labor ii - cases.01

8/13/2019 Labor II - Cases.01

1/48

G.R. No. L-54334 January 22, 1986 CUEVAS, J.:

KIK L!, "o#n$ %un'&& un"'r ()' na*' an" &(y+' SEEN ICE CREA /LAN0, petitioner,vs. NLRC an" /AANSANG KILUSAN NG /AGGAA KILUSAN, respondents.

Petition for certiorari to annul the decision 1of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) dated July 2, !"#" $hich foundpetitioner %$eden &ce Cream 'uilty of unfair labor practice for unustified refusal to bar'ain, in violation of par. (') of rticle 2*" 2of theNe$ Labor Code, 3and declared the draft proposal of the +nion for a collective bar'ainin' a'reement as the 'overnin' collectivebar'ainin' a'reement bet$een the employees and the mana'ement.

he pertinent bac-'round facts are as follo$s

&n a certification election held on /ctober 0, !"#1, the Pambansan' ilusan' Pa''a$a (+nion for short), a le'itimate late laborfederation, $on and $as subse3uently certified in a resolution dated November 2", !"#1 by the 4ureau of Labor Relations as the soleand e5clusive bar'ainin' a'ent of the ran-6and6file employees of %$eden &ce Cream Plant (Company for short). he Company7s motionfor reconsideration of the said resolution $as denied on January 28, !"#1.

hereafter, and more specifically on 9ecember #, !"#1, the +nion furnished 4the Company $ith t$o copies of its proposed collectivebar'ainin' a'reement. t the same time, it re3uested the Company for its counter proposals. :licitin' no response to the aforesaidre3uest, the +nion a'ain $rote the Company reiteratin' its re3uest for collective bar'ainin' ne'otiations and for the Company to furnishthem $ith its counter proposals. 4oth re3uests $ere i'nored and remained unacted upon by the Company.

Left $ith no other alternative in its attempt to brin' the Company to the bar'ainin' table, the +nion, on ;ebruary !*, !"#", filed a


2/48

he petition lac-s merit. Conse3uently, its dismissal is in order.

Collective bar'ainin' $hich is defined as ne'otiations to$ards a collective a'reement,6is one of the democratic frame$or-s under theNe$ Labor Code, desi'ned to stabili?e the relation bet$een labor and mana'ement and to create a climate of sound and stableindustrial peace. &t is a mutual responsibility of the employer and the +nion and is characteri?ed as a le'al obli'ation. %o much so thatrticle 2*", par. (') of the Labor Code ma-es it an unfair labor practice for an employer to refuse


3/48

@A:R:;/R:, the instant petition is 9&%=&%%:9. he temporary restrainin' order issued on u'ust 2#, !"1, is L&;:9 and %:%&9:. No pronouncement as to costs. %/ /R9:R:9.

G.R. No. 14518 ''*%'r 16, 24 A7CUNA, J.

ANILA IAN 0EL E/L!EES: UNIN,petitioner,vs. CA, 0E SECRE0AR! ; LAR AN E/L!EN0, an" 0E ANILA IAN 0EL,respondents.

his petition for revie$ of a decision of the Court of ppeals arose out of a dispute bet$een the Philippine 9iamond Aotel and Resort,&nc. (, !""1 and its members reported for $or- the ne5t day, pril !#, !""1. he Aotel,ho$ever, refused to accept the returnin' $or-ers and instead filed a =otion for Reconsideration of the %ecretaryFs /rder.

/n pril 0, !""1, then ctin' %ecretary of Labor Jose =. :spaIol, issued the disputed /rder, $hich modified the earlier one issued by%ecretary raano. &nstead of an actual return to $or-, ctin' %ecretary :spaIol directed that the stri-ers be reinstated only in thepayroll.*he +nion moved for the reconsideration of this /rder, but its motion $as denied on June 28, !""1. Aence, it filed before thisCourt on u'ust 2>, !""1, a petition for certiorariunder Rule >8 of the Rules of Court alle'in' 'rave abuse of discretion on the part ofthe %ecretary of Labor for modifyin' its earlier order and re3uirin' instead the reinstatement of the employees in the payroll. Ao$ever,in a resolution dated July !2, !""", this Court referred the case to the Court of ppeals, pursuant to the principle embodied in !ationalFederation of Labor v. La"uesma.8

/n /ctober !", !""", the Court of ppeals rendered a 9ecision dismissin' the +nionFs petition and affirmin' the %ecretary of LaborFs/rder for payroll reinstatement. he Court of ppeals held that the challen'ed order is merely an error of ud'ment and not a 'raveabuse of discretion and that payroll reinstatement is not prohibited by la$, but may be

Aence, the +nion no$ stands before this Court maintainin' that

A: A/N/R4L: C/+R /; PP:L% DR&:&/+%LE :RR:9 &N R+L&ND A A: %:CR:RE /; L4/RF%+N+A/R&K:9 /R9:R /; =:R:


4/48

$or- and the university to accept them under the same terms and conditions. Ao$ever, in a subse3uent order, the NLRC providedpayroll reinstatement for the stri-in' teachers as an alternative remedy to actual reinstatement. rue, this Court held therein that theNLRC did not commit 'rave abuse of discretion in providin' for the alternative remedy of payroll reinstatement. his Court found that it$as merely an error of ud'ment, $hich is not correctible by a special civil action for certiorari. he NLRC $as only tryin' its best to$or- out a satisfactory ad %ocsolution to a festerin' and serious problem.

Ao$ever, this Court notes that the U#$ rulin' $as made in the li'ht of one very important fact the teachers could not be 'iven bac-their academic assi'nments since the order of the %ecretary for them to return to $or- $as 'iven in the middle of the first semester ofthe academic year. he NLRC $as, therefore, faced $ith a situation $here the stri-in' teachers $ere entitled to a return to $or- order,but the university could not immediately reinstate them since it $ould be impracticable and detrimental to the students to chan'e

teachers at that point in time.

&n the present case, there is no sho$in' that the facts called for payroll reinstatement as an alternative remedy. strained relationshipbet$een the stri-in' employees and mana'ement is no reason for payroll reinstatement in lieu of actual reinstatement. Petitionercorrectly points out that labor disputes naturally involve strained relations bet$een labor and mana'ement, and that in most stri-es, therelations bet$een the stri-ers and the non6stri-ers $ill similarly be tense."4itter labor disputes al$ays leave an aftermath of stron'emotions and unpleasant situations. Nevertheless, the 'overnment must still perform its function and apply the la$, especially if, as inthis case, national interest is involved.

fter ma-in' the distinction bet$een U#$ and the present case, this Court no$ addresses the issue of $hether the Court of ppealserred in rulin' that the %ecretary did not commit any 'rave abuse of discretion in orderin' payroll reinstatement in lieu of actualreinstatement. his 3uestion is ans$ered by the nature of rticle 2>0('). s a 'eneral rule, the %tate encoura'es an environment$herein employers and employees themselves must deal $ith their problems in a manner that mutually suits them best. his is thebasic policy embodied in rticle &&&, %ection 0 of the Constitution,!$hich $as further echoed in rticle 2!! of the LaborCode.!!Aence, a voluntary, instead of compulsory, mode of dispute settlement is the 'eneral rule.

Ao$ever, rticle 2>0, para'raph (') of the Labor Code, $hich allo$s the %ecretary of Labor to assume urisdiction over a labor disputeinvolvin' an industry indispensable to the national interest, provides an e5ception

(') @hen, in his opinion, there e5ists a labor dispute causin' or li-ely to cause a stri-e or loc-out in an industry indispensableto the national interest, the %ecretary of Labor and :mployment may assume urisdiction over the dispute and decide it orcertify the same to the Commission for compulsory arbitration. %uch assumption or certification shall have the effect ofautomatically enoinin' the intended or impendin' stri-e or loc-out as specified in the assumption or certification order. &f onehas already ta-en place at the time of assumption or certification, all stri-in' or loc-ed out employees shall immediately returnto $or- and the employer shall immediately resume operations and readmit all $or-ers under the same terms and conditionsprevailin' before the stri-e or loc-out. 5 5 5

his provision is vie$ed as an e5ercise of the police po$er of the %tate. prolon'ed stri-e or loc-out can be inimical to the national

economy and, therefore, the situation is imbued $ith public necessity and involves the ri'ht of the %tate and the public to self6protection.!2

+nder rticle 2>0('), all $or-ers must immediately return to $or- and all employers must readmit all of them under the same terms andconditions prevailin' before the stri-e or loc-out. his Court must point out that the la$ uses the precise phrase of


5/48

ART. III, S'(#on 8.he ri'ht of the people, includin' those employed in the public and private sectors, to form unions, associations, orsocieties for purposes not contrary to la$ shall not be abrid'ed.

ART. XIII, S'(#on 3.he %tate shall afford full protection to labor, local and overseas, or'ani?ed and unor'ani?ed, and promote fullemployment and e3uality of employment opportunities for all.

&t shall 'uarantee the ri'hts of all $or-ers to self6or'ani?ation, collective bar'ainin' and ne'otiations, and peaceful concerted activities,includin' the ri'ht to stri-e in accordance $ith la$. hey shall be entitled to security of tenure, humane conditions of $or-, and a livin'$a'e. hey shall also participate in policy and decision6ma-in' processes affectin' their ri'hts and benefits as may be provided by la$.

he %tate shall promote the principle of shared responsibility bet$een $or-ers and employers and the preferential use of voluntarymodes in settlin' disputes, includin' conciliation, and shall enforce their mutual compliance there$ith to foster industrial peace.

he %tate shall re'ulate the relations bet$een $or-ers and employers, reco'ni?in' the ri'ht of labor to its ust share in the fruits ofproduction and the ri'ht of enterprises to reasonable returns to investments, and to e5pansion and 'ro$th.

G.R. No. L-4946 January 26, 1988 ;ERNAN, J.:

SA0URN A. VIC0RIA, petitioner,vs. N. AA G. INCING, E/U0! INIS0ER, an" ;AR EAS0 RACAS0ING C., INC.,respondents.

Petition for revie$ of the /rder of the then ctin' %ecretary of Labor mado D. &ncion' dated June >, !"#1, in NLRC Case No. R46!#>*6#8, reversin' the decision of the National Labor Relations Commission dated November !#, !"#> and holdin' that, under the la$

and facts of the case, there $as no necessity for private respondent to obtain a clearance for the termination of petitioner7s employmentunder rticle 28# GbH of the Labor Code, as amended, and that a mere report of such termination $as sufficient, under %ection !! GfH.Rule & of the Rules and Re'ulations implementin' said Code.

