Back to Search
JurisprudenceG.R. No. 149440 -

G.R. No. 149440 - HACIENDA FATIMA AND/OR PATRICIO VILLEGAS, ALFONSO VILLEGAS AND CRISTINE SEGURA, VS. NATIONAL FEDERATION OF SUGARCANE WORKERS-FOOD AND GENERAL TRADE.DECISION - Supreme Court E-Library

Cited Laws

RA 193,RA 118,RA 332,RA 86,RA 369,RA 529,RA 293,RA 23,RA 49,RA 309,RA 762,RA 450,RA 196,
Share:

TL;DR — Ruling

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant special civil action for certiorari is hereby DENIED .” [2] On the other hand, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) Decision, [3] upheld by the CA, disposed in this wise: “WHEREFORE, premises considered, the decision of the Labor Arbiter is hereby SET ASIDE and VACATED and a new one entered declaring complainants to have been illegally dismissed.

Decision

Ruling

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant special civil action for certiorari is hereby DENIED . [2] On the other hand, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) Decision, [3] upheld by the CA, disposed in this wise: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the decision of the Labor Arbiter is hereby SET ASIDE and VACATED and a new one entered declaring complainants to have been illegally dismissed. Respondents are hereby ORDERED to reinstate complainants except Luisa Rombo, Ramona Rombo, Bobong Abriga and Boboy Silva to their previous position and to pay full backwages from September 1991 until reinstated. Respondents being guilty of unfair labor practice are further ordered to pay complainant union the sum of P10,000.00 as moral damages and P5,000.00 as exemplary damages. [4] The Facts The facts are summarized in the NLRC Decision as follows: Contrary to the findings of the Labor Arbiter that complainants [herein respondents] refused to work and/or were choosy in the kind of jobs they wanted to perform, the records is replete with complainants persistence and dogged determination in going back to work. Indeed, it would appear that respondents did not look with favor workers having organized themselves into a union. Thus, when complainant union was certified as the collective bargaining representative in the certification elections, respondents under the pretext that the result was on appeal, refused to sit down with the union for the purpose of entering into a collective bargaining agreement. Moreover, the workers including complainants herein were not given work for more than one month. In protest, complainants staged a strike which was however settled upon the signing of a Memorandum of Agreement which stipulated among others that: a) The parties will initially meet for CBA negotiations on the 11th day of January 1991 and will endeavor to conclude the same within thirty (30) days. b) The management will give priority to the women workers who are members of the union in case work relative x x x or amount[ing] to gahit and [ dipol ] arises. c) Ariston Eruela Jr. will be given back his normal work load which is six (6) days in a week. d) The management will provide fifteen (15) wagons for the workers and that existing workforce prior to the actual strike will be given priority. However, in case the said workforce would not be enough, the management can hire additional workers to supplement them. e) The management will not anymore allow the scabs, numbering about eighteen (18) workers[,] to work in the hacienda; and f) The union will immediately lift the picket upon signing of this agreement. However, alleging that complainants failed to load the fifteen wagons, respondents reneged on its commitment to sit down and bargain collectively. Instead, respondent employed all means including the use of private armed guards to prevent the organizers from entering the premises. Moreover, starting September 1991, respondents did not any more