G.R. NO. 140150 - ASSOCIATION OF INTEGRATED SECURITY FORCE OF BISLIG (AISFB) -ALU, VS. HON. COURT OF APPEALS AND PAPER INDUSTRIES CORPORATION OF THE PHILIPPINES.

Ruling

WHEREFORE, the Commission finds respondent PICOP's closure of its Company Security Force and the consequent termination of employment of the security guards VALID and LEGAL. Accordingly, the complainants' complaint for illegal dismissal, backwages, etc., is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit. However, in accordance with the provision of Article 283 of the Labor Code, as amended, respondent PICOP is hereby ordered to grant the affected complainants, separation pay equivalent to the amount given to each of the absorbed members of the security force prior to their re-hiring or re-employment, if any, or one-half (1/2) month for every year of service, a fraction of at least six (6) months to be considered as one (1) whole year, whichever is higher, on the basis of the rate of salary or wage they received at the time of their termination from service. For this purpose, upon finality of the herein Resolution, the Corporate Auditing Examiner of the Arbitration Branch of origin is directed to compute the amount of separation pay each individual complainant is entitle to receive, observing in the course thereof the procedural requirements of due process, said computation to form an integral part of the herein Resolution. Herein petitioner thereafter filed its motion for reconsideration as well as a motion to have NLRC Commissioners Leon G. Gonzaga, Jr., and Musib M. Buat inhibit themselves from hearing the motion for reconsideration. Said motion to recuse was granted and NLRC Commissioners Ireneo B. Bernardo and Lourdes C. Javier temporarily replaced Commissioners Gonzaga and Buat as members of the 5 th Division of the NLRC. On 06 June 1994, the temporary members of the 5th Division of the NLRC issued a resolution denying the motion of herein petitioner. It held that: WHEREFORE, the union's Motion for Reconsideration is hereby DENIED and the Decision dated July 10, 1992 affirmed. However, the Company is hereby enjoined to accord priority preference to the displaced employees including Union members in case of hiring. Aggrieved, herein petitioner commenced, on 14 November 1994, a Petition for Certiorari before the Supreme Court. [6] The subject petition, however, was referred to the Court of Appeals for appropriate action and disposition per resolution [7] of this Court dated 07 December 1998, in accordance with the ruling in St. Martin Funeral Home v. NLRC . [8] On 20 July 1999, the Court of Appeals rendered a Decision affirming the findings of the NLRC, to wit: WHEREFORE, premises considered, instant petition is hereby DENIED DUE COURSE and DISMISSED for lack of merit and the decision dated July 10, 1992 , as well as the resolution dated June 6, 1994 of the National Labor Relations Commission are hereby AFFIRMED in toto . Still undaunted, the members of petitioner AISFB-ALU, represented by the latter, filed the present petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court challenging the above Decision of the court a quo predicated on the following