, Inc. had been the bone of contention between the Union and the petitioner. The petitioners refusal to negotiate

for a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) resulted in a union-led strike on April 15, 1993. The Union had to contend with another union the Capitol Medical Center Alliance of Concerned Employees (CMC-ACE) which demanded for a certification election among the rank-and-file employees of the petitioner. Med-Arbiter Brigida Fadrigon granted the petition, and the matter was appealed to the Secretary of Labor and Employment (SOLE). Undersecretary Bienvenido E. Laguesma rendered a Resolution on November 18, 1994 granting the appeal. He, likewise, denied the motion filed by the petitioner and the CMC-ACE. The latter thereafter brought the matter to the Court which rendered judgment on February 4, 1997 affirming the resolution of Undersecretary Laguesma, thus:

1. Dismissing the petition for certification election filed by the Capitol Medical Center Alliance of Concerned Employees-United Filipino Services Workers for lack of merit; and 2. Directing the management of the Capitol Medical Center to negotiate a CBA with the Capitol Medical Center Employees Association-Alliance of Filipino Workers, the certified bargaining agent of the rank-and-file employees.[3]
The decision of the Court became final and executory. Thereafter, in a Letter dated October 3, 1997 addressed to Dr. Thelma N. Clemente, the President and Director of the petitioner, the Union requested for a meeting to discuss matters pertaining to a negotiation for a CBA, conformably with the decision of the Court.[4] However, in a Letter to the Union dated October 10, 1997, Dr. Clemente rejected the proposed meeting, on her claim that it was a violation of Republic Act No. 6713 and that the Union was not a legitimate one. On October 15, 1997, the petitioner filed a Petition for the Cancellation of the Unions Certificate of Registration with the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) on the following grounds:

3) Respondent has failed for several years to submit annually its annual financial statements and other documents as required by law. For this reason, respondent has long lost its legal personality as a union. 4) Respondent also engaged in a strike which has been declared illegal by the National Labor Relations Commission.[5]
Apparently unaware of the petition, the Union reiterated its proposal for CBA negotiations in a Letter dated October 16, 1997 and suggested the date, time and place of the initial meeting. The Union further reiterated its plea in another Letter[6] dated October 28, 1997, to no avail. Instead of filing a motion with the SOLE for the enforcement of the resolutions of Undersecretary Laguesma as affirmed by this Court, the Union filed a Notice of Strike on October 29, 1997 with the National Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB),

serving a copy thereof to the petitioner. The Union alleged as grounds for the projected strike the following acts of the petitioner: (a) refusal to bargain; (b) coercion on employees; and (c) interference/ restraint to self-organization.[7] A series of conferences was conducted before the NCMB (National Capital Region), but no agreement was reached. On November 6, 1997, the petitioner even filed a Letter with the Board requesting that the notice of strike be dismissed; [8] the Union had apparently failed to furnish the Regional Branch of the NCMB with a copy of a notice of the meeting where the strike vote was conducted. On November 20, 1997, the Union submitted to the NCMB the minutes [9] of the alleged strike vote purportedly held on November 10, 1997 at the parking lot in front of the petitioners premises, at the corner of Scout Magbanua Street and Panay Avenue, Quezon City. It appears that 178 out of the 300 union members participated therein, and the results were as follows: 156 members voted to strike; 14 members cast negative votes; and eight votes were spoiled.[10] On November 28, 1997, the officers and members of the Union staged a strike. Subsequently, on December 1, 1997, the Union filed an ex parte motion with the DOLE, praying for its assumption of jurisdiction over the dispute. The Union likewise prayed for the imposition of appropriate legal sanctions, not limited to contempt and other penalties, against the hospital director/president and other responsible corporate officers for their continuous refusal, in bad faith, to bargain collectively with the Union, to adjudge the same hospital director/president and other corporate officers guilty of unfair labor practices, and for other just, equitable and expeditious reliefs in the premises.[11] On December 4, 1997, the SOLE issued an Order, assuming jurisdiction over the ongoing labor dispute. The decretal portion of the order reads:

WHEREFORE, this Office now assumes jurisdiction over the labor disputes at Capitol Medical Center pursuant to Article 263(g) of the Labor Code, as amended. Consequently, all striking workers are directed to return to work within twenty-four (24) hours from the receipt of this Order and the management to resume normal operations and accept back all striking workers under the same terms and conditions prevailing before the strike. Further, parties are directed to cease and desist from committing any act that may exacerbate the situation. Moreover, parties are hereby directed to submit within 10 days from receipt of this Order proposals and counter-proposals leading to the conclusion of the collective bargaining agreements in compliance with aforementioned Resolution of the Office as affirmed by the Supreme Court. SO ORDERED.[12]
In obedience to the order of the SOLE, the officers and members of the Union stopped their strike and returned to work.

For its part, the petitioner filed a petition[13] to declare the strike illegal with the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), docketed as NLRC NCR Case No. 0012-08644-97. In its position paper, the petitioner appended the affidavit of Erwin Barbacena, the overseer of the property across the hospital which was being used as a parking lot, at the corner of Scout Magbanua Street and Panay Avenue, Quezon City. Also included were the affidavits of Simon J. Tingzon and Reggie B. Barawid, the petitioners security guards assigned in front of the hospital premises. They attested to the fact that no secret balloting took place at the said parking lot from 6:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. of November 10, 1997.[14] The petitioner also appended the affidavit of Henry V. Vera Cruz, who alleged that he was a member of the Union and had discovered that signatures on the Statements of Cash Receipt Over Disbursement submitted by the Union to the DOLE purporting to be his were not his genuine signatures; [15] the affidavits of 17 of its employees, who declared that no formal voting was held by the members of the Union on the said date, were also submitted. The latter employees also declared that they were not members of any union, and yet were asked to sign documents purporting to be a strike vote attendance and unnumbered strike vote ballots on different dates from November 8 to 11, 1997. In their position paper, the respondents appended the joint affidavit of the Union president and those members who alleged that they had cast their votes during the strike vote held on November 10, 1997.[16] In the meantime, on September 30, 1998, the Regional Director of the DOLE rendered a Decision denying the petition for the cancellation of the respondent Unions certificate of registration. The decision was affirmed by the Director of the Bureau of Labor Relations on December 29, 1998. In a parallel development, Labor Arbiter Facundo L. Leda rendered a Decision on December 23, 1998 in NLRC NCR Case No. 00-12-08644-97 in favor of the petitioner, and declared the strike staged by the respondents illegal. The fallo of the decision reads:

1. Declaring as illegal the strike staged by the respondents from November 28, 1997 to December 5, 1997; 2. Declaring respondent Jaime Ibabao, in his capacity as union president, the other union officers, and respondents Ronald Q. Centeno, Michael Eustaquio and Henry Vera Cruz to have lost their employment status with petitioner; and 3. Ordering the above respondents to pay, jointly and severally, petitioner the amount of Two Hundred Thousand Pesos (P200,000.00) by way of damages.[17]
The Labor Arbiter ruled that no voting had taken place on November 10, 1997; moreover, no notice of such voting was furnished to the NCMB at least twenty-four (24) hours prior to the intended holding of the strike vote. According to the Labor Arbiter, the affidavits of the petitioners 17 employees who alleged that no strike vote was taken, and supported by the affidavit of the overseer of the parking lot and the security guards,

must prevail as against the minutes of the strike vote presented by the respondents. The Labor Arbiter also held that in light of Article 263(9) of the Labor Code, the respondent Union should have filed a motion for a writ of execution of the resolution of Undersecretary Laguesma which was affirmed by this Court instead of staging a strike. The respondents appealed the decision to the NLRC which rendered a Decision[18] on June 14, 1999, granting their appeal and reversing the decision of the Labor Arbiter. The NLRC also denied the petitioners petition to declare the strike illegal. In resolving the issue of whether the union members held a strike vote on November 10, 1997, the NLRC ruled as follows:

We find untenable the Labor Arbiters finding that no actual strike voting took place on November 10, 1997, claiming that this is supported by the affidavit of Erwin Barbacena, the overseer of the parking lot across the hospital, and the sworn statements of nineteen (19) (sic) union members. While it is true that no strike voting took place in the parking lot which he is overseeing, it does not mean that no strike voting ever took place at all because the same was conducted in the parking lot immediately/directly fronting, not across, the hospital building (Annexes 1-J, 1-K to 1-K-6). Further, it is apparent that the nineteen (19) (sic) hospital employees, who recanted their participation in the strike voting, did so involuntarily for fear of loss of employment, considering that their Affidavits are uniform andpro forma (Annexes H-2 to H-19).[19]
The NLRC ruled that under Section 7, Rule XXII of DOLE Order No. 9, Series of 1997, absent a showing that the NCMB decided to supervise the conduct of a secret balloting and informed the union of the said decision, or that any such request was made by any of the parties who would be affected by the secret balloting and to which the NCMB agreed, the respondents were not mandated to furnish the NCMB with such notice before the strike vote was conducted.[20] The petitioner filed a motion for the reconsideration of the decision, but the NLRC denied the said motion on September 30, 1999.[21] The petitioner filed a petition for certiorari with the CA assailing the decision and resolution of the NLRC on the following allegation:

PUBLIC RESPONDENT NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (NLRC) COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION, ACTED CAPRICIOUSLY, AND CONTRAVENED THE LAW AND ESTABLISHED JURISPRUDENCE IN REVERSING THE LABOR ARBITERS DECISION DATED DECEMBER 23, 1998 (ANNEX E) AND IN UPHOLDING THE LEGALITY OF THE STRIKE STAGED BY PRIVATE RESPONDENTS FROM NOVEMBER 28, 1997 TO DECEMBER 5, 1997.[22]

On September 29, 2000, the CA rendered judgment dismissing the petition and affirming the assailed decision and resolution of the NLRC. The petitioner filed the instant petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court on the following ground:

THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE NLRCS FINDING THAT RESPONDENTS COMPLIED WITH THE LEGAL REQUIREMENTS FOR STAGING THE SUBJECT STRIKE.[23]
The petitioner asserts that the NLRC and the CA erred in holding that the submission of a notice of a strike vote to the Regional Branch of the NCMB as required by Section 7, Rule XXII of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code, is merely directory and not mandatory. The use of the word shall in the rules, the petitioner avers, indubitably indicates the mandatory nature of the respondent Unions duty to submit the said notice of strike vote. The petitioner contends that the CA erred in affirming the decision of the NLRC which declared that the respondents complied with all the requirements for a lawful strike. The petitioner insists that, as gleaned from the affidavits of the 17 union members and that of the overseer, and contrary to the joint affidavit of the officers and some union members, no meeting was held and no secret balloting was conducted on November 10, 1997. The petitioner faults the CA and the NLRC for holding that a meeting for a strike vote was held on the said date by the respondents, despite the fact that the NLRC did not conduct an ocular inspection of the area where the respondents members allegedly held the voting. The petitioner also points out that it adduced documentary evidence in the form of affidavits executed by 17 members of the respondent union which remained unrebutted. The petitioner also posits that the CA and the NLRC erred in reversing the finding of the Labor Arbiter; furthermore, there was no need for the respondent union to stage a strike on November 28, 1997 because it had filed an urgent motion with the DOLE for the enforcement and execution of the decision of this Court in G.R. No. 118915. The petition is meritorious. We agree with the petitioner that the respondent Union failed to comply with the second paragraph of Section 10, Rule XXII of the Omnibus Rules of the NLRC which reads:

Section 10. Strike or lockout vote. A decision to declare a strike must be approved by a majority of the total union membership in the bargaining unit concerned obtained by secret ballot in meetings or referenda called for the purpose. A decision to declare a lockout must be approved by a majority of the Board of Directors of the employer, corporation or association or the partners obtained by a secret ballot in a meeting called for the purpose.

The regional branch of the Board may, at its own initiative or upon the request of any affected party, supervise the conduct of the secret balloting. In every case, the union or the employer shall furnish the regional branch of the Board and notice of meetings referred to in the preceding paragraph at least twenty-four (24) hours before such meetings as well as the results of the voting at least seven (7) days before the intended strike or lockout, subject to the cooling-off period provided in this Rule.
Although the second paragraph of Section 10 of the said Rule is not provided in the Labor Code of the Philippines, nevertheless, the same was incorporated in the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code and has the force and effect of law. [24] Aside from the mandatory notices embedded in Article 263, paragraphs (c) and (f) of the Labor Code, a union intending to stage a strike is mandated to notify the NCMB of the meeting for the conduct of strike vote, at least twenty-four (24) hours prior to such meeting. Unless the NCMB is notified of the date, place and time of the meeting of the union members for the conduct of a strike vote, the NCMB would be unable to supervise the holding of the same, if and when it decides to exercise its power of supervision. In National Federation of Labor v. NLRC,[25] the Court enumerated the notices required by Article 263 of the Labor Code and the Implementing Rules, which include the 24-hour prior notice to the NCMB:

1) A notice of strike, with the required contents, should be filed with the DOLE, specifically the Regional Branch of the NCMB, copy furnished the employer of the union; 2) A cooling-off period must be observed between the filing of notice and the actual execution of the strike thirty (30) days in case of bargaining deadlock and fifteen (15) days in case of unfair labor practice. However, in the case of union busting where the unions existence is threatened, the cooling-off period need not be observed. 4) Before a strike is actually commenced, a strike vote should be taken by secret balloting, with a 24-hour prior notice to NCMB. The decision to declare a strike requires the secret-ballot approval of majority of the total union membership in the bargaining unit concerned. 5) The result of the strike vote should be reported to the NCMB at least seven (7) days before the intended strike or lockout, subject to the cooling-off period.
A union is mandated to notify the NCMB of an impending dispute in a particular bargaining unit via a notice of strike. Thereafter, the NCMB, through its conciliatormediators, shall call the parties to a conference at the soonest possible time in order to

actively assist them in exploring all possibilities for amicable settlement. In the event of the failure in the conciliation/mediation proceedings, the parties shall be encouraged to submit their dispute for voluntary arbitration. However, if the parties refuse, the union may hold a strike vote, and if the requisite number of votes is obtained, a strike may ensue. The purpose of the strike vote is to ensure that the decision to strike broadly rests with the majority of the union members in general and not with a mere minority, and at the same time, discourage wildcat strikes, union bossism and even corruption.[26] A strike vote report submitted to the NCMB at least seven days prior to the intended date of strike ensures that a strike vote was, indeed, taken. In the event that the report is false, the seven-day period affords the members an opportunity to take the appropriate remedy before it is too late.[27] The 15 to 30 day cooling-off period is designed to afford the parties the opportunity to amicably resolve the dispute with the assistance of the NCMB conciliator/mediator,[28] while the seven-day strike ban is intended to give the DOLE an opportunity to verify whether the projected strike really carries the imprimatur of the majority of the union members.[29] The requirement of giving notice of the conduct of a strike vote to the NCMB at least 24 hours before the meeting for the said purpose is designed to (a) inform the NCMB of the intent of the union to conduct a strike vote; (b) give the NCMB ample time to decide on whether or not there is a need to supervise the conduct of the strike vote to prevent any acts of violence and/or irregularities attendant thereto; and (c) should the NCMB decide on its own initiative or upon the request of an interested party including the employer, to supervise the strike vote, to give it ample time to prepare for the deployment of the requisite personnel, including peace officers if need be. Unless and until the NCMB is notified at least 24 hours of the unions decision to conduct a strike vote, and the date, place, and time thereof, the NCMB cannot determine for itself whether to supervise a strike vote meeting or not and insure its peaceful and regular conduct. The failure of a union to comply with the requirement of the giving of notice to the NCMB at least 24 hours prior to the holding of a strike vote meeting will render the subsequent strike staged by the union illegal. In this case, the respondent Union failed to comply with the 24-hour prior notice requirement to the NCMB before it conducted the alleged strike vote meeting on November 10, 1997. As a result, the petitioner complained that no strike vote meeting ever took place and averred that the strike staged by the respondent union was illegal. Conformably to Article 264 of the Labor Code of the Philippines [30] and Section 7, Rule XXII of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code,[31] no labor organization shall declare a strike unless supported by a majority vote of the members of the union obtained by secret ballot in a meeting called for that purpose. The requirement is mandatory and the failure of a union to comply therewith renders the strike illegal. [32]The union is thus mandated to allege and prove compliance with the requirements of the law. In the present case, there is a divergence between the factual findings of the Labor Arbiter, on the one hand, and the NLRC and the CA, on the other, in that the Labor Arbiter found and declared in his decision that no secret voting ever took place in the parking lot fronting the hospital on November 10, 1997 by and among the 300 members of the respondent Union. Erwin Barbacena, the overseer of the only parking lot fronting

the hospital, and security guards Simon Tingzon and Reggie Barawid, declared in their respective affidavits that no secret voting ever took place on November 10, 1997; 17 employees of the petitioner also denied in their respective statements that they were not members of the respondent Union, and were asked to merely sign attendance papers and unnumbered votes. The NLRC and the CA declared in their respective decisions that the affidavits of the petitioners 17 employees had no probative weight because the said employees merely executed their affidavits out of fear of losing their jobs. The NLRC and the CA anchored their conclusion on their finding that the affidavits of the employees were uniform andpro forma. We agree with the finding of the Labor Arbiter that no secret balloting to strike was conducted by the respondent Union on November 10, 1997 at the parking lot in front of the hospital, at the corner of Scout Magbanua Street and Panay Avenue, Quezon City. This can be gleaned from the affidavit of Barbacena and the joint affidavit of Tingzon and Barawid, respectively:

1. That I am working as an overseer of a parking lot owned by Mrs. Madelaine Dionisio and located right in front of the Capitol Medical Center, specifically at the corner of Scout Magbanua Street and Panay Avenue, Quezon City; 2. That on November 10, 1997, during my entire tour of duty from 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., no voting or election was conducted in the aforementioned parking space for employees of the Capitol Medical Center and/or their guests, or by any other group for that matter.[33] 1. That I, Simon J. Tingzon, am a security officer of Veterans Philippine Scout Security Agency (hereinafter referred to as VPSSA), assigned, since July 1997 up to the present, as Security Detachment Commander at Capitol Medical Center (hereinafter referred to as CMC) located at Scout Magbanua corner Panay Avenue, Quezon City; 2. That my (Tingzon) functions as such include over-all in charge of security of all buildings and properties of CMC, and roving in the entire premises including the parking lots of all the buildings of CMC; 3. That I, Reggie B. Barawid, am a security guard of VPSSA, assigned, since June 1997 up to the present, as security guard at CMC; 4. That my (Barawid) functions as such include access control of all persons coming in and out of CMCs buildings and properties. I also sometimes guard the parking areas of CMC;

5. That on November 10, 1997, both of us were on duty at CMC from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., with me (Barawid) assigned at the main door of the CMCs Main Building along Scout Magbanua St.; 6. That on said date, during our entire tour of duty, there was no voting or election conducted in any of the four parking spaces for CMC personnel and guests. [34]
The allegations in the foregoing affidavits belie the claim of the respondents and the finding of the NLRC that a secret balloting took place on November 10, 1997 in front of the hospital at the corner of Scout Magbanua Street and Panay Avenue, Quezon City. The respondents failed to prove the existence of a parking lot in front of the hospital other than the parking lot across from it. Indeed, 17 of those who purportedly voted in a secret voting executed their separate affidavits that no secret balloting took place on November 10, 1997, and that even if they were not members of the respondent Union, were asked to vote and to sign attendance papers. The respondents failed to adduce substantial evidence that the said affiants were coerced into executing the said affidavits. The bare fact that some portions of the said affidavits are similarly worded does not constitute substantial evidence that the petitioner forced, intimidated or coerced the affiants to execute the same. IN LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the petition is GRANTED. The Decisions of the Court of Appeals and NLRC are SET ASIDE AND REVERSED. The Decision of the Labor Arbiter is REINSTATED. No costs. SO ORDERED. Puno, (Chairman), Austria-Martinez, Tinga, and Chico-Nazario, JJ., concur.

