Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1989 > March 1989 Decisions > G.R. No. 68619 March 16, 1989 - LOURDES SORIANO, ET AL. v. DIEGO P. ATIENZA, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 68619. March 16, 1989.]

LOURDES SORIANO, DOROTEA TAMACA, ASUNCION VERA, MARCIANA DE LOS REYES, EVELYN DACALLAS, YOLANDA VILLANUEVA, ANTONIO DABE, ZORAIDA DELANTAR, ANITA DANA, and ANACURITA NAVARRO, Petitioners, v. DIEGO P. ATIENZA, GERONIMO Q. QUADRA, and CLETO T. VILLATUYA, in their capacity as Commissioners of the NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, SHELLWOOD INDUSTRIES PHILIPPINES INCORPORATED, RAMON PANIQUE and CONCEPCION NUGUID, Respondents.

Ernesto R. Arellano, for Petitioners.

The Solicitor General for public respondents.

Neva B. Blancaver for Private Respondents.


SYLLABUS


1. LABOR AND SOCIAL LEGISLATIONS; NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION; FACTUAL FINDINGS ACCORDED RESPECT AND FINALITY IF SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE. — The factual findings of the National Labor Relations Commission are accorded respect and finality when supported by substantial evidence.

2. ID.; TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT; DISMISSAL PURSUANT TO COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT; NO SEPARATION PAY GRANTED TO DISMISSED EMPLOYEE. — No backwages or financial assistance in the form of separation pay may be granted to employees, whose dismissal was made in compliance with the union security clause in the Collective Bargaining Agreement.


D E C I S I O N


CORTES, J.:


The petitioners impugn for grave abuse of discretion the deletion by the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) of the award of financial assistance granted by the Labor Arbiter to them.

The antecedent facts, as found by the respondent NLRC, are as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

x       x       x


Complainants Lourdes Soriano, Dorotea Tamaca, Asuncion Vera Marciana de los Reyes, Evelyn Dacallos, Yolanda Villanueva, Antonio Dabe, Zoraida Delantar, Anita Dana and Anacurita Navarro filed this complaint for illegal dismissal, unfair labor practice and moral damages against the respondent Shellwood Industries Phils., the employer of the complainants. Ramon Panique, the president and owner of the company, and Concepcion Nuguid, former president of the union, Samahan ng Malayang Manggagawa sa Shellwood Industries.

It appears that on February 5, 1981, the union, Samahan ng Malayang Manggagawa sa Shellwood Industries and the company entered into a compromise agreement wherein the company agreed to give financial assistance amounting to P20,000.00 in consideration for the union’s withdrawal of Case No. NCR-FSD-J-5-662-79. As the union members became curious, respondent Concepcion Nuguid was asked to explain in a general meeting held on April 4, 1982 as to what happened to the P20,000.00. Instead of making an explanation, Concepcion Nuguid tendered her written resignation, the acceptance of which was made on April 5, 1982. After Nuguid’s resignation, the union became dormant for more than three (3) months. The remaining officers then convened a meeting on July 13, 1982, wherein three resolutions were passed and approved, namely: 1) affiliating the union to a federation, the National Federation of Labor; 2) giving the federation the authority to represent the union on all matters concerning labor relation problems; and 3) creating a steering committee to serve and act as union board of officers. On August 5, 1982, the National Federation of Labor informed the respondent company on the new union structure and the affiliation of the local union with the federation.

On July 29, 1982, in a general union meeting conducted by Concepcion Nuguid, a resolution was approved expelling the complainants from the union and asked (sic) the company to terminate their services in accordance with the provision of the collective bargaining agreement entered into between the union and the company. On August 16, 1982, the ten (10) complainants were dismissed from the service as per request of the union headed by Concepcion Nuguid.

x       x       x


[Rollo, pp. 29-30.]

On October 28, 1983, Labor Arbiter Pelagio A. Carpio issued a decision in this case, the dispositive portion of which reads:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

IN THE LIGHT OF THE FOREGOING CONSIDERATIONS, respondent Shellwood Industries Philippines, Incorporated should be, as it is hereby, directed to reinstate complainants to their former positions as regular workers/employees without Backwages within ten (10) days from receipt of this Decision and under the same terms and conditions of employment and without loss of seniority rights and privileges existing before their dismissal.

However, since complainants are not at fault, respondent Shellwood Industries, Incorporated should be as it is hereby directed to extend financial assistance to the said complainants in an amount equivalent to six (6) months of their respective salaries.

