[G.R. No. 145496.

February 24, 2004]

STAMFORD MARKET NG !OR"., GS" MAN#FA!T#R NG !OR"., G ORG O ANTON O MARKET NG !OR"., !$EMENT NE MARKET NG !OR"., #$T MATE !ON!E"TS "% $ "" NES, N!., a&' ROSAR O G. A"A! ($E, petitioners, vs. )OSE"% NE )#$ AN, $EONOR AM(ROS O, MAR $*N A+# NO, "#R TA (ARRO, ROSAR O (ASADA, %ERM N A (ERG#E$$ES, ER$ NDA !ANAR A, SA$,A! ON ! R#E$OS, MAR TESS (A$ SAR O, )#$ ETA DO$ONTA", )OSEF NA DOM NGO, G$OR A F$ORENDO, AME$TA GRANDE, S MONA MA$#NES, !ORA-ON MARAS GAN, S#SANA O(NAM A, $#!* "ERE-, G NA$*N " DO*, !ARO$ NA RE*NOSO, $ET ! A SARM ENTO, AR!E$* , $$E-A, MAR A SAN!%O $A( T, ME$DA R ,ERA, RO.ENA A$,ARADO, , O$ETA ARR O$A, , RG N A DE ,ERA, G R$ E D S!A*A, ADE$A DA $OMOD, MAR $O# RA(ANA$, )O!E$*N R#F $A, E$ENA S#EDE, )A! NTA TE)ADA, ME$(A TO$OSA, $E-$DA !ARANTO, )E!NA (#RA(OD, $#! TA !ASERO, MON !A !R#-, G$ENDA MRANDA, *O$ANDA "AN!%O, M*RNA RAGASA, F$OMENA MORA$ES, FE$"A ,A$EN! A, !ORA-ON ,RT#-, MAR!E$ (O$ANGA, SONA ANT$$A, $EON TA ( NA$, G$OR A $AR OSA, $ -A(ET% $#ANG!O a&' )#$ ETA $EANO, respondents. DE! S ON +# S#M( NG, J./ For review on certiorari is the Court of Appeals Decision, dated April 26, 2000, in CA- !"! #$ %o! &'16(, as well as its "esolution,[2]dated )cto*er 11, 2000, den+in, the petitioners -otion for "econsideration! .he Court of Appeals /odified the "esolution, ['] dated Au,ust 20, 1((1, of the %ational 2a*or "elations Co//ission 3%2"C4-First Division which, in turn, dis/issed the petitioners appeal fro/ the decision of 2a*or Ar*iter "a/on 5alentin C! "e+es in three 3'4 consolidated cases, na/el+6
[1]

For its part, herein petitioner #ta/ford alle,ed that private respondent ;ulian was a supervisin, e/plo+ee at the $atric>s CoutiEue at #hoe/art 3#-4 %orth/all! <n )cto*er 1((7, when she was four 374 to five 3&4 /onths pre,nant, the /ana,e/ent of #- %orth/all as>ed her to ,o on /aternit+ leave, pursuant to co/pan+ polic+! ;ulian was then directed to report at #ta/fords Fead )ffice for reassi,n/ent! #he was also as>ed to su*/it a /edical certificate to ena*le the co/pan+ to approAi/ate her deliver+ date! ;ulian, however, alle,edl+ failed to co/pl+ with these directives and instead, ceased to report for wor> without havin, ,iven notice! #ta/ford then alle,edl+ as>ed .eBada to ta>e over ;ulians position, *ut the for/er ineAplica*l+ refused to co/pl+ with the /ana,e/ent directive! <nstead, li>e ;ulian, she a*andoned her wor> with nar+ a notice or an eAplanation! As to Cura*od, petitioner ior,io Antonio CoutiEue 3 ior,io4 averred that she was e/plo+ed as one of its sales cler>s at its #%orth/all *ranch! =hen directed to report to the ior,io *ranch at "o*insons alleria, she defiantl+ Euestioned the validit+ of the directive and refused to co/pl+! 2i>e ;ulian and .eBada, she then ceased to report for wor> without ,ivin, notice!

