CONTACT: |
Supreme Court of the Philippines Library Services, Padre Faura, Ermita, Manila, Philippines 1000 |
(632) 8524-2706 |
libraryservices.sc@judiciary.gov.ph |
350 Phil. 641
SECOND DIVISION
[ G.R. No. 125561, March 06, 1998 ]
NATIONAL UNION OF WORKERS IN
HOTELS, RESTAURANTS AND ALLIED INDUSTRIES (NUWHRAIN) – THE PENINSULA MANILA
CHAPTER (INTERIM UNION JUNTA), MELVIN COWAN, SERAFIN TRIA, JR., PORFERIO YAPE, LINDA
GALVEZ, BENJAMIN ESTEVES, LUTHER ADIGUE AND RAYMUNDO VANCE, PETITIONERS, VS.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION AND THE PENINSULA MANILA, RESPONDENTS.
D E C I S I O N
REGALADO, J.,:
This is a
special civil action for certiorari seeking to set aside the decision of
public respondent National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), dated February 7,
1996,[1] which affirmed the November 4, 1993
order of the med-arbiter[2] holding that the strike held by
petitioners on October 13 and 14, 1993 was illegal and declaring the 15
officers who knowingly participated in the strike to have lost their employment
status. It likewise seeks to set aside the resolution of the NLRC, dated March
28, 1996,[3] denying the motion for
reconsideration filed by petitioners.
The principal
parties involved in this labor dispute are petitioner National Union of Workers
in Hotels, Restaurants and Allied Industries (NUWHRAIN)- The Peninsula Manila
Chapter (the Junta, for brevity); the NUWHRAIN - The Peninsula Manila Rank and
File Chapter (the Union, for short); and private respondent, The Peninsula
Manila (hereafter, the Hotel).
The rank and
file employees union, representing approximately 800 employees of the Hotel,
was the herein Union which entered into a collective bargaining agreement (CBA)
with the Hotel on December 15, 1991.[4] Petitioners claim that the signing
of that CBA by the Union officers, headed by one Rudolpho Genato, and
representatives of the Hotel was tainted with irregularities, prompting the
Union to file a notice of strike on the ground of a CBA deadlock. It was
further asserted that instead of proceeding with said strike, the Union
officers and the officers of its national office thereafter mysteriously signed
the CBA without consulting the general membership of the local chapter.[5] These anomalies created anxiety in
the Union which continued to prevail in the following years.
On February,
1993, some of the union members submitted a letter-petition which was to be the
first of a series of demands for the resignation of the incumbent union
officers on the ground that the latter were purportedly abusive and neglectful
of their duties.[6] Because the demands went unheeded,
a faction of the Union conducted what was ostensibly an impeachment proceeding,
causing the removal from office of the incumbent officers headed by Genato.[7] The faction proclaimed itself as
the Interim Union Junta, now the petitioners in this case.
Subsequent to
the supposed impeachment of Genato and his group, the Junta requested from the
Hotel to conduct of a special election of officers. The Hotel referred the
request to the NUWHRAIN-LMC-IUF, the Union’s national office. The latter
disallowed the holding of the election on the ground that it did not recognize
the Junta because it was allegedly constituted illegally.[8]
The Junta
nonetheless conducted the election resulting in the choice of a set of officers
led by petitioner Melvin Cowan, but which the supposedly impeached employees,
the Union’s national office, and the Hotel refused to recognize.[9]
On August 10, 1993,
a notice of strike was filed by the Junta before the National Conciliation and
Mediation Board (NCMB) based on alleged acts of the Hotel constituting unfair
labor practice (ULP), particularly, discrimination, undue interference in the
exercise of the right to self-organization, and bias in favor of the impeached
officers.[10] The NCMB dismissed said notice on
the ground that the imputed ULP acts were mere conflicts between two sets of
union officers or intra-union disputes, and being categorized under the
nomenclature of “non-strikeable acts,” fall under the jurisdiction of the
appropriate office of the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE). The NCMB
likewise ordered that the notice of strike be reduced to a preventive mediation
case to be subjected to conciliation and mediation proceedings.[11]
Meanwhile, the
Union, headed by Genato, filed a petition for injunction in the DOLE to enjoin
the Junta from usurping the functions of the rightful officers. On the other
hand, the Hotel filed a petition for interpleader and declaratory relief so
that it may be properly guided on which of the two sets of officers, the Genato
group or the Cowan group, it should recognize and deal with in matters
pertaining to the CBA.[12]
Despite the
dismissal of the first notice of strike and the pendency of the aforestated
conciliation proceedings and cases, the Junta filed a second notice of strike
on September 9, 1993.[13] Additional grounds were set forth
therein, including the suspension of an alleged Junta officer, one Sammie
Coronel, which the Junta claimed constituted an unfair labor practice. This
notice of strike was likewise dismissed by the NCMB as the grounds were found
to be mere amplifications of those alleged in the preceding notice,[14] hence, likewise non-strikeable.
