ChanRobles Virtual law Library
SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
PLEASE CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST ➔ SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 119381.
MARCOPPER MINING CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. HON. ACTING SECRETARY OF LABOR JOSE BRILLANTES, NATIONAL MINES & ALLIED WORKERS UNION (NAMAWU), MARCOPPER EMPLOYEES LABOR UNION (MELU), Respondents.
R E S O L U T I O N
KAPUNAN, J.:
This is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 assailing the Order dated
On
The dispositive portion of the assailed resolution reads as follows:
WHEREFORE, ABOVE PREMISES CONSIDERED, this Office hereby reiterates its directives for the striking workers to immediately return to work and for the company to accept back all returning workers under the same terms and conditions prevailing prior to the work stoppage.
The legality of the strike and the termination handed down to the striking employees as well as their entitlement to additional year end profit bonus for 1994 shall be among the issues to be resolved at the compulsory arbitration proceedings.
Furthermore, the Philippine National Police Command, Marinduque is hereby deputized to assist in the orderly and peaceful implementation of the Orders of this Office including the removal of barricades and other forms of obstruction to ensure free ingress to and egress from the company premises.
Let the records of this case and subsequent pleadings be forwarded to the NLRC for its immediate and appropriate action. [1 (Italics ours)
Petitioner Marcopper Mining Corporation is a corporation, 49% of which equity is owned by the Philippine government. Petitioner is engaged in the exploratation, development and extraction of copper and other mineral ores by virtue of lease and other contracts with the Philippine government, through the Bureau of Mines and Geosciences and the Department of Environment and Natural Resources. It employs more than 1,000 workers. [2 One of petitioners projects is the operation of the San Antonio Copper Project, an orebody with an estimated life of at least twenty years.
In December of 1994, petitioner granted its employees a year-end profit bonus, the amount of which was based on employment category, i.e., 75% of their monthly salary to rank-and-file, 80% to security guards, and 90% to staff.
Private respondent National Mines and Allied Workers Union and
its local chapter Marcopper Employees Labor Union (collectively "union") filed
on
The National Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB) conducted
conciliation proceedings, but the parties failed to reach a settlement. Thus,
respondents filed a Notice of Strike on
In a letter dated
On
On February 20. 1995, petitioner filed with the Department of Labor and Employment a petition praying that the Secretary of Labor and Employment assume jurisdiction over the labor dispute pursuant to Article 263 of the Labor Code of the Philippines. [7 The petition was endorsed by Labor Undersecretary Bienvenido E. Laguesma to the NCMB. [8cräläwvirtualibräry
On
The order was served on the union on February 24 (NAMAWU) and
Also on
The following day,
On
On
Only about 40 workers returned to work.
[15
Those workers who failed to heed the
On
On
On
On
Petitioner asserts that the Secretary of Labor gravely abused his
discretion when he ordered it to accept workers who defied the return-to-work
order, as embodied in the certification order of
The union filed its comment arguing in the main that the issue of whether the workers were legally dismissed must be resolved in the proceedings below, and that this Court is not the proper forum for the resolution of such issue.
The Solicitor General, instead of filing his comment, filed a Manifestation and Motion recommending that the petition be given due course, and in view thereof, that the Secretary of Labor and Employment be made to file his own comment.
We grant the petition.
We agree that the Secretary, as stated by him in his March 20 order, did not make a determination that the termination of the employment of the workers was legal or illegal. He exercised his discretion to refer the issue to compulsory arbitration, and pending resolution thereof, directed that the status quo be maintained, with the view of preserving the precarious peace between petitioner and the more than 600 union workers. As explained by the Secretary in his order:
[O]ur earlier [February
24 and
It is the NLRC which is the proper forum for the "full and complete settlement or adjudication of all labor disputes between the parties, as well as issues that are relevant to or incidents of the certified case." [20cräläwvirtualibräry
We cannot however ignore the factual findings of the Secretary
relative to the unions actuations subsequent to the issuance of the
In his
The workers did not return to work.
In the assailed March 20, 1995 order, the Secretary reiterated that "[d]espite the [February 24, 1995] Order the union went on strike on February 27, 1995 which constrained us to issue an Order on February 28, 1995 directing the workers to return to work and for Management to accept them back under the same terms and conditions prevailing before the strike." Despite such finding, the Secretary ordered petitioner to accept the workers.