Philippine Agricultural, Commercial and Industrial Workers" Union, et al. vs. SP Manufacturing Corp. %2"C %C" Case %o! 00-0'-02117-(&

)n -arch 10, 1((&, $AC<=?-.?C$, filed on *ehalf of fift+ 3&04 e/plo+ees alle,edl+ ille,all+ dis/issed for union /e/*ership *+ the petitioners, a Co/plaint *efore the Ar*itration Cranch of %2"C, -etro -anila! $AC<=?-.?C$ char,ed petitioners herein with unfair la*or practice! .he Co/plaint alle,ed that when Apaci*le received the letter of $AC<=?-.?C$, /ana,e/ent *e,an to harass the /e/*ers of the local chapter, a /ove which cul/inated in their outri,ht dis/issal fro/ e/plo+/ent, without an+ Bust or lawful cause! <t was a clear case of union-*ustin,, averred $AC<=?-.?C$! #$ -anufacturin, Corporation 3 #$4 denied the unions aver/ents! <t clai/ed that it had verified with the Cureau of 2a*or "elations 3C2"4 whether a la*or or,ani:ation with the na/e Apaci*le @nterprises @/plo+ees ?nion was dul+ re,istered! <t was infor/ed that no such la*or or,ani:ation was re,istered either as a local chapter of $AC<=? or of the .rade ?nion Con,ress of the $hilippines 3.?C$4! #$ clai/ed that after unsuccessfull+ /isrepresentin, the/selves, herein private respondents then started /a>in, unBustified de/ands, a*andoned their wor>, and sta,ed an ille,al stri>e fro/ %ove/*er 1((7 up to the filin, of the Co/plaints! $etitioners then as>ed the private respondents to lift their pic>et and return to wor>, *ut were onl+ /et with a cold refusal!

314 Josephine Julian, et al. vs. Stamford Marketing Corp ! 3%2"C %C" Case %o! 00-11-01127-(748 324 Philippine Agricultural, Commercial and Industrial Workers Union, et al. vs. SP Manufacturing Corp., et al. 3%2"C %C" Case %o! 00-0'-02117-(&48 and 3'4 !ucita Casero, et al. vs. SP Manufacturing Corp., et al. 3%2"C %C" Case %o! 00-01-107'0-(&4! .he instant controvers+ ste//ed fro/ a letter sent *+ 9oilo 5! De 2a Cru:, ;r!, president of the $hilippine A,ricultural, Co//ercial and <ndustrial =or>ers ?nion 3$AC<=?-.?C$4, on %ove/*er 2, 1((7, to "osario A! Apaci*le, the treasurer and ,eneral /ana,er of herein petitioners #ta/ford -ar>etin, Corporation, #$ -anufacturin, Corporation, ior,io Antonio -ar>etin, Corporation, Cle/entine -ar>etin, Corporation, and ?lti/ate Concept $hils!, <nc! #aid letter advised Apaci*le that the ran>-and-file e/plo+ees of the afore/entioned co/panies had for/ed the Apaci*le @nterprise @/plo+ees ?nion-$AC<=?-.?C$! .he union de/anded that /ana,e/ent reco,ni:e its eAistence! #hortl+ thereafter, discord reared its u,l+ head, and rancor ca/e hard on its wa>e!

!ucita Casero, et al. vs. SP Manufacturing Corp., et al. %2"C %C" Case %o! 00-01-107'0-(&

.his separate case was also filed *+ the dis/issed union /e/*ers 3co/plainants in %2"C %C" Case %o! 00-0'-02117-(&4, a,ainst the petitioners herein for pa+/ent of their /onetar+ clai/s! .he dis/issed e/plo+ees de/anded the pa+/ent of 314 salar+ differentials due to underpa+/ent of wa,es8 324 unpaid salariesDwa,es for wor> actuall+ rendered8 3'4 1'th /onth pa+ for 1((78 374 cash eEuivalent of the service incentive leave8 and 3&4 ille,al deductions fro/ their salaries for cash *onds! $etitioner corporations, however, /aintained that the+ have *een pa+in, co/plainants the wa,esDsalaries /andated *+ law and that the co/plaint should *e dis/issed in view of the eAecution of Euitclai/s and waivers *+ the private respondents! .he 2a*or Ar*iter ordered the three cases consolidated as the issues were interrelated and the respondent corporations were under one /ana,e/ent! After due proceedin,s, 2a*or Ar*iter "a/on 5alentin C! "e+es rendered a decision, the decretal portion of which reads as follows6 =F@"@F)"@, pre/ises all considered, Bud,/ent is here*+ rendered in the respective cases as follows6 A! %2"C %C" CA#@ %)! 00-11-01127-(7 1! Foldin, the respondent ,uilt+ of unfair la*or practice, and declarin, co/plainants dis/issals ille,al8

Josephine Julian, et al. vs. Stamford Marketing Corp. %2"C %C" Case %o! 00-11-01127-(7

