Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. 94372 June 21, 1991
SAMAHANG MANGGAGAWA NG RIZAL PAR !n" #OMINGO
ENRI$UEZ, petitioners,
vs.
NATIONAL LA%OR RELATIONS COMMISSION !n" NATIONAL
PAR #E&ELOPMENT COMMITTEE, respondents.
Merito R. Fernandez for petitioners.

CRUZ, J.:p
The petitioners ere dis!issed b" the National Par# Develop!ent
$o!!ittee, private respondent herein, on the supercilious %round that their
continued e!plo"!ent as &not co!patible ith the rules of the Ne
Societ".& That as in '()*, shortl" after the i!position of !artial la.
+hen the petitioners co!plained to the Depart!ent of ,abor, their
dis!issal as sustained b" the ,abor -rbiter. This as not surprisin%
because the "ear as '(). and !artial la as still in force.
+hat is surprisin% is this. +hen his decision as appealed to the N,R$, the
public respondent also affir!ed the dis!issal albeit on a different %round.
This as on /une *(, '((0, lon% after the Ne Societ" had been banished
and discredited. The Freedo! $onstitution had alread" called for the
eradication of &all ini1uitous vesti%es of the previous re%i!e.&
1
The petitioners ere e!plo"ees of the private respondent, then under the
chair!anship of I!elda Marcos and the vice2chair!anship of the late
Teodoro F. Valencia. So!eti!e in -u%ust '()*, the petitioner union
proposed ne%otiations for the adoption of a collective bar%ainin% a%ree!ent
but the proposal as i%nored. The union then filed a notice of stri#e ith
the 3ureau of ,abor Relations on Septe!ber ., '()*, on the %rounds of
refusal of !ana%e!ent to bar%ain collectivel", refusal to reco%ni4e the
union, and discri!ination of union !e!bers. The conference scheduled b"
the 3ureau for the folloin% da" could not even be held because the private
respondent did not send a representative.
On Septe!ber '., '()*, petitioner $ora4on -lparicio as dis!issed. This
as folloed on October 5, and 6, '()*, ith the uncere!onious separation
also of the other individual petitioners. The unifor! reason %iven as the
inco!patibilit" of their continued e!plo"!ent ith the rules of the Ne
Societ". - sa!ple letter read as follos7
Republic of the Philippines
Office of the President
N-TION-, P-R8S D9V9,OPM9NT $OMMITT99
Ri4al Par#, Manila
October 5, '()*
Date
Mr. Modesto Deunida
Driver Truc# In2$har%e
Ri4al Par#
Sir:Mada!7
This notice ter!inates "our services, effective
i!!ediatel". ;our continued e!plo"!ent under the
N-TION-, P-R8S D9V9,OPM9NT $OMMITT99
or in an" of its pro<ects is not co!patible ith the rules of
the Ne Societ".
For i!!ediate co!pliance and %uidance.
=S>D.? /9S@S 3. -,V-R9A, /R.
Director
The proceedin%s ere dela"ed hen the private respondent sub!itted that
the co!plaint should be resolved b" the Office of the President, resultin% in
the elevation of the !atter to MalacaBan%. The case as returned to the
public respondent on the findin% that it fell under the <urisdiction of the
N,R$ pursuant to P.D. No. *', pro!ul%ated on October '6, '()*.
2
The ,abor -rbiter dis!issed the case, holdin% that P.D. No. *' as not
applicable, the dis!issals havin% been !ade before its effectivit" date. Cis
decision as dul" appealed to the N,R$, but action on the appeal as also
dela"ed, and further still hen the records of the case ere a!on% those
burned in the fire at the N,R$ buildin% on Dece!ber '5, '(D5. -ccordin%
to the N,R$, it too# so!e ti!e before the" could be reconstituted.
3
In its on decision,
4
the reor%ani4ed N,R$ still sa fit to sustain the
dis!issals !ade b" the private respondent and declared as follos7
- perusal of the evidence adduced shos that the char%e
of unfair labor practice alle%edl" co!!itted b" the
respondent has not been sufficientl" proven. It is ell
settled that a char%e for unfair labor practice !ust be
proven b" clear and convincin% evidence, hich is
!iserabl" antin% in this case.
The N,R$ assu!ed all the ti!e that it had <urisdiction over the case. So
apparentl" have the petitioners in the petition no before us as the said
decision is challen%ed onl" for %rave abuse of discretion in upholdin% the
invalid dis!issals. The Solicitor >eneral has !oved for dis!issal, but not
on <urisdictional %rounds.
In recent decisions, this $ourt has held that the National Par#s Develop!ent
$o!!ittee is a %overn!ent a%enc" hose e!plo"ees are covered b" the
civil service rules and not the ,abor $ode.
In Perlas vs. People of the Philippines,
'
e held that the Sandi%anba"an
had <urisdiction over the actin% director of the $o!!ittee ho as under
prescription for estafa, thus7
The National Par#s Develop!ent $o!!ittee as created
ori%inall" as an 9Eecutive $o!!ittee on /anuar" '6,
'(.5, for the develop!ent of the Fue4on Me!orial,
,uneta and other national par#s =9Eecutive Order No. 50?.
