[Digest] Reliance Surety vs. NLRC (1991)

Reliance Surety & Insurance Co., Inc vs. NLRC (1991)

Sarmiento, J.

                                 

Facts:

·          Management of Reliance Surety & Insurance Co, Inc. re-arranged the sitting arrangement of its staff to lessen non-work related conversations, personal telephone calls and non-work related visits.  Employees who were members of the union took the changes as a means of singling them out and applying pressure on them to quit the union or to be more submissive to the company.

·          Union members refused to obey the new arrangement and even cursed and argued with management for which they were disciplined and eventually dismissed. This prompted the complaint in the NLRC against the company wherein the workers alleged unfair work practices.

·          While the complaint was hibernating [cooling off period] the employees staged a strike that did not get the majority vote of the union as required. This prompted the company to file a complaint with the NLRC because they alleged that the strike was illegal.

·          Labor arbiter and NLRC found the strike to be illegal but ruled that dismissal it too severe a punishment. The company should reinstate the employees without back-pay which they deemed punishment enough.

Doctrine:

·          The Company merely exercised its prerogative in assigning new seats for the benefit of the company and it did not in any way constitute an unfair labor practice.

·          The strike was not only illegal but it was also violent wherein the union harassed not only management but also other employees not on strike.

·          Citing Ferrer v. Almira à a violation of the cooling off period in good faith is merely a defective strike whereas in this case the violation was done in bad faith hence the strike is illegal

·          Citing Bacus v. Ople à mere finding of  ‘illegality’ attending the strike cannot be used to dismiss employees who were impressed with good faith.

·          As a general rule the sympathy of the court is with the laboring classes BUT the court must however take care to ensure that the results achieved are fair and in conformity with the rules. The employees are validly dismissed because the court held that no good faith could be found in the instant case but rather ‘plain arrogance, pride and cynicism.’

[Digest] Magallanes vs. Sun Yat Sen (2008)

Magallanes vs. Sun Yat Sen Elementary School (2008)

Sandoval-Gutierrez, J.

Facts:

·          Petitioners Azucena Magallanes, Evelyn Bacolod Judith Cotecson (represented by her heirs), Grace Gonzales and Bella Gonzales were all teachers at Sun Yat Sen Elementary School in Surigao City that were dismissed on May 22, 1994 for which the petitioners filed an action in the NLRC for illegal dismissal, underpayment, payment of backwages, 13^th month pay, ECOLA, separation pay, moral damages and atty’s fees.

·          Labor arbiter decided in favor of petitioners, NLRC reversed it.

·          CA (16^th division) reinstated Labor Arbiter’s ruling but deleted moral and exemplary damages and further ruled that G. Gonzales and B. Gonzales have no cause of action because they have not passed the probationary period of 3 years of service hence their dismissal is valid.

·          Petitioners filed a motion for execution of decision. Labor Arbiter computed the damages but lowered amount up to 1995 when CA said 1999. Petitioners filed certiorari to the CA BUT they got the GR number and the division wrong. They indicated GR number and division that applied to the proceedings stated above, this new appeal was raffled to 7^th division under a different docket number. The CA (7^th division) dismissed the appeal due to the procedural mishaps. Hence this case.

Doctrine:

·          Although the court does not have a duty to correct the error or transfer the case to the proper division since the duty falls on the one who caused such fault, it can waive mere technicalities in lieu of the speedy administration of justice.

·          The court disregarded the technicalities because

1.        The negligence of their counsel resulted in the deprivation of petitioner’s property rights.

2.        The court is not a slave of technical rules, shorn of discretion. If the application of rules would tend to frustrate rather than promote justice, it is always within this Court’s power to suspend the rules or except a particular case from its application.

3.        This labor dispute has taken over 10 years already. Petitioners have already waited too long for what is due to them under the law.

·          The labor arbiter in its computation of the monetary award abused its jurisdiction when it lowered the year from 1999 to 1995 because the CA decision in the prior case was already final and executory. Hence such decision is null and void.