Cited Laws
TL;DR — Ruling
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered: 1. Declaring the respondents guilty of unfair labor practice and ordering the respondents to cease and desist from further committing the ULP acts as charged; 2. Ordering the respondents to reinstate the complainants in their previous jobs and to pay them backwages for one (1) year without qualifications or deductions for earning elsewhere during their illegal dismissal.
Accordingly, the labor arbiter ordered: WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered: 1. Declaring the respondents guilty of unfair labor practice and ordering the respondents to cease and desist from further committing the ULP acts as charged; 2. Ordering the respondents to reinstate the complainants in their previous jobs and to pay them backwages for one (1) year without qualifications or deductions for earning elsewhere during their illegal dismissal. The aspect of reinstatement, either in the job or payroll at the option of the respondents, pursuant to Article 223 of the Labor Code, being immediately executory, the respondents are hereby directed to reinstate the complainants either way upon their presentation of themselves for work. 3. Ordering the respondents to pay the complainants salary differential and legal holiday pay. The following are the monetary awards as computed by Ma. Cristina T. Paraoan of the Commissions Research and Information Unit: 1. ROMULO ALMONTE P43,087.76 2. REGOLITO BAÑAGA 53,953.93 3. EMELITA BATOON 43,533.46 4. ELIAS ECABRIA 42,229.72 5. LAURO DE LEON 45,499.32 6. NILDA DELGADO 32,625.72 7. JOHNNY FLORENCIO 45,499.72 8. MARCIAL FRANCO 43,147.72 9. SALVADOR LLABRES 44,915.32 10.ROSALINA FLORENCIO 37,564.85 11.DANIEL MARISCOTES 44,639.72 12.ROLANDO MATRE 44,713.52 13.VIRGINIA PEDRACIO 54,498.96 14.ROLANDO RAMOS 44,772.60 15.CORAZON REYES 58,868.46 16.ROMEO REYES 56,779.27 17.JACINTO RODRIGUEZ, JR. 37,674.12 18.CAROLINA SANTIAGO 35,257.14 19.JAIME SIBUG 32,453.72 20.MARITA SORIANO 37,900.72 21.CAMILA TUGAY 39,046.68 The claim for overtime pay is hereby dismissed for lack of sufficient evidence. Pursuant to the decision of the labor arbiter, private respondents sent telegrams, dated August 29, 1992, to the petitioners ordering them to - REPORT TO WORK IMMEDIATELY AT 131 LOPEZ JAENA ST. JESUS DELA PEÑA, MARIKINA. FAILURE TO DO SO WITHIN TEN (10) DAYS SHALL BE INTERPRETED THAT YOU ARE NO LONGER INTERESTED TO WORK HERE. [1] In a letter dated September 3, 1992, petitioners responded, thus: While all the complainants are ready and willing to return to work at the soonest time possible and while we do not in any way reject the scheduled reinstatement, it may not be possible within the time frame stated by you in the telegram. Inasmuch as there are more than four members of the union, in fact more than twenty (20), who are entitled to reinstatement; and inasmuch as there are other aspects of the decision of the labor arbiter covering the above-stated case which have to be discussed, we hereby propose that a conference be held between the arbiter, the union leaders and managements representatives in order that all concerned will be able to thresh out these matters and prepare for a smooth and amicable implementation of the decision in the above-mentioned case. In this connection, a motion for immediate execution of the decision of the arbiter has been filed in behalf of the complainant and a conference on the basis of this motion