Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=49777:gr-149158-2007&amp;catid=1494&amp;Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 18:34:45+00:00

Document:
G.R. NOS. 149158-59 and G.R. No. 156668 - Kimberly Independent Labour Union for Solidarity, et al. v. the Hon. Court of Appeals, et al/Kimberly-Clark Inc. v. Sec. of Labor, et al.
KIMBERLY INDEPENDENT LABOR UNION FOR SOLIDARITY, ACTIVISM AND NATIONALISM (KILUSAN) - ORGANIZED LABOR ASSOCIATIONS IN LINE INDUSTRIES AND AGRICULTURE (OLALIA), AND ERNESTO FACUNDO, RICARDO QUEJANO (DECEASED), ARMANDO GONZALES, NERIO TUMACDER, ROLANDO HERNANDEZ, ARSENIO UMAMBAC, ROQUE JIMENEZ (DECEASED), CIRILO MANZANO, ZALDY FLORANO, ROGELIO SOQUIAT, MARCOS VELASCO, DOROTEO UNADA, SALVADOR BEROG, ANTONIO GONZALES, DAVID DE GUZMAN, FAUSTO GAPUZ, DOMINADOR ESTEVES, EDUARDO LAQUERTA, JESSIE MAGBUJOS, NICOLAS APDAN, FRANCISCO SUENA, MARIO OLIVEROZ, MARCELO ALINDOG, BIENVENIDO DATUIN, PAQUITO GILBUENA, ERNESTO AQUINO, ANTONIO GUILLERMO, ARTURO REMOQUILLO, DONATO BAGUILOD, BENEDICTO DE AUSEN, RIZALDY GAPUZ, ARSENIO IZON, ROMEO CRUZ, ORLANDO REMOLACIO, FELIXBERTO DELA CRUZ, RANDOLFO GUERRERO, ORLANDO DELOS SANTOS, EDGARDO ARAGONES (DECEASED), JULIO OCRETO, ARNULFO NATINDIM, JESUSA MENDIOLA, NORBERTO SEPRADO, VICTOR JUSTIMBASTE, CARLITO PABLO, RESTITUTO DEAROZ, ALBERTO MANAHAN, LEO E. PRUDENTE, ALMARIO ROMINGQUIT, SALOME AMANTE, MARIO MELLOMIDA, LEONARDO CUNANAN, TERESITO NORTEZ, PERLINO ESPERIDA, CARLOS PILI, RICARDO HALDOS, ROMEO LIGURAN, ROGELIO DELOS REYES, FERMIN BERNIL, SANTOS SALAZAR, JOSELITO CASACOP, EFREN CUA, ROGELIO SURABILLA, PEDRO ODEVELOS, LEOPOLDO SUNGA (DECEASED), LAMBERTO MARINAS, DANTE ALVIAR, ROGELIO ANZURES, EDILBERTO MIRA, PACIFICO AMA, MARIO RONGALEROS, ADELO VERGARA, ROLANDO AMIL, MOISES EMPEO, PILIPINO AMIL, ROGEL IGONIA, NORMANDO IZON, LAURO DONSINGUEZ, VIRGILIO SAN MIGUEL, PEDRO CALINISAN, LEO BERROYA, EMILIO DAGAROG, REYNALDO MIRANDA, FERNANDO BERROYA, FREDDIE DIONSON, RUFINO FELICISIMO (DECEASED), JOSEPH CORCOTCHA, CELSO OYTAS, CESAR CALVIRAN, DANILO CUBEL, GAVINO REYES, RICHARD GILBUENA, GIL S. BAROLA, AZAHARI L. ABONITA, SANTOS CANTOS, DIOSDADO L. ROSAS, ROLANDO CORTEZ, MELCHOR HUMILDE and ANTONIO BALANO, Petitioners, v. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, HON. PEDRO C. RAMOS, KIMBERLY-CLARK (PHIL.), INC., CORNELIO PERLATA, DOMINGO GEVANA, MARINO ABES and LEOPOLDO BAYLON, Respondents.
