ChanRobles Virtual law Library
|
GO TO FULL LIST OF LATEST DECISIONS and RESOLUTIONS
ASIAN
TRANSMISSION CORPORATION,
G. R. No. 88725 November 22, 1989 -versus-NATIONAL
LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION,
NARVASA, J.: The Special Civil Action of Certiorari and Prohibition at bar is an offshoot of two earlier cases decided by this Court on June 27, 1988, involving substantially the same controversy and the same parties. These prior cases were G. R. Nos. 75271-73, entitled "Catalino N. Sarmiento and 71 other striking workers of Asian Transmission Corporation v. Hon. Judge Orlando R. Tuico, etc., et al.," and G. R. No. 77567 entitled "Asian Transmission Corporation [ATC] v. NLRC." Two basic questions were presented, one of which was whether or not a Return-to-Work Order may be validly issued by the National Labor Relations Commission pending determination of the legality of the strike. The directive in question reaffirmed a Return-to-Work Order first issued by the Ministry of Labor and Employment on June 3, 1986, reiterated on June 13, 1986 and again on November 24, 1986. The issue was resolved in the affirmative by the Court,[1] the Court devoting some words to the real reason for authorizing a return to work pending resolution of a labor dispute, viz:
While the ATC has manifested its willingness to accept most of the workers, and has in fact already done so, it has balked at the demand of the remaining workers to be also allowed to return to work. Its reason is that these persons, instead of complying with the Return-to-Work Order, as most of the workers have done, insisted on staging the restrained strike and defiantly picketed the company premises to prevent the resumption of operations. By so doing, the ATC submits, these strikers have forfeited their right to be readmitted, having abandoned their positions, and so could be validly replaced.cralaw:red The Court agrees.cralaw:red The records show that the Return-to-Work Order was first issued on June 3, 1986, and was reiterated on June 13, 1986. The strike was declared thereafter, if We go by the criminal complaints in G. R. Nos. 75271-73, where the alleged acts are claimed to have been done on June 9, 1986 and July 16, 1986. These dates are not denied. In fact, the petitioners argue in their pleadings that they were engaged only in peaceful picketing, which would signify that they had not, on those dates, returned to work as required and had decided instead to ignore the said Order. By their own acts, they are deemed to have abandoned their employment and cannot now demand the right to return thereto by virtue of the very Order they have defied.cralaw:red Accordingly, the Court holds that the Return-to-Work Order should benefit only those workers who complied therewith and, regardless of the outcome of the compulsory arbitration proceedings, are entitled to be paid for work they have actually performed. Conversely, those workers who refused to obey the said Order and instead waged the restrained strike, are not entitled to be paid for work not done or to reinstatement to the positions they have abandoned by their refusal to return thereto as ordered.cralaw:red The holding was reaffirmed in this Court's Resolution dated February 22, 1989 which resolved, inter alia, the motion for execution filed by the workers affected [G. R. Nos. 75271-73]. The Resolution stressed that:
The NLRC [Third Division] granted the motion, by Resolution dated June 13, 1989, justifying its action as follows:
This Resolution is what the petitioner ATC would have this Court annul and perpetually restrain. The petitioner would also have Us require "respondents to show cause why they should not be cited for contempt for subverting or violating the Supreme Court's Decision [promulgated June 27, 1988] and Resolution [dated February 22, 1989 in G. R. No. 75271-73 and No. 77567]." The petitioner's submittals have merit. The writs prayed for will issue. It is difficult to see how this Court's Decision and its subsequent Resolution on the motion for reconsideration in G. R. Nos. 75271-73 and 77567 could be misread by both the public and the private respondents as upholding or affirming the claim to reinstatement of the petitioner's forty-four [44] employees who had staged a strike in defiance of the Return-to-Work Order of June 3, 1986.cralaw:red True, said Decision held valid the questioned NLRC Resolutions of January 13, 1987 and February 12, 1987 reaffirming the order of November 24,1986 of the Acting Minister of Labor "to accept all returning workers." But it did so subject to an important and explicitly stated qualification: said orders were affirmed as above interpreted,"[4] the clear and unmistakable reference in the quoted phrase being to the pronouncements made in the body of the decision on the implications and consequences of a Return-to-Work Order specifically, the Return-to-Work Order of June 3, 1986.cralaw:red On that subject, the Court's Decision, after finding that on the record the forty-four workers involved had declared a strike and, in fact, admitted to having engaged in picketing after the issuance of said Return-to-Work Order and its reiteration on June 13, 1986, declared in no uncertain terms that the benefit of readmittance and payment for work performed applied only to the workers who complied with the Order, not to those who refused to obey it. Nothing can more clearly reveal what was in the mind of the Court and the correct thrust of its ruling than this passage earlier quoted from its decision which, for that reason, bears repeating:
The interpretation advocated by the respondents is warranted neither by the plain language of the Court's decision nor by a sensible, reasonable reading of its entire context. The questioned NLRC Resolution being wholly premised on such an interpretation, must be struck down as issued with grave abuse of discretion. In view of this conclusion and there appearing no compelling reason for a show-cause order, the petitioner's additional plea for such an order is denied.cralaw:red WHEREFORE, the NLRC Resolution of June 13,1989 is annulled and set aside. Execution of this Court's Decision in G. R. Nos. 75271-73 and 77567 to effect or compel reinstatement by the petitioner of the forty-four workers declared without right thereto in said decision, is perpetually restrained. Costs against the private respondents.cralaw:red SO ORDERED.cralaw:red Cruz, Gancayco, Griño-Aquino, and Medialdea, JJ., concur.cralaw:red _________________________________________
[1]
The opinion was written by Mr. Justice Isagani A. Cruz.
|
|