Petitioner %aturno ictoria $as employed on =arch !#, !"8> by private respondent ;ar :ast 4roadcastin' Company, &ncorporated as aradio transmitter operator. %ometime in July !"#!, he and his co6$or-ers or'ani?ed the ;ar :ast 4roadcastin' Company :mployeesssociation. fter re'isterin' their association $ith the then 9epartment of Labor, they demanded reco'nition of said association by thecompany but the latter refused on the 'round that bein' a non6profit, non6stoc-, non6commercial and reli'ious corporation, it is notcovered by Republic ct 1#8, other$ise -no$n as the &ndustrial Peace ct, the labor la$ enforced at that time.

%everal conciliation meetin's $ere held at the 9epartment of Labor and in those meetin's, the 9irector of Labor Relations :dmundoCabal advised the union members that the company could not be forced to reco'ni?e them or to bar'ain collectively $ith them becauseit is a non6profit, non6commercial and reli'ious or'ani?ation. Not$ithstandin' such advice, the union members led by %aturno ictoriaas its president, declared a stri-e and pic-eted the company7s premises on %eptember >, !"#2 for the purpose of see-in' reco'nition of

the labor union.

s a countermeasure, the company filed a case for dama'es $ith preliminary inunction a'ainst the stri-ers before the then Court of;irst &nstance of 4ulacan doc-eted as Civil Case No. #86. %aid court issued an inunction enoinin' the three6day6old stri-e sta'eda'ainst the company. he complaint $as later amended see-in' to declare the stri-e ille'al.

+pon the declaration of martial la$ on %eptember 2!, !"#2 and the promul'ation of Presidential 9ecree No. 2! creatin' the NationalLabor Relations Commission, the ad %ocNational Labor Relations Commission too- co'ni?ance of the stri-e throu'h NLRC Case No.2! entitled


6/48

*. he respondent shall report compliance $ith this decision $ithin fifteen G!8H days from receipt hereof.

his /rder shall, ho$ever, be $ithout preudice to $hatever decision the Court of ;irst &nstance of 4ulacan maypromul'ate in Civil Case No. #86 and to the re3uirements the e5istin' order may need of people $or-in' $ith themass media of communications. & &% %/ /R9:R:9. 1

he decision of the arbitrator $as successively appealed to the ad %ocNational Labor Relations Commission, the %ecretary of Laborand the /ffice of the President of the Philippines, and $as affirmed in all instances.

/n pril 20, !"#8, the Court of ;irst &nstance of 4ulacan rendered ud'ment, to $it

@A:R:;/R:, ud'ment is hereby rendered

!. =a-in' inunction a'ainst defendants permanentB

2. 9eclarin' that this Court has urisdiction to try and hear the instant case despite %ection 2 of Presidential 9ecreeNo. 2B

0. 9eclarin' that plaintiff ;ar :ast 4roadcastin' Company is a non6profit or'ani?ation since it does not declaredividendsB

*. 9eclarin' that the stri-e admitted by the defendants to have been declared by them is ille'al inasmuch as it $as forthe purpose of compellin' the plaintiff6company to reco'ni?e their labor union $hich could not be le'ally donebecause the plaintiffs $ere not covered by Republic ct 1#8B

8. 9eclarin' that the evidence presented is insufficient to sho$ that defendants caused the dama'e to the plaintiffconse3uent on the destruction of its relays and its antennas as $ell as its transmission lines. %/ /R9:R:9. 2

/n pril 2*, !"#8, by virtue of the above decision, the company notified %aturno ictoria that he is dismissed effective pril 2>, !"#8.hereupon, he filed Case No. R46&6!#>* before the National Labor Relations Commission, Re'ional 4ranch & a'ainst the companyalle'in' violation of article 2># of the Labor Code $hich re3uires clearance from the %ecretary of Labor for every shutdo$n of businessestablishments or dismissal of employees. /n ;ebruary 2#, !"#>, Labor rbiter =anuel 4. Loren?o rendered a decision in petitioner7sfavor declarin' the dismissal to be ille'al, thereby orderin' reinstatement $ith fun bac-$a'es. /n appeal, the arbiter7s decision $asaimed by the National Labor Relations Commission. 4ut $hen the commission7s decision $as in turn appealed to the %ecretary ofLabor, it $as set aside and in lieu thereof the 3uestioned /rder dated June >, !"#1 $as issued.

&n vie$ of its brevity and for a better understandin' of the reasons behind it, @e 3uote the disputed /rder in full

/ R 9 : R

his is an appeal by respondent from the 9ecision of the National Labor Relations Commission, dated November !#,!"#>.

he Commission upheld the 9ecision of the labor arbiter dated ;ebruary 2#, !"#> orderin' respondent to reinstate$ith full bac-$a'es herein complainant %aturno . ictoria based on the findin' that respondent did not file anyapplication for clearance to terminate the services of complainant before dismissin' him from his employment.

4riefly the facts of this case are as follo$s

Complainant %aturno ictoria is the president of the ;ar :ast 4roadcastin' Company :mployees +nion. /n%eptember 1, !"#2, the said union declared a stri-e a'ainst respondent company. /n %eptember !!, !"#2,respondent filed $ith the Court of ;irst &nstance of 4ulacan, Civil Case No. #86, for the issuance of an inunctionand a prayer that the stri-e be declared ille'al.

/n /ctober 2*, !"#2, complainant to'ether $ith the other stri-ers filed $ith the ad %ocNational Labor RelationsCommission Case Nos. 2! and 218 for reinstatement. he rbitrator rendered a decision in said case on9ecember 21, !"#2, $herein he ordered respondent to reinstate complainants subect to the follo$in' condition


7/48

%ince said decision $as affirmed by the NLRC, the %ecretary of Labor, and the /ffice of the President of thePhilippines, complainants $ere reinstated pursuant thereto.

&n a 9ecision dated pril 20, !"#8, in Civil Case No. #86, promul'ated by the Court of ;irst &nstance of 4ulacan,the stri-e sta'ed by herein complainant and the other stri-ers $as declared ille'al. 4ased on said 9ecision,respondent dismissed complainant from his employment. Aence, complainant filed the instant complaint for ille'aldismissal.

+nder the aforecited facts, $e do not a'ree $ith the rulin' of the Commission no$ subect of this appeal that anapplication for clearance to terminate herein complainant is mandatory on the part of respondent before terminatin'

complainant7s services. @e believe that $hat $ould have been necessary $as a report as provided for under %ection!! GfH Rule &, 4oo- of the Rules and Re'ulations &mplementin' the Labor Code. =oreover, even if an applicationfor clearance $as flied, this /ffice $ould have treated the same as a report. /ther$ise, it $ould render nu'atory the9ecision of the rbitrator dated 9ecember 21, !"#2 in Case Nos. 2! and 218 $hich $as affirmed by theCommission, the %ecretary of Labor and the /ffice of the President of the Philippines, orderin' his temporaryreinstatement, subect to $hatever 9ecision the C;& of 4ulacan may promul'ate in Civil Case No. #86. &t could beclearly inferred from said C;& 9ecision that if the stri-e is declared ille'al, the stri-ers $ill be considered to have losttheir employment status under the then e5istin' la$s and urisprudence, other$ise stri-ers could sta'e ille'al stri-e$ith impunity. %ince the stri-e $as declared ille'al, respondent acted in 'ood faith $hen it dispensed $ith theservices of herein complainant.

;or failure of respondent to file the necessary report and based on e3uitable considerations, complainant should be'ranted separation pay e3uivalent to one6half month salary for every year of service.

@A:R:;/R:, let the decision of the National Labor Relations Commission dated November !#, !"#> be, as it ishereby, set aside and a ne$ ud'ment is entered, orderin' respondent to 'ive complainant separation pay e3uivalentto one6half month salary for every year of service. %/ /R9:R:9. 3

Petitioner elevates to +s for revie$ on certiorari the afore3uoted /rder see-in' to persuade this Court that then ctin' %ecretary ofLabor mado D. &ncion' committed reversible error in holdin' that, under the la$ and facts of this case, a mere report of thetermination of the services of said petitioner $as sufficient. Petitioner assi'ns the follo$in' errors

&@A:A:R /R N/ CL:RNC: ;R/= A: %:CR:RE /; L4/R &% %&LL N:C:%%RE 4:;/R: A: P:&&/N:RA:R:&N C/+L9 4: 9&%=&%%:9 C/N%&9:R&ND A: R:%R&C&: C/N9&&/N &N A: 9:C&%&/N /; A: C/=P+L%/RE

R4&R/R &N NLRC C%: N/%. 2! N9 218.&&

@A:A:R /R N/ A: 9:C&%&/N /; A: C/+R /; ;&R% &N%NC: /; 4+LCN &N C&&L C%: N/. #86 &P%/ ;C/

D: A: R:%P/N9:N C/=PNE +A/R&E / 9&%=&%% A:R:&N P:&&/N:R @&A/+ NE CL:RNC: ;R/= A:%:CR:RE /; L4/R. 4

he substantive la$ on the matter enforced durin' the time of petitioner7s dismissal $as rticle 2># GbH of the Labor Code Ginconunction $ith the rules and re'ulations implementin' said substantive la$.H rticle 2># reads

No employer that has no collective bar'ainin' a'reement may shut do$n his establishment or dismiss or terminatethe service of re'ular employees $ith at least one G!H year of service e5cept mana'erial employees as defined in thisboo- $ithout previous $ritten clearance from the %ecretary of Labor.

Petitioner maintains that the abovecited provision is very clear. &t does not ma-e any distinction as to the 'round for dismissal. @hetheror not the dismissal sou'ht by the employer company is for cause, it is imperative that the company must apply for a clearance from the%ecretary of Labor.

&n a recent case 5penned by Justice braham ;. %armiento promul'ated on June 0, !"1#, $e had occasion to rule in a'reement $iththe findin's of then Presidential ssistant for Le'al ffairs Ronaldo Kamora that the purpose in re3uirin' a prior clearance from the%ecretary of Labor in cases of shutdo$n or dismissal of employees, is to afford the %ecretary ample opportunity to e5amine anddetermine the reasonableness of the re3uest.

he %olicitor Deneral, in relation to said pronouncement and in ustification of the ctin' Labor %ecretary7s decision ma-es the follo$in'observations

&t is true that article 2># GbH of the Labor Code re3uires that before any business establishment is shut do$n or anyemployee is dismissed, $ritten clearance from the %ecretary of Labor must first be obtained. &t is li-e$ise true that inthe case of petitioner, there $as no $ritten clearance in the usual form. 4ut $hile there may not have been strictcompliance $ith rticle 2># there $as substantial compliance. he %ecretary of Labor t$ice manifested hisconformity to petitioner7s dismissal.