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila FIRST DIVISION G.R. No. 75271-73 June 27, 1988 CATALINO N. SARMIENTO and 71 other striking workers of ASIAN TRANSMISSION CORPORATION,petitioners, vs. THE HON. JUDGE ORLANDO R. TUICO of the Municipal Trial Court of Calamba, Laguna, ROBERTO PIMENTEL, NELSON C. TEJADA, and the COMMANDING OFFICER, 224th PC Company at Los Baos Laguna, respondents. No. L-77567 June 27, 1988 ASIAN TRANSMISSION, CORPORATION (ATC), petitioner, vs. THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (NLRC), respondent. Jose C. Espinas for petitioners in G.R. Nos. 75271-73. Augusto Gatmaytan for petitioner ATC. Emilio C. Capulong, Jr. for private respondents in G.R. Nos. 75271-73.

CRUZ, J.: Two basic questions are presented in these cases, to wit: 1. Whether or not a return-to-work order may be validly issued by the National Labor Relations Commission pending determination of the legality of the strike; and 2. Whether or not, pending such determination, the criminal prosecution of certain persons involved in the said strike may be validly restrained. The first issue was submitted to the Court in G.R. No. 77567, to which we gave due course on July 1, 1987. 1 The case arose when on May 7, 1986, petitioner Asian Transmission Corporation terminated the
services of Catalino Sarmiento, vice-president of the Bisig ng Asian Transmission Labor Union (BATU), for allegedly carrying a deadly weapon in the company premises. 2 As a result, the BATU filed a notice of strike on May 26, 1986, claiming that the ATC had committed an unfair labor practice. 3 The conciliatory conference held on June 5, 1986, failed to settle the dispute. The ATC then filed a petition asking the Ministry of Labor and Employment to assume jurisdiction over the matter or certify the same to the NLRC for compulsory arbitration. 4 Noting that the impending strike would prejudice the national interest as well as the welfare of some 350 workers and their families, the MOLE issued an order on June 3, 1986, certifying the labor dispute to the NLRC. 5At the same time, it enjoined the management from locking out its employees and the union from declaring a strike or similar concerted action. This order was reiterated on June 13, 1986, upon the representation of the ATC that some 40 workers had declared a strike and

were picketing the company premises. 6 Proceedings could not continue in the NLRC, however, because of the acceptance by President Aquino of the resignations of eight of its members, leaving only the vicechairman in office. 7 For this reason, the MOLE, on September 9, 1986, set aside the orders of June 9 and 13, 1986, and directly assumed jurisdiction of the dispute, at the same time enjoining the company to accept all returning workers. 8 This order was itself set aside on November 24,1986, upon motion of both the BATU and the ATC in view of the appointment of new commissioners in the NLRC. The MOLE then returned the case to the respondent NLRC and directed it to expeditiously resolve all issues relating to the dispute, "adding that the union and the striking workers are ordered to return to work immediately." 9 Conformably, the NLRC issued on January 13, 1987 the following resolution, which it affirmed in its resolution of February 12, 1987, denying the motion for reconsideration:

CERTIFIED CASE No. NCR-NS-5-214-86, entitled Asian Transmission Corporation, Petitioner versus Bisig ng Asian Transmission Labor Union (BATU), et al., Respondents.-Considering that the petitioner, despite the order dated 24 November 1986 of the Acting Minister, "to accept all the returning workers" continues to defy the directive insofar as 44 of the workers are concerned, the Commission, sitting en banc, resolved to order the petitioner to accept the said workers, or, to reinstate them on payroll immediately upon receipt of the resolution. It is these orders of January 13 and February 12, 1987, that are challenged by the ATC in this petition for certiorari and are the subject of the temporary restraining order issued by this Court on March 23, 1987. 10 The second issue was raised in G.R. Nos. 75271-73, which we have consolidated with the firstmentioned petition because of the Identity of their factual antecedents. This issue was provoked by three criminal complaints filed against the petitioning workers in the municipal trial court of Calamba, Laguna, two by the personnel administrative officer of the ATC and the third by the Philippine Constabulary. The first two complaints, filed on July 11 and July 15, 1986, were for "Violation of Article 265, par. 1, in relation to Article 273 of the Labor Code of the Philippines."11 The third, filed on
July 17, 1986, was for coercion. 12 In all three complaints, the defendants were charged with staging an illegal strike, barricading the gates of the ATC plant and preventing the workers through intimidation, harassment and force from reporting for work. Acting on Criminal Case No. 15984, Judge Orlando Tuico issued a warrant of arrest against the petitioners and committed 72 of them to jail although he later ordered the release of 61 of them to the custody of the municipal mayor of Calamba, Laguna. 13 The petitioners had earlier moved for the lifting of the warrant of arrest and the referral of the coercion charge to the NLRC and, later, for the dismissal of Criminal Cases Nos. 15973 and 15981 on the ground that they came under the primary jurisdiction of the NLRC. 14 As the judge had not ruled on these motions, the petitioners came to this Court in this petition for certiorari and prohibition. On August 12, 1986, we issued a temporary restraining order to prevent Judge Tuico from enforcing the warrant of arrest and further proceeding with the case. 15 This order was reiterated on September 21, 1987, "to relieve tensions that might prevent an amicable settlement of the dispute between the parties in the compulsory arbitration proceedings now going on in the Department of Labor," and made to apply to Judge Paterno Lustre, who had succeeded Judge Tuico. 16

That is the background. Now to the merits. It is contended by the ATC that the NLRC had no jurisdiction in issuing the return-to-work order and that in any case the same should be annulled for being oppressive and violative of due process. The question of competence is easily resolved. The authority for the order is found in Article 264(g) of the Labor Code, as amended by B.P. Blg. 227, which provides as follows:

When in his opinion there exists a labor dispute causing or likely to cause strikes or lockouts adversely affecting the national interest, such as may occur in but not limited to public utilities, companies engaged in the generation or distribution of energy, banks, hospitals, and export- oriented industries, including those within export processing zones, the Minister of Labor and Employment shall assume jurisdiction over the dispute and decide it or certify the same to the Commission for compulsory arbitration. Such assumption or certification shall have the effect of automatically enjoining the intended or impending strike or lockout as specified in the assumption order. If one has already taken place at the time of assumption or certification, all striking or locked out employees shall immediately return to work and the employer shall immediately resume operations and readmit all workers under the same terms and conditions prevailing before the strike or lockout. The Minister may seek the assistance of law-enforcement agencies to ensure compliance with this provision as well as such orders as he may issue to enforce the same. The justification of the MOLE for such order was embodied therein, thus: Asian Transmission Corporation is an export-oriented enterprise and its annual export amounts to 90% of its sales generating more than twelve (12) million dollars per year. The corporation employs three hundred fifty (350) workers with a total monthly take home pay or approximately P1,300,000.00 a month. Any disruption of company operations will cause the delay of shipments of export finished products which have been previously committed to customers abroad, thereby seriously hampering the economic recovery program which is being pursued by the government. It wig also affect gravely the livelihood of three hundred fifty (350) families who will be deprived of their incomes. This Office is therefore of the opinion that a strike or any disruption in the normal operation of the company will adversely affect the national interest. It is in the interest of both labor and management that the dispute be certified for compulsory arbitration to National Labor Relations Commission. WHEREFORE, this Office hereby certifies the labor dispute to the National Labor Relations Commission in accordance with Article 264(g) of the Labor Code, as amended. In line with this Certification, the management is enjoined from locking out its employees and the union from declaring a strike, or any concerted action which will disrupt the harmonious labor-management relations at the company. 17 There can be no question that the MOLE acted correctly in certifying the labor dispute to the NLRC, given the predictable prejudice the strike might cause not only to the parties but more especially to the national interest. Affirming this fact, we conclude that the return-to-work order was equally valid as a statutory part and parcel of the certification order issued by the MOLE on November 24, 1986. The law itself provides that "such assumption or certification shall have the effect of automatically enjoining the intended or impending strike. If one has already taken place at the time of assumption or certification, all striking or locked out employees shall immediately return to work and the employer shall immediately resume operations and readmit all workers under the same terms and conditions prevailing before the strike or lockout." The challenged order of the NLRC was actually only an implementation of the above provision of the Labor Code and a reiteration of the directive earlier issued by the MOLE in its own assumption order of September 9, 1986.

It must be stressed that while one purpose of the return-to-work order is to protect the workers who might otherwise be locked out by the employer for threatening or waging the strike, the more important reason is to prevent impairment of the national interest in case the operations of the company are disrupted by a refusal of the strikers to return to work as directed. In the instant case, stoppage of work in the firm will be hurtful not only to both the employer and the employees. More particularly, it is the national economy that will suffer because of the resultant reduction in our export earnings and our dollar reserves, not to mention possible cancellation of the contracts of the company with foreign importers. It was particularly for the purpose of avoiding such a development that the labor dispute was certified to the NLRC, with the return-to-work order following as a matter of course under the law. It is also important to emphasize that the return-to-work order not so much confers a right as it imposes a duty; and while as a right it may be waived, it must be discharged as a duty even against the worker's will. Returning to work in this situation is not a matter of option or voluntariness but of obligation. The worker must return to his job together with his co-workers so the operations of the company can be resumed and it can continue serving the public and promoting its interest. That is the real reason such return can be compelled. So imperative is the order in fact that it is not even considered violative of the right against involuntary servitude, as this Court held in Kaisahan ng Mga Manggagawa sa Kahoy v. Gotamco Sawmills. 18 The worker can of course give up his work, thus
severing his ties with the company, if he does not want to obey the order; but the order must be obeyed if he wants to retain his work even if his inclination is to strike.

If the worker refuses to obey the return-to-work order, can it be said that he is just suspending the enjoyment of a right and he is entitled to assert it later as and when he sees fit? In the meantime is the management required to keep his position open, unable to employ replacement to perform the work the reluctant striker is unwilling to resume because he is still manning the picket lines? While the ATC has manifested its willingness to accept most of the workers, and has in fact already done so, it has balked at the demand of the remaining workers to be also allowed to return to work. 19 Its reason is that these persons, instead of complying with the return-to-work order, as most of
the workers have done, insisted on staging the restrained strike and defiantly picketed the company premises to prevent the resumption of operations. By so doing, the ATC submits, these strikers have forfeited their right to be readmitted, having abandoned their positions, and so could be validly replaced.

The Court agrees. The records show that the return-to-work order was first issued on June 3, 1986, and was reiterated on June 13, 1986. The strike was declared thereafter, if we go by the criminal complaints in G.R. Nos. 75271-73, where the alleged acts are claimed to have been done on June 9,1986, and July 15,1986. These dates are not denied. In fact, the petitioners argue in their pleadings that they were engaged only in peaceful picketing, 20 which would signify that they had not on those dates returned to work as
required and had decided instead to ignore the said order. By their own acts, they are deemed to have abandoned their employment and cannot now demand the right to return thereto by virtue of the very order they have defied.

One other point that must be underscored is that the return-to-work order is issued pending the determination of the legality or illegality of the strike. It is not correct to say that it may be enforced only if the strike is legal and may be disregarded if the strike is illegal, for the purpose precisely is to maintain the status quo while the determination is being made. Otherwise, the workers who contend that their strike is legal can refuse to return to their work and cause a standstill in the company

operations while retaining the positions they refuse to discharge or allow the management to fill. Worse, they win also claim payment for work not done, on the ground that they are still legally employed although actually engaged in activities inimical to their employer's interest. This is like eating one's cake and having it too, and at the expense of the management. Such an unfair situation surely was not contemplated by our labor laws and cannot be justified under the social justice policy, which is a policy of fairness to both labor and management. Neither can this unseemly arrangement be sustained under the due process clause as the order, if thus interpreted, would be plainly oppressive and arbitrary. Accordingly, the Court holds that the return-to-work order should benefit only those workers who complied therewith and, regardless of the outcome of the compulsory arbitration proceedings, are entitled to be paid for work they have actually performed. Conversely, those workers who refused to obey the said order and instead waged the restrained strike are not entitled to be paid for work not done or to reinstatement to the positions they have abandoned by their refusal to return thereto as ordered. Turning now to the second issue, we hold that while as a general rule the prosecution of criminal offenses is not subject to injunction, the exception must apply in the case at bar. The suspension of proceedings in the criminal complaints filed before the municipal court of Calamba, Laguna, is justified on the ground of prematurity as there is no question that the acts complained of are connected with the compulsory arbitration proceedings still pending in the NLRC. The first two complaints, as expressly captioned, are for "violation of Art. 265, par. 2, in relation to Art. 273, of the Labor Code of the Philippines," and the third complaint relates to the alleged acts of coercion committed by the defendants in blocking access to the premises of the ATC. Two of the criminal complaints were filed by the personnel administrative officer of the ATC although he vigorously if not convincingly insists that he was acting in his personal capacity. In view of this, the three criminal cases should be suspended until the completion of the compulsory arbitration proceedings in the NLRC, conformably to the policy embodied in Circular No. 15, series of 1982, and Circular No. 9, series of 1986, issued by the Ministry of Justice in connection with the implementation of B.P. Blg. 227. 21 These circulars, briefly stated, require fiscals and other government
prosecutors to first secure the clearance of the Ministry of Labor and/or the Office of the President "before taking cognizance of complaints for preliminary investigation and the filing in court of the corresponding informations of cases arising out of or related to a labor dispute," including "allegations of violence, coercion, physical injuries, assault upon a person in authority and other similar acts of intimidation obstructing the free ingress to and egress from a factory or place of operation of the machines of such factory, or the employer's premises." It does not appear from the record that such clearance was obtained, conformably to the procedure laid down "to attain the industrial peace which is the primordial objectives of this law," before the three criminal cases were filed.

The Court makes no findings on the merits of the labor dispute and the criminal cases against the workers as these are not in issue in the petitions before it. What it can only express at this point is the prayerful hope that these disagreements will be eventually resolved with justice to all parties and in that spirit of mutual accommodation that should always characterize the relations between the workers and their employer. Labor and management are indispensable partners in the common endeavor for individual dignity and national prosperity. There is no reason why they cannot pursue these goals with open hands rather than clenched fists, striving with rather than against each other, that they may together speed the dawning of a richer day for all in this amiable land of ours. WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered as follows:

1. In G.R. No. 77567, the petition is DENIED and the challenged Orders of the NLRC dated January 13, 1986, and February 12, 1986, are AFFIRMED as above interpreted. The temporary restraining order dated March 23, 1987, is LIFTED. 2. In G.R. Nos. 75271-73, the temporary restraining order of August 12,1986, and September 21, 1986, are CONTINUED IN FORCE until completion of the compulsory arbitration proceedings in the NLRC. No costs. It is so ordered. Narvasa, Gancayco, Grio-Aquino and Medialdea, JJ., concur.

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila SECOND DIVISION

G.R. Nos. 95494-97 September 7, 1995 LAPANDAY WORKERS UNION, ARQUILAO BACOLOD, JOSE ERAD, FERNANDO HERNANDO, EDDIE ESTRELLA, CIRILO DAYAG, EDUARDO POQUITA, CARLITO PEPITO, RENE ARAO, JUANITO GAHUM, EMILIANO MAGNO, PERLITO LISONDRA, GREGORIO ALBARAN, ABRAHAM BAYLON, DIONESIO TRUCIO, TOMAS BASCO AND ROSARIO SINDAY, pertitioners, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION & DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, respondents. G.R. Nos. 95494-97 September 7, 1995 LAPANDAY WORKERS UNION, ARQUILAO BACOLOD, ET AL., petitioners, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION AND CADECO ARGO DEVELOPMENT PHILS., INC.respondents. G.R. Nos. 95494-97 September 7, 1995 LAPANDAY WORKERS UNION, ARQUILAO BACOLOD, ET AL., petitioners, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION AND LAPANDAY AGRICULTURAL & DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, respondents. G.R. Nos. 95494-97 September 7, 1995 LAPANDAY WORKERS UNION, TOMAS N. BASCO, ET AL., petitioners, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION AND LAPANDAY AGRICULTURAL & DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, respondents.

PUNO, J.: Petitioner Lapanday Agricultural Workers' Union (Union for brevity) and petitioners-workers of Lapanday Agricultural and Development Corporation and CADECO Agro Development Philippines, Inc., seek to reverse the consolidated Decision dated August 29, 1990, 1rendered by public
respondent National Labor Relations Commision, declaring their strike illegal and ordering the dismissal of their leaders.