)n %ove/*er (, 1((7, or Bust a da+ after Apaci*le received the letter of $AC<=?-.?C$, herein private respondents ;osephine ;ulian, president of the newl+ or,ani:ed la*or union8 ;acinta .eBada, and ;ecina Cura*od, *oard /e/*er and /e/*er of the said union, respectivel+, were effectivel+ dis/issed fro/ e/plo+/ent! =ithout further ado, the three dis/issed e/plo+ees filed suit with the 2a*or Ar*iter! <n their Co/plaint, the three dis/issed e/plo+ees alle,ed that petitioners had not paid the/ their overti/e pa+, holida+ pa+Dpre/iu/s, rest da+ pre/iu/, 1' th /onth pa+ for the +ear 1((7, salaries for services actuall+ rendered, and that ille,al deduction had *een /ade without their consent fro/ their salaries for a cash *ond!

2!

)rderin, respondent to reinstate co/plainants to their for/er positions without loss of seniorit+ ri,hts and other *enefits8 )rderin, the respondent to pa+ co/plainants their *ac>wa,es fro/ the date of their ter/ination up to the date of this decision8 )rderin, the respondent to pa+ co/plainants their unpaid salaries, overti/e pa+, holida+ and rest da+ pre/iu/, unpaid 1'th /onth pa+ and rei/*urse/ent of the cash deposit deducted *+ the respondent fro/ the salaries of co/plainants!

'!

"elations! Fence, private respondents had en,a,ed in an ille,al stri>e since the ri,ht to stri>e /a+*e availed of onl+ *+ a le,iti/ate la*or or,ani:ation! 2a*or Ar*iter "e+es upheld the dis/issal of the union officers for leadin, and participatin, in an ille,al stri>e, *ut ruled the dis/issal of the union /e/*ers to *e i/proper since the+ acted in ,ood faith in the *elief that their actions were within the *ounds of law! <n %2"C %C" Case %o! 00-01-107'0-(&, the 2a*or Ar*iter found petitioners lia*le for salar+ differentials and other /onetar+ clai/s for petitioners failure to sufficientl+ prove that it had paid the sa/e to co/plainants as reEuired *+ law! Fe li>ewise ordered the return of the cash deposits to co/plainants, citin, the sa/e reasons as in %2"C %C" Case %o! 00-11-01127-(7! $etitioners herein seasona*l+ appealed the decision of 2a*or Ar*iter "e+es! #u*seEuentl+, the %2"C affir/ed the decision in %2"C %C" Case %os! 00-11-01127-(7 and 00-01-107'0-(&! Fowever, the %2"C set aside the Bud,/ent with respect to %2"C %C" Case %o! 000'-02117-(& and ordered the re/and of the case for further proceedin,s, in view of the various factual issues involved! .he %2"C rulin, reads6 =F@"@F)"@, findin, the appeal un/eritorious, the sa/e is here*+ D<#-<##@D! ACC)"D<% 2G, we here*+ set aside the rulin, in %2"C %C" CA#@ %)! 00-0'-02117-(& as we order the sa/e re/anded for further proceedin,s in view of the nature of the issues involved *ein, purel+ factual in character! .he awards in %2"C %C" CA#@ %)! 00-11-0101127-(7 and %2"C %C" CA#@ %)! 00-01-107'0-(& are here*+ AFF<"-@D! #) )"D@"@D![6] -eanwhile, on -a+ 17, 1((6, petitioners herein filed a $etition to Declare the #tri>e <lle,al a,ainst their stri>in, e/plo+ees, doc>eted as %2"C %C" Case %o! 0&-0'067-(6 and raffled off to 2a*or Ar*iter Arthur 2! A/ansec! )n #epte/*er 2, 1((1, 2a*or Ar*iter A/ansec decided %2"C %C" Case %o! 0&-0'067-(6, as follows6 =F@"@F)"@, Bud,/ent is here*+ /ade findin, the stri>e conducted *+ the respondents fro/ Dece/*er 1, 1((7 up to -a+ 17, 1((6 ille,al and conco/itantl+, orderin, respondents who are esta*lished to have >nowin,l+ participated to have co//itted an ille,al act to have lost their e/plo+/ent status! )ther clai/s for lac> of /erit are ordered D<#-<##@D! #) )"D@"@D![0] <n declarin, the stri>e ille,al, 2a*or Ar*iter A/ansec noted that6 314 no prior notice to stri>e had *een filed8 324 no stri>e vote had *een ta>en a/on, the union /e/*ers8 and 3'4 the issue involved was nonstri>ea*le, i!e!, a de/and for salar+ increases! $etitioners then /oved for reconsideration of the %2"C rulin,, citin, the rulin, in %2"C %C" Case %o! 0&-0'067-(6 to support their position that respondents herein had conducted an ille,al stri>e and were lia*le for unlawful acts! )n -arch 12, 1(((, the %2"C resolved to partl+ ,rant the -otion for "econsideration, thus6 =F@"@F)"@, prescindin, fro/ the fore,oin, pre/ises, the -otion for "econsideration is partl+ ,iven due course, in that the issues raised in %2"C %C" CA#@ %o! 00-0'-02117-(& is here*+ declared to have *een rendered acade/ic! .he rest of the dispositions in the Euestioned resolution re/ains! #) )"D@"@D![1] ?nwillin, to let the /atter rest there, petitioners then filed a special civil action for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, doc>eted as CA- !"! #$ %o! &'16(! .he Court of Appeals considered the followin, issues in resolvin, the petition, to wit6 3a4 the validit+ of the respondents dis/issal and entitle/ent to *ac>wa,es, 3*4 the validit+ of the "elease, waiver and Euitclai/ eAecuted *+ so/e of the respondents, and 3c4 the validit+ of the clai/s for non-pa+/ent of salaries, overti/e pa+, holida+ pa+, pre/iu/ pa+, etc! )n April 26, 2000, the appellate court disposed of CA- !"! #$ %o! &'16( as follows6