It as later desi%nated as the National Par#s Develop!ent
$o!!ittee =NPD$? on Februar" ), '()6 =9.O. No. .(?.
On /anuar" (, '(.., I!elda R. Marcos and Teodoro F.
Valencia ere desi%nated $hair!an and Vice2$hair!an
respectivel" =9 O. No. 5?. Despite an atte!pt to transfer it
to the 3ureau of Forest Develop!ent, Depart!ent of
Natural Resources, on Dece!ber ', '()G =,etter of
I!ple!entation No. 5(, issued pursuant to PD No. D50,
dated Nove!ber *), '()G, the NPD$ has re!ained under
the Office of the President =9.O. No. )0( dated /ul" *),
'(D'?.
-ffir!in% that findin%, e said in Republic vs. $ourt of -ppeals
(
as
follos7
Since NPD$ is a %overn!ent a%enc", its e!plo"ees are
covered b" civil service rules and re%ulations =Sec. *,
-rticle IH, '(D) $onstitution?. Its e!plo"ees are civil
service e!plo"ees =Sec. '6, 9Eecutive Order No. 'D0?.
+hile NPD$ e!plo"ees are alloed under the '(D)
$onstitution to or%ani4e and <oin unions of their choice,
there is as "et no la per!ittin% the! to stri#e. In case of
a labor dispute beteen the e!plo"ees and the
%overn!ent. Section 'G of 9Eecutive Order No. 'D0 dated
/une ', '(D) provides that the Public Sector ,abor
Mana%e!ent $ouncil, not the Depart!ent of ,abor and
9!plo"!ent, shall hear the dispute. $learl", the $ourt of
-ppeals and the loer court erred in holdin% that the
labor dispute beteen the NPD$ and the !e!bers of the
NPDS- is co%ni4able b" the Depart!ent of ,abor and
9!plo"!ent.
Nevertheless, considerin% that this case has been pendin% since '()* and all
the evidence needed to resolve it is before us, and !ore so because the issue
presents no special difficult", the $ourt feels it should be decided no,
ithout %oin% throu%h the correct procedural for!alities that an"a" ill
result in the sa!e conclusion.
-ccordin%l", e rule directl" as follos.
- !ere readin% of the ter!ination notice ill readil" sho that the
dis!issals ere not for cause and that the reason %iven as prima
facie invalid. The %eneral state!ent that the e!plo"!ent of the petitioners
as not consonant ith the rules of the Ne Societ" as a preposterous
<ustification. There as no indication of the specific rules supposedl"
violated nor as there a shoin%, assu!in% the said rules had been
pinpointed, of ho or hen the" had been breached b" the dis!issed
e!plo"ees. Neither as it established that the e!plo"ees ere infor!ed of
the char%es a%ainst the! or that the" ere %iven an opportunit" to be heard
in their defense.
Such cavalier treat!ent of the e!plo"ees could have been per!itted under
the so2called Ne Societ" but cannot be countenanced no under the
restored de!ocrac". It is trul" a!a4in% that it as sustained b" the present
N,R$ and no less astonishin% that it is no defended b" the Office of the
Solicitor >eneral. That office su%%ests that the burden of proof as on the
petitioners, as co!plainants, to sho that their dis!issal as ille%al. This is
incorrectI that office has it bac#ards. It is settled that in cases of dis!issal,
it is the e!plo"er ho !ust prove its validit", not the e!plo"ee ho !ust
prove its invalidit".
It !ust be borne in !ind that the basic principle in
ter!ination cases is that the burden of proof rests upon
the e!plo"er to sho that the dis!issal is for <ust cause
and failure to do so ould necessaril" !ean that the
dis!issal is not <ustified and, therefore the e!plo"ee is
entitled to be reinstated in accordance ith the !andate of
-rticle *D0 of the Ne ,abor $ode.
7
3" si!pl" sa"in% that the continued e!plo"!ent of the petitioners as not
consistent ith the rules of the Ne Societ", the private respondent failed to
dischar%e the burden of provin% that the e!plo"ees deserved to be
dis!issed. In sustainin% the dis!issals despite their undis%uised
arbitrariness, the N,R$ co!!itted %rave abuse of discretion correctable b"
the eEtraordinar" rit of certiorari under Rule .G of the Rules of $ourt.
The insolence of the Marcos %overn!ent should have been corrected b"
no, after !ore than five "ears since the people poer revolution that
banished the deposed President and ith hi!, it as hoped then, all the
oppressions of his discredited re%i!e. It see!s, hoever, that the effects of
past arro%ance have not "et co!pletel" disappeared and, orse, are still
bein% affir!ed and stoutl" defended no b" the ne %overn!ent. The
$ourt ill not allo this.
+C9R9FOR9, the petition is >R-NT9D. The decision of the N,R$
dated /une *(, '((0, is R9V9RS9D. The private respondent is ordered to
R9INST-T9 all the individual petitioners ithout loss of seniorit" ri%hts
and to pa" the! five "ears bac# salaries.
)
SO ORD9R9D.
Narvasa, Grio-Aquino and Medialdea, JJ., concur.
Gancayco, J., is on leave.