Labor Cases part 2

27
CAPITOL MEDICAL CENTER, INC., v. HON. CRESENCIANO B. TRAJANO, in his capacity as Secretary of the Department of Labor and Employment, and CAPITOL MEDICAL CENTER EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION-AFW G.R. No. 155690/ June 30, 2005 FACTS: Petitioner is a hospital with address at Panay Avenue corner Scout Magbanua Street, Quezon City. Upon the other hand, Respondent is a duly registered labor union acting as the certified collective bargaining agent of the rank-and- file employees of petitioner hospital. Respondent sent petitioner a letter requesting a negotiation of their Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA). Petitioner, however, challenged the union’s legitimacy and refused to bargain with respondent. Subsequently petitioner filed with the (BLR), Department of Labor and Employment, a petition for cancellation of respondent’s certificate of registration. For its part, respondent filed with the (NCMB), National Capital Region, a notice of strike. Respondent alleged that petitioner’s refusal to bargain constitutes unfair labor practice. Despite several conferences and efforts of the designated conciliator-mediator, the parties failed to reach an amicable settlement. Respondent staged a strike. Former Labor Secretary Leonardo A. Quisumbing, now Associate Justice of this Court, issued an Order assuming jurisdiction over the labor dispute and ordering all striking workers to return to work and the management to resume normal operations, thus: xxx all striking workers are directed to return to work within twenty-four (24) hours from the receipt of this Order and the management to resume normal operations and accept back all striking workers under the same terms and conditions prevailing before the strike. Further, parties are directed to cease and desist from committing any act that may exacerbate the situation. Moreover, parties are hereby directed to submit within 10 days from receipt of this Order proposals and counter-proposals leading to the conclusion of the collective bargaining agreement in compliance with aforementioned Resolution of the Office as affirmed by the Supreme Court. xxx ISSUE: Whether or not Secretary of Labor cannot exercise his powers under Article 263 (g) of the Labor Code without observing the requirements of due process. RULING: The discretion to assume jurisdiction may be exercised by the Secretary of Labor and Employment without the necessity of prior notice or hearing given to any of the parties. The rationale for his primary assumption of jurisdiction can justifiably rest on his own consideration of the exigency of the situation in relation to the national interests. xxx In labor disputes adversely affecting the continued operation of such hospitals, clinics or medical institutions, it shall be the duty of the striking union or locking-out employer to provide and maintain an effective skeletal workforce of medical and other health personnel, whose movement and services shall be unhampered and unrestricted, as are necessary to insure the proper and adequate protection of the life and health of its patients, most especially emergency cases, for the duration of the strike or lockout. In such cases, therefore, the Secretary of Labor and Employment is mandated to immediately assume, within twenty-four (24) hours from knowledge of the occurrence of such a strike or lockout, jurisdiction over the same or certify it to the Commission for compulsory arbitration. For this purpose, the contending parties are strictly enjoined to comply with such orders, prohibitions and/or injunctions as are issued by the Secretary of Labor and Employment or the Commission, under pain of immediate disciplinary action, including dismissal or loss of employment status or payment by the locking-out employer of backwages, damages and other affirmative relief, even criminal prosecution against either or both of them. The foregoing notwithstanding, the President of the Philippines shall not be precluded from determining the industries that, in his opinion, are indispensable to the national interest, and from intervening at any time and assuming jurisdiction over any such labor dispute in order to settle or terminate the same. xxx G.R. Nos. 95494-97 September 7, 1995 LAPANDAY WORKERS UNION, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION & DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, PUNO, J.: These issues were discussed during a labor-management meeting held on August 2, 1988. The labor group was represented by the Union, through its President, petitioner Arquilao Bacolod, and its legal counsel. After private respondents explained the issues, the Union agreed to allow its members to attend the HDIR seminar for the rank-and-filers. Nevertheless, on August 19 and 20, the Union directed its members not to attend the seminars scheduled on said dates. Earlier on, or on August 6, 1988, the Union, led by petitioners Arquilao Bacolod and Rene Arao, picketed the premises of the Philippine Eagle Protectors to show their displeasure on the hiring of the guards. Worse still, the Union filed on August 25, 1988, a Notice of Strike with the National Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB). It accused the company of unfair labor practices consisting of coercion of employees, intimidation of union members and union-busting. 2 These were the same issues raised by the Union during the August 2, 1988 labor-management meeting. On August 29, 1988, the NCMB called a conciliation conference An unfortunate event brake the peace of the parties. On September 9, 1988, the day after the killing, most of the members of the Union refused to report for work. They returned to work the following day but they did not comply with the "quota system" adopted by the management to bolster production output. Allegedly, the Union instructed the workers to reduce their production to thirty per cent (30%). Private respondents charged the Union with economic sabotage through slowdown. On September 17, 1988, petitioners skipped work to pay their last respect to the slain Danilo Martinez who was laid to rest. Again, on September 23, 1988, petitioners did not report for work. Instead, they proceeded to private respondents' office at Lanang, carrying placards and posters which called for the removal of the security guards. On October 3, 1988, a strike vote was conducted among the members of the Union and those in favor of the strike won overwhelming support from the workers. The result of the strike vote was then submitted to the NCMB on October 10, 1988. Two days later, or on Ootober 12, 1988, the Union struck. Issues: wheter or not- : a) declaring that their activities, from September 9, 1988 to October 12, 1988, were strike activities; and b) declaring that the strike staged on October 12, 1988 was illegal. 1

