Monday, October 31, 2022


G.R. Nos. 158190-91 June 21, 2006 NISSAN MOTORS PHILIPPINES, INC., vs. SECRETARY OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT ------- ---------x



A 2000-2001 labor dispute between Nissan Motors and BANAL-NMPI-OLALIA-KMU ("Union" hereafter) triggered by a collective bargaining deadlock resulted in (1) the filing of four (4) notices of strike, the first filed on December 4, 2000 on account of the alleged suspension of about 140 employees following a disruption of company operations; and (2) the dismissal from the service of a number of company employees. 

The DOLE issued an order assuming jurisdiction over the dispute. In it, the DOLE Secretary expressly enjoined any strike or lockout and directed the parties to cease and desist from committing any act that might exacerbate the situation, and for the Union to refrain from engaging in any disruptive activity.

Eventually, the DOLE issued a decision which contained names of union officers and members whom Nissan Motors dismissed for defying the directives contained in the assumption order. 

The DOLE subsequently issued a resolution with  modification which is the deletion from the list of dismissed Union officers the names of three (3) employees previously identified as officers, i.e., Efimaco C. Marica, Rafael L. Guillano and Aldren Camposano, but are not listed as such in the official records of the Bureau of Labor Relations.

On February 7, 2003, in consolidated cases the CA, acting on the separate petitions for certiorari of Nissan Motors and the Union, effectively affirmed the aforementioned decision, as modified, of the DOLE Secretary. In turn, the Court, in its Decision of June 21, 2006, affirmed that of the CA insofar as it upheld the DOLE Secretary on the suspension and dismissal angle of her decision, or to be precise, her order (a) affirming the suspension of the 140 employees which is the subject of the first notice of strike; (b) sustaining the dismissal of the Union officers; and (c) downgrading to one-month suspension the penalty of dismissal heretofore imposed on Union members who joined the striking Union officers in defying the assumption order and accordingly reinstating said union members having already served the one-month suspension.

The Supreme Court in turn sustained the CA's Decision also insofar as it affirmed the disciplinary aspect of the DOLE Secretary's case disposition.


Who among the union members were ordered reinstated, pursuant to the affirmed decision of the DOLE, considering that the Court's Decision failed to mention the names of such union members ordered reinstated after their dismissal was recalled.


The SC held that there is really nothing to clarify. For, albeit the dispositive portion of the DOLE's decision was indeed silent as to who were to be reinstated, the text thereof under the heading: The Issue on Dismissal delved on the question of who were subjects of dismissal and specifically carried 44 names of "Union officers and members dismissed for carrying out slowdown in defiance of the assumption or jurisdiction order." And any doubt as to who the DOLE Secretary dispositively referred when she wrote of the union officers whose dismissal is sustained and the union officers whose dismissal is recalled should be put to rest by the clarifying light accorded by the following excerpts of her decision:

Thus, the Union's excuses do not hold sway on this Office. To be sure, the Union engaged in work showdown which under the circumstances in which they were undertaken constitute illegal strike. The company is therefore right in dismissing the subject Union officers in accordance with Article 264 (a) of the Labor Code, for participating in illegal strike in defiance of the assumption of jurisdiction order by the Labor Secretary.

However, the members of the Union should not be as severely punished. Dismissal is a harsh penalty as surely they were only following orders from their officers. Besides, there is no evidence that they engaged or participated in the commission of illegal activities during the said strike. They should thus be reinstated to their former positions, but without backwages. Their action which resulted in prejudice to the Company cannot however go unpunished. For the injury that they have collectively inflicted on the company, they should be disciplined. A one month suspension is a reasonable disciplinary measure which should be deemed served during the time they out of their jobs.

The instant motion was thus RESOLVED accordingly.

0 yorum:

Post a Comment

Thank you so much for visiting. God bless you and your family always.