Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Toyota SC - Certified Case - Motion For Recon
Toyota SC - Certified Case - Motion For Recon
SECOND (2ND)DIVISION
Petitioners.
MOTION
FOR RECONSIDERATION
WITH PRAYER THAT THIS BE RESOLVED BY
THE HON. SUPREME COURT EN BANC
on the following:
2
-A-
PREFATORY STATEMENT
The October 19, 2007 decision of the Hon. Court has a chilling
effect coming at a time when great strides are being made in Human
two giant steps backward in labor jurisprudence, without any light, or the
profit - coming at a period of this countrys history after martial law was
19, 2007 decision, in page 48: Even though strikes and lockouts have
that they are truly beneficial, as they only provide short-term solutions by
forcing concessions from one party; but staging such strikes would
endangering the business that they both want to succeed. The more
instead provide relief from them. In the end, an atmosphere of trust and
traditional enmity that has long divided the employer and the employee,
3
-with due respect, is an archaic thought that has been thrown away in
resurrection in the Hon. Courts October 19, 2007 decision reverses and
Much more, the fear of capital and the Hon. Court that workers
too often, and absent themselves from work and affect production and in
disguise.
5
Confronting this similar fear of the masses, the Court through the
California in the case of Jose B.L. Reyes versus Ramon Bagatsing G.R.
No serious evil resulted from these February 22 & 23, 2001 rally.
Petitioner union as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent after winning
meeting between then Secretary Patricia Sto. Tomas and Mr. George Ty
of Toyota Motor Phils. Corp. and others. There is no truth to the finding
that the rally was staged to force Toyota to recognize TMPCWA as the
Toyota appealed from. Thus, even the reason forwarded by the Hon.
against the Med-Arbiter. The union never claimed that the Med-Arbiter
consequence of the two day rally. As a matter of fact for that year Toyota
registered P122.4 million pesos in net profit for 2001. The year that
there was an alleged illegal strike. Its Financial Statement for the year
Financial Statement for year 2001 before the SEC filed by Toyota Motors
Phils. Corporation).
expression, the employees did not report for work on February 22 & 23,
2001 and did not involve in production, and instead stage a rally at the
DOLE and BLR for 2 days, the right to freedom of expression is upheld
x x x
-III-
instant case, so that the doctrine laid down in the Philippine Blooming
Mills case is not applicable. This is a non siquitur distinction and there is
22 & 23, 2001 from the protective mantle of the constitution and make it
very strained construction that simply seeks the illegality of the acts
respectfully submitted.
dismiss some 227 of its workers and seek the intervention of the judicial
compulsory arbitration (under Article 263 (g) of the Labor Code for its
additionally to wit:
dismissal;
Philippine Blooming Mills case while there is one in the instant case.
fundamental and compelling issues raised that only the Supreme Court,
ARGUMENTS/DISCUSSION
-I-
I-A
The March 28 to April 12, 2001 strike was declared illegal by this
Hon. Court mainly on the basis of the alleged commission of: illegal or
prohibited acts during the strike, second paragraph, page 25, of the
however, of said affidavit will show that Head Security Eduardo Nicolas
III did not identify the illegal acts committed by the individual strikers,
all it did was to alleged general allegation that on March 28, 2001,
Bicutan and Sta. Rosa plants, thus blocking the free ingress/egress to and
from the premises. Shuttle buses and cars containing TMPC employees,
III, he proceeded to name those strikers who were picketing at the strike
area to wit:
13
Corp. Position Paper submitted before the NLRC does not show who was
show were the roving pickets of the strikers. The fact that it is roving
could be clearly seen in the position of the pickets walking and moving in
a direction that is from one point to another. The Hon. Court concedes
conducting mass picket and concerted actions, on May 18, 2001, the
customers, clients in the public who were blocked and prevented from
entering or leaving the strike area, or that they have been bad mouthed or
cajoled or coerced and who among the strikers did these illegal acts.