description

labor law

Transcript of Labor Cases part 2

CAPITOL MEDICAL CENTER, INC., v. HON. CRESENCIANO B.TRAJANO, in his capacityas Secretary ! the Depart"ent ! La#r an$ E"p%y"ent, an$CAPITOL MEDICALCENTER EMPLO&EES ASSOCIATION'A()*.R. N. +,,-./0 J1ne 2/, 3//,(ACTS:Petitioner is a hospital with address at Panay Avenue corner Scout Magbanua Street,Quezon City. Upon the other hand, espondent is a duly registered labor union acting as thecerti!ied collective bargaining agent o! the ran"#and#!ile e$ployees o! petitioner hospital.espondent sent petitioner a letter re%uesting a negotiation o! their Collective &argainingAgree$ent 'C&A(.Petitioner, however, challenged the union)s legiti$acy and re!used to bargain withrespondent. Subse%uently petitioner !iled with the '&*(, +epart$ent o! *abor and,$ploy$ent, a petition !or cancellation o! respondent)s certi!icate o! registration.-or its part, respondent !iled with the '.CM&(, .ational Capital egion, a notice o! stri"e.espondent alleged that petitioner)s re!usal to bargain constitutes un!air labor practice.+espite several con!erences and e!!orts o! the designated conciliator#$ediator, the parties!ailed to reach an a$icable settle$ent.espondent staged a stri"e.-or$er *abor Secretary *eonardo A. Quisu$bing, now Associate /ustice o! this Court,issued an 0rder assu$ing 1urisdiction over the labor dispute and ordering all stri"ingwor"ers to return to wor" and the $anage$ent to resu$e nor$al operations, thus:222 all stri"ing wor"ers are directed to return to wor" within twenty#!our '34(hours !ro$the receipt o! this 0rder and the $anage$ent to resu$e nor$al operations and acceptbac" all stri"ing wor"ers under the sa$e ter$s and conditions prevailing be!ore thestri"e. -urther, parties are directed to cease and desist !ro$ co$$itting any act that $aye2acerbate the situation.Moreover, parties are hereby directed to sub$it within 56 days !ro$ receipto! this 0rderproposals and counter#proposals leading to the conclusion o! the collectivebargainingagree$ent in co$pliance with a!ore$entioned esolution o! the 0!!ice as a!!ir$ed by theSupre$e Court. 222ISS4E:7hether or not Secretary o! *abor cannot e2ercise his powers under Article 389 'g( o! the *abor Code without observing the re%uire$ents o! due process.R4LIN*::he discretion to assu$e 1urisdiction $ay be e2ercised by the Secretary o!*abor and ,$ploy$ent without the necessity o! prior notice or hearing given to any o! theparties. :he rationale !or his pri$ary assu$ption o! 1urisdiction can 1usti!iably reston his own consideration o! the e2igency o! the situation in relation to the nationalinterests.222 ;n labor disputes adversely a!!ecting the continued operation o! such hospitals, clinicsor $edical institutions, it shall be the duty o! the stri"ing union or loc"ing#out e$ployerto provide and $aintain an e!!ective s"eletal wor"!orce o! $edical and other healthpersonnel, whose $ove$ent and services shall be unha$pered and unrestricted, as arenecessary to insure the proper and ade%uate protection o! the li!e and health o! its patients,$ost especially e$ergency cases, !or the duration o! the stri"e or loc"out. ;n such cases,there!ore, the Secretary o! *abor and ,$ploy$ent is $andated to i$$ediatelyassu$e, within twenty#!our '34( hours !ro$ "nowledge o! the occurrence o!sucha stri"e or loc"out, 1urisdiction over the sa$e or certi!y it to the Co$$ission !orco$pulsory arbitration. -or this purpose, the contending parties are strictly en1oined toco$ply with such orders, prohibitions and> labor#$anage$ent$eeting.0n August 3=, 5=>>, the .CM& called a conciliation con!erenceAnun!ortunateevent bra"ethepeaceo! theparties. 0nSepte$ber =,5=>>, the day a!ter the "illing, $ost o! the $e$bers o! the Union re!used toreport !or wor". :hey returned to wor" the !ollowing day but they did notco$plywiththe@%uotasyste$@adoptedbythe$anage$ent tobolsterproductionoutput.Allegedly,theUnioninstructedthewor"erstoreducetheir production to thirty per cent '96A(. Private respondents charged theUnion with econo$ic sabotage through slowdown.0n Septe$ber 5B, 5=>>, petitioners s"ipped wor" to pay their last respectto the slain +anilo Martinez who was laid to rest. Again, on Septe$ber 39,5=>>, petitioners did not report !or wor". ;nstead, they proceeded to privaterespondentsC o!!ice at *anang, carrying placards and posters which called!or the re$oval o! the security guards.0n 0ctober 9, 5=>>, a stri"e vote was conducted a$ong the $e$bers o!the Union and those in !avor o! the stri"e won overwhel$ing support !ro$the wor"ers. :he result o! the stri"e vote was then sub$itted to the .CM&on 0ctober 56, 5=>>. :wo days later, or on 0otober 53, 5=>>, the Unionstruc".;ssues: wheter or not#: a( declaring that their activities, !ro$ Septe$ber =, 5=>> to 0ctober 53,5=>>, werestri"eactivitiesD andb( declaringthat thestri"estagedon0ctober 53, 5=>> was illegal.:he critical issue is the legality o! the stri"e held on 0ctober 53, 5=>>. :heapplicable laws are Articles 389 and 384 o! the *abor Code, as a$endedby ,.0. .o. 555, dated +ece$ber 34, 5=>8. 2Paragraphs 'c( and '!( o! Article 389 o! the *abor Code, as a$ended by,.0. 555, provides:'c( ;ncaseso! bargainingdeadloc"s, thedulycerti!iedor recognizedbargaining agent $ay !ile anotice of strike or the e$ployer $ay !ile, noticeo! loc"out withtheMinistryat least 96daysbe!oretheintendeddatethereo!. In cases of unfair labor practice, the notice shall be 15 days and inthe absence o! a duly certi!ied or recognized bargaining agent, the notice1o! stri"e $ay be !iled by any legiti$ate labor organization in behal! o! its$e$bers. ?owever, in case o! dis$issal !ro$ e$ploy$ent o! union o!!icersduly elected in accordance with the union constitution and by#laws, which$ay constitute union busting where the e2istence o! the union isthreatened, the 5E#daycooling#o!! period shall not apply and the union $ayta"e action i$$ediately.222 222 222'!( A decision to declare a stri"e $ust be approved by a maority o! the totalunion$e$bershipinthebargainingunit concerned, obtainedbysecretballot in $eetings or re!erenda called !or that purpose. Adecision todeclare a loc"out $ust be approved by a $a1ority o! the board o! directorso! the corporation or association or o! the partners inapartnership,obtained by secret ballot in a $eeting called !or that purpose. :he decisionshall bevalid!orthedurationo! thedisputebasedonsubstantiallythesa$e grounds considered when the stri"e or loc"out vote was ta"en. :heMinistry $ay, at its own initiative or upon the re%uest o! any a!!ected party,supervise the conduct o! secret balloting. In e!ery case, the union or thee$ployer shall !urnish the Ministry the results o! the votingat least se!en"#$ daysbeforetheintendedstrikeor lockout subect tothecooling%offperiod herein pro!ided&Article 384 o! the sa$e Code reads:Art. 384.'rohibitedacti!ities. F'a(.olabor organizationor e$ployershall declare a stri"e or loc"out without !irst having bargained collectively inaccordance with :itle G;; o! this &oo" or without !irst having !iled the noticere%uired in the preceding Article or (ithout the necessary strike or lockout!ote first ha!ing been obtained and reported to the )inistry&222 222 222. . . . Any union o!!icer who "nowingly participates in an illegal stri"e andany wor"er or union o!!icer who "nowingly participates in the co$$issiono! illegal acts during a stri"e $ay be declared to have lost his e$ploy$entstatus: 'ro!ided that $ere participation o! a wor"er in a law!ul stri"e shallnot constitute su!!icient ground !or ter$ination o! his e$ploy$ent, even i! areplace$ent hadbeenhiredbythee$ployer duringsuchlaw!ul stri"e.'e$phasis ours(.A stri"eis@anyte$porarystoppageo! wor"bytheconcertedactiono!e$ployeesasaresult o! anindustrial or labor dispute.@ 5 ;t isthe$ostpree$inent o! the econo$ic weapons o! wor"ers which they unsheathe to!orce $anage$ent to agree to an e%uitable sharing o! the 1oint product o!labor andcapital. Undeniably,stri"ese2ert so$edis%uietinge!!ectsnotonly on the relationship between labor and $anage$ent but also on thegeneral peace and progress o! society. 0ur laws thus regulate theire2ercise within reasons by balancing the interests o! labor and$anage$ent together with the overarching public interest.So$e o! the li$itations on the e2ercise o! the right o! stri"e are provided!or in paragraphs 'c( and '!( o! Article 389 o! the *abor Code, asa$ended, supra& :heyProvide!or theprocedural stepstobe!ollowedbe!ore staging a stri"e F !iling o! notice o! stri"e, ta"ing o! stri"e vote, andreporting o! the stri"e vote result to the +epart$ent o! *abor and,$ploy$ent. ;n National *ederation of Sugar +orkers "N*S+$ !s&,!erseas, et al&, , we ruled that these steps are $andatory in character,thus:;! onlythe filing o! thestri"enoticeandthestri"e#votereport wouldbedee$ed $andatory, but not the waiting periods so speci!ically ande$phatically prescribed by law, the purposes 'herea!ter discussed( !arwhich the !iling o! the stri"e notice and stri"e#vote report is re%uired cannotbe achieved. . . .222 222 222So too, the B#day stri"e#vote report is not without a purpose. As pointed outby the Solicitor Heneral F. . . :he sub$ission o! the report gives assurance that a stri"e vote hasbeen ta"en and that, i! the report concerning it is !alse, the $a1ority o! the$e$bers can ta"e appropriate re$edy be!ore it is too late.:heseven'B(daywaitingperiodisintendedtogivethe+epart$ent o!*abor and,$ploy$ent anopportunitytoveri!ywhether thepro1ectedstri"e really carries the i$pri$atur o! the $a1ority o! the union $e$bers.:he need!or assurance that$a1ority o!the union $e$bers supportthestri"ecannot begainsaid. Stri"eisusuallythelast weapono! labor toco$pel capital toconcedetoitsbargainingde$andsortode!enditsel!against un!air labor practiceso! $anage$ent. ;t isaweaponthat caneither breathe li!e to or destroy the union and its $e$bers in their strugglewith $anage$ent !or a $ore e%uitable due o! their labors. :he decision towield the weapon o! stri"e$ust, there!ore,reston arationalbasis,!ree!ro$e$otionalis$, unswayedbythe te$persandtantru$s o! a!ewhotheads, and !ir$ly !ocused on the legiti$ate interest o! the union whichshould not, however, be antithetical to the public wel!are. :hus, our lawsre%uire the decision to stri"e to be the consensus o! the $a1ority !or whilethe$a1orityisnot in!allible, still, it isthebest hedgeagainst hasteanderror. ;n addition, a $a1ority vote assures the union it will go to war against$anage$ent with the strength derived !ro$ unity and hence, with betterchance to succeed. ;n-atangas .aguna /ayabas -us 0ompany !s&N.10, - we held:222 222 222:he right to stri"e is one o! the rights recognized and guaranteed by theConstitution as an instru$ent o! labor !or its protection against e2ploitationby $anage$ent. &y virtue o! this right, the wor"ers are able to press theirde$ands !or better ter$s o! e$ploy$ent with $ore energy andpersuasiveness, poising the threat to stri"e as their reaction to e$ployerCsintransigence. :he stri"e is indeed a power!ul weapon o! the wor"ing class.&ut precisely because o! this, it $ust be handled care!ully, li"e a sensitivee2plosive, lest it blowupinthewor"ersC ownhands. :hus, it $ust bedeclared only a!ter the $ost thought!ul consultation a$ong the$,conducted in the only way allowed, that is, peace!ully, and in every casecon!or$ably to reasonable regulation. Any violation o! the legalre%uire$ents and strictures, . . . will render the stri"e illegal, to thedetri$ent o! the very wor"ers it is supposed to protect.,verywar $ust belaw!ullywaged. Alabor disputede$andsnolessobservance o! the rules, !or the bene!it o! all concerned.Applying the law to the case at bar, we rule that stri"e conducted by theunion on 0ctober 53, 5=>> is plainly illegal as it was held within the seven'B( daywaitingperiodprovided!or byparagraph'!(, Article389o! the*aborCode, as a$ended. :he hasteinholding the stri"e prevented the+epart$ent o! *abor and ,$ploy$ent !ro$ veri!ying whether it carried theapproval o! the $a1ority o! the union $e$bers. ;t set to naught ani$portant policy consideration o! our law on stri"e. Considering this !inding,we need not e2haustively rule on the legality o! the wor" stoppageconducted by the union and so$e o! their $e$bers on Septe$ber = and39, 5=>>. Su!!ice to state, that the ruling o! the public respondent on the$atter is supported by substantial evidence.7ea!!ir$thedecisiono! thepublicrespondent li$itingthepenaltyo!dis$issal only to the leaders o! the illegal stri"e. especially the o!!icers o!the union who served as its $a1or players. :hey cannot clai$ good !aith toe2culpatethe$selves. :heyad$itted"nowledgeo! thelawonstri"e,including itsprocedure. :hey cannot violate the lawwhich ironically wascast to pro$ote their interest.7e, li"ewise, agreewiththepublicrespondent that theunion$e$berswhowere$erelyinstigatedtoparticipateintheillegal stri"eshouldbetreated di!!erently !ro$ their leaders. Part o! our benign consideration !orlabor isthepolicyo! reinstatingran"#and#!ilewor"erswhowere$erely$isled in supporting illegal stri"es. .onetheless, these reinstated wor"ersshall not be entitled to bac"wages as they should not be co$pensated !orservices s"ipped during the illegal stri"e.;.G;,77?,,0-,thepetitionisdis$issed!or!ailuretoshowgraveabuse o! discretion on the part o! the public respondent. Costs against thepetitioners.S0 0+,,+.Nar!asa, 0&2&, 1egalado, )endo3a and *rancisco, 22&, concur&SAN MI*4EL CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. NATIONALLABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, Secn$ Divisin, ILA) ATB47LOD N* MAN**A*A)A :IBM;, respondents.D E C I S I O N2AJ A!ter duehearingandocularinspection, the.