G.R. No. 59847. October 18, 1982
PHILIPPINES INTER-FASHION, INC., PETITIONER, VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, SHERIFF’S OFFICE OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, AND NATIONAL FEDERATION OF LA…
TEEHANKEE, J.:
Petitioner employer seeks to set aside the resolution of
respondent commission of October 1, 1981 and February 9, 1982, respectively
ordering the reinstatement with three months’ backwages of its 114 striking employes
listed in the case record and represented by respondent National Federation of
Labor Unions (NAFLU) and denying reconsideration.
The established background facts as found by public respondent’s
commissioner are as follows:
“Sometime on 12 December 1979, the workers in the COMPANY
grouped themselves and organized a labor union known as the Philippine
Inter-Fashion Workers Union and thereafter directly affiliated the same with
the NAFLU.
Believing that it has a majority of the more or less 600 employees,
it filed on 26 December 1979 a petition for direct certification as the
exclusive bargaining agent of the employees which, as of the date of submission
for resolution of this case, remained unresolved.
Sometime in January 1980, the COMPANY conceived and decided to
retrench its employees and selected about 40 employees to be dismissed
effective 20 February 1980 allegedly because of lack of work (Affidavit of
Asterio Guanzon, personnel assistant of the company; Annex “A”
thereof).
Sometime on 8, 9 and 11 February 1980, Asterio Guanzon, Personnel
Assistant of the COMPANY, called about 20 of the affected employees and
informed them of the intended retrenchment and offered them to voluntarily
resign and be paid retrenchment benefit.
Since said employees refused, Guanzon asked them ‘to acknowledge receipt
of the clearance application and the termination letter but except for two (2)
workers, they refused even to acknowledge receipt of the forms.’ (Affidavit of
Guanzon).
The following day, 12 February 1980, during breaktime at 9:15,
about 200 employees boarded two buses and went to the Ministry of Labor and
talked with then Deputy Minister who advised them to return to their work. These employees actually returned in the afternoon
but stayed outside the compound.
“On 14 February 1980, the employees returned to the Ministry
of Labor and on the same day obtained a Return to Work Order pertinently
reading as follows:
“x x x all workers of Inter-Fashion are hereby directed to return
to work and the management to take them back under the same terms and
conditions prior to the walk?out/lockout.
Parties are hereby enjoined to maintain status quo until final
determination of the case.
x x x x x x x x
x x.”
(Annex “L”, NAFLU’S Position
Paper)
“The following day, 15 February 1980, the employees returned
to the company with the aforesaid Order and were allowed to enter the compound
but they merely stayed in the canteen because they were not given work on the
pretext that machines were undergoing repairs and servicing and because the
sewing lines were reorganized and workers were reassigned to new lines x x
x.”
“On February 1980, more than 200 employees returned and
reported for work but again they were only made to stay at the canteen inside
the compound and were not allowed to work but they were nevertheless paid their
wages from 12 February 1980 to 20 February 1980 (Company’s Position Paper dated
13 March 1980).
“On the same date, 20 February 1980, the COMPANY filed with
this Ministry “applications for clearance to terminate the workers who
participated in the (alleged) walkout for serious misconduct, effective March
1, 1980 placing the affected employees under preventive suspension in the
meantime.” (parenthesis supplied:
Affidavit of Guanzon, personnel assistant).
“Subsequently, the COMPANY hired “additional workers to
be able to complete twelve (12) production lines and to be able to deliver
according to my production schedule.” (Affidavit, Solito P. Sandoval,
production services manager).
“On 20 October 1980, one hundred fifty (150) employees who
were not re-admitted before were allowed to return to work and in so doing
withdrew their case or complaint against the COMPANY (Annex “A”;
Company’s Memorandum dated 18 March 1981), thereby leaving 114 employees still
subject of its clearance application.”
The Solicitor General has correctly stated in his comment that
“from these facts are derived the following conclusions which are likewise
undisputed: that petitioner engaged in
an illegal lockout while the NAFLU engaged in an illegal strike; that the
unconditional offer of the 150 striking employees to return to work and to
withdraw their complaint of illegal lockout against petitioner constitutes
condonation of the illegal lock-out; and that the unqualified acceptance of the
offer of the 150 striking employees by petitioner likewise constitutes
condonation of the illegal strike insofar as the reinstated employees are
concerned.”
The issues at bar arise, however, from respondent commission’s
approval of its commissioner’s conclusions that (1) petitioner must be deemed
to have waived its right to pursue the case of illegal strike against the 114
employees who were not reinstated and who pursued their illegal lockout claim
against petitioner; and (2) the said 114 employees are entitled to
reinstatement with three months’ backwages.
The Court approves the stand taken by the Solicitor General that
there was no clear and unequivocal waiver on the part of petitioner and on the
contrary the record shows that it tenaciously pursued its application for their
dismissal, but nevertheless in view of the undisputed findings of illegal strike on the part of the 114 employees and
illegal lockout on petitioner’s part, both parties are in pari delicto
and such situation warrants the restoration of the status quo ante
and bringing the parties back to the respective positions before the illegal
strike and illegal lockout through the reinstatement of the said 114 employees,
as follows:
“The Bisaya case (102 Phil. 438) is inapplicable to the
present case, because in the former, there were only two strikers involved who
were both reinstated by their employer upon their request to return to
work. However, in the present case,
there were more than 200 strikers involved, of which 150 who desired to return
to work were reinstated. The rest were
not reinstated because they did not signify their intention to return to
work. Thus, the ruling cited in the
Bisaya case that the employer waives his defense of illegality of the strike
upon reinstatement of strikers is applicable only to strikers who signified
their intention to return to work and were accepted back. x x x.
Truly, it is more logical and reasonable for condonation to apply
only to strikers who signified their intention to return and did return to
work. The reason is obvious. These strikers took the initiative in
normalizing relations with their employer and thus helped promote industrial
peace. However, as regards the strikers
who decided to pursue with the case, as in the case of the 114 strikers herein,
the employer could not be deemed to have condoned their strike, because they
had not shown any willingness to normalize relations with it. So, if petitioner really had any intention to
pardon the 114 strikers, it would have included them in its motion to withdraw
on November 17, 1980. The fact that it
did not, but instead continued to pursue the case to the end, simply means that
it did not pardon the 114 strikers.
xxx xxx xxx
The finding of illegal strike was not disputed. Therefore, the 114 strikers employees who
participated therein are liable for termination (Liberal Labor Union v Phil.
Can Co., 91 Phil 72; Insurefco Employees Union v Insurefco, 95 Phil. 761). On the other hand, the finding of illegal
lockout was likewise not disputed.
Therefore, the 114 employees affected by the lockout are also subject to
reinstatement. Petitioner, however,
contends that the application for readmission to work by the 150 strikers
constitutes condonation of the lockout which should likewise bind the 114
remaining strikers. Suffice it to say
that the 150 strikers acted for themselves, not in behalf of the 114 remaining
strikers, and therefore the latter could not be deemed to have condoned
petitioner’s lockout.
The findings show that both petitioner and the 114 strikers are in pari
delicto, a situation which warrants the maintenance of the status
quo. This means that the
contending parties must be brought back to their respective positions before
the controversy; that is, before the strike.
Therefore, the order reinstating the 114 employees is proper.”
With such restoration of the status quo ante
it necessarily follows, as likewise submitted by the Solicitor General, that
the petition must be granted insofar as it seeks the setting aside of the
award of three months’ backwages to the 114 employees ordered reinstated on the
basis of the general rule that strikers are not entitled to backwages[1]
(with some exceptions not herein applicable, such as where the employer is
guilty of oppression and union-busting activities and strikers ordered
reinstated are denied such reinstatement and therefore are declared entitled to
backwages from the date of such denial[2]). More so, is the principle of “no work,
no pay” applicable to the case at bar, in view of the undisputed finding
of illegality of the strike.
ACCORDINGLY, judgment is hereby rendered affirming
respondent commission’s Resolution insofar as it orders the reinstatement of
the 114 employees but setting aside the award therein for the payment of three
months’ backwages.
SO ORDERED.
Melencio-Herrera, Plana, Vasquez, Relova, and Gutierrez, Jr., JJ., concur.
[1]
See JB Heilbronn Co v. NLU, 92 Phil. 575; Dinglasan v NLU, 106
Phil. 671; Cromwell Employees and Labor Aaan. v. CIR, 12 SCRA 124;
Pampanga Sugar Development Co. Inc. v. Sugar Workers’ Assn., 55 SCRA 613
and People’s Bank and Trust Co. v PBTC Employees Union, 69 SCRA 10.
[2]
See Philmaroa vs. CIR, 102 Phil. 373; Cromwell Employees and Laborers’
Ass’n. vs. CIR, 12 SCRA 124; and Davao
Free Workers Front vs. CIR, 60 SCRA 408.