THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 207898, October 19, 2016
ERROL RAMIREZ, JULITO APAS, RICKY ROSELO AND ESTEBAN MISSION, JR., Petitioners, v. POLYSON INDUSTRIES, INC. AND WILSON S. YU, Respondent.
D E C I S I O N
PERALTA, J.:
Before the Court is a petition for review on certiorari seeking to annul and set aside the Decision1 and Resolution2 of the Court of Appeals (CA), dated January 23, 2013 and June 17, 2013, respectively, in CA-G.R. SP No. 125091. The assailed CA Decision affirmed the March 28, 2012 Resolution of the Fourth Division of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), which found that respondent corporation validly dismissed petitioners from their employment, while the CA Resolution denied petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration.
The facts of the case are as follows:
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibraryRespondent Po!yson Industries, Inc. (Polyson) is a duly organized domestic corporation which is primarily engaged in the business of manufacturing plastic bags for supermarkets, department stores and the like.
Petitioners, on the other hand, were employees of Polyson and were officers of Obrero Pilipino (Obrero), the union of the employees of Polyson.
The instant case arose from a labor dispute, between herein petitioners and respondent corporation, which was certified by the Secretary of the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) to the NLRC for compulsory arbitration.
In its Position Paper3 submitted to the NLRC, Polyson alleged that: on April 28, 2011, it received a notice of hearing from the DOLE with respect to the petition for certification election filed by Obrero; on May 31, 2011, Polyson, through counsel and management representative, met with the officers of Obrero, led by the union president, herein petitioner Ramirez; Obrero asked that it be voluntarily recognized by Polyson as the exclusive bargaining agent of the rank-and-file employees of Polyson, but the latter refused and opted for a certification election; furious at such refusal, the Obrero officers threatened the management that the union will show its collective strength in the coming days; on June 7, 2011, Polyson received a rush order from one of its clients for the production of 100,000 pieces of plastic bags; the management of Polyson informed the operators of its Cutting Section that they would be needing workers to work overtime because of the said order; based on the usual practice of the company, those who intend to perform overtime work were expected to sign the "time sheet" indicating their willingness to work after their shift; on June 7, 2011, the supervisors approached the operators but were told that they would be unable to work overtime because they have other commitments after their shift; the supervisors then requested that the operators set aside their time for the following day to work beyond their regular shift; on June 8, 2011, five (5) operators indicated their desire to work overtime;4 however, after their regular shift, three of the five workers did not work overtime which resulted in the delay in delivery of the client's order and eventually resulted in the cancellation of the said order by reason of such delay;5 when management asked the workers, who initially manifested their desire to work overtime, to indicate in the time sheet the reason for their failure to do so, two of the three workers, namely, Leuland Visca (Visca) and Samuel Tuting (Tuting) gave the same reason, to wit: "Ayaw nila/ng iba na mag-OT [overtime] ako";6 the management then conducted an investigation and a hearing where Visca affirmed his previous claim that petitioners were the ones who pressured him to desist from rendering overtime work;7 on even date, Tuting executed a written statement claiming that herein petitioners induced or threatened them not to work overtime;8 the management then gave notices to petitioners asking them to explain why no disciplinary action would be taken against them;9 petitioners submitted their respective explanations to the management denying their liability;10 after evaluation, the management informed petitioners that it has decided to terminate petitioners' employment on the ground that they instigated an illegal concerted activity resulting in losses to the company.11chanrobleslaw
In their Position Paper,12 petitioners denied the allegations of Polyson contending that they were terminated from their employment not because they induced or threatened their co-employees not to render overtime work but because they established a union which sought to become the exclusive bargaining agent of the rank-and-file employees of Polyson; that their termination was undertaken without affording them substantive and procedural due process; and that Polyson is guilty of unfair labor practice.
Subsequently, on June 29, 2011, Obrero filed a Notice of Strike with the National Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB) which was predicated on various grounds, among which was the alleged illegal dismissal of herein petitioners.
Thereafter, on July 21, 2011, the DOLE Secretary certified the labor dispute to the NLRC for immediate compulsory arbitration where the parties were required to maintain the status quo, in accordance with Article 263(g) of the Labor Code.13chanrobleslaw
On December 26, 2011, the NLRC rendered its Decision14 finding petitioners illegally dismissed from their employment and ordering their reinstatement to their former positions without loss of seniority rights and other privileges and benefits as well as to pay petitioners their backwages and attorney's fees. The NLRC ruled that, for failure of Polyson to submit in evidence petitioners' supposed written explanations in answer to the company's Notice to Explain, Polyson failed to discharge its burden of proving that petitioners were indeed terminated for a valid cause and in accordance with due process.
Polyson then filed a Motion for Reconsideration15 submitting, for the consideration of the NLRC, the subject written explanations of petitioners and reiterating their position that petitioners were, indeed, validly dismissed.
On March 28, 2012, the NLRC issued a Resolution16 granting Polyson's Motion for Reconsideration, thereby reversing and setting aside its December 26, 2011 Decision and rendering a new judgment which declared petitioners as validly dismissed. In the said Resolution, the NLRC found that Polyson was able to present sufficient evidence to establish that petitioners' termination from employment was for a valid cause, as they were found guilty of inducing or threatening their co-employees not to render overtime work, and that petitioners' dismissal was in conformity with due process requirements.