7!

C!

%2"C %C" CA#@ %)! 00-0'-02117-(& 1! Declarin, the stri>e conducted *+ co/plainants to *e ille,al8 Declarin, the officers of the union to have lost their e/plo+/ent status, and thus ter/inatin, their e/plo+/ent with respondent co/panies8 )rderin, the reinstate/ent of the co/plainants who are onl+ /e/*ers of the union to their for/er positions with respondent co/panies, without *ac>wa,es, eAcept individual co/plainants Cristeta De 2una, 2u:vi/inda "econes, @den "evilla, and ;in>+ Dellosa!

2!

'!

C! 1! a! *! c! d! e!

%2"C %C" CA#@ %)! 00-01-107'1[7]-(& )rderin, respondents to pa+ individual co/plainants6 salar+ differentials resultin, fro/ underpa+/ent of wa,es unpaid salariesDwa,es for wor> actuall+ rendered8 1'th /onth pa+ for the +ear 1((78 cash eEuivalent of the service incentive leave8 ille,al deductions in the for/ of cash deposits all in accordance with the co/putation su*/itted *+ the individual co/plainants! 2! Dis/issin, the co/plaint with re,ard to co/plainants Cristeta De 2una, 2u:vi/inda "econes, @den "evilla, and ;in>+ Dellosa!

All other clai/s are dis/issed for lac> of /erit! .he "esearch and <nfor/ation Division, this Co//ission, is here*+ directed to effect the necessar+ co/putation which shall for/ part of this Decision! #) )"D@"@D![&] 2a*or Ar*iter "e+es ruled the reassi,n/ent and transfer of co/plainants in %2"C %C" Case %o! 00-11-01127-(7 as unfair la*or practice, it *ein, /ana,e/ent interference in the co/plainants for/ation and /e/*ership of union! Fe held that the protested reassi,n/ents and transfers were hi,hl+ suspicious, havin, *een /ade ri,ht after /ana,e/ent was infor/ed a*out the for/ation of the union! #uch ti/in, could not have *een pure coincidence! .he 2a*or Ar*iter also found that petitioners herein failed to su*stantiate their clai/ that private respondents had a*andoned their e/plo+/ent! Fe pointed out that the co/plainants filin, of a case i//ediatel+ after their alle,ed dis/issal /ilitated a,ainst an+ clai/ of a*andon/ent! -oreover, petitioners did not furnish co/plainants with written notices of dis/issal! As to the unpaid wa,es and other /onetar+ *enefits clai/ed *+ private respondents herein, the 2a*or Ar*iter ruled that as petitioners herein did not present proof of their pa+/ent, there is presu/ption of non-pa+/ent! Finall+, 2a*or Ar*iter "e+es found the cash deposit of $2,000!00 unauthori:ed and ille,al, without an+ showin, that the sa/e was necessar+ and reco,ni:ed in the *usiness! <n %2"C %C" Case %o! 00-0'-02117-(&, it was dul+ esta*lished that the e/plo+ees union was not re,istered with the Cureau of 2a*or

