Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 2

01 Philtread Tire and Rubber Corporation v NLRC AUTHOR: TIGLAO

[G.R. No. 102185 | 15 February 1993] NOTES: Sobrang labo ng case HAHAHAHAHA Im so
TOPIC: Employer Lockout sorry pero yung 1st issue lang ang nag mention ng lockout.
PONENTE: J. Grio-Aquino Kahit sa syllabus ng SCRA wala din. I cry.
CASE LAW/ DOCTRINE:
The NLRC also found that the company had complied with the procedural requirement of a valid lockout (Art. 263 of
the Labor Code) and that in view of the reasons therefor, it was clear to the NLRC that "the company in resorting to
lockout wanted to obtain industrial peace, a peace that seemed unobtainable as long as those locked out obstructively
formed part of its operation". This factual finding was not questioned by any of the parties. The NLRC concluded that
the company incurred no liability to the locked out employees.
EMERGENCY RECIT
Philtread filed a NoL against the union for ULP and CBA violation. It also sought for clearance to terminate all union
officials, which eventually led to their termination. Philtread also filed libel charges against 36 union officers. Union
sought for SOLE intervention. SOLE assumed jurisdiction and ordered the parties to return to work. Philtread partially
complied because it accepted back some workers EXCEPT the 36 union officers. Union then filed for a motion for
execution of the return to work order which NLRC granted. Philtread refused. During the conciliation proceedings,
Commissioner Veloso proposed to defer the return to work order and rather give financial concessions to the workers. It
was found out to be accepted by majority of the workers. But the union decided to remain steadfast in executing the
return to work order. NLRC ruled not to reinstate but rather just grant backwages. Hence, both parties appealed to the
SC.
FACTS:
ADFLO-Philtread (aka Union) filed a notice of strike against Philtread, for alleged discrimination, union busting, non-
granting of merit increases, and other acts of ULP

In reaction, Philtread filed a Notice of Lockout, claiming it was the union which was guilty of ULP for violation of
the CBA. Philtread also filed clearance to terminate all the union officials.

Philtread announced that all salaried/supervising union EEs would not be allowed into the work premises, and Philtread
then advertised job vacancies in the Manila Bulleting. Union retaliated by picketing and filling a complaint for illegal
dismissal of union officers.

Philtread later filed criminal charges for libel against 36 union officers who distributed leaflets imputing defects in the
companys products. Union then files a petition for the SOLE to assume jurisdiction

SOLE certified the case to the NLRC for compulsory arbitration; and SOLE ordered the parties to return to work, and
the management to accept them back to the same terms and conditions prior to the dispute

Philtread partially complied: it accepted back workers, but it did not accept back the 36 workers who were charged
with libel. Philtread said it would not reinstate these workers until the labor dispute is resolved.

Union thus files a motion for execution of the SOLEs return-to-work order; NLRC grants the unions motion and
orders Philtread to accept back these 36 workers.

But Philtread refused to accept them back, and sought a TRO/certiorari/prohibition with the SC. Meanwhile, both
Philtread and the Union requested conciliation meetings presided by NLRC Commissioner Veloso

Commissioner Veloso proposed a deferred execution of the return to work order, and in exchange, Philtread would
grant financial concessions to the workers.

Based on a letter from some EEs, Commissioner Velosos proposal for a deferred execution of the return to work order
was accepted by a majority of the EEs themselves

But the Unions counsel decided to re-file its previous motion for execution of the return-to-work order. So, the
NLRC finally decided to rule on the dispute. Instead of acting on the Unions motion for execution, the NLRC
resolved the dispute altogether:
o NLRC did not reinstate the 36 EEs, but gave them backwages
o Dismissed all other claims
Both parties filed Motions for Reconsideration. Philtread files a MR, because the award of backwages was without
legal basis, and because the 2 months separation pay was excessive. Union files a MR, because the decision was
premature, because the Union was still trying to prove that the EEs did not actually agree to the deferment of the
return-to-work order.

Union claims the NLRC order was issued in denial of the Unions right to due process
ISSUE(S):
1. W/N the Union was denied due process? NO [RELEVANT]
2. W/N the NLRC was correct in not reinstating and only granting backwages? YES.
3. W/N the backwages are proper? YES
RATIO:
1st Issue:
The Union cannot claim a denial of due process, because the employees themselves already accepted the deferred
return-to-work order. In fact, when the Union re-filed its motion to execute the return-to-work order, a majority of the
employees objected to such re-filing, since these employees preferred the financial concessions to be given out by the
employer

RE: LOCKOUT.
The NLRC also found that the company had complied with the procedural requirement of a valid lockout (Art. 263 of
the Labor Code) and that in view of the reasons therefor, it was clear to the NLRC that "the company in resorting to
lockout wanted to obtain industrial peace, a peace that seemed unobtainable as long as those locked out obstructively
formed part of its operation". This factual finding was not questioned by any of the parties. The NLRC concluded that
the company incurred no liability to the locked out employees. The NLRC said:

"But again, we concede, as this is not even disputed by the Union, the company complied with the procedural
requirements of a valid lockout. In relation, therefore, to the first question, the company incurred no liability to those
employees affected by its lockout."

2nd Issue:
It was the workers who sought the return to work order, and as such, they could also waive it. This waiver was present
when the workers accepted a deferred return-to-work order in exchange for financial concessions

3rd Issue:
Although there was proper filing of the lockout, Philtread was penalized for not immediately complying with the
return-to-work order

A return-to-work order is immediately executory, and can be enforced even pending the case against the 36 locked out
employees, since the order is aimed at maintaining the status quo

Hence, backwages are to be awarded to the locked out employees from the time the return-to-work order was issued
until the the acceptance of the deferred return-to-work order

RE: AMOUNT OF BACKWAGES; EXCESSIVE


Although Philtread is liable for not immediately complying with the return-to-work order, the amount of 2 months per
year of services was excessive

In the CBA between the parties, the awards for backwages for retrenchments, retirement, death or disability range only
between month to 1 months per year of services

Awarding 2 months per year of services would send signlas that disloyalty, destabilization and formenting of labor
unrest is rewarded. The award should be reduced to only 1 month per year of service.
DISSENTING/CONCURRING OPINION(S):