commission of unlawful acts at the strike area but not proof of actual
illegal acts, then only them should be made responsible individually after
being found guilty, to have done so, but not to include all of the picketers
have conformed with all the requirements of law is not a ground for
employees from mere participation in the March 28, 29 & 31, 2001
1. Abel Bersos
2. Albert Mariquit
3. Alejandro Imperial
4. Alex Sierra
5. Alexander Esteva
6. Allan John Malabanan
7. Allan Oclarino
8. Allan Palomares
9. Apollo Violeta
10. Ariel Garcia
11. Arman Ercillo
12. Arthur Parilla
13. Arturo Murillo
14. Baldwin San Pablo
15. Basilio Laqui
16. Charlie Oliveria
17. Christopher Saldivar
18. Dante Baclino
19. Delmar Espadilla
20. Domingo Javier
21. Edgar Hilaga
22. Elvis Tabinao
23. Emilio C. Completo
24. Ernesto Bonavente
25. Federico Torres
26. Feliciano Mercado
27. Felicisimo Escrimadora
28. Ferdinand Jaen
29. Freddie Olit
30. Grant Robert Toral
31. Greg Castro
32. Jimmy Hembra
33. Jimmy Palisoc
34. Joey Javellonar
35. Joey Llanera
36. John Posadas
37. Jorge Polutan
38. Josel Agosto
39. Joseph Naguit
40. June Lamberte
16
This is perhaps the reason why the NLRC and the Court of Appeals
decisions did not find the March 28 to April 12, 2007 strike illegal,
launched after complying with all the legal requirements and an unfair
x x x
x x x
Hence, for a worker or Union member to suffer the
consequence of loss of employment, he must have
knowingly participated in the commission of illegal
acts during the strike, i.e., infliction of physical
injuries, assault, breaking of truck side and windows,
throwing of empty bottles at non-strikers.
17
R. No. 103560, 103599, July 06, 1995, 245 SCRA 627, 641 ruled and
quote:
strikers named may have committed of illegal acts during the strike is not
illegal strike cases rest on the employer, and doubts are resolved in favor
blocking the ingress and egress to and from the company. Such doubt
I-B
The fact that the February 22 and 23, 2001 rally was not against
exchange for the day of the hearing, and to treat the said day as ordinary
19
22 and 23, 2001 as a strike (wild cat) and dismissed them for illegal
Company.
away from its original theory. Earlier, it charged the 227 union officers
23 (last sentence, page 21, Toyotas REPLY), for three (3) days but in
page 28 of the said Toyota REPLY, it diluted and lowered the gravamen
February 21, 2001 and refused to report or work at all, not only on
February 22, 2003 but likewise on the following day February 23,
the 227 union officers and members it massed dismissed for illegal
this action as it argued no necessity for them to attend the said hearing
and stage a rally. The relevant portion is quoted below for easy reference:
20
Absences (two days for February 22 & 23) under Toyotas Code
two (2) day absences are not punishable by dismissal. So that the
dismissal of the 218 ordinary union members and some union officers for
But the NLRC and Toyota with an evil eye (to borrow the
Courts word in Free Telephone Workers Union versus Blas Ople, 108
SCRA 757; Central Textile Mills Inc. Employees Union et., al. versus
Blas Ople et., al. G.R. No. 62037, January 27, 1983 (120 SCRA 355)
the Secretary of Labor and the BLR is not a strike, and quote:
-III-
22
alleged staggering losses due to the alleged illegal strike, is not even
17, Toyota is merely talking not of losses in amount certain but in some
commitments in the market. In the case of its New Revo line there
staggering financial losses. Indeed there was serious error of law for
the NLRC.
23
Toyota must prove that it suffered losses due to the alleged illegal
Assailed decision of the Hon. Court of Appeals and the NLRC implied.
119842, dated August 30,1996 [Second Division] 216 SCRA 301, 307,
P122.4 million pesos in net profit for 2001. The year that there was
April 12, 2001. Toyota did not appeal from this finding before the
Hon. Court of Appeals and neither did it raise issue on this in their
The glaring truth that there was no strike (or illegal strike) on
February 22 & 23, 2001 and May 23 and May 28, 2001 contrary to the
findings of the Hon. Court of Appeals and the NLRC is the fact that out
of the 227 union members it dismissed for illegal strike, some 67 were
alleged ground of illegal strike, and a blanket offer was made by private
pay/assistance to settle the labor dispute. For why would they offer 1.5
their mass dismissal of some 227 union officers and members on alleged
ground of illegal strike? For why would they offer to pay separation
interest to settle.
The union members and officers reported for work on the next
working day after attending the rally and hearing on February 22 and 23,
work the returning workers who attended the rally and hearing on
Phil. 442; National Service Corp., et. al. versus National Labor
Moreover, there was no riot, violence, etc. during the February 22,
Court of Appeals as well as the NLRC that it was unmarred by any form
26
President was not one of those issued a show cause and a Memo of
Dismissal for the February 22, and 23, 2001 incident. He was not
charged by the company with illegal strike yet the Commission ordered
lack of jurisdiction.
and dismiss 218 ordinary union members and union officers outright.
not a strike. There is even no showing that all of the 227 demonstrators
exist to compel the workers to render overtime on February 21, 2007 and
thus perhaps make them liable for failure to render overtime on February
The 227 dismissed workers cannot thus be held liable for failure to
render overtime work on February 21, 2007 and declare that failure an
illegal strike.
I-C
There is no legal and factual basis for the Hon. Court to declare the
picket for two (hrs.) a day on May 23 and 28, 2007, done by some of the
dismissed employees who were not working at Toyota Motor Phils. Corp
how could the definitive meaning of a strike under the labor could be
The Hon. Court thus found the May 23 and 28, 2007 picket as an
illegal strike in its October 19, 2007 decision, page 28, middle paragraph
and quote:
stoppage or what the Hon. Court term as no work disruptions in the two
29
Toyota plants on May 23 and May 28, 2007, while its members picketed
meaning of Strikes under Article 212 (o) of the Labor Code and quote:
made.
action by the already dismissed employee and not actually working at the
desist order, the remedy would have been perhaps a Motion to Cite them
for Contempt before the office of the DOLE Secretary but not to declare
it illegal strike.
by law. The fact that they were dismissed for mere participating in a
picket protest on May 23 and 28, 2001 later declared illegal strike for
From the above findings of the Hon. Court, it is clear that those
who participated in the May 23 and 28, 2001 mass action and later
declared illegal strike for alleged defiance of the Order were dismissed
demonstration of May 23 and 28, 2001 is not one of the issues certified to
the issues or cases referred to the NLRC. It did not include these two
incidents.
The Second Certification Order dated June 18, 2001 did not
include any issue on strike allegedly staged on May 23 and 28, 2001.
The Companys June 12, 2001, Manifestation with Motion (To consider
the Notice of Strike Subsumed) did not move that an alleged May 23 and
Decision of the Hon. Court of Appeals)- is an ultra vires act, way beyond
Division) 311 SCRA 444. What was being sought by the company to be
declared as illegal strike in its complaint for illegal strike was the strike
staged from March 28 to April 12, 2001). This was not declared illegal,
because it was a perfectly legal strike. The Company did not file a
and 28. The public respondent NLRC simply declared this as illegal
This is the reason why the Assailed decision in declaring that there
was an illegal strike alleged on May 23 and 28, 2001 did not and cannot
cite even a single evidence to prove that indeed a strike was launched,
who participated, how long was it staged and what was the reason for it.
picket protest infront of the Toyota premises was not a strike at all. This
March 14, 1996, First Division, 255 SCRA 1, 13, the Court ruled:
-II-
The October 19, 2007 decision unmistakably found that the 218
& 23, 2001 rally at the Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR) and which he
Commission, et. al., G. R. No. 103560, 103599, July 06, 1995, 245
is further exacerbated by the fact that at least two of the cases it cited in
illegal strike is not a ground for dismissal. It is beyond reason how this
258 SCRA 725, cited in the Assailed decision, the Hon. Supreme Court
and Employment, Franklin Drilon, et. al., (First Division) 193 SCRA 223
members, being allegedly violative of the Labor Code and the Code of
jurisdiction.
