TOYOTA MOTOR PHILIPPINES CORPORATION WORKERS ASSOCIATION (TMPCWA) V.

NLRC
19 October 2007

Facts:
 These are 4 consolidated cases involving the same parties. (Case 1 & 2 – Union questions the
CA decision affirming the NLRC resolution declaring the strikes illegal and dismissing 227
union members and employees. Case 3 & 4 – Toyota prays for the recall of separation pay to
the dismissed employees).
 On 14 Feb 1999, the Union filed a petition for certification election among the Toyota rank and
file (R&F) employees with the National Conciliation and Mediation Board. The MedArbiter
denied the petition but on appeal, the DOLE Secretary granted the same. After Toyota’s plea
for reconsideration was denied, the certification election was conducted. The MedArbiter’s
Order certified the union as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of Toyota R&F employees.
Toyota questioned said order.
 Meanwhile, the Union submitted its CBA proposals to Toyota but the latter refused to negotiate
pending its appeal. Consequently, the union filed a notice of strike on 16 January 2001 with the
NCMB based on Toyota’s refusal to bargain. The NCMB-NCR converted the notice of strike to
a preventive mediation case since the issue of WON the union is the exclusive bargaining
agent of all Toyota R&F employees was still unresolved.
 In connection with Toyota’s appeal, Toyota and the Union were required to attend a hearing
(scheduled 22 Feb 2001) before the Bureau of Labor Relations (re: exclusion of votes of
supervisory employees in the certification election). The day before the scheduled hearing, 135
union officers and members failed to render the required OT work and instead marched to and
staged a picket in front of the BLR office in Intramuros. The Union also requested that its
members be allowed to be absent on the 22nd to attend the meeting but the request was
denied.
 Despite the denial, more than 200 employees staged mass actions on the 22nd and the 23rd in
front of the BLR and DOLE offices to protest the partisan and anti-union stance of Toyota. This
resulted in huge losses for the corporation (P 53, 849, 991).
 On 27 February 2001, Toyota wrote to 360 employees requiring them to explain within 24
hours why they should not be dismissed, citing the company’s Code of Conduct. On the same
day, a manifesto was circulated by the Union which urged its members to participate in another
strike. The following day, the union filed with the NCMB another notice of strike for union
busting.
 On 1 March, the Union members responded to Toyota’s letter and explained that their refusal
to work was an exercise of their constitutional right to peaceably assemble and to petition the
government for redress of grievances. They further argued that the strikes were not illegal and
that Toyota condoned the acts when it accepted back the employees.
 Thereafter, Toyota issued 2 memoranda to the concerned employees to clarify whether they
are adopting the unions explanation but they refused to do so. Thus, 227 employees were
terminated based on Art 282 (abandonment of work and serious misconduct) of the LC and
Toyota’s Code of Conduct.
 In reaction to the dismissal of its members, the Union went on another strike and on 28 March
to 2 April, it barricaded the gates of Toyota Bicutan and Sta. Rosa. Strikers prevented workers
from entering the plants.
 Toyota filed a petition for injunction with a prayer for the issuance of a TRO with the NLRC
seeking free ingress and egress from its plants. The NLRC issued a TRO.
 Toyota then filed a petition to declare the strike illegal with the NLRC arbitration branch,
praying that the erring officers and members of the union be dismissed. DOLE Secretary
assumed jurisdiction over the labor dispute and then certified the same to the NLRC. The
DOLE Secretary ordered the striking workers to return to their regular shifts and Toyota to
accept them under the same terms and conditions prior to the striker or at its option to put
them under payroll reinstatement. Toyota chose the latter.
 The union filed an MR questioning the DOLE Secretary’s order, which was denied. It then filed
a petition for certiorari with the CA.
 Meanwhile, the NLRC ordered the parties to submit their position papers. The Union requested
for abeyance of the proceedings in view of the pending petition for certiorari with the CA
assailing the validity of the DOLE jurisdiction. Request was denied.
 CA dismissed the Union’s petition for certiorari. Notwithstanding the NLRC’s repeated orders to
the union to file its position paper, it did not. (Toyota submitted its PP).
 NLRC declared the strikes illegal and the dismissal of the employees legal. However, the
NLRC ordered for the payment of SP. Both parties filed a MR which were denied.
 On appeal, the CA held that the union’s petition was defective in form for failing to append a
proper verification and certification against non-forum shopping (out of 227, only 159
petitioners signed). CA still ruled on the petition and affirmed the NLRC with modification. CA
initially removed the award for SP. It considered participation in illegal strikes as serious
misconduct which rendered the employee ineligible to receive SP. However in a later
resolution, it reinstated the SP based on social justice.
Issues:
1. WON the mass actions committed by the Union on different occasions are illegal strikes - YES
2. WON SP should be awarded to the Union members who participated in the illegal strikes – NO

Ruling:

Re: Due Process (union contends that the NLRC violated its right to due process when it disregarded
its position paper).
 A party cannot complain of deprivation of due process if he was afforded an opportunity to
participate in the proceedings but failed to do so. If he does not avail himself of the chance to
be heard, then it is deemed waived or forfeited without violating the constitutional guarantee.
Three orders were issued for the submission of the PP, but the union did not comly.

