Bagong Pagkakaisa ng Manggagawa ng Triumph International vs.

SOLE

G.R. no. 167401, G.R. no. 167407 July 5, 2010

Brion, J.

Facts: (facts are from fight folder; ruling is by moi)

- The union and the company had a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) that expired on   July 18,
1999.  The union seasonably submitted proposals to the company for its renegotiation.  

o Among these proposals were economic demands for a wage increase ofP180.00 a day, spread over
three (3) years, as follows:   P70.00/day from   July 19, 1999;   P60.00/day from   July 19, 2000,
and P50.00/day from July 19, 2001.  

o The company countered with a wage increase offer, but the negotiations eventually reached a
deadlock.

- A Notice of Strike was then filed by the union to the NCMB. Efforts to resolve the issue failed.

o Subsequently, the company also filed a Notice for Lock out on the ground of ULP due to the
union’s alleged work slowdown.

o After said notice was filed by the company, the union went on strike for 3 days.

- SOLE assumed jurisdiction over the dispute and issued a return to work order.

o Because of the Return to Work order, several employees attempted to report for work, but the
striking employees prevented them from entering the company premises. Thus the company filed a
petition with the SOLE directing the union to allow the free ingress and egress to and from the
company premises and to dismantle all structures obstructing the ingress and egress of the
company.

o Because of this, the SOLE reiterated his directives in another order and asked the Police to assist
in the peaceful and implementation of the assumption of jurisdiction/ return to work order.

- A conciliation meeting was then held and the union agreed to finally comply with the return to work order.
The company agreed to this but without prejudice to whatever legal action it may take against those who
committed illegal acts.

o The company also stated that the union officers and members and the union board members would
be placed under preventive suspension, pending investigation of their alleged illegal acts.

-  The striking employees returned to work but 20 union officers and 1 shop steward were not allowed entry
into the company premises.

o They were served letters as to why their employment should not be terminated in light of their
illegal actions during the strike (not following the return to work orders, as well as blocking
ingress-egress to the company premises).
 o The officers asked the SOLE to issue a reinstatement order and to cite the company for contempt
as the labor dispute was still pending. The SOLE granted the motion and ordered the 21 officers to
be reinstated. The company acceded to the order and withdrew its notice of lockout.

o Upon further investigation, however, the said officers were dismissed because of the said grounds.

- Eventually, the SOLE resolved the bargaining deadlock and ordered for a P48 pesos wage increase to be
distributed within 3 years.

o SOLE also stated that the issue of dismissal of the 21 is not within his jurisdiction; the jurisdiction
is with the LA.

o While the case was pending, 15 of the 21 already accepted their dismissal upon signing of a
quitclaim, release and waiver, thus the case with respect to them had been withdrawn.

- CA: affirmed the wage increase, but stated that the SOLE has jurisdiction over all questions and
controversies arising from an assumed dispute, including cases over which the labor arbiter has exclusive
jurisdiction.

o SOLE therefore gravely abused its discretion by not ruling on the issue of the legality of union
officers’ dismissal.

o In the interest of keeping with justice and equity, the CA ruled on the issue and declared their
termination as illegal (for lack of substantial evidence).

Hence, this petition.

Held:

- The CBA Award by the SOLE is sustained.

o In granting the wage award, the SOLE took into consideration matters such as the regional
financial crisis, the company’s favorable comparison with industry standard in terms of employee
benefits (40% higher than the min wage), and the non-wage benefit programs of the company.

o The Court also took note that at the time of the decision, a new CBA was already effected between
the two parties. The successful negotiation between the two highlights the need for the parties to
abide by the SOLE’s decision and to move on to the next phase of their CB relationship.

- SOLE abused his discretion in not resolving the dismissal issue; nevertheless, the CA abused its discretion,
too, when it ruled upon the said issue (haha). The only one with the prerogative to suspend the RoC in the
interest of justice is the SC.

o SOLE’s “assumption of jurisdiction” connotes the intent of the law to give to the SOLE full
authority to resolve all matters within the dispute that gave rise to or which arose from the strike
or lockout. It includes and extends to all questions and controversies arising from or related to the
dispute, including cases over which the LA has exclusive jurisdiction.
 ▪ As the dismissal of the officers stem from the strike, the SOLE has authority to rule on
the same.

o The CA, however, has no jurisdiction to rule on the issue. As the recourse to the CA was through
Rule 65, it was totally out of place for CA to resolve the dismissal issue.

▪ The act of suspending the RoC is a prerogative solely vested upon the SC.

- The CA erred in declaring that the company failed to prove by substantial evidence the charges
against the remaining union officers.

o The charges on which the company based its decision to dismiss the union officers are grouped
into: (1) defiance of the return-to-work order of the SOLE; (2) commission of illegal acts
during the strike; and (3) Leading, instigating, and participating in a deliberate work
slowdown during the CBA negotiations.

o the SOLE’s assumption of jurisdiction over the dispute or its certification to the NLRC for
compulsory arbitration shall have the effect of automatically enjoining the intended or impending
strike or lockout, and all striking or locked out employees shall immediately return to work and
the employer shall readmit the same under the same conditions as before the strike or lockout.

▪ The officers’ defiance of this order makes the strike illegal and constitutes a ground for
their dismissal as per Art. 264(a).

o They (the union officers) are also liable for the slowdown during the CBA negotiations, which
constitutes a form of strike.

▪ The said slowdown lasted for at least 10 months. These illegal concerted actions could
not have happened at the spur of the moment and could not have lasted for such a time
without the efforts of the union officers.

o The law, in using the word “may”, grants the employer the option of declaring a union officer who
participated in an illegal strike as having lost his employment.

- Union’s contention that the company failed to withdraw its notice of lock out, thus violating SOLE’s
decision, is untenable.

o SOLE himself noted that the union continued its strike despite its initial return to work order.

o There is also the report of NCMB that the gates of the company were blocked by the union, and
that the letter from the company personnel manager advised the union to follow the order from the
SOLE and to provide ingress and egress to the company premises.

- The extension of the return to work order and the submission of all workers cannot be construed as a
waiver on the part of the company, for it was precisely stated that such was done without prejudice to
whatever legal action the Company may take.
 - For having participated in a prohibited activity, the union officers legally deserve to be dismissed
from service.

o This is in exception of that one shop steward who is not an officer. Her dismissal, therefore, is
without valid cause.

Decision Affirmed with Modification.