The background of the case:

Private respondents are sister companies engaged in the production of bananas. Their agricultural establishments are located in Davao City. On the other hand, petitioner Lapanday Workers' Union (Union) is the duly certified bargaining agent of the rank and file employees of private respondents. The Union is affiliated with the KMU-ANGLO. The other petitioners are all members of the Union. The records show that petitioner Union has a collective bargaining agreement with private respondents, covering the period from December 5, 1985 to November 30, 1988. A few months before the expiration of their CBA, private respondents initiated certain management policies which disrupted the relationship of the parties. First, on August 1, 1988, private respondents contracted Philippine Eagle Protectors and Security Agency, Inc., to provide security services for their business premises located in Lapanday, Bandug, Callawa, Davao City, and Guising, Davao Del Sur. Their contract also called for the protection of the lives and limbs of private respondents' officers, employees and guests within company premises. The Union branded the security guards posted within the company premises as private respondents' "goons" and "special forces." It also accused the guards of intimidating and harassing their members. Second, private respondents conducted seminars on Human Development and Industrial Relations (HDIR) for their managerial and supervisory employees and, later, the rank-and-filers, to promote their social education and economic growth. Among the topics discussed in the seminar were the mission statement of the company, corporate values, and the Philippine political spectrum. The Union claimed that the module on the Philippine political spectrum lumped the ANGLO (Alliance of Nationalist and Genuine Labor Organization), with other outlawed labor organizations such as the National Democratic Front or other leftist groups. These issues were discussed during a labor-management meeting held on August 2, 1988. The labor group was represented by the Union, through its President, petitioner Arquilao Bacolod, and its legal counsel. After private respondents explained the issues, the Union agreed to allow its members to attend the HDIR seminar for the rank-and-filers. Nevertheless, on August 19 and 20, the Union directed its members not to attend the seminars scheduled on said dates. Earlier on, or on August 6, 1988, the Union, led by petitioners Arquilao Bacolod and Rene Arao, picketed the premises of the Philippine Eagle Protectors to show their displeasure on the hiring of the guards. Worse still, the Union filed on August 25, 1988, a Notice of Strike with the National Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB). It accused the company of unfair labor practices consisting of coercion of employees, intimidation of union members and union-busting. 2 These were the same issues raised by
the Union during the August 2, 1988 labor-management meeting.

On August 29, 1988, the NCMB called a conciliation conference. The conference yielded the following agreement: (1) Union officers, including the officials of KMU-ANGLO, and the Executive Director of the NCMB would attend the HDIR seminar on September 5, 1988; and (2) A committee shall convene on September 10, 1989, to establish guidelines governing the guards. The Union officials did attend the September 5, 1988 seminar. While they no longer objected to the continuation of the seminar, they reiterated their demand for the deletion of the discussion pertaining to the KMU-ANGLO.

With the apparent settlement of their differences, private respondents notified the NCMB that there were no more bases for the notice of strike. An unfortunate event brake the peace of the parties. On September 8, 1988, Danilo Martinez, a member of the Board of Directors of the Union, was gunned down in his house in the presence of his wife and children. The gunman was later identified as Eledio Samson, an alleged member of the new security forces of private respondents. On September 9, 1988, the day after the killing, most of the members of the Union refused to report for work. They returned to work the following day but they did not comply with the "quota system" adopted by the management to bolster production output. Allegedly, the Union instructed the workers to reduce their production to thirty per cent (30%). Private respondents charged the Union with economic sabotage through slowdown. On September 14, 1988, Private respondents filed separate charges against the Union and its members for illegal strike, unfair labor practice and damages, with prayer for injunction. These cases were docketed as Case Nos. RAB-11-09-00612-888 and RAB No. 11-09-00613-88 before Labor Arbiter Antonio Villanueva. On September 17, 1988, petitioners skipped work to pay their last respect to the slain Danilo Martinez who was laid to rest. Again, on September 23, 1988, petitioners did not report for work. Instead, they proceeded to private respondents' office at Lanang, carrying placards and posters which called for the removal of the security guards, the ouster of certain management officials, and the approval of their mass leave application. Their mass action did not succeed. In a last ditch effort to settle the deteriorating dispute between the parties, City Mayor Rodrigo Duterte intervened. Dialogues were held on September 27 and 29, 1988 at the City Mayor's Office. Again, the dialogues proved fruitless as private respondents refused to withdraw the cases they earlier filed with public respondent. On October 3, 1988, a strike vote was canducted among the members of the Union and those in favor of the strike won overwhelming support from the workers. The result of the strike vote was then submitted to the NCMB on October 10, 1988. Two days later, or on Ootober 12, 1988, the Union struck. On the bases of the foregoing facts, Labor Arbiter Antonio Villanueva ruled that the Union staged an illegal strike. The dispositlve portion of the Decision, dated December 12, 1988, states: COMFORMABLY WITH ALL THE FOREGOING, judgment is hereby rendered: a) Declaring the strike staged by respondents (petitioners) to be illegal; b) Declaring the employees listed as respondents in the complaint and those mentioned in page 21 to have lost their employment status with complainants Lapanday Agricultural and Development Corporation and Cadeco Agro Development Philippines, Inc.; and c) Ordering respondents (petitioners in this case) to desist from further committing an illegal strike. Petitioners appealed the Villanueva decision to public respondent NLRC.

It also appears that on December 6, 1988, or before the promulgation of the decision of Arbiter Villanueva, the Union, together with Tomas Basco and 25 other workers, filed a complaint for unfair labor practice and illegal suspension against LADECO. The case was docketed as Case No. RAB11-12-00780-88. On even date, another complaint for unfair labor practice and illegal dismissal was filed by the Union, together with Arquilao Bacolod and 58 other complainants. This was docketed as Case No. RAB-11-12-00779-88. These two (2) cases were heard by Labor Arbiter Newton Sancho. Before the NLRC could resolve the appeal taken on the Villanueva decision in Case Nos. RAB-1109-00612-88 and RAB-11-09-00613-88, Labor Arbiter Sancho rendered a decision in the two (2) cases filed by the Union against private respondents LADECO and CADECO (Case Nos. RAB-1112-00779-88 and RAB-11-12-00780-88). The Sancho decision, dated October 18, 1989, declared LADECO and CADECO guilty of unfair labor practices and illegal dismissal and ordered the reinstatement of the dismissed employees of private reapondents, with backwages and other benefits. Significantly, the Sancho decision considered the refusal of the workers to report for work on September 9, 1988, justified by the circumstance then prevailing, the killing of Danilo Martinez on September 8,1988. Private respondents appealed the Sancho decision, claiming, among others, that labor arbiter Sancho erred in passing upon the legality of the strike staged by petitioners since said issue had already been passed upon by the Regional Arbitration Branch and was still on appeal before the NLRC. Considering that the four (4) cases before it arose from the same set of facts and involved substantially the same issues, the NLRC rendered a consolidated decision, promulgated August 29, 1990, upholding the Villanueva decision in Case Nos. RAB-11-09-00612-88 and RAB-11-09-0061388. The dispositive portion of the assailed NLRC decision states: WHEREFORE, premises considered, a new judgment is entered in the four consolidated and above-captioned cases as follows: 1. The strike staged by the Lapanday Agricultural Workers Union is hereby declared to be (sic) illegal; 2. As a consequence thereof, the following employees-union officers are declared to have lost their employment status with Lapanday Agricultural Development Corporation and CADECO Agro Development Philippines, to wit: Arguilao Bacolod, Jose Erad, Fernando Hernando, Eldie Estrella, Cerelo Dayag, Lucino Magadan, Rene Arao, Eduardo Poquita, Juanito Gahum, Emilio Magno, Perlito Lisondra, Gregorio Albaron, Abraham Baylon, Dionosio Trocio, Tomas Basco and Rosario Sinday; 3. However, the individual respondents (union members), being merely rank-and-file employees and who merely joined the strike declared as illegal, are ordered reinstated but without backwages, the period they were out of work is deemed the penalty for the illegal strike they staged; 4. Ordering Lapanday Workers' Union, its leaders and members, to desist from further committing an illegal strike; and 5. Dismissing the complaint for unfair labor practice, illegal suspension and illegal dismissal filed by the Lapanday Workers Union (LWU)-ANGLO and its members, for lack of merit.

SO ORDERED. Petitioners fileds motion for reconsideration. It did not prosper. Hence, the petition. Petitioners now claim that public respondent NLRC gravely abused its discretion in: a) declaring that their activities, from September 9, 1988 to October 12, 1988, were strike activities; and b) declaring that the strike staged on October 12, 1988 was illegal. The critical issue is the legality of the strike held on October 12, 1988. The applicable laws are Articles 263 and 264 of the Labor Code, as amended by E.O. No. 111, dated December 24, 1986. 3 Paragraphs (c) and (f) of Article 263 of the Labor Code, as amended by E.O. 111, provides: (c) In cases of bargaining deadlocks, the duly certified or recognized bargaining agent may file anotice of strike or the employer may file, notice of lockout with the Ministry at least 30 days before the intended date thereof. In cases of unfair labor practice, the notice shall be 15 days and in the absence of a duly certified or recognized bargaining agent, the notice of strike may be filed by any legitimate labor organization in behalf of its members. However, in case of dismissal from employment of union officers duly elected in accordance with the union constitution and by-laws, which may constitute union busting where the existence of the union is threatened, the 15-daycooling-off period shall not apply and the union may take action immediately. xxx xxx xxx (f) A decision to declare a strike must be approved by a majority of the total union membership in the bargaining unit concerned, obtained by secret ballot in meetings or referenda called for that purpose. A decision to declare a lockout must be approved by a majority of the board of directors of the corporation or association or of the partners in a partnership, obtained by secret ballot in a meeting called for that purpose. The decision shall be valid for the duration of the dispute based on substantially the same grounds considered when the strike or lockout vote was taken. The Ministry may, at its own initiative or upon the request of any affected party, supervise the conduct of secret balloting. In every case, the union or the employer shall furnish the Ministry the results of the voting at least seven (7) days before the intended strike or lockout subject to the cooling-off period herein provided. Article 264 of the same Code reads: Art. 264. Prohibited activities. (a) No labor organization or employer shall declare a strike or lockout without first having bargained collectively in accordance with Title VII of this Book or without first having filed the notice required in the preceding Article or without the necessary strike or lockout vote first having been obtained and reported to the Ministry. xxx xxx xxx . . . . Any union officer who knowingly participates in an illegal strike and any worker or union officer who knowingly participates in the commission of illegal acts during a strike may be declared to have lost his employment status: Provided that mere

participation of a worker in a lawful strike shall not constitute sufficient ground for termination of his employment, even if a replacement had been hired by the employer during such lawful strike. (emphasis ours). A strike is "any temporary stoppage of work by the concerted action of employees as a result of an industrial or labor dispute." 4 It is the most preeminent of the economic weapons of workers which they
unsheathe to force management to agree to an equitable sharing of the joint product of labor and capital. Undeniably, strikes exert some disquieting effects not only on the relationship between labor and management but also on the general peace and progress of society. Our laws thus regulate their exercise within reasons by balancing the interests of labor and management together with the overarching public interest.

Some of the limitations on the exercise of the right of strike are provided for in paragraphs (c) and (f) of Article 263 of the Labor Code, as amended, supra. They Provide for the procedural steps to be followed before staging a strike filing of notice of strike, taking of strike vote, and reporting of the strike vote result to the Department of Labor and Employment. In National Federation of Sugar Workers (NFSW) vs. Overseas, et al., 5 we ruled that these steps are mandatory in character, thus: If only the filing of the strike notice and the strike-vote report would be deemed mandatory, but not the waiting periods so specifically and emphatically prescribed by law, the purposes (hereafter discussed) far which the filing of the strike notice and strike-vote report is required cannot be achieved. . . . xxx xxx xxx So too, the 7-day strike-vote report is not without a purpose. As pointed out by the Solicitor General . . . The submission of the report gives assurance that a strike vote has been taken and that, if the report concerning it is false, the majority of the members can take appropriate remedy before it is too late. The seven (7) day waiting period is intended to give the Department of Labor and Employment an opportunity to verify whether the projected strike really carries the imprimatur of the majority of the union members. The need for assurance that majority of the union members support the strike cannot be gainsaid. Strike is usually the last weapon of labor to compel capital to concede to its bargaining demands or to defend itself against unfair labor practices of management. It is a weapon that can either breathe life to or destroy the union and its members in their struggle with management for a more equitable due of their labors. The decision to wield the weapon of strike must, therefore, rest on a rational basis, free from emotionalism, unswayed by the tempers and tantrums of a few hotheads, and firmly focused on the legitimate interest of the union which should not, however, be antithetical to the public welfare. Thus, our laws require the decision to strike to be the consensus of the majority for while the majority is not infallible, still, it is the best hedge against haste and error. In addition, a majority vote assures the union it will go to war against management with the strength derived from unity and hence, with better chance to succeed. InBatangas Laguna Tayabas Bus Company vs. NLRC, 6 we held: xxx xxx xxx The right to strike is one of the rights recognized and guaranteed by the Constitution as an instrument of labor for its protection against exploitation by management. By

virtue of this right, the workers are able to press their demands for better terms of employment with more energy and persuasiveness, poising the threat to strike as their reaction to employer's intransigence. The strike is indeed a powerful weapon of the working class. But precisely because of this, it must be handled carefully, like a sensitive explosive, lest it blow up in the workers' own hands. Thus, it must be declared only after the most thoughtful consultation among them, conducted in the only way allowed, that is, peacefully, and in every case conformably to reasonable regulation. Any violation of the legal requirements and strictures, . . . will render the strike illegal, to the detriment of the very workers it is supposed to protect. Every war must be lawfully waged. A labor dispute demands no less observance of the rules, for the benefit of all concerned. Applying the law to the case at bar, we rule that strike conducted by the union on October 12, 1988 is plainly illegal as it was held within th seven (7) day waiting period provided for by paragraph (f), Article 263 of the Labor Code, as amended. The haste in holding the strike prevented the Department of Labor and Employment from verifying whether it carried the approval of the majority of the union members. It set to naught an important policy consideration of our law on strike. Considering this finding, we need not exhaustively rule on the legality of the work stoppage conducted by the union and some of their members on September 9 and 23, 1988. Suffice to state, that the ruling of the public respondent on the matter is supported by substantial evidence. We affirm the decision of the public respondent limiting the penalty of dismissal only to the leaders of the illegal strike. especially the officers of the union who served as its major players. They cannot claim good faith to exculpate themselves. They admitted knowledge of the law on strike, including its procedure. They cannot violate the law which ironically was cast to promote their interest. We, likewise, agree with the public respondent that the union members who were merely instigated to participate in the illegal strike should be treated differently from their leaders. Part of our benign consideration for labor is the policy of reinstating rank-and-file workers who were merely misled in supporting illegal strikes. Nonetheless, these reinstated workers shall not be entitled to backwages as they should not be compensated for services skipped during the illegal strike. IN VIEW WHEREOF, the petition is dismissed for failure to show grave abuse of discretion on the part of the public respondent. Costs against the petitioners. SO ORDERED. Narvasa, C.J., Regalado, Mendoza and Francisco, JJ., concur.

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila SECOND DIVISION G.R. No. 145496 February 24, 2004

STAMFORD MARKETING CORP., GSP MANUFACTURING CORP., GIORGIO ANTONIO MARKETING CORP., CLEMENTINE MARKETING CORP., ULTIMATE CONCEPTS PHILIPPINES, INC., and ROSARIO G. APACIBLE,petitioners, vs. JOSEPHINE JULIAN, LEONOR AMBROSIO, MARILYN AQUINO, PURITA BARRO, ROSARIO BASADA, HERMINIA BERGUELLES, ERLINDA CANARIA, SALVACION CIRUELOS, MARITESS BALISARIO, JULIETA DOLONTAP, JOSEFINA DOMINGO, GLORIA FLORENDO, AMELITA GRANDE, SIMONA MALUNES, CORAZON MARASIGAN, SUSANA OBNAMIA, LUCY PEREZ, GINALYN PIDOY, CAROLINA REYNOSO, LETICIA SARMIENTO, ARCELY VILLEZA, MARIA SANCHO LABIT, IMELDA RIVERA, ROWENA ALVARADO, VIOLETA ARRIOLA, VIRGINIA DE VERA, GIRLIE DISCAYA, ADELAIDA LOMOD, MARILOU RABANAL, JOCELYN RUFILA, ELENA SUEDE, JACINTA TEJADA, MELBA TOLOSA, LEZILDA CARANTO, JECINA BURABOD, LUCITA CASERO, MONICA CRUZ, GLENDA MIRANDA, YOLANDA PANCHO, MYRNA RAGASA, FILOMENA MORALES, FELIPA VALENCIA, CORAZON VIRTUZ, MARICEL BOLANGA, SONIA ANTILLA, LEONITA BINAL, GLORIA LARIOSA, LIZABETH LUANGCO and JULIETA LEANO, respondents.

DECISION

QUISUMBING, J.: For review on certiorari is the Court of Appeals Decision,1 dated April 26, 2000, in CA-G.R. SP No. 53169, as well as its Resolution,2 dated October 11, 2000, denying the petitioners Motion for Reconsideration. The Court of Appeals modified the Resolution,3 dated August 27, 1998, of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC)-First Division which, in turn, dismissed the petitioners appeal from the decision of Labor Arbiter Ramon Valentin C. Reyes in three (3) consolidated cases, namely: (1) Josephine Julian, et al. vs. Stamford Marketing Corp. (NLRC NCR Case No. 00-1108124-94); (2) Philippine Agricultural, Commercial and Industrial Workers Union, et al. vs. GSP Manufacturing Corp., et al. (NLRC NCR Case No. 00-03-02114-95); and (3) Lucita Casero, et al. vs. GSP Manufacturing Corp., et al. (NLRC NCR Case No. 00-0110437-95).