8/48

he first manifestation of ac3uiescence by the %ecretary of Labor to the dismissal of petitioner $as his affirmance ofthe decision of the arbitrator in NLRC Case Nos. 2! and 218. he arbitrator ordered the reinstatement of thestri-ers but subect to the decision of the C;& of 4ulacan in Civil Case No. #86. he %ecretary of Labor affirmed thedecision of the arbitrator. &n effect, therefore, the %ecretary of Labor issued a carte blanc%e to the C;& of 4ulacan toeither dismiss or retain petitioner.

he second manifestation $as his decision in NLRC Case No. R46&6!#>*6>8 $herein he said that clearance for thedismissal of petitioner $as not re3uired, but only a reportB that even if an application for clearance $as filed, he $ouldhave treated it as a mere report. @hile this is not'riorclearance in the contemplation of rticle 2>#, it is at leastaratificationof the dismissal of petitioner. 6

@e a'ree $ith the %olicitor Deneral. echnically spea-in', no clearance $as obtained by private respondent from the then %ecretary ofLabor, the last step to$ards full compliance $ith the re3uirements of la$ on the matter of dismissal of employees. Ao$ever, therationale behind the clearance re3uirement $as fully met. he %ecretary of Labor $as apprised of private respondent7s intention toterminate the services of petitioner. his in effect is an application for clearance to dismiss petitioner from employment. he affirmanceof the restrictive condition in the dispositive portion of the labor arbiter7s decision in NLRC Case Nos. 2! and 218 by the %ecretaryof Labor and the /ffice of the President of the Philippines, si'nifies a 'rant of authority to dismiss petitioner in case the stri-e isdeclared ille'al by the Court of ;irst &nstance of 4ulacan. Conse3uently and as correctly stated by the %olicitor Deneral, privaterespondent acted in 'ood faith $hen it terminated the employment of petitioner upon a declaration of ille'ality of the stri-e by the Courtof ;irst &nstance of 4ulacan. =oreover, the then %ecretary of Labor manifested his conformity to the dismissal, not once, but t$ice. &nthis re'ard, the mandatory rule on clearance need not be applied.

he stri-e sta'ed by the union in !"#2 $as a futile move. he la$ then enforced, Republic ct 1#8 specifically e5cluded respondentcompany from its covera'e. :ven if the parties had 'one to court to compel reco'nition, no positive relief could have been obtainedsince the same $as not sanctioned by la$. 4ecause of this, there $as no necessity on the part of private respondent to sho$ specificacts of petitioner durin' the stri-e to ustify his dismissal.

his is a matter of responsibility and of ans$erability. Petitioner as a union leader, must see to it that the policies and activities of theunion in the conduct of labor relations are $ithin the precepts of la$ and any deviation from the le'al boundaries shall be imputable tothe leader. Ae bears the responsibility of 'uidin' the union alon' the path of la$ and to cause the union to demand $hat is not le'allydemandable, $ould foment anarchy $hich is a prelude to chaos.

Petitioner should have -no$n and it $as his duty to impart this imputed -no$led'e to the members of the union that employees andlaborers in non6 profit or'ani?ations are not covered by the provisions of the &ndustrial Peace ct and the Court of &ndustrial RelationsGin the case at bar, the Court of ;irst &nstanceH has no urisdiction to entertain petitions of labor unions or or'ani?ations of said non6profitor'ani?ations for certification as the e5clusive bar'ainin' representatives of said employees and laborers.

s a stri-e is an economic $eapon at $ar $ith the policy of the Constitution and the la$ at that time, a resort thereto by laborers shall

be deemed to be a choice of remedy peculiarly their o$n and outside of the statute, and as such, the stri-ers must accept all the ris-sattendant upon their choice. &f they succeed and the employer succumbs, the la$ $ill not stand in their $ay in the enoyment of thela$ful fruits of their victory. 4ut if they fail, they cannot thereafter invo-e the protection of the la$ for the conse3uences of their conductunless the ri'ht they $ished vindicated is one $hich the la$ $ill, by all means, protect and enforce. 8

@e further a'ree $ith the ctin' %ecretary of Labor that $hat $as re3uired in the case of petitioner7s dismissal $as only a report asprovided under %ection !! GfH of Rule & of the Rules and Re'ulations implementin' the Labor Code $hich provides

:very employer shall submit a report to the Re'ional /ffice in accordance $ith the form presented by the 9epartmenton the follo$in' instances of termination of employment, suspension, lay6off or shutdo$n $hich may be effected bythe employer $ithout prior clearance $ithin five G8H days thereafter

555 555 555

GfH ll other terminations of employment, suspension, lay6offs or shutdo$ns, not other$ise specified in this and in theimmediately precedin' sections.

o hold other$ise $ould render nu'atory the conditions set forth in the decision of Labor rbiter 'uas on the basis of $hich petitioner$as temporarily reinstated.

&nasmuch as there $as a valid and reasonable 'round to dismiss petitioner but no report as re3uired by the implementin' rules andre'ulations of the Labor Code $as filed by respondent Company $ith the then 9epartment of Labor, petitioner as held by the ctin'%ecretary of Labor, is entitled to separation pay e3uivalent to one6half month salary for every year of service.

@A:R:;/R:, the petition is dismissed. he decision of the actin' %ecretary of Labor is ;;&R=:9 in toto. %/ /R9:R:9.


9/48

G.R. No. 85985 Au$u&( 13, 1993 EL, J.:

/ILI//INE AIRLINES, INC. /AL, petitioner,vs. NA0INAL LAR RELA0INS CISSIN, LAR ARI0ER ISAEL /. R0IGUERRA an" /ILI//INE AIRLINESE/L!EES ASSCIA0IN /ALEA, respondents.

&n the instant petition for certiorari, the Court is presented the issue of $hether or not the formulation of a Code of 9iscipline amon'employees is a shared responsibility of the employer and the employees.

/n =arch !8, !"18, the Philippine irlines, &nc. (PL) completely revised its !">> Code of 9iscipline. he Code $as circulated amon'the employees and $as immediately implemented, and some employees $ere forth$ith subected to the disciplinary measuresembodied therein.

hus, on u'ust 2, !"18, the Philippine irlines :mployees ssociation (PL:) filed a complaint before the National Labor RelationsCommission (NLRC) for unfair labor practice (Case No. NCR6#628!618) $ith the follo$in' remar-s


10/48

@A:R:;/R:, premises considered, respondent PL is hereby ordered as follo$s

!. ;urnish all employees $ith the ne$ Code of 9isciplineB

2. Reconsider the cases of employees meted $ith penalties under the Ne$ Code of 9iscipline and remand the samefor further hearin'B and

0. 9iscuss $ith PL: the obectionable provisions specifically tac-led in the body of the decision.

ll other claims of the complainant union (is) GareH hereby, dismissed for lac- of merit. %/ /R9:R:9. (p. *, ollo.)

PL appealed to the NLRC. /n u'ust !", !"11, the NLRC throu'h Commissioner :ncarnacion, $ith Presidin' Commissioner 4onto6Pere? and Commissioner =a'laya concurrin', found no evidence of unfair labor practice committed by PL and affirmed the dismissalof PL:7s char'e. Nonetheless, the NLRC made the follo$in' observations

&ndeed, failure of mana'ement to discuss the provisions of a contemplated code of discipline $hich shall 'overn theconduct of its employees $ould result in the erosion and deterioration of an other$ise harmonious and smoothrelationship bet$een them as did happen in the instant case. here is no dispute that adoption of rules of conduct ordiscipline is a prero'ative of mana'ement and is imperative and essential if an industry, has to survive in acompetitive $orld. 4ut labor climate has pro'ressed, too. &n the Philippine scene, at no time in our contemporaryhistory is the need for a cooperative, supportive and smooth relationship bet$een labor and mana'ement more-eenly felt if $e are to survive economically. =ana'ement can no lon'er e5clude labor in the deliberation andadoption of rules and re'ulations that $ill affect them.

he complainant union in this case has the ri'ht to feel isolated in the adoption of the Ne$ Code of 9iscipline. heCode of 9iscipline involves security of tenure and loss of employment a property ri'ht &t is time that mana'ementreali?es that to attain effectiveness in its conduct rules, there should be candidness and openness by =ana'ementand participation by the union, representin' its members. &n fact, our Constitution has reco'ni?ed the principle of


11/48

%o lon' as a company7s mana'ement prero'atives are e5ercised in 'ood faith for the advancement of the employer7sinterest and not for the purpose of defeatin' or circumventin' the ri'hts of the employees under special la$s or undervalid a'reements, this Court $ill uphold them.(at p. 21.)

ll this points to the conclusion that the e5ercise of mana'erial prero'atives is notunlimited. &t is circumscribed by limitations found inla$, a collective bar'ainin' a'reement, or the 'eneral principles of fair play and ustice (University of #to. $omas vs. !LC, !" %CR#81 G!""H). =oreover, as enunciated inAbbott Laboratories (P%il.)0 vs. !LC (!8* #!0 G!"1#H), it must be duly established that theprero'ative bein' invo-ed is clearly a mana'erial one.

close scrutiny of the obectionable provisions of the Code reveals that they are not purely business6oriented nor do they concern themana'ement aspect of the business of the company as in the #an ,i"uelcase. he provisions of the Code clearly have repercusionson the employee7s ri'ht to security of tenure. he implementation of the provisions may result in the deprivation of an employee7smeans of livelihood $hich, as correctly pointed out by the NLRC, is a property ri'ht (Callanta0 vs Carnation P%ili''ines0 Inc., !*8 %CR2>1 G!"1>H). &n vie$ of these aspects of the case $hich border on infrin'ement of constitutional ri'hts, $e must uphold the constitutionalre3uirements for the protection of labor and the promotion of social ustice, for these factors, accordin' to Justice &sa'ani Cru?, tilt 21 G!""!H >08).

erily, a line must be dra$n bet$een mana'ement prero'atives re'ardin' business operations'er se and those $hich affect the ri'htsof the employees. &n treatin' the latter, mana'ement should see to it that its employees are at least properly informed of its decisions ormodes action. PL asserts that all its employees have been furnished copies of the Code. Public respondents found to the contrary,$hich findin', to say the least is entitled to 'reat respect.