=F@"@F)"@, pre/ises studiedl+ considered, the $etition is partl+ ,iven due course as the 12 -arch 1((( "esolution of the %2"C is here*+ /odified as follows6 1! <n lieu of reinstate/ent, private respondents ;osephine ;ulian, ;acinta .eBada, and the rest of the officers of the ?nion shall *e ,iven separation pa+ at the rate of one /onth pa+ for ever+ +ear of service, with a fraction of at least siA /onths of service considered as one +ear, co/puted fro/ the ti/e the+ were first e/plo+ed until Dece/*er 10, 1((78 )rderin, petitioner corporations to reinstate, without loss of seniorit+, ;acina Cura*od and the rest of the ?nion /e/*ers8 plus pa+/ent of *ac>wa,es8 .he rest of the dispositions in the two 324 challen,ed resolutions re/ains! #) )"D@"@D![(] .he appellate court *rushed aside petitioners theor+ that the ille,alit+ of stri>e /a>es the respondents dis/issal le,al! <t stressed that while the stri>e was ille,al, /ar>ed as it was with violence and for non-co/pliance with the reEuire/ents of the 2a*or Code, nonetheless, ;ulian, .eBada, and Cura*od 3co/plainants in %2"C %C" Case %o! 00-11-01127-(74 were dis/issed prior to the sta,in, of the stri>e! #aid dis/issal constitutes unfair la*or practice! -oreover, said dis/issal was done without valid cause and due process! .hus, the co/plainants in %2"C %C" Case %o! 00-11-01127-(7 are entitled to reinstate/ent and *ac>wa,es, althou,h separation pa+ /a+ *e ,iven in lieu of reinstate/ent due to strained relations with petitioners! .he appellate court also ruled that the Euitclai/s relied upon *+ petitioners herein are void, havin, *een eAecuted under duress! Finall+, the Court of Appeals affir/ed the findin, of the %2"C that petitioners had failed to support their clai/ of havin, paid herein respondents their /one+ clai/s, *ecause *elated evidence presented *+ petitioners is *ereft of an+ pro*ative value! $etitioners ti/el+ /oved for reconsideration, *ut the appellate court denied said /otion! Fence, this petition alle,in, that the Court of Appeals co//itted palpa*le and reversi*le error# of law when6 < H <. )"D@"@D .F@ "@#$)%D@%.#, =F) A"@ ?%<)% -@-C@"#, C@ "@<%#.A.@D A%D C@ $A<D CACI=A @#, D@#$<.@ .F@ FAC. .FA. <. CA.@ )"<CA22G F@2D .FA. ?%2A=F?2 AC.# A..@%D@D .F@ #.A <% )F .F@ <22@ A2 #."<I@ <% C)%."A5@%.<)% )F .F@ C2@A" -A%DA.@ )F A".<C2@ 2673a4 )F .F@ 2AC)" C)D@! H <. A=A"D@D CACI=A @# .) .F@ "@#$)%D@%.#, =F) A"@ ?%<)% -@-C@"#, D@#$<.@ .F@ FAC. .FA. .F@ <##?@ )F =F@.F@" )" %). .F@ #A<D ?%<)% -@-C@"# A"@ @%.<..2@D .) CACI=A @# FA5@ C@@% A%#=@"@D <% .F@ %@ A.<5@ CG .F@ D@C<#<)% DA.@D 1& A$"<2 1((6, $")-?2 A.@D CG .F@ F)%)"AC2@ 2AC)" A"C<.@" A #U$ 5A2@%.<% C! "@G@# A%D #?CF "?2<% FAD A..A<%@D F<%A2<.G! H <. A=A"D@D #@$A"A.<)% $AG A%D CACI=A @# .) .F@ "@#$)%D@%.# =F) A"@ )FF<C@"# )F .F@ ?%<)%, %A-@2G6 AD@2A<DA 2?-)D, 2?C<.A CA#@"), -G"%A "A A#A, F@2G -)"A2@#, @2@% #?@D@, F@2G 5A2@%C<A A%D 5<)2@.A A""<)2A, D@#$<.@ .F@ FAC. .FA. <. =A# F@2D <% .F@ D@C<#<)% DA.@D 1& A$"<2 1((6 $")-?2 A.@D CG .F@ F)%)"AC2@ 2AC)" A"C<.@" A #U$ 5A2@%.<% C! "@G@# .FA. .F@ AF)"@%A-@D ?%<)% )FF<C@"# FA5@ 2)#. .F@<" @-$2)G-@%. #.A.?# CG #.A <% A% <22@ A2 #."<I@ A%D #?CF "?2<% FAD A..A<%@D F<%A2<.G! H <. F@2D .FA. "@#$)%D@%.# ;?2<A%, .@;ADA A%D C?"AC)D =@"@ <22@ A22G D<#-<##@D! H <. FA<2@D .) ?$F)2D .F@ 5A2<D<.G )F .F@ "@2@A#@, =A<5@" A%D J?<.C2A<- @K@C?.@D CG .F@ "@#$)%D@%.# C)%C@"%@D! H <. "@F?#@D .) <5@ $")CA.<5@ 5A2?@ )% .F@ 5)2?-<%)?# D)C?-@%.A"G @5<D@%C@ #?C-<..@D CG F@"@<% $@.<.<)%@"#![10]