Aggrieved by the above Resolution, petitioners filed a special civil action for certiorari with the CA assailing the said Resolution and praying for the reinstatement of the December 26, 2011 Decision of the NLRC.17chanrobleslaw
In its questioned Decision dated January 23, 2013, the CA denied petitioners' petition for certiorari and affirmed the March 28, 2012 Resolution of the NLRC. The CA ruled that petitioners' defense, which is anchored primarily on their denial of the allegations of Polyson, cannot overcome the categorical statements of Polyson's witnesses who identified petitioners as the persons who induced or threatened them not to render overtime work.
Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration,18 but the CA denied it in its Resolution dated June 17, 2013.
Hence, the present petition for review on certiorari based on the following grounds:
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DIVISION, COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN RENDERING THE HEREIN ASSAILED DECISIONS.
THE THIRTEENTH DIVISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS MISAPPRECIATED THE ACTUAL FACTS OF THE INSTANT CASE. THUS, A REVIEW IS NECESSARY AND THE ASSAILED DECISIONS VACATED.19
The abovementioned finding is bolstered by the Incident Report dated 10 June 2011 wherein it is stated that upon inquiry by Respondent Wilson Yu as regards the reason for the non-rendering of overtime work, [petitioner] Errol Ramirez retorted, thus: "[DI BA] SABI NINYO EIGHT (8) HOURS LANG KAMI. EH DI EIGHT (8) NA LANG. KUNG MAG[-]OOVERTIME KAMI DAPAT LAHAT MAY OVERTIME. AYAW KO MAGKAWATAK WATAK ANG MGA TAO KO." It is, therefore, unmistakably clear that [petitioners] were completely aware of and, in fact, were responsible for what transpired during the scheduled overtime. [Petitioners] cannot now feign ignorance and simply deny liability upon the implausible pretext that the "overtime boycott" was undertaken without their knowledge and not upon their prodding. Note that the exchange was witnessed by several other workers and, interestingly, was never disputed by herein [petitioners].32chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
x x x a "strike on the installment plan;" as a willful reduction in the rate of work by concerted action of workers for the purpose of restricting the output of the employer, in relation to a labor dispute; as an activity by which workers, without a complete stoppage of work, retard production or their performance of duties and functions to compel management to grant their demands. The Court also agrees that such a slowdown is generally condemned as inherently illicit and unjustifiable, because while the employees "continue to work and remain at their positions and accept the wages paid to them," they at the same time "select what part of their allotted tasks they care to perform of their own volition or refuse openly or secretly, to the employer's damage, to do other work;" in other words, they "work on their own terms.34
x x x x
x x x Any union officer who knowingly participates in an illegal strike and any worker or union officer who knowingly participates in the commission of illegal acts during a strike may be declared to have lost his employment status: Provided, That mere participation of a worker in a lawful strike shall not constitute sufficient ground for termination of his employment, even if a replacement had been hired by the employer during such lawful strike.40
Endnotes:
1 Penned by Associate Justice Isaias P. Dicdican, with the concurrence of Associate Justices Michael P. Elbinias and Nina G. Antonio-Valenzuela, Annex "A" to Petition: rollo, pp. 25-36.
2 Id at 38-39.
3 Id at 132-138.
4 Id. at 142.
5 Id. at 147.
6 Id. at 142
7 Id. at 144.
8 Id. at 145.
9 Id at 148-151.
10 CA rollo, pp. 68-70, 72.
11Rollo, pp. 152-155.
12 CA rollo, pp. 81-92.
13 Id at 56-58.
14 Id at 28-35.
15 Id. at 62-67.
16 Id. at 44-55.
17 Id. at 3-27.
18 Id. at 172-183.
19Rollo, p. 13.
20King of Kings Transport, Inc. v. Mamac, 553 Phil. 108, 114 (2007).
21Aliling v. Feliciano, et al., 686 Phil. 889, 909 (2012).
22 Id
23 CA rollo, p. 50.
24Toyota Motors Phil. Corp. Workers Association (TMPCWA) v. National Labor Relations Commission, Second Division, 562 Phil. 759, 798 (2007).
25cralawred Id.
26 Id.
27Rollo, p. 142.
28 Id. at 144.
29 Id. at 145.
30Arboleda v. National Labor Relations Commission, 362 Phil. 383, 391 (1999).
31 Id
32Rollo, pp. 82-83. (Citation omitted)
33Ilaw at Buklod ng Manggagawa (IBM) v. National Labor Relations Commission, et al., 275 Phil. 635, 649 (1991).
34Interphil Laboratories Employees Union-FFW, et al. v. Interphil Laboratories, Inc., et al., 423 Phil. 948, 964 (2001), citing Ilaw at Buklod ng Manggagawa (IBM) v. NLRC, supra, at 649-650. (Emphases ours)
35 83 C.J. S. 543, citing Sammons v. Hotel & Restaurant Emp. Local Union No. 363, Com. PI., 93 N.E. 2D 301, 302.
36 83 C.J.S. 544, citing People on Complaint of Mandel v. Tapel, 3 N.Y.S. 2D 779, 781 and Walter W. Oeflein, Inc. v. State, 188 N.W. 633,635, 177 Wis. 394.
37New Puerto Commercial, et at. v. Lopez, et at., 639 Phil. 437, 445 (2010).
38 Id.
39 Id.
40Emphasis supplied.
41 Pilipino Telephone Corporation v. Pilipino Telephone Employees Association (PILTEA), et al., 552 Phil. 432, 452 (2007).
42 Id.
43 Id.
44 Id.
45 Id.