Re: Verification (Union contends that the verification signed by 159/227 petitioners = substantial
compliance)

 The verification requirement is significant, as it is intended to secure an assurance that the

allegations in the pleading are true and correct and not the product of the imagination or a
matter of speculation. This requirement is simply a condition affecting the form of pleadings,
and noncompliance with the requirement does not necessarily render it fatally defective.
Indeed, verification is only a formal and not a jurisdictional requirement.
 Here, the petition meets the requirement on the verification for only the 159 petitioners. The
signatures of the 159 could not be considered as verification of the petition by the other 68
absent a written authorization. While the Court held in a prior decision (Loquias v. Office of the
Ombudsman) that the petition should be dismissed outright with respect to non-conforming
petitioners, the CA, in the exercise of its sound discretion did not strictly apply said rule and
instead proceeded to decide the case on its merits.

Re: Illegality of the strike (Union explained that the protests were not directed toward Toyota but
toward the govt. and that it merely exercised its constitutional rights)

 A strike means any temporary stoppage of work by the concerted action of employees as a
result of an industrial or labor dispute. A labor dispute, in turn, includes any controversy or
matter concerning terms or conditions of employment or the association or representation of
persons in negotiating, fixing, maintaining, changing, or arranging the terms and conditions of
employment, regardless of whether the disputants stand in the proximate relation of the
employer and the employee.
 Substance, not term, is controlling. The term “strike” has been elucidated to encompass not
only concerted work stoppages, but also slowdowns, mass leaves, sitdowns, attempts to
damage, destroy, or sabotage plant equipment and facilities, and similar activities.
 Applying pertinent legal provisions and jurisprudence, the protest actions undertaken by the
Union officials and members on February 21 to 23, 2001 are not valid and proper exercises of
their right to assemble and ask government for redress of their complaints, but are illegal
strikes in breach of the Labor Code. The Union’s position is weakened by the lack of permit
from the City of Manila to hold “rallies.”
 Further, the union failed to prove that the acts of the MedArbiter was biased against them. It
failed to justify the mass actions. It was thus obvious that the ultimate goal of the union was to
coerce Toyota to recognize it as the sole bargaining agent of the company. THIS IS NOT A
LEGAL AND VALID EXERCISE OF THE RIGHT OF ASSEMBLY AND TO DEMAND
REDRESS OF GRIEVANCE.
 It is obvious that the February 21 to 23, 2001 concerted actions were undertaken without
satisfying the prerequisites for a valid strike under Art. 263 of the Labor Code. (Notice of strike
filed with DOLE 30 days before, strike vote approved by majority of the union members and
notice to DOLE 7 days before). Said strikes were also in violation of Toyota’s Code of Conduct.
 IN SHORT: 21 Feb to 23 Feb ILLEGAL, 17 March to April 12 – INITIALLY LEGAL but when the
union barricaded the plants, it became ILLEGAL, 23 May – 28 May – ILLEGAL.

Re: Strikes after DOLE Secretary assumed jurisdiction (Union contends that the “rallies” held after the
DOLE Secretary assumed jurisdiction were not strikes since there was technically no work stoppage
as the participants were on payroll reinstatement)

 It is clear that once the DOLE Secretary assumes jurisdiction over the labor dispute and
certifies the case for compulsory arbitration with the NLRC, the parties have to revert to the
status quo ante (the state of things as it was before). The Union violated the Order when it
picketed and performed actions in front of the company premises.
Re: Liability

 Union official’s responsibility is greater than that of the members. Art. 264(a) sanctions the
dismissal of a union officer who knowingly participates in an illegal strike or who knowingly
participates in the commission of illegal acts during a lawful strike.
 Member’s liability depends on his participation in illegal acts during the strike (whether the
strike be legal or illegal). As long as the members commit illegal acts, in a legal or illegal strike,
then they can be terminated. Though the strike is illegal, the ordinary member who merely
participates in the strike should not be meted loss of employment on the considerations of
compassion and good faith and in view of the security of tenure provisions under the
Constitution.
 Principle of vicarious liability – Not absorbed under our LC. Meaning, a member cannot be held
liable based merely on his membership in a Union. The member must knowingly and actively
participate in the illegal act (violations of the LC or criminal laws) before he is penalized.

Re: Separation Pay

 General Rule: When dismissed for just cause, not entitled. Lawbreakers should not benefit
from their illegal acts. The dismissed employee, however is entitled to any benefit, privilege
and rights he may have under a CBA or voluntary employer policy.
 Exception: Social justice considerations.
 Exception to the exception: Termination based on serious misconduct or acts which reflect
adversely on the employee’s moral character.
 Here, the SC deleted the award for SP. It considered the acts of the union members
grave/serious misconduct. Serious misconduct forecloses the award of separation pay.