PL posits the vie$ that by si'nin' the !"1"6!""! collective bar'ainin' a'reement, on June 2#, !"", PL: in effect, reco'ni?edPL7s


12/48

ANILA ELEC0RIC C/AN!,petitioner, vs. on. SECRE0AR! ; LAR LENAR


13/48

stated if that compilation is published for use by persons en'a'ed in that occupation and is 'enerally used and relied upon bythem therein.

+nder the afore63uoted rule, statement of matters contained in a periodical, may be admitted only


14/48

herefore, in the absence of a specific provision of la$ prohibitin' retroactive of the effectivity of arbitral a$ardsissued by the %ecretary of Labor pursuant to rticle 2>0(') of the Labor Code, such as herein involved, publicrespondent is deemed vested $ith plenary and discretionary po$ers to determine the effectivity thereof.

he Court in the January 2#, !""" 9ecision, stated that the C4 shall be up to 9ecember 2#, !""".< Parenthetically, this actually covers a three6year period. Labor la$s are silent as to $hen an arbitrala$ard in a labor dispute $here the %ecretary had assumed urisdiction by virtue of rticle 2>0 (') of the Labor Code shall retroact. &n'eneral, a C4 ne'otiated $ithin si5 months after the e5piration of the e5istin' C4 retroacts to the day immediately follo$in' suchdate and if a'reed thereafter, the effectivity depends on the a'reement of the parties. !1/n the other hand, the la$ is silent as to theretroactivity of a C4 arbitral a$ard or that 'ranted not by virtue of the mutual a'reement of the parties but by intervention of the

'overnment. 9espite the silence of the la$, the Court rules herein that C4 arbitral a$ards 'ranted after si5 months from the e5pirationof the last C4 shall retroact to such time a'reed upon by both employer and the employees or their union. bsent such an a'reementas to retroactivity, the a$ard shall retroact to the first day after the si56month period follo$in' the e5piration of the last day of the C4should there be one. &n the absence of a C4, the %ecretary7s determination of the date of retroactivity as part of his discretionarypo$ers over arbitral a$ards shall control.

&t is true that an arbitral a$ard cannot'er sebe cate'ori?ed as an a'reement voluntarily entered into by the parties because it re3uiresthe interference and imposin' po$er of the %tate thru the %ecretary of Labor $hen he assumes urisdiction. Ao$ever, the arbitral a$ardcan be considered as an appro5imation of a collective bar'ainin' a'reement $hich $ould other$ise have been entered into by theparties.!"he terms or periods set forth in rticle 2806 pertains e5plicitly to a C4. 4ut there is nothin' that $ould prevent itsapplication by analo'y to an arbitral a$ard by the %ecretary considerin' the absence of an applicable la$. +nder rticle 2806 ) months or more has beenreected by the Court. %uffice it to say that the employer is allo$ed to contract out services for si5 months or more. Ao$ever, a line mustbe dra$n bet$een mana'ement prero'atives re'ardin' business operations'er seand those $hich affect the ri'hts of employees, andin treatin' the latter, the employer should see to it that its employees are at least properly informed of its decision or modes of action inorder to attain a harmonious labor6mana'ement relationship and enli'hten the $or-ers concernin' their ri'hts.20Airin' of $or-ers is$ithin the employer7s inherent freedom to re'ulate and is a valid e5ercise of its mana'ement prero'ative subect only to special la$sand a'reements on the matter and the fair standards of ustice. 2*he mana'ement cannot be denied the faculty of promotin' efficiencyand attainin' economy by a study of $hat units are essential for its operation. &t has the ultimate determination of $hether servicesshould be performed by its personnel or contracted to outside a'encies. @hile there should be mutual consultation, eventuallydeference is to be paid to $hat mana'ement decides.28Contractin' out of services is an e5ercise of business ud'ment or mana'ement

prero'ative.2>

bsent proof that mana'ement acted in a malicious or arbitrary manner, the Court $ill not interfere $ith the e5ercise ofud'ment by an employer.2#s mentioned in the January 2#, !""" 9ecision, the la$ already sufficiently re'ulates thismatter.21Jurisprudence also provides ade3uate limitations, such that the employer must be motivated by 'ood faith and the contractin'out should not be resorted to circumvent the la$ or must not have been the result of malicious or arbitrary actions. 2"hese are mattersthat may be cate'orically determined only $hen an actual suit on the matter arises.

@A:R:;/R:, the motion for reconsideration is PR&LLE DRN:9 and the assailed 9ecision is =/9&;&:9 as follo$s (!) thearbitral a$ard shall retroact from 9ecember !, !""8 to November 0, !""#B and (2) the a$ard of $a'e is increased from the ori'inalamount of /ne housand Nine Aundred Pesos (P!,".) to $o housand Pesos (P2,.) for the years !""8 and !"">. hisResolution is subect to the monetary advances 'ranted by petitioner to its ran-6and6file employees durin' the pendency of this caseassumin' such advances had actually been distributed to them. he assailed 9ecision is ;;&R=:9 in all other respects.%//R9:R:9.


15/48

0)' G'n'ra+ an=#n$ La> o? 2 or RA 891

S'(#on 22. #tri8es and Loc8outs. 6 he ban-in' industry is hereby declared as indispensable to the national interest and,not$ithstandin' the provisions of any la$ to the contrary, any stri-e or loc-out involvin' ban-s, if unsettled after seven (#) calendardays shall be reported by the 4an'-o %entral to the secretary of Labor $ho may assume urisdiction over the dispute or decide it orcertify the sane to the National Labor Relations Commission for compulsory arbitration. Ao$ever, the President of the Philippines mayat any time intervene and assume urisdiction over such labor dispute in order to settle or terminate the same. (>6:)

G.R. No. L-2128 ''*%'r 2, 1966 7ALIVAR, J.:

;EA0I UNIVERSI0!, petitioner, vs. N. JSE S. AU0IS0A, /r'"#n$ Ju"$' o? ()' Cour( o? In"u&(r#a+ R'+a(#on& an" ;EA0IUNIVERSI0! ;ACUL0! CLU-/A;LU,respondents.

6666666666666666666666666666666666666666

G.R. No. L-21462 ''*%'r 2, 1966

;EA0I UNIVERSI0!,petitioner6appellant, vs. ;EA0I UNIVERSI0! ;ACUL0! CLU-/A;LU,respondent6appellee.

6666666666666666666666666666666666666666

G.R. No. L-215 ''*%'r 2, 1966

;EA0I UNIVERSI0!,petitioner6appellant, vs. ;EA0I UNIVERSI0! ;ACUL0! CLU-/A;LU,respondent6appellee.

his Court, by resolution, ordered that these three cases be considered to'ether, and the parties $ere allo$ed to file only one brief forthe three cases.

/n January !*, !">0, the President of the respondent ;eati +niversity ;aculty Club6P;L+ hereinafter referred to as ;aculty Club $rote a letter to =rs. ictoria L. raneta, President of petitioner ;eati +niversity hereinafter referred to as +niversity informin'her of the or'ani?ation of the ;aculty Club into a re'istered labor union. he ;aculty Club is composed of members $ho are professorsandMor instructors of the +niversity. /n January 22, !">0, the President of the ;aculty Club sent another letter containin' t$enty6si5demands that have connection $ith the employment of the members of the ;aculty Club by the +niversity, and re3uestin' an ans$er$ithin ten days from receipt thereof. he President of the +niversity ans$ered the t$o letters, re3uestin' that she be 'iven at least thirtydays to study thorou'hly the different phases of the demands. =ean$hile counsel for the +niversity, to $hom the demands $erereferred, $rote a letter to the President of the ;aculty Club demandin' proof of its maority status and desi'nation as a bar'ainin'

representative. /n ;ebruary !, !">0, the President of the ;aculty Club a'ain $rote the President of the +niversity reectin' the latter7sre3uest for e5tension of time, and on the same day he filed a notice of stri-e $ith the 4ureau of Labor alle'in' as reason therefor therefusal of the +niversity to bar'ain collectively. he parties $ere called to conferences at the Conciliation 9ivision of the 4ureau ofLabor but efforts to conciliate them failed. /n ;ebruary !1, !">0, the members of the ;aculty Club declared a stri-e and establishedpic-et lines in the premises of the +niversity, resultin' in the disruption of classes in the +niversity. 9espite further efforts of the officialsfrom the 9epartment of Labor to effect a settlement of the differences bet$een the mana'ement of the +niversity and the stri-in'faculty members no satisfactory a'reement $as arrived at. /n =arch 2!, !">0, the President of the Philippines certified to the Court of&ndustrial Relations the dispute bet$een the mana'ement of the +niversity and the ;aculty Club pursuant to the provisions of %ection! of Republic ct No. 1#8.

&n connection $ith the dispute bet$een the +niversity and the ;aculty Club and certain incidents related to said dispute, various cases$ere filed $ith the Court of &ndustrial Relations hereinafter referred to as C&R. he three cases no$ before this Court stemmed fromthose cases that $ere filed $ith the C&R.

CA#& !/. .. !/. L24239

/n =ay !, !">0, the +niversity filed before this Court a 0, thisCourt ordered the inunction bond increased to P!,.B but on January 20, !">*, upon a motion for reconsideration by the+niversity, this Court reduced the bond to P8,..


16/48

brief statement of the three cases C&R Cases *!6&P, !!106=C and 60 involved in the Case D.R. No. L62!2#1, is herenecessary.