The complaint for unfair labor practice and moral damages is both dismissed for lack of merit. [Rollo, p. 27]

On appeal to the NLRC, the aforesaid judgment was affirmed but the award of financial assistance was deleted for having neither legal nor factual basis [Rollo, p. 32]. Hence, the instant petition, imputing grave abuse of discretion on the part of the NLRC in deleting the award of financial assistance.chanrobles virtualawlibrary chanrobles.com:chanrobles.com.ph

At the outset, it should be pointed out that the instant special civil action limits the charge of grave abuse of discretion to the NLRC’s act of setting aside the grant of financial assistance to petitioners. Petitioners do not assail the order for their reinstatement without backwages. Hence, there is no need for the Court to dwell on the order for their reinstatement without any backwages, which was sustained by the respondent NLRC. Consequently, the sole issue raised in this case is whether the respondent Commissioners of the NLRC gravely abused their discretion in deleting the award of financial assistance to the petitioners.

Petitioners’ stance is that the company had full knowledge of the fact of resignation of respondent Nuguid and therefore, of her lack of authority to act for and in behalf of the union. Hence, when it dismissed the petitioners pursuant to Nuguid’s request, it had participated in their illegal dismissal through its negligence [Rollo, p. 8]. Petitioners argue that the company is accordingly liable for financial assistance to compensate the sufferings and damage sustained by them.

On the other hand, the public respondents justify their deletion of the award of financial assistance on two grounds: 1) that the award has no legal basis since there is no law which orders a grant of financial assistance and furthermore, the order of the Labor Arbiter for the reinstatement of the petitioners is inconsistent with an award of financial assistance; and 2) that the award has no factual basis since the company acted in good faith in acceding to the request of the union president for the termination of the services of the petitioners. Public respondents claim that the company was compelled to dismiss the petitioners upon request of the union president pursuant to the clear terms of the CBA which is considered the law between the contracting parties. According to the NLRC, the company was in no position to question the status of Nuguid as Union president as the matter pertains exclusively to the Union and its members [Memorandum for the Public Respondent, pp. 6-9; Rollo, pp. 153-156].

It should be stressed that both the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC were of the opinion that the company did not act in bad faith in terminating the petitioners. Thus, in directing the reinstatement of petitioners without backwages but ordering the company to extend financial assistance, the Labor Arbiter explained:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

x       x       x


The record shows that Concepcion Nuguid unconditionally resigned on April 4, 1982 (Annex "A" to complainants’ position papers), which resignation was formally and unconditionally accepted thru a board resolution on April 5, 1982 (Annex "B"). The National President of the National Federation of Labor to which the local union, Samahan ng Malayang Manggagawa sa Shellwood Industries, is affiliated wrote a letter to Concepcion Nuguid calling her attention to a letter dated July 30, 1982 addressed to the members of the local union and which she circulated, purporting to expel from the union 12 ranking of officers and members. He informed her that she has been divested of all authority to act as president to the local union so that she no longer has authority to expel any union member. The present leadership of the local union is being exercised by e steering committee, a collective body, the primary duty of which is to continue the work which should have been exercised by competent union officers. This committee was created by a general membership meeting. It is crystal clear from the foregoing that the dismissal of complainants has been requested by one who no longer had the authority to do the same. However, respondent corporation may motu proprio dismiss complainants if there is a legal cause.

In this case, the respondent firm was influenced (sic) by a former union president who misrepresented herself as still the union president. The respondent company, therefore, cannot be deemed to have acted in bad faith. However, the complainants, from the foregoing facts, are entitled to reinstatement because they were blamed for having resigned from or were expelled by their union which is not true. Since the respondent corporation did not act in good faith in dismissing them, it should not shoulder the payment of the backwages of complainants and moral damages, but should extend financial assistance to the ten (10) complainants above-mentioned in an amount equivalent to six (6) months of their respective salaries. [Rollo, pp. 25-26; Emphasis supplied.]

The NLRC, on the other hand, was even more categorical in declaring that the company acted in good faith in complying with the request of the union president:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Under the collective bargaining agreement, any employee who resigns from the union or is expelled therefrom in accordance with the constitution and by-laws for non-payment of union dues or for disloyalty to the union, shall be suspended and/or dismissed by the company upon written request of the union and upon consent of the company.