Coronel was
eventually dismissed from employment and allegedly because the Junta believed
that said dismissal was a ULP act,[15] it staged a wildcat strike on
October 13 and 14, 1993, notwithstanding the prohibition to strike issued by
the NCMB, thereby disrupting the operations of the Hotel.[16] The 15 officers of the Junta and
153 of its members were involved in the strike.
The DOLE
Secretary certified the labor dispute to the NLRC for compulsory arbitration.[17] In the meantime, an order was issued by the
med-arbiter in the interpleader and injuction cases declaring illegal the
formation of the Junta, the impeachment of the union officers led by Genato,
and the subsequent election of officers led by Cowan. It acknowledged the
incumbency of the Genato group as officers and ordered the Hotel to recognize
them as representatives of the rank and file employees.[18] Said order of the med-arbiter was
appealed by the Junta to the DOLE Secretary who, as earlier noted, affirmed the
same in a resolution dated December 22, 1994.
On December 29,
1993, the Hotel filed in the NLRC a petition to declare the wildcat strike
illegal and to dismiss the employees who went on strike.[19] On January 13, 1994, the 15
officers of the Junta involved in the strike were dismissed for alleged acts of
union disloyalty. Said employees and the Junta then filed a case for illegal
dismissal before the NLRC.[20]
The NLRC
consolidated the foregoing cases and, in a decision dated February 7, 1996, its
Second Division declared the strike held on October 13 and 14, 1993 illegal as
it was not based on valid grounds pursuant to the ruling of the NCMB when the
latter dismissed the two notices of strike filed by the Junta. The NLRC held
that the issue involving the suspension and termination from employment of
Coronel did not per se constitute ULP which justifies a strike, as the
matter involved purely an exercise of management prerogative which petitioners
should have questioned by filing the proper complaint and not by staging a
strike.[21]
Consequently,
the dismissal of the 15 officers of the Junta was declared to be valid. With
respect to the 153 members whose illegal acts in the strike were in issue and
whose dismissal was likewise sought by the Hotel, the NLRC ordered the remand
of the case to the labor arbiter for further proceedings.[22]
In a dissent
from the decision of the majority, the opinion was advanced that the strike was
legal because it was premised on a valid ground, particularly, the belief of
the workers in good faith that there existed ULP acts constituting a cause to
strike.[23]
A motion for
reconsideration was filed by the Junta but it was denied,[24] thus the instant petition to set
aside the abovementioned NLRC decision and denial resolution.
The petitioners
contend that public respondent NLRC acted with grave abuse of discretion in
declaring the October 13 and 14, 1993 strike illegal and in remanding to the
labor arbiter the matter of the alleged illegal acts of the 153 Junta members
for further proceedings.[25]
This Court has
carefully reviewed the records of this case and finds the petition at bar to be
unmeritorious.
Generally, a
strike based on a “non-strikeable” ground is an illegal strike; corollarily, a
strike grounded on ULP is illegal if no such acts actually exist. As an
exception, even if no ULP acts are committed by the employer, if the employees
believe in good faith that ULP acts exist so as to constitute a valid ground to
strike, then the strike held pursuant to such belief may be legal.[26] As a general rule, therefore, where
the union believed that the employer committed ULP and the circumstances
warranted such belief in good faith, the resulting strike may be considered
legal although, subsequently, such allegations of unfair labor practices were
found to be groundless.[27]
An established
caveat, however, is that a mere claim of good faith would not justify the
holding of a strike under the aforesaid exception as, in addition thereto, the
circumstances must have warranted such belief. It is therefore, not enough
that the union believed that the employer committed acts of ULP when the
circumstances clearly negate even a prima facie showing to sustain such
belief.[28]
The Court finds
that the NLRC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in ruling that the
subject strike was illegal, and accordingly holds that the circumstances
prevailing in this case did not warrant, as it could not have reasonably
created, a belief in good faith that the Hotel committed acts of ULP as to
justify the strike.
