ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[G.R. No. 75749.December 6, 1999]
ALLIED BANKING CORPORATION vs. HON. AUGUSTO S. SANCHEZ et al.
FIRST DIVISION
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated DEC 06, 1999.
G.R. No. 75749(Allied Banking Corporation vs. Hon. Augusto S. Sanchez in his capacity as Minister of Labor and Employment, Allied Bank Employees Union-NUBE, and Individual Respondents listed in Annex, "A") and
G.R. No. 71239 (Allied Bank Employees Union-NUBE and Individual Petitioners listed in Annex "A" vs.Hon. Blas F. Ople and Allied Banking Corporation.)
Be fore us for resolution is the letter
of Atty. Potenciano A. Flores, Jr., counsel for private respondents, dated
February 1, 1999 inquiring whether they could withdraw the amount of one
million six hundred sixty three thousand three hundred two pesos and eighteen
centavos (P1,663,302.18) which was consigned to this Court by petitioner
Allied Banking Corporation on March 7, 1988.
1
G.R. No. 75749, Rollo, p. 849.
The factual backdrop: In January 1985, private respondents, all employees of petitioner bank and members of the Allied Bank Employees Union-NUBE, staged a strike as a result of a deadlock in their CBA negotiation with petitioner bank. Then Minister of Labor and Employment Blas Ople assumed jurisdiction over the dispute and issued a return-to-work order. The following month, the employees again held a strike. The bank ordered the striking workers to return to their posts. Some of them, however, refused to comply. The bank dismissed said employees for abandonment of work.
On June 5, 1985 the Minister of Labor and Employment issued an order directing the bank to reinstate provisionally all striking workers except those who have already accepted separation pay, officers of the union and those with pending criminal charges, without prejudice to the outcome of the legal actions in connection with the strike.
Private respondents filed with this Court a petition for certiorari docketed as G.R. No. 71239 seeking a modification of the June 5, 1985 order. They prayed for the reinstatement of all union officers as well as those with pending criminal cases and those who have received separation pay.
At the same time, petitioner bank filed with the Ministry of Labor and Employment (MOLE) a motion for partial reconsideration of the same order.
On June 18, 1986, this Court issued a resolution in connection with G.R. No. 71239 remanding the case to the MOLE for resolution of all pending factual and legal issues.
On August 29, 1986, then Minister of Labor and Employment Augusto Sanchez, acting on the motion for partial reconsideration filed by petitioner, issued an order modifying the order dated June 5, 1985. In the said order, Minister Sanchez directed the bank to reinstate all striking employees except those who have accepted separation pay. Furthermore, he ordered the bank to pay the back wages, allowances and other benefits due to said employees effective March 11, 1985 until their actual reinstatement.
Consequently, on September 8, 1986, the bank filed with this Court G.R. No. 75749 assailing the order of the Minister of Labor and Employment dated August 29, 1986. On September 17, 1986, the Court issued a temporary restraining order enjoining the implementation of the said order but only insofar as the directive to pay back wages, allowances and other benefits is concerned. On September 29, 1986, the Court issued a resolution stating that the order of the Minister of Labor directing the bank to reinstate all striking employees except those who have accepted separation pay have become final and executory.
On April 27, 1987, the Court issued a resolution consolidating G.R. No. 71239 with G.R. No. 75749.
Failing to reinstate forty-one (41) of the striking employees, petitioner filed on March 7, 1988 a manifestation/motion stating:
1. This Honorable Court issued orders/resolutions on September 17, 1986 and September 29, 1986 directing petitioner to readmit the individual respondents in this case subject to the final outcome of this case.
Incidentally, these individual respondents were dismissed from their employment for abandonment of their employment and for violation of their CBA by declaring a series of strikes on January 3 and 4, 1985 and then on February 11 to March 11, 1985 despite the assumption of jurisdiction by the then Minister of Labor and Employment Bias F. Ople of their labor dispute on December 19, 1984 which make their strikes clearly illegal as the same were enjoined not only under Article 263 of the Labor Code as amended but also under their CBA which contains a no strike no lock-out clause and which penalizes with dismissal anyone who violates the same (Art. XVI of the CBA).
2. Since October 7, 1986 to date, petitioner has found equivalent positions only for 71 among 112 of those ordered reinstated by this Honorable Court, although petitioner Bank paid their salaries and other monetary benefits continuously from October 1986 to the present without rendering work, to the damage and prejudice of petitioner.
3. Petitioner has exhausted all possible means to look for adequate equivalent positions for the remaining 41 employees but to no avail. Consequently, it (petitioner) is left with no other recourse but to effect their separation and consign the payment of the corresponding severance pay with this Honorable Court conformably with the doctrine laid down in the case of Romeo Dabuet, et al. vs. Roche Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., G.R. No. L-45402, April 31, 1987, subject however, to the outcome of the instant proceedings. If this Honorable Court should decide that the termination of the private respondents from their employment was justified, then the consignation of the separation pay shall be of no force and effect. Upon the other hand, if the present petition is ultimately denied for lack of merit then we pray that the deposited separation pay and other related employee benefits shall constitute as full settlement of the issue of reinstatement. 2 G.R. No. 75749, Rollo, p. 519-522.
Petitioner consigned the
amount of one million six hundred sixty three thousand three hundred two pesos
and eighteen centavos (P1,663,302.18) to the Court.
3
OR No. 8482267, Rollo, p. 524.
On May 4, 1988, the Court issued a resolution dismissing both petitions in G.R. No. 71239 and G.R. No. 75749 and remanding them to the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) and its pertinent agencies for further proceedings.
Eventually, the Labor Arbiter ruled that the strike staged by the bank employees was illegal and that the union officers have lost their employment status by participating in an illegal strike. It, however, held that the ordinary members of the union should not have been penalized for participating in the strike. Thus, it ordered the bank to pay the back wages of these members and to reinstate the other forty-one (41) union members whom the bank failed to reinstate earlier pursuant to the order of the Minister of Labor and Employment and to pay their back wages.
Petitioner bank appealed to the NLRC.
The NLRC ruled that the strike was illegal and that the dismissal of all union members was valid. However, the NLRC also held that the forty-one (41) union members earned for themselves the right to be reinstated effective September 15, 1986 when the Supreme Court ordered the implementation of the order issued by Minister Sanchez directing the bank to reinstate all striking employees except those who have accepted separation pay. It remanded the case to the Labor Arbiter to determine who among the forty-one (41) employees were entitled to back wages and how much they should receive.
Petitioner and private respondents filed separate petitions for certiorari before this Court assailing the decision of the NLRC. The consolidated petitions were docketed as G.R. No. 116128 and G.R. No. 116461.
Finally resolving the issues presented in this case, the Court, in its decision dated July 12, 1996, declared that the strike staged by the bank employees was illegal. It also upheld the legality of the dismissal of all employees who participated in the strike. Furthermore, it reversed the finding of the NLRC that the forty-one (41) union members were entitled to back wages. Hence, the Court annulled the portion of the NLRC decision remanding to the Labor Arbiter the issue of reinstatement and computation of back wages of these forty-one (41) employees.
On February 3, 1999, Atty.
Potenciano A. Flores, Jr., in behalf of private respondents, wrote the Court to
inquire whether they could withdraw the amount of one million six hundred sixty
three thousand three hundred two pesos and eighteen centavos (P1,663,302.18)
consigned by petitioner to this Court on March 7, 1988. They based their claim
on the fact that this Court dismissed the petition in G.R. No. 75749 on May 4,
1988.
Commenting on the letter, petitioner bank argued that private respondents were not entitled to withdraw the consigned amount in view of the finding of this Court in G.R. No. 116128 and G.R. No. 116461 that their employment was validly terminated. At the same time, petitioner bank moved to withdraw the consigned amount.