Under the circumstances mentioned above, we are inclined to believe that the respondent, Shellwood Industries Phils., Inc. has acted in good faith in terminating the services of the complainants. Because of the union security provision of the collective bargaining agreement, said respondent is duty bound to dismiss them. Although the company had earlier received a letter from the National Federation of Labor, informing about the affiliation of the local union with that federation, there is also on record a petition signed by a majority of the workers in the company, rejecting the resignation of Concepcion Nuguid as president and giving her the authority to solve the workers’ problems in the company (Exhibit "2-Cn." ) It is significant to note that neither the steering committee nor the federation opposed the request of Concepcion Nuguid to terminate the services of the complainants. On the basis of this lack of opposition, respondent Shellwood Industries Phils., Inc. has reason to assume and/or to believe that Concepcion Nuguid still represented the union or has the authority to act for the union. We consider this as (sic) act of good faith on the part of respondents, hence, the award of financial assistance to the complainants equivalent to six months salaries has no basis, factual or legal and is hereby deleted [Rollo, pp. 31-32; Emphasis supplied].

The labor officials’ findings on this factual matter are conclusive upon the Court under the well-settled doctrine that factual findings of quasi-judicial agencies are accorded not only respect but also finality if supported by substantial evidence [Packaging Products Corporation v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 50383, July 23, 1987, 152 SCRA 210; Edi-Staff Builders International, Inc. v. Leogardo, Jr., G.R. No. 71907, July 30, 1987; Almoite v. Pacific Architects & Engineers, Inc., G.R. No. 73680, July 10, 1986, 142 SCRA 623].

In view of the aforestated finding of good faith on the part of the company, the Court holds that there is no factual or legal basis for an order against the company to grant either backwages or financial assistance in the form of separation pay to petitioners. This is because under settled law and jurisprudence, the company is not considered guilty of unfair labor practice if it merely complied in good faith with the request of the certified union for the dismissal of employees expelled from the union pursuant to the union security clause in the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) * [Seno v. Mendoza, G.R. No. L-20565, November 29, 1967, 21 SCRA 1124]. To order Shellwood Industries Philippines, Inc. to grant financial assistance to petitioners would in effect be penalizing the company for its lawful compliance with the CBA provisions.

In the light of the foregoing, the NLRC’s decision can hardly be considered tainted by the arbitrariness or unfairness that is the essence of grave abuse of discretion.chanrobles law library

. . ." [G]rave abuse of discretions means such capricious and arbitrary exercise of judgment as is equivalent, in the eyes of the law, to lack of jurisdiction (Abad Santos v. Province of Tarlac, 67 Phil. 480; Hamoy v. Secretary of Agriculture, G.R. No. L-13456, January 30, 1960, 106 Phil. 1046). An error of judgment committed by a court in the exercise of its legitimate jurisdiction is not the same as "grave abuse of discretion." As a matter of fact even an abuse of discretion is not sufficient by itself to justify the issuance of a writ of certiorari. For that purpose, the abuse of discretion must be grave and patent, and it must be shown that the discretion was exercised arbitrarily or despotically .. (Tavera Luna Inc. v. Nable, 67 Phil. 340; Alafriz v. Nable, 72 Phil. 278.) [Palma v. Q. & S., Inc., Et Al., G.R. No. L-20366, May 19, 1966, 17 SCRA 97.]

Absent a clear showing of grave abuse of discretion on the part of public respondents in deleting the award of financial assistance, the petition must perforce fail.

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the instant special civil action for certiorari is DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED.

Fernan, C.J., Gutierrez, Jr. and Bidin, JJ., concur.

Feliciano, J., is on leave.

Endnotes:



* Section 2 of the CBA between Shellwood Industries Phil. and Samahan ng Malayang Manggagawa sa Shellwood Industries provides that "any employee who resigns from the Union or is expelled therefrom in accordance with its constitution and by-laws for non-payment of union dues or for disloyalty to the Union, shall be suspended and/or dismissed by the company upon written request of the Union and upon consent of the Company" [Original Records, p. 32].




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






March-1989 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 34695 March 7, 1989 - PROVINCIAL BOARD OF CEBU, ET AL. v. PRESIDING JUDGE OF CEBU COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 45330 March 7, 1989 - EXALTACION CAÑETE, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.C. No. 2385 March 8, 1989 - JOSE TOLOSA v. ALFREDO CARGO

  • A.C. No. 2694 March 8, 1989 - MANUEL LEAÑO v. ERNESTO ANDICO

  • G.R. No. 32864 March 8, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE R. CASTILLO

  • G.R. No. 34285 March 8, 1989 - B. JOSE CASTILLO v. ONOFRE A. VILLALUZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 41859 March 8, 1989 - CENTRAL BANK OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 47004 March 8, 1989 - MARITIME COMPANY OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 61704 March 8, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NUEPE M. WAGAS

  • G.R. Nos. 69337-38 March 8, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFREDO S. TARUC, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 72616-17 March 8, 1989 - FRAMANLIS FARMS, INC., ET AL. v. MINISTER OF LABOR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 72686 March 8, 1989 - JAIME RAMOS, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 73057 March 8, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE MADRIAGA IV

  • G.R. No. 74470 March 8, 1989 - NATIONAL GRAINS AUTHORITY, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 78261-62 March 8, 1989 - DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ARIEL C. SANTOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 78730 March 8, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SALVADOR LACAP, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 82144 March 8, 1989 - RURAL BANK OF SAN MIGUEL (BOHOL), INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 83239 March 8, 1989 - PHILIPPINE JAPAN ACTIVE CARBON CORP., ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 36391-92 March 9, 1989 - ARTURO REYES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 54161-62 March 9, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ERNESTO M. YMANA

  • G.R. Nos. 71632-33 March 9, 1989 - METRO PORT SERVICE, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 67634 March 13, 1989 - AGUSAN WOOD INDUSTRIES, INC. v. EDUARDO C. TUTAAN

  • G.R. No. 77423 March 13, 1989 - DIOSDADO NUGUID, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 82197 March 13, 1989 - MANUEL L. SIQUIAN v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 58094-95 March 15, 1989 - MAMERTO B. ASIS v. MINISTER OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 35475 March 16, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DELFIN BUSTOS

  • G.R. No. 57642 March 16, 1989 - BALIWAG TRANSIT, INC. v. BLAS F. OPLE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 61243 March 16, 1989 - PEDRO CASTAÑEDA v. SANDIGANBAYAN

  • G.R. No. 64262 March 16, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CELERINO A. VIOLA

  • G.R. No. 66038 March 16, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICENTE LUALHATI

  • G.R. No. 68619 March 16, 1989 - LOURDES SORIANO, ET AL. v. DIEGO P. ATIENZA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 69374 March 16, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALBERTO ALMARIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 76262-63 March 16, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO G. LAGGUI, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 78491 March 16, 1989 - STARLITE PLASTIC INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 79907 March 16, 1989 - SAMUEL CASAS LIM v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 80685 March 16, 1989 - ALFREDO S. MARQUEZ v. SECRETARY OF LABOR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 83578 March 16, 1989 - PRESIDENTIAL ANTI-DOLLAR SALTING TASK FORCE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 47354 March 21, 1989 - HORACIO G. ADAZA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 61516 March 21, 1989 - FLORENTINA A. GUILATCO v. CITY OF DAGUPAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 74903 March 21, 1989 - PERFECTO A.S. LAGUIO, JR. v. CATALINO GAMET, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 76093 March 21, 1989 - AIR FRANCE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 76552 March 21, 1989 - CHURCH ASSISTANCE PROGRAM, INC. v. VICENTE P. SIBULO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 78591 March 21, 1989 - PURE FOODS CORPORATION v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 80194 March 21, 1989 - EDGAR JARANTILLA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 82211-12 March 21, 1989 - TERESITA MONTOYA v. TERESITA ESCAYO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 51208 March 29, 1989 - GODOFREDO BACAR v. AMELIA DEL ROSARIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 66645 March 29, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RUBEN BACHO, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 84462-63 March 29, 1989 - GABRIEL CASIMIRO, ET AL. v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 38669 March 31, 1989 - PARAMOUNT SURETY & INSURANCE CO., INC. v. PASTOR D. AGO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 46713 March 31, 1989 - CESAR LACSON v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 49529 March 31, 1989 - VALLEY TRADING CO., INC. v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF ISABELA, BRANCH II, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 55952 March 31, 1989 - COMMODITIES SALES CORPORATION v. LA SUERTE BUS CO., INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 60952 March 31, 1989 - LEONILA L. SANTIAGO v. WILSON TAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 68873 March 31, 1989 - LUCILDA DAEL, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 68898 March 31, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CRISTOTO LAPAZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 69746-47 March 31, 1989 - BANK OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS EMPLOYEES UNION v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 71311 March 31, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CESAR ESQUILLO

  • G.R. Nos. 71771-73 March 31, 1989 - GOLD CITY INTEGRATED PORT SERVICES, INC. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 72975 March 31, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUANITO JUTIE

  • G.R. No. 74271 March 31, 1989 - MARINERS POLYTECHNIC SCHOOL, ET AL. v. VICENTE LEOGARDO, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 75379 March 31, 1989 - REYNALDO JAVIER, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 78209 March 31, 1989 - DAVAO GRAINS INCORPORATED, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 82068 March 31, 1989 - SABENA BELGIAN WORLD AIRLINES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 85302 March 31, 1989 - BICOL SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.