The instant controversy stemmed from a letter sent by Zoilo V. De La Cruz, Jr., president of the Philippine Agricultural, Commercial and Industrial Workers Union (PACIWU-TUCP), on November 2, 1994, to Rosario A. Apacible, the treasurer and general manager of herein petitioners Stamford Marketing Corporation, GSP Manufacturing Corporation, Giorgio Antonio Marketing Corporation, Clementine Marketing Corporation, and Ultimate Concept Phils., Inc. Said letter advised Apacible that the rank-and-file employees of the aforementioned companies had formed the Apacible Enterprise Employees Union-PACIWU-TUCP. The union demanded that management recognize its existence. Shortly thereafter, discord reared its ugly head, and rancor came hard on its wake. Josephine Julian, et al. vs. Stamford Marketing Corp. NLRC NCR Case No. 00-11-08124-94 On November 9, 1994, or just a day after Apacible received the letter of PACIWU-TUCP, herein private respondents Josephine Julian, president of the newly organized labor union; Jacinta Tejada, and Jecina Burabod, board member and member of the said union, respectively, were effectively dismissed from employment. Without further ado, the three dismissed employees filed suit with the Labor Arbiter. In their Complaint, the three dismissed employees alleged that petitioners had not paid them their overtime pay, holiday pay/premiums, rest day premium, 13th month pay for the year 1994, salaries for services actually rendered, and that illegal deduction had been made without their consent from their salaries for a cash bond. For its part, herein petitioner Stamford alleged that private respondent Julian was a supervising employee at the Patricks Boutique at Shoemart (SM) Northmall. In October 1994, when she was four (4) to five (5) months pregnant, the management of SM Northmall asked her to go on maternity leave, pursuant to company policy. Julian was then directed to report at Stamfords Head Office for reassignment. She was also asked to submit a medical certificate to enable the company to approximate her delivery date. Julian, however, allegedly failed to comply with these directives and instead, ceased to report for work without having given notice. Stamford then allegedly asked Tejada to take over Julians position, but the former inexplicably refused to comply with the management directive. Instead, like Julian, she abandoned her work with nary a notice or an explanation. As to Burabod, petitioner Giorgio Antonio Boutique (Giorgio) averred that she was employed as one of its sales clerks at its SM Northmall branch. When directed to report to the Giorgio branch at Robinsons Galleria, she defiantly questioned the validity of the directive and refused to comply. Like Julian and Tejada, she then ceased to report for work without giving notice. Philippine Agricultural, Commercial and Industrial Workers Union, et al. vs. GSP Manufacturing Corp. NLRC NCR Case No. 00-03-02114-95 On March 17, 1995, PACIWU-TUCP, filed on behalf of fifty (50) employees allegedly illegally dismissed for union membership by the petitioners, a Complaint before the Arbitration Branch of NLRC, Metro Manila. PACIWU-TUCP charged petitioners herein with unfair labor practice. The Complaint alleged that when Apacible received the letter of PACIWU-TUCP, management began to harass the members of the local chapter, a move which culminated in their outright dismissal from employment, without any just or lawful cause. It was a clear case of union-busting, averred PACIWU-TUCP. GSP Manufacturing Corporation (GSP) denied the unions averments. It claimed that it had verified with the Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR) whether a labor organization with the name Apacible

Enterprises Employees Union was duly registered. It was informed that no such labor organization was registered either as a local chapter of PACIWU or of the Trade Union Congress of the Philippines (TUCP). GSP claimed that after unsuccessfully misrepresenting themselves, herein private respondents then started making unjustified demands, abandoned their work, and staged an illegal strike from November 1994 up to the filing of the Complaints. Petitioners then asked the private respondents to lift their picket and return to work, but were only met with a cold refusal. Lucita Casero, et al. vs. GSP Manufacturing Corp., et al. NLRC NCR Case No. 00-01-10437-95 This separate case was also filed by the dismissed union members (complainants in NLRC NCR Case No. 00-03-02114-95), against the petitioners herein for payment of their monetary claims. The dismissed employees demanded the payment of (1) salary differentials due to underpayment of wages; (2) unpaid salaries/wages for work actually rendered; (3) 13th month pay for 1994; (4) cash equivalent of the service incentive leave; and (5) illegal deductions from their salaries for cash bonds. Petitioner corporations, however, maintained that they have been paying complainants the wages/salaries mandated by law and that the complaint should be dismissed in view of the execution of quitclaims and waivers by the private respondents. The Labor Arbiter ordered the three cases consolidated as the issues were interrelated and the respondent corporations were under one management. After due proceedings, Labor Arbiter Ramon Valentin C. Reyes rendered a decision, the decretal portion of which reads as follows: WHEREFORE, premises all considered, judgment is hereby rendered in the respective cases as follows: A. NLRC NCR CASE NO. 00-11-08124-94 1. Holding the respondent guilty of unfair labor practice, and declaring complainants dismissals illegal; 2. Ordering respondent to reinstate complainants to their former positions without loss of seniority rights and other benefits; 3. Ordering the respondent to pay complainants their backwages from the date of their termination up to the date of this decision; 4. Ordering the respondent to pay complainants their unpaid salaries, overtime pay, holiday and rest day premium, unpaid 13th month pay and reimbursement of the cash deposit deducted by the respondent from the salaries of complainants. B. NLRC NCR CASE NO. 00-03-02114-95 1. Declaring the strike conducted by complainants to be illegal; 2. Declaring the officers of the union to have lost their employment status, and thus terminating their employment with respondent companies;

3. Ordering the reinstatement of the complainants who are only members of the union to their former positions with respondent companies, without backwages, except individual complainants Cristeta De Luna, Luzviminda Recones, Eden Revilla, and Jinky Dellosa. C. NLRC NCR CASE NO. 00-01-104314-95 1. Ordering respondents to pay individual complainants: a. salary differentials resulting from underpayment of wages b. unpaid salaries/wages for work actually rendered; c. 13th month pay for the year 1994; d. cash equivalent of the service incentive leave; e. illegal deductions in the form of cash deposits all in accordance with the computation submitted by the individual complainants. 2. Dismissing the complaint with regard to complainants Cristeta De Luna, Luzviminda Recones, Eden Revilla, and Jinky Dellosa. All other claims are dismissed for lack of merit. The Research and Information Division, this Commission, is hereby directed to effect the necessary computation which shall form part of this Decision. SO ORDERED.5 Labor Arbiter Reyes ruled the reassignment and transfer of complainants in NLRC NCR Case No. 00-11-08124-94 as unfair labor practice, it being management interference in the complainants formation and membership of union. He held that the protested reassignments and transfers were highly suspicious, having been made right after management was informed about the formation of the union. Such timing could not have been pure coincidence. The Labor Arbiter also found that petitioners herein failed to substantiate their claim that private respondents had abandoned their employment. He pointed out that the complainants filing of a case immediately after their alleged dismissal militated against any claim of abandonment. Moreover, petitioners did not furnish complainants with written notices of dismissal. As to the unpaid wages and other monetary benefits claimed by private respondents herein, the Labor Arbiter ruled that as petitioners herein did not present proof of their payment, there is presumption of non-payment. Finally, Labor Arbiter Reyes found the cash deposit of P2,000.00 unauthorized and illegal, without any showing that the same was necessary and recognized in the business. In NLRC NCR Case No. 00-03-02114-95, it was duly established that the employees union was not registered with the Bureau of Labor Relations. Hence, private respondents had engaged in an illegal strike since the right to strike maybe availed of only by a legitimate labor organization. Labor Arbiter Reyes upheld the dismissal of the union officers for leading and participating in an illegal strike, but ruled the dismissal of the union members to be improper since they acted in good faith in the belief that their actions were within the bounds of law.

In NLRC NCR Case No. 00-01-10437-95, the Labor Arbiter found petitioners liable for salary differentials and other monetary claims for petitioners failure to sufficiently prove that it had paid the same to complainants as required by law. He likewise ordered the return of the cash deposits to complainants, citing the same reasons as in NLRC NCR Case No. 00-11-08124-94. Petitioners herein seasonably appealed the decision of Labor Arbiter Reyes. Subsequently, the NLRC affirmed the decision in NLRC NCR Case Nos. 00-11-08124-94 and 00-01-10437-95. However, the NLRC set aside the judgment with respect to NLRC NCR Case No. 00-03-02114-95 and ordered the remand of the case for further proceedings, in view of the various factual issues involved. The NLRC ruling reads: WHEREFORE, finding the appeal unmeritorious, the same is hereby DISMISSED. ACCORDINGLY, we hereby set aside the ruling in NLRC NCR CASE NO. 00-03-02114-95 as we order the same remanded for further proceedings in view of the nature of the issues involved being purely factual in character. The awards in NLRC NCR CASE NO. 00-11-0808124-94 and NLRC NCR CASE NO. 00-01-10437-95 are hereby AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED.6 Meanwhile, on May 14, 1996, petitioners herein filed a Petition to Declare the Strike Illegal against their striking employees, docketed as NLRC NCR Case No. 05-03064-96 and raffled off to Labor Arbiter Arthur L. Amansec. On September 2, 1998, Labor Arbiter Amansec decided NLRC NCR Case No. 05-03064-96, as follows: WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby made finding the strike conducted by the respondents from December 1, 1994 up to May 14, 1996 illegal and concomitantly, ordering respondents who are established to have knowingly participated to have committed an illegal act to have lost their employment status. Other claims for lack of merit are ordered DISMISSED. SO ORDERED.7 In declaring the strike illegal, Labor Arbiter Amansec noted that: (1) no prior notice to strike had been filed; (2) no strike vote had been taken among the union members; and (3) the issue involved was non-strikeable, i.e., a demand for salary increases. Petitioners then moved for reconsideration of the NLRC ruling, citing the ruling in NLRC NCR Case No. 05-03064-96 to support their position that respondents herein had conducted an illegal strike and were liable for unlawful acts. On March 12, 1999, the NLRC resolved to partly grant the Motion for Reconsideration, thus: WHEREFORE, prescinding from the foregoing premises, the Motion for Reconsideration is partly given due course, in that the issues raised in NLRC NCR CASE No. 00-03-02114-95 is hereby declared to have been rendered academic. The rest of the dispositions in the questioned resolution remains.

SO ORDERED.8 Unwilling to let the matter rest there, petitioners then filed a special civil action for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 53169. The Court of Appeals considered the following issues in resolving the petition, to wit: (a) the validity of the respondents dismissal and entitlement to backwages, (b) the validity of the Release, waiver and quitclaim executed by some of the respondents, and (c) the validity of the claims for non-payment of salaries, overtime pay, holiday pay, premium pay, etc. On April 26, 2000, the appellate court disposed of CA-G.R. SP No. 53169 as follows: WHEREFORE, premises studiedly considered, the Petition is partly given due course as the 12 March 1999 Resolution of the NLRC is hereby modified as follows: 1. In lieu of reinstatement, private respondents Josephine Julian, Jacinta Tejada, and the rest of the officers of the Union shall be given separation pay at the rate of one month pay for every year of service, with a fraction of at least six months of service considered as one year, computed from the time they were first employed until December 10, 1994; 2. Ordering petitioner corporations to reinstate, without loss of seniority, Jacina Burabod and the rest of the Union members; plus payment of backwages; The rest of the dispositions in the two (2) challenged resolutions remains. SO ORDERED.9 The appellate court brushed aside petitioners theory that the illegality of strike makes the respondents dismissal legal. It stressed that while the strike was illegal, marked as it was with violence and for non-compliance with the requirements of the Labor Code, nonetheless, Julian, Tejada, and Burabod (complainants in NLRC NCR Case No. 00-11-08124-94) were dismissed prior to the staging of the strike. Said dismissal constitutes unfair labor practice. Moreover, said dismissal was done without valid cause and due process. Thus, the complainants in NLRC NCR Case No. 0011-08124-94 are entitled to reinstatement and backwages, although separation pay may be given in lieu of reinstatement due to strained relations with petitioners. The appellate court also ruled that the quitclaims relied upon by petitioners herein are void, having been executed under duress. Finally, the Court of Appeals affirmed the finding of the NLRC that petitioners had failed to support their claim of having paid herein respondents their money claims, because belated evidence presented by petitioners is bereft of any probative value. Petitioners timely moved for reconsideration, but the appellate court denied said motion. Hence, this petition alleging that the Court of Appeals committed palpable and reversible errorS of law when: I IT ORDERED THE RESPONDENTS, WHO ARE UNION MEMBERS, BE REINSTATED AND BE PAID BACKWAGES, DESPITE THE FACT THAT IT CATEGORICALLY HELD THAT UNLAWFUL ACTS ATTENDED THE STAGING OF THE ILLEGAL STRIKE IN CONTRAVENTION OF THE CLEAR MANDATE OF ARTICLE 264(a) OF THE LABOR CODE.

II IT AWARDED BACKWAGES TO THE RESPONDENTS, WHO ARE UNION MEMBERS, DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE ISSUE OF WHETHER OR NOT THE SAID UNION MEMBERS ARE ENTITTLED TO BACKWAGES HAVE BEEN ANSWERED IN THE NEGATIVE BY THE DECISION DATED 15 APRIL 1996, PROMULGATED BY THE HONORABLE LABOR ARBITER A QUO VALENTIN C. REYES AND SUCH RULING HAD ATTAINED FINALITY. III IT AWARDED SEPARATION PAY AND BACKWAGES TO THE RESPONDENTS WHO ARE OFFICERS OF THE UNION, NAMELY: ADELAIDA LUMOD, LUCITA CASERO, MYRNA RAGASA, FELY MORALES, ELEN SUEDE, FELY VALENCIA AND VIOLETA ARRIOLA, DESPITE THE FACT THAT IT WAS HELD IN THE DECISION DATED 15 APRIL 1996 PROMULGATED BY THE HONORABLE LABOR ARBITER A QUO VALENTIN C. REYES THAT THE AFORENAMED UNION OFFICERS HAVE LOST THEIR EMPLOYMENT STATUS BY STAGING AN ILLEGAL STRIKE AND SUCH RULING HAD ATTAINED FINALITY. IV IT HELD THAT RESPONDENTS JULIAN, TEJADA AND BURABOD WERE ILLEGALLY DISMISSED. V IT FAILED TO UPHOLD THE VALIDITY OF THE RELEASE, WAIVER AND QUITCLAIM EXECUTED BY THE RESPONDENTS CONCERNED. VI IT REFUSED TO GIVE PROBATIVE VALUE ON THE VOLUMINOUS DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY HEREIN PETITIONERS.10 In our view, considering the assigned errors, the following are the relevant issues for our resolution: 1. Whether the respondents union officers and members were validly and legally dismissed from employment considering the illegality of the strike; 2. Whether the respondents union officers and members are entitled to backwages, separation pay and reinstatement, respectively. On the first issue, petitioners argue that respondents were legally dismissed, pursuant to Article 26411 of the Labor Code in view of the determination by the Labor Arbiter that the strike conducted by respondents are illegal and that illegal acts attended the mass action. The respondents counter that the determination of the illegality of strike is inconsequential as the conclusion by the appellate court on the illegality of dismissal was based on the petitioners non-compliance with the due process requirements on terminating employees, which had nothing to do with the legality of the strike. Some elaboration on the legality of the strike is needed, though briefly. In ruling the strike illegal, the NLRC observed that: While the right to strike is specifically granted by law, it is a remedy which can only be availed of by a legitimate labor organization. Absent a showing as to the legitimate status of the labor organization, said strike would have to be considered as illegal.

A review of the records of this case does not show that the local union to which complainants belong to has complied with these basic requirements necessary to clothe the union with a legitimate status. In fact, and as respondents claim, there is no record with the BLR that the union complainants belong to have complied with the aforementioned requirements. This Office then has no recourse but to consider the union of complainants as not being a legitimate labor organization. It then follows that the strike conducted by complainants on respondent companies is illegal, as the right to strike is afforded only to a legitimate labor organization.12 Indeed, the right to strike, while constitutionally recognized, is not without legal restrictions.13 The Labor Code regulates the exercise of said right by balancing the interests of labor and management in the light of the overarching public interest. Thus, paragraphs (c) and (f) of Article 26314 mandate the following procedural steps to be followed before a strike may be staged: filing of notice of strike, taking of strike vote, and reporting of the strike vote result to the Department of Labor and Employment.15 It bears stressing that these requirements are mandatory, meaning, non-compliance therewith makes the strike illegal. The evident intention of the law in requiring the strike notice and strike-vote report is to reasonably regulate the right to strike, which is essential to the attainment of legitimate policy objectives embodied in the law.16 In the instant case, we find no reason to disagree with the findings of the NLRC that the strike conducted by the respondent union is illegal. First, it has not been shown to the satisfaction of this Court that said union is a legitimate labor organization, entitled under Article 263 (c) to file a notice of strike on behalf of its members. Second, the other requirements under Article 263 (c) and (f) were not complied with by the striking union. On this matter, the record is bare of any showing to the contrary. Hence, what is left for this Court to do is to determine the effects of the illegality of the strike on respondents union officers and members, specifically (a) whether such would justify their dismissal from employment, and (b) whether they ceased to be entitled to the monetary awards and other appropriate reliefs and remedies. Article 264 of the Labor Code, in providing for the consequences of an illegal strike, makes a distinction between union officers and members who participated thereon. Thus, knowingly participating in an illegal strike is a valid ground for termination from employment of a union officer. The law, however, treats differently mere union members. Mere participation in an illegal strike is not a sufficient ground for termination of the services of the union members. The Labor Code protects an ordinary, rank-and-file union member who participated in such a strike from losing his job, provided that he did not commit an illegal act during the strike.17 Thus, absent any clear, substantial and convincing proof of illegal acts committed during an illegal strike, an ordinary striking worker or employee may not be terminated from work.18 Recourse to the records show that the following respondents were the officers of the union, namely: Josephine C. Julian (President), Adelaida Lomod (Vice President), Lucita Casero (Secretary), Myrna Ragasa (Treasurer), Filomena Morales (Auditor), Elena Suede (Board Member), Jacinta Tejada (Board Member), Felipa Valencia (Board Member) and Violeta Arriola (P.R.O.).19 Before us, petitioners insist that these employees were legally terminated for their participation in an illegal strike and moreover, Julian and Tejada were validly dismissed for abandoning their jobs after refusing to comply with transfer and reassignment orders. While holding the strike illegal, the Court of Appeals nonetheless still ruled that the union officers and members were illegally dismissed for non-observance of due process requirements and union busting by management. It likewise gave no credence to the charge of abandonment against Julian and Tejada. Thus, it awarded separation pay in lieu of reinstatement to all union officers including

respondents Julian and Tejada and affirmed all other monetary awards by the Labor Arbiter including backwages. On this point, we affirm the findings of the appellate court that Julian and Tejada did not abandon their employment. Petitioners utterly failed to show proof that Julian and Tejada had the intent to abandon their work and sever their employment relationship with petitioners. It is established that an employee who forthwith takes steps to protest his layoff cannot be said to have abandoned his work.20 However, we cannot sustain the appellate courts ruling that the dismissal of Julian and Tejada was tantamount to unfair labor practice. There is simply nothing on record to show that Julian and Tejada were discouraged or prohibited from joining any union. Hence, the petitioners cannot be held liable for unfair labor practice. With respect to union officers, however, there is no dispute they could be dismissed for participating in an illegal strike. Union officers are duty- bound to guide their members to respect the law.21 Nonetheless, as in other termination cases, union officers must be given the required notices for terminating an employment, i.e., notice of hearing to enable them to present their side, and notice of termination, should their explanation prove unsatisfactory. Nothing in Article 264 of the Labor Code authorizes an immediate dismissal of a union officer for participating in an illegal strike. The act of dismissal is not intended to happen ipso facto but rather as an option that can be exercised by the employer and after compliance with the notice requirements for terminating an employee. In this case, petitioners did not give the required notices to the union officers. We must stress, however, the dismissals per se are not invalid but only ineffectual in accordance with Serrano v. National Labor Relations Commission.22 In said case, we held that (1) the employers failure to comply with the notice requirement does not constitute denial of due process, but mere failure to observe a procedure for termination of employment which makes the termination merely ineffectual,23 and (2) the dismissal shall be upheld but the employer must be sanctioned for noncompliance with the prescribed procedure.24 As to the reliefs to be afforded, Serrano decreed that: In sum, we hold that if in proceedings for reinstatement under Art. 283, it is shown that the termination of employment was due to an authorized cause, then the employee concerned should not be ordered reinstated even though there is failure to comply with the 30-day notice requirement. Instead, he must be granted separation pay in accordance with Art. 283 If the employees separation is without cause, instead of being given separation pay, he should be reinstated. In either case, whether he is reinstated or only granted separation pay, he should be paid full backwages if he has been laid off without written notice at least 30 days in advance. On the other hand, with respect to dismissals for cause under Art. 282, if it is shown that the employee was dismissed for any of the just causes mentioned in said Art. 282, then, in accordance with that article, he should not be reinstated. However, he must be paid backwages from the time his employment was terminated until it is determined that the termination of employment is for a just cause because the failure to hear him before he is dismissed renders the termination of his employment without legal effect.25 Admittedly, Serrano does not touch on the termination of an employee who is a mere union member, due to participation in an illegal strike. But it is settled that an employee who is a mere union member does not lose his employment status by mere participation allegedly in an illegal strike. If he

