Case Name: Automotive Engine Rebuilders vs.
Progresibong Unyon, July 13, 2011  The CA also held that still remained 26 complaining employees and not
G.R. Number: 160138
Topic: Strikes, Lockouts & Concerted Author: Yron Quiroz
Actions
Doctrine:
 In cases of in pari delicto between the employer and employees, such
situation warrants the restoration of the status quo ante and bringing
the parties back to the respective positions before the illegal strike and
illegal lockout.
 A mere finding of the illegality of a strike does not automatically warrant
a wholesale dismissal of the strikers from their employment and that a
premature or improvident strike should not be visited with a
consequence so severe as dismissal where a penalty less punitive would
suffice.
Facts:
 AER is a company engaged in the automotive engine repair and
rebuilding business and other precision and engineering works for more
than 35 years.
 Progresibong Unyon Ng Mga Manggagawa sa AER (Unyon) is the
legitimate labor union of the rank and file employees of AER which was
formed in the year 1998.
 Due to a dispute between the parties, both filed a complaint against
each other before the NLRC.
a. AER accused the Unyon of illegal concerted activities (illegal strike,
illegal walkout, illegal stoppage, and unfair labor practice); while
b. Unyon accused AER of unfair labor practice, illegal suspension and
illegal dismissal.
 LA rendered a decision[3] in favor of Unyon by directing AER to reinstate
the concerned employees but without backwages
 NLRC ruled modifying the LA decision by setting aside the order of
reinstatement as it found no illegal dismissal. It ruled that only 3
employees were validly suspended because they were found positive for
illegal drugs in the drug test conducted by AER.
 Furthermore, NLRC only recognized 18 employees as complainants in
the Union’s complaint because it is only their names were commonly
identified in the LA decision and in the concerned employee’s position
paper as those employees who were allegedly illegally suspended.
 CA ruled in favor of the Union. AER was directed to reinstate the
petitioners effective immediately but without backwages, except those
who were tested positive for illegal drugs and have failed to submit their
respective medical certificates.
only those claimed by the NLRC because 32 members of Unyon signed
and filed the complaint, and from the 32 complaining members, only six
(6) voluntarily signed quitclaims in favor of AER.
 The CA further ruled that both parties were guilty of unfair labor
practice.
 Upon MR by the Union, the CA granted the payment of full backwages
and the reinstatement of all suspended employees.
 Unsatisfied, both parties filed the present consolidated petitions with
the SC.
Issue:
1. WON there are 26 complainants from the Union’s side. YES
2. WON all the 26 complainants should be reinstated, including those who
tested positive for drugs. YES
Held/Ratio: SC AFFIRMS THE CA IN FULL.
FIRST ISSUE:
 The SC agrees with the CA that there were 32 complaining employees
who filed and signed their complaint dated for unfair labor practice,
illegal dismissal and illegal suspension.
 Out of the 32, 6 undeniably resigned and signed waivers and quitclaims,
leaving 26 remaining complainant employees.
 The number of parties to a complaint corresponds to the number of
signatories thereto and not necessarily to the names commonly
appearing or identified in the position paper.
SECOND ISSUE:
 The SC affirms the ruling of the CA favoring the reinstatement of all the
complaining employees including those who tested positive for illegal
drugs, without backwages.
 The Court is in accord with the ruling of the LA and the CA that neither
party came to court with clean hands. Both were in pari delicto.
 In cases of in pari delicto between the employer and employees, both
such situation warrants the restoration of the status quo ante and
bringing the parties back to the respective positions before the illegal
strike and illegal lockout.
 It cannot be disputed that both parties filed charges against each other,
blaming the other party for violating labor laws.
AS TO AER:
 AERs fault is obvious from the fact that a day after the union filed a
petition for certification election before the DOLE, it hit back by
requiring all its employees to undergo a compulsory drug test.
 Although AER argues that the drug test was applied to all its employees,
it was silent as to whether the drug test was a regular company policy
 and practice in their 35 years in the automotive engine repair and  The picketing employees also prevented the entry and exit of non-
rebuilding business. participating employees and possibly AERs clients.
 As the SC sees it, the timing of the drug test was suspicious. It was AERs  Although the unions sudden work stoppage lasted a day, it surely
first ever drug test of its employees immediately implemented after the caused serious disturbance and tension within AERs premises and could
workers manifested their desire to organize themselves into a union. have adversely affected AERs clients and business in general.
Indeed,
 Moreover, AER failed to show proof that the drug test conducted on its
employees was performed by an authorized drug testing center. It did
not mention how the tests were conducted and whether the proper
procedure was employed.
 Furthermore, AER engaged in a runaway shop when it began pulling out
machines from the main AER building to the AER-PSC compound located
on another street on the pretext that the main building was undergoing
renovation.
 AER committed another infraction when it refused to admit back those
employees who were not included in its complaint against the union.
32 employees filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, illegal suspension
and unfair labor practice against AER. AER charged 18 employees with
illegal strike. AER should have reinstated the 14 employees excluded
from its complaint.
 Regarding AERs contention that the affected workers abandoned their
jobs, the SC found no convincing proof that they deliberately
abandoned their jobs.
 The penalty of dismissal imposed by AER against the striking employees,
who only staged a one day walkout was too severe. A mere finding of
the illegality of a strike does not automatically warrant a wholesale
dismissal of the strikers from their employment and that a premature
or improvident strike should not be visited with a consequence so
severe as dismissal where a penalty less punitive would suffice.
 Furthermore, consider the following circumstances:
a. There were no injuries during the brief walkout.
b. Neither was there proof that the striking workers inflicted harm or
violence upon the other employees.
c. In the SC’s perspective the complaining workers temporarily walked
out of their jobs because they strongly believed that management
was committing an unfair labor practice. They had no intention of
hurting anybody or steal company property.
AS TO THE UNION:
 The union and the affected workers were also at fault for resorting to a
concerted work slowdown and walking out of their jobs of protest for
their illegal suspension.
 It was also wrong for them to have forced their way to the AER-PSC
premises to try to bring out the boring machine.