536 Phil. 1097
GARCIA, J.:
WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing discussions, this Office orders the following:The DOLE Secretary would subsequently issue a resolution dated January 22, 2002 affirming with modification her decision of December 5, 2001. The modification consisted in the deletion from the list of dismissed Union officers the names of three (3) employees previously identified as officers, i.e., Efimaco C. Marica, Rafael L. Guillano and Aldren Camposano, but are not listed as such in the official records of the Bureau of Labor Relations, thus:
- The suspension of the 140 employees which is the subject of the first notice of strike is hereby affirmed;
- The dismissal of the Union officers is hereby sustained. However, the dismissal of the Union members is recalled, hence, they are reinstated to their former positions without back wages. They are imposed a suspension of one month which is deemed already served;
xxx xxx xxx
WHEREFORE, the motions for reconsiderations are - DENIED. Accordingly, our 05 December 2001 Order is AFFIRMED and the directives therein contained are hereby REITERATED with a MODIFICATION that the order affirming the order of dismissal of union officers shall not apply to those three employees identified in this resolution who are not listed in the official records of the BLR, and who shall be immediately reinstated to their former positions.On February 7, 2003, in consolidated cases docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 69107 and CA-G.R. SP No. 69799, the CA, acting on the separate petitions for certiorari of Nissan Motors and the Union, effectively affirmed the aforementioned decision, as modified, of the DOLE Secretary. In turn, the Court, in its Decision of June 21, 2006, affirmed that of the CA insofar as it upheld the DOLE Secretary on the suspension and dismissal angle of her decision, or to be precise, her order (a) affirming the suspension of the 140 employees which is the subject of the first notice of strike; (b) sustaining the dismissal of the Union officers; and (c) downgrading to one-month suspension the penalty of dismissal heretofore imposed on Union members who joined the striking Union officers in defying the assumption order and accordingly reinstating said union members having already served the one-month suspension.
Thus, the Union's excuses do not hold sway on this Office. To be sure, the Union engaged in work showdown which under the circumstances in which they were undertaken constitute illegal strike. The company is therefore right in dismissing the subject Union officers in accordance with Article 264 (a) of the Labor Code, for participating in illegal strike in defiance of the assumption of jurisdiction order by the Labor Secretary.The instant motion is thus RESOLVED accordingly.
However, the members of the Union should not be as severely punished. Dismissal is a harsh penalty as surely they were only following orders from their officers. Besides, there is no evidence that they engaged or participated in the commission of illegal activities during the said strike. They should thus be reinstated to their former positions, but without backwages. Their action which resulted in prejudice to the Company cannot however go unpunished. For the injury that they have collectively inflicted on the company, they should be disciplined. A one month suspension is a reasonable disciplinary measure which should be deemed served during the time they out of their jobs (sic).[2] (Emphasis supplied.)