No.L49046.January26,1988.

SATURNOA.VICTORIA,petitioner,vs.HON.AMADOG.
INCIONG,DEPUTYMINISTER,andFAREAST
BROADCASTINGCOMPANY,INC.,respondents.

LaborLaws;Dismissal.Thepurposeinrequiringaprior
clearancefromtheSecretaryofLaborincasesofshutdownordismissal
ofemployeesistoaffordtheSecretaryampleopportunitytoexamine
anddeterminethereasonablenessoftherequest.

Same;Same;Incaseofpetitionersdismissal,areportisrequired
asprovidedunderSection11[f]ofRuleXIVoftheRulesand
RegulationsimplementingtheLaborCode.Wefurtheragreewiththe
ActingSecretaryofLaborthatwhatwasrequiredinthecaseof
petitionersdismissalwasonlyareportasprovidedunderSection11[f]
ofRuleXIVoftheRulesandRegulationsimplementingtheLaborCode
whichprovides:EveryemployershallsubmitareporttotheRegional
OfficeinaccordancewiththeformpresentedbytheDepartmentonthe
followinginstancesofterminationofemployment,suspension,layoffor
shutdownwhichmaybeeffectedbytheemployerwithoutprior
clearancewithinfive(5)daysthereafter:xxxxxxxxx

Same;Same;Jurisdiction.Employeesandlaborersinnonprofit
organizationsarenotcoveredbytheprovisionsoftheIndustrialPeace
ActandCourtofIndustrialRelations(nowRTC)hasnojurisdictionto
entertainpetitionersoflabororganizationsofsaidnonprofit
organizationsforcertificationastheexclusivebargaining
representativesofsaidemployeesandlaborers.

PETITIONforreviewfromtheorderoftheDepartmentof
LaborandEmployment.

ThefactsarestatedintheopinionoftheCourt.
FERNAN,J.:

PetitionforreviewoftheOrderofthethenActingSecretaryof
LaborAmadoG.InciongdatedJune6,1978,inNLRCCase
No.RB176475,reversingthedecisionoftheNationalLabor
RelationsCommissiondatedNovember17,1976andholding
that,underthelawandfactsofthecase,therewasno
necessityforprivaterespondenttoobtainaclearanceforthe
terminationofpetitionersemploymentunderArticle257[b]of
theLaborCode,asamended,andthatamerereportofsuch
terminationwassufficient,underSection11[f].RuleXIVofthe
RulesandRegulationsimplementingsaidCode.

PetitionerSaturnoVictoriawasemployedonMarch17,
1956byprivaterespondentFarEastBroadcastingCompany,
Incorporatedasaradiotransmitteroperator.Sometimein
July1971,heandhiscoworkersorganizedtheFarEast
BroadcastingCompanyEmployeesAssociation.After
registeringtheirassociationwiththethenDepartmentof
Labor,theydemandedrecognitionofsaidassociationbythe
companybutthelatterrefusedonthegroundthatbeinganon
profit,nonstock,noncommercialandreligiouscorporation,it
isnotcoveredbyRepublicAct875,otherwiseknownasthe
IndustrialPeaceAct,thelaborlawenforcedatthattime.

SeveralconciliationmeetingswereheldattheDepartment
ofLaborandinthosemeetings,theDirectorofLaborRelations
EdmundoCabaladvisedtheunionmembersthatthecompany
couldnotbeforcedtorecognizethemortobargaincollectively
withthembecauseitisanonprofit,noncommercialand
religiousorganization.Notwithstandingsuchadvice,theunion
membersledbySaturnoVictoriaasitspresident,declareda
strikeandpicketedthecompanyspremisesonSeptember6,
1972forthepurposeofseekingrecognitionofthelaborunion.

Asacountermeasure,thecompanyfiledacasefordamages
withpreliminaryinjunctionagainstthestrikersbeforethe
thenCourtofFirstInstanceofBulacandocketedasCivilCase
No.750V.Saidcourtissuedaninjunctionenjoiningthethree
dayoldstrikestagedagainstthecompany.Thecomplaintwas
lateramendedseekingtodeclarethestrikeillegal.