The dismissal of
Coronel which allegedly triggered the wildcat strike[29] was not a sufficient ground to
justify that radical recourse on the part of the Junta members. As the NLRC
later found, the dismissal was legal and was not a case of ULP but a mere
exercise of management prerogative on discipline, the validity of which could
have been questioned through the filing of an appropriate complaint and not
through the filing of a notice of strike or the holding of a strike.[30] Evidently, to repeat, appropriate
remedies under the Labor Code were available to the striking employees and they
had the option to either directly file a case for illegal dismissal in the
office of the labor arbiter [31] or, by agreement of the parties, to
submit the case to the grievance machinery of the CBA so that it may be
subjected to voluntary arbitration proceedings.[32]
Petitioners
should have availed themselves of these alternative remedies instead of
resorting to a drastic and unlawful measure, specifically, holding a wildcat
strike at the expense of the Hotel whose operations were consequently disrupted
for two days. Not every claim of good faith is justifiable, and herein
petitioner’s claim of good faith shall not be counternanced by this Court since
their decision to go on strike was clearly unwarranted.
With respect to
the claim of petitioners that additional acts of discrimination by the Hotel
generated their belief in good faith that ULP acts existed as to justify a
strike, the Court deems it unnecessary to again scrutinize and expound the
same. The NLRC has already held that the alleged acts of discrimination are not
“strikeable” grounds as found and explained by the NCMB when it dismissed the
two notices of strike filed by the Junta.[33]
The findings of
fact of the NLRC, except where there is grave abuse of discretion committed by
it, are conclusive on this Court and it is only where said findings are bereft
of any substantial support from the records that the Court will step in and
proceed to make its independent evaluation of the facts.[34] The Court finds no cogent reason to
disturb the aforestated findings of the NLRC in the present case.
Besides,
petitioners should have complied with the prohibition to strike ordered by the
NCMB when the latter dismissed the notices of strike after finding that the
alleged acts of discrimination of the Hotel were not ULP, hence not
“strikeable.” The refusal of petitioners to heed said proscription of the NCMB
is reflective of bad faith. In light of the foregoing circumstances, their
claim of good faith must fall and we agree with the NLRC that there was no
justification for the illegal strike.
We accordingly
uphold the dismissal from employment of the 15 officers of the Junta who
knowingly participated in the strike. An employer may lawfully discharge
employees for participating in an unjustifiable wildcat strike and especially
so in this case, because said wildcat strike was an attempt to undermine the
Union’s position as the exclusive bargaining representative and was, therefore,
an unprotected activity.[35] The cessation from employment of
the 15 Junta officers as a result of their participation in the illegal strike
is a consequence of their defiant and capricious decision to participate
therein.
Finally, petitioners
invoke the dissenting opinion in the first challenged NLRC decision, dated
February 7, 1996, in support of their stand. Considering the findings of the
NLRC which the Court finds no reason to reject, petitioners’ reliance on the
dissent cannot be sustained. Moreover, a dissenting opinion is not binding as
it is a mere expression of the individual view of a commissioner who disagrees
with the conclusion of the majority of the members of the NLRC division
concerned.[36]
WHEREFORE, the petition at bar is hereby
DISMISSED for lack of any grave abuse of discretion imputable to public
respondent. The assailed decision and resolution of respondent National Labor
Relations Commission are consequently AFFIRMED. The case is remanded to the
labor arbiter a quo for further proceedings on the matter of the 153
members of the Junta who participated in the strike.
SO ORDERED.
[1] Original Record, 33-64.
[2] Ibid., 135-149.
[3] Ibid., 65.
[4] Ibid., 225-226. This CBA expired on December
15, 1996.
[5] Ibid., 38.
[6] Ibid., 39.
[7] Ibid., 40-43.
[8] Ibid., 35. The position taken by
NUWHRAIN-LMC-IUF was sustained by the DOLE Secretary in a resolution dated
December 22, 1994, directing the employer hotel to recognize only the Genato group
as union officers, and ultimately by this Court in G.R. No. 120676 (Rollo,
150-160, 164).
[9] Ibid., 42-44.
[10] Ibid., 66.
[11] Ibid., 67.
[12] Ibid., 50-51.
[13] Ibid., 68.
[14] Ibid., 69-70.
[15] Ibid., 19-20.
[16] Ibid., 184.
[17] Ibid., 69-70.
[18] Ibid., 135-149.
[19] Ibid., 122-123.
[20] Ibid., 53.
[21] Ibid., 58-62.
[22] Ibid., 61; per Commissioner Victoriano R.
Calaycay, with the concurrence of Presiding Commissioner Raul T. Aquino.
[23] Ibid., 63-64. The dissenting opinion of Commissioner
Rogelio I. Rayala further stated that the majority erred in ordering the remand
of the matter of the 153 employees who joined the strike, and that the NLRC
should have ruled or it as that issue cannot be separated from the case as
submitted.
[24] Ibid., 65.
[25] Ibid., 20-21.
[26] Panay Electric Co., Inc. vs. National Labor
Relations Commission, et al., G.R. No. 102672, October 4, 1995, 248 SCRA 688;
Master Iron Labor Union (MILU), et al. vs. National Labor Relations
Commission, et al., G.R. No. 92009, February 17, 1993, 219 SCRA 47; People’s
Industrial and Commercial Employees and Workers Organization (FFW), et al., vs.
People’s Industrial and Commercial Corporation, et al., L-37687, March 15,
1982, 112 SCRA 440.
[27] People’s Industrial and Commercial Employees and
Workers Organization (FFW), et al., vs. People’s Industrial and
Commercial Corporation, et al., supra, at 453; Panay Electric Co., Inc. vs.
National Labor Relations Commission, et al., supra, at 698.
[28] Tiu, et al. vs. National Labor Relations Commission,
et al., G.R. No. 123276, August 18, 1997.
[29] Original Record, 15.
[30] Ibid., 60.
[31] Article 217. Jurisdiction
of Labor Arbiters and the Commission. – (a) Except as otherwise provided
under this Code the Labor Arbiters shall have original and exclusive
jurisdiction to hear and decide, x x x:
xxx
(2) Termination disputes;
[32] Article 260. Grievance
Machinery and Voluntary Arbitration. – The parties to a Collective
Bargaining Agreement shall include therein provisions that will ensure the
mutual observance of its terms and conditions. They shall establish a machinery
for the adjustment and resolution of grievances arising from the interpretation
or implementation of their Collective Bargaining Agreement and those arising
from the interpretation or enforcement of company personnel policies.
xxx
For this purpose, parties to
a Collective Bargaining Agreement shall name and designate in advance a
Voluntary Arbitrator or panel of Voluntary Arbitrators, preferably from the
listing of qualified Voluntary Arbitrators duly accredited by he Board. In case
the parties fail to select a Voluntary Arbitrator or panel of Voluntary
Arbitrators, as may be necessary, pursuant to the selection procedure agreed
upon in the Collective Bargaining Agreement, which shall act with the same
force and effect as if the Arbitrator or panel of Arbitrators has been selected
by the parties as described above.
Article 262. Jurisdiction
over other labor dispute. – The Voluntary Arbitrator or panel of Voluntary
Arbitrators, upon agreement of the parties, shall also hear and decide all
other labor disputes including unfair labor practices and bargaining deadlocks.
[33] Original Record, 55-58.
[34] Panay Electric Co., Inc. vs. National Labor
Relations Commission, et al., supra fn. 26, at 694; Five J Taxi, et al.,
vs National Labor Relations Commission, et al., G.R. No. 111474, August 22,
1994, 235 SCRA 556.
[35] 48 Am. Jur. 2d, Labor and Labor Relations, § 1043,
598.
[36] Garcia vs. Perez, L-28184, September 11,
1980, 99 SCRA 628.