*Con/une59, 5==4resolvedtoissueate$poraryrestraining order ':0( directing !ree ingress to and egress !ro$petitioner)s plants, without pre1udice to the union)s right to peace!ulpic"eting and continuous hearings on the in1unction case.I5=JAggrieved by public respondent)s denial o! a per$anent in1unction,petitioner contends that:A.:?, .*C HAG,*K A&US,+ ;:S +;SC,:;0. 7?,. ;: -A;*,+ :0,.-0C,, &K ;./U.C:;0., :?, PA:;,S) ,C;P0CA*0&*;HA:;0.S :0 SU&M;: :0 A&;:A:;0. A.+ .0: :0 S:;L,.B.:?,.*CHAG,*KA&US,+;:S+;SC,:;0.;.7;:??0*+;.H;./U.C:;0. 7?;C? ;S :?, 0.*K;MM,+;A:, A.+ ,--,C:;G,SU&S:;:U:,-0:?,+;SAS:0US,C0.0M;C7A-A,:?A:A&;:A:;0. ;S +,S;H.,+ :0 AG0;+.7e !ind !or the petitioner.Article 3E4o!the*abor Code providesthatnote$poraryorper$anentin1unction or restraining order in any case involving or growing out o! labordisputes shall be issued by any court or other entity e5cept as otherwiseprovided in Articles35>and384o! the*abor Code. Under the !irste2ception, Article 35> 'e( o!the *abor Code e2pressly con!ersupon the.*C the power to Men1oin or restrain actual and threatened co$$issiono! any or all prohibited or unlaw!ul acts, or to re%uire the per!or$ance o! aparticular act inanylabor disputewhich, i! not restrainedor per!or$ed!orthwith, $ay cause grave or irreparable da$age to any party or renderine!!ectual any decision in !avor o! such party 2 2 2.N :he seconde2ception, on the other hand, is when the labor organization or thee$ployer engages in any o! the Mprohibited activitiesN enu$erated in Article384.Pursuant to Article 35> 'e(, the coercive $easure o! in1unction $ay also beused to restrain an actual or threatened unlaw!ul stri"e. ;n the case o! San)iguel0orporation !& N.10,6278 where the sa$e issue o! .*C)s duty toen1oinan unlaw!ulstri"e was raised, we ruled that the .*C co$$ittedgraveabuseo! discretionwhenit deniedthepetition!or in1unctiontorestrain the union !ro$ declaring a stri"e based on non#stri"eable grounds.-urther, in I-) !& N.10,62#8 we held that it is the Mlegal duty and obligationNo! the .*C to en1oin a partial stri"e staged in violation o! the law. -ailurepro$ptly to issue an in1unction by the public respondent was li"ewise heldtherein to be an abuse o! discretion.;n the case at bar, petitioner sought a per$anent in1unction to en1oin therespondent)s stri"e. A stri"e is considered as the $ost e!!ective weapon inprotecting the rights o! the e$ployees to i$prove the ter$s and conditionso! their e$ploy$ent. ?owever, to be valid, a stri"e $ust be pursued withinlegal bounds.I3>J 0neo! theprocedural re%uisitesthatArticle389o! the*aborCodeand its;$ple$enting ulesprescribeisthe!ilingo! avalidnotice o! stri"e with the .CM&. ;$posed !or the purpose o! encouragingthe voluntary settle$ent o! disputes,I3=J this re%uire$ent has been held tobe $andatory, the lac" o! which shall render a stri"e illegal.I96JClearly, there!ore, applying the a!orecited ruling to the case at bar, whenthe .CM& ordered the preventive $ediation on May 3, 5==4, respondenthad thereupon lost the notices o! stri"e it had !iled. Subse%uently, however,it still de!iantly proceeded with the stri"e while $ediation was ongoing, andnotwithstandingtheletter#advisorieso! .CM&warningit o! itslac"o!notice o! stri"e. ;n the case o! N9+:1AIN !& N.10,6;58 where thepetitioner#unionthereinsi$ilarlyde!iedaprohibitionbythe.CM&, wesaid:Petitioners should have co$plied with the prohibition to stri"e ordered bythe .CM& when the latter dis$issed the notices o! stri"e a!ter !inding thattheallegedactso! discri$inationo! thehotel werenot U*P,hencenotMstri"eable.N :he re!usal o! the petitioners to heed said proscription o! the.CM& is re!lective o! bad !aith.Such disregard o! the $ediation proceedings was a blatant violation o! the;$ple$enting ules, which e2plicitly oblige the parties to bargaincollectively in good faith and prohibit the$ !ro$ i$peding or disrupting theproceedings.I98J:he.CM&havingnocoercivepowerso! in1unction, petitioner soughtrecourse!ro$thepublicrespondent.:he.*Cissueda :0only!or!ree ingress to and egress !ro$ petitioner)s plants, but did not en1oin theunlaw!ulstri"e itsel!. ;tignored the !atallac" o!noticeo!stri"e, and !ive$onthsa!ter ca$eout withadecisionsu$$arilyre1ectingpetitioner)scited 1urisprudence in this wise:Co$plainant)s scholarly and i$pressive argu$ents, !or$idably supportedby a long line o! 1urisprudence cannot however be appropriatelyconsidered in the !avorable resolution o! the instant case !or theco$plainant. :he cited 1urisprudence do not s%uarely cover and apply inthiscase, astheyarenot si$ilarlysituatedandthere$edysought !orwere di!!erent.I9BJMoreover, it bears stressing that Article 384'a( o! the *aborCodeI9=J e2plicitly states that a declaration o! stri"e without !irst having !iledthe re%uired notice is a prohibited activity, which $ay be prevented throughanin1unctioninaccordancewithArticle3E4. Clearly, publicrespondentshouldhavegrantedthein1unctiverelie! toprevent thegraveda$agebrought about by the unlaw!ul stri"e.Also noteworthy is public respondent)s disregard o! petitioner)s argu$entpointing out the union)s !ailure to observe the C&A provisions on grievanceand arbitration. ;n the case o! San )iguel 0orp& !& N.10,6#=4 are ,G,S,+and S,: AS;+,. Petitioner and private respondent are hereby directed tosub$it theissuesraisedinthedis$issednoticeso! stri"etogrievanceprocedure and proceed with arbitration proceedings as prescribed in theirC&A, i! necessary. .o pronounce$ent as to costs.SO ORDERED.4a!ide, 2r&, 0&2&, "0hairman$, >itug, ?nares%Santiago, and 0arpio,22&, concur&*.R. N. 6,36+'62 J1ne 36, +.>>CATALINON. SARMIENTOan$6+therstri?in@Ar?ers! ASIANTRANSMISSION CORPORATION,petitioners, vs.THE HON. J4D*E ORLANDO R. T4ICO ! the M1nicipa% Tria% C1rt !Ca%a"#a, La@1na, ROBERTOPIMENTEL, NELSONC. TEJADA, an$the COMMANDIN*O((ICER, 335th PC C"pany at Ls BaBsLa@1na, respondents.5. 7hether or not areturn#to#wor"order $aybevalidlyissuedbythe.ational *abor elations Co$$ission pending deter$ination o! the legalityo! the stri"eD and:he !irst issue was sub$itted to the Court in H.. .o. BBE8B, to which wegave due course on /uly 5, 5=>B. + :he case arose when on May B, 5=>8,petitioner Asian :rans$ission Corporation ter$inated the services o!CatalinoSar$iento, vice#president o! the&isigngAsian:rans$ission*abor Union '&A:U(, !or allegedly carrying a deadly weapon in theco$pany pre$ises. 3 As a result, the &A:U !iled a notice o! stri"e on May38, 5=>8, clai$ing that the A:C had co$$itted an un!air laborpractice. 2 :heconciliatorycon!erenceheldon/uneE, 5=>8, !ailedtosettle the dispute. :he A:C then !iled a petition as"ing the Ministry o! *aborand ,$ploy$ent to assu$e 1urisdiction over the $atter or certi!y the sa$eto the .*C !or co$pulsory arbitration. 5 .oting that the i$pending stri"ewould pre1udice the national interest as well as the wel!are o! so$e 9E6wor"ersand their!a$ilies,theM0*,issuedan orderon/une9, 5=>8,certi!ying the labor dispute to the .*C. , At the sa$e ti$e, it en1oined the$anage$ent !ro$ loc"ing out its e$ployees and the union !ro$ declaringa stri"e or si$ilar concerted action. :his order was reiterated on /une 59,5=>8, upontherepresentationo! theA:Cthat so$e46wor"ershaddeclared a stri"e and were pic"eting the co$pany pre$ises. . Con!or$ably, the .*Cissued on /anuary 59, 5=>B the !ollowingresolution, which it a!!ir$ed in its resolution o! -ebruary 53, 5=>B, denyingthe $otion !or reconsideration:C,:;-;,+CAS,.o. .C#.S#E#354#>8, entitled Asian:rans$issionCorporation, Petitionerversus&isigng Asian:rans$ission*aborUnion'&A:U(, et al., espondents.#Consideringthat thepetitioner,despitetheorder dated 34 .ove$ber 5=>8o!the Acting Minister, @to acceptallthereturningwor"ers@ continuestode!ythedirectiveinso!ar as44o! thewor"ers are concerned, the Co$$ission, sitting en banc, resolved to orderthe petitioner to accept the said wor"ers, or, to reinstate the$ on payrolli$$ediately upon receipt o! the resolution.;t is these orders o! /anuary 59 and -ebruary 53, 5=>B, that arechallenged by the A:C in this petition !or certiorari and are the sub1ect o!the te$porary restraining order issued by this Court on March 39, 5=>B. +/:hat is the bac"ground. .ow to the $erit.;t is contended by the A:C that the .*C had no 1urisdiction in issuing thereturn#to#wor" order and that in any case the sa$e should be annulled !orbeing oppressive and violative o! due process.:he %uestion o! co$petence is easily resolved. :he authority !or the orderis !ound in Article 384'g( o! the *abor Code, as a$ended by &.P. &lg. 33B,which provides as !ollows:7hen in his opinion there e2ists a labor dispute causing or li"ely to causestri"es or loc"outs adversely a!!ecting the nationalinterest, such as $ayoccur inbut not li$itedto public utilities, co$panies engagedinthegeneration or distribution o! energy, ban"s, hospitals, and e2port# orientedindustries, including those within e2port processing zones, the Minister o!*abor and,$ploy$ent shall assu$e1urisdictionover thedisputeanddecide it or certi!y the sa$e to the Co$$ission !or co$pulsory arbitration.Suchassu$ptionor certi!icationshall havethee!!ect o! auto$aticallyen1oining the intendedori$pendingstri"eorloc"outas speci!iedintheassu$ption order. ;! one has already ta"en place at the ti$e o! assu$ptionor certi!ication, all stri"ingor loc"edout e$ployeesshall i$$ediatelyreturn to wor" and the e$ployer shall i$$ediately resu$e operations andread$it all wor"ers under the sa$e ter$s and conditions prevailing be!orethe stri"e or loc"out. :he Minister $ay see" the assistance o! law#en!orce$ent agencies to ensure co$pliance with this provision as well assuch orders as he $ay issue to en!orce the sa$e.:here can be no %uestion that the M0*, acted correctly in certi!ying thelabor dispute to the .*C, given the predictable pre1udice the stri"e $ightcause not only to the parties but $ore especially to the national interest.A!!ir$ing this !act, we conclude that the return#to#wor" order was e%uallyvalid as a statutory part and parcel o! the certi!ication order issued by theM0*, on .ove$ber 34, 5=>8. :he law itsel! provides that @suchassu$ption or certi!ication shall have the e!!ect o! auto$atically en1oiningthe intended or i$pending stri"e. ;! one has already ta"en place at the ti$eo! assu$ptionor certi!ication, all stri"ingorloc"edout e$ployeesshalli$$ediatelyreturntowor"andthee$ployer shall i$$ediatelyresu$eoperations and read$it all wor"ers under the sa$e ter$s and conditionsprevailing be!ore the stri"e or loc"out.@ :he challenged order o! the .*Cwas actually only an i$ple$entation o! the above provision o! the *aborCode and a reiteration o! the directive earlier issued by the M0*, in itsown assu$ption order o! Septe$ber =, 5=>8.;t $ust be stressed that while one purpose o! the return#to#wor" order is toprotect the wor"ers who $ight otherwise be loc"ed out by the e$ployer !orthreatening or waging the stri"e, the $ore i$portant reason is to preventi$pair$ent o! the national interest in case the operations o! the co$panyare disrupted by a re!usal o! the stri"ers to return to wor" as directed. ;nthe instant case, stoppage o! wor" in the !ir$ will be hurt!ul not only to boththe e$ployer and the e$ployees. More particularly, it is the nationalecono$y that willsu!!er because o! the resultant reduction in our e2portearnings and our dollar reserves, not to $ention possible cancellation o!the contracts o! the co$pany with !oreign i$porters. ;t was particularly !orthepurposeo! avoidingsuchadevelop$ent thatthelabordisputewascerti!ied to the .*C, with the return#to#wor" order !ollowing as a $atter o!course under the law.4;t is also i$portant to e$phasize that the return#to#wor" order not so $uchcon!ers a right as it i$poses a dutyD and while as a right it $ay be waived,it $ust be discharged as a duty even against the wor"erCs will. eturning towor"inthissituationisnot a$atter o! optionor voluntarinessbut o!obligation. :he wor"er $ust return to his 1ob together with his co#wor"erssotheoperationso! theco$panycanberesu$edandit cancontinueserving the public and pro$oting its interest. :hat is the real reason suchreturncan be co$pelled. So i$perative is the order in !act thatit is noteven considered violative o! the right against involuntary servitude, as thisCourt held in Laisahan ng Mga Manggagawa sa Lahoy v. Hota$coSaw$ills. +> :he wor"er can o! course give up his wor", thus severing histies with the co$pany, i! he does not want to obey the orderD but the order$ust be obeyed i! he wants to retain his wor" even i! his inclination is tostri"e.;! the wor"er re!uses to obey the return#to#wor" order, can it be said that heis 1ust suspending the en1oy$ent o! a right and he is entitled to assert itlater asandwhenhesees!itO;nthe$eanti$eisthe$anage$entre%uiredto"eephispositionopen, unabletoe$ployreplace$ent toper!or$ the wor" the reluctant stri"er is unwilling to resu$e because he isstill $anning the pic"et linesO7hile the A:Chas $ani!ested its willingness to accept $ost o! thewor"ers, and has in !act already done so, it has bal"ed at the de$and o!the re$aining wor"ers to be also allowed to return to wor". +. ;ts reason isthat these persons, instead o! co$plying with the return#to#wor" order, as$osto! the wor"ers have done, insisted on stagingtherestrained stri"eand de!iantly pic"eted the co$pany pre$ises to prevent the resu$ption o!operations. &ysodoing, theA:Csub$its, thesestri"ershave!or!eitedtheir right to be read$itted, having abandoned their positions, and so couldbe validly replaced.:he Court agrees.:he records show that the return#to#wor" order was !irst issued on /une 9,5=>8, andwasreiteratedon/une59, 5=>8. :hestri"ewasdeclaredtherea!ter, i! wegobythecri$inal co$plaintsinH.. .os. BE3B5#B9,where the alleged acts are clai$ed to have been done on /une =,5=>8,and /uly 5E,5=>8.:hese dates are not denied. ;n !act, the petitioners argue in their pleadingsthat they were engaged only in peace!ul pic"eting, 3/ which would signi!ythattheyhadnot onthosedatesreturnedtowor"asre%uiredandhaddecidedinsteadtoignorethesaidorder. &ytheir ownacts, theyaredee$edtohaveabandonedtheire$ploy$ent andcannotnowde$andthe right to return thereto by virtue o! the very order they have de!ied.0ne other point that $ust be underscored is that the return#to#wor" orderis issued pending the deter$ination o! the legality or illegality o! the stri"e.;t is not correct to say that it $ay be en!orced only i! the stri"e is legal and$ay be disregarded i! the stri"e is illegal, !or the purpose precisely is to$aintain the status @uo while the deter$ination is being $ade. 0therwise,the wor"ers who contend that their stri"e is legal can re!use to return totheir wor" and cause a standstill in the co$pany operations while retainingthepositionstheyre!usetodischargeor allowthe$anage$ent to!ill.7orse, they win also clai$ pay$ent !or wor" not done, on the ground thatthey are still legally e$ployed although actuallyengaged inactivitiesini$ical to their e$ployerCs interest.:his is li"e eating oneCs ca"e and having it too, and at the e2pense o! the$anage$ent. Such an un!air situation surely was not conte$plated by ourlabor laws and cannot be 1usti!ied under the social 1ustice policy, which is apolicy o! !airness to both labor and $anage$ent. .either can thisunsee$ly arrange$ent be sustained under the due process clause as theorder, i! thus interpreted, would be plainly oppressive and arbitrary.Accordingly,theCourt holdsthat thereturn#to#wor"ordershouldbene!itonly those wor"ers who co$plied therewith and, regardless o! the outco$eo! the co$pulsory arbitration proceedings, are entitled to be paid !or wor"they have actually per!or$ed. Conversely, those wor"ers who re!used toobeythe said order andinstead waged therestrainedstri"e arenotentitled to be paid !or wor" not done or to reinstate$ent to the positionsthey have abandoned by their re!usal to return thereto as ordered.;n H.. .o. BBE8B, the petition is +,.;,+ and the challenged 0rders o!the .*C dated /anuary 59, 5=>8, and -ebruary 53, 5=>8, areA--;M,+ asaboveinterpreted.:hete$poraryrestraining order datedMarch 39, 5=>B, is *;-:,+..o costs. ;t is so ordered.Nar!asa, Aancayco, AriBo%A@uino and )edialdea, 22&, concur&4NIONSC 4N(AIR LABOR PRACTICEC STRI7ESC ILLE*AL DISMISSALSTAM(ORD MAR7ETIN* CORP., ET AL. 9S. JOSEPHINE J4LIAN, ETAL.*.R. N. +5,5.-. (e#r1ary 35, 3//5-acts: 0n .ove$ber 3, 5==4, Poilo de la Cruz, president o! the PhilippineAgricultural Co$$ercial and;ndustrial 7or"ers) Union'PAC;7U#:UCP(,sent a letter to osario Apacible, treasurer and general $anager o!Sta$!ord Mar"eting Corporation, HSP Manu!acturing Corporation, HiorgioAntonioMar"etingCorporation, Cle$entineMar"etingCorporationandUlti$ate Concept Phils., ;nc. :he letter in!or$ed her that the ran"#and#!ilee$ployeeso! thesaidco$panieshad!or$edtheApacible,nterprises,$ployee)sUnion#PAC;7U#:UCPandde$andedthat it berecognized.A!ter such notice, the !ollowing three cases arose:;n the -irst Case, /osephine /ulian, president o! PAC;7U#:UCP, /acinta:e1ada and /ecina &urabod, a &oard Me$ber and a $e$ber o! the saidunion, were dis$issed. :hey !iled a suit with the *abor Arbiter alleging thattheir e$ployer had not paid the$with their overti$e pay, holidaypay J1ne 3, +..3ST. SCHOLASTICADS COLLE*E, petitioner,vs.HON. R4BENTORRES, inhiscapacityasSECRETAR&O(LABORAND EMPLO&MENT, an$ SAMAHAN* N* MAN**A*A)AN* PAN*'ED47AS&ON SA STA. ES7OLASTI7A'NA(TE4, respondents. BELLOSILLO, J.::he principal issue to be resolved in this recourse is whether stri"ing union$e$bers ter$inated !or abandon$ent o! wor" a!ter !ailing to co$ply withreturn#to#wor" orders o! the Secretary o! *abor and ,$ploy$ent'S,C,:AK, !or brevity( should by law be reinstated.0n E .ove$ber 5==6, the U.;0. declared a stri"e which paralyzed theoperations o! the C0**,H,. A!!ecting as it did the interest o! the students,public respondent S,C,:AK i$$ediately assu$ed 1urisdiction over thelabor dispute and issued on the sa$e day, E .ove$ber 5==6, a return#to#wor" order. :he !ollowing day, 8 .ove$ber 5==6, instead o! returning towor",the U.;0. !iled a $otion !or reconsideration o! the return#to#wor"order %uestioning inter alia the assu$ption o! 1urisdiction by theS,C,:AK over the labor dispute.:he $ost i$portant o! these de$ands was the unconditional acceptancebac" to wor" o! the stri"ing e$ployees. &ut these were !latly re1ected.0n 39 .ove$ber 5==6, the C0**,H, $ailed individual notices o!ter$ination to the stri"ing e$ployees, which were received on 38.ove$ber 5==6, or later. :he U.;0. o!!icers and $e$bers then tried toreturn to wor" but were no longer accepted by the C0**,H,.0n E +ece$ber 5==6, a Co$plaint !or ;llegal Stri"e was !iled against theU.;0., its o!!icers and several o! its $e$bers be!ore the .ational *aborelations Co$$ission '.*C(, doc"eted as .*CCase .o. 66#53#683E8#=6.0n53April 5==5, respondent S,C,:AKissuedtheassailed0rderwhich, inter alia, directedthereinstate$ent o! stri"ingU.;0.$e$bers,pre$ised on his !inding that no violent or otherwise illegal actacco$paniedtheconduct o! thestri"eandthat a!ledglingU.;0.li"eprivate respondent was @naturally e2pected to e2hibit unbridled i!ine2perienced enthusias$, in asserting its e2istence@. 3 .evertheless, thea!oresaid0rderheldU.;0.o!!icersresponsible!ortheviolationo! thereturn#to#wor"orderso! Eand=.ove$ber 5==6and, correspondingly,sustained their ter$ination.&oth parties $oved !or partial reconsideration o! the 0rder, with petitionerC0**,H, %uestioning the wisdo$ o! the reinstate$ent o! stri"ing U.;0.$e$bers, and private respondent U.;0., the dis$issal o! its o!!icers.0n 95 May 5==5, in a esolution, respondent S,C,:AK denied both$otions. ?ence, this Petition !or 0ertiorari, with Prayer !or the ;ssuance o!a :e$porary estraining 0rder.0n38/une5==5, 7erestrainedtheS,C,:AK!ro$en!orcinghisassailed 0rders inso!ar as they directed the reinstate$ent o! the stri"ingwor"ers previously ter$inated.7enowco$etothe$orepivotal %uestiono! whether stri"ingunion$e$bers, ter$inated!or abandon$ent o! wor"a!ter !ailingtoco$plystrictly with a return#to#wor" order, should be reinstated.7e%uotehereunder thepertinent provisionso! lawwhichgovernthee!!ects o! de!ying a return#to#wor" order:5. Article 389 'g( o! the *abor Code FArt. 389.Strikes, picketing, and lockouts& C . . . 'g( 7hen, in his opinion,there e2ists a labor dispute causing or li"ely to cause a stri"e or loc"out inan industry indispensable to the national interest, the Secretary o! *aborand ,$ploy$ent $ay assu$e 1urisdiction over the dispute and decide it orcerti!y the sa$e to the Co$$ission !or co$pulsory arbitration. Suchassu$ption or certi!ication shall have the e!!ect o! auto$atically en1oiningthe intended or i$pending stri"e or loc"out as speci!ied in the assu$ptionor certi!ication order. If one has already taken place at the time ofassumption or certification, all striking or locked out employees shallimmediatelyreturnto(ork andthee$ployer shall i$$ediatelyresu$eoperations and read$it all wor"ers under the sa$e ter$s and conditionsprevailing be!ore the stri"e or loc"out. :he Secretary o! *abor and,$ploy$ent or the Co$$ission $ay see" the assistance o! lawen!orce$ent agencies to ensure co$pliance with this provision as well aswith such orders as he $ay issue to en!orce the sa$e . . . 'as a$ended bySec. 3B, .A. 8B5ED e$phasis supplied(.3. Article 384, sa$e *abor Code FArt. 384.'rohibitedacti!ities& C 'a( .olabor organizationor e$ployershall declare a stri"e or loc"out without !irst having bargained collectively inaccordance with :itle G;; o! this &oo" or without !irst having !iled the noticere%uired in the preceding Article or without the necessary stri"e or loc"outvote !irst having been obtained and reported to the Ministry.No strike or lockout shall be declared after assumption of urisdiction bythe'resident or the)inister or a!ter certi!icationor sub$issiono! thedisputetoco$pulsory or voluntaryarbitration orduring the pendencyo!cases involving the sa$e grounds !or the stri"e or loc"out. . . 'e$phasis supplied(.Any wor"er whose e$ploy$ent has been ter$inated as conse%uence o!an unlaw!ul loc"out shall be entitled to reinstate$ent with !ull bac"wages. Any union officer (ho kno(ingly participates in an illegal strike andany (orker or union officer (ho kno(ingly participates in the commissionof illegal acts during a strike may be declared to ha!e lost his employmentstatusD 'ro!ided, /hat mere participation of a (orker in a la(ful strike shallnot constitute sufficient ground for termination of his employment, e!en if areplacement had been hired by the employer during such la(fulstrike & & & 'e$phasis supplied(.9. Section 8, ule ;Q, o! the .ew ules o! Procedure o! the .*C 'whichtoo" e!!ect on 95 August 5==6( FSec. 8. Effects of 4efiance& C .on#co$pliance with the certi!ication ordero! the Secretary o! *abor and ,$ploy$ent or a return to wor" order o! theCo$$ission shall be considered an illegal act co$$itted in the course o!the stri"e or loc"out and shall authorize the Secretary o! *abor and,$ploy$ent or theCo$$ission, asthecase$aybe, toen!orcethesa$e under pain or loss of employment status or entitle$ent to !ull6e$ploy$ent bene!its !ro$ the loc"ing#out e$ployer or bac"wages,da$ages and o!theules o! Court, it is entirely di!!erent !ro$, without any connectionwhatsoever to, either party to the dispute and, there!ore, its interests aretotally!oreign totheconte2tthereo!.-orinstance,in 'A*.9!&0loribel,supra, this Court held that 7ellington and Halang were entirely separateentities, di!!erent !ro$, andwithout anyconnectionwhatsoever to, theMetropolitan &an" and :rust Co$pany, against who$the stri"e wasdirected, other than the incidental !act that they are the ban")s landlord andco#lessee housed in the sa$e building, respectively.Si$ilarly,in .i(ay(ay 'ublications, Inc& !& 'ermanent 0oncrete +orkers 9nion,I59J thisCourt ruledthat .i(ay(ay wasanMinnocent bystanderN andthusentitledtoen1ointheunion)sstri"ebecause*iwayway)sonlyconnectionwiththee$ployer co$panywasthe!act that bothweresituatedinthesa$e pre$ises.;n the case at bar, petitioner cannot be said not to have such connection tothe dispute&As correctly observed by the appellate court:Co$ing now to the case be!ore us, we !ind that the Mnegotiation, contracto! sale, and the post transactionN between Philtread, as vendor, and Sia$:yre, asvendee, revealsalegal relationbetweenthe$which, intheinterest o! petitioner, we cannot ignore.:obe sure, the transactionbetween Philtread and Sia$ :yre, was not a si$ple sale whereby Philtreadceased to have any proprietary rights over its sold assets.0n the contrary,Philtread re$ains as 36A owner o! private respondent and 86A owner o!Sucat *andCorporationwhichwasli"ewiseincorporatedinaccordancewiththeter$so! theMe$orandu$o! Agree$ent withSia$:yre, andwhich now owns the land were sub1ect plant is located.:his, together withthe !act that private respondent uses the sa$e plant or !actoryD si$ilar orsubstantiallythesa$ewor"ingconditionsD sa$e$achinery, tools, ande%uip$entD and $anu!acture the sa$e products as Philtread, lead us tosa!ely conclude that private respondent)s personality is so closely lin"ed toPhiltread as to bar its entitle$ent to an in1unctive writ. Stated di!!erently,given its close lin"s with Philtread as to bar its entitle$ent to an in1unctivewrit.Stated di!!erently, given its close lin"s with Philtread, we !ind no clearand un$ista"able right on the part o! private respondent to entitle it to thewrit o! preli$inary in1unction it prayed !or below.R.7e stress that that in so ruling, we have not touched on the issue o! . . .whether or not privaterespondent isa$eredu$$yor continuationo!Philtread. . . .I54JAlthough, as petitioner contends, the corporate !iction $ay be disregardedwhere it is used to de!eat public convenience, 1usti!y wrong, protect !raud,de!endcri$e, or wherethecorporationisusedasa$erealter#egoorbusinessconduit,I5EJit isnot thesestandardsbut thoseo! theMinnocentbystanderN rulewhichgovernwhether ornot petitioner isentitledtoanin1unctivewrit.Sincepetitioner isnot anMinnocent bystanderN, thetrialcourt)s order, dated /uly 3, 5==8, is a patent nullity, the trial court having no1urisdictiontoissuethewrit o! in1unction..o$otion!orreconsiderationneed be !iled where the order is null and void.I58J)HERE(ORE, petition is hereby +,.;,+ and the decision o! the Court o!Appeals is A--;M,+.SO ORDERED.*.R. N. >3,++March2, +..3*LOBE'MAC7A&CABLE ANDRADIOCORPORATIONvs.NLRC an$ IMELDA SALA, 5==8Signi!icance o! the Case;n this land$ar" case, the Supre$e Court 'SC( ruled that bac"wages duean e$ployee on account o! his illegal dis$issal should not be di$inishedor reduced by the earnings derived by hi$ elsewhere during the period o!his illegal dis$issal.:hiscase!inallyabandonedtheMMercury+rugN ruleandMdeductiono!earnings elsewhereN rule then prevailing at that ti$e.?istorical &ac"dropPrior to the present case, SChad applied di!!erent $ethods in theco$putation o! bac"wages.&ac"wages under A >BE. Under A >BE, the Court o! ;ndustrial elations'C;( was given wide discretion to grant or disallow pay$ent o! bac"pay'bac"wages( to an e$ployee, it also had the i$plied power o! reducing thebac"pay where bac"pay was allowed. ;n the e2ercise o! its 1urisdiction, theC; can increase or di$inish the award o! bac"pay, depending on severalcircu$stances, a$ong the$, the good !aith o! the e$ployer, thee$ployee)s e$ploy$ent in other establish$ents during the period o! illegaldis$issal, or theprobabilitythat thee$ployeecouldhaverealizednetearnings!ro$outsidee$ploy$ent i! hehade2ercisedduediligencetosearch !or outside e$ploy$ent.:his$ethodcausedunduedelayinthedispositiono! illegal dis$issalcases. Cases are usually held up in the deter$ination o! whether or notthe co$putation o! the award o! bac"wages is correct.Mercury+rugule. ;norderprevent unduedelayinthedispositiono!illegal dis$issal cases, the SC !ound occasion in the case o! Mercury +rugCo vs. C;, 5=B4, to rule that a !i2ed a$ount o! bac"wages without !urther%uali!ications should be awarded to an illegally dis$issed e$ployee.;n subse%uent cases 'adopting the proposal o! /ustice :eehan"ee(,bac"wagese%uivalenttothreeyears'unlessthecaseisnotter$inatedsooner( was$adethebase!igure!or suchawardswithout deduction,sub1ect to deduction where there are $itigating circu$stances in !avor o!the e$ployer but sub1ect to increase by way o! e2e$plary da$ages wherethere are aggravating circu$stances 'e.g. oppression or dilatory appeals(on the e$ployer)s part.0n 5 .ove$ber 5=B4, the *abor Code o! the Philippines too" e!!ect. Article3B= o! the said code provides:MIRJ An e$ployee who is un1ustly dis$issed !ro$ wor" shall be entitled toreinstate$ent without loss o! seniority rights and to his bac" wagesco$puted !ro$ the ti$e his co$pensation was was withheld !ro$ hi$ upto the ti$e o! his reinstate$ent.N:heaboveprovisionnothwithstanding, therulegenerallyappliedbytheCourt a!ter thepro$ulgationo! theMercury+rugcase, andduringthee!!ectivity o!P.+. .o. 443 wasstill theMercury +rugrule.;ne!!ect, this%uali!ied the provision under P.+. .o. 443 by li$iting the award o!bac"wages to 9 years.M+eduction o! ,arnings ,lsewhereN ule. 7hen A 8B5E too" e!!ect on 35March5=>=,thepertinentportiono!Article3B=o! the*aborCodewasa$ended to read as !ollows:MIRJ An e$ployeewhoun1ustlydis$issed!ro$wor"shall beentitled toreinstate$ent without loss o! seniority rights and other privileges and to his!ull bac"wages, inclusive o! allowances, and to his other bene!its or their$onetary e%uivalent co$puted !ro$the ti$e his co$pensation waswithheld !ro$ hi$ up to the ti$e o! his actual reinstate$ent.N;n accordance with the above provision, an illegally dis$issed e$ployee isentitled to his !ull bac"wages !ro$ the ti$e o! his illegal dis$issal up to theti$e o! his actual reinstate$ent.+espite the a$end$ent, however, in a subse%uent case, Pines City,ducational Center vs. .*C, 5==9, the Court returned to the rule prior totheMercury+rugrulethat thetotal a$ount derived!ro$e$ploy$entelsewhere by the e$ployee !ro$ the date o! dis$issal up to the date o!reinstate$ent, i! any, should be deducted !ro$ bac"wages.:he rationale !or such ruling was that, the earning derived elsewhere bythe dis$issed e$ployee while litigating the legality o! his dis$issal, shouldbe deducted !ro$ the !ull a$ount o! bac"wages which the law grants hi$upon reinstate$ent, so as not to unduly or un1ustly enrich the e$ployee atthe e2pense o! the e$ployer.;ssue7hether or not the inco$e derived by the e$ployee elsewhere during theperiodo! his illegal dis$issal should bededucted!ro$theaward o!bac"wages.ulingCon!or$ably with the evident legislative intent o! A 8B5E, bac"wages tobe awarded to an illegally dis$issed e$ployee, should not, as a generalrule, be di$inished or reduced by the earnings derived by hi$ elsewhereduring the period o! his illegal dis$issal.:he underlying reason !or this ruling is that the e$ployee, while litigatingthelegality'illegality(o! hisdis$issal,$ust still earnalivingtosupporthi$sel! and !a$ily, while !ull bac"wages have to be paid by the e$ployeraspart o! thepriceorpenaltyhehastopay!orillegallydis$issinghise$ployee.:he clear legislative intent o! the a$end$ent in A 8B5E is to give $orebene!itstowor"ersthanwaspreviouslygiventhe$under theMercury+rug rule or the Mdeduction o! earnings elsewhereN rule.:hus, a closer adherence to the legislative policy behind A 8B5E points toM!ull bac"wagesN as$eaninge2actlythat, i.e., without deducting!ro$bac"wagestheearningsderivedelsewherebytheconcernede$ployeeduringtheperiodo! hisillegal dis$issal. ;nother words, theprovisioncalling !or M!ull bac"wagesN to illegally dis$issed e$ployees is clear, plainand !ree !ro$ a$biguity and, there!ore, $ust be applied without atte$ptedorstrainedinterpretation. ;nde2ani$i ser$oest 'literallyMspeechistheinde2 o! intentionN(.PLDT vs. NLRCOCTOBER32, 3/+3 M9BDI A/-/.A1@1st 32, +.>>(acts=Abucay, a tra!!ic operator o! the P*+:, was accused by two co$plainantso! having de$anded and received !ro$the$the total a$ount o!P9,>66.66inconsiderationo! her pro$iseto!acilitateapproval o! theirapplications!ortelephoneinstallation. ;nvestigatedandheard, shewas!ound guilty as charged and accordingly separated !ro$ the service. Shewent totheMinistryo! *abor and,$ploy$ent clai$ingshehadbeenillegally re$oved. A!ter consideration o! the evidence and argu$ents o! theparties, the co$pany was sustained and the co$plaint was dis$issed !orlac" o! $erit. .evertheless, the dispositive portion o! labor arbiter)sdecision declared:7?,,-0,, the instant co$plaint is dis$issed !or lac" o! $erit.Considering that +r. &angayan and Mrs. Martinez are not totally bla$elessinthelight o! the!act that thedeal happenedouthidethepre$iseso!respondent co$panyandthat their act o! givingP9,>66.66without anyreceipt is tanta$ount to corruption o! public o!!icers, co$plainant $ust begiven one $onth pay !or every year o! service as !inancial assistance.&oththepetitionerandtheprivaterespondent appealedtothe.ational*abor elations &oard, which upheld the said decision in toto anddis$issedtheappeals. :heprivaterespondent too"no!urther action,therebyi$pliedlyacceptingthevalidityo! her dis$issal. :hepetitioner,however, is now be!ore us to %uestion the a!!ir$ance o! the above# %uotedaward as having been $ade with grave abuse o! discretion.:hepositiono! thepetitioner issi$plystated: ;t isconcededthat ane$ployee illegally dis$issed is entitled to reinstate$ent and bac"wages asre%uired by the labor laws. ?owever, an e$ployee dis$issed !or cause isentitledtoneither reinstate$ent norbac"wagesandisnot allowedanyrelie! at all because his dis$issal is in accordance with law. ;n the case o!the private respondent, she has been awarded !inancial assistancee%uivalent to ten $onths pay corresponding to her 56 year service in theco$pany despite her re$oval !or cause. She is, there!ore, in e!!ectrewardedrather than punished !orher dishonesty,and without any legalauthorization or 1usti!ication. :he award is $ade on the ground o! e%uityandco$passion, whichcannot beasubstitute!or law.Moreover,suchaward puts a pre$iu$ on dishonesty and encourages instead o! deterringcorruption.-or its part, the public respondent clai$s that the e$ployee is su!!icientlypunished with her dis$issal. :he grant o! !inancial assistance is notintended as a reward !or her o!!ense but $erely to help her !or the loss o!her e$ploy$ent a!ter wor"ing !aith!ully with the co$pany !or ten years. ;nsupport o! this position, the Solicitor Heneral cites the cases o! -irestone:ire andubber Co$panyo! the Philippinesv. *ariosaandSoco v.Mercantile Corporation o! +avao, where the e$ployees were dis$issed !orcause but were nevertheless allowed separation pay on grounds o! socialand co$passionate 1ustice.Iss1e= 70. Separation pay is proper.He%$=7e hold that hence!orth separation pay shall be allowed as a $easure o!social 1ustice only in those instances where the e$ployee is validlydis$issed !or causes other than serious $isconduct or those re!lecting onhis $oral character. 7here the reason !or the valid dis$issal is, !ore2a$ple, habitual into2ication or an o!!ense involving $oral turpitude, li"ethe!t or illicit se2ual relations with a !ellow wor"er, the e$ployer $ay not bere%uired to give the dis$issed e$ployee separation pay, or !inancialassistance, orwhateverotherna$eitis called, onthegroundo! social1ustice.A contrary rule would, as the petitioner correctly argues, have the e!!ect, o!rewarding rather than punishing the erring e$ployee !or his o!!ense. Andwedonot agreethat thepunish$ent ishisdis$issal onlyandthat the9separationpayhasnothingtodowiththewronghehasco$$itted. 0!courseit has. ;ndeed, i! thee$ployeewhosteals!ro$theco$panyisgranted separation pay even as he is validly dis$issed, it is not unli"elythat he will co$$it a si$ilar o!!ense in his ne2t e$ploy$ent because hethin"s he can e2pect a li"e leniency i! he is again !ound out. :his "ind o!$isplaced co$passion is not going to do labor in general any good as itwill encourage the in!iltration o! its ran"s by those who do not deserve theprotection and concern o! the Constitution.:hepolicyo! social 1usticeisnot intendedtocountenancewrongdoingsi$plybecauseit isco$$ittedbytheunderprivileged. At best it $ay$itigate the penalty but it certainly will not condone the o!!ense.Co$passion !or the poor is an i$perative o! every hu$ane society but onlywhen the recipient is not a rascal clai$ing an undeserved privilege. Social1ustice cannot be per$itted to be re!uge o! scoundrels any $ore than cane%uity be an i$pedi$ent to the punish$ent o! the guilty. :hose who invo"esocial 1ustice$aydosoonlyi! theirhandsarecleanandtheir$otivesbla$elessandnot si$plybecausetheyhappentobepoor. :hisgreatpolicy o! our Constitution is not $eant !or the protection o! those who haveprovedtheyarenot worthyo! it, li"ethewor"erswhohavetaintedthecause o! labor with the ble$ishes o! their own character.Applyingtheaboveconsiderations, weholdthatthegrant o! separationpayinthecaseat bar isun1usti!ied. :heprivaterespondent hasbeendis$issed !or dishonesty, as !ound by the labor arbiter and a!!ir$ed by the.*C andasshehersel!hasi$pliedlyad$itted.:he !act thatshehaswor"ed with the P*+: !or $ore than a decade, i! it is to be considered atall, should be ta"en against her as it re!lects a regrettable lac" o! loyaltythat she should have strengthened instead o! betraying during all o! her 56years o! service with the co$pany. ;! regarded as a 1usti!ication !or$oderatingthepenaltyo! dis$issal, it will actuallybeco$eaprize!ordisloyalty,pervertingthe$eaningo! social 1usticeandunder$iningthee!!orts o! labor to cleanse its ran"s o! all undesirables.Petition granted-ro$ Atty. Alba*.R. N. 6.>-. Septe"#er ,, +..