UponthedeclarationofmartiallawonSeptember21,1972
andthepromulgationofPresidentialDecreeNo.21creating
theNationalLaborRelationsCommission,theadhocNational
LaborRelationsCommissiontookcognizanceofthestrike
throughNLRCCaseNo.0021entitledFarEastBroadcasting
CompanyEmployeesAssociation,complainantversusFarEast
BroadcastingCompany,respondentandNLRCCaseNo.0285
entitledGenerosoSerino,complainant,versusFarEast
BroadcastingCompany,respondent,bothcasesfor
reinstatementduetothecompanysrefusaltoacceptthe
unionsoffertoreturntoworkduringthependencyofthecase
intheCourtofFirstInstance.

OnDecember28,1972,ArbitratorFlavioAguasrendereda
jointdecisioninthetwocasesmentionedaboverecognizingthe
jurisdictionoftheCourtofFirstInstanceofBulacan,the
dispositiveportionreadingasfollows:
INVIEWWHEREOF,andintheinterestofjusticeandequity,itisherebydirectedthat:
1. 1.ThatstrikingmembersoftheFarEastBroadcastingCompanyEmployeesAssociation
returntotheirrespectivepositionsinthecorporation;
2. 2.TherespondentFarEastBroadcastingCompanyIncorporatedtoacceptbackthe
returningstrikerswithoutlossinrankseniorityorstatus;
3. 3.Theworkersshallreturntoworkwithinten[10]daysfromreceiptofthisresolution
otherwisetheyshallbedeemedtohaveforfeitedsuchright;
4. 4.Therespondentshallreportcompliancewiththisdecisionwithinfifteen[15]daysfrom
receipthereof.
ThisOrdershall,however,bewithoutprejudicetowhateverdecisiontheCourtofFirst
InstanceofBulacanmaypromulgateinCivilCaseNo.750Vandtotherequirementsthe
existingordermayneedofpeopleworkingwiththemassmediaofcommunications.
ITISSOORDERED.1

Thedecisionofthearbitratorwassuccessivelyappealedtothe
adhocNationalLaborRelationsCommission,theSecretaryof
LaborandtheOfficeofthePresidentofthePhilippines,and
wasaffirmedinallinstances.

OnApril23,1975,theCourtofFirstInstanceofBulacan
renderedjudgment,towit:
WHEREFORE,judgmentisherebyrendered:
1. 1.Makinginjunctionagainstdefendantspermanent;
2. 2.DeclaringthatthisCourthasjurisdictiontotryandheartheinstantcasedespite
Section2ofPresidentialDecreeNo.2;
3. 3.DeclaringthatplaintiffFarEastBroadcastingCompanyisanonprofitorganization
sinceitdoesnotdeclaredividends;
4. 4.Declaringthatthestrikeadmittedbythedefendantstohavebeendeclaredbythemis
illegalinasmuchasitwasforthepurposeofcompellingtheplaintiffcompanyto
recognizetheirlaborunionwhichcouldnotbelegallydonebecausetheplaintiffs
werenotcoveredbyRepublicAct875;
5. 5.Declaringthattheevidencepresentedisinsufficienttoshowthatdefendantscaused
thedamagetotheplaintiffconsequentonthedestructionofitsrelaysandits
antennasaswellasitstransmissionlines.
SOORDERED.2

OnApril24,1975,byvirtueoftheabovedecision,thecompany
notifiedSaturnoVictoriathatheisdismissedeffectiveApril
26,1975.Thereupon,hefiledCaseNo.RBIV1764beforethe
NationalLaborRelationsCommission,RegionalBranchIV
againstthecompanyallegingviolationofArticle267ofthe
LaborCodewhichrequiresclearancefromtheSecretaryof
Laborforeveryshutdownofbusinessestablishmentsor
dismissalofemployees.OnFebruary27,1976,LaborArbiter
ManuelB.Lorenzorenderedadecisioninpetitionersfavor
declaringthedismissaltobeillegal,therebyordering
reinstatementwithfullbackwages.Onappeal,thearbiters
decisionwasaffirmedbytheNationalLaborRelations
Commission.Butwhenthecommissionsdecisionwasinturn
appealedtotheSecretaryofLabor,itwassetasideandinlieu
thereofthequestionedOrderdatedJune6,1978wasissued.