is terminated, he is entitled to reinstatement. Moreover, where the employee, whether a union member or officer, is not given any notice for termination such as in this case, he is entitled to be paid backwages from the date of his invalid termination until the final judgment of the case. In the present case, we affirm the appellate courts ruling that the union members who are parties herein were illegally dismissed and thus, entitled to reinstatement and payment of backwages for lack of sufficient evidence that they engaged in illegal acts during the strike. They were in good faith in believing that their actions were within the bounds of the law, since such were meant only to secure economic benefits for themselves so as to improve their standard of living. Besides, it is not the business of this Court to determine whether the acts committed by them are illegal, for review of factual issues is not proper in this petition. Review of labor cases elevated to this Court on a petition for review on certiorari is confined merely to questions of law, and not of fact, as factual findings generally are conclusive on this Court.26 For the same reasons, we likewise affirm the Court of Appeals in upholding the findings of both the NLRC and the Labor Arbiter regarding the validity or invalidity of quitclaims and the award of other monetary claims. Questions on whether the quitclaims were voluntarily executed or not are factual in nature. Thus, petitioners appeal for us to re-examine certain pieces of documentary evidence concerning monetary claims cannot now be entertained. Factual findings of labor officials, who are deemed to have acquired expertise in matters within their respective jurisdiction, are generally accorded not only respect but even finality, and bind us when supported by substantial evidence. It is not our function to assess and evaluate the evidence all over again, particularly where the findings of both the Arbiter and the Court of Appeals coincide.27 WHEREFORE, the assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals, dated April 26, 2000 and its Resolution of October 11, 2000, in CA-G.R. SP No. 53169 are AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Dismissal of the union officers is declared NOT INVALID, and the award of separation pay to said union officers is hereby DELETED. However, as a sanction for non-compliance with notice requirements for lawful termination by the petitioners, backwages are AWARDED to the union officers computed from the time they were dismissed until the final entry of judgment of this case. The rest of the dispositions of the Court of Appeals in its Decision of April 26, 2000, in CA-G.R. SP No. 53169, are hereby AFFIRMED. No pronouncement as to costs. SO ORDERED. Puno, (Chairman), Austria-Martinez, Callejo, Sr., and Tinga, JJ., concur.

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. 100158 June 2, 1992 ST. SCHOLASTICA'S COLLEGE, petitioner, vs. HON. RUBEN TORRES, in his capacity as SECRETARY OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT, and SAMAHANG NG MANGGAGAWANG PANG-EDUKASYON SA STA. ESKOLASTIKA-NAFTEU,respondents.

BELLOSILLO, J.: The principal issue to be resolved in this recourse is whether striking union members terminated for abandonment of work after failing to comply with return-to-work orders of the Secretary of Labor and Employment (SECRETARY, for brevity) should by law be reinstated. On 20 July 1990, petitioner St. Scholastica's College (COLLEGE, for brevity) and private respondent Samahan ng Manggagawang Pang-Edukasyon sa Sta. Eskolastika-NAFTEU (UNION, for brevity) initiated negotiations for a firstever collective bargaining agreement. A deadlock in the negotiations prompted the UNION to file on 4 October 1990 a Notice of Strike with the Department of Labor and Employment (DEPARTMENT, for brevity), docketed as NCMBNCR-NS-10-826. On 5 November 1990, the UNION declared a strike which paralyzed the operations of the COLLEGE. Affecting as it did the interest of the students, public respondent SECRETARY immediately assumed jurisdiction over the labor dispute and issued on the same day, 5 November 1990, a return-to-work order. The following day, 6 November 1990, instead of returning to work, the UNION filed a motion for reconsideration of the return-to-work order questioning inter alia the assumption of jurisdiction by the SECRETARY over the labor dispute. On 9 November 1990, the COLLEGE sent individual letters to the striking employees enjoining them to return to work not later than 8:00 o'clock A.M. of 12 November 1990 and, at the same time, giving notice to some twenty-three (23) workers that their return would be without prejudice to the filing of appropriate charges against them. In response, the UNION presented a list of (6) demands to the COLLEGE in a dialogue conducted on 11 November 1990. The most important of these demands was the unconditional acceptance back to work of the striking employees. But these were flatly rejected. Likewise, on 9 November 1990, respondent SECRETARY denied reconsideration of his return-to-work order and sternly warned the striking employees to comply with its terms. On 12 November 1990, the UNION received the Order. Thereafter, particularly on 14 and 15 November 1990, the parties held conciliation meetings before the National Conciliation and Mediation Board where the UNION pruned down its demands to three (3), viz.: that striking employees be reinstated under the same terms and conditions before the strike; that no retaliatory or disciplinary action be taken against them; and, that CBA negotiations be continued. However, these efforts proved futile as the COLLEGE remained steadfast in its position that any return-to-work offer should be unconditional. On 16 November 1990, the COLLEGE manifested to respondent SECRETARY that the UNION continued to defy his return-to-work order of 5 November 1990 so that "appropriate steps under the said circumstances" may be undertaken by him. 1

On 23 November 1990, the COLLEGE mailed individual notices of termination to the striking employees, which were received on 26 November 1990, or later. The UNION officers and members then tried to return to work but were no longer accepted by the COLLEGE. On 5 December 1990, a Complaint for Illegal Strike was filed against the UNION, its officers and several of its members before the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), docketed as NLRC Case No. 00-12-06256-90. The UNION moved for the enforcement of the return-to-work order before respondent SECRETARY, citing "selective acceptance of returning strikers" by the COLLEGE. It also sought dismissal of the complaint. Since then, no further hearings were conducted. Respondent SECRETARY required the parties to submit their respective position papers. The COLLEGE prayed that respondent SECRETARY uphold the dismissal of the employees who defied his return-to-work order. On 12 April 1991, respondent SECRETARY issued the assailed Order which, inter alia, directed the reinstatement of striking UNION members, premised on his finding that no violent or otherwise illegal act accompanied the conduct of the strike and that a fledgling UNION like private respondent was "naturally expected to exhibit unbridled if inexperienced enthusiasm, in asserting its existence". 2 Nevertheless, the aforesaid Order held UNION officers

responsible for the violation of the return-to-work orders of 5 and 9 November 1990 and, correspondingly, sustained their termination.
Both parties moved for partial reconsideration of the Order, with petitioner COLLEGE questioning the wisdom of the reinstatement of striking UNION members, and private respondent UNION, the dismissal of its officers. On 31 May 1991, in a Resolution, respondent SECRETARY denied both motions. Hence, this Petition for Certiorari, with Prayer for the Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order. On 26 June 1991, We restrained the SECRETARY from enforcing his assailed Orders insofar as they directed the reinstatement of the striking workers previously terminated. Petitioner questions the assumption by respondent SECRETARY of jurisdiction to decide on termination disputes, maintaining that such jurisdiction is vested instead in the Labor Arbiter pursuant to Art. 217 of the Labor Code, thus Art. 217. Jurisdiction of Labor Arbiters and the Commission. (a) Except as otherwise provided under this Code, the Labor Arbiters shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide, within thirty (30) calendar days after the submission of the case by the parties for decision without extension, the following cases involving all workers, whether agricultural or non-agricultural: . . . 2. Termination disputes . . . 5. Cases arising from any violation of Article 264 of this Code, including questions on the legality of strikes and lock-outs . . . In support of its position, petitioner invokes Our ruling in PAL v. Secretary of Labor and Employment 3 where We

held:
The labor Secretary exceeded his jurisdiction when he restrained PAL from taking disciplinary measures against its guilty employees, for, under Art. 263 of the Labor Code, all that the Secretary may enjoin is the holding of the strike but not the company's right to take action against union officers who participated in the illegal strike and committed illegal acts. Petitioner further contends that following the doctrine laid down in Sarmiento v. Tuico 4 and Union of Filipro

Employees v. Nestle Philippines, Inc., 5 workers who refuse to obey a return-to-work order are not entitled to be paid for work not done, or to reinstatement to the positions they have abandoned of their refusal to return thereto as ordered.
Taking a contrary stand, private respondent UNION pleads for reinstatement of its dismissed officers considering that the act of the UNION in continuing with its picket was never characterized as a "brazen disregard of successive legal orders", which was readily apparent in Union Filipro Employees v. Nestle Philippines, Inc., supra, nor was it a willful

refusal to return to work, which was the basis of the ruling in Sarmiento v. Tuico, supra. The failure of UNION officers and members to immediately comply with the return-to-work orders was not because they wanted to defy said orders; rather, they held the view that academic institutions were not industries indispensable to the national interest. When respondent SECRETARY denied their motion for reconsideration, however, the UNION intimated that efforts were immediately initiated to fashion out a reasonable return-to-work agreement with the COLLEGE, albeit, if failed. The issue on whether respondent SECRETARY has the power to assume jurisdiction over a labor dispute and its incidental controversies, causing or likely to cause a strike or lockout in an industry indispensable to the national interest, was already settled in International Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Secretary of Labor and Employment. 6 Therein,

We ruled that:
. . . [T]he Secretary was explicitly granted by Article 263 (g) of the Labor Code the authority to assume jurisdiction over a labor dispute causing or likely to cause a strike or lockout in an industry indispensable to the national interest, and decide the same accordingly. Necessarily, this authority to assume jurisdiction over the said labor dispute must include and extend to all questions and include and extend to all questions and controversies arising therefrom, including cases over which the Labor Arbiter has exclusive jurisdiction. And rightly so, for, as found in the aforesaid case, Article 217 of the Labor Code did contemplate of exceptions thereto where the SECRETARY is authorized to assume jurisdiction over a labor dispute otherwise belonging exclusively to the Labor Arbiter. This is readily evident from its opening proviso reading "(e)xcept as otherwise provided under this Code . . . Previously, We held that Article 263 (g) of the Labor Code was broad enough to give the Secretary of Labor and Employment the power to take jurisdiction over an issue involving unfair labor practice. 7 At first glance, the rulings above stated seem to run counter to that of PAL v. Secretary of Labor and Employment, supra, which was cited by petitioner. But the conflict is only apparent, not real. To recall, We ruled in the latter case that the jurisdiction of the Secretary of Labor and Employment in assumption and/or certification cases is limited to the issues that are involved in the disputes or to those that are submitted to him for resolution. The seeming difference is, however, reconcilable. Since the matter on the legality or illegality of the strike was never submitted to him for resolution, he was thus found to have exceeded his jurisdiction when he restrained the employer from taking disciplinary action against employees who staged an illegal strike. Before the Secretary of Labor and Employment may take cognizance of an issue which is merely incidental to the labor dispute, therefore, the same must be involved in the labor disputed itself, or otherwise submitted to him for resolution. If it was not, as was the case in PAL v. Secretary or Labor and Employment, supra, and he nevertheless acted on it, that assumption of jurisdiction is tantamount to a grave abuse of discretion. Otherwise, the ruling in International Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Secretary of Labor and Employment, supra, will apply. The submission of an incidental issue of a labor dispute, in assumption and/or certification cases, to the Secretary of Labor and Employment for his resolution is thus one of the instances referred to whereby the latter may exercise concurrent jurisdiction together with the Labor Arbiters. In the instant petition, the COLLEGE in its Manifestation, dated 16 November 1990, asked the "Secretary of Labor to take the appropriate steps under the said circumstances." It likewise prayed in its position paper that respondent SECRETARY uphold its termination of the striking employees. Upon the other hand, the UNION questioned the termination of its officers and members before respondent SECRETARY by moving for the enforcement of the returnto-work orders. There is no dispute then that the issue on the legality of the termination of striking employees was properly submitted to respondent SECRETARY for resolution. Such an interpretation will be in consonance with the intention of our labor authorities to provide workers immediate access to their rights and benefits without being inconvenienced by the arbitration and litigation process that prove to be not only nerve-wracking, but financially burdensome in the long run. Social justice legislation, to be truly meaningful and rewarding to our workers, must not be hampered in its application by long-winded arbitration and litigation. Rights must be asserted and benefits received with the least inconvenience. For, labor laws are meant to promote, not defeat, social justice (Maternity Children's Hospital v. Hon. Secretary of Labor ). 8 After all, Art. 4 of the Labor

Code does state that all doubts in the implementation and interpretation of its provisions, including its implementing rules and regulations, shall be resolved in favor of labor.

We now come to the more pivotal question of whether striking union members, terminated for abandonment of work after failing to comply strictly with a return-to-work order, should be reinstated. We quote hereunder the pertinent provisions of law which govern the effects of defying a return-to-work order: 1. Article 263 (g) of the Labor Code Art. 263. Strikes, picketing, and lockouts. . . . (g) When, in his opinion, there exists a labor dispute causing or likely to cause a strike or lockout in an industry indispensable to the national interest, the Secretary of Labor and Employment may assume jurisdiction over the dispute and decide it or certify the same to the Commission for compulsory arbitration. Such assumption or certification shall have the effect of automatically enjoining the intended or impending strike or lockout as specified in the assumption or certification order. If one has already taken place at the time of assumption or certification, all striking or locked out employees shall immediately return to work and the employer shall immediately resume operations and readmit all workers under the same terms and conditions prevailing before the strike or lockout. The Secretary of Labor and Employment or the Commission may seek the assistance of law enforcement agencies to ensure compliance with this provision as well as with such orders as he may issue to enforce the same . . . (as amended by Sec. 27, R.A. 6715; emphasis supplied). 2. Article 264, same Labor Code Art. 264. Prohibited activities. (a) No labor organization or employer shall declare a strike or lockout without first having bargained collectively in accordance with Title VII of this Book or without first having filed the notice required in the preceding Article or without the necessary strike or lockout vote first having been obtained and reported to the Ministry. No strike or lockout shall be declared after assumption of jurisdiction by the President or the Minister or after certification or submission of the dispute to compulsory or voluntary arbitration or during the pendency of cases involving the same grounds for the strike or lockout . . . (emphasis supplied). Any worker whose employment has been terminated as consequence of an unlawful lockout shall be entitled to reinstatement with full back wages. Any union officer who knowingly participates in an illegal strike and any worker or union officer who knowingly participates in the commission of illegal acts during a strike may be declared to have lost his employment status: Provided, That mere participation of a worker in a lawful strike shall not constitute sufficient ground for termination of his employment, even if a replacement had been hired by the employer during such lawful strike . . . (emphasis supplied). 3. Section 6, Rule IX, of the New Rules of Procedure of the NLRC (which took effect on 31 August 1990) Sec. 6. Effects of Defiance. Non-compliance with the certification order of the Secretary of Labor and Employment or a return to work order of the Commission shall be considered an illegal act committed in the course of the strike or lockout and shall authorize the Secretary of Labor and Employment or the Commission, as the case may be, to enforce the same under pain or loss of employment status or entitlement to full employment benefits from the locking-out employer or backwages, damages and/or other positive and/or affirmative reliefs, even to criminal prosecution against the liable parties . . . (emphasis supplied). Private respondent UNION maintains that the reason they failed to immediately comply with the return-to-work order of 5 November 1990 was because they questioned the assumption of jurisdiction of respondent SECRETARY. They were of the impression that being an academic institution, the school could not be considered an industry indispensable to national interest, and that pending resolution of the issue, they were under no obligation to immediately return to work.

This position of the UNION is simply flawed. Article 263 (g) of the Labor Code provides that if a strike has already taken place at the time of assumption, "all striking . . . employees shall immediately return to work." This means that by its very terms, a return-to-work order is immediately effective and executory notwithstanding the filing of a motion for reconsideration (University of Sto. Tomas v. NLRC). 9 It must be strictly complied with even during the

pendency of any petition questioning its validity (Union of Filipro Employees v. Nestle Philippines, Inc., supra). After all, the assumption and/or certification order is issued in the exercise of respondent SECRETARY's compulsive power of arbitration and, until set aside, must therefore be immediately complied with.
The rationale for this rule is explained in University of Sto. Tomas v. NLRC, supra, citing Philippine Air Lines Employees Association v. Philippine Air Lines, Inc., 10 thus To say that its (return-to-work order) effectivity must wait affirmance in a motion for reconsideration is not only to emasculate it but indeed to defeat its import, for by then the deadline fixed for the return to work would, in the ordinary course, have already passed and hence can no longer be affirmed insofar as the time element is concerned. Moreover, the assumption of jurisdiction by the Secretary of Labor and Employment over labor disputes involving academic institutions was already upheld in Philippine School of Business Administration v. Noriel 11 where We

ruled thus:
There is no doubt that the on-going labor dispute at the school adversely affects the national interest. The school is a duly registered educational institution of higher learning with more or less 9,000 students. The on-going work stoppage at the school unduly prejudices the students and will entail great loss in terms of time, effort and money to all concerned. More important, it is not amiss to mention that the school is engaged in the promotion of the physical, intellectual and emotional well-being of the country's youth. Respondent UNION's failure to immediately comply with the return-to-work order of 5 November 1990, therefore, cannot be condoned. The respective liabilities of striking union officers and members who failed to immediately comply with the return-towork order is outlined in Art. 264 of the Labor Code which provides that any declaration of a strike or lockout after the Secretary of Labor and Employment has assumed jurisdiction over the labor dispute is considered an illegal. act. Any worker or union officer who knowingly participates in a strike defying a return-to-work order may, consequently, "be declared to have lost his employment status." Section 6 Rule IX, of the New Rules of Procedure of the NLRC, which provides the penalties for defying a certification order of the Secretary of Labor or a return-to-work order of the Commission, also reiterates the same penalty. It specifically states that non-compliance with the aforesaid orders, which is considered an illegal act, "shall authorize the Secretary of Labor and Employment or the Commission . . . to enforce the same under pain of loss of employment status." Under the Labor Code, assumption and/or certification orders are similarly treated. Thus, we held in Sarmiento v. Tuico, supra, that by insisting on staging the restrained strike and defiantly picketing the company premises to prevent the resumption of operations, the strikers have forfeited their right to be readmitted, having abandoned their positions, and so could be validly replaced. We recently reiterated this stance in Federation of Free Workers v. Inciong, 12 wherein we cited Union of Filipro

Employees v. Nestle Philippines, Inc., supra, thus

A strike undertaken despite the issuance by the Secretary of Labor of an assumption or certification order becomes a prohibited activity and thus illegal, pursuant to the second paragraph of Art. 264 of the Labor Code as amended . . . The union officers and members, as a result, are deemed to have lost their employment status for having knowingly participated in an illegal act. Despite knowledge of the ruling in Sarmiento v. Tuico, supra, records of the case reveal that private respondent UNION opted to defy not only the return-to-work order of 5 November 1990 but also that of 9 November 1990.