+(ORT4NATO MERCADO,vs.NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION :NLRC;, :his petition originated !ro$ a co$plaint !or illegal dis$issal,underpay$ent o! wages, non#pay$ent o! overti$e pay, holiday pay,service incentive leave bene!its, e$ergency cost o! living allowances and59th $onth pay, !iled by above#na$ed petitioners against privaterespondents Aurora*. Cruz, -rancisco&or1a, *eticiaC. &or1aandSto..iTo ealty ;ncorporated, with egional Arbitration &ranch .o. ;;;, .ational*abor elations Co$$ission in San -ernando, Pa$panga. +Petitionersallegedintheirco$plaint that theywereagricultural wor"ersutilized by private respondents in all the agricultural phases o! wor" on theB 56 de$arcates as @casual@ e$ployees, allother e$ployeeswhodonot !anunder thede!initiono! theprecedingparagraph. :heproviso, insaidsecondparagraph, dee$sasregulare$ployees those @casual@ e$ployees who have rendered at least one yearo! service regardless o! the !act that such service $ay be continuous orbro"en.Petitioners, in e!!ect, contend that the proviso in the second paragraph o!Art. 3>6 is applicable to their case and that the *abor Arbiter should have10considered the$ regular by virtue o! said proviso. :he contention is without$erit.:he general rule is that the o!!ice o! a proviso is to %uali!y or $odi!y onlythe phrase i$$ediately preceding it or restrain or li$it the generality o! theclause that it i$$ediately !ollows. 36 :hus, it has been held that a proviso istobeconstruedwithre!erencetothei$$ediatelyprecedingparto! theprovisiontowhichitisattached,and not tothestatuteitsel!ortoothersections thereo!. 3> :heonlye2ception to this rule is where the clearlegislative intentis torestrain or %uali!y not onlythephrase i$$ediatelypreceding it 'the proviso( but also earlier provisions o! the statute or eventhe statute itsel! as a whole. 3.Policy;nstruction.o. 53o! the+epart$ent o! *abor and,$ploy$entdiscloses that the concept o! regular and casual e$ployees was designedtoput anendtocasual e$ploy$ent inregular 1obs, whichhasbeenabusedby$anye$ployerstopreventcalledcasuals!ro$en1oyingthebene!its o!regular e$ployees or to prevent casuals !ro$ 1oining unions.:he sa$e instructions show that the proviso in the second paragraph o!Art. 3>6 was not designed to sti!le s$all#scale businesses nor to oppressagricultural land owners to !urther the interests o! laborers, whetheragricultural or industrial. 7hat it see"s to eli$inate are abuses o!e$ployers against their e$ployees and not, as petitioners would have usbelieve, toprevent s$all#scalebusinesses!ro$engaginginlegiti$ate$ethodstorealizepro!it. ?ence, theprovisoisapplicableonlytothee$ployees who are dee$ed @casuals@ but not to the @pro1ect@ e$ployeesnor the regular e$ployees treated in paragraph one o! Art. 3>6.Clearly, there!ore, petitioners being pro1ect e$ployees, or, to use thecorrect ter$, seasonal employees, their e$ploy$ent legallyends uponco$pletion o! the pro1ect or the season. :he ter$ination o! theire$ploy$ent cannot and should not constitute an illegal dis$issal. 2/7?,,-0,, thepetitionis+;SM;SS,+. :hedecisiono! the.ational*abor elationsCo$$issiona!!ir$ingthat o! the*abor Arbiter, underreview, is A--;M,+. .o pronounce$ent as to costs.S0 0+,,+.)elencio%:errera "0hairperson$, 'aras and 1egalado, 22&, concur&A#as% v. NLRC Di@est-acts:5.:he private respondent *a Union :obacco '*utorco(, owned by See *unChan is engaged in buying, 3//2HACIENDA (ATIMA vs.NATIONAL (EDERATION O( S4*ARCANE )OR7ERSAlthough the e$ployers have shown that respondents per!or$ed wor" thatwas seasonal in nature, they !ailed to prove that the latter wor"ed only !orthe duration o! one particular season. ;n !act, petitioners do not deny thatthesewor"ershaveservedthe$!orseveral yearsalready.?ence, theyare regular F not seasonal F e$ployees.The (acts:he !acts are su$$arized in the .*C +ecision as !ollows:@Contrarytothe!indingso! the*abor Arbiter that co$plainantsIhereinrespondentsJ re!used to wor" and, 5=B5, thedateo! e2ecutiono! theagree$ent, to/uly5B, 5=B8.Subse%uent subsidiaryagree$entsdatedMarch5E, 5=B9, August 3>,5=B9, and Septe$ber 54, 5=B4 reiterated the sa$e ter$s and conditions,including the e2piry date, as those contained in the original contract o! /uly5>, 5=B5. 0n April 36,5=B8,Alegrewasgivenacopyo! thereport !iledby&rentSchool withthe+epart$ent o! *abor advisingo! theter$inationo! hisservices e!!ective on /uly 58, 5=B8. :he stated ground !or the ter$inationwas @co$pletion o! contract, e2piration o! the de!inite period o!e$ploy$ent.@ Although protesting the announced ter$ination stating thathisserviceswerenecessaryanddesirableintheusual businesso! hise$ployer, andhis e$ploy$ent lasted !or Eyears# there!ore hehadac%uired the status o! regular e$ployee # Alegre accepted the a$ount o!P9,5BB.B5, andsignedareceipt there!or containingthephrase, @in!ullpay$ent o! services!or theperiodMay58, to/uly5B, 5=B8as!ullpay$ent o! contract.@:he egional +irector considered &rent SchoolCs report as an application!or clearance toter$inate e$ploy$ent 'not areporto! ter$ination(,andacceptingthereco$$endationo! the*abor Conciliator,re!usedtogivesuchclearanceandinsteadre%uiredthereinstate$ent o! Alegre, asa@per$anent e$ployee,@ tohis!or$er positionwithout losso! seniorityrights and with !ull bac" wages. ;SSU,: 7hether or not theprovisionso! the*abor Code, asa$ended, haveanathe$atized @!i2ed period e$ploy$ent@ or e$ploy$ent !or a ter$.U*;.H:espondent AlegreCscontract o! e$ploy$ent with&rent School havinglaw!ully ter$inated with and by reason o! the e2piration o! the agreed ter$o! period thereo!, he is declared not entitled to reinstate$ent.:he e$ploy$ent contract between &rent School and Alegre was e2ecutedon /uly 5>, 5=B5, at a ti$e when the *abor Code o! the Philippines 'P.+.443( hadnot yet beenpro$ulgated. At that ti$e, thevalidityo! ter$e$ploy$entwas i$pliedlyrecognized by the :er$ination Pay *aw, .A.56E3, as a$endedby .A. 5B>B. Prior, thereto, it was the Code o!Co$$erce 'Article 963( which governed e$ploy$ent without a !i2edperiod, and also i$plicitly ac"nowledged the propriety o! e$ploy$ent witha !i2ed period. :he Civil Code o! the Philippines, which was approved on/une 5>, 5=4= and beca$e e!!ective on August 96,5=E6, itsel! deals withobligations with a period. .o prohibition against ter$#or !i2ed#periode$ploy$ent iscontainedinanyo! itsarticlesorisotherwisededuciblethere!ro$.;t isplain then thatwhenthee$ploy$entcontractwassignedbetween&rent School and Alegre, it was per!ectly legiti$ate !or the$ to include in ita stipulation !i2ing the duration thereo! Stipulations !or a ter$weree2plicitly recognized as valid by this Court. :he status o! legiti$acy continued to be en1oyed by !i2ed#periode$ploy$ent contractsunderthe*aborCode'P+443(, whichwent intoe!!ect on.ove$ber 5, 5=B4. :heCodecontainede2plicit re!erencesto!i2edperiode$ploy$ent, ore$ploy$ent witha!i2edorde!initeperiod..evertheless, obscuration o! the principle o! licitness o! ter$ e$ploy$entbegan to ta"e place at about this ti$e.Article 936 originally stated that the @ter$ination o! e$ploy$ent o!probationarye$ployeesandthosee$ployed7;:?A-;Q,+P,;0+shall be sub1ect to such regulations as the Secretary o! *abor $ayprescribe.@ Article 935 prescribed the 1ustcauses !orwhich ane$ployercould ter$inate @an e$ploy$ent without a de!inite period.@ And Article 95=undertoo"to de!ine@e$ploy$entwithouta!i2ed period@inthe!ollowing$anner: Rwherethee$ployeehasbeenengagedtoper!or$activitieswhich are usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade o!the e$ployer, e2cept where the e$ploy$ent has been !i2ed !or a speci!icpro1ect or underta"ingtheco$pletionorter$inationo! whichhasbeendeter$ined at the ti$e o! the engage$ent o! the e$ployee or where thewor" or service to be per!or$ed is seasonal in nature and the e$ploy$entis !or the duration o! the season.Subse%uently, the !oregoing articles regarding e$ploy$ent with @a de!initeperiod@ and @regular@ e$ploy$ent were a$ended by Presidential +ecree.o. >E6, e!!ective +ece$ber 58, 5=BE.Article 936, dealing with @Probationary and !i2ed period e$ploy$ent,@ wasalteredbyeli$inatingthere!erencetopersons@e$ployedwitha!i2edperiod,@ and was renu$bered 'beco$ing Article 3B5(. Asitisevidentthat Article3>6o! the *aborCode,underanarrow andliteral interpretation, not only!ailstoe2haust thega$ut o! e$ploy$entcontractstowhichthelac"o! a!i2edperiodwouldbeanano$aly,butwould also appear to restrict, without reasonable distinctions, the right o!ane$ployeeto!reelystipulatewithhise$ployer thedurationo! hisengage$ent, it logically !ollows that such a literal interpretation should beeschewed or avoided. :he law $ust be given a reasonable interpretation,toprecludeabsurdityinitsapplication. 0utlawingthewholeconcept o!ter$e$ploy$ent and subverting to boot the principle o! !reedo$o!contract to re$edy the evil o! e$ployerCs using it as a $eans to preventtheir e$ployees !ro$ obtaining security o! tenure is li"e cutting o!! the noseto spite the !ace or, $ore relevantly, curing a headache by lopping o!! thehead.Such interpretation puts the seal on &ibiso upon the e!!ect o! the e2piry o!an agreed period o! e$ploy$ent as still good ruleFa rule rea!!ir$ed in therecent case o! ,scudero vs. 0!!ice o! the President 'H.. .o. EB>33, April38, 5=>=( where, in the !airly analogous case o! a teacher being served byherschool anoticeo! ter$ination!ollowingthee2pirationo! thelast o!three successive !i2ed#ter$ e$ploy$ent contracts, the Court held:eyes 'the teacherCs( argu$ent is not persuasive. ;t loses sight o! the !actthat her e$ploy$ent was probationary, contractual in nature, and one witha de!initive period. At the e2piration o! the period stipulated in the contract,herappoint$ent was dee$edter$inated andtheletterin!or$inghero!thenon#renewal o! her contract isnot aconditionsine%uanonbe!oreeyes $ay be dee$ed to have ceased in the e$ploy o! petitioner US:.:henoticeisa$erere$inderthat eyesC contract o! e$ploy$ent wasdue to e2pire and that the contract would no longer be renewed. ;t is not aletter o! ter$ination. Paraphrasing ,scudero, respondent AlegreCs e$ploy$ent was ter$inatedupon the e2piration o! his last contract with &rent School on /uly 58, 5=B8 withoutthe necessity o! any notice. :he advance written advice given the+epart$ent o! *abor with copy to said petitioner was a $ere re$inder o!the i$pending e2piration o! his contract, not a letter o! ter$ination, nor anapplication!orclearancetoter$inatewhichneededtheapproval o! the+epart$ent o! *abor to $a"e the ter$ination o! his services e!!ective. ;nany case, such clearance should properly have been given, not denied.E*.R. N. ++.,//.A1@1st 3>, +..>FPA*4IO TRANSPORT CORPORATION, petitioner,vs. NATIONAL LABORRELATIONS COMMISSIONan$ )IL(REDOMELCHOR, respondents.D E C I S I O NPAN*ANIBAN, J.=;n dis$issing the petition, this Court reiterates the !ollowing doctrines: '5(the Mboundary syste$N used in ta2i 'and 1eepney( operations presupposesan e$ployer#e$ployee relationD '3( the e$ployer $ust prove 1ust 'orauthorized( cause and due process to 1usti!y dis$issal o! an e$ployeeD '9(strained relations $ust be de$onstrated as a !actD and '4( bac" wages andreinstate$ent are necessary conse%uences o! illegal dis$issal.The Case12The (acts:he !acts, as su$$arized in the challenged +ecision, are as !ollows:MCo$plainant 7il!redoMelchorwashiredbyrespondent co$panyasata2i driver on3E+ece$ber 5==3under theUIbJoundaryIsJyste$.)?eIwasJ engaged to drive the ta2i unit assigned to hi$ on a 34#hour scheduleper trip every two '3( days, !or which he used to earn an average inco$e!ro$ PE66 to PB66 per trip, e2clusive o! the P8E6.66 boundary and otherdeductionsi$posedonhi$. 0n34IsicJ .ove$ber 5==9, co$plainantallegedly$et avehicular accident alongQuirino AvenueneartheP.Station and Plaza +ilao when he accidentally bu$ped a car which stoppedat the intersection even when the tra!!ic light was green and go. A!ter hesub$itted the tra!!ic accident report to the o!!ice o! respondents, he wasallegedly advised to stop wor"ing and have a rest.A!ter several daysI,J heallegedly reported !or wor" only to be told that his service was no longerneeded. ?ence, the co$plaint !or illegal dis$issal, a$ong others.MespondentIsJ !or their part $aintained that co$plainant was not illegallydis$issed, there being in the !irst place no e$ployer#e$ployee relationshipbetween the$. ;n resolving the petition, we shall address the !ollowing points: '5(e$ployer#e$ployee relation, '3( presence o! 1ust cause, '9( due process,'4( strained relationship, and 'E( propriety o! reinstate$ent and bac"wages.The C1rtGs R1%in@:he petition is not $eritorious.(irst Iss1e=Employer-Employee RelationUndertheMboundarysyste$,Nprivaterespondent wasengagedtodrivepetitioner)s ta2i unit on a 34#hour schedule every two days.0n each suchtrip, private respondent re$itted to petitioner a MboundaryN o!P8E6. 