After evaluating the claims of both parties, we resolve to deny the request of private respondents and to grant petitioner's motion to withdraw the consigned amount. Petitioner consigned the amount to satisfy the separation benefits of the forty-one (41) union members whom it failed to reinstate, in case the Court ultimately rules that they were illegally dismissed and that they should be permanently reinstated to their former position. As stated earlier, the Court ruled in G.R. No. 116128 and G.R. No. 116461 that these forty-one (41) employees were validly dismissed and were not entitled to reinstatement. In the same case, the Court resolved the issue of whether these forty-one (41) employees were entitled to back wages for the period commencing from the time the Court affirmed the order of the Minister of Labor ordering their provisional reinstatement until the time of the promulgation of the decision of the NLRC. Resolving the issue in the negative, the Court held:
In the case at bar, we fully agree with the ruling of the NLRC in declaring that respondents were validly dismissed considering their defiance of the return-to-work order issued by the Secretary of Labor. As a consequence of such defiance, they are considered severed from their employment.
Apparently, the basis of the portion of NLRC's decision remanding the issue of back wages to the Labor Arbiter, is this Court's resolution dated May 4, 1988 issued in the cases of Allied Bank Employees Union-NUBE, et al. vs. Hon. BIas Ople, et al., G.R. No. 71239 and Allied Banking Corporation vs. Hon. Augusto S. Sanchez, et al., G.R. No. 75749. In the said resolution we remanded the aforecited cases to the Department of Labor, the dispositive portion of which reads:
Considering the foregoing, the Court RESOLVED to DISMISS the instant petitions and to REMAND them to the Department of Labor and Employment and its pertinent agencies for further proceedings as outlined in this resolution. This action is without prejudice to either or both parties filing an appropriate and concise petition with this Court, if they are so minded after the final administrative determination of the issues has been made.
Furthermore, a perusal of our Resolution reveals that the issue of whether or not the forty one (41) respondents should be paid back wages from September, 1986 up to the date of the promulgation of the decision, was not raised therein. Only the determination of factual matters, i.e., whether or not the strike was illegal; the roles played by respondents should the strike be declared illegal; issue of representation and the impossibility of reinstating the 41 respondents by bank, were remanded by this Court to the DOLE.
This Resolution of ours, as must be noted was issued when the petition to declare the strike illegal has not yet been resolved. It was only resolved last September 4, 1992, when the NLRC issued a Decision declaring the strike illegal and upholding the dismissal of the respondents. The reinstatement ordered by then Minister Sanchez, in his August 29, 1986 order, was only provisional and subject to the outcome of the petition to declare the strike illegal, viz:
In his order dated August 29, 1986, Minister Sanchez ordered reinstatement pending the final outcome of the petition initiated by the Bank to declare the strike illegal. The reinstatement is, therefore, provisional. A permanent reinstatement will depend on the legality or illegality of the strike.
As a consequence of the declaration of the illegality of the strike and the upholding of the dismissal of respondents in the NLRC Decision, the factual matters mentioned in our Resolution dated May 4, 1988 have already become moot and academic.
Moreover, an award of back wages is incompatible with the findings of the NLRC upholding the dismissal of respondents.
The NLRC's disposition of the case remanding to the Labor Arbiter the issue of reinstating respondents and the computation of their back wages is an illogical consequence of respondents' valid dismissal from their employment. Such disposition is inconsistent with our pronouncement in the cases aforecited and should be struck down as having been issued with grave abuse of discretion. 4 258 SCRA 724, at pp. 751-752.
Thus, it is clear that there is no basis for private respondent's claim to withdraw the consigned amount. The Court has ruled that their employment was validly terminated and although the Minister of Labor ordered their provisional reinstatement in August 1986, they are not entitled to back wages corresponding to the period when they should have been reinstated until the time when their dismissal was declared valid. The Court's ruling in G.R. No. 116128 and G.R. No. 116461 is already final and we may no longer modify it by granting private respondents' request.
IN VIEW WHEREOF, private respondent's request to withdraw the
amount of one million six hundred sixty three thousand six hundred two pesos
and eighteen centavos (P1,663,602.18) is DENIED and the motion of
petitioner to withdraw said amount is GRANTED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) VIRGINIA ANCHETA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