<n our view, considerin, the assi,ned errors, the followin, are the relevant issues for our resolution6 1! =hether the respondents union officers and /e/*ers were validl+ and le,all+ dis/issed fro/ e/plo+/ent considerin, the ille,alit+ of the stri>e8 2! =hether the respondents union officers and /e/*ers are entitled to *ac>wa,es, separation pa+ and reinstate/ent, respectivel+! )n the first issue, petitioners ar,ue that respondents were le,all+ dis/issed, pursuant to Article 267 [11] of the 2a*or Code in view of the deter/ination *+ the 2a*or Ar*iter that the stri>e conducted *+ respondents are ille,al and that ille,al acts attended the /ass action! .he respondents counter that the deter/ination of the ille,alit+ of stri>e is inconseEuential as the conclusion *+ the appellate court on the ille,alit+ of dis/issal was *ased on the petitioners non-co/pliance with the due process reEuire/ents on ter/inatin, e/plo+ees, which had nothin, to do with the le,alit+ of the stri>e! #o/e ela*oration on the le,alit+ of the stri>e is needed, thou,h *riefl+! <n rulin, the stri>e ille,al, the %2"C o*served that6 =hile the ri,ht to stri>e is specificall+ ,ranted *+ law, it is a re/ed+ which can onl+ *e availed of *+ a le,iti/ate la*or or,ani:ation! A*sent a showin, as to the le,iti/ate status of the la*or or,ani:ation, said stri>e would have to *e considered as ille,al! H A review of the records of this case does not show that the local union to which co/plainants *elon, to has co/plied with these *asic reEuire/ents necessar+ to clothe the union with a le,iti/ate status! <n fact, and as respondents clai/, there is no record with the C2" that the union co/plainants *elon, to have co/plied with the afore/entioned reEuire/ents! .his )ffice then has no recourse *ut to consider the union of co/plainants as not *ein, a le,iti/ate la*or or,ani:ation! <t then follows that the stri>e conducted *+ co/plainants on respondent co/panies is ille,al, as the ri,ht to stri>e is afforded onl+ to a le,iti/ate la*or or,ani:ation![12] <ndeed, the ri,ht to stri>e, while constitutionall+ reco,ni:ed, is not without le,al restrictions![1'] .he 2a*or Code re,ulates the eAercise of said ri,ht *+ *alancin, the interests of la*or and /ana,e/ent in the li,ht of the overarchin, pu*lic interest! .hus, para,raphs 3c4 and 3f4 of Article 26'[17] /andate the followin, procedural steps to *e followed *efore a stri>e /a+ *e sta,ed6 filin, of notice of stri>e, ta>in, of stri>e vote, and reportin, of the stri>e vote result to the Depart/ent of 2a*or and @/plo+/ent![1&] <t *ears stressin, that these reEuire/ents are /andator+, /eanin,, non-co/pliance therewith /a>es the stri>e ille,al! .he evident intention of the law in reEuirin, the stri>e notice and stri>e-vote report is to reasona*l+ re,ulate the ri,ht to stri>e, which is essential to the attain/ent of le,iti/ate polic+ o*Bectives e/*odied in the law![16] <n the instant case, we find no reason to disa,ree with the findin,s of the %2"C that the stri>e conducted *+ the respondent union is ille,al! First, it has not *een shown to the satisfaction of this Court that said union is a le,iti/ate la*or or,ani:ation, entitled under Article 26' 3c4 to file a notice of stri>e on *ehalf of its /e/*ers! #econd, the other reEuire/ents under Article 26' 3c4 and 3f4 were not co/plied with *+ the stri>in, union! )n this /atter, the record is *are of an+ showin, to the contrar+! Fence, what is left for this Court to do is to deter/ine the effects of the ille,alit+ of the stri>e on respondents union officers and /e/*ers, specificall+ 3a4 whether such would Bustif+ their dis/issal fro/ e/plo+/ent, and 3*4 whether the+ ceased to *e entitled to the /onetar+ awards and other appropriate reliefs and re/edies! Article 267 of the 2a*or Code, in providin, for the conseEuences of an ille,al stri>e, /a>es a distinction *etween union officers and /e/*ers who participated thereon! .hus, >nowin,l+ participatin, in an ille,al stri>e is a valid ,round for ter/ination fro/ e/plo+/ent of a union officer! .he law, however, treats differentl+ /ere union /e/*ers! -ere participation in an ille,al stri>e is not a sufficient ,round for ter/ination of the services of the union /e/*ers! .he 2a*or Code protects an ordinar+, ran>-and-file union /e/*er who participated in such a stri>e fro/ losin, his Bo*, provided that he did not co//it an ille,al act durin, the stri>e! [10] .hus, a*sent an+ clear, su*stantial and convincin, proof of ille,al acts co//itted durin, an ille,al stri>e, an ordinar+ stri>in, wor>er or e/plo+ee /a+ not *e ter/inated fro/ wor>![11] "ecourse to the records show that the followin, respondents were the officers of the union, na/el+6 ;osephine C! ;ulian 3$resident4, Adelaida 2o/od 35ice $resident4, 2ucita Casero 3#ecretar+4, -+rna "a,asa 3.reasurer4, Filo/ena -orales 3Auditor4, @lena #uede 3Coard -e/*er4, ;acinta .eBada 3Coard -e/*er4, Felipa 5alencia 3Coard -e/*er4 and 5ioleta Arriola 3$!"!)!4![1(] Cefore us, petitioners insist that these e/plo+ees were le,all+ ter/inated for their participation in an ille,al stri>e and /oreover, ;ulian and .eBada were validl+