7hatever he earned in e2cess o! that a$ount was considered hisinco$e.Petitioner argues that under said arrange$ent, he had no control over thenu$ber o! hours private respondent had to wor" and the routes he had tota"e.:here!ore, heconcludesthat thee$ployer#e$ployeerelationshipcannot be dee$ed to e2ist.Petitioner)s contention is not novel.;n )artine3 !& National.abor 1elations 0ommission,I55J this Court already ruled that therelationshipo!ta2iowners and ta2idrivers is thesa$eas that between1eepney owners and 1eepney drivers under the Mboundary syste$.N;n bothcases, the e$ployer#e$ployee relationship was dee$ed to e2ist, !i3&:M:herelationshipbetween1eepneyowners hewas appointed as ;nstructor ;;; !or the school year 5=B>#B=. ?is load !or the!irst se$ester was eight '>( hours a wee", and !or the second se$ester,seven 'B( hours a wee".0n March 5=, 5=B= +ean Hilberto Ha$ez observed that +r. &or1a shouldnot bereappointedbasedontheevaluationsheet that showshissub#standard and ine!!icient per!or$ance. + .evertheless in view o! the criticalshortage o! sta!! $e$bers in the +epart$ent o! .eurology and Psychiatry+r. Ha$ez reco$$ended the reappoint$ent o! +r. &or1a, a!ter in!or$ingthe latter o! the negative !eedbac"s regarding his teaching and his pro$iseto i$provehisper!or$ance.:huson /uly3B,5=B=hewas e2tendedareappoint$ent as ;nstructor ;;; in the school year 5=B=#>6. ?e was given aload o! si2 '8( hours a wee". ;n all these appoint$ents he was a part ti$einstructor.At theendo! theacade$icyear, it appearingthat +r. &or1ahadnoti$proved his per!or$ance in spite o! his assurances o! i$prove$ent, hisreappoint$ent was not reco$$ended.;n /uly, 5=>3 he !iled a co$plaint in the .ational *abor elationsCo$$ission '.*C !orshort( !or illegal dis$issalagainst the US:. A!terthesub$issiono! thepleadingsanddueproceedingsthelabor arbiterrendered a decision on /uly 5=, 5=>4, the dispositive part o! which readsas !ollows:7?,,-0, this 0!!ice !inds in !avor o! the co$plainant. :herespondents'sic( universityareherebyorderedtoe!!ect thei$$ediatereinstate$ent o! co$plainant tohis!or$erpositionwith!ull bac"wages,rights and bene!its appertaining thereto. espondent university is li"ewiseordered to pay the co$plainant the su$ o! -;G, ?U.+,+ :?0USA.+P,S0S'PE66,666.66(asandby way o!$oral da$agesandanother56A o! the gross a$ount due hi$, and as and by way o! attorneyCs !ees.espondents are hereby ordered to e!!ect this decision i$$ediately. 3:he US: appealed there!ro$ to the .*C which in due course rendered adecisiononSepte$ber 96, 5=>>, $odi!yingtheappealeddecisionas!ollows:7?,,-0,, pre$ises considered, the appealed decision is herebyA--;M,+ with a $odi!ication li$iting the bac"wages to three '9( yearswithout %uali!ication or deduction, co$puted at P886.66 per $onth,ordering respondents to pay co$plainant P566,666.66 as and !or actual orco$pensatory da$ages, ordering respondents to pay co$plainantP966,666.66 as and !or $oral da$ages, and !urther ordering the$ to payco$plainant P566,666.66 as and !or e2e$plary da$ages.-inally,respondentsareorderedtopaytoco$plainant thesu$o! ten'56A( percent o! the total su$ due as and !or attorneyCs !ees. 2?ence the instant petition !or certiorari and prohibition with a prayer !or theissuance o! a writ o! preli$inary in1unction and restraining order that was!iledbytheUS:anditso!!icerswhereinit isallegedthat thepublicrespondent .*C co$$itted the !ollowing errors:;14:?, ?0.0A&*, .A:;0.A* *A&0 ,*A:;0.S C0MM;SS;0.C0MM;::,+ S,;0US ,G,S;&*, ,0S 0- SU&S:A.C,AM0U.:;.H :0HAG, A&US,0-+;SC,:;0. A.+, SCRA +./RE*ALADOC May ., +../-AC:S# Li$berly#Clar" Philippines, ;nc. 'L;M&,*K(e2ecuted a three#yearcollective bargainingagree$ent 'C&A( with United Li$berly#Clar",$ployees Union#Philippine :ransport andHeneral 7or"ersC0rganization'ULC,UP:H70( which e2pired on /une 96,5=>8.# 7ithin the86#day !reedo$ period prior tothe e2piration o! and during thenegotiations!or the renewal o! the a!ore$entioned C&A,so$e $e$bers o!the bargaining unit !or$edanother union called @Li$berly;ndependent*abor Union !or Solidarity, Activis$ and.ationalis$#0rganized*abor Associationin*ine;ndustriesandAgriculture'L;*USA.#0*A*;A(#April 35, 5=>8, L;*USA.#0*A*;A !iledapetition!orcerti!icationelection.L;M&,*Kand ULC,U#P:H70 did not ob1ect to theholding o! acerti!ication election but ob1ectedto the inclusion o! the so#calledcontractualwor"ers whose e$ploy$ent with L;M&,*Kwas coursedthroughanindependentcontractor,an"Manpower Co$pany'A.L,!orshort(, asa$ongthe%uali!iedvoters.# 0n/une3, 5=>8, Med#Arbiter&oni!acio ;.Marasigan, whowas handlingthecerti!icationelection caseissued an order declaring the!ollowing as eligible to vote in thecerti!icationelection, thus:5( regular ran"#and#!ile laborers5 untilitsclosurein5==3, it hadbeenpayingseparationpaye%uivalent to96days) pay !or every year o! service.8.:he .*C ruled a!!ir$ing the *aborArbiter)sdecisionthat theseparationpaye%uivalent to96dayspay!orevery year o! service has ripened into an obligation anddeprivingrespondents would be discri$inatory.;SSU,7hetheror not ane$ployer whosebusinessoperationsceasedduetoserious business losses or !inancial reverses is obliged to pay separationpay to its e$ployees separated by reason o! such closure.?,*+.0. the co$pany)s practice o! giving one $oth)s pay !or every yearo! servicecouldnolonger becontinuedpreciselybecausetheco$panycouldnot a!!ordit any$ore. ;t was!orcedtoclosedownonaccount o!accu$ulated losses o! over P36 billion. :he !act thatless separationbene!its were granted when the co$pany !inally $et its businessdeathcannot be characterized as discri$ination. Such action was dictatednot by a discri$inatory$anage$ent option but by its co$plete inability tocontinue its business li!e duetoaccu$ulated losses.;ndeed,onecannots%ueeze blood out o! a dry stone. :o re%uire it tocontinue being generouswhen it is no longer in a position to do so would certainly beundulyoppressive, un!air and $ost revolting to the conscience.*.R. Ns. +>/>5. an$ +>6+52 Nve"#er +-, 3/++PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BAN7, Petitioner, vs.DAN PADAO, espondent.+ , C ; S ; 0 .MENDO/>5.0n August 35, 5=>5, Padao was hired by P.& as a cler" at its +ipolog City&ranch. ?ewaslater designatedasacredit investigator inanactingcapacityon.ove$ber =, 5==9. 0nMarch39, 5==E, hewasappointedregular Credit ;nvestigator ;;;, and was ulti$ately pro$oted to the positiono! *oan and Credit 0!!icer ;G.So$eti$e in 5==4, P.& beca$e e$broiled in a scandal involving @behestloans.@ A certainSih7at Lai co$plainedtotheProvincial 0!!iceo! theCo$$ission on Audit "0,A$ o! Pa$boanga del .orte that ano$alousloanswerebeinggrantedbyitso!!icers: Assistant GicePresident 'AGP(and&ranchManager Aurelio+eHuz$an'AGPdeHuz$an(, Assistant+epart$ent Manager andCashier 0lsonSala'Sala(, and*oansandSenior Credit ;nvestigator Pri$itivo Girtudazo 'Girtudazo(.0n/une54, 5==8, Padaoand+ivisionChie! 7il$aGelasco'Gelasco(were si$ilarly ad$inistratively charged with +ishonesty, HraveMisconduct, Hross .eglect o! +uty, Conduct Pre1udicial to the &est ;nteresto! the Service, and violation o! .A. .o. 965=.:he case against Padao was grounded on his having allegedly presentedadeceptivelypositivestatuso! thebusiness, credit standing#65.. :he ,*A held that in view o! the peculiar conditions attendant to Padao)sdis$issal, therebeingnoclear conclusiveshowingo! $oral turpitude,Padao should not be le!t without any re$edy.Padao appealed to the .*C, which, in its esolution= dated 0ctober 96,3663, reversedandset asidethe,*A+ecisionanddeclaredPadao)sdis$issal to be illegal. ?e was thereby ordered reinstated to his previousposition without loss o! seniority rights and P.& was ordered to pay hi$!ull bac"wages and attorney)s !ees e%uivalent to ten percent '56A( o! thetotal $onetary award.ISS4ES;n H.. .o. 5>6>4=, P.& argues that the position o! a credit investigator isone reposed with trust and con!idence, such that its holder $ay be validlydis$issed based on loss o! trust and con!idence. ;ndisciplining e$ployees, the e$ployer has the right to e2ercise discretion indeter$ining the individual liability o! each erring e$ployee and in i$posinga penalty co$$ensurate with the degree o! participation o! each. P.& is bound by the acts o! its senior o!!icers and he, li"e his !ellow creditinvestigators, havingactedingood!aithina!!i2inghissignatureonthereports based on the instruction, order and directive o! senior local ban"o!!icials, should not be held liable.99Padao also clai$s that P.& cruelly betrayed hi$by charging anddis$issinghi$a!ter usinghi$asaprosecutionwitnesstosecuretheconvictiono! thesenior ban"o!!icials, that hewas never part o! theconspiracy, and that he did not derive any bene!it !ro$ the sche$e.94:he Court)s uling7hileit is ane$ployer)sbasic right to !reelyselect or discharge itse$ployees, i! only as a $easure o! sel!#protection against acts ini$ical toits interest,9B the law sets the valid grounds !or ter$ination as well as theproper proceduretobe!ollowedwhenter$inatingtheserviceso! ane$ployee.9>:hus, incaseso! regular e$ploy$ent, thee$ployer isprohibited!ro$ter$inatingtheserviceso! ane$ployeee2cept !ora1ust orauthorizedcause.9= Such 1ust causes !or which an e$ployer $ay ter$inate ane$ployee are enu$erated in Article 3>3 o! the *abor Code:'a( Serious$isconduct or will!ul disobediencebythee$ployeeo! thelaw!ul orders o! his e$ployer or representative in connection with his wor"D'b( Hross and habitual neglect by the e$ployee o! his dutiesD'c( -raud or will!ul breach by the e$ployee o! the trust reposed in hi$ byhis e$ployer or duly authorized representativeD'd( Co$$ission o! a cri$e or o!!ense by the e$ployee against the persono! his e$ployer or any i$$ediate !a$ily $e$ber o! his !a$ily or his dulyauthorized representativeD and'e( 0ther causes analogous to the !oregoing.17-urther, due process re%uires that e$ployers !ollow the procedure set bythe *abor Code:Art. 3BB. Miscellaneous provisions.222b. Sub1ect to the constitutionalright o!wor"ers to security o! tenure andtheir right to be protected against dis$issal e2cept !or a 1ust andauthorized cause and without pre1udice to the re%uire$ent o! notice underArticle3>9o! thisCode, thee$ployer shall !urnishthewor"er whosee$ploy$ent is sought to beter$inated awritten notice containing astate$ento! the causes !or ter$ination and shalla!!ordthelatter a$pleopportunity to be heard and to de!end hi$sel! with the assistance o! hisrepresentativei! hesodesiresinaccordancewithco$panyrulesandregulations pro$ulgated pursuant to guidelines set by the +epart$ent o!*abor and,$ploy$ent. Anydecisionta"enbythee$ployer shall bewithout pre1udice to the right o! the wor"er to contest the validity or legalityo! hisdis$issal by!ilingaco$plaint withtheregional brancho! the.ational *abor elationsCo$$ission. :heburdeno! provingthat theter$ination was !or a valid or authorized cause shall rest on the e$ployer.:he Secretary o! the +epart$ent o! *abor and ,$ploy$ent $ay suspendthe e!!ects o! the ter$ination pending resolution o! the dispute in the evento! apri$a!acie!indingbytheappropriateo!!icial o! the+epart$ent o!*abor and,$ploy$ent be!orewho$suchdisputeispendingthat theter$ination $ay cause a serious labor dispute or is in i$ple$entation o! a$ass lay#o!!. 'As a$ended by Section 99, epublic Act .o. 8B5E, March35, 5=>=(222;n this case, Padao was dis$issed by P.& !or gross and habitual neglecto! duties under Article 3>3 'b( o! the *abor Code.Hrossnegligenceconnoteswant o! careintheper!or$anceo! one)sduties, whilehabitual neglect i$pliesrepeated!ailuretoper!or$one)sduties !or a period o! ti$e, depending on the circu$stances.46 Hrossnegligencehasbeende!inedasthewant or absenceo! or !ailuretoe2ercise slight care or diligence, or the entire absence o! care. ;t evinces athoughtless disregard o! conse%uences without e2erting any e!!ort to avoidthe$.45;n the case at bench, Padao was accused o! having presented a!raudulently positive evaluation o! the business, credit standing3 o! the *abor Code that sanctiondis$issal o! e$ployees. :hey $ust be 1udicious and circu$spect inawarding separation pay or !inancial assistance as the constitutional policytoprovide!ull protectiontolabor isnot $eant tobeaninstru$ent tooppress the e$ployers. :he co$$it$ent o! the Court to the cause o! laborshouldnot e$barrassus!ro$sustainingthee$ployerswhentheyareright, as here. ;n !ine, we should be $ore cautions in awarding !inancialassistance to the undeserving and those who are unworthy o! the liberalityo! the law.EE I,$phasis original. Underscoring suppliedJClearly, given the Court)s !indings, Padao is not entitled to !inancialassistance.1a!!phi118)HERE(ORE, thepetitionsinH.. .o. 5>6>4=andH.. .o. 5>B549are *RANTED. :he/une35, 3665+ecisiono! the,2ecutive*abor Arbiter isherebyordered ,;.S:A:,+, with the MODI(ICATION that the award o! !inancialassistance is DELETED.S0 0+,,+.9EN *4ERRERO,vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONSCOMMISSIONP4NO, J.=:his is an original action !or certiorari under ule 8E o! the evised uleso! Court toannul the+ecisiono! respondent .ational *abor elationsCo$$ission '.*C(I5J dis$issing petitionersC co$plaints !or illegaldis$issal against .0.?. Auto Products Phils., ;nc. and its president, Hoe!!Le$p.:he petitioners are !or$er e$ployees o! respondent .0.?. Auto ProductsPhils., ;nc., a corporation engaged in the $anu!acture o! auto$otive steelwheels.0n March 34, 5==3, $e$bers o! the union in respondent co$pany wenton stri"e. :he petitioners, however, did not participate in the stri"e.espondent co$pany allegedly sustained huge losses as the stri"evirtuallyparalyzeditsoperations.:oprevent !urther losses, respondentproposedonApril 33, 5==3tothenon#stri"inge$ployeesa@!inancialassistance@ in e2change !or their resignation.espondent co$pany,nevertheless, assured the$priority in hiring when positions o! e%ualstature and co$pensation beco$e available.0n April 34, 5==3, the petitioners availed o! respondent co$panyCso!!er.:hey signed individual Quit Clai$ and elease deeds upon receipto! their separation pay.0n May 9, 5==3, the stri"e ended.:he operations in respondent co$panyresu$ed and all the stri"ing e$ployees returned to their posts.:hepetitioners o!!eredto re#assu$etheir !or$er positions but respondentco$pany re!used to ad$it the$.:hey !iled separate co$plaints !or illegaldis$issal.;n a consolidated +ecision dated/une 3=, 5==9, *abor Arbiter Heobel A.&artolabac dis$issed the co$plaints !or lac" o! $erit, !i3:7?,,-0,, pre$isesconsidered, theabove#entitledcasesarenowhereby dis$issed !or lac" o! $erit.espondents 'sic( .0.?. Auto Products Phils. ;nc. is, however, ordered topay each co$plainant an additional !inancial assistance e%uivalent to theirone $onth salary.I3J:his was a!!ir$ed by the .*C in its +ecision dated March 56, 5==E.I9J?ence, this petition.:he issue is whether petitioners were illegally dis$issed.7e rule in the a!!ir$ative.:helawgives ane$ployer the right toter$inate the services o! itse$ployees to obviate or to $ini$ize business losses.:his right, however,$aynotbee2ercisedarbitrarilyorwhi$sically.Article3>9o! the*aborCode lays down the conditions !or the e2ercise o! such rights, thus:Art. 3>9.Closureo! establish$ent andreductionor personnel. ## :hee"p%yer "ay a%s ter"inate the e"p%y"ent ! any e"p%yee $1et theinstallationo! laborsavingdevices, redundancy, retrench"enttprevent %sses or the closing or cessation o! operation o! theestablish$ent or underta"ingunlesstheclosingis!or thepurposeo!circu$venting the provisions o! this :itle #y servin@ a Aritten ntice nthe Ar?ers an$ the Ministry ! La#r an$ E"p%y"ent at %east ne:+; "nth #e!re the inten$e$ $ate there!.;n case o! ter$ination dueto the installation o! labor saving devices or redundancy, the wor"era!!ected thereby shall be entitled to separation pay e%uivalent to at leasthis one '5( $onth pay or to at least one '5( $onth pay !or every year o!service, whichever is higher.In case ! retrench"ent t prevent %ssesan$ in cases ! c%s1res r cessatin ! peratins ! esta#%ish"entr 1n$erta?in@ nt $1e t seri1s #1siness %sses r !inancia%reverses, the separatin pay sha%% #e eO1iva%ent t ne :+; "nth payr at %east ne'ha%! :+03; "nth pay !r every year ! service,[email protected]!ractin! at %east siH:-; "nthssha%% #ecnsi$ere$ ne :+; Ah%e year. 'e$phasis supplied(:he re%uisites !or valid retrench$ent under the !oregoing provision are:'5( necessityo! theretrench$ent toprevent lossesandproo! o! suchlossesD'3( written noticeto the e$ployees and tothe+epart$ent o! *abor and,$ploy$ent at least one $onth prior to the intended date o! retrench$entDand'9( pay$ent o! separation pay e%uivalent to one $onth pay or at least 59.;t did not give written notices to both the19petitioners and the +epart$ent o! *abor and ,$ploy$ent at least one '5($onthprior to theretrench$ent.;ts purposeistoenable theproperauthorities to ascertain whether retrench$ent is being done in good !aithand is not 1ust a prete2t !or evading co$pliance with the 1ust obligations o!the e$ployer to the a!!ected e$ployees.I55J :his re%uire$entis "an$atryI53J as it is intended to protect the wor"ersC right to security o!tenure.:he pay$ent o! @one '5( $onth salary in lieu o! the notice@ whichwas included in petitionersC separation pay cannot be considered assu!!icient co$pliance with the re%uire$ent o! the law.I59J-inally, petitionersC avail$ent o! the @!inancial assistance@ given byrespondent co$pany did not estop the$!ro$%uestioningthelegality o!their separation !ro$ the co$pany.7hen respondent co$pany $ade theo!!er, petitioners were $ade to believe that the co$pany would cease tooperate !or an inde!inite period o! ti$e.?ence, petitioners wereconstrained to accept whatever relie! the respondent co$pany o!!ered atthat ti$e. ;n De Len vs. NLRC,I54J we held that @e$ployees who receivetheir separationpayarenot barred!ro$contestingthelegalityo! theirdis$issal.:he acceptance o! those bene!its 'will( not a$ount to estoppel.@IN9IE))HEREO(, the assailed +ecision is ,G,S,+and S,:AS;+,.espondents .0.?. Auto ProductsPhils., ;nc. and Hoe!! Le$pare hereby ordered to ,;.S:A:, the petitioners without loss o! seniorityrightsandwith!ull bac"wages$inusthea$ount receivedbythe$as@!inancial assistance@ upon their separation.I5EJ .o costs.SO ORDERED.1egalado "0hairman$, )endo3a and /orres, 2r&, 22&, concur&1omero, 2&, on leave.E*.R. N. +5+-+,.Oct#er 35, 3//2FMAC ADAMS METAL EN*INEERIN* )OR7ERS 4NION'INDEPENDENT vs. MAC ADAMS METAL EN*INEERIN* :he present controversy ste$$ed !ro$ two separate co$plaints: the !irstco$plaint, !iled on .ove$ber =, 5==9 by petitioner MAM,7Uand itspresident, petitioner Mario A. Harcia, !or and in behal! o! 3= otherpetitioners, charged private respondents MAM, and H&S with un!air laborpractices 'U*P( co$$itted through union busting and illegal closure, andillegal dis$issal.:he second co$plaint, !iled on .ove$ber =, 5==9 by thelast eight petitioners led by ?ali$ oldan, alleged that aside !ro$ U*P andillegal dis$issal, private respondents were li"ewise liable !or non#pay$ento! pre$iu$pay!or holidaysandrest days, night di!!erential payand59th $onth pay.;n their answer, private respondent spouses Heroni$o and *ydia G. Sison,proprietors o! H&S and MAM, respectively, denied petitioners) allegations.,2plaining the closureo! MAM, and H&S, private respondents narratedthat respondent *ydia G. Sison decided to retire !ro$ business when shebeca$e sic"ly in 5=>>.?er health did not i$prove despite proper $edicalattention.;nthegeneral $eetingo! thewor"ersheldso$eti$ein/uly5==3, sheannouncedher plantocloseshope!!ectiveearly5==9.:heannounce$ent in advance was intended to give the wor"ers a$ple ti$e toloo" !or alternative e$ploy$ent.Accordingly, she declined to accept newpro1ects and proceeded with the winding up o! her business.;n the course o! negotiations with the $anage$ent, the union leadershipde$anded separation pay co$puted at 4E days !or every year o! service,aproposal privaterespondentsre1ected.Asit turnedout,evenbe!orerespondent *ydiaG. Sison could!or$allynoti!ythee$ployeesandtheconcerned govern$ent agencies o! the intended closure and cessation o!herbusiness, MAM,7U andits $e$bers started resorting to concertedactivities such as wor" slowdown, pic"eting, re!usal to report !or wor" andulti$ately, stri"es.0n /une 36, 5==B, the labor arbiter rendered a decision declaring that theclosure o! business o! MAM, and H&S was legiti$ate, having been donein good !aith and in accordance with law.?ence, no un!air labor practiceor illegal dis$issal was co$$itted:222:helabor arbiter !urther ruledthat only58out the9>petitionerswereregular e$ployees.:he rest were hired on a contractual basis andthere!ore not entitled to separation pay.:he !oregoing assign$ents o! error boil down to the lone issue o! whetherthe closure o! private respondents) business was done in good !aith and !orlegiti$ate business reasons.:he applicable law is Article 3>9 o! the *abor Code which provides:A:. 3>9.C*0SU, 0- ,S:A&*;S?M,.: A.+ ,+UC:;0. 0-P,S0..,*. #:he e$ployer $ay also ter$inate the e$ploy$ent o! anye$ployee dueto the installation o! labor#savingdevices, redundancy,retrench$ent to prevent losses or the closing or cessation o! operation o!the establish$ent or underta"ing unless the closing is !or the purpose o!circu$venting the provisions o! this :itle, by serving a written notice on thewor"er and the Ministry o! *abor and ,$ploy$ent at least one '5( $onthbe!ore the intended date thereo!.;n case o! ter$ination due to theinstallationo! labor savingdevicesor redundancy, thewor"er a!!ectedthereby shall be entitled to a separation pay e%uivalent to at least his one'5( $onth pay or to at least one '5( $onth pay !or every year o! service,whichever ishigher.;ncaseo! retrench$ent toprevent lossesand incases o! closures or cessation o! operations o! establish$ent orunderta"ing not due to serious business losses or !inancial reverses, theseparation pay shall be e%uivalent to one '5( $onth pay or at least oneShal! '5, 5==9-inally, since private respondents) cessation and closure o! business waslaw!ul,therewasnoillegal dis$issal tospea" o!.:his!actnegatedtheobligationtopay bac"wages.;nsteadprivaterespondentswerere%uiredto give separation pay, which they already did, to all their regulare$ployees e2cept petitioners olando Cortes, ?er$inigildo /usto,Huiller$o Macaraeg, -eli2berto Mirana, Arsenio 0rtiz, Manuel Pranada,ubenSaringan and a$on Seraspi who re!used to accept theirseparation pay.7e conclude that petitioners have !ailed to show any reversible error onthe part o! the Court o! Appeals in rendering the assailed decision.)HERE(ORE, the petition is hereby +,.;,+.SO ORDERED.20E*.R. N. +,555>.A1@1st +,, 3//2FDR. PEDRITO (. RE&ESvs. CO4RT O( APPEALS:he !acts show that on August 34, 5=>=, respondent *eong ?upPoultry-ar$sS+.. &?+'*eung?up( o! Malaysia, thruitsManaging+irector -rancis :. *au, appointed petitioner Pedrito -. eyes as:echnicalJ !or underpay$ent o! wages and non#pay$ent o!separation pay, sic" leave, vacation leaveandother bene!its againstrespondents.Petitioner !iled a $otion !or reconsideration, however, the sa$e wasdenied:he issues !or resolution are: '5( whether or not the Court o! Appeals erredin dis$issing the petitionD and '3( whether or not the decision o! the *aborArbiter should be reinstated.7as the ter$ination o! petitioner)s e$ploy$ent caused by retrench$ent orby voluntary resignationO:he Court !inds that petitioner)s dis$issal !ro$service was due toretrench$ent.:his is evident !ro$ the ter$ination letter sent by Phil$alayto petitioner, to wit S7e regret to in!or$ you that in view o! the prevailing $ar"et conditions andthecontinuouslossesbeingincurredbytheco$pany,the$anage$enthas decided to cut down on e2penses and prevent !urther losses throughretrench$ent o! so$e o! our personnel e!!ective /anuary 5=, 5==>.;n co$pliance with the re%uire$ent o! the law, this will serve as a !or$alnotice to you o! your ter$ination due to retrench$ent e!!ective /anuary 36,5==>.:o provide you with su!!icient ti$e to see" alternative e$ploy$ent,you need not report !or wor" 'unless otherwise re%uested( starting /anuary36, 5==>..otwithstanding the above $entioned a!!ectivity date, you $ayco$e down to the o!!ice and receive your separation bene!its pursuant tothe *abor CodeRI39J7hile it is true that petitioner tendered his resignation letter to respondentsre%uesting that he be given the sa$e bene!its granted by the co$pany toresigned= would still be > years.Soalso, petitioner is estopped !ro$ clai$ing that he was illegally dis$issedandthat hisretrench$ent waswithout basis.?isre%uest !or bene!itsgranted to retrenched e$ployees during such ti$e when respondent wasin the process o! retrenching its e$ployees is tanta$ount to a recognitiono! thee2istenceo! avalidcause!orretrench$ent. 7hatre$ainstoberesolved by the Court is the validity o! the .*C)s deletion.Antonio &. &anastas, /r., &ranch ?ead o! -,&:C, Santiago City, wrote aMe$orandu$I8J topetitioner reO1estin@theretentin!respn$entinthe sa"e !!ice?owever, petitioner, initsletterIBJ dated+ece$ber 3, 5==>, deniedtheabove re%uest, thus:MPleasebeadvisedthat your re%uest o! retentionat your !or$er post'-,


Labor Cases

Labor Cases

Cases for Labor Law Review 2012 Part I

Cases for Labor Law Review 2012 Part I

Additional LAbor Cases

Additional LAbor Cases

Cases for Labor Law Review 2012 Part III

Cases for Labor Law Review 2012 Part III

Labor Cases (Full)

Labor Cases (Full)

Labor Law Cases Part 2

Labor Law Cases Part 2

Cases on Labor Standard Midterm 2014 Part 1

Cases on Labor Standard Midterm 2014 Part 1

Labor Law Cases Part 3 (1)

Labor Law Cases Part 3 (1)

Cases for Labor Law Review 2012 Part II

Cases for Labor Law Review 2012 Part II

Labor Cases 1

Labor Cases 1

Cases on Labor Standard Midterm 2014 Part 2

Cases on Labor Standard Midterm 2014 Part 2

Labor Cases.

Labor Cases.

Cases Labor

Cases Labor

Labor Cases Part 1

Labor Cases Part 1