CI Case !o. :4IPA, relates to the case in connection $ith the stri-e sta'ed by the members of the ;aculty Club. s $e have stated,the dispute bet$een the +niversity and the ;aculty Club $as certified on =arch 2!, !">0 by the President of the Philippines to the C&R./n the stren'th of the presidential certification, respondent Jud'e 4autista set the case for hearin' on =arch 20, !">0. 9urin' thehearin', the Jud'e endeavored to reconcile the part and it $as a'reed upon that the stri-in' faculty members $ould return to $or- andthe +niversity $ould readmit them under a status 7uo arran'ement. /n that very same day, ho$ever, the +niversity, thru counsel fileda motion to dismiss the case upon the 'round that the C&R has no urisdiction over the case, because (!) the &ndustrial Peace ct is notapplicable to the +niversity, it bein' an educational institution, nor to the members of the ;aculty Club, they bein' independent

contractorsB and (2) the presidential certification is violative of %ection ! of the &ndustrial Peace ct, as the +niversity is not anindustrial establishment and there $as no industrial dispute $hich could be certified to the C&R. /n =arch 0, !">0 the respondentJud'e issued an order denyin' the motion to dismiss and declarin' that the &ndustrial Peace ct is applicable to both parties in the caseand that the C&R had ac3uired urisdiction over the case by virtue of the presidential certification. &n the same order, the respondentJud'e, believin' that the dispute could not be decided promptly, ordered the stri-ers to return immediately to $or- and the +niversity tota-e them bac- under the last terms and conditions e5istin' before the dispute arose, as per a'reement had durin' the hearin' on=arch 20, !">0B and li-e$ise enoined the +niversity, pendin' adudication of the case, from dismissin' any employee or laborer$ithout previous authori?ation from the C&R. he +niversity filed on pril !, !">0 a motion for reconsideration of the order of =arch 0,!">0 by the C&Ren banc, and at the same time as-in' that the motion for reconsideration be first heard by the C&R en banc. @ithout themotion for reconsideration havin' been acted upon by the C&R en banc, respondent Jud'e set the case for hearin' on the merits for=ay 1, !">0. he +niversity moved for the cancellation of said hearin' upon the 'round that the court en bancshould first hear themotion for reconsideration and resolve the issues raised therein before the case is heard on the merits. his motion for cancellation ofthe hearin' $as denied. he respondent Jud'e, ho$ever, cancelled the scheduled hearin' $hen counsel for the +niversity manifestedthat he $ould ta-e up before the %upreme Court, by a petition for certiorari, the matter re'ardin' the actuations of the respondentJud'e and the issues raised in the motion for reconsideration, specially the issue relatin' to the urisdiction of the C&R. he order of

=arch 0, !">0 in Case *!6&P is one of the orders sou'ht to be annulled in the case, D.R. No. L62!2#1.

4efore the above6mentioned order of =arch 0, !">0 $as issued by respondent Jud'e, the +niversity had employed professors andMorinstructors to ta-e the places of those professors andMor instructors $ho had struc-. /n pril !, !">0, the ;aculty Club filed $ith the C&Rin Case *!6&P a petition to declare in contempt of court certain parties, alle'in' that the +niversity refused to accept bac- to $or- thereturnin' stri-ers, in violation of the return6to6$or- order of =arch 0, !">0. he +niversity filed, on pril 8,!">0, its opposition to thepetition for contempt, denyin' the alle'ations of the ;aculty Club and alle'in' by $ay of special defense that there $as still the motionfor reconsideration of the order of =arch 0, !">0 $hich had not yet been acted upon by the C&R en banc. /n pril >, !">0, therespondent Jud'e issued an order statin' that 0, there placin' professors andMor instructors concerned filed, thru counsel, a motion for reconsideration by theC&R en bancof the order of respondent Jud'e of pril >, !">0. his order of pril >, !">0 is one of the orders that are sou'ht to beannulled in case D.R. No. L62!2#1.

CI Case !o. 449;,C relates to a petition for certification election filed by the ;aculty Club on =arch 1, !">0 before the C&R, prayin'that it be certified as the sole and e5clusive bar'ainin' representative of all the employees of the +niversity. he +niversity filed anopposition to the petition for certification election and at the same time a motion to dismiss said petition, raisin' the very same issuesraised in Case No. *!6&P, claimin' that the petition did not comply $ith the rules promul'ated by the C&RB that the ;aculty Club is not ale'itimate labor unionB that the members of the ;aculty Club cannot unioni?e for collective bar'ainin' purposesB that the terms of theindividual contracts of the professors, instructors, and teachers, $ho are members of the ;aculty Club, $ould e5pire on =arch 28 or 0!,!">0B and that the C&R has no urisdiction to ta-e co'ni?ance of the petition because the &ndustrial Peace ct is not applicable to themembers of the ;aculty Club nor to the +niversity. his case $as assi'ned to Jud'e 4alta?ar illanueva of the C&R. 4efore Jud'eillanueva could act on the motion to dismiss, ho$ever, the ;aculty Club filed on pril 0, !">0 a motion to $ithdra$ the petition on the'round that the labor dispute (Case No. *!6&P) had already been certified by the President to the C&R and the issues raised in CaseNo. !!106=C $ere absorbed by Case No. *!6&P. he +niversity opposed the $ithdra$al, alle'in' that the issues raised in Case No.!!106=C $ere separate and distinct from the issues raised in Case No. *!6&PB that the 3uestions of reco'nition and maority status inCase No. !!106=C $ere not absorbed by Case No. *!6&PB and that the C&R could not e5ercise its po$er of compulsory arbitrationunless the le'al issue re'ardin' the e5istence of employer6employee relationship $as first resolved. he +niversity prayed that themotion of the ;aculty Club to $ithdra$ the petition for certification election be denied, and that its motion to dismiss the petition be

heard. Jud'e 4alta?ar illanueva, findin' that the reasons stated by the ;aculty Club in the motion to $ithdra$ $ere $ell ta-en, on pri>, !">0, issued an order 'rantin' the $ithdra$al. he +niversity filed, on pril 2*, !">0, a motion for reconsideration of that order ofpril >, !">0 by the C&R en banc. his order of pril >, !">0 in Case No. !!106=C is one of the orders sou'ht to be annulled in thecase, D.R. No. L62!2#1, no$ before +s.

CI Case !o.


17/48

he principal alle'ation of the +niversity in its petition for certiorariand prohibition $ith preliminary inunction in Case D.R. No. L62!2#1,no$ before +s, is that respondent Jud'e Jose %. 4autista acted $ithout, or in e5cess of, urisdiction, or $ith 'rave abuse of discretion,in ta-in' co'ni?ance of, and in issuin' the 3uestioned orders in, C&R Cases Nos. *!6&P !!106=C and 60. Let it be noted that $henthe petition for certiorariand prohibition $ith preliminary inunction $as filed on =ay !, !">0 in this case, the 3uestioned order in C&RCases Nos. *!6&P, !!106=C and 60 $ere still pendin' action by the C&R en bancupon motions for reconsideration filed by the+niversity.

/n June !, !">0, the ;aculty Club filed its ans$er to the petition for certiorariand prohibition $ith preliminary inunction, admittin'some alle'ations contained in the petition and denyin' others, and alle'in' special defenses $hich boil do$n to the contentions that (!)the C&R had ac3uired urisdiction to ta-e co'ni?ance of Case No. *!6&P by virtue of the presidential certification, so that it had

urisdiction to issue the 3uestioned orders in said Case No. *!6&PB (2) that the &ndustrial Peace ct (Republic ct 1#8) is applicable tothe +niversity as an employer and to the members of the ;aculty Club as employees $ho are affiliated $ith a duly re'istered laborunion, so that the Court of &ndustrial Relations had urisdiction to ta-e co'ni?ance of Cases Nos. !!106=C and 60 and to issue the3uestioned orders in those t$o casesB and (0) that the petition for certiorariand prohibition $ith preliminary inunction $as prematurelyfiled because the orders of the C&R sou'ht to be annulled $ere still the subects of pendin' motions for reconsideration before theC&R en banc$hen said petition for certiorariand prohibition $ith preliminary inunction $as filed before this Court.

CA#& .. !/. L24:>2

his case, D.R. No. L62!*>2, involves also C&R Case No. !!106=C. s already stated Case No. !!106=C relates to a petition forcertification election filed by the ;aculty Club as a labor union, prayin' that it be certified as the sole and e5clusive bar'ainin'representative of all employees of the +niversity. his petition $as opposed by the +niversity, and at the same time it filed a motion todismiss said petition. 4ut before Jud'e 4alta?ar illanueva could act on the petition for certification election and the motion to dismissthe same, ;aculty Club filed a motion to $ithdra$ said petition upon the 'round that the issue raised in Case No. !!106=C $ereabsorbed by Case No. *!6&P $hich $as certified by the President of the Philippines. Jud'e 4alta?ar illanueva, by order pril >, !">0,'ranted the motion to $ithdra$. he +niversity filed a motion for reconsideration of that order of pril >, !">0 by the C&R en banc. hatmotion for reconsideration $as pendin' action by the C&R en banc$hen the petition forcertiorariand prohibition $ith preliminaryinunction in Case D.R. no. L62!2#1 $as filed on =ay !, !">0. s earlier stated this Court, in Case D.R. No. L62!2#1, issued a $rit ofpreliminary inunction on =ay !, !">0, orderin' respondent Jud'e 4autista, until further order from this Court, to desist and refrainfrom further proceedin' in the premises (Cases Nos. *!6&P, !!106=C and 60 of the Court of &ndustrial Relations).

/n June 8, !">0, that is, after this Court has issued the $rit of preliminary inunction in Case D.R. No. L62!2#1, the C&R en bancissueda resolution denyin' the motion for reconsideration of the order of pril >, !">0 in Case No. !!106=C.

/n July 1, !">0, the +niversity filed before this Court a petition for certiorari, by $ay of an appeal from the resolution of the C&R enbanc, dated June 8, !">0, denyin' the motion for reconsideration of the order of pril >, !">0 in Case No. !!106=C. his petition $asdoc-eted as D.R. No. L62!*>2. &n its petition for certiorari, the +niversity alle'es (!) that the resolution of the Court of &ndustrialRelations of June 8, !">0 $as null and void because it $as issued in violation of the $rit of preliminary inunction issued in Case D.R.No. L62!2#1B (2) that the issues of employer6employee relationship, the alle'ed status as a labor union, maority representation anddesi'nation as bar'ainin' representative in an appropriate unit of the ;aculty Club should have been resolved first in Case No. !!106=C prior to the determination of the issues in Case No. *!6&P and therefore the motion to $ithdra$ the petition for certification electionshould not have been 'ranted upon the 'round that the issues in the first case have been absorbed in the second caseB and (0) thelo$er court acted $ithout or in e5cess of urisdiction in ta-in' co'ni?ance of the petition for certification election and that the sameshould have been dismissed instead of havin' been ordered $ithdra$n. he +niversity prayed that the proceedin's in Case No. !!106=C and the order of pril >, !">0 and the resolution of June 8, !">0 issued therein be annulled, and that the C&R be ordered to dismissCase No. !!106=C on the 'round of lac- of urisdiction.

he ;aculty Club filed its ans$er, admittin' some, and denyin' other, alle'ations in the petition for certiorariB and specially alle'in' thatthe lo$er court7s order 'rantin' the $ithdra$al of the petition for certification election $as in accordance $ith la$, and that theresolution of the court en bancon June 8, !">0 $as not a violation of the $rit of preliminary inunction issued in Case D.R. No. L62!2#1because said $rit of inunction $as issued a'ainst Jud'e Jose %. 4autista and not a'ainst the Court of &ndustrial Relations, much lessa'ainst Jud'e 4alta?ar illanueva $ho $as the trial ud'e of Case No. !!106=C.

