You are on page 1of 4

PHILIPPINE BLOOMING MILLS EMPLOYMENT Issue:

ORGANIZATION, NICANOR TOLENTINO, FLORENCIO,


PADRIGANO RUFINO, ROXAS MARIANO DE LEON, ASENCION Whether or not the workers who joined the strike violated the CBA?
PACIENTE, BONIFACIO VACUNA, BENJAMIN PAGCU and
RODULFO MUNSOD, petitioners, vs. PHILIPPINE BLOOMING Held:
MILLS CO., INC. and COURT OF INDUSTRIAL
RELATIONS, respondents. No. While the Bill of Rights also protects property rights, the primacy of
human rights over property rights is recognized. Because these freedoms are
Facts: "delicate and vulnerable, as well as supremely precious in our society" and
the "threat of sanctions may deter their exercise almost as potently as the
Philippine Blooming Employees Organization (PBMEO) decided to stage a actual application of sanctions," they "need breathing space to survive,"
mass demonstration in front of Malacañang to express their grievances permitting government regulation only "with narrow specificity." Property
against the alleged abuses of the Pasig Police. and property rights can be lost thru prescription; but human rights are
imprescriptible. In the hierarchy of civil liberties, the rights to freedom of
After learning about the planned mass demonstration, Philippine Blooming expression and of assembly occupy a preferred position as they are essential
Mills Inc., called for a meeting with the leaders of the PBMEO. During the to the preservation and vitality of our civil and political institutions; and
meeting, the planned demonstration was confirmed by the union. But it was such priority "gives these liberties the sanctity and the sanction not
stressed out that the demonstration was not a strike against the company but permitting dubious intrusions."
was in fact an exercise of the laborers' inalienable constitutional right to
freedom of expression, freedom of speech and freedom for petition for
redress of grievances. The freedoms of speech and of the press as well as of peaceful assembly
and of petition for redress of grievances are absolute when directed against
The company asked them to cancel the demonstration for it would interrupt public officials or "when exercised in relation to our right to choose the men
the normal course of their business which may result in the loss of revenue. and women by whom we shall be governed.”
This was backed up with the threat of the possibility that the workers would
lose their jobs if they pushed through with the rally.

A second meeting took place where the company reiterated their appeal that
while the workers may be allowed to participate, those from the 1st and
regular shifts should not absent themselves to participate, otherwise, they
would be dismissed. Since it was too late to cancel the plan, the rally took
place and the officers of the PBMEO were eventually dismissed for a
violation of the ‘No Strike and No Lockout’ clause of their Collective
Bargaining Agreement.

The lower court decided in favor of the company and the officers of the
PBMEO were found guilty of bargaining in bad faith. Their motion for
reconsideration was subsequently denied by the Court of Industrial
Relations for being filed two days late.
Manila Diamond Hotel Ee Union vs CA Held:
GR 140518 Payroll reinstatement in lieu of actual reinstatement is not sanctioned under
the provision of the said article.
Facts:
The Union filed a petition for a certification election, which was dismissed
by the DOLE. Despite the dismissal of their petition, the Union sent a letter The Court noted the difference between UST vs. NLRC and the instant
to the Hotel informing the latter of its desire to negotiate for a collective case. In UST case the teachers could not be given back their academic
bargaining agreement. The Hotel, however, refused to assignments since the order of the Secretary for them to return to work was
negotiate with the Union, citing the earlier dismissal of the Union’s petition given in the middle of the first semester of the academic year.
for certification by DOLE. The NLRC was, therefore, faced with a situation where the striking teachers
were entitled to a return to work order, but the university could not
immediately reinstate them since it would be impracticable and detrimental
Failing to settle the issue, the Union staged a strike against the Hotel. to the students to change teachers at that point in time.
Numerous confrontations followed, further straining the relationship
between the Union and the Hotel. The Hotel claims that the strike was
illegal and dismissed some employees for their participation in the In the present case, there is no similar compelling reason that called for
allegedly illegal concerted activity. The Union, on the other hand, accused payroll reinstatement as an alternative remedy. A strained relationship
the Hotel of illegally dismissing the workers. between the striking employees and management is no reason for payroll
reinstatement in lieu of actual reinstatement.