KIMBERLY-CLARK (PHILS.), INC., Petitioner, v. SECRETARY OF LABOR, AMBROCIO GRAVADOR, ENRICO PILI, PAQUITO GILBUENA, ROBERTO DEL MUNDO, ALMARIO ROMINQUIT, ANTONIO BALANO, RIZALDY GAPUZ, RUFINO FELICIANO, RESTITUTO DEAROZ, FERMIN BERNIL, DANIEL ISIDRO, LEOPOLDO SUNGA, ANTONIO SONGRONES, EDMUND MAPANOO, SALVADOR SAN MIGUEL, SANTOS CANTOS, JR., EMILIO DAGARAG, NOEL MULDONG, FELIXBERTO DELA CRUZ, ALBERTO MANAHAN, LUNA ESPIRITU, DONATO BAQUILOD, FLORENCIO CORREA, CAMILO LEONARDO, GENER MANGIBUNOG, REYNALDO MIRANDA, ARNEL ZULUETA, PEDRO ODEVILLAS, CONRADO DICHOSO, NELSON ALAMO, ROMEO LIGUAN, RAYCHARD CARNAJE, FELINO GUANEZ, ANTONIO MARTIN, WALLYFREDO ALZONA, VICTOR ABANDO, ALFREDO AUSTRIA, NESTOR SEPRADO, RICHARD GILBUENA, EDWIN SILAYCO, JOSEPH MARCOS, NOEL OMALIN, DANILO DORADO, LUISITO DE JESUS, EFREN SUMAGUE, CARLOS PILI, MIGUELITO ROA, and KILUSAN-OLALIA, and SHERIFF P. PAREDES, Respondents.
Before the Court are two consolidated Petitions for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
On November 13, 1986, MOLE issued an Order stating, among others, that the casual workers not performing janitorial and yard maintenance services had attained regular status on even date. UKCEO-PTGWO was then declared as the exclusive bargaining representative of Kimberly's employees, having garnered the highest number of votes in the certification election.
On March 16, 1987, KILUSAN-OLALIA filed with this Court a petition for certiorari which was docketed as G.R. No. 77629 assailing the Order of the MOLE with prayer for a temporary restraining order (TRO).
During the pendency of G.R. No. 77629, Kimberly dismissed from service several employees and refused to heed the workers' grievances,6 impelling KILUSAN-OLALIA to stage a strike on May 17, 1987.7 Kimberly filed an injunction case with the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), which prompted the latter to issue temporary restraining orders (TRO's).8 The propriety of the issuance of the TRO's was again brought by KILUSAN-OLALIA to this Court via a petition for certiorari and prohibition which was docketed as G.R. No. 78791.
2. Ordering KIMBERLY to pay the workers who have been regularized their differential pay with respect to minimum wage, cost of living allowance, 13th month pay, and benefits provided for under the applicable collective bargaining agreement from the time they became regular employees.
All other aspects of the decision appealed from, which are not so modified or affected thereby, are hereby AFFIRMED. The temporary restraining order issued in G.R. No. 77629 is hereby made permanent.
6. All other claims are denied for lack of merit.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the assailed decision is hereby AFFIRMED in so far as declaring the strike illegal is concerned and the finding that the company is not guilty of unfair labor practice. The same is however modified with our finding: (1) that the in pari delicto doctrine is not applicable to the instant case; (2) that the officers of KILUSAN-OLALIA are hereby declared to have lost their employment status for staging an illegal strike; (3) that the union members listed in Annex "A" are hereby ordered to be paid separation pay at the rate of one half (1/2) month pay for every year of service a fraction of six (6) months is considered one (1) year and in no case it should be less than one (1) month pay computed on the basis of their salary received at the time of dismissal up to and until the promulgation of this decision.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, our resolution dated April 28, 1999 is hereby, RECONSIDERED only insofar as the award of separation pay to the respondents is concerned whereby an additional one half (1/2) month pay for every year of service and a fraction of six months is considered one year is hereby ordered to be paid to them as separation pay.
The motions for reconsideration are hereby, DENIED for lack of merit.
Aggrieved, KILUSAN-OLALIA instituted a Petition for Certiorari19 with the Court of Appeals, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 60035.
'The attached complaint and amended complaint thereof are not legible copies.
Due to the elevation of CA-G.R. SP No. 60035 to this Court, the CA held in abeyance action on CA-G.R. SP No. 60001 until after this case had been decided with finality.
ACCORDINGLY, let a partial writ of execution issue to enforce payment of the sum of (sic) P576,510.57 to the 22 individual workers listed in ANNEX A of Kimberly's Comment/Reply dated 31 October 1991 representing their differential pay with respect to the minimum wage, cost of living allowance, 13th month pay and benefits provided under the applicable collective bargaining agreement from the time they became regular employees as above-indicated.
Further, the Bureau of Working Conditions is hereby directed to submit, within twenty (20) days from receipt of this Order, a list of workers who have been regularized and the corresponding benefits owing to them from the time they became regular employees.
Let a writ of execution be issued immediately.
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DISMISSED for failure to show grave abuse of discretion. The questioned orders dated June 29, 2000 and December 6, 2000 of the Secretary of Labor are AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioners.
1. The Court of Appeals committed serious error in affirming the ruling of the Secretary of Labor that even casual employees who had not rendered one year of service were considered regular employees, thereby nullifying and disregarding the Honorable Court's Decision dated May 9, 1990 that only casual employees who had rendered at least one (1) year of service were considered regular employees.
