ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[G.R. No. 122743.
TELEFUNKEN vs. SEC. OF LABOR
EN BANC
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated NOV 23 2004 .
G.R. No. 122743 (Telefunken Semiconductors Employees Union - FFW vs. Secretary of Labor and Employment.)
Ostensibly appearing to be pending before the Court are several letters and motions/pleadings filed by the Telefunken Semiconductors Employees Union - FFW (Union) and its members, all essentially seeking the execution of the consolidated Decision of the Court dated 12 December 1997, in G.R. No. 122743 and No. 127215, to wit:
WHEREFORE, the petition in G.R. No. 122743 is GRANTED. Respondent TEMIC TELEFUNKEN MICRO-ELECTRONICS (PHILS.), INC., is ORDERED to accept back immediately all striking workers of TELEFUNKEN SEMICONDUCTORS EMPLOYEES UNION-FFW WITHOUT EXCEPTION.
In G.R. No. 127215, the petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit. Accordingly, respondent Secretary of Labor and Employment is DIRECTED to ensure the effective enforcement of the writ of execution he issued and determine WITH DISPATCH the legality of the strike as well as the liability of the individual strikers, if any. The members of the TELEFUNKEN SEMICONDUCTORS EMPLOYEES UNION-FFW are WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar mass demonstration within or about the premises of this Court will be dealt with severely.
The Court has been inundated with letters1 written by alleged striking employees, and motions/pleadings, namely:
1.������ "Rejoinder and Motion to Immediately Resolve the Letter of Lydia Delos Santos Received by this Court More Than Two (2) Years Ago and to Direct the Secretary of DOLE to Enforce the 12 December 1997 Court's Decision dated August 25, 2003," filed by Nancy M. Busa, et al., striking employees of the Company;
2.������ "Urgent Motion for Early Resolution" dated December 22, 2003, filed by Telefunken Semiconductors Employees Union, the petitioner Union in the said case.
filed by the Union and some of its members, all asking for the execution of the decision of the Court in G.R. No. 122743, [2] cralaw and for the payment of their backwages and financial assistance.
Facts of the case:
Due to a deadlock in Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) negotiations, the Union filed a Notice of Strike on 28 August 1995, with the National Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB) against Temic Telefunken Micro-Electronics (Phils.), Inc. (Company).
Then Acting Secretary of the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE), Hon. Jose S. Brillantes, intervened and assumed jurisdiction over the dispute and issued an Order enjoining any strike or lockout, whether actual or intended, between the parties.
Despite the Assumption Order, the Union held a strike on 14 September 1995.
Thereafter, the Acting Secretary issued a Return-to-Work Order. Some of the striking workers, however, refused to heed the Order and continued with their picket.
On 23 September 1995, violence erupted in the picket lines causing injuries to striking and non-striking employees of the Company. On 02 October 1995, the Company issued letters of termination for cause to the workers who did not report back to work despite the Notice of Assumption and Return-to-Work Orders issued by then Acting Secretary Brillantes.
On 27 October 1995, the Acting Secretary of Labor and Employment issued the assailed Order, a portion of which states:
Atty. Tito F. Genilo, Technical Assistant, Office of the Secretary, this Department, is hereby designated to immediately call the parties and hear and receive evidence on the matter of illegal strike,.
Pending resolution of the issue involving the legality of the strike, the Company is hereby directed to accept back all striking workers, except the Union Officers, shop stewards, and those with pending criminal charges , whose termination shall be among the issues to be heard by Atty. Genilo. (Emphasis supplied)
The aforequoted Order gave rise to the filing of a petition for certiorari docketed as G.R. No. 122743. Therein petitioner Union questioned the exclusion contained in said Order.
While G.R. No. 122743 was pending before the Court, then Secretary of Labor and Employment Leonardo A. Quisumbing [3] cralaw issued a Writ of Execution, the decretal part of which states:
ACCORDINGLY, a Writ of Execution is hereby issued commanding Sheriff Edgar Paredes . . . to proceed to the premises of Temic Telefunken Microelectronics (Phils.), Inc., . . . and execute fully and faithfully the Decisions of the Secretary dated October 27, 1995 and November 24, 1995 by seeing the actual and physical reinstatement of the remaining workers in the 32-page Annex A who are yet to be readmitted as ordered in the Decisions under the same terms and conditions prevailing before the strike on September 14, 1995 . . . (Emphasis supplied.)
The Company's Motion to Quash, Recall or Suspend the Writ of Execution was denied for lack of merit. An Alias Writ of Execution was thereafter issued directing the reinstatement of the strikers in the payroll if actual and physical reinstatement was not possible.
The issuance of the above alias writ, in turn, gave rise to another petition for certiorari, docketed as G.R. No. 127215.
On
WHEREFORE, the petition in G.R. No. 122743 is GRANTED. Respondent TEMIC TELEFUNKEN MICRO�ELECTRONICS (PHILS.), INC., is ORDERED to accept back immediately all striking workers of TELEFUNKEN SEMICONDUCTORS EMPLOYEES UNION-FFW WITHOUT EXCEPTION.
In G.R. No. 127215, the petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit. Accordingly, respondent Secretary of Labor and Employment is DIRECTED to ensure the effective enforcement of the writ of execution he issued and determine WITH DISPATCH the legality of the strike as well as the liability of the individual strikers, if any. The members of the TELEFUNKEN SEMICONDUCTORS EMPLOYEES UNION-FFW are WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar mass demonstration within or about the premises of this Court will be dealt with severely.
The Court held that excluding the workers, without first determining whether they knowingly committed illegal acts would be tantamount to dismissal without due process of law.
The decision became final and executory
and was entered in the Book of Entries of Judgments on
An Alias Writ of Execution was thereafter issued by the Secretary of Labor and Employment, directing the actual physical reinstatement of the striking workers and, in the event that the latter was not possible, reinstatement in the payroll.
The Company moved to quash the Alias Writ but was unsuccessful.
The above fact, in turn, gave rise to yet another Petition for Certiorari, docketed as G.R. No. 135788, filed by the Company. On
In the intervening time, marathon hearings were conducted by the
DOLE to "determine with dispatch the
legality of the strike."
On
WHEREFORE, PREMISED ON THE FOREGOING, this Office hereby:
a.������ Declares the strike conducted by the Telefunken Semiconductors Employees Union-FFW on 14 September 1995 as illegal for having been waged in open, willful and knowing defiance of the assumption order dated 8 September 1995 and the subsequent return-to-work order dated 16 September 1995 and consequently, the striking workers are declared to have lost their employment status;
b.������ Directs
the payment of backwages and other benefits to the
striking workers corresponding to the temporary reinstatement periods (1) from
c.������ Directs the Telefunken Micro-Electronics (Phils.),
Inc. to grant financial assistance equivalent to one (1) month for every year
of service to the striking workers conformably with its grant of the same
benefit to other strikers as manifested by the Company to the Supreme Court on
In this connection, the Bureau of Working Conditions, this Department, is hereby directed to compute the total award herein made and to submit its report of computation to this Office within ten (10) days from receipt of this Decision. (Emphasis supplied)
The subsequent Motions for Reconsideration filed by the Company and the Union and some of its members, namely, Nancy Busa and Arnel Badua, were all denied.
Aggrieved, both the Company and the Union filed their respective Petitions for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 54227 and No. 54665, respectively.
On
WHEREFORE, the Company's Petition in CA-G.R. SP No. 54227 is
GRANTED. The Secretary of Labor's Decision dated
The subsequent Motion for Reconsideration filed by the Union
was denied in a Resolution dated
The abovementioned denial of the Petition for Certiorari and the subsequent Motion for Reconsideration brought about the filing of G.R. No. 143013-14 by the Union.
On
WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED. The appealed Decision dated
In confirming the illegality of the strike conducted by the Union, the Court held that "[t]he moment the Secretary of Labor assumes jurisdiction over a labor dispute in an industry indispensable to national interest, such assumption shall have the effect of automatically enjoining the intended or impending strike. . . . The mere issuance of an assumption order by the Secretary of Labor automatically carries with it a return-to-work order, even if the directive to return to work is not expressly stated in the assumption order.."
"We have held in a number of cases that defiance to the assumption and Return-to-Work Orders of the Secretary of Labor and Employment after he has assumed jurisdiction is a valid ground for loss of the employment status of any striking union officer or member."
With respect to the petitioner Union's claims of backwages and financial assistance, the Court adopted the ratiocination of the Court of Appeals in its assailed Decision as it was found to be in accord with law and settled jurisprudence, viz :
On the issue of the award of backwages and financial assistance to the striking workers, the well-entrenched doctrine is that it is only when there is a finding of illegal dismissal that backwages are granted . . ., and financial assistance or separation pay allowed ....
Since as correctly found by the Secretary of Labor, the strikers were not illegally dismissed, the COMPANY is under no obligation to pay backwages to them. It is simply inconsistent, nay, absurd, to award backwages when there is no finding of illegal dismissal . . . when the record shows that the striking workers did not comply with lawful orders for them to return to work during said periods of time. In fact, the Secretary of Labor observed that while " it was obligatory on the part of both parties to restore, in the meantime, the status quo obtaining in the workplace, " the same " was not possible considering the strikers had defied the return-to-work Order of this Office" (p. 8, Ibid.). With such blatant disregard by the strikers of official edicts ordering their "temporary reinstatement," there is no basis to award them backwages corresponding to said time frames. Otherwise, they will recover something they have not or could not have earned by their willful defiance of the return-to-work order, a patently incongruous and unjust situation ( Santos v. National Labor Relations Commission, 154SCRA166).
The same view holds with respect to the award of financial assistance or separation pay. . . ."
The abovequoted Decision of the Court became final and executory on 31 May 2001, when it was entered in the Book of Entries of Judgment.
Meanwhile, as earlier mentioned, the Court had been deluged with letters and motions/pleadings, all seeking the execution of the Court's consolidated Decision in G.R. No. 122743 and No. 127215.
In response to the said pleadings and letters, the Company filed an Opposition dated 09 January 2004. According to the Company, the issue concerning the alleged entitlement to backwages of the members of petitioner Union had already been passed upon and denied by the Court in the Decision dated 18 December 2000, in G.R. No. 143013-14.
The ruling of the Court:
The consolidated Decision of the Court dated 12 December 1997, in G.R. No. 122743 and No. 127215 to the effect that the exclusion of union officers, shop stewards and those with pending criminal charges from the directive to the Company (to accept back the striking workers without first determining whether said excluded personalities committed illegal acts) would be tantamount to dismissal without due process of law, thus, the Company was ordered to accept back immediately all striking workers, has been superseded by the pronouncement of the Court in the Decision dated 18 December 2000, in G.R. No. 143013-14 where we held that the striking workers openly and willfully defied the Assumption and Return-to-Work Orders issued by the Secretary of Labor and Employment, accordingly, it is a valid ground for terminating their employment status; since the striking Union members were not illegally dismissed, the Company is under no obligation to pay backwages and financial assistance to them.
The Union wrongly contends that the Court's Decision in G.R. No. 122743, ordering the Company to immediately reinstate the striking employees, is the law of the case between the Union and the Company.
"By 'law of the case' is meant that whatever is once irrevocably established as the controlling legal rule or decision between the same parties in the same case continues to be the law of the case so long as the facts on which such decision was predicated continue to be facts of the case before the court ." [6] cralaw (Emphasis supplied) This is but elementary, to say the least. The Union overlooked the fact that said decision was made pending resolution of the legality of the strike.
The consolidated decision in G.R. No. 122743 and No. 127215 was based on the premise that the assailed order [7] cralaw of the Secretary of Labor and Employment was issued pending resolution by said Secretary of Labor and Employment of the legality of the strike. In the latter case, G.R. No. 143013-14, the Secretary of Labor and Employment had already resolved the legality of the concerted actions of the striking employees. It is on this supervening fact that the Court based its decree.
By affirming the finding of illegality of the strike conducted by the Union members in G.R. No. 143013-14, the Court wrote finis to the protracted labor dispute. The striking employees were, thus, considered validly separated from their employment with the Company. Moreover, the Court ruled that the striking employees were neither entitled to backwages nor financial assistance.
And, contrary to the Union's position, while it may be conceded that a court cannot refuse to issue a writ of execution upon a final and executory judgment, [8] cralaw however, certain facts and circumstances, i.e., the finding of illegality in the strike conducted in 1995, that transpired after the judgment became final, rendered the execution of the Court's consolidated Decision in G.R. No. 122743 and No. 127215 moot. As earlier stated, the finding by the then Secretary of Labor and Employment that the strike was illegal, was a supervening event that rendered nugatory the execution of the consolidated decision in G.R. No. 122743 and No. 127215. Besides, as previously stated, the assailed Order dated 27 October 1997 was very clear in that it was issued pending the resolution of the issues involving the legality of the strike .
Furthermore, it is worth noting that the consolidated petitions (G.R. No. 122743 and No. 127215) dealt only with three (3) issues, namely, whether or not then Acting Secretary of Labor and Employment gravely abused his discretion in:
(1)�� excluding Union officers, shop stewards and those with pending criminal charges in his order to the Company to accept back the striking workers;
(2)�� issuing a writ of execution pending resolution of a related petition for certiorari before this Court; and
(3)�� holding that complaints lodged before the police authorities before 27 October 1995 and subsequently filed with the provincial prosecutor after 27 October 1995 are not within the ambit of the phrase "with pending criminal charges."
Nowhere in the said Decision were the issues of backwages and other monetary claims ever raised. It, therefore, cannot be said that when the Court ruled on G.R. No. 143013-14, we were not unaware of the earlier consolidated Decision pertaining to the same parties. All antecedents were considered in disposing of the issues.
Undoubtedly, any and all issues concerning the execution of G.R. No. 122743, as well as the Union's claim for any monetary judgment, i.e., backwages and financial assistance, have been rendered otiose and nugatory by the verdict in G.R. No. 143013-14 that the strike conducted by the members of the Union was illegal.
In fine, there is nothing in G.R. No. 122743 that still needs to be resolved.
WHEREFORE, the Court DENIES all the motions contained in the letters of the striking employees, as well as the "Rejoinder and Motion to Immediately Resolve the Letter of Lydia Delos Santos Received by this Court More than Two (2) Years Ago and to Direct the Secretary of DOLE To Enforce the 12 December 1997 Court's Decision dated 25 August 2003," and the "Urgent Motion for Early Resolution" for utter lack of merit. No further pleadings will be entertained in this case. This case is now deemed closed and terminated.
Davide, Jr., CJ., on official leave.
Corona, J., on leave.
Quisumbing, J., no part.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.)
LUZVIMINDA D. PUNO
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
1 1. Written by Lydia delos Santos, dated 18 December 2000;
2. Written by Rosemarie Caraig, dated 04 February 2001;
3. Written by Dyan Caraig, daughter of Rosemarie, dated 04 February 2001;
4. Written by Eden Caraig, daughter of Rosemarie, dated 04 February 2001;
5. Written by Jojie Espiritu, dated 11February 2001;
6. Written by Teresita Pascua, dated 12 February 2001;
7. Written by Annabelle Santos, dated 01 March 2001;
8. Written by Nancy Busa, dated 04 June 2001;
9. Written by Temic Striking Workers, signed by 21 union members, dated 17 September 2001;
10. Written by Temic Workers, signed by 17 union members, dated 24 September 2001;
11. Written by Temic Workers, signed by 18 union members, dated 15 October 2001;
12. Written by Temic Workers, signed by 11 union members, dated 22 October 2001;
13. Written by Temic Workers, signed by 9 union members, dated 12 November 2001;
14. Written by Temic Workers, signed by 9 union members, dated 10 December 2001;
15. Written by Temic Workers, signed by 12 union members, dated 14 January 2002;
16. Written by Temic Workers, signed by 4 union members, dated 21 January 2002;
17. Written by Temic Workers, signed by 3 union members, dated 18 February 2002;
18. Written by Temic Workers, signed by 3 union members, dated 11 March 2002;
19. Written by Esther Discher, dated 28 March 2002; and
20. Written by Amelina Aquino, dated 28 March 2002.
[2] cralaw First of the two cases filed with the court concerning the same parties.
[3] cralaw Now Associate Justice of this Court.
[4] cralaw Penned by Associate Justice Josue Bellosillo, with Associate Justices Hilario G. Davide, Jr., Jose C. Vitug and Santiago Kapunan, concurring.
[5] cralaw Penned by Associate Justice Sabino De Leon, Jr., with Associate Justices Josue Bellosillo, Vicente V. Mendoza and Arturo Buena, concurring.
[6] cralaw People's Homesite Housing Corp. v. Mencias, G.R. No. L-24114, 16 August 1967, 20 SCRA 1031.
[7] cralaw Directing the Company to accept back all striking workers.
[8] cralaw Cabrias v. Adil, G.R. No. L-49648, 18 March 1985, 135 SCRA 354.
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
