November 2011 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
[G.R. Nos. 196922 and 196928-29 : November 16, 2011]
SULPICIO LINES, INC. AND SOLID TOWAGE AND LIGHTERAGE CO., INC., ET AL., PETITIONERS V. VINNELL ABORBE, ET AL., UNYON NG MGA MANDARAGAT SA SULPICIO LINES, INC./SOLID STOWAGE AND LIGHTERAGE CO., INC., ET AL. AND ALEXANDER KIAMCO, ET AL., RESPONDENTS.
G.R. Nos. 196922 and 196928-29 (Sulpicio Lines, Inc. and Solid Towage and Lighterage Co., Inc., et al., Petitioners v. Vinnell Aborbe, et al., Unyon ng mga Mandaragat sa Sulpicio Lines, Inc./Solid Stowage and Lighterage Co., Inc., et al. and Alexander Kiamco, et al., Respondents); G.R. No. 196937 (Unyon ng mga Mandaragat sa Sulpicio Lines, Inc./Solid Stowage and Lighterage Co., Inc., Petitioner, v. Sulpicio Lines, Inc. and Solid Stowage and Lighterage Co., Inc., Respondents); G.R. No. 197090 (Alexander Kiamco, et al., Petitioners v. Sulpicio Lines, Inc. and Solid Lighterage Co., Inc., Carlos Go, Atty. Manuel Espina, and Atty. Geraldine Jorda, Respondents). - Sulpicio Lines, Inc. (Sulpicio) and Solid Stowage and Lighterage Co., Inc. (Solid) are sister companies engaged in cargo and passenger transport with a common bargaining unit for their unlicensed crew members. In February 2003, they entered into a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) with the Sulpicio Lines, Inc./Solid Stowage and Lighterage Co., Inc. Unlicensed Crewmembers Employees' Union-ALU-TUCP (SLI UCEU-ALU-TUCP). The said CBA was ratified by a majority of the members of the bargaining unit. It was registered with the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) and was in effect from 16 February 2003 until 15 February 2008.[1]
On 11 April 2003, Unyon ng mga Mandaragat sa Sulpicio Lines, Inc./Solid Stowage and Lighterage Co., Inc.-ANGLO-KMU (UMSS-ANGLO-KMU) filed a Petition for certification election among the unlicensed crew members of Sulpicio and Solid. It was dismissed by the Med-Arbiter in an Order dated 29 May 2003 for having been filed outside the freedom period.[2]
On 24 February 2004, UMSS-ANGLO-KMU filed a Notice of Strike, citing union busting, unlawful dismissal/suspension, unlawful economic discrimination and harassment by Sulpicio and Solid. It submitted the result of its strike vote balloting apparently showing that in a strike vote conducted on 25 February 2004 a majority of its members supported the staging of a strike.
On 9 March 2004, UMSS-ANGLO-KMU staged the strike, seizing the operation of twenty-one (21) of the vessels of Sulpicio and Solid across the country.
On 9 March 2004, the DOLE Secretary certified the labor dispute for compulsory arbitration before the NLRC and issued a directive for strikers to return to work within 24 hours from notice.
UMSS-ANGLO-KMU received copy of the Certification Order on the morning of 10 March 2004 and filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the order the next day. The motion was later denied for Sack of merit.
Because of the striking members' refusal to return to work, and pursuant to Article 264 (a) of the Labor Code, Sulpicio and Solid considered them to have lost their employment status and proceeded to send each of them a Notice of Loss of Employment dated 12 March 2004.
On 27 April 2004, Sulpicio and Solid filed a Complaint[3] against UMSS-ANGLO-KMU with the NLRC, praying that (1) the strike of 9 March 2004 be declared illegal; (2) the declaration of loss of employment status of the strikers be upheld; and (3) the workers who participated in the illegal strike be ordered to pay damages and attorney's fees. Meantime, the striking employees, led by Alexander Kiamco, filed against Sulpicio and Solid separate Complaints for illegal dismissal; and violation of labor standards, including nonpayment of overtime work, holiday pay and premium for work rendered on holidays, and night shift differential. All cases pertaining to the same parties and pending with the Labor Arbiters were transmitted to the NLRC First Division for consolidation.
On 12 July 2007, the NLRC First Division issued a Decision[4] dismissing the charges of union busting and unfair labor practice against Sulpicio and Solid and declaring the strike as illegal for having been conducted without the required strike vote and in view of the strikers' prohibited activities, including defiance of the Return to Work Order of the DOLE Secretary. It concluded that the 282 named employees had validly lost their employment status. However, it ordered that William Aro and Candelario Quibuen's cases be remanded to the arbitration branch for proper disposition.
Kiamco and his fellow employees moved for reconsideration, decrying the NLRC's failure to distinguish among the various circumstances surrounding their failure to comply with the Return to Work Order. For instance, some had been on official leave at the time, while some were unaware of the order as they were sailing on board vessels. UMSS-ANGLO-KMU also moved for reconsideration. The NLRC denied both motions.[5]
Kiamco et al. and UMSS-ANGLO-KMU separately elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals (CA), which on 8 November 2010 issued a Consolidated Decision[6] affirming with modification the NLRC Decision. The CA remanded the case to the NLRC for further proceedings to determine the individual liabilities of respondents in the illegal strike. All parties filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which was denied.[7] Each party separately filed a Rule 45 Petition before this Court assailing the CA ruling.