While they claim that after receiving copy of the Order of 9 November 1990 initiatives were immediately undertaken to fashion out a return-to-work agreement with management, still, the unrebutted evidence remains that the striking union officers and members tried to return to work only eleven (11) days after the conciliation meetings ended in failure, or twenty (20) days after they received copy of the first return-to-work order on 5 November 1990. The sympathy of the Court which, as a rule, is on the side of the laboring classes ( Reliance Surety & Insurance Co., Inc. v. NLRC), 13 cannot be extended to the striking union officers and members in the instant petition.

There was willful disobedience not only to one but two return-to-work orders. Considering that the UNION consisted mainly of teachers, who are supposed to be well-lettered and well-informed, the Court cannot overlook the plain arrogance and pride displayed by the UNION in this labor dispute. Despite containing threats of disciplinary action against some union officers and members who actively participated in the strike, the letter dated 9 November 1990 sent by the COLLEGE enjoining the union officers and members to return to work on 12 November 1990 presented the workers an opportunity to return to work under the same terms and conditions or prior to the strike. Yet, the UNION decided to ignore the same. The COLLEGE, correspondingly, had every right to terminate the services of those who chose to disregard the return-to-work orders issued by respondent SECRETARY in order to protect the interests of its students who form part of the youth of the land.
Lastly, the UNION officers and members also argue that the doctrine laid down in Sarmiento v. Tuico, supra, and Union of Filipro Employees v. Nestle, Philippines, Inc., supra, cannot be made applicable to them because in the latter two cases, workers defied the return-to-work orders for more than five (5) months. Their defiance of the return-to-work order, it is said, did not last more than a month. Again, this line of argument must be rejected. It is clear from the provisions above quoted that from the moment a worker defies a return-to-work order, he is deemed to have abandoned his job. It is already in itself knowingly participating in an illegal act. Otherwise, the worker will just simply refuse to return to his work and cause a standstill in the company operations while retaining the positions they refuse to discharge or allow the management to fill (Sarmiento v. Tuico, supra). Suffice it to say, in Federation of Free Workers v. Inciong, supra, the workers were terminated from work after defying the return-to-work order for only nine (9) days. It is indeed inconceivable that an employee, despite a return-to-work order, will be allowed in the interim to stand akimbo and wait until five (5) orders shall have been issued for their return before they report back to work. This is absurd. In fine, respondent SECRETARY gravely abused his discretion when he ordered the reinstatement of striking union members who refused to report back to work after he issued two (2) return-to-work orders, which in itself is knowingly participating in an illegal act. The Order in question is, certainly, contrary to existing law and jurisprudence. WHEREFORE, the Petition for Certiorari is hereby GRANTED. The Order of 12 April 1991 and the Resolution 31 May 1991 both issued by respondent Secretary of Labor and Employment are SET ASIDE insofar as they order the reinstatement of striking union members terminated by petitioner, and the temporary restraining order We issued on June 26, 1991, is made permanent. No costs. SO ORDERED. Cruz, Grio-Aquino and Medialdea, JJ., concur.

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 119293. June 10, 2003]

SAN

MIGUEL CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, Second Division, ILAW AT BUKLOD NG MANGGAGAWA (IBM), respondents. DECISION

AZCUNA, J.:

Before us is a petition for certiorari and prohibition seeking to set aside the decision of the Second Division of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) in Injunction Case No. 00468-94 dated November 29, 1994,[1] and its resolution dated February 1, 1995[2] denying petitioners motion for reconsideration. Petitioner San Miguel Corporation (SMC) and respondent Ilaw at Buklod ng Manggagawa (IBM), exclusive bargaining agent of petitioners daily-paid rank and file employees, executed a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) under which they agreed to submit all disputes to grievance and arbitration proceedings. The CBA also included a mutually enforceable no-strike no-lockout agreement. The pertinent provisions of the said CBA are quoted hereunder:

ARTICLE IV GRIEVANCE MACHINERY Section 1. - The parties hereto agree on the principle that all disputes between labor and management may be solved through friendly negotiation;. . . that an open conflict in any form involves losses to the parties, and that, therefore, every effort shall be exerted to avoid such an open conflict. In furtherance of the foregoing principle, the parties hereto have agreed to establish a procedure for the adjustment of grievances so as to (1) provide an opportunity for discussion of any request or complaint and (2) establish procedure for the processing and settlement of grievances.
xxx xxx xxx

ARTICLE V ARBITRATION Section 1. Any and all disputes, disagreements and controversies of any kind between the COMPANY and the UNION and/or the workers involving or relating to wages, hours of work, conditions of employment and/or employer-employee relations arising during the effectivity of this Agreement or any renewal thereof, shall be settled by

arbitration through a Committee in accordance with the procedure established in this Article. No dispute, disagreement or controversy which may be submitted to the grievance procedure in Article IV shall be presented for arbitration until all the steps of the grievance procedure are exhausted.
xxx xxx xxx

ARTICLE VI STRIKES AND WORK STOPPAGES Section 1. The UNION agrees that there shall be no strikes, walkouts, stoppage or slowdown of work, boycotts, secondary boycotts, refusal to handle any merchandise, picketing, sit-down strikes of any kind, sympathetic or general strikes, or any other interference with any of the operations of the COMPANY during the term of this Agreement. Section 2. The COMPANY agrees that there shall be no lockout during the term of this Agreement so long as the procedure outlined in Article IV hereof is followed by the UNION.
[3]

On April 11, 1994, IBM, through its vice-president Alfredo Colomeda, filed with the National Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB) a notice of strike, docketed as NCMB-NCR-NS-04-180-94, against petitioner for allegedly committing: (1) illegal dismissal of union members, (2) illegal transfer, (3) violation of CBA, (4) contracting out of jobs being performed by union members, (5) labor-only contracting, (6) harassment of union officers and members, (7) non-recognition of duly-elected union officers, and (8) other acts of unfair labor practice.[4] The next day, IBM filed another notice of strike, this time through its president Edilberto Galvez, raising similar grounds: (1) illegal transfer, (2) labor-only contracting, (3) violation of CBA, (4) dismissal of union officers and members, and (5) other acts of unfair labor practice. This was docketed as NCMB-NCR-NS-04-182-94.[5] The Galvez group subsequently requested the NCMB to consolidate its notice of strike with that of the Colomeda group,[6] to which the latter opposed, alleging Galvezs lack of authority in filing the same.[7] Petitioner thereafter filed a Motion for Severance of Notices of Strike with Motion to Dismiss, on the grounds that the notices raised non-strikeable issues and that they affected four corporations which are separate and distinct from each other.[8] After several conciliation meetings, NCMB Director Reynaldo Ubaldo found that the real issues involved are non-strikeable. Hence on May 2, 1994, he issued separate letter-orders to both union groups, converting their notices of strike into preventive mediation. The said letter-orders, in part, read:

During the conciliation meetings, it was clearly established that the real issues involved are illegal dismissal, labor only contracting and internal union disputes, which affect not only the interest of the San Miguel Corporation but also the interests of the MAGNOLIA-NESTLE CORPORATION, the SAN MIGUEL FOODS, INC., and the SAN MIGUEL JUICES, INC. Considering that San Miguel Corporation is the only impleaded employer-respondent, and considering further that the aforesaid companies are separate and distinct corporate entities, we deemed it wise to reduce and treat your Notice of Strike as Preventive Mediation case for the four (4) different companies in order to evolve voluntary settlement of the disputes. . . . (Emphasis supplied)
[9]

On May 16, 1994, while separate preventive mediation conferences were ongoing, the Colomeda group filed with the NCMB a notice of holding a strike vote. Petitioner opposed by filing a Manifestation and Motion to Declare Notice of Strike Vote Illegal,[10] invoking the case of PAL v. Drilon,[11] which held that no strike could be legally declared during the pendency of preventive mediation. NCMB Director Ubaldo in response issued another letter to the Colomeda Group reiterating the conversion of the notice of strike into a case of preventive mediation and emphasizing the findings that the grounds raised center only on an intra-union conflict, which is not strikeable, thus: xxx xxx xxx

A perusal of the records of the case clearly shows that the basic point to be resolved entails the question of as to who between the two (2) groups shall represent the workers for collective bargaining purposes, which has been the subject of a Petition for Interpleader case pending resolution before the Office of the Secretary of Labor and Employment. Similarly, the other issues raised which have been discussed by the parties at the plant level, are ancillary issues to the main question, that is, the union leadership... (Emphasis supplied)
[12]

Meanwhile, on May 23, 1994, the Galvez group filed its second notice of strike against petitioner, docketed as NCMB-NCR-NS-05-263-94. Additional grounds were set forth therein, including discrimination, coercion of employees, illegal lockout and illegal closure.[13] The NCMB however found these grounds to be mere amplifications of those alleged in the first notice that the group filed. It therefore ordered the consolidation of the second notice with the preceding one that was earlier reduced to preventive mediation.[14] On the same date, the group likewise notified the NCMB of its intention to hold a strike vote on May 27, 1994. On May 27, 1994, the Colomeda group notified the NCMB of the results of their strike vote, which favored the holding of a strike.[15] In reply, NCMB issued a letter again advising them that by virtue of the PAL v. Drilon ruling, their notice of strike is deemed not to have been filed, consequently invalidating any subsequent strike for lack of compliance with the notice requirement.[16] Despite this and the pendency of the

preventive mediation proceedings, on June 4, 1994, IBM went on strike. The strike paralyzed the operations of petitioner, causing it losses allegedly worth P29.98 million in daily lost production.[17] Two days after the declaration of strike, or on June 6, 1994, petitioner filed with public respondent NLRC an amended Petition for Injunction with Prayer for the Issuance of Temporary Restraining Order, Free Ingress and Egress Order and Deputization Order.[18] After due hearing and ocular inspection, the NLRC on June 13, 1994 resolved to issue a temporary restraining order (TRO) directing free ingress to and egress from petitioners plants, without prejudice to the unions right to peaceful picketing and continuous hearings on the injunction case.[19] To minimize further damage to itself, petitioner on June 16, 1994, entered into a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with the respondent-union, calling for a lifting of the picket lines and resumption of work in exchange of good faith talks between the management and the labor management committees. The MOA, signed in the presence of Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) officials, expressly stated that cases filed in relation to their dispute will continue and will not be affected in any manner whatsoever by the agreement.[20] The picket lines ended and work was then resumed. Respondent thereafter moved to reconsider the issuance of the TRO, and sought to dismiss the injunction case in view of the cessation of its picketing activities as a result of the signed MOA. It argued that the case had become moot and academic there being no more prohibited activities to restrain, be they actual or threatened.[21] Petitioner, however, opposed and submitted copies of flyers being circulated by IBM, as proof of the unions alleged threat to revive the strike.[22] The NLRC did not rule on the opposition to the TRO and allowed it to lapse. On November 29, 1994, the NLRC issued the challenged decision, denying the petition for injunction for lack of factual basis. It found that the circumstances at the time did not constitute or no longer constituted an actual or threatened commission of unlawful acts.[23] It likewise denied petitioners motion for reconsideration in its resolution dated February 1, 1995.[24] Hence, this petition. Aggrieved by public respondents denial of a permanent injunction, petitioner contends that:
A.

THE NLRC GRAVELY ABUSED ITS DISCRETION WHEN IT FAILED TO ENFORCE, BY INJUNCTION, THE PARTIES RECIPROCAL OBLIGATIONS TO SUBMIT TO ARBITRATION AND NOT TO STRIKE.
B.

THE NLRC GRAVELY ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN WITHHOLDING INJUNCTION WHICH IS THE ONLY IMMEDIATE AND EFFECTIVE

SUBSTITUTE FOR THE DISASTROUS ECONOMIC WARFARE THAT ARBITRATION IS DESIGNED TO AVOID.
C.

THE NLRC GRAVELY ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN ALLOWING THE TRO TO LAPSE WITHOUT RESOLVING THE PRAYER FOR INJUNCTION, DENYING INJUNCTION WITHOUT EXPRESSING THE FACTS AND THE LAW ON WHICH IT IS BASED AND ISSUING ITS DENIAL FIVE MONTHS AFTER THE LAPSE OF THE TRO.
[25]

We find for the petitioner. Article 254 of the Labor Code provides that no temporary or permanent injunction or restraining order in any case involving or growing out of labor disputes shall be issued by any court or other entity except as otherwise provided in Articles 218 and 264 of the Labor Code. Under the first exception, Article 218 (e) of the Labor Code expressly confers upon the NLRC the power to enjoin or restrain actual and threatened commission of any or all prohibited or unlawful acts, or to require the performance of a particular act in any labor dispute which, if not restrained or performed forthwith, may cause grave or irreparable damage to any party or render ineffectual any decision in favor of such party x x x. The second exception, on the other hand, is when the labor organization or the employer engages in any of the prohibited activities enumerated in Article 264. Pursuant to Article 218 (e), the coercive measure of injunction may also be used to restrain an actual or threatened unlawful strike. In the case of San Miguel Corporation v. NLRC,[26] where the same issue of NLRCs duty to enjoin an unlawful strike was raised, we ruled that the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion when it denied the petition for injunction to restrain the union from declaring a strike based on non-strikeable grounds. Further, in IBM v. NLRC,[27] we held that it is the legal duty and obligation of the NLRC to enjoin a partial strike staged in violation of the law. Failure promptly to issue an injunction by the public respondent was likewise held therein to be an abuse of discretion. In the case at bar, petitioner sought a permanent injunction to enjoin the respondents strike. A strike is considered as the most effective weapon in protecting the rights of the employees to improve the terms and conditions of their employment. However, to be valid, a strike must be pursued within legal bounds.[28] One of the procedural requisites that Article 263 of the Labor Code and its Implementing Rules prescribe is the filing of a valid notice of strike with the NCMB. Imposed for the purpose of encouraging the voluntary settlement of disputes,[29] this requirement has been held to be mandatory, the lack of which shall render a strike illegal.[30] In the present case, NCMB converted IBMs notices into preventive mediation as it found that the real issues raised are non-strikeable. Such order is in pursuance of the NCMBs duty to exert all efforts at mediation and conciliation to enable the parties to settle the dispute amicably,[31]and in line with the state policy of favoring voluntary

modes of settling labor disputes.[32] In accordance with the Implementing Rules of the Labor Code, the said conversion has the effect of dismissing the notices of strike filed by respondent.[33] A case in point is PAL v. Drilon,[34] where we declared a strike illegal for lack of a valid notice of strike, in view of the NCMBs conversion of the notice therein into a preventive mediation case. We ruled, thus:

The NCMB had declared the notice of strike as appropriate for preventive mediation. The effect of that declaration (which PALEA did not ask to be reconsidered or set aside) was to drop the case from the docket of notice of strikes, as provided in Rule 41 of the NCMB Rules, as if there was no notice of strike. During the pendency of preventive mediation proceedings no strike could be legally declared... The strike which the union mounted, while preventive mediation proceedings were ongoing, was aptly described by the petitioner as an ambush. (Emphasis supplied)
Clearly, therefore, applying the aforecited ruling to the case at bar, when the NCMB ordered the preventive mediation on May 2, 1994, respondent had thereupon lost the notices of strike it had filed. Subsequently, however, it still defiantly proceeded with the strike while mediation was ongoing, and notwithstanding the letter-advisories of NCMB warning it of its lack of notice of strike. In the case of NUWHRAIN v. NLRC,[35]where the petitioner-union therein similarly defied a prohibition by the NCMB, we said:

Petitioners should have complied with the prohibition to strike ordered by the NCMB when the latter dismissed the notices of strike after finding that the alleged acts of discrimination of the hotel were not ULP, hence not strikeable. The refusal of the petitioners to heed said proscription of the NCMB is reflective of bad faith.
Such disregard of the mediation proceedings was a blatant violation of the Implementing Rules, which explicitly oblige the parties to bargain collectively in good faith and prohibit them from impeding or disrupting the proceedings.[36] The NCMB having no coercive powers of injunction, petitioner sought recourse from the public respondent. The NLRC issued a TRO only for free ingress to and egress from petitioners plants, but did not enjoin the unlawful strike itself. It ignored the fatal lack of notice of strike, and five months after came out with a decision summarily rejecting petitioners cited jurisprudence in this wise:

Complainants scholarly and impressive arguments, formidably supported by a long line of jurisprudence cannot however be appropriately considered in the favorable resolution of the instant case for the complainant. The cited jurisprudence do not squarely cover and apply in this case, as they are not similarly situated and the remedy sought for were different.
[37]

Unfortunately, the NLRC decision stated no reason to substantiate the above conclusion.