Inviewofitsbrevityandforabetterunderstandingofthe
reasonsbehindit,WequotethedisputedOrderinfull:
ORDER

ThisisanappealbyrespondentfromtheDecisionoftheNationalLaborRelations
Commission,datedNovember17,1976.
TheCommissionupheldtheDecisionofthelaborarbiterdatedFebruary27,1976ordering
respondenttoreinstatewithfullbackwageshereincomplainantSaturnoA.Victoriabased
onthefindingthatrespondentdidnotfileanyapplicationforclearancetoterminatethe
servicesofcomplainantbeforedismissinghimfromhisemployment.
Brieflythefactsofthiscaseareasfollows:
ComplainantSaturnoVictoriaisthepresidentoftheFarEastBroadcastingCompany
EmployeesUnion.OnSeptember8,1972,thesaiduniondeclaredastrikeagainst
respondentcompany.OnSeptember11,1972,respondentfiledwiththeCourtofFirst
InstanceofBulacan,CivilCaseNo.750V,fortheissuanceofaninjunctionandaprayer
thatthestrikebedeclaredillegal.
OnOctober24,1972,complainanttogetherwiththeotherstrikersfiledwiththeadhoc
NationalLaborRelationsCommissionCaseNos.0021and0285forreinstatement.The
ArbitratorrenderedadecisioninsaidcaseonDecember28,1972,whereinheordered
respondenttoreinstatecomplainantssubjecttothefollowingcondition:
ThisOrdershall,however,bewithoutprejudicetowhateverdecisiontheCourtofFirstInstance
maypromulgateonCivilCaseNo.750Vandtotherequirementstheexistingordermayneedof
peopleworkingwiththemassmediaofcommunications.
SincesaiddecisionwasaffirmedbytheNLRC,theSecretaryofLabor,andtheOfficeof
thePresidentofthePhilippines,complainantswerereinstatedpursuantthereto.
InaDecisiondatedApril23,1975,inCivilCaseNo.750V,promulgatedbytheCourtof
FirstInstanceofBulacan,thestrikestagedbyhereincomplainantandtheotherstrikers
wasdeclaredillegal.BasedonsaidDecision,respondentdismissedcomplainantfromhis
employment.Hence,complainantfiledtheinstantcomplaintforillegaldismissal.
Undertheaforecitedfacts,wedonotagreewiththerulingoftheCommissionnow
subjectofthisappealthatanapplicationforclearancetoterminatehereincomplainantis
mandatoryonthepartofrespondentbeforeterminatingcomplainantsservices.Webelieve
thatwhatwouldhavebeennecessarywasareportasprovidedforunderSection11[f],Rule
XIV,BookVoftheRulesandRegulationsImplementingtheLaborCode.Moreover,evenif
anapplicationforclearancewasfiled,thisOfficewouldhavetreatedthesameasareport.
Otherwise,itwouldrendernugatorytheDecisionoftheArbitratordatedDecember28,
1972inCaseNos.0021and0285whichwasaffirmedbytheCommission,theSecretaryof
LaborandtheOfficeofthePresidentofthePhilippines,orderinghistemporary
reinstatement,subjecttowhateverDecisiontheCFIofBulacanmaypromulgateinCivil
CaseNo.750
V.ItcouldbeclearlyinferredfromsaidCFIDecisionsthatifthestrikeisdeclaredillegal,
thestrikerswillbeconsideredtohavelosttheiremploymentstatusunderthethenexisting
lawsandjurisprudence,otherwisestrikerscouldstageillegalstrikewithimpunity.Since
thestrikewasdeclaredillegal,respondentactedingoodfaithwhenitdispensedwiththe
servicesofhereincomplainant.
Forfailureofrespondenttofilethenecessaryreportandbasedonequitable
considerations,complainantshouldbegrantedseparationpayequivalenttoonehalfmonth
salaryforeveryyearofservice.
WHEREFORE,letthedecisionoftheNationalLaborRelationsCommissiondated
November17,1976be,asitishereby,setasideandanewjudgmentisentered,ordering
respondenttogivecomplainantseparationpayequivalenttoonehalfmonthsalaryfor
everyyearofservice.
SOORDERED.3

PetitionerelevatestoUsforreviewonCertiorarithe
aforequotedOrderseekingtopersuadethisCourtthatthen
ActingSecretaryofLaborAmadoG.Inciongcommitted
reversibleerrorinholdingthat,underthelawandfactsofthis
case,amerereportoftheterminationoftheservicesofsaid
petitionerwassufficient.Petitionerassignsthefollowing
errors:
I

WHETHERORNOTACLEARANCEFROMTHESECRETARYOFLABORISSTILL
NECESSARYBEFORETHEPETITIONERHEREINCOULDBEDISMISSED
CONSIDERINGTHERESTRICTIVECONDITIONINTHEDECISIONOFTHE
COMPULSORYARBITRATORINNLRCCASENOS.0021AND0285.
II