We note, however, that the Petition in G.R. No. 197090 filed by Kiamco, et al., suffers from technical defects. The jurat in the Verification and Certification, as well as the Affidavit of Service, fail to indicate competent evidence of the identity of some of the affiants; a community tax certificate is not such evidence under Section 12, Rule II of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. Also, the Certification against forum shopping is insufficient, as it has not been signed by all the named petitioners.[8] Moreover, the Petition fails to indicate counsel's contact details.[9]
In G.R. Nos. 196922 and 196928-29, petitioners Sulpicio and Solid pose the following issue for resolution:
1. Whether the CA committed serious error in remanding the case to the NLRC for further proceedings to determine the individual liabilities of the strikers in the illegal strike
In G.R. No. 196937, the following issues for resolution were raised by petitioner UMSS-ANGLO-KMU:
2. Whether the CA committed a serious error in finding that UMSS-ANGLO-KMU failed to establish that Sulpicio and Solid committed unfair labor practices
3. Whether the CA committed serious error in finding that the strike was illegal
In G.R. No. 197090, these were the issues for petitioners Kiamco et al.:
4. Whether the CA seriously erred in holding that the strikers were validly dismissed 5. Whether the CA seriously erred in holding that the strikers are not entitled to the labor standard benefits they are claiming
As all three Petitions impugn the same CA Decision and Resolution, the Court deems it proper to consolidate all three of them.
Nonetheless, we do not find any reversible error in the assailed CA Decision and Resolution to warrant this Court's discretionary exercise of its appellate jurisdiction.
As correctly observed by the appellate court, the NLRC failed to make a detailed determination of who defied the Return to Work Order, considering that some of the dismissed employees were on voyage at sea and could not have possibly been served the order until their vessel docked at their port of destination. Hence, it was only proper for the CA to remand the matter to the NLRC for further proceedings to determine the individual liabilities of respondents in the illegal strike.
The CA also held that the strike was illegal on several grounds, including its having been conducted without the required strike vote. According to the CA, Article 263 of the Labor Code requires that the decision to hold a strike must be submitted to a strike vote, which should be approved by a majority of the total union membership in the bargaining unit concerned, obtained by secret ballot in a meeting specifically called for that purpose. Thus, the union's per-vessel strike vote had not complied with this requirement.
On the other hand, UMSS-ANGLO-KMU argued that its strike vote was valid notwithstanding that it was conducted separately by its members on board vessels scattered across the country. It contends that under Article 263(f) of the Labor Code, a strike vote may be conducted not just in a single meeting, as ruled by the NLRC and the CA, but "in meetings, or referenda called for that purpose."
We find merit in this particular argument of UMSS-ANGLO-KMU. Article 263(f) of the Labor Code expressly provides in part:
A decision to declare a strike must be approved by a majority of the total union membership in the bargaining unit concerned, obtained by secret ballot in meetings or referenda called for that purpose. A decision to declare a lockout must be approved by a majority of the board of directors of the corporation or association or of the partners in a partnership, obtained by secret ballot in a meeting called for that purpose. ... (Underscoring and emphasis supplied.)
Moreover, we note that the union members operated Sulpicio and Solid's vessels sailing all over the country, following different schedules. Due to the peculiar nature of their work, requiring the union members herein to gather in a single place at a single point in time to hold the strike vote would be impossible to comply with and would thus effectively deprive them of their right to strike.
Notwithstanding this point, however, the CA still correctly held that the strike was illegal, because it persisted despite the Return to Work Order of the DOLE Secretary. As she said in her letter dated 11 March 2004, the Labor Secretary herself had to personally seek the assistance of the Western Police District to enforce her Return to Work Order because of the workers' continued defiance thereof.
Finally, we reiterate that "the findings of fact and conclusion of the NLRC are generally accorded not only great weight and respect but even clothed with finality and deemed binding on this Court as long as they are supported by substantial evidence. This is because it is not the function of this Court to analyze or weigh all over again the evidence already considered in the proceedings below; or reevaluate the credibility of witnesses; or substitute the findings of fact of an administrative tribunal which has expertise in its special field."[10]cralaw
WHEREFORE, the Court resolves to CONSOLIDATE the Petitions in G.R. Nos. 197090 and 196937 with the consolidated Petitions in G.R. Nos. 196922 and 196928-29.
The Court further resolves to DENY the consolidated Petitions for failing to show reversible error in the assailed Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals.
Very truly yours,
MA. LUISA L. LAUREA
Division Clerk of Court
By:
(Sgd.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZON
Deputy Division Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Rollo (G.R. Nos. 196922 & 196928-29), p. 85.[2] The dismissal was affirmed by the DOLE Secretary on 13 August 2003, and by the Supreme Court on 24 September 2007.
[3] Rollo (G.R. Nos. 196922 & 196928-29), pp. 100-102.
[4] Id. at 103-268.
[5] Id. at 269-276.
[6] Id. at 38-77. The Court of Appeals Fourth Division Decision in CA-G.R. SP Nos. 105100, 105174, and 105200 was penned by Justice Franchito Diamante and concurred in by Justices Josefina Guevara-Salonga and Mariflor Punzalan Castillo.
[7] Rollo (G.R. Nos. 196922 & 196928-29), pp. 78-84.
[8] Gonzales v. Balikatan Kilusang Bayan sa Pananalapi, Incorporated, G.R. No. 150859, 28 March 2005.
[9] As required in A.M. No. 07-6-5-SC.
[10] G & M (Phil.) Inc. v. Zenas Rivera, G.R. No. 141802, 29 January 2007.