CA#& .. !/. L24?==

his case, D.R. No. L62!8, involves also C&R Case No. *!6&P. s earlier stated, Case No. *!6&P relates to the stri-e sta'ed by themembers of the ;aculty Club and the dispute $as certified by the President of the Philippines to the C&R. he +niversity filed a motionto dismiss that case upon the 'round that the C&R has no urisdiction over the case, and on =arch 0, !">0 Jud'e Jose %. 4autistaissued an order denyin' the motion to dismiss and declarin' that the &ndustrial Peace ct is applicable to both parties in the case andthat the C&R had ac3uired urisdiction over the case by virtue of the presidential certificationB and in that same order Jud'e 4autistaordered the stri-ers to return to $or- and the +niversity to ta-e them bac- under the last terms and conditions e5istin' before thedispute aroseB and enoined the +niversity from dismissin' any employee or laborer $ithout previous authority from the court. /n pril!, !">0, the +niversity filed a motion for reconsideration of the order of =arch 0, !">0 by the C&R en banc. hat motion forreconsideration $as pendin' action by the C&R en banc$hen the petition for certiorariand prohibition $ith preliminary inunction inCase D.R. No. L62!2#1 $as filed on =ay !, !">0. s $e have already stated, this Court in said case D.R. No. L62!2#1, issued a $rit


18/48

of preliminary inunction on =ay !, !">0 orderin' respondent Jud'e Jose %. 4autista, until further order from this Court, to desist andrefrain from further proceedin' in the premises (Cases Nos. *!6&P, !!106=C and 60 of the Court of &ndustrial Relations).

/n July 2, !">0, the +niversity received a copy of the resolution of the C&R en banc, dated =ay #, !">0 but actually received andstamped at the /ffice of the Cler- of the C&R on June 21, !">0, denyin' the motion for reconsideration of the order dated =arch 0,!">0 in Case No. *!6&P.

/n July 20, !">0, the +niversity filed before this Court a petition for certiorari, by $ay of an appeal from the resolution of the Court of&ndustrial Relations en bancdated =ay #, !">0 (but actually received by said petitioner on July 2, !">0) denyin' the motion forreconsideration of the order of =arch 0, !">0 in Case No. *!6&P. his petition $as doc-eted as D.R. No. L62!8. &n its petition

for certiorarithe +niversity alle'es (!) that the resolution of the C&R en banc, dated =ay #, !">0 but filed $ith the Cler- of the C&R onJune 21, !">0, in Case No. *!6&P, is null and void because it $as issued in violation of the $rit of preliminary inunction issued by thisCourt in D.R. No. L62!2#1B (2) that the C&R, throu'h its Presidin' Jud'e, had no urisdiction to ta-e co'ni?ance of Case No. *!6&P andthe order of =arch 0, !">0 and the resolution dated =ay #, !">0 issued therein are null and voidB (0) that the certification made by thePresident of the Philippines is not authori?ed by %ection ! of Republic ct 1#8, but is violative thereofB (*) that the ;aculty Club has nori'ht to unioni?e or or'ani?e as a labor union for collective bar'ainin' purposes and to be certified as a collective bar'ainin' a'ent$ithin the purvie$ of the &ndustrial Peace ct, and conse3uently it has no ri'ht to stri-e and pic-et on the 'round of petitioner7s alle'edrefusal to bar'ain collectively $here such duty does not e5ist in la$ and is not enforceable a'ainst an educational institutionB and (8)that the return6to6$or- order of =arch 0, !">0 is improper and ille'al. he petition prayed that the proceedin's in Case No. *!6&P beannulled, that the order dated =arch 0, !">0 and the resolution dated =ay #, !">0 be revo-ed, and that the lo$er court be ordered todismiss Case *!6&P on the 'round of lac- of urisdiction.

/n %eptember !, !">0, the ;aculty Club, throu'h counsel, filed a motion to dismiss the petition for certiorarion the 'round that thepetition bein' filed by $ay of an appeal from the orders of the Court of &ndustrial Relations denyin' the motion to dismiss in Case No.*!6&P, the petition for

certiorariis not proper because the orders appealed from are interlocutory in nature.

his Court, by resolution of %eptember 2>, !">0, ordered that these three cases (D.R. Nos. L62!2#1, L62!*>2 and L62!8) beconsidered to'ether and the motion to dismiss in Case D.R. No. L62!8 be ta-en up $hen the cases are decided on the merits afterthe hearin'.

4rushin' aside certain technical 3uestions raised by the parties in their pleadin's, @e proceed to decide these three cases on themerits of the issues raised.

he +niversity has raised several issues in the present cases, the pivotal one bein' its claim that the Court of &ndustrial Relations hasno urisdiction over the parties and the subect matter in C&R Cases *!6&P, !!106=C and 60, brou'ht before it, upon the 'round thatRepublic ct No. 1#8 is not applicable to the +niversity because it is an educational institution and not an industrial establishment andhence not an


19/48

teachin' profession, is not and cannot be a le'itimate labor or'ani?ation $ithin the meanin' of the la$s creatin' theCourt of &ndustrial Relations and definin' its po$ers and functionsB

*", 2" /ctober !"88B 8! /.D. (Nov. !"88) 8>0>68>*)B


20/48

&n the case of La Consolacion Colle"e0 et al. vs. CI0 et al.0 D.R. No. L6!0212, pril 22, !">, this Court repeated the same rulin' $henit said

he main issue in this appeal by petitioner is that the industry trial court committed an error in holdin' that it has urisdiction toact in this case even if it involves unfair labor practice considerin' that the La Consolacion Colle'e is not a business enterprisebut an educational institution not or'ani?ed for profit.

&f the claim that petitioner is an educational institution not operated for profit is true, $hich apparently is the case, because thevery court a 7uo found that it has no stoc-holder, nor capital . . . then $e are of the opinion that the same does not comeunder the urisdiction of the Court of &ndustrial Relations in vie$ of the rulin' in the case of 4oy %couts of the Philippines v.

Juliana . raos, D.R. No. L6!"!, decided on January 2", !"81.

&t is note$orthy that the cases of the +niversity of %an 'ustin, the +niversity of %anto omas, and La Consolacion Colle'e, citedabove, all involve char'es of unfair labor practice under Republic ct No. 1#8, and the uniform rulin's of this Court are that the Court of&ndustrial Relations has no urisdiction over the char'es because said ct does not apply to educational institutions that are notoperated or maintained for profit and do not declare dividends. /n the other hand, in the cases of Far &astern University v. CI0 etal.0 D.R. No. L6!#>2, u'ust 0!, !">2, this Court upheld the decision of the Court of &ndustrial Relations findin' the ;ar :astern+niversity, also an educational institution, 'uilty of unfair labor practice. mon' the findin's of fact in said case $as that the ;ar :astern+niversity made profits from the school year !"826!"80 to !"816!"8". &n affirmin' the decision of the lo$er court, this Court hadthereby ratified the rulin' of the Court of &ndustrial Relations $hich applied the &ndustrial Peace ct to educational institutions that areor'ani?ed, operated and maintained for profit.

&t is also note$orthy that in the decisions in the cases of the 4oy %couts of the Philippines, the +niversity of %an 'ustin, the +niversityof %to. omas, and La Consolacion Colle'e, this Court $as not unanimous in the vie$ that the &ndustrial Peace ct (Republic ct No.

1#8) is not applicable to charitable, eleemosynary or non6profit or'ani?ations $hich include educational institutions not operated forprofit. here are members of this Court $ho hold the vie$ that the &ndustrial Peace ct $ould apply also to non6profit or'ani?ations orentities the only e5ception bein' the Dovernment, includin' any political subdivision or instrumentality thereof, in so far as'overnmental functions are concerned. Ao$ever, in the ;ar :astern +niversity case this Court is unanimous in supportin' the vie$ thatan educational institution that is operated for profit comes $ithin the scope of the &ndustrial Peace ct. @e consider it a settled doctrineof this Court, therefore, that the &ndustrial Peace ct is applicable to any or'ani?ation or entity $hatever may be its purpose $hen it$as created that is operated for profit or 'ain.

9oes the +niversity operate as an educational institution for profitO 9oes it declare dividends for its stoc-holdersO &f it does not, it mustbe declared beyond the purvie$ of Republic ct No. 1#8B but if it does, Republic ct No. 1#8 must apply to it. he +niversity itselfadmits that it has declared dividends.0he C&R in its order dated =arch 0, !">0 in C&R Case No. *!6&P $hich order $as issuedafter evidence $as heard also found that the +niversity is not for strictly educational purposes and that


21/48

institutions are not includedB hence, they can be included in the term


22/48

he +niversity ur'es that even if it $ere an employer, still there $ould be no employer6employee relationship bet$een it and the stri-in'members of the ;aculty Club because the latter are not employees $ithin the purvie$ of %ec. 2(d) of Republic ct No. 1#8 but areindependent contractors. his claim is untenable.