A Petition for Assumption of Jurisdiction under Article 263(g) of the Labor


Code was later filed by the Union before the Secretary of Labor. Thereafter, Under Article 263(g), all workers must immediately return to work and all
Secretary of Labor Trajano issued an Order directing the striking officers employers must readmit all of them under the same terms and conditions
and members of the Union to return to work within twenty-four (24) hours prevailing before the strike or lockout.
and the Hotel to accept them back under the same terms and
conditions prevailing prior to the strike.
The Court pointed out that the law uses the precise phrase of “under the
same terms and conditions,” revealing that it contemplates only actual
After receiving the above order the members of the Union reported for reinstatement. This is in keeping with the rationale that any work stoppage
work, but the Hotel refused to accept them and instead filed a Motion for or slowdown in that particular industry can be inimical to the
Reconsideration of the Secretary’s Order. national economy.

Acting on the motion for reconsideration, then Acting Secretary of Labor The Court reiterates that Article 263(g) was not written to protect labor
Español modified the one earlier issued by Secretary Trajano and instead from the excesses of management, nor was it written to ease management
directed that the strikers be reinstated only in the payroll. from expenses, which it normally incurs during a work stoppage or
slowdown. This law was written as a means to be used by the State to
protect itself from an emergency or crisis. It is not for labor, nor is it for
Issue: WON payroll reinstatement is proper in lieu of actual reinstatement management.
under Article 263(g) of the Labor Code.

Petition granted.
University of the Immaculate Conception vs Sec of Labor Anent the Union’s Motion, we find that superseding circumstances would
GR 151379 not warrant the physical reinstatement of the twelve (12) terminated
employees.
Facts:
This case stemmed from the collective bargaining negotiations between
petitioner University of Immaculate Concepcion, Inc. (UNIVERSITY) and Hence, they are hereby ordered placed under payroll reinstatement until the
respondent The UIC Teaching and Non- Teaching Personnel and validity of their termination is finally resolved.
Employees Union (UNION). The UNION, as the certified bargaining
agent of all rank and file employees of the UNIVERSITY, submitted its
Issue: WON payroll reinstatement, instead of actual reinstatement, is
collective bargaining proposals to the latter on February 16, 1994. However,
proper.
one item was left unresolved and this was the inclusion or exclusion of
some positions in the scope of the bargaining unit.
Held:
With respect to the Secretary’s Order allowing payroll reinstatement instead
The UNION it filed a notice of strike on the grounds of bargaining deadlock of actual reinstatement for the individual respondents herein, an amendment
and ULP. During the thirty (30) day cooling-off period, two union members to the previous Orders issued by her office, the same is usually not allowed.
were dismissed by petitioner. Consequently, the UNION went on strike. Article 263(g) of the Labor Code aforementioned states that all workers
must immediately return to work and all employers
must readmit all of them under the same terms and conditions prevailing
On January 23, 1995, the then Secretary of Labor, Ma. Nieves R. Confessor, before the strike or lockout. The phrase “under the same terms and
issued an Order assuming jurisdiction over the labor dispute. conditions” makes it clear that the norm is actual reinstatement. This is
consistent with the idea that any work stoppage or slowdown in that
particular industry can be detrimental to the national interest.
On March 10, 1995, the UNION filed another notice of strike, this time
citing as a reason the UNIVERSITY’s termination of the individual
respondents. The UNION alleged that the UNIVERSITY’s act of In ordering payroll reinstatement in lieu of actual reinstatement, then Acting
terminating the individual respondents is in violation of the Order of Secretary of Labor Jose S. Brillantes said:
the Secretary of Labor.

Anent the Union’s Motion, we find that superseding circumstances would


On March 28, 1995, the Secretary of Labor issued another Order reiterating not warrant the physical reinstatement of the twelve (12) terminated
the directives contained in the January 23, 1995 Order. Hence, the employees. Hence, they are hereby ordered placed under payroll
UNIVERSITY was directed to reinstate the individual respondents under reinstatement until the validity of their termination is finally resolved.
the same terms and conditions prevailing prior to the labor dispute.

As an exception to the rule, payroll reinstatement must rest on special


The UNIVERSITY filed a MR. In the Order dated August 18, 1995, then circumstances that render actual reinstatement impracticable or otherwise
Acting Secretary Jose S. Brilliantes denied the MR, but modified the two not conducive to attaining the purposes of the law.
previous Orders by adding:

The “superseding circumstances” mentioned by the Acting Secretary of


Labor no doubt refer to the final decision of the panel of arbitrators as to the
confidential nature of the positions of the twelve private respondents,
thereby rendering their actual and physical reinstatement impracticable and
more likely to exacerbate the situation. The payroll reinstatement in lieu
of actual reinstatement ordered in these cases, therefore, appears justified as
an exception to the rule until the validity of their termination is finally
resolved. This Court sees no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the
Acting Secretary of Labor in ordering the same. Furthermore, the issue has
not been raised by any party in this case.

Petition denied.

You might also like