2. The Court of Appeals also gravely erred in upholding the ruling of Labor Secretary that persons not party to the petition in G.R. No. 77629 were entitled to regularization differentials, thereby amending the Honorable Court's decision.
After thoroughly studying the voluminous records of these consolidated cases, however, the Court finds that petitioners KILUSAN-OLALIA, et al. in G.R. NOS. 149158-59 are raising essentially a procedural issue whether the CA erred in dismissing the petition on the sheer grounds of non-compliance with the requirements of the rule on verification and certification against non-forum shopping, and of non-submission of the legible copies of the pleadings filed in the labor tribunal. Petitioners have not brought up for our resolution the substantial issue of the legality of the May 17, 1987 strike. In fact, the petitioners prayed for a remand of their case to the CA which was the proper court to resolve said issue.
On the other hand, petitioner Kimberly in G.R. No. 156668 raises the issue of the propriety of the inclusion in the DOLE Order of the two groups of employees: (1) casuals who have not rendered one year of service as of April 21, 1986, the filing date of KILUSAN-OLALIA's petition for certification election; and (2) the employees who were dismissed due to the illegal strike staged on May 17, 1987 (the subject of G.R. NOS. 149158-59). Kimberly contends in the main that only those employees who were parties in G.R. NOS. 77629 and 78791 should be included in the implementation order.
As the consolidated cases do not involve a common question of law,43 the Court resolves to de-consolidate them.
We, however, note the considerable period of time the case has been pending in this Court. Thus, we dispose with dispatch the procedural issues raised in G.R. NOS. 149158-59.
We find as sufficient in form the disputed verification and certification against forum shopping.
In the instant case, despite the fact that Ernesto Facundo, the union president, was not shown to have been duly authorized to sign the verification on behalf of the other petitioners, the CA should not have been too strict in the application of the Rules. Necessarily, Facundo, being the union president, was in a position to verify the truthfulness and correctness of the allegations in the petition. Further, the petition was signed by the union's lawyer, who had been authorized by a majority of the petitioners to represent them and to sign on their behalf all pleadings and appeals relative to the labor dispute.
2) In G.R. NOS. 149158-59: The petition is PARTIALLY GRANTED. The petition is REMANDED to the Court of Appeals for adjudication on the merits. The CA is further DIRECTED TO CONSOLIDATE CA-G.R. SP No. 60035 with CA-G.R. SP No. 60001, and to resolve the cases with dispatch.
3) As to G.R. No. 156668, the Court will resolve the same in a separate decision after the de-consolidation.
1 Rollo (G.R. No. 156668), pp. 11-12.
3 Rollo (G.R. NOS. 149158-59), p. 38.
6 CA rollo (CA-G.R. SP No. 60035), pp. 36-39.
9 Kimberly Independent Labor Union for Solidarity, Activism And Nationalism-Organized Labor Association In Line Industries And Agriculture v. Drilon, G.R. NOS. 77629 and 78791, May 9, 1990, 185 SCRA 190, 206.
10 Kimberly Independent Labor Union for Solidarity, Activism And Nationalism-Organized Labor Association In Line Industries And Agriculture v. Drilon, id. at 206.
12 CA rollo (CA-G.R. SP No. 60035), pp. 198-203.
17 May 31, 2000 Decision; id. at 239-250.
20 On February 13, 2001, initially, CA-G.R. SP No. 60001 and CA-G.R. SP No. 60035 were consolidated. The order of consolidation was later recalled on June 27, 2001 because of the order of dismissal already issued in CA-G.R. SP No. 60035.
21 CA rollo (CA-G.R. SP No. 60035), pp. 531-532.
23 In the motion for extension of time to file Petition for Review filed before this Court, the petitioners indicated therein that the docket numbers of the Court of Appeals' resolutions they were to question were CA-G.R. SP Nos. 60001 and 60035; hence, the Court allotted two (2) docket numbers for their case. However, after receipt of the Petition for Review and the other records of the case, the Court ascertained that the resolutions being questioned were only those rendered in CA-G.R. SP No. 60035. Petitioners KILUSAN-OLALIA, et al. were apparently confused when the CA initially consolidated the two cases, and then later recalled the order of consolidation as the Eighth Division had already rendered one of the assailed resolutions dismissing their CA petition.
24 CA rollo, p. 58.
43 RULES OF COURT, Rule 31, Section 1.
44 Joson v. Torres, 352 Phil. 888, 911-912 (1998).
45 Ballao v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 162342, October 11, 2006, 504 SCRA 227, 233.
46 448 Phil. 302 (2003).
47 Cavile v. Heirs of Cavile, supra, at 311-312.
48 Mendoza v. David, G.R. No. 147575, October 22, 2004, 441 SCRA 172, 179.
49 Novelty Phils., Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 458 Phil. 36, 48 (2003).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.