%ection 2 (d) of Republic ct No. 1#8 provides

(d) he term 2 Col. pp 2.d #>B Lo$e Q Campbell %portin' Doods Co. v. an'ipahoa Parish %chool 4oard, La. pp., !8 %o. 2d "1,!B %ister /delia v. Church of %t. ndre$, 2>0 N. @. !!!, !!2, !"8 =inn. 08#, cited in @ords and Phrases, Permanent ed., ol. !*,pp. 1>61#). his Court in the ;ar :astern +niversity case, su'ra, considered university instructors as employees and declaredRepublic ct No. 1#8 applicable to them in their employment relations $ith their school. he professors andMor instructors of the+niversity neither ceased to be employees $hen they struc-, for %ection 2 of Rep. ct 1#8 includes amon' employees any individual$hose $or- has ceased as conse3uence of, or in connection $ith a current labor dispute. %tri-in' employees maintain their status asemployees of the employer. (@estern Cartrid'e Co. v. NLR4, C.C.. #, !0" ;2d 188, 181).

he contention of the +niversity that the professors andMor instructors are independent contractors, because the +niversity does note5ercise control over their $or-, is li-e$ise untenable. his Court ta-es udicial notice that a university controls the $or- of themembers of its facultyB that a university prescribes the courses or subects that professors teach, and $hen and $here to teachB that theprofessors7 $or- is characteri?ed by re'ularity and continuity for a fi5ed durationB that professors are compensated for their services by$a'es and salaries, rather than by profitsB that the professors andMor instructors cannot substitute others to do their $or- $ithout theconsent of the universityB and that the professors can be laid off if their $or- is found not satisfactory. ll these indicate that theuniversity has control over their $or-B and professors are, therefore, employees and not independent contractors. here are authoritiesin support of this vie$.

he principal consideration in determinin' $hether a $or-man is an employee or an independent contractor is the ri'ht tocontrol the manner of doin' the $or-, and it is not the actual e5ercise of the ri'ht by interferin' $ith the $or-, but the ri'ht tocontrol, $hich constitutes the test. (mal'amated Roofin' Co. v. ravelers7 &ns. Co., !00 N.:. 28", 2>!, 0 &ll. *1#, 3uoted in@ords and Phrases, Permanent ed., ol. !*, p. 8#>).

@here, under :mployers7 Liability ct, $as instructed $hen and $here to $or- . . . he is an employee, and not a contractor,thou'h paid specified sum per s3uare. (Aeine v. Aill, Aarris Q Co., 2 La. pp. 01*, 0", in @ords and Phrases, loc, cit.) .

:mployees are those $ho are compensated for their labor or services by $a'es rather than by profits. (People vs. 9istributors9ivision, %mo-ed ;ish @or-ers +nion Local No. 20##, %up. # N. E. %. 2d !18, !1# in @ords and Phrases, loc, cit.)

%ervices of employee or servant, as distin'uished from those of a contractor, are usually characteri?ed by re'ularity andcontinuity of $or- for a fi5ed period or one of indefinite duration, as contrasted $ith employment to do a sin'le act or a seriesof isolated actsB by compensation on a fi5ed salary rather than one re'ulated by value or amount of $or-B . . . (+nder$ood v.Commissioner of &nternal Revenue, C.C.., 8> ;. 2d >#, #! in @ords and Phrases, op. cit., p. 8#".)


23/48

&ndependent contractors can employ others to $or- and accomplish contemplated result $ithout consent of contractee, $hile).

=oreover, even if university professors are considered independent contractors, still they $ould be covered by Rep. ct No. 1#8. &n thecase of the 4oy %couts of the Philippines v. Juliana raos, su'ra, this Court observed that Republic ct No. 1#8 $as modelled after the@a'ner ct, or the National Labor Relations ct, of the +nited %tates, and this ct did not e5clude 0 the President of the ;aculty Club $rote to the President of the +niversity a letter informin' the latter of theor'ani?ation of the ;aculty Club as a labor union, duly re'istered $ith the 4ureau of Labor RelationsB that a'ain on January 22, !">0another letter $as sent, to $hich $as attached a list of demands consistin' of 2> items, and as-in' the President of the +niversity toans$er $ithin ten days from date of receipt thereofB that the +niversity 3uestioned the ri'ht of the ;aculty Club to be the e5clusiverepresentative of the maority of the employees and as-ed proof that the ;aculty Club had been desi'nated or selected as e5clusiverepresentative by the vote of the maority of said employeesB that on ;ebruary !, !">0 the ;aculty Club filed $ith the 4ureau of LaborRelations a notice of stri-e alle'in' as reason therefor the refusal of the +niversity to bar'ain collectively $ith the representative of thefaculty membersB that on ;ebruary !1, !">0 the members of the ;aculty Club $ent on stri-e and established pic-et lines in thepremises of the +niversity, thereby disruptin' the schedule of classesB that on =arch !, !">0 the ;aculty Club filed Case No. 0>>>6+LPfor unfair labor practice a'ainst the +niversity, but $hich $as later dismissed (on pril 2, !">0 after Case *!6&P $as certified to theC&R)B and that on =arch #, !">0 a petition for certification election, Case No. !!106=C, $as filed by the ;aculty Club in the C&R. >llthese admitted facts sho$ that the controversy bet$een the +niversity and the ;aculty Club involved terms and conditions ofemployment, and the 3uestion of representation. Aence, there $as a labor dispute bet$een the +niversity and the ;aculty Club, ascontemplated by Republic ct No. 1#8. &t havin' been sho$n that the +niversity is an institution operated for profit, that is an employer,and that there is an employer6employee relationship, bet$een the +niversity and the members of the ;aculty Club, and it havin' beensho$n that a labor dispute e5isted bet$een the +niversity and the ;aculty Club, the contention of the +niversity, that the certificationmade by the President is not only not authori?ed by %ection ! of Republic ct 1#8 but is violative thereof, is 'roundless.


24/48

%ection ! of Republic ct No. 1#8 provides

@hen in the opinion of the President of the Philippines there e5ists a labor dispute in an industry indispensable to the nationalinterest and $hen such labor dispute is certified by the President to the Court of &ndustrial Relations, said Court may cause tobe issued a restrainin' order forbiddin' the employees to stri-e or the employer to loc-out the employees, and if no othersolution to the dispute is found, the Court may issue an order fi5in' the terms and conditions of employment.

his Court had occasion to rule on the application of the above63uoted provision of %ection ! of Republic ct No. 1#8. &n the caseof Pam'an"a #u"ar Develo'ment Co. v. CI0 et al.0 D.R. No. L6!0!#1, =arch 2*, !">!, it $as held

&t thus appears that $hen in the opinion of the President a labor dispute e5ists in an industry indispensable to national interestand he certifies it to the Court of &ndustrial Relations the latter ac3uires urisdiction to act thereon in the manner provided byla$. hus the court may ta-e either of the follo$in' courses it may issue an order forbiddin' the employees to stri-e or theemployer to loc-out its employees, or, failin' in this, it may issue an order fi5in' the terms and conditions of employment. &thas no other alternative. It can not t%ro- t%e case out in t%e assum'tion t%at t%e certification -as erroneous.

555 555 555

. . . he fact, ho$ever, is that because of the stri-e declared by the members of the minority union $hich threatens a maorindustry the President deemed it $ise to certify the controversy to the Court of &ndustrial Relations for adudication. $%is is t%e

'o-er t%at t%e la- "ives to t%e President t%e 'ro'riety of its e*ercise bein" a matter t%at only devolves u'on %im. $%e same isnot t%e concern of t%e industrial court. %at matters is t%at by virtue of t%e certification made by t%e President t%e case -as

'laced under t%e @urisdiction of said court.(:mphasis supplied)

o certify a labor dispute to the C&R is the prero'ative of the President under the la$, and this Court $ill not interfere in, much lesscurtail, the e5ercise of that prero'ative. he urisdiction of the C&R in a certified case is e5clusive (Ri?al Cement Co., &nc. v. Ri?alCement @or-ers +nion (;;@), et al., D.R. No. L6!2#*#, July 0, !">). /nce the urisdiction is ac3uired pursuant to the presidentialcertification, the C&R may e5ercise its broad po$ers as provided in Common$ealth ct !0. ll phases of the labor dispute and theemployer6employee relationship may be threshed out before the C&R, and the C&R may issue such order or orders as may benecessary to ma-e effective the e5ercise of its urisdiction. he parties involved in the case may appeal to the %upreme Court from theorder or orders thus issued by the C&R.

nd so, in the instant case, $hen the President too- into consideration that the +niversity 0). &t alle'es that the orders are ille'al upon the 'rounds (!) that Republicct No. 1#8, supplementin' Common$ealth ct No. !0, has $ithdra$n from the C&R the po$er to issue a return6to6$or- orderB (2) thathe only po$er 'ranted by %ection ! of Republic ct No. 1#8 to the C&R is to issue an order forbiddin' the employees to stri-e orforbiddin' the employer to loc-out the employees, as the case may be, before either contin'ency had become a fait accom'liB (0) thatthe ta-in' in by the +niversity of replacement professors $as valid, and the return6to6$or- order of =arch 0, !">0 constitutedimpairment of the obli'ation of contractsB and (*) the C&R could not issue said order $ithout havin' previously determined the le'ality orille'ality of the stri-e.

he contention of the +niversity that Republic ct No. 1#8 has $ithdra$n the po$er of the Court of &ndustrial Relations to issue areturn6to6$or- order e5ercised by it under Common$ealth ct No. !0 can not be sustained. @hen a case is certified by the Presidentto the Court of &ndustrial Relations, the case thereby comes under the operation of Common$ealth ct No. !0, and the Court maye5ercise the broad po$ers and urisdiction 'ranted to it by said ct. %ection ! of Republic ct No. 1#8 empo$ers the Court of&ndustrial Relations to issue an order


25/48

he fore'oin' rulin' $as reiterated by this Court in the case of Hind #u"ar Co. v. CI0 et al.0 D.R. No. L6!00>*, July 2>, !">.

@hen a case is certified to the C&R by the President of the Philippines pursuant to %ection ! of Republic ct No. 1#8, the C&R is'ranted authority to find a solution to the industrial disputeB and the solution $hich the C&R has found under the authority of thepresidential certification and conformable thereto cannot be 3uestioned (Radio /perators ssociation of the Philippines vs. Philippine=arine Radio /fficers ssociation, et al., L6!!!2, Nov. 2", !"8#, 8* /.D. 02!1).

+ntenable also is the claim of the +niversity that the C&R cannot issue a return6to6$or- order after stri-e has been declared, it bein'contended that under %ection ! of Republic ct No. 1#8 the C&R can only prevent a stri-e or a loc-out $hen either of this situationhad not yet occurred. 4ut in the case of 4isaya Land ransportation Co., &nc. vs. Court of &ndustrial Relations, et al., No. L6!!!*, Nov.