Public respondent, in its decision, moreover ruled that there was a lack of factual basis in issuing the injunction. Contrary to the NLRCs finding, we find that at t he time the injunction was being sought, there existed a threat to revive the unlawful strike as evidenced by the flyers then being circulated by the IBM-NCR Council which led the union. These flyers categorically declared: Ipaalala nyo sa management na hindi iniaatras ang ating Notice of Strike (NOS) at anumang oras ay pwede nating muling itirik ang picket line.[38] These flyers were not denied by respondent, and were dated June 19, 1994, just a day after the unions manifestation with the NLRC that there existed no threat of commission of prohibited activities. Moreover, it bears stressing that Article 264(a) of the Labor Code [39] explicitly states that a declaration of strike without first having filed the required notice is a prohibited activity, which may be prevented through an injunction in accordance with Article 254. Clearly, public respondent should have granted the injunctive relief to prevent the grave damage brought about by the unlawful strike. Also noteworthy is public respondents disregard of petitioners argument pointing out the unions failure to observe the CBA provisions on grievance and arbitration. In the case of San Miguel Corp. v. NLRC,[40] we ruled that the union therein violated the mandatory provisions of the CBA when it filed a notice of strike without availing of the remedies prescribed therein. Thus we held:

x x x For failing to exhaust all steps in the grievance machinery and arbitration proceedings provided in the Collective Bargaining Agreement, the notice of strike should have been dismissed by the NLRC and private respondent union ordered to proceed with the grievance and arbitration proceedings. In the case of Liberal Labor Union vs. Phil. Can Co., the court declared as illegal the strike staged by the union for not complying with the grievance procedure provided in the collective bargaining agreement. . . (Citations omitted)
As in the abovecited case, petitioner herein evinced its willingness to negotiate with the union by seeking for an order from the NLRC to compel observance of the grievance and arbitration proceedings. Respondent however resorted to force without exhausting all available means within its reach. Such infringement of the aforecited CBA provisions constitutes further justification for the issuance of an injunction against the strike. As we said long ago: Strikes held in violation of the terms contained in a collective bargaining agreement are illegal especially when they provide for conclusive arbitration clauses. These agreements must be strictly adhered to and respected if their ends have to be achieved.[41] As to petitioners allegation of violation of the no-strike provision in the CBA, jurisprudence has enunciated that such clauses only bar strikes which are economic in nature, but not strikes grounded on unfair labor practices.[42] The notices filed in the case at bar alleged unfair labor practices, the initial determination of which would entail factfinding that is best left for the labor arbiters. Nevertheless, our finding herein of the invalidity of the notices of strike dispenses with the need to discuss this issue.

We cannot sanction the respondent-unions brazen disregard of legal requirements imposed purposely to carry out the state policy of promoting voluntary modes of settling disputes. The states commitment to enforce mutual compliance therewith to foster industrial peace is affirmed by no less than our Constitution. [43] Trade unionism and strikes are legitimate weapons of labor granted by our statutes. But misuse of these instruments can be the subject of judicial intervention to forestall grave injury to a business enterprise.[44] WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby GRANTED. The decision and resolution of the NLRC in Injunction Case No. 00468-94 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Petitioner and private respondent are hereby directed to submit the issues raised in the dismissed notices of strike to grievance procedure and proceed with arbitration proceedings as prescribed in their CBA, if necessary. No pronouncement as to costs. SO ORDERED. Davide, Jr., C.J., (Chairman), Vitug, Ynares-Santiago, and Carpio, JJ., concur.

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila SECOND DIVISION G.R. No. 128632 August 5, 1999

MSF TIRE AND RUBBER, INC., petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and PHILTREAD TIRE WORKERS' UNION, respondents. MENDOZA, J.: Petitioner seeks a review of the decision1 of the Court of Appeals, dated March 20, 1997, which set aside the order of the Regional Trial Court of Makati, dated July 2, 1996, in Civil Case No. 95-770, granting petitioner's application for a writ of preliminary injunction. The facts are as follows: A labor dispute arose between Philtread Tire and Rubber Corporation (Philtread) and private respondent, Philtread Tire Workers' Union (Union), as a result of which the Union filed on May 27, 1994 a notice of strike in the National Conciliation and Mediation Board National Capital Region charging Philtread with unfair labor practices for allegedly engaging in union-busting for violation of the provisions of the collective bargaining agreement. This was followed by picketing and the holding of assemblies by the Union outside the gate of Philtread's plant at Km. 21, East Service Road, South Superhighway, Muntinlupa, Metro Manila. Philtread, on the other hand, filed a notice of lock-out on May 30, 1994 which it carried out on June 15, 1994. In an order, dated September 4, 1994,2 then Secretary of Labor Nieves Confesor assumed jurisdiction over the labor dispute and certified it for compulsory arbitration. She enjoined the Union from striking and Philtread from locking out members of the Union. On December 9, 1994, during the pendency of the labor dispute, entered into a Memorandum of Agreement with Siam Tyre Public Company Limited (Siam Tyre), a subsidiary of Siam Cement. Under the Memorandum of Agreement, Philtread's plant and equipment would be sold to a new company (petitioner MSF Tire and Rubber, Inc.), 80% of which would be owned by Siam Tyre and 20% by Philtread, while the land on which the plant was located would be sold to another company (Sucat Land Corporation), 60% of which would be owned by Philtread and 40% by Siam Tyre. This was done and the Union was informed of the purchase of the plant by petitioner. Petitioner then asked the Union to desist from picketing outside its plant and to remove the banners, streamers, and tent which it had placed outside the plant's fence. As the Union refused petitioner's request, petitioner filed on May 25, 1995 a complaint for injunction with damages against the Union and the latter's officers and directors before the Regional Trial Court of Makati, Branch 59 where the case was docketed as Civil Case No. 95-770. On June 13, 1995, the Union moved to dismiss the complaint alleging lack of jurisdiction on the part of the trial court. It insisted that the parties were involved in a labor dispute and that petitioner, being a mere "alter ego" of Philtread, was not an "innocent bystander."

After petitioner made its offer of evidence as well as the submission of the parties' respective memoranda, the trial court, in an order, dated March 25, 1996, denied petitioner's application for injunction and dismissed the complaint. However, on petitioner's motion, the trial court, on July 2, 1996, reconsidered its order, and granted an injunction. Its order read:3 Considering all that has been stated, the motion for reconsideration is granted. The Order dated March 25, 1996 is reconsideration and set aside. Plaintiff's complaint is reinstated and defendant's motion to dismiss is DENIED. As regards plaintiff's application for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction, the Court finds that the plaintiff has established a clear and sustaining right to the injunctive relief, hence, the same is GRANTED. Upon posting by the plaintiff and approval by the Court of a bond in the amount of One Million (P1,000,000.00) Pesos which shall answer for any damage that the defendants may suffer by reason of the injunction in the event that the Court may finally adjudge that the plaintiff is not entitled thereto, let a writ of preliminary injunction issue ordering the defendants and any other persons acting with them and/or on their behalf to desist immediately from conducting their assembly in the area immediately outside the plaintiff's plant at Km. 21 East Service Road, South Superhighway, Muntinlupa, Metro Manila, and from placing and/or constructing banners, streamers, posters and placards, and/or tents/shanties or any other structure, on the fence of, and/or along the sidewalk outside, the said plant premises until further from this Court. SO ORDERED.4 Without filing a motion for reconsideration, the Union filed on August 5, 1996 a petition for certiorari and prohibition before the Court of Appeals. On March 20, 1997, the appellate court rendered a decision granting the Union's petition and ordering the trial court to dismiss the civil case for lack of jurisdiction. Hence, this petition for review. Petitioner makes the following arguments in support of its petition: a. The Court of Appeals erred in not summarily dismissing the Union's petition for its false certification of non-forum shopping and the Union's failure to file a motion for reconsideration before going up to the Court of Appeals on a petition for certiorari. b. The Court of Appeals gravely erred in dismissing Civil Case No. 95-770 for lack of jurisdiction and merit on the alleged grounds that MSF did not have a clear and unmistakable right to entitle it to a writ of preliminary injunction. c. The Court of Appeals' pronouncement that it has not touched upon the issue of whether or not private respondent is a mere innocent bystander to the labor dispute between Philtread and the Union or upon the issue of whether or not private respondent is a mere dummy or continuity of Philtread is contrary to its own conclusions in the body of the decision, which conclusions are erroneous. d. The Court of Appeals gravely abused its discretion when it disallowed the injunction based on Philtread's remaining operations in the country and allowed the Union to exercise its right to communicate the facts of its labor dispute within MSF's premises, given the percentage of interest Philtread has in both MSF and the corporation which owns the land bearing said plant.

The issues are (1) whether the Union's failure to disclose the pendency of NCMB-NCR-NS-05-16796 in its certification of non-forum shopping and its failure to file a motion for reconsideration of the order, dated July 2, 1996, of the trial court were fatal to its petition for review before the Court of Appeals; and (2) whether petitioner has shown a clear legal right to the issuance of a writ of injunction under the "innocent bystander" rule. First. Forum shopping is the institution of two (2) or more actions or proceedings grounded on the same cause on the supposition that one or the other court would make a favorable disposition.5 It is an act of malpractice and is prohibited and condemned as trifling with courts and abusing their processes.6 As held in Executive Secretary v.Gordon:7 Forum-shopping consists of filing multiple suits involving the same parties for the same cause of action, either simultaneously or successively, for the purpose of obtaining a favorable judgment. Thus, it has been held that there is forum-shopping (1) whenever as a result of an adverse decision one forum, a party seeks a favorable decision (other than by appeal or certiorari) in another, or (2) if, after he has filed a petition before the Supreme Court, a party files another before the Court of Appeals since in such case he deliberately splits appeals "in the hope that even as one case in which a particular remedy is sought is dismissed, another case (offering a similar remedy) would still be open, or (3) where a party attempts to obtain a preliminary injunction in another court after failing to obtain the same from the original court. In determining whether or not there is forum-shopping, what is important is the vexation caused the courts and parties-litigant by a party who asks different courts and/or administrative agencies to rule on the same or related causes and/or grant the same or substantially the same reliefs and in the process creating the possibility of conflicting decisions being rendered by the different fora upon the same issues.8 Petitioner asserts that the Court of Appeals should have dismissed the Union's petition for review on the ground that the certification of non-forum shopping was false and perjurious as a result of the Union's failure to mention the existence of NCMB-NCR-NS-05-167-96, a proceeding involving the same parties and pending before the National Conciliation and Mediation Board. The argument is without merit. Petitioner was a party to the proceedings before the National Conciliation and Mediation Board in which an order, dated September 8, 1994, was issued by then Secretary of Labor Nieves Confesor, enjoining any strike or lock-out by the parties.9 It was petitioner which initiated the action for injunction before the trial court. Aggrieved by the injunctive order issued by the lower court, the Union was forced to file a petition for review before the Court of Appeals. We cannot understand why petitioner should complain that no mention of the pendency of the arbitration case before the labor department was made in the certificate of non-forum shopping attached to the Union's petition in the Court of Appeals. The petition of the Union in the Court of Appeals was provoked by petitioner's action in seeking injunction from the trial court when it could have obtained the same relief from the Secretary of Labor. Indeed, by focusing on the Union's certification before the appellate court, petitioner failed to notice that its own certification before the lower court suffered from the same omission for which it faults the Union. Although the body of petitioner's complaint mentions NCMB-NCR-NS-05-167-96, its own certification is silent concerning this matter.10 It is not in keeping with the requirements of fairness for

petitioner to demand strict application of the prohibition against forum-shopping, when it, too, is guilty of the same omission. Second. Petitioner asserts that its status as an "innocent bystander" with respect to the labor dispute between Philtread and the Union entitles it to a writ of injunction from the civil courts and that the appellate court erred in not upholding its corporate personality as independent of Philtread's. In Philippine Association of Free Labor Unions (PAFLU) v. Cloribel, 11 this Court, through Justice J.B.L. Reyes, stated the "innocent bystander" rule as follows: The right to picket as a means of communicating the facts of a labor dispute is a phase of the freedom of speech guaranteed by the constitution. If peacefully carried out, it can not be curtailed even in the absence of employer-employee relationship. The right is, however, not an absolute one. While peaceful picketing is entitled to protection as an exercise of free speech, we believe the courts are not without power to confine or localize the sphere of communication or the demonstration to the parties to the labor dispute, including those with related interest, and to insulate establishments or persons with no industrial connection or having interest totally foreign to the context of the dispute. Thus the right may be regulated at the instance of third parties or "innocent bystanders" if it appears that the inevitable result of its is to create an impression that a labor dispute with which they have no connection or interest exists between them and the picketing union or constitute an invasion of their rights. In one case decided by this Court, we upheld a trial court's injunction prohibiting the union from blocking the entrance to a feed mill located within the compound of a flour mill with which the union had a dispute. Although sustained on a different ground, no connection was found between the two mills owned by two different corporations other than their being situated in the same premises. It is to be noted that in the instances cited, peaceful picketing has not been totally banned but merely regulated. And in one American case, a picket by a labor union in front of a motion picture theater with which the union had a labor dispute was enjoined by the court from being extended in front of the main entrance of the building housing the theater wherein other stores operated by third persons were located.12 (Emphasis added) Thus, an "innocent bystander," who seeks to enjoin a labor strike, must satisfy the court that aside from the grounds specified in Rule 58 of the Rules of Court, it is entirely different from, without any connection whatsoever to, either party to the dispute and, therefore, its interests are totally foreign to the context thereof. For instance, inPAFLU v. Cloribel, supra, this Court held that Wellington and Galang were entirely separate entities, different from, and without any connection whatsoever to, the Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company, against whom the strike was directed, other than the incidental fact that they are the bank's landlord and co-lessee housed in the same building, respectively. Similarly, in Liwayway Publications, Inc. v. Permanent Concrete Workers Union,13 this Court ruled that Liwayway was an "innocent bystander" and thus entitled to enjoin the union's strike because Liwayway's only connection with the employer company was the fact that both were situated in the same premises. In the case at bar, petitioner cannot be said not to have such on to the dispute. As correctly observed by the appellate court: Coming now to the case before us, we find that the "negotiation, contract of sale, and the post transaction" between Philtread, as vendor, and Siam Tyre, as vendee, reveals a legal relation between them which, in the interest of petitioner, we cannot ignore. To be sure, the transaction between Philtread and Siam Tyre, was not a simple sale whereby Philtread

ceased to have any proprietary rights over its sold assets. On the contrary, Philtread remains as 20% owner of private respondent and 60% owner of Sucat Land Corporation which was likewise incorporated in accordance with the terms of the Memorandum of Agreement with Siam Tyre, and which now owns the land were subject plant is located. This, together with the fact that private respondent uses the same plant or factory; similar or substantially the same working conditions; same machinery, tools, and equipment; and manufacture the same products as Philtread, lead us to safely conclude that private respondent's personality is so closely linked to Philtread as to bar its entitlement to an injunctive writ. Stated differently, given its close links with Philtread as to bar its entitlement to an injunctive writ. Stated differently, given its close links with Philtread, we find no clear and unmistakable right on the part of private respondent to entitle it to the writ of preliminary injunction it prayed for below. xxx xxx xxx

We stress that in so ruling, we have not touched on the issue of . . . whether or not private is a mere dummy or continuation of Philtread . . . .14 Although, as petitioner contends, the corporate fiction may be disregarded where it is used to defeat public convenience, justify wrong, protect fraud, defend crime, or where the corporation is used as a mere alter-ego or business conduit,15 it is not these standards but those of the "innocent bystander" rule which govern whether or not petitioner is to an injunctive writ. Since petitioner is not an "innocent bystander", the trial court's order, dated July 2, 1996, is a patent nullity, the trial court having no jurisdiction to issue the writ of injunction. No motion for reconsideration need be filed where the order is null and void.16 WHEREFORE, petition is hereby DENIED and the decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED. Bellosillo, Quisumbing and Buena, JJ., concur.
1wphi 1.nt

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC

G.R. No. 82511 March 3, 1992 GLOBE-MACKAY CABLE AND RADIO CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and IMELDA SALAZAR, respondents. Castillo, Laman, Tan & Pantaleon for petitioner. Gerardo S. Alansalon for private respondent.

ROMERO, J.: For private respondent Imelda L. Salazar, it would seem that her close association with Delfin Saldivar would mean the loss of her job. In May 1982, private respondent was employed by GlobeMackay Cable and Radio Corporation (GMCR) as general systems analyst. Also employed by petitioner as manager for technical operations' support was Delfin Saldivar with whom private respondent was allegedly very close. Sometime in 1984, petitioner GMCR, prompted by reports that company equipment and spare parts worth thousands of dollars under the custody of Saldivar were missing, caused the investigation of the latter's activities. The report dated September 25, 1984 prepared by the company's internal auditor, Mr. Agustin Maramara, indicated that Saldivar had entered into a partnership styled Concave Commercial and Industrial Company with Richard A. Yambao, owner and manager of Elecon Engineering Services (Elecon), a supplier of petitioner often recommended by Saldivar. The report also disclosed that Saldivar had taken petitioner's missing Fedders airconditioning unit for his own personal use without authorization and also connived with Yambao to defraud petitioner of its property. The airconditioner was recovered only after petitioner GMCR filed an action for replevin against Saldivar. 1 It likewise appeared in the course of Maramara's investigation that Imelda Salazar violated company reglations by involving herself in transactions conflicting with the company's interests. Evidence showed that she signed as a witness to the articles of partnership between Yambao and Saldivar. It also appeared that she had full knowledge of the loss and whereabouts of the Fedders airconditioner but failed to inform her employer. Consequently, in a letter dated October 8, 1984, petitioner company placed private respondent Salazar under preventive suspension for one (1) month, effective October 9, 1984, thus giving her thirty (30) days within which to, explain her side. But instead of submitting an explanations three (3) days later or on October 12, 1984 private respondent filed a complaint against petitioner for illegal suspension, which she subsequently amended to include illegal dismissal, vacation and sick leave benefits, 13th month pay and damages, after petitioner notified her in writing that effective November

8, 1984, she was considered dismissed "in view of (her) inability to refute and disprove these findings. 2 After due hearing, the Labor Arbiter in a decision dated July 16, 1985, ordered petitioner company to reinstate private respondent to her former or equivalent position and to pay her full backwages and other benefits she would have received were it not for the illegal dismissal. Petitioner was also ordered to pay private respondent moral damages of P50,000.00. 3 On appeal, public respondent National Labor Relations, Commission in the questioned resolution dated December 29, 1987 affirmed the aforesaid decision with respect to the reinstatement of private respondent but limited the backwages to a period of two (2) years and deleted the award for moral damages. 4 Hence, this petition assailing the Labor Tribunal for having committed grave abuse of discretion in holding that the suspension and subsequent dismissal of private respondent were illegal and in ordering her reinstatement with two (2) years' backwages. On the matter of preventive suspension, we find for petitioner GMCR. The inestigative findings of Mr. Maramara, which pointed to Delfin Saldivar's acts in conflict with his position as technical operations manager, necessitated immediate and decisive action on any employee closely, associated with Saldivar. The suspension of Salazar was further impelled by th.e discovery of the missing Fedders airconditioning unit inside the apartment private respondent shared with Saldivar. Under such circumstances, preventive suspension was the proper remedial recourse available to the company pending Salazar's investigation. By itself, preventive suspension does, not signify that the company has adjudged the employee guilty of the charges she was asked to answer and explain. Such disciplinary measure is resorted to for the protection of the company's property pending investigation any alleged malfeasance or misfeasance committed by the employee. 5 Thus, it is not correct to conclude that petitioner GMCR had violated Salazar's right to due process when she was promptly suspended. If at all, the fault, lay with private respondent when she ignored petitioner's memorandum of October 8, 1984 "giving her ample opportunity to present (her) side to the Management." Instead, she went directly to the Labor Department and filed her complaint for illegal suspension without giving her employer a chance to evaluate her side of the controversy. But while we agree with the propriety of Salazar's preventive suspension, we hold that her eventual separation from employment was not for cause. What is the remedy in law to rectify an unlawful dismissal so as to "make whole" the victim who has not merely lost her job which, under settled Jurisprudence, is a property right of which a person is not to be deprived without due process, but also the compensation that should have accrued to her during the period when she was unemployed? Art. 279 of the Labor Code, as amended, provides: Security of Tenure. In cases of regular employment, the employer shall not terminate the services of an employee except for a just cause or when authorized by this Title. An employee who is unjustly dismissed from work shall be entitled to reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and other privileges and to his full backwages, inclusive of allowances, and to his other benefits or their monetary equivalent computed from the time his compensation was withheld from him up to the time of his actual reinstatement. 6 (Emphasis supplied)

Corollary thereto are the following provisions of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of the Labor Code: Sec. 2. Security of Tenure. In cases of regular employments, the employer shall not terminate the services of an employee except for a just cause as provided in the Labor Code or when authorized by existing laws. Sec. 3. Reinstatement. An employee who is unjustly dismissed from work shall by entitled to reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and to backwages." 7 (Emphasis supplied) Before proceeding any furthers, it needs must be recalled that the present Constitution has gone further than the 1973 Charter in guaranteeing vital social and economic rights to marginalized groups of society, including labor. Given the pro-poor orientation of several articulate Commissioners of the Constitutional Commission of 1986, it was not surprising that a whole new Article emerged on Social Justice and Human Rights designed, among other things, to "protect and enhance the right of all the people to human dignity, reduce social, economic and political inequalities, and remove cultural inequities by equitably diffusing wealth and political power for the common good."8 Proof of the
priority accorded to labor is that it leads the other areas of concern in the Article on Social Justice, viz., Labor ranks ahead of such topics as Agrarian and Natural Resources Reform, Urban Land Roform and Housing, Health, Women, Role and Rights of Poople's Organizations and 9 Human Rights.

The opening paragraphs on Labor states The State shall afford full protection to labor, local and overseas, organized and unorganized, and promote full employment and equality of employment opportunities for all. It shall guarantee the rights of all workers to self-organization, collective bargaining and negotiations, and peaceful concerted activities, including the right to strike in accordance with law. They shall be entitled to security of tenure, humane conditions of work, and a living wage. They shall also participate in policy and decision-making processes affecting their rights and benefits is may be provided by law. 10 (Emphasis
supplied)

Compare this with the sole.provision on Labor in the 1973 Constitution under the Article an Declaration of Principles and State Policies that provides: Sec. 9. The state shall afford protection to labor, promote full employment and equality in employment, ensure equal work opportunities regardless of sex, race, or creed, and regulate the relations between workers and employers. The State shall ensure the rights of workers to self-organization, collective baegaining, security of tenure, and just and humane conditions of work. The State may provide for compulsory arbitration. 11 To be sure, both Charters recognize "security of tenure" as one of the rights of labor which the State is mandated to protect. But there is no gainsaying the fact that the intent of the framers of the present Constitution was to give primacy to the rights of labor and afford the sector "full protection," at least greater protection than heretofore accorded them, regardless of the geographical location of the workers and whether they are organized or not.

It was then CONCOM Commissioner, now Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr., who substantially contributed to the present formulation of the protection to labor provision and proposed that the same be incorporated in the Article on Social Justice and not just in the Article on Declaration of Principles and State Policies "in the light of the special importance that we are giving now to social justice and the necessity of emphasizing the scope and role of social justice in national development." 12 If we have taken pains to delve into the background of the labor provisions in our Constitution and the Labor Code, it is but to stress that the right of an employee not to be dismissed from his job except for a just or authorized cause provided by law has assumed greater importance under the 1987 Constitution with the singular prominence labor enjoys under the article on Social Justice. And this transcendent policy has been translated into law in the Labor Code. Under its terms, where a case of unlawful or unauthorized dismissal has been proved by the aggrieved employee, or on the other hand, the employer whose duty it is to prove the lawfulness or justness of his act of dismissal has failed to do so, then the remedies provided in Article 279 should find, application. Consonant with this liberalized stance vis-a-vis labor, the legislature even went further by enacting Republic Act No. 6715 which took effect on March 2, 1989 that amended said Article to remove any possible ambiguity that jurisprudence may have generated which watered down the constitutional intent to grant to labor "full protection."13 To go back to the instant case, there being no evidence to show an authorized, much less a legal, cause for the dismissal of private respondent, she had every right, not only to be entitled to reinstatement, but ay well, to full backwages." 14 The intendment of the law in prescribing the twin remedies of reinstatement and payment of backwages is, in the former, to restore the dismissed employee to her status before she lost her job, for the dictionary meaning of the word "reinstate" is "to restore to a state, conditione positions etc. from which one had been removed" 15 and in the latter, to give her back the income lost during the
period of unemployment. Both remedies, looking to the past, would perforce make her "whole."

Sadly, the avowed intent of the law has at times been thwarted when reinstatement has not been forthcoming and the hapless dismissed employee finds himself on the outside looking in. Over time, the following reasons have been advanced by the Court for denying reinstatement under the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto; that reinstatement can no longer be effected in view of the long passage of time (22 years of litigation) or because of the realities of the situation; 16 or that it would be "inimical to the employer's interest; " 17 or that reinstatement may no longer
be feasible; 18 or, that it will not serve the best interests of the parties involved; 19 or that the company would be prejudiced by the workers' continued employment; 20 or that it will not serve any prudent purpose as when supervening facts have transpired which make execution on that score unjust or inequitable 21 or, to an increasing extent, due to the resultant atmosphere of "antipathy and antagonism" or "strained relations" or "irretrievable estrangement" between the employer and the employee. 22

In lieu of reinstatement, the Court has variously ordered the payment of backwages and separation pay 23 or solely separation pay. 24 In the case at bar, the law is on the side of private respondent. In the first place the wording of the Labor Code is clear and unambiguous: "An employee who is unjustly dismissed from work shall be entitled to reinstatement. . . . and to his full backwages. . . ." 25 Under the principlesof statutory
construction, if a statute is clears plain and free from ambiguity, it must be given its literal meaning and applied without attempted interpretation. This plain-meaning rule or verba legis derived from the maxim index animi sermo est (speech is the index of intention) rests on the valid presumption that the words employed by, the legislature in a statute correctly express its intent or will and preclude the court

from construing it differently. 26 The legislature is presumed to know the meaning of the words, to:have used words advisedly, and to have expressed its intent by the use of such words as are found in the statute. 27 Verba legis non est recedendum, or from the words of a statute there should be no departure. Neither does the provision admit of any qualification. If in the wisdom of the Court, there may be a ground or grounds for non-application of the above-cited provision, this should be by way of exception, such as when the reinstatement may be inadmissible due to ensuing strained relations between the employer and the employee.

In such cases, it should be proved that the employee concerned occupies a position where he enjoys the trust and confidence of his employer; and that it is likely that if reinstated, an atmosphere of antipathy and antagonism may be generated as to adversely affect the efficiency and productivity of the employee concerned. A few examples, will suffice to illustrate the Court's application of the above principles: where the employee is a Vice-President for Marketing and as such, enjoys the full trust and confidence of top management; 28 or is the Officer-In-Charge of the extension office of the bank where he works; 29 or is an
organizer of a union who was in a position to sabotage the union's efforts to organize the workers in commercial and industrial establishments; 30 or is a warehouseman of a non-profit organization whose primary purpose is to facilitate and maximize voluntary gifts. by foreign individuals and organizations to the Philippines; 31 or is a manager of its Energy Equipment Sales. 32

Obviously, the principle of "strained relations" cannot be applied indiscriminately. Otherwisey reinstatement can never be possible simply because some hostility is invariably engendered between the parties as a result of litigation. That is human nature. 33 Besides, no strained relations should arise from a valid and legal act of asserting one's right; otherwise an employee who shall assert his right could be easily separated from the service, by merely paying his separation pay on the pretext that his relationship with his employer had already become strained. 34 Here, it has not been proved that the position of private respondent as systems analyst is one that may be characterized as a position of trust and confidence such that if reinstated, it may well lead to strained relations between employer and employee. Hence, this does not constitute an exception to the general rule mandating reinstatement for an employee who has been unlawfully dismissed. On the other hand, has she betrayed any confidence reposed in her by engaging in transactions that may have created conflict of interest situations? Petitioner GMCR points out that as a matter of company policy, it prohibits its employees from involving themselves with any company that has business dealings with GMCR. Consequently, when private respondent Salazar signed as a witness to the partnership papers of Concave (a supplier of Ultra which in turn is also a supplier of GMCR), she was deemed to have placed. herself in an untenable position as far as petitioner was concerned. However, on close scrutiny, we agree with public respondent that such a circumstance did not create a conflict of interests situation. As a systems analyst, Salazar was very far removed from operations involving the procurement of supplies. Salazar's duties revolved around the development of systems and analysis of designs on a continuing basis. In other words, Salazar did not occupy a position of trust relative to the approval and purchase of supplies and company assets. In the instant case, petitioner has predicated its dismissal of Salazar on loss of confidence. As we have held countless times, while loss of confidence or breach of trust is a valid ground for terminations it must rest an some basis which must be convincingly established. 35 An employee who
not be dismissed on mere presumptions and suppositions. Petitioner's allegation that since Salazar and Saldivar lived together in the same apartment, it "presumed reasonably that complainant's sympathy

would be with Saldivar" and its averment that Saldivar's investigation although unverified, was probably true, do not pass this Court's test. 36 While we should not condone the acts of disloyalty of an employee, neither should we dismiss him on the basis of suspicion derived from speculative inferences.

To rely on the Maramara report as a basis for Salazar's dismissal would be most inequitous because the bulk of the findings centered principally oh her friend's alleged thievery and anomalous transactions as technical operations' support manager. Said report merely insinuated that in view of Salazar's special relationship with Saldivar, Salazar might have had direct knowledge of Saldivar's questionable activities. Direct evidence implicating private respondent is wanting from the records. It is also worth emphasizing that the Maramara report came out after Saldivar had already resigned from GMCR on May 31, 1984. Since Saldivar did not have the opportunity to refute management's findings, the report remained obviously one-sided. Since the main evidence obtained by petitioner dealt principally on the alleged culpability of Saldivar, without his having had a chance to voice his side in view of his prior resignation, stringent examination should have been carried out to ascertain whether or not there existed independent legal grounds to hold Salatar answerable as well and, thereby, justify her dismissal. Finding none, from the records, we find her to have been unlawfully dismissed. WHEREFORE, the assailed resolution of public respondent National Labor Relations Commission dated December 29, 1987 is hereby AFFIRMED. Petitioner GMCR is ordered to REINSTATE private respondent Imelda Salazar and to pay her backwages equivalent to her salary for a period of two (2) years only. This decision is immediately executory. SO ORDERED.

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. 111651 March 15, 1996 OSMALIK S. BUSTAMANTE, PAULINO A. BANTAYAN, FERNANDO L. BUSTAMANTE, MARIO D. SUMONOD, and SABU J. LAMARAN, petitioners, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, FIFTH DIVISION and EVERGREEN FARMS, INC., respondents.

PADILLA, J.:p This petition for certiorari seeks to reverse the 3 May 1993 resolution of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) which set aside its earlier resolution dated 8 March 1993 and deleted the award of backwages in favor of petitioners. The focal issue therefore in this case is whether or not petitioners are entitled to backwages after a finding by the NLRC itself that they had become regular employees after serving for more than one (1) year of broken or non-continuous service as probationary employees. The facts are not in dispute. Respondent company is engaged in the business of producing high grade bananas in its plantation in Davao del Norte. Petitioners Paulino Bantayan, Fernando Bustamante, Mario Sumonod and Osmalik Bustamante were employed as laborers and harvesters while petitioner Sabu Lamaran was employed as a laborer and sprayer in respondent company's plantation. All the petitioners signed contracts of employment for a period of six (6) months from 2 January 1990 to 2 July 1990, but they had started working sometime in September 1989. Previously, they were hired to do the same work for periods lasting a month or more, from 1985 to 1989. Before the contracts of employment expired on 2 July 1990, petitioners' employments were terminated on 25 June 1990 on the ground of poor performance on account of age, as not one of them was allegedly below forty (40) years old. Petitioners filed a complaint for illegal dismissal before the Regional Arbitration Branch, Branch XI of the NLRC in Davao City. On 26 April 1991, the labor arbiter rendered judgment in favor of petitioners, thus WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered: 1. Declaring the dismissal of the complainants as illegal; 2. Ordering respondent Evergreen Farms, Inc. to immediately reinstate complainants to their former position with six (6) months backwages computed as follows (26.17 x

P79.00 per day equals P2,067.43 x 6 months equals P12,404.58 times 5 complainants equals Sixty Two Thousand Four Hundred Four & 58/100 (P62,404.58) PESOS. However, if reinstatement is no longer feasible an additional one (1) month salary shall be awarded as a form of separation pay; 3. The claims for underpayment of wages is hereby dismissed for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. 1 On 8 March 1993, public respondent dismissed the appeal of private respondent company for lack of merit Private respondent filed a motion for reconsideration dated 1 April 1993. Acting on said motion, public respondent issued a second resolution on 3 May 1993 affirming its earlier resolution on illegal dismissal but deleting the award of backwages on the ground that the termination of petitioners' employments "was the result of the latter's (private respondent) mistaken interpretation of the law and that the same was therefore not necessarily attended by bad faith, nor arbitrariness, . . .". 2 In their present petition, petitioners argue that the public respondent gravely abused its discretion in rendering the second resolution which removed the award of backwages in their favor. We rule in favor of petitioners. It is undisputed that petitioners were illegally dismissed from employment. Article 280 of the Labor Code states: Art. 280. Regular and Casual Employment. The provisions of written agreement to the contrary notwithstanding and regardless of the oral agreement of the parties, an employment shall be deemed to be regular where the employee has been engaged to perform activities which are usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer, except where the employment has been fired for a specific project or undertaking the completion or termination of which has been determined at the time of the engagement of the employee or where the work or services to be performed is seasonal in nature and the employment is for the duration of the season. An employment shall be deemed to be casual if it is not covered by the preceding paragraph:Provided, that, any employee who has rendered at least one year of service, whether such service is continuous or broken, shall be considered a regular employee with respect to the activity in which he is employed and his employment shall continue while such activity exists. This provision draws a line between regular and casual employment, a distinction however often abused by employers. The provision enumerates two (2) kinds of employees, the regular employees and the casual employees. The regular employees consist of the following: 1) those engaged to perform activities which are usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer; and 2) those who have rendered at least one year of service whether such service is continuous or broken. The law distinguishes between the two (2) kinds of employees to protect the interests of labor. Thus, in the case ofBaguio Country Club Corporation vs. NLRC, 3 the Court declared: "Its language evidently

manifests the intent to safeguard the tenurial interest of the worker who may be denied the rights and benefits due a regular employee by virtue of lopsided agreements with the economically powerful employer who can maneuver to keep an employee on a casual status for as long as convenient . . . ".

In the case at bar, petitioners were employed at various periods from 1985 to 1989 for the same kind of work they were hired to perform in September 1989. Both the labor arbiter and the respondent NLRC agree that petitioners were employees engaged to perform activities necessary in the usual business of the employer. As laborers, harvesters or sprayers in an agricultural establishment which produces high grade bananas, petitioners' tasks are indispensable to the year-round operations of respondent company. This belies the theory of respondent company that the employment of petitioners was terminated due to the expiration of their probationary period in June 1990. If at all significant, the contract for probationary employment was utilized by respondent company as a chicanery to deny petitioners their status as regular employees and to evade paying them the benefits attached to such status. Some of the petitioners were hired as far back as 1985, although the hiring was not continuous. They were hired and re-hired in a span of from two to four years to do the same type of work which conclusively shows the necessity of petitioners' service to the respondent company's business. Petitioners have, therefore, become regular employees after performing activities which are necessary in the usual business of their employer. But, even assuming that the activities of petitioners in respondent company's plantation were not necessary or desirable to its business, we affirm the public respondent's finding that all of the complainants (petitioners) have rendered non-continuous or broken service for more than one (1) year and are consequently considered regular employees. 4 We do not sustain public respondent's theory that private respondent should not be made to compensate petitioners for backwages because its termination of their employment was not made in bad faith. The act of hiring and re-hiring the petitioners over a period of time without considering them as regular employees evidences bad faith on the part of private respondent. The public respondent made a finding to this effect when it stated that the subsequent rehiring of petitioners on a probationary status "clearly appears to be a convenient subterfuge on the part of management to prevent complainants (petitioners) from becoming regular employees." 5 Reliance by public respondent on the case of Manila Electric Company vs. NLRC 6 is misplaced. In
that case, the Court ordered the reinstatement of an employee, without backwages because, although there was a valid cause for dismissal, the penalty was too severe for an employee who had rendered service for an uninterrupted period of twenty (20) years with two commendations for honesty. In the case at bar, there is no valid cause for dismissal. The employees (petitioners) have not performed any act to warrant termination of their employment. Consequently, petitioners are entitled to their full backwages and other benefits from the time their compensation was withheld from them up to the time of their actual reinstatement.

WHEREFORE, the Resolution of the National Labor Relations Commission dated 3 May 1993 is modified in that its deletion of the award for backwages in favor of petitioners, is SET ASIDE. The decision of the Labor Arbiter dated 26 April 1991 is AFFIRMED with the modification that backwages shall be paid to petitioners from the time of their illegal dismissal on 25 June 1990 up to the date of their reinstatement. If reinstatement is no longer feasible, a one-month salary shall be paid the petitioners as ordered in the labor arbiter's decision; in addition to the adjudged backwages. SO ORDERED. Bellosillo, Vitug, Kapunan and Hermosisima, Jr., JJ., concur.