Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=50131:gr-160303-2007&amp;catid=1496&amp;Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 15:11:14+00:00

Document:
G.R. No. 160303 - G & S Transport Corp v. Tito S. Infante, et al.
G & S TRANSPORT CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. TITO S. INFANTE, MELOR VELASCO, JR., JJ. BORBO, and DANILO CASTAÃ‘EDA, Respondents.
This Petition for Review seeks the reversal of the decision1 and resolution2 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 71472 dated 27 June 2003 and 8 October 2003, respectively. The assailed judgment reversed and set aside the decision3 of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) which affirmed in toto the decision of the Acting Executive Labor Arbiter for Adjudication Melquiades Sol D. Del Rosario (Labor Arbiter) dated 31 May 1999. The Labor Arbiter had ordered G & S Transport Corporation (petitioner) to pay respondents Tito Infante (Infante), Melor Borbo (Borbo) and Danilo CastaÃ±eda (CastaÃ±eda) separation pay in lieu of reinstatement without backwages.
Petitioner ordered the striking workers to return to work but some of the drivers, including respondents, refused to do so. On 22 May 1990, petitioner filed an action for illegal strike before the Labor Arbiter against thirty-seven (37) drivers. Two days later, said drivers filed a case for illegal dismissal against petitioner.
Anent the issue of illegal strike, the records show that there was a stoppage of work on May 16, 1990 at the premises of the garage of G & S Transport located at the Duty Free Shop just fronting the Ninoy Aquino International Airport (NAIA), brought about primarily by the dismissal of Messrs. Gonzales and Alzaga, on the account of acts of [sic] [inimical] to the interest of G & S union. As pointed out by complainant G & S Transport, its Taxi drivers undertook those collective action without filing any notice of strike and taking a strike vote, and in violation of no strike-no lockout clause embodied in the CBA thus making their action as illegal activity.
On appeal, the NLRC affirmed in toto the ruling of the Labor Arbiter.
The appellate court scored the Labor Arbiter because the latter failed to categorically rule on the validity of respondents' dismissal and instead stood content in simply stating that respondents should not have been meted out the severest penalty of dismissal for their inadequacies and wrongful actions.17 The appellate court went on to declare respondents' dismissal as illegal.
The issues presented before the Executive Labor Arbiter and the NLRC are the very same issues proffered by the parties before this Court, which may be summed up as follows: (1) whether respondents participated in the illegal strike and (2) whether the order for the payment of separation pay, in lieu of reinstatement without backwages, is proper.
In its Reply, petitioner refutes respondents' argument and submits that evidence, such as photographs, affidavits of witnesses, and memoranda/telegrams, were presented during trial to prove that respondents joined the illegal strike.
Article 212 of the Labor Code defines strike as any temporary stoppage of work by the concerted action of employees as a result of an industrial or labor dispute. A valid strike therefore presupposes the existence of a labor dispute. The strike undertaken by respondents took the form of a sit-down strike, or more aptly termed as a sympathetic strike, where the striking employees have no demands or grievances of their own, but they strike for the purpose of directly or indirectly aiding others, without direct relation to the advancement of the interest of the strikers.31 It is indubitable that an illegal strike in the form of a sit-down strike occurred in petitioner's premises, as a show of sympathy to the two employees who were dismissed by petitioner. Apart from the allegations in its complaint for illegal strike filed before the Labor Arbiter, petitioner presented the affidavits and testimonies of their other employees which confirm the participation of respondents in the illegal strike. Petitioner has sufficiently established that respondents remained in the work premises in the guise of waiting for orders from management to resume operations when, in fact, they were actively participating in the illegal strike.
The office telegram sent to individual respondents informing them to return to work went unheeded. Respondents failed to satisfactorily explain their conspicuous absence following the day of the purported illegal strike. No record whatsoever was presented by Borbo and Infante to prove that 17 May 1990 was their day-off. It was convenient to pass the buck on petitioner by alleging that proof of their alibi is in petitioner's file.32 CastaÃ±eda could not even present a sick leave form to attest to his absence from 11-15 May 1990.33 Moreover, the NLRC and the Court of Appeals appeared unanimous in sustaining the findings of the Labor Arbiter with respect to respondents' participation in the illegal strike. The appellate court's decision dwelt on the fact that no illegal activities were committed by respondents in the course of the illegal strike, hence, reinstatement is proper.
Respondents' participation in the illegal strike having been established, we shall now determine the effects of their proscribed acts.
Article 264 of the Labor Code, in providing for the consequences of an illegal strike, makes a distinction between union officers and members who participated therein. Thus, knowingly participating in an illegal strike is a valid ground for termination of employment of a union officer. The law, however, treats differently mere union members. Mere participation in an illegal strike is not a sufficient ground for termination of the services of the union members.
