Caption:

Title of the case: Prince Transport Inc. vs. Diosdado Garcia

Citation: G.R. No. 167291
Date Promulgated: January 12, 2011
Respondents: Diosdado Garcia, Luisito Garcia, Rodante Romero, Rex Bartolome, Feliciano
Gasco Jr., Danilo Rojo, Edgar Sanfuego, Amado Galanto, Eutiquio, Joel Gramatica, Miel
Cervantes, Teresita Cabanes, Roe Dela Cruz, Richelo Balidoy, Vilma Porras, Miguelito Salcedo,
Cristina Garcia, Mario Nazareno, Dindo Torres, Esmael Ramboyong, Robeto Mano, Rogelio
Bagasiwan, Ariel Snachez, Estaqulo Villareal, Nelson Montero, Gloria Orante, Harry Toca,
Pablito Macaset and Ronald Garcita
Petitioners: Prince Transport Inc., and Mr. Renato Claros
Ponente: Justice Diosdado M. Peralta

Facts:

Respondents are employees of Prince Transport Inc., (PTI), a company that is engaged in
transporting passengers by land. Herein, the respondents were hired as drivers, conductors,
mechanics or inspectors. Diosdado Garcia, another respondent, was hired as Operations
Manager.

On October 1997, the respondents’ previous commissions of 8 to 10% of their wages were
reduced to 7 to 9%. As a result, the respondents and other employees of PTI held a meeting for
the purpose of discussing the protection of their interests as employees.

On December 1997, the employees (respondents) requested for a cash advance however, the
management denied their request which then resulted in the demoralization on the employees’
ranks. The management acceded the request of some, but not all employees which resulted to the
formation of the union for the respondents’ mutual aid and protection.

With the intention to block the respondents’ continued formation of the union, PTI decided to
transfer all union members to Lubas Transport, its sub-company.
Later, the business of Lubas deteriorated due to the PTI’s refusal to maintain and repair the units
being used therein, this resulted to the virtual stoppage of its operations and the respondents’ loss
of employment.

As a result, the respondents’ filed a complaint charging petitioners with illegal dismissal, unfair
labor practice and illegal deductions. Respondents also prayed for the award of premium pay for
holiday and rest day, holiday pay, service leave pay, 13th month pay, and also moral and
exemplary damages and attorney’s fee.

Petitioners denied the material allegations of the complainants, claiming that the respondents
were no longer their employees, since they were transferred to Lubas at their own request. The
petitioners also stated that they have nothing to do with the management and operations of Lubas
Transport and its control and supervision.

On October 25, 2000, the Labor Arbiter rendered a decision on the case finding that; (1) the
respondents were illegally dismissed by Lucas Transport; ordering that they must pay backwages
and separation pay in lieu of reinstatement, and; (2) petitioners were not guilty of unfair labor
practice.

Respondents filed a partial appeal with the NLRC, praying that PTI should be held for equally
liable as Lubas. The NLRC, however, sustained the decision of the Labor Arbiter.

Respondents filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals assailing the decision and
resolution of the NLRC. On December 20, 2004, the CA ruled that the petitioners are guilty of
unfair labor practice, and that the petitioner’s act of transferring the respondents’ employment to
Lubas is indicative of their intent to frustrate the efforts of respondents to form a union.

Issue(s):
Whether or not the petitioners are guilty of unfair labor practice

Ruling:
The petitioners showed unfair labor practice as supported with evidence as the petitioners left the
respondents’ high and dry insofar as the operations of Lubas was concerned. Hence, the petition
is denied. The Court affirmed the assailed decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals.