ChanRobles Virtual law Library

chanrobles.com - PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT RESOLUTIONS - ON-LINE

cralaw_scresolutions_separator.NHAD

[G.R. No. 148531.September 12, 2001]

NAMAPRI-SPFL-AVILA GROUP vs. NAMAPRI-SPFL-TRUGILLO GROUP

SECOND DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated SEPT 12 2001.

G.R. No. 148531(Nagkahiusang Mamumuo sa PICOP Resources, Inc.- Southern Philippines Federation of Labor Unions (NAMAPRI-SPFL-Avila group), et al. vs. Nagkahiusang Mamumuo sa PICOP Resources, Inc.-Southern Philippines Federation of Labor Unions (NAMAPRI-SPRFL-Trugillo group) and Pascasio Trugillo.)

PICOP Resources, Inc. is a domestic corporation engaged in supplying paper and newsprint to various local industries.Its plant offices and mills are located in Tabon, Mangagoy, Bislig, Surigao del Sur.Nagkahiusang Mamumuo sa PICOP Resources, Inc.-Southern Philippines Federation of Labor Unions (NAMAPRI-SPFL) is a labor organization at PICOP in Mangagoy, Bislig, Surigao del Sur with Edgardo Diaz as its president.A splinter group, petitioner NAMAPRI-SPFL-Avila, affiliated with the Kilusang Mayo Uno (KMU), is headed by Artemio Q. Avila.Members of petitioner union, 259 employees of PICOP, are also named as individual petitioners.

On November 5, 1997, petitioner union filed a notice of strike with the National Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB) Regional Office in Caraga Region, Butuan City, alleging that PICOP was "contracting out services/functions performed by union members" and that it was guilty of "violation of CBA provision [on the] no strike, no lockout clause."During the conciliation meeting scheduled on November 12, 1997, NAMAPRI-SPFL, through Edgardo Diaz, denied the authority of petitioner union to file a notice of strike.In the subsequent conciliation meeting on November 30, 1997, NAMAPRI-SPFL and petitioner union agreed to have the intra-union dispute first resolved by the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) before the issued raised in the notice of strike would be resolved.However, on January 11, 1998, without awaiting the conclusion of the conciliation conference, petitioner union picketed the premises of PICOP and paralyzed its operations.As a consequence, PICOP filed before the NLRC in Cagayan de Oro City on January 13, 1998 a petition for preliminary prohibitory injunction.On January 14, 1998, a temporary restraining order (TRO) was issued enjoining the striking union members to remove all obstructions and to refrain from disrupting the normal business operations of PICOP.As the strikers defied the TRO, PICOP filed on January 22, 1998 a petition to declare the strike illegal.

Finding the strike to be inimical to the national economy, then Acting Secretary of Labor Cresenciano B. Trajano assumed jurisdiction over the labor dispute between PICOP and petitioner union on January 28, 1998.Accordingly, the striking workers were ordered to return to work within twenty four (24) hours, to lift their picket and remove all obstructions they had set up in all the gates, and to desist from preventing employees from reporting for work.On the other hand, PICOP was directed to reinstate the laid-off workers of the Plywood Division and to accept the returning workers of the Paper and Kraft Divisions under the same terms and conditions prevailing before the strike.

While the other striking workers complied with the return-to-work order, petitioner union filed on February 10, 1998 with the NCMB as second notice of strike alleging violation of the return-to-work order, harassment, connivance with Edgardo Diaz, and CBA violation.As the issues raised in the second notice of strike were related to the incidents which gave rise to the first notice of strike, Secretary of Labor Trajano, on March 6, 1998 granted PICOP's motion for consolidation of the second notice of strike with the first one and ordered the strict compliance by the parties with the order, dated January 28, 1998.However, on March 8, 1998, petitioner union staged another strike.For this reason, on March 24, 1998, Acting Secretary of Labor Jose M. Espanol, Jr. issued an order reiterating the orders dated January 28, 1998 and March 6, 1998 and deputizing the Provincial Commander of the Caraga Regional Command of the Philippine National Police to assist the sheriffs of the DOLE in enforcing the aforesaid orders.

On April 18, 1998, PICOP terminated the employment of 159 striking workers for their failure to report back to work despite notices and the return-to-work orders.On December 29, 1998, PICOP served notices of termination to 454 other workers.

Resolving the labor dispute between PICOP and the two unions, Secretary of Labor Bienvenido E. Laguesma declared in his order, dated September 9, 1999, that there was no lockout and that the termination of employment of the employees concerned was pursuant to a valid retrenchment.The dispositive portion of the decision reads:

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered as follows:

a. Declaring the temporary shutdown at the paper and plywood plants of Picop Resources, Inc. legitimate and the temporary lay-off of the affected therein likewise legal;

b. Declaring the permanent retrenchment of the workers at the plywood plant and its administrative and support services valid;

c. Declaring the impeachment of Union President, Mr. Edgardo Diaz, illegal;

d. Dismissing the NAMAPRI-Avila Group's 16 demands;

e. Dismissing the NAMAPRI-Avila Group's prayer for actual, moral, and exemplary damages and [for] costs of litigation and attorneys [fees]; and

f. Ordering Picop Resources, Inc. to pay, if it has not yet done so, separation benefits to all other workers at the plywood plant and its administrative and support services who have been permanently retrenched.

Pending resolution of the issue of illegal strike which is yet to be heard, all the striking workers, except those already validly retrenched and paid their separation pay, are directed to return to work within 24 hours from receipt of this Order and Picop Resources, Inc. is hereby directed to unconditionally accept back to work all striking union officers and members under the same terms and conditions prior to the strike.The parties are directed to cease and desist from committing any act that may aggravate the situation.

Atty. Lita Aglibut, Officer-in-Charge of the Legal Service, is hereby designated as the Hearing Officer to hear and receive evidence on the matter of illegality of the strikes within a period of thirty (30) days from receipt of this Order and, thereafter, to submit a report/recommendation within twenty (20) days from the termination of the proceeding.

The parties are further directed to submit their respective position papers within ten (10) days from receipt of this Order.

SO ORDERED.

Petitioner union moved for a reconsideration while PICOP filed its partial motion for reconsideration.Petitioner union also filed a motion to cite PICOP in contempt for its refusal to readmit to work the striking union officers and members.

In an order, dated November 5, 1999, Secretary of Labor Laguesma issued an order denying both motions and modifying his earlier order, dated September 9, 1999.Thus,

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Motion for Reconsideration filed by the NAMAPRI-Avila Group is hereby DENIED for lack of merit.The Partial Motion for Reconsideration filed by Picop Resources, Inc. is likewise hereby DENIED. In view, however, of the clarification made above, the Order, dated September 9, 1999, is hereby MODIFIED, as follows:

Pending resolution of the illegal strike and the consequent termination issued which are yet to be heard, all the striking workers, except those already validly retrenched and paid their separation pay, are directed to return to work within 24 hours from receipt of this Order.Picop Resources, Inc. is hereby directed to unconditionally accept back to work all striking employees, except those already excluded, under the same terms and conditions prior to the strike.The parties are directed to cease and desist from committing any act that may aggravate the situation.

Atty. Lita Aglibut, Officer-in-Charge of the Legal Service, is hereby designated as Hearing Officer to hear and receive evidence thereon within a period of thirty (30) days from receipt of this Order and, thereafter, to submit a report/recommendation within twenty (20) days from the termination of the proceeding.

The parties are further directed to submit their respective position papers within ten (10) days from receipt of this Order.

The NAMAPRI-Avila Group's Urgent Manifestation and Motion to Cite in Contempt is likewise DENIED, in view of the clarification.

SO ORDERED.

On December 13, 1999, PICOP filed in the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. SP No. 56204) a petition for certiorari with a prayer for the issuance of a TRO and/or writ of preliminary injunction.PICOP contended that the Secretary of Labor erred in ordering the reinstatement of some of the striking workers pending resolution of the legality of the strikes.

Meanwhile, petitioner union moved for the issuance of a writ of execution by the Secretary of Labor of the reinstatement order and submitted a list of the striking workers who reported for work at the PICOP's gate.It also filed its own petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. SP No. 56566) on January 7, 2000.

On February 8, 2000, petitioner union filed another motion for the issuance of a writ of execution before the Secretary of Labor arguing that there was no legal hindrance for the immediate enforcement of the order of reinstatement since the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. No. 56204 had denied PICOP'S prayer for the issuance of a TRO and/writ of preliminary injunction on January 17, 2000.

On September 6, 2000, respondent NAMAPRI-SPFL, through its Acting Local President, Pascasio A. Trugillo, as the exclusive collective bargaining agent at PICOP, filed a petition for certiorari in the Court of Appeals (in the present CA G.R. SP No. 60586).It argued that the order, dated September 9, 1999, which was the subject of the assailed order, dated July 5, 2000, in effect ordered PICOP to reinstate all workers who were dismissed for defying the Secretary of Labor's return-to-work orders, dated January 28, 1998, March 6, 1998, and March 24, 1998, and those who were terminated for some other valid causes.Respondent NAMAPRI-SPFL contended that while Art. 263(g) of the Labor Code, as amended, authorizes the Secretary of Labor to issue return-to-work orders in cases in which he assumes jurisdiction, the provision does not cover and protect workers who defied the return-to-work order and subsequently dismissed for abandonment of their work.Moreover, it pointed out that reinstatement was not one of the issues submitted before the Secretary of Labor for resolution of the labor dispute with PICOP.

On March 22, 2001, the Court of Appeals rendered a decision granting the petition of respondent NAMAPRI-SPFL and accordingly annulling and setting aside the order, dated July 5, 2000, of the Secretary of Labor.

Artemio Avila and the other union members of the petitioner union filed a motion for reconsideration, but their motion was denied by the Court of Appeals in its resolution, dated June 19, 2001.

Hence, this petition.

Petitioners contend that the Court of Appeals acted with grave abuse of discretion - (1) in giving due course to the petition filed by respondent Trugillo when the petition was obviously filed in violation of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended; (2) in denying petitioners' right to due process of law; and (3) in ignoring the fact there were two (2) cases pending in the former Seventh Division of the Court of Appeals involving identical parties, facts, and issues.

The petition has no merit.

Art. 263(g) of the Labor Code provides that when the Secretary of Labor assumes jurisdiction over the dispute and certifies the same to the Commission for compulsory arbitration, 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 shall immediately resume operations and readmit all workers under the same terms and conditions prevailing before the strike or lockout.

Petitioners contend that the petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals by respondent union, the NAMAPRI-SPFL-Trugillo group, was filed late.They argue that the 60-day period provided by the rules had already expired when the petition was filed.

The contention has no merit.The subject of the petition filed by respondent union before the Court of Appeals was the order, dated July 5, 2000, and not the first return-to-work order, dated January 28, 1998, of the Secretary of Labor.Respondent union received a copy of this order on July 19, 2000.It filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals (CA G.R. SP No. 60586) on September 6, 2000.Hence, the petition was filed within the 60-day reglementary period as required under �4, Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.

Petitioners also claim that respondent Pascasio Trugillo had no authority to file the aforesaid petition.Suffice it to state that this matter is factual and the Court, not being a trier of facts, cannot rule upon the same.Further, petitioners failed to adduce evidence to substantiate their claim.

As for petitioners contention that they were denied due process, the Court finds no evidence to support the same.

Finally, petitioners contend that the Court of Appeals should have consolidated the other case (CA G.R. SP No. 56204), entitled "PICOP Resources, Inc. v. Hon. Bienvenido Laguesma," with the case subject of this petition (CA G.R. SP No. 60586).This contention is also without merit.The two cases involved different issues.Moreover, the resolution of the present case does not constitute res judicata as to the other case.At all events, the consolidation of cases lies within the sound discretion of the court and, in the absence of a clear showing of abuse of discretion, this Court will not substitute its judgment for that of the Court of Appeals.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED for lack of showing that the Court of Appeals committed any reversible error.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) TOMASITA B. MAGAY-DRIS

Clerk of Court


Back to Home | Back to Main

 

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

QUICK SEARCH

cralaw

 







chanrobles.com





ChanRobles Legal Resources:

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