WHETHERORNOTTHEDECISIONOFTHECOURTOFFIRSTINSTANCEOF
BULACANINCIVILCASENO.750VIPSOFACTOGAVETHERESPONDENT
COMPANYAUTHORITYTODISMISSHEREINPETITIONERWITHOUTANY
CLEARANCEFROMTHESECRETARYOFLABOR. 4
Thesubstantivelawonthematterenforcedduringthetimeof
petitionersdismissalwasArticle267[b]oftheLaborCode[in
conjunctionwiththerulesandregulationsimplementingsaid
substantivelaw.]Article267reads:

Noemployerthathasnocollectivebargainingagreementmayshutdownhis
establishmentordismissorterminatetheserviceofregularemployeeswithatleastone[1]
yearofserviceexceptmanagerialemployeesasdefinedinthisbookwithoutprevious
writtenclearancefromtheSecretaryofLabor.

Petitionermaintainsthattheabovecitedprovisionisvery
clear.Itdoesnotmakeanydistinctionastothegroundfor
dismissal.Whetherornotthedismissalsoughtbythe
employercompanyisforcause,itisimperativethatthe
companymustapplyforaclearancefromtheSecretaryof
Labor.

Inarecentcase pennedbyJusticeAbrahamF.Sarmiento
5

promulgatedonJune30,1987,wehadoccasiontorulein
agreementwiththefindingsofthenPresidentialAssistantfor
LegalAffairsRonaldoZamorathatthepurposeinrequiringa
priorclearancefromtheSecretaryofLaborincasesof
shutdownordismissalofemployees,istoaffordtheSecretary
ampleopportunitytoexamineanddeterminethe
reasonablenessoftherequest.

TheSolicitorGeneral,inrelationtosaidpronouncement
andinjustificationoftheActingLaborSecretarysdecision
makesthefollowingobservations:

ItistruethatArticle267[b]oftheLaborCoderequiresthatbeforeanybusiness
establishmentisshutdownoranyemployeeisdismissed,writtenclearancefromthe
SecretaryofLabormustfirstbeobtained.Itislikewisetruethatinthecaseofpetitioner,
therewasnowrittenclearanceintheusualform.Butwhiletheremaynothavebeenstrict
compliancewithArticle267therewassubstantialcompliance.TheSecretaryofLabortwice
manifestedhisconformitytopetitionersdismissal.
ThefirstmanifestationofacquiescencebytheSecretaryofLabortothedismissalof
petitionerwashisaffirmanceofthedecisionofthearbitratorinNLRCCaseNos.0021and
0285.Thearbitratororderedthereinstatementofthestrikersbutsubjecttothedecisionof
theCFIofBulacaninCivilCaseNo.750V.TheSecretaryofLaboraffirmedthedecisionof
thearbitrator.Ineffect,therefore,theSecretaryofLaborissuedacarteblanchetotheCFI
ofBulacantoeitherdismissorretainpetitioner.
ThesecondmanifestationwashisdecisioninNLRCCaseNo.RBIV176465wherein
hesaidthatclearanceforthedismissalofpetitionerwasnotrequired,butonlyareport;
thatevenifanapplicationforclearancewasfiled,hewouldhavetreateditasamere
report.WhilethisisnotpriorclearanceinthecontemplationofArticle267,itisatleasta
ratificationofthedismissalofpetitioner.6

WeagreewiththeSolicitorGeneral.Technicallyspeaking,no
clearancewasobtainedbyprivaterespondentfromthethen
SecretaryofLabor,thelaststeptowardsfullcompliancewith
therequirementsoflawonthematterofdismissalof
employees.However,therationalebehindtheclearance
requirementwasfullymet.TheSecretaryofLaborwas
apprisedofprivaterespondentsintentiontoterminatethe
servicesofpetitioner.Thisineffectisanapplicationfor
clearancetodismisspetitionerfromemployment.The
affirmanceoftherestrictiveconditioninthedispositiveportion
ofthelaborarbitersdecisioninNLRCCaseNos.0021and
0285bytheSecretaryofLaborandtheOfficeofthePresident
ofthePhilippines,signifiesagrantofauthoritytodismiss
petitionerincasethestrikeisdeclaredillegalbytheCourtof
FirstInstanceofBulacan.Consequentlyandascorrectly
statedbytheSolicitorGeneral,privaterespondentactedin
goodfaithwhenitterminatedtheemploymentofpetitioner
uponadeclarationofillegalityofthestrikebytheCourtof
FirstInstanceofBulacan.Moreover,thethenSecretaryof
Labormanifestedhisconformitytothedismissal,notonce,but
twice.Inthisregard,themandatoryruleonclearanceneednot
beapplied.