2!

<<

<<<

<5

5<

dis/issed for a*andonin, their Bo*s after refusin, to co/pl+ with transfer and reassi,n/ent orders! =hile holdin, the stri>e ille,al, the Court of Appeals nonetheless still ruled that the union officers and /e/*ers were ille,all+ dis/issed for non-o*servance of due process reEuire/ents and union *ustin, *+ /ana,e/ent! <t li>ewise ,ave no credence to the char,e of a*andon/ent a,ainst ;ulian and .eBada! .hus, it awarded separation pa+ in lieu of reinstate/ent to all union officers includin, respondents ;ulian and .eBada and affir/ed all other /onetar+ awards *+ the 2a*or Ar*iter includin, *ac>wa,es! )n this point, we affir/ the findin,s of the appellate court that ;ulian and .eBada did not a*andon their e/plo+/ent! $etitioners utterl+ failed to show proof that ;ulian and .eBada had the intent to a*andon their wor> and sever their e/plo+/ent relationship with petitioners! <t is esta*lished that an e/plo+ee who forthwith ta>es steps to protest his la+off cannot *e said to have a*andoned his wor>! [20] Fowever, we cannot sustain the appellate courts rulin, that the dis/issal of ;ulian and .eBada was tanta/ount to unfair la*or practice! .here is si/pl+ nothin, on record to show that ;ulian and .eBada were discoura,ed or prohi*ited fro/ Boinin, an+ union! Fence, the petitioners cannot *e held lia*le for unfair la*or practice! =ith respect to union officers, however, there is no dispute the+ could *e dis/issed for participatin, in an ille,al stri>e! ?nion officers are dut+- *ound to ,uide their /e/*ers to respect the law! [21] %onetheless, as in other ter/ination cases, union officers /ust *e ,iven the reEuired notices for ter/inatin, an e/plo+/ent, i.e., notice of hearin, to ena*le the/ to present their side, and notice of ter/ination, should their eAplanation prove unsatisfactor+! %othin, in Article 267 of the 2a*or Code authori:es an i//ediate dis/issal of a union officer for participatin, in an ille,al stri>e! .he act of dis/issal is not intended to happen ipso facto *ut rather as an option that can *e eAercised *+ the e/plo+er and after co/pliance with the notice reEuire/ents for ter/inatin, an e/plo+ee! <n this case, petitioners did not ,ive the reEuired notices to the union officers! =e /ust stress, however, the dis/issals per se are not invalid *ut onl+ ineffectual in accordance with Serrano v. %ational !a&or 'elations Commission.[22] <n said case, we held that 314 the e/plo+ers failure to co/pl+ with the notice reEuire/ent does not constitute denial of due process, *ut /ere failure to o*serve a procedure for ter/ination of e/plo+/ent which /a>es the ter/ination /erel+ ineffectual, [2'] and 324 the dis/issal shall *e upheld *ut the e/plo+er /ust *e sanctioned for non-co/pliance with the prescri*ed procedure![27] As to the reliefs to *e afforded, Serrano decreed that6 <n su/, we hold that if in proceedin,s for reinstate/ent under Art! 21', it is shown that the ter/ination of e/plo+/ent was due to an authori:ed cause, then the e/plo+ee concerned should not *e ordered reinstated even thou,h there is failure to co/pl+ with the '0-da+ notice reEuire/ent! <nstead, he /ust *e ,ranted separation pa+ in accordance with Art! 21'H H <f the e/plo+ees separation is without cause, instead of *ein, ,iven separation pa+, he should *e reinstated! <n either case, whether he is reinstated or onl+ ,ranted separation pa+, he should *e paid full *ac>wa,es if he has *een laid off without written notice at least '0 da+s in advance! )n the other hand, with respect to dis/issals for cause under Art! 212, if it is shown that the e/plo+ee was dis/issed for an+ of the Bust causes /entioned in said Art! 212, then, in accordance with that article, he should not *e reinstated! Fowever, he /ust *e paid *ac>wa,es fro/ the ti/e his e/plo+/ent was ter/inated until it is deter/ined that the ter/ination of e/plo+/ent is for a Bust cause *ecause the failure to hear hi/ *efore he is dis/issed renders the ter/ination of his e/plo+/ent without le,al effect![2&] Ad/ittedl+, Serrano does not touch on the ter/ination of an e/plo+ee who is a /ere union /e/*er, due to participation in an ille,al stri>e! Cut it is settled that an e/plo+ee who is a /ere union /e/*er does not lose his e/plo+/ent status *+ /ere participation alle,edl+ in an ille,al stri>e! <f he is ter/inated, he is entitled to reinstate/ent! -oreover, where the e/plo+ee, whether a union /e/*er or officer, is not ,iven an+ notice for ter/ination such as in this case, he is entitled to *e paid *ac>wa,es fro/ the date of his invalid ter/ination until the final Bud,/ent of the case! <n the present case, we affir/ the appellate courts rulin, that the union /e/*ers who are parties herein were ille,all+ dis/issed and thus, entitled to reinstate/ent and pa+/ent of *ac>wa,es for lac> of sufficient evidence that the+ en,a,ed in ille,al acts durin, the stri>e! .he+ were in ,ood faith in *elievin, that their actions were within the *ounds of the law, since such were /eant onl+ to secure econo/ic *enefits for the/selves so as to i/prove their standard of livin,! Cesides, it is not the *usiness of this Court to deter/ine whether the