2>, !"8#, 8 /.D. 28!1, this Court declared

here is no reason or 'round for the contention that Presidential certification of labor dispute to the C&R is limited to theprevention of stri-es and loc-outs. :ven after a stri-e has been declared $here the President believes that public interestdemands arbitration and conciliation, the President may certify the ease for that purpose. he practice has been for the Courtof &ndustrial Relations to order the stri-ers to $or-,'endin" t%e determination of t%e union demands t%at im'elled t%e stri8e.here is nothin' in the la$ to indicate that this practice is abolished.< (:mphasis supplied)

Li-e$ise untenable is the contention of the +niversity that the ta-in' in by it of replacements $as valid and the return6to6$or- order$ould be an impairment of its contract $ith the replacements. s stated by the C&R in its order of =arch 0, !">0, it $as a'reed beforethe hearin' of Case *!6&P on =arch 20, !">0 that the stri-ers $ould return to $or- under the status 7uo arran'ement and the+niversity $ould readmit them, and the return6to6$or- order $as a confirmation of that a'reement. his is a declaration of fact by theC&R $hich $e cannot disre'ard. he faculty members, by stri-in', have not abandoned their employment but, rather, they have onlyceased from their labor (eith heatre v. achon et al., !1# . >"2). he stri-in' faculty members have not lost their ri'ht to 'o bac- to

their positions, because the declaration of a stri-e is not a renunciation of their employment and their employee relationship $ith the+niversity (Re5 a5icab Co. vs. C&R, et al., * /.D., No. !0, !01). he employment of replacements $as not authori?ed by the C&R. tmost, that $as a temporary e5pedient resorted to by the +niversity, $hich $as subect to the po$er of the C&R to allo$ to continue ornot. he employment of replacements by the +niversity prior to the issuance of the order of =arch 0, !">0 did not vest in thereplacements a permanent ri'ht to the positions they held. Neither could such temporary employment bind the +niversity to retainpermanently the replacements.

%tri-in' employees maintained their status as employees of the employer (@estern Castrid'e Co. v. National Labor Relations4oard, C.C.. !0" ;. 2d 188, 181) B that employees $ho too- the place of stri-ers do not displace them as employees.< 7(National Labor Relations 4oard v. . %artorius Q Co., C.C.. 2, !* ;. 2d 20, 2>, 2#.)

&t is clear from $hat has been said that the return6to6$or- order cannot be considered as an impairment of the contract entered into bypetitioner $ith the replacements. 4esides, labor contracts must yield to the common 'ood and such contracts are subect to the specialla$s on labor unions, collective bar'ainin', stri-es and similar subects (rticle !#, Civil Code).

Li-e$ise unsustainable is the contention of the +niversity that the Court of &ndustrial Relations could not issue the return6to6$or- order$ithout havin' resolved previously the issue of the le'ality or ille'ality of the stri-e, citin' as authority therefor the case of P%ili''ineCan Com'any v. Court of Industrial elations, D.R. No. L602!, July !0, !"8. he rulin' in said case is not applicable to the case atbar, the facts and circumstances bein' very different. he Philippine Can Company case, unli-e the instant case, did not involve thenational interest and it $as not certified by the President. &n that case the company no lon'er needed the services of the stri-ers, nordid it need substitutes for the stri-ers, because the company $as losin', and it $as imperative that it lay off such laborers as $ere notnecessary for its operation in order to save the company from ban-ruptcy. his $as the reason of this Court in rulin', in that case, thatthe le'ality or ille'ality of the stri-e should have been decided first before the issuance of the return6to6$or- order. he +niversity, in thecase before +s, does not claim that it no lon'er needs the services of professors andMor instructorsB neither does it claim that it $asimperative for it to lay off the stri-in' professors and instructors because of impendin' ban-ruptcy. /n the contrary, it $as imperative forthe +niversity to hire replacements for the stri-ers. herefore, the rulin' in the Philippine Can case that the le'ality of the stri-e shouldbe decided first before the issuance of the return6to6$or- order does not apply to the case at bar. 4esides, as @e have adverted to, thereturn6to6$or- order of =arch 0, !">0, no$ in 3uestion, $as a confirmation of an a'reement bet$een the +niversity and the ;acultyClub durin' a prehearin' conference on =arch 20, !">0.

he +niversity also maintains that there $as no more basis for the claim of the members of the ;aculty Club to return to their $or-, astheir individual contracts for teachin' had e5pired on =arch 28 or 0!, !">0, as the case may be, and conse3uently, there $as also nobasis for the return6to6$or- order of the C&R because the contractual relationships havin' ceased there $ere no positions to $hich themembers of the ;aculty Club could return to. his contention is not $ell ta-en. his ar'ument loses si'ht of the fact that $hen theprofessors and instructors struc- on ;ebruary !1, !">0, they continued to be employees of the +niversity for the purposes of the laborcontroversy not$ithstandin' the subse3uent termination of their teachin' contracts, for %ection 2(d) of the &ndustrial Peace ct includesamon' employees


26/48

/n =ay ", !"0" the stri-in' employees, ei'hty6four in number, offered to the company to return to their employment. hecompany believin' it had not committed any unfair labor practice, refused the employees7 offer and claimed the ri'ht to employothers to ta-e the place of the stri-ers, as it mi'ht see fit. his constituted discrimination in the hirin' and tenure of the stri-in'employees. @hen the employees $ent out on a stri-e because of the unfair labor practice of the company, their status asemployees for the purpose of any controversy 'ro$in' out of that unfair labor practice $as fi5ed. %ec. 2 (0) of the ct. Phelps9od'e Corp. v. National Labor Relations 4oard, 0!0 +.%. !##, >! %. Ct. 1*8, 18. L. ed. !2#!, !00 .L.R. !2!#.

;or the purpose of such controversy they remained employees of the company. he company contended that they could notbe their employees in any event since the , !">0implementin' that order of =arch 0, !">0 $as also valid and le'al.

%ection > of Common$ealth ct No. !0 empo$ers the Court of &ndustrial Relations of any Jud'e thereof to punish direct and indirect

contempts as provided in Rule >* (no$ Rule #!) of the Rules of Court, under the same procedure and penalties provided therein.%ection 0 of Rule #! enumerates the acts $hich $ould constitute indirect contempt, amon' $hich is of Common$ealth ct No. !0 $hich provides that and theprovision of %ection !* of Common$ealth ct No. !0. &t $ill be noted that %ection > spea-s of order, a$ard or decision thatis e*ecutory. 4y the provision of %ection !* an order, a$ard or decision of the Court of &ndustrial Relations in cases involvin' stri-esand loc-outs are immediately e*ecutory, so that a violation of that order $ould constitute an indirect contempt of court.


27/48

@e believe that the action of the C&R in issuin' the order of arrest of pril 2", !">0 is also authori?ed under %ection !" ofCommon$ealth ct No. !0 $hich provides as follo$s

%:C. !". Im'lied condition in every contract of em'loyment.&n every contract of employment $hether verbal or $ritten, it isan implied condition that $hen any dispute bet$een the employer and the employee or laborer has been submitted to theCourt of &ndustrial Relations for settlement or arbitration pursuant to the provisions of this ct . . . and pendin' a$ard, ordecision by the Court of such dispute . . . the employee or laborer shall not stri-e or $al- out of his employment $hen soenoined by the Court after hearin' and $hen public interest so re3uires, and if he has already done so, that he shall forth$ithreturn to it, upon order of the Court, $hich shall be issued only after hearin' $hen public interest so re3uires or $hen thedispute cannot, in its opinion, be promptly decided or settledB and if the employees or laborers fail to return to $or-, the Court

may authori?e the employer to accept other employees or laborers. condition shall further be implied that $hile suchdispute . . . is pendin', the employer shall refrain from acceptin' other employees or laborers, unless $ith the e5pressauthority of the Court, and shall permit the continuation in the service of his employees or laborers under the last terms andconditions e5istin' before the dispute arose. . . . violation by the employer or by the employee or laborer of such an order orthe implied contractual condition set forth in this section shall constitute contempt of the Court of &ndustrial Relations and shallbe punished by the Court itself in the same manner $ith the same penalties as in the case of contempt of a Court of ;irst&nstance. . . .

@e hold that the C&R acted $ithin its urisdiction $hen it ordered the arrest of the officers of the +niversity upon a complaint for indirectcontempt filed by the ctin' %pecial Prosecutor of the C&R in C&R Case 60, and that order $as valid. 4esides those ordered arrested$ere not yet bein' punished for contemptB but, havin' been char'ed, they $ere simply ordered arrested to be brou'ht before the Jud'eto be dealt $ith accordin' to la$. @hether they are 'uilty of the char'e or not is yet to be determined in a proper hearin'.

Let it be noted that the order of arrest dated pril 2", !">0 in C&R Case 60 is bein' 3uestioned in Case D.R. No. L62!2#1 before thisCourt in a special civil action for

certiorari. he +niversity did not appeal from that order. &n other $ords, the only 3uestion to be

resolved in connection $ith that order in C&R Case 60 is $hether the C&R had urisdiction, or had abused its discretion, in issuin' thatorder. @e hold that the C&R had urisdiction to issue that order, and neither did it abuse its discretion $hen it issued that order.

&n Case D.R. No. L62!*>2 the +niversity appealed from the order of Jud'e illanueva of the C&R in Case No. !!106=C, dated pril >,!">0, 'rantin' the motion of the ;aculty Club to $ithdra$ its petition for certification election, and from the resolution of the C&R enbanc, dated June 8, !">0, denyin' the motion to reconsider said order of pril >, !">0. he 'round of the ;aculty Club in as-in' for the$ithdra$al of that petition for certification election $as because the issues involved in that petition $ere absorbed by the issues in Case*!6&P. he +niversity opposed the petition for $ithdra$al, but at the same time it moved for the dismissal of the petition for certificationelection.

&t is contended by the +niversity before this Court, in D.R. L62!*>2, that the issues of employer6employee relationship bet$een the+niversity and the ;aculty Club, the alle'ed status of the ;aculty Club as a labor union, its maority representation and desi'nation asbar'ainin' representative in an appropriate unit of the ;aculty Club should have been resolved first in Case No. !!106=C prior to thedetermination of the issues in Case No. *!6&P, and, therefore, the motion to $ithdra$ the petition for certification election should nothave been 'ranted upon the 'round that the issues in the first case $ere absorbed in the second case.

@e believe that these contentions of the +niversity in Case D.R. No. L62!*>2 have been sufficiently covered by the discussion in thisdecision of the main issues raised in the principal case, $hich is Case D.R. No. L62!2#1. fter all, the +niversity $anted C&R Case!!106=C dismissed, and the $ithdra$al of the petition for certification election had in a $ay produced the situation desired by the+niversity. fter considerin' the ar'uments adduced by the +niversity in support of its petition for certiorariby $ay of appeal in CaseD.R. No. L62!2#1, @e hold that the C&R did not commit any error $hen it 'ranted the $ithdra$al of the petition for certif

labor ii - cases.01

Documents