Thestrikestagedbytheunionin1972wasafutilemove.
Thelawthenenforced,RepublicAct875specificallyexcluded
respondentcompanyfromitscoverage.Evenifthepartieshad
gonetocourttocompelrecognition,nopositivereliefcould
havebeenobtainedsincethesamewasnotsanctionedbylaw.
Becauseofthis,therewasnonecessityonthepartofprivate
respondenttoshowspecificactsofpetitionerduringthestrike
tojustifyhisdismissal.

Thisisamatterofresponsibilityandofanswerability.
Petitionerasaunionleader,mustseetoitthatthepolicies
andactivitiesoftheunionintheconductoflaborrelationsare
withinthepreceptsoflawandanydeviationfromthelegal
boundariesshallbeimputabletotheleader.Hebearsthe
responsibilityofguidingtheunionalongthepathoflawandto
causetheuniontodemandwhatisnotlegallydemandable,
wouldfomentanarchywhichisapreludetochaos.

Petitionershouldhaveknownanditwashisdutytoimpart
thisimputedknowledgetothemembersoftheunionthat
employeesandlaborersinnonprofitorganizationsarenot
coveredbytheprovisionsoftheIndustrialPeaceActandthe
CourtofIndustrialRelations[inthecaseatbar,theCourtof
FirstInstance]hasnojurisdictiontoentertainpetitionsof
laborunionsororganizationsofsaidnonprofitorganizations
forcertificationastheexclusivebargainingrepresentativesof
saidemployeesandlaborers. 7

Asastrikeisaneconomicweaponatwarwiththepolicyof
theConstitutionandthelawatthattime,aresorttheretoby
laborersshallbedeemedtobeachoiceofremedypeculiarly
theirown,andoutsideofthestatute,andassuch,thestrikers
mustacceptalltherisksattendantupontheirchoice.Ifthey
succeedandtheemployersuccumbs,thelawwillnotstandin
theirwayintheenjoymentofthelawfulfruitsoftheirvictory.
Butiftheyfail,theycannotthereafterinvoketheprotectionof
thelawfortheconsequencesoftheirconductunlesstheright
theywishedvindicatedisonewhichthelawwill,byallmeans,
protectandenforce. 8

WefurtheragreewiththeActingSecretaryofLaborthat
whatwasrequiredinthecaseofpetitionersdismissalwas
onlyareportasprovidedunderSection11[f]ofRuleXIVofthe
RulesandRegulationsimplementingtheLaborCodewhich
provides:
EveryemployershallsubmitareporttotheRegionalOfficeinaccordancewiththeform
presentedbytheDepartmentonthefollowinginstancesofterminationofemployment,
suspension,layofforshutdownwhichmaybeeffectedbytheemployerwithoutprior
clearancewithinfive[5]daysthereafter:
xxxxxxxxx
[f]Allotherterminationsofemployment,suspension,layoffsorshutdowns,not
otherwisespecifiedinthisandintheimmediatelyprecedingsections.

Toholdotherwisewouldrendernugatorytheconditionsset
forthinthedecisionofLaborArbiterAguasonthebasisof
whichpetitionerwastemporarilyreinstated.

Inasmuchastherewasavalidandreasonablegroundto
dismisspetitionerbutnoreportasrequiredbythe
implementingrulesandregulationsoftheLaborCodewas
filedbyrespondentCompanywiththethenDepartmentof
Labor,petitionerasheldbytheActingSecretaryofLabor,is
entitledtoseparationpayequivalenttoonehalfmonthsalary
foreveryyearofservice.

WHEREFORE,thepetitionisdismissed.Thedecisionofthe
actingSecretaryofLaborisAFFIRMEDintoto.

SOORDERED.

Gutierrez,Jr.,Feliciano,BidinandCortes,JJ.,concur.
Petitiondismissed.Decisionaffirmed.

Notes.Dismissalofwifeduetoallegedimmoralconductof
herhusbandisnotjustified.(DivineWordHighSchoolvs.
NLRC,143SCRA346.)

Employerisgivenclearancetoterminateemployeesbutto
awardthemseparationpayfortheiryearsofservice.(SMCvs.
DeputyMinisterofLabor&Employment,145SCRA196.)