acts co//itted *+ the/ are ille,al, for review of factual issues is not proper in this petition! "eview of la*or cases elevated to this Court on a petition for review on certiorari is confined /erel+ to Euestions of law, and not of fact, as factual findin,s ,enerall+ are conclusive on this Court![26] For the sa/e reasons, we li>ewise affir/ the Court of Appeals in upholdin, the findin,s of *oth the %2"C and the 2a*or Ar*iter re,ardin, the validit+ or invalidit+ of Euitclai/s and the award of other /onetar+ clai/s! Juestions on whether the Euitclai/s were voluntaril+ eAecuted or not are factual in nature! .hus, petitioners appeal for us to re-eAa/ine certain pieces of docu/entar+ evidence concernin, /onetar+ clai/s cannot now *e entertained! Factual findin,s of la*or officials, who are dee/ed to have acEuired eApertise in /atters within their respective Burisdiction, are ,enerall+ accorded not onl+ respect *ut even finalit+, and *ind us when supported *+ su*stantial evidence! <t is not our function to assess and evaluate the evidence all over a,ain, particularl+ where the findin,s of *oth the Ar*iter and the Court of Appeals coincide![20] .%EREFORE, the assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals, dated April 26, 2000 and its "esolution of )cto*er 11, 2000, in CA!"! #$ %o! &'16( are AFF<"-@D with -)D<F<CA.<)%! Dis/issal of the union officers is declared %). <%5A2<D, and the award of separation pa+ to said union officers is here*+ D@2@.@D! Fowever, as a sanction for non-co/pliance with notice reEuire/ents for lawful ter/ination *+ the petitioners, *ac>wa,es are A=A"D@D to the union officers co/puted fro/ the ti/e the+ were dis/issed until the final entr+ of Bud,/ent of this case! .he rest of the dispositions of the Court of Appeals in its Decision of April 26, 2000, in CA- !"! #$ %o! &'16(, are here*+ AFF<"-@D! %o pronounce/ent as to costs! SO ORDERED.