In the case at bar, this Court is not convinced that the affidavits of petitioner's witnesses constitute substantial evidence to establish that illegal acts were committed by respondents. Nowhere in their affidavits did these witnesses cite the particular illegal acts committed by each individual respondent during the strike. Notably, no questions during the hearing were asked relative to the supposed illegal acts.
As adverted to earlier, no matter by what term the respondents complainants used in describing their concerted action, i.e. [,] protest, sympathy or mere expression, their joint action have successfully paralyzed the operations of G & S Transport, and this is considered a strike.
Respondents' dismissal from work could not be any clearer than the refusal of petitioner to admit them back as they signified their intention to go back to work. In fact, this very act of petitioner precipitated respondents' filing of a complaint for illegal dismissal with a prayer for reinstatement.
can be no wage or pay unless, of course, the laborer was able, willing and ready to work but was illegally locked out, suspended or dismissed or otherwise illegally prevented from working. While it was found that respondents expressed their intention to report back to work, the latter exception cannot apply in this case. In Philippine Marine Officers' Guild v. CompaÃ±ia Maritima,38 as affirmed in Philippine Diamond Hotel and Resort v. Manila Diamond Hotel Employees Union,39 the Court stressed that for this exception to apply, it is required that the strike be legal, a situation that does not obtain in the case at bar.
Under the circumstances, respondents' reinstatement without backwages suffices for the appropriate relief. If reinstatement is no longer possible, given the lapse of considerable time from the occurrence of the strike, the award of separation pay of one (1) month salary for each year of service, in lieu of reinstatement, is in order.
Respondents counter that petitioner and Avis Coupon Taxi are one and the same company and that it is of public knowledge that Avis Coupon Taxi still continues to be the exclusive concessionaire of NAIA at that time. Moreover, respondents deny that their employment was conditioned on petitioner's concession with NAIA.
assertion that respondents' employment is conditioned on the five-year concession with NAIA. No employment contract was presented to support such fact. Petitioner in fact even admitted that it obtained another concession from NAIA in 2000.
SEC. 4. Reinstatement to former position.' (a) An employee who is separated from work without just cause shall be reinstated to his former position, unless such position no longer exists at the time of his reinstatement, in which case he shall be given a substantially equivalent position in the same establishment without loss of seniority rights.
The above-quoted rule enunciates reinstatement as the standard relief. However, in this case, seventeen (17) years have elapsed since respondents were illegally dismissed. In Association of Independent Unions in the Philippines v. NLRC 44, where more than eight (8) years have passed since the petitioners therein staged an illegal strike and were found to have been unlawfully terminated, an award of separation pay equivalent to one (1) month pay for every year of service, in lieu of reinstatement, was deemed more practical and appropriate to all the parties concerned. We adopt the same tack in this case.
In sum, the resolution and order of the NLRC, which adopted the findings of the Labor Arbiter, are in accordance with law and jurisprudence. Consequently, the Court of Appeals erred in granting respondents' petition for certiorari, there being no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the NLRC.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The challenged Decision dated 27 June 2003 and Resolution dated 8 October 2003 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 71472 are REVERSED AND SET ASIDE. The Decision dated 15 October 2001 of the NLRC, which affirmed that of the Labor Arbiter, is REINSTATED.
1 Rollo, pp. 42-49. Penned by Associate Justice Juan Q. Enriquez, Jr. and concurred in by Associate Justices Rodrigo V. Cosico and Hakim S. Abdulwahid.
3 Id. at 69-78.Presided by Commissioner Roy V. SeÃ±eres.
5 CA rollo, p. 5.
7 Records, Vol. I, p. 322-323.
9 CA rollo, p. 37.
10 CA rollo, pp. 23-29.
15 CA rollo, p. 10.
22 356 Phil. 811 (1998).
23 G.R. No. 130866, 16 September 1998.
25 Muaje-Tuazon v. Wenphil Corp., G.R. No. 162447, 27 December 2006, 508 SCRA 87, 99.
26 Cabuyoc v. Inter-Orient Navigation Shipmanagement Inc., G.R. No. 166649, 24 November 2006. 489 SCRA 468, 481.
27 Cainta Catholic School v. Cainta Catholic School Employees Union, G.R. No. 151021, 4 May 2006.
31 Azucena, Cesario A., Everyone's Labor Code, p. 260.
32 TSN, 3 July 1995, p. 43.
33 TSN, 24 May 1995, p. 8.
34 Stamford Marketing v. Julian, G.R. No. 145496, 24 February 2004, 423 SCRA 633, 648.
35 Asso. of Independent in the Phil. v. NLRC, 364 Phil. 697, 709 (1999).
38 131 Phil. 218 (1968).
39 Philippine Diamond Hotel and Resort v. Manila Diamond Hotel Employees Union, G.R. No. 158075, 30 June 2006.
42 CA rollo, p. 147.
44 G.R. No. 120505, 25 March 1999, 305 SCRA 219,235.

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