former position with full backwages, and other benefits from date of
upheld in the case at bar. The law in Article 279 clearly provides that
161158, May 9, 2005 (Second Division) the Court ruled and the relevant
The Court has expounded on the ratio decidendi in the case of City
Commission, et. al., G. R. No. 104860, July 11, 1996 (Second Division)
-III-
Appeals against the union officers. What the assailed decisions did was
simply to declare the strike illegal, and then proceeded to dismiss all
(PT&T), et. al. versus National Labor Relations Commission, et. al., G.
Appeals even found that the Union Officers (and members) acted in the
only way by which they can air their grievance and that it is
The Hon. Supreme Court had the occasion to rule in the case of
Relations Commission, et. al., G. R. No. 118223, June 26, 1998, First
Division, (291 SCRA 231) that, a Strike staged in the belief in good
faith that the company committed unfair labor practice acts against the
union does not automatically make an illegal strike even in the absence of
Portland Cement Co. vs. Cement Workers Union (25 SCRA 504) and
Dagani, et. al. versus National Labor Relations Commission, et. al., G.
R. No. 113907 dated February 28, 2000 (Third Division), 326 SCRA
Hon. Court of Appeals to show that any of the following union officers
Nierves Board Member and Alex Esteva , Federico Torres, Jr., Bayani
No. L-24711, April 30, 1968, (23 SCRA 465), where the Supreme Court
The Assailed decisions did not find any single union officer from
the incidents of February 22 and 23, 2001, as well as on May 23 and 28,
2001.
The Assailed decisions did not find, and as well as the records of
the case is bereft of any evidence to show that the 15 union officers
actually report for work after the February 22 & 23, 2001
demonstration at the Bureau of Labor Relations, and even after the strike
stage from March 28 to April 12, 2007: They were not given any show
cause letter to explain the an alleged illegal strike on February 22 & 23,
98295-99, First Division, April 10, 1996, (256 SCRA 124,134-135) ruled
and quote:
x x x
Under Article 264 (a) of the Labor Code, it is
clearly stated therein that any Union officer who
knowingly participates in an illegal strike and any
worker or Union officer who knowingly participates
in the commission of illegal acts during a strike may
be declared to have lost his employment status.
As aptly stated by the Solicitor General:
x x x
Hence, for a worker or Union member to suffer the
consequence of loss of employment, he must have
knowingly participated in the commission of illegal
acts during the strike, i.e., infliction of physical
injuries, assault, breaking of truck side and windows,
throwing of empty bottles at non-strikers.
In the case at bench, there is nothing in
the records which show that private respondent
Paano and the 20 others expressly admitted that
they are the leaders of the strike.
x x x
Furthermore, petitioner did not present
evidence that respondents were agitating,
cajoling or leading others to join the strike. We
can only conclude that at the very least, they
were merely members of the Union. The act of
private respondents in failing to heed the order
of their superior from joining the picket
line is only tantamount to insubordination
which cannot be considered as an illegal or
unlawful act committed during the strike or
justify their dismissal from employment.
in accordance with Article 279 of the Labor Code for having been
-IV-
With due respect and contrary to the Hon. Courts finding, and as
per record, the union filed its position paper on time as required on
August 3, 2001.
The Union filed its Position Paper by mail as per record on August
3, 2001, Friday. It was filed by mail at about 5:00 p.m. at the Central
Post Office, Manila, right after it was finished. There was obviously no
Mail of Unions Position Paper was filed the following Monday August
the Rules.
R. No. 125602, April 29, 1999 (Second Division) 306 SCRA 380, 386,
The Position Paper was mailed for simply lack of time. The
Commission gave the union until August 3, 2001 to file its Position
Papers, the Order, however, was served only 7 days before the deadline
[please see Annex I to I-1, of the Petition for Certiorari, July 19,
investment if they were not protected from strikes, which read between
the lines simply means that the Toyota Strikers must be punished.
The Commission thus, taking its cue and at the expense of due
process of law rushed its decision and, declared the strike illegal. This is
the reason why the Secretary of Trade first learned of the decision
declaring the strike illegal much earlier than the union, and its Counsel.
It appears that a report was made earlier, that is why he was able to make
the press statement that he is happy that the strike was declared illegal,
void. It was issued while several motions were still pending and unacted
50
This was filed on July 17, 2001 (a clear copy of it is [Motion for
Resolution of the Unions Motion for Recuse, filed on July 27, 2001
that it could file a Reply, filed before the Commission on August 6, 2001,
also pending is the Motion for a Trial on the Merits as embodied in the
Position Paper.
The Commission has not issued any order resolving these pending
motions. It has not issued an order considering the case submitted for
314 SCRA 187. All it did was to issue a threat that if no Position Paper is
submitted by August 3, 2001, the case will be decided on the basis of the
-V-
51
The respondents thus intended to bust the union and interfered with
the workers right to self-organization and manage their own affairs when
it did the following: Dismissed the union leadership from the Union
The mass dismissal of 227 Union Officers and members was the
decisive weapon used by the Company to destroy the Union and frustrate
Act) in the explanatory note continue to haunt and reverberate and quote:
versus Inciong, 115 SCRA 887, 890, 891, by analogy is relevant and
quote:
90519, March 12, 1992, Second Division, (207 SCRA 435,443) ruled and
quote:
x x x
These factors strongly give more credence to the
Solicitor General and UFWs contention that the
alleged closure of business of SIMEX was but a
subterfuge to discourage formation of a union and that
SIMEX was guilty of union busting. To all
appearances, the company had filed a Notice of Closure
simply to preempt the employees from forming a Union
within the company.
DISCRIMINATION ON BONUSES/HARASSMENT
and were not give a one month bonus. Only those who stayed away from
quote:
54
April 3, 2001
one month Mid-year (bonus every June of the year, given always every
last week of May) was not extended to the strikers. Only non-strikers
acts.
55
P RAY E R
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed that
the assailed October 19, 2007 decision be set-aside and a new judgment be
numbering only some 120 union members and (15) Union officers with
full back wages and all other benefits plus 6% interest from date of
of the Labor Code (from the original 227 dismissed employees); and
Further finding that respondents Toyota Motor Phils. Corp. and its
named officers herein guilty of unfair labor practice, and their subsequent
SIGNED
ATTY. CEZAR F. MARAVILLA, JR.
218 Natividad Building
Escolta, Manila
Attorneys Roll No. 31273
(IBP) Life Member Roll No. 06552 3/29/2007
PTR NO. MLA.53098301/3/2007
Manila
56
Copy furnished:
EXPLANATION
SIGNED
ATTY. CEZAR F. MARAVILLA, JR.
57
AFFIDAVIT OF
PROOF OF SERVICE
1. That, I am the Union President and one of the Petitioners in the case
TOYOTA MOTOR PHILS. CORPORATION WORKERS ASSOCIATION
(TMPCWA) VERSUS NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (NLRC),
ET. AL., Consolidated G. R. NOS. 158786 - 158789 and G.R. Nos. 158798-99;
2. That, I caused the instant MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION WITH
PRAYER THAT THIS BE RESOLVED BY THE HON. SUPREME COURT EN
BANC, copies of the said pleading to be served by having them mailed to the
following:
3. That, I am executing this affidavit to attest to the truth of the foregoing and
for purposes of compliance with the Courts procedure.
SIGNED
ED CUBELO
NOTARY PUBLIC
UNTIL DECEMBER 31, 2007
Doc. No.
Page No.
Book No.
Series of 2007.