Radio Philippine Network, Inc., et al. v. Ruth F. Yap, et al.
| contempt for not complying with the court’s prior
G.R. NO. 187713 - August 1, 2012 | Reyes, J. | | by Jasper
FACTS:
● Petitioner Radio Philippines Network, Inc. (RPN) is
a government sequestered corporation.
Respondents were employees of RPN and former
members of the Radio Philippines Network
Employees Union (RPNEU), the bargaining agent of
the rank-and-file employees of the said company.
RPN and RPNEU entered into a Collective
Bargaining Agreement (CBA) with a union security
clause providing that a member who has been
expelled from the union shall also be terminated
from the company.
● A conflict arose between the respondents and
other members of RPNEU. RPNEU’s Grievance and
Investigation Committee recommended to the
union’s board of directors the expulsion of the
respondents from the union. RPN notified the
respondents that their employment would be
terminated whereupon the respondents filed with
the Labor Arbiter (LA) a complaint for illegal
dismissal and non-payment of benefits.
● LA: ordered the reinstatement of the respondents
with payment of backwages and full benefits and
without loss of seniority rights after finding that
the petitioners failed to establish the legal basis of
the termination of respondents’ employment
● Respondents: alleged that petitioner’s did not
comply with the LA order, and narrated:
● They went to RPN to present themselves to the
petitioners for actual reinstatement to their former
positions. The General Manager informed them
that they had been reinstated, but only in the
payroll, and that the company would endeavor to
pay their salaries regularly despite its precarious
financial condition.
● Four days later, the respondents returned to RPN
to collect their salaries, it being a payday; but they
were barred entry upon strict orders of the
President and GM.
● The respondents returned in the afternoon but
were likewise stopped by 8 guards now manning
the gate. Respondents nonetheless tried to push
their way in, but the guards manhandled them,
pulled them by the hair and arms and pushed
them back to the street.
● Some even endured having their breasts mashed,
their blouses pulled up and their bags grabbed
away. Later that afternoon, the respondents
somehow managed to enter the RPN lobby.
● It was the AGM for Finance who came out, but
instead of meeting them, she ordered the guards
to take them back outside the gate, where she said
they would be paid their salaries (outside the
gate). Their removal was so forcible and violent
that they sustained physical injuries and had to be
medically treated.
● Because of these, the respondents prayed that the
LA issue an order finding the officers liable for
order.
● On the other hand, the petitioners denied any
liability for the narrated incidents, insisting that the
respondents had been duly informed through a
letter of their payroll reinstatement. The
petitioners explained that because of the intra-
union dispute between the respondents and the
union leaders, they deemed it wise not to allow
the respondents inside the company premises to
prevent any more untoward incidents, and to
release their salaries only at the gate.
● For this reason, the respondents were asked to
open an ATM account with the Land Bank, Quezon
City Circle Branch, where their salaries would be
deposited every 5th and 20th day of the month,
rather than on the 15th and 30th along with the
other employees. This measure was for the
protection not only of complainants but also for
the other employees of RPN.
● Petitioners continued expressing different ways as
to how to effect payment to the respondents. They
manifested to the LA that the respondents could
collect their salaries at the Bank of Commerce in
Broadcast City Branch, Quezon City.
● However, respondents refused to collect their
salaries. To prove their good faith, petitioners
stated that the respondents’ salaries shall
henceforth be deposited at the NLRC Cashier on
the 5th and 20th of every month.
● LA still cited them for indirect contempt, and
issued a writ of execution in favor of respondents
ISSUES/RATIO:
1. W/N the petitioner has actually fully complied with
the decision of the LA
a. Yes, they complied and thus, cannot be
liable for indirect contempt.
b. It is not denied that after the order of
reinstatement of the respondents, RPN
forthwith restored them in its payroll
without diminution of their benefits and
privileges, or loss of seniority rights.
c. They retained their entitlement to the
benefits under the CBA. Respondents
regularly received their salaries and
benefits, notwithstanding that the
company has been in financial straits.
d. Any delays appear to have been due to
misunderstandings as to the exact place
and time of the fortnightly payments, or
because the respondents were tardy in
collecting them from the Bank of
Commerce at Broadcast City Branch or
from the NLRC cashier.
e. The petitioners tried proposing opening
ATM accounts for them, but the
respondents rejected the idea.
f. Nonetheless, there was no sufficient basis
for the charge of indirect contempt
against the petitioners. It was made
without due regard for their right to
exercise their management prerogatives
 to preserve the viability of the company
and the harmony of the workplace.
g. This is because the manner of reinstating
a dismissed employee in the payroll
generally involves an exercise of
management prerogative. In case of
strained relations or non-availability of
positions, Art 223 of the Labor Code gives
the employer the option to reinstate the
employee merely in the payroll, precisely
in order to avoid the intolerable presence
in the workplace of the unwanted
employee.
h. The circumstances of the present case
have more than amply shown that the
physical restoration of the respondents to
their former positions would be
impractical and would hardly promote the
best interest of both parties.
i. Respondents have accused the
petitioners of being directly complicit in
the plot to expel them from the union and
to terminate their employment, while
petitioners have charged the respondents
with trying to sabotage the peace of the
workplace in "furthering their dispute
with the union."
j. The resentment and enmity between the
parties have so strained their relationship
and even provoked antipathy and
antagonism, as amply borne out by the
physical clashes that had ensued every
time the respondents attempted to enter
the RPN compound, that respondents’
presence in the workplace will not only be
distracting but even disruptive, to say the
least.
RULING: