PIER TWO ARRASTRE SERVICES CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, EVELYN RITUAL, JAVIER CATACUTAN AND CESAR RAFAEL, RESPONDENTS.

On October 30, 1979, respondent National Labor Relations Commission
issued its decision in NLRC Case No. RB-IV-20480-78, entitled: “Evelyn
Ritual, Javier Catacutan and Cesar Rafael vs. Pier Two Arrastre Services
Corporation,” the dispositive portion of which reads:

“PREMISES CONSIDERED, the appealed Decision is, as it is hereby
SET ASIDE and another one ENTERED ordering the reinstatement of herein
complainants-appellants to their former positions with full backwages
and without loss of seniority rights and other privileges appurtenant
thereto. Respondent-appellee is furthermore directed to show proof of
compliance with this Decision after ten (10) days from receipt of the
same.” (p. 24, Rollo)

Petitioner Pier Two Arrastre Services Corporation (PITASECO, for short)
moved for the reconsideration of said decision. When said motion was
denied this petition for review on certiorari with prayer for a writ of
prohibition was filed, petitioner raising the following issues:

“I. Whether the Honorable Commission erred and concomitantly
incurred in a grave abuse of dis­cretion in holding that the various
trespasses committed by the private respondents, including violations of
company rules and fraudulent acts, were condoned or excused by the
petitioner.

“II. Whether the Honorable Commission erred and concomitantly
incurred in grave abuse of discretion in holding that where employees
are separated for viola­tion of company rules, as in this case, and
where such employees had been engaged in union activities, the
presumption is that they were discharged for such activities.

“III. Whether the Honorable Commission erred and concomitantly
incurred in a grave abuse of discretion in holding that various cases
previously litigated between the petitioner and other members of the
union constituted already an unfair labor practice on the part of the
petitioner.” (pp. 8-9, Rollo)

Private respondents Evelyn Ritual, Javier Catacutan and Cesar Rafael
were all employees of petitioner PITASECO and were active members of
Pier Two Arrastre Services Corporation Labor Union (PITASCLU, for
short), the labor organization of PITASECO employees. In the Union
elections of October 21, 1976, Ritual was elected President, while
Catacutan and Rafael were elected Vice-President and Member of the
Board, respectively. Following private respondents’ election, several
cases against petitioner company were initiated and filed by them, re
PITASECO’s violation of labor laws. Thereafter, petitioner did not give
work assignments to Evelyn Ritual despite her promotion to the position
of Billings In-Charge. Likewise, Catacutan and Rafael were denied work
assignments. In January 1978, petitioner filed with the Regional Office
of the Ministry of Labor applications for clearance to terminate the
services of Evelyn Ritual for alleged “gross in­subordination,
misconduct, inefficiency and habitual absenteeism;” Javier Catacutan,
for alleged “gross in­subordination, inefficiency, negligence of duty,
abandonment of post and sabotage;” and Cesar Rafael for alleged “gross
insubordination, inefficiency, negligence, abandonment of post, habitual
absenteeism and sabotage.” Likewise, private respondents filed with the
Regional Office of the Ministry of Labor complaint against peti­tioner
for unfair labor practice and illegal dismissal.

When efforts at conciliation failed, the petitioners were required to
submit their respective position papers and supporting documents and, on
the bases thereof, the Labor Arbiter rendered his decision on November
15, 1978, dismissing for lack of merit private respondents’ complaint
for unfair labor practice against petitioner but ordering it to pay
private respondents Ritual, Catacutan and Rafael separation pay.

As earlier stated, respondent NLRC reversed the decision of the Labor
Arbiter. Petitioner takes issue with the findings of respondent NLRC
that “[t]he charge of respondent-appellee that herein
complainants-appellants were guilty of tardiness, absences and
undertime, is to Our Mind, only a subterfuge to ease
com­plainants-appellants from their jobs by reason of their militant
union activities. The reason for this observation of Ours is not
difficult to see. The record fails to disclose that herein
complainants-appellants were ever warned, reprimanded or suspended for
such tardiness, absences and undertime leaving Us the conclusion that,
admitting that they incurred this tardiness, absences and undertime, the
same must have either been condoned or excused. We note that such
absences, tardiness and undertime were committed in 1976 yet, but herein
complainants-appellants were not warned for the same.” (p. 23, Rollo)

Upon the foregoing exposition We find that there is no substantial
justification for setting aside the aforequoted findings of the public
respondent. On the contrary, private respondents alleged and petitioner
did not deny that Ritual was promoted three times, to wit: on May 26,
1975, from Freight Computer Clerk to Payroll Clerk; on June 1, 1976,
from Payroll Clerk to Processing Clerk; and, on October 30, 1976, from
Processing Clerk to Billings InCharge; nor the fact that she was
regularly paid her salaries until she was dismissed from the service.

Similarly, Catacutan and Rafael were paid their regular salaries up to
the time of their dismissal and at no time were they ever warned,
reprimanded or suspended from any offense or violation of company rules.

On the other hand, petitioner’s application for clearance was filed on
January 16, 1978 with the Regional Office of the Ministry of Labor and
the following day, January 17, they were outrightly dismissed from the
service. Pursuant to Section 2, Rule XIV, Book V of the Revised Rules
implementing the labor code,

“Sec. 2. Shutdown or dismissal without clearance. – Any
shutdown or dismissal without prior clearance shall be conclusively
presumed to be termination of employment without a just cause. The
Regional Director shall, in such case, order the immediate reinstatement
of the employee and the payment of his wages from the time of the
shutdown or dismissal until the time of reinstatement.”

Thus, We find no error or abuse of discretion committed by respondent
Commission in ordering the reinstatement of private respondents.

ACCORDINGLY, for lack of merit, the petition is hereby DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED.

Teehankee, (Chairman), Melencio-Herrera, Plana, Gutierrez, Jr., and De la Fuente, JJ., concur.