We have held that a return-to-work order is a "statutory part and parcel" [21 of the Secretarys assumption or certification order. Article 263 (g) succintly provides that:
x x x Such assumption or certification shall have the effect of automatically enjoining the intended or impending strike or lockout as specified in the assumption or certification order. If one has already taken place at the time of assumption or certification, all striking or locked out employees shall immediately return to work and the employer resume operations and readmit all workers under the same terms and conditions prevailing before the strike or lockout. x x x
Thus, following an assumption or certification order, returning to work, on the part of a worker, is "not a matter of option or voluntariness but obligation." [22 The sanction for failure to comply with such obligation, under the law, is loss of employment status. [23 Case law likewise provides that by staging a strike after the assumption of jurisdiction or certification for arbitration, workers forfeited their right to be readmitted to work, having abandoned their employment, and so could be validly replaced. [24cräläwvirtualibräry
We cannot countenance the Secretarys tolerance of the unions
willful breach of the provisions of Article 263(g) as well as its defiance of
the
We stress that it is the NLRC which must resolve the issues involved in the labor dispute. Our resolution in the instant case does not pre-empt the NLRC. We make no findings or ruling on the relative merits of the parties positions. We rule simply that pending arbitration proceedings, petitioner cannot be compelled to accept the workers who failed to return to work.
We cannot but highlight the national interest involved in the instant case. Petitioner Marcopper operates the San Antonio Copper Project in Marinduque. The project is financed through long term loans granted by the Asian Development Bank and its co-financers, in the aggregate amount of US$40,000,000.00. It also supplies electrical power to the entire province of Marinduque. [25 In the assumption order of the Secretary, it was emphasized that:
Any disruption in the operations of the Company will adversely affect its financial status and consequently its capacity to pay the loans acquired. Considering that the Companys project is basically financed by these loans, the continued operation of the project is threatened. Consequently, the means of livelihood of about 1,500 employees stands to suffer.
Furthermore, the government will also be prejudiced by any work stoppage in the Company since it would mean loss of taxes and foreign exchange earnings from one of the major contributors of its sources of funds.
Any work stoppage will also adversely affect the whole province of Marinduque whose supply of electrical energy depends on the uninterrupted operations in the Company. [26cräläwvirtualibräry
We note from the records that following petitioners
manifestation, as concurred in by the union, the NLRC issued an Order dated
CONSIDERING THE FOREGOING, the Court Resolved to GRANT the petition. The order of respondent Acting Secretary of Labor dated March 20, 1995 is hereby SET ASIDE insofar as it directs petitioner to accept, pending resolution of the issues raised in the compulsory arbitration proceedings before the NLRC, all returning workers under the same terms and conditions prior to the work stoppage.
The National Labor Relations Commission is directed to immediately set for hearing NLRC CC No. 0000106-95 and to terminate the compulsory arbitration proceedings within sixty (60) days, and to resolve the dispute within thirty (30) calendar days from submission for resolution thereof.
SO ORDERED.
Bellosillo, Vitug, and Hermosisima, Jr., concur.
Endnotes:
[1 Rollo, p. 24.
[2 Id., at 48.
[3 Id., at 36.
[4 Id. , at 37.
[5 Id. , at 39.
[6 Id. , at 40.
[7 Id., at 26; Records, p. 21.
[8 Records, p. 22.
[9 See note 8, supra., p. 54.
[10 See note 12, infra.
[11 See note 8, supra., pp. 71-73
[12 Id, Respondent.at 104.
[13 Id. , at 77-78.
[14 See note 1, supra., pp. 51 and 52.
[15 Id. . at 8.
[16 ld., at 53.
[17 See Records, p. 84.
[18 See note 1, supra., p. 56.
[19 Id., at 58-59.
[20 The New Rules of Procedure of the NLRC, Rule IX, Sec. 1.
[21 Samiento v. Tuico, 162 SCRA 676 (1988), at 684.
[22 Id. , at 685.
[23 Labor Code of the Philippines, Art. 264 (a) and (b); The New Rules of Procedure of the NLRC, Rule IX, Section 6.
[24 St Scholastica s College v. Torres, 210 SCRA 565 (1992); Federation of Free Workers v. Inciong, 208 SCRA 157 (1992); Union of Filipro Employees v. Nestle Philippines, 192 SCRA 396 (1990); Sarmiento v. Tuico, supra.
[25 See note 1, supra., p. 48.
[26 See note 8, supra., p.46.
[27 Docketed as NLRC CC No. 0000106-95.
[28 See note 8, supra., pp. 256-257.
[29 The New Rules of Procedure of the NLRC, Rule IX, Section 4.