Professional Documents
Culture Documents
739
The Court agrees with the ruling of the CA that there were 32 complaining
employees who filed and signed their complaint dated February 18, 1999 for
unfair labor practice, illegal dismissal and illegal suspension. Out of the 32,
six (6) undeniably resigned and signed waivers and quitclaims, leaving 26
remaining complainant employees. Thus, the Court adopts and affirms the
following CA ruling on this matter: The nwnber of parties to a complaint
corresponds to the number of signatories thereto and not necessarily to the
names commonly appearing or identified in the position paper. All persons
in whom or against whom any right to relief in respect to or arising out of
the same transaction or series of transactions is alleged to exist whether
jointly, severally, or in the alternative, may, except as otherwise provided in
these Rules, join as plaintiffs or be joined as defendants in one complaint,
where any question of law or fact common to all such plaintiffs or to all such
defendants may arise in the action; but the court may make such orders as
may be just to prevent any plaintiff or defendant from being embarrassed or
put to expense in connection with any proceedings in which he may have no
interest.
740
employees, it was silent as to whether the drug test was a regular company
policy and practice in their 35 years in the automotive engine repair and
rebuilding business. As the Court sees it, it was AER's first ever drug test
of its employees immediately implemented after the workers manifested their
desire to organize themselves into a union. Indeed, the timing of the drug
test was suspicious.
741
and legal principles that a mere finding of the illegality of a strike does
not automatically warrant a wholesale dismissal of the strikers from
their employment and that a premature or improvident strike should
not be visited with a consequence so severe as dismissal where a penalty
less punitive would suffice. Numerous precedents to this effect have been
cited and reaffirmed.
742
742 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
MENDOZA, J.:
Challenged in these consolidated petitions for review is the
October 1, 2003 Amended Decision1 of the Court of Appeals (CA),
in CA-G.R. SP No. 73161, which modified the Resolution2 of the
National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), by ordering the
immediate reinstatement of all the suspended employees of
Automotive Engine Rebuilders, Inc. (AER) without backwages.
Records show that AER is a company engaged in the automotive
engine repair and rebuilding business and other precision and
engineering works for more than 35 years. Progresibong Unyon Ng
Mga Manggagawa sa AER (Unyon) is the legitimate labor union of
the rank and file employees of AER which was formed in the year
1998.
Due to a dispute between the parties, both filed a complaint
against each other before the NLRC. AER accused the Unyon of
illegal concerted activities (illegal strike, illegal walkout, illegal
stoppage, and unfair labor practice) while Unyon accused AER of
unfair labor practice, illegal suspension and illegal dismissal.
AER's Management's Version
On January 28, 1999, eighteen (18) employees of AER, acting
collectively and in concert, suddenly and without reason staged a
walkout and assembled illegally in the company premises.
Despite management's plea for them to go back to work, the
concerned employees refused and, instead, walked out of the
company premises and proceeded to the office of the AER
Performance and Service Center (AER-PSC) located on an-
1 Rollo (G.R. No. 160138), pp. 49-50. Penned by Associate Justice Eliezer R. De
Los Santos with Associate Justice Romeo A. Brawner and Associate Justice
Regalado E. Maambong, concurring.
2 Id., at pp. 103-108.
743
744
Unyon's Version
On December 22, 1998, Unyon filed a petition for certification
election before the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE)
after organizing their employees union within AER. Resenting what
they did, AER forced all of its employees to submit their urine
samples for drug testing. Those who refused were threatened with
dismissal.
On January 8, 1999, the results of the drug test came out and the
following employees were found positive for illegal drugs: Froilan
Madamba, Arnold Rodriguez, Roberto Caldeo, Roger Bilatcha,
Ruperto Mariano, Edwin Fabian, and Nazario Madala.
On January 12 , 1999, AER issued a memorandwn suspending
these employees from work for violation of Article D, Item 2 of the
Employee's handbook which reads as follows:
745
746
ited or regulated drugs without any justifiable reason at all. In fact, there is
not even a showing by the company that the performance of these employees
was already adversely affected by their use of drugs.
Lest be misunderstood that we are considering use of prohibited drug or
regulated drugs, what we abhor is suspension without valid cause and
without due process. •'4
The LA further held that AER was guilty of illegal dismissal for
refusing to reinstate the five (5) employees unless they submit a
medical certificate that they were fit to work. Thus:
''x x x Firstly, the employer has not even established that the five
employees are sick of ailments which are not curable within six months, a
burden which rests upon the employers and granting that they were sick or
drug addicts, the remedy is not dismissal but to allow them to be on sick
leave and be treated of their illness and if not cured within 6 months, that is
the time that they may be separated from employment but after payment of Y:i
month's salary for every year of service by way of separation pay. •>5
Finally, the LA held that the concerned employees were not
totally without fault. The concerted slowdown of work that they
conducted in protesting their illegal suspension was generally illegal
and unjustifiable. The LA, thus, ruled that both parties were in pari
delicto and, therefore, must suffer the consequences of the wrong
they committed.
NLRC Ruling
Both parties filed their respective appeals with the NLRC. The
concerned employees argued that the LA erred in 1) not awarding
backwages to them during the period of their suspension; 2) not
holding that AER is guilty of unfair labor practice; and 3) not
holding that they were illegally dismissed
747
from their jobs.6 AER, on the other hand, claimed that the LA erred
in fmding that there was illegal dismissal and in ordering the
reinstatement of the concerned employees without backwages.7
On March 5, 2002, the NLRC issued a Resolution8 modifying the
LA decision by setting aside the order of reinstatement as it found
no illegal dismissal.
The NLRC, however, considered only three (3) out of the
eighteen concerned employees, (18) namely: Froilan Madamba,
Ruperto Mariano, and Roberto Caldeo because their names were
commonly identified in the LA decision and in the concerned
employees' position paper as those employees who were allegedly
illegally suspended.
It wrote that these three (3) employees were validly suspended
because they were found positive for illegal drugs in the drug test
conducted by AER. Management was just exercising its
management prerogative in requiring them to submit a medical fit
to-work certificate before they could be admitted back to work. The
drug test was found to be not discriminatory because all employees
of AER were required to undergo the drug test. Neither was the drug
test related to any union activity.
Finally, the NLRC ruled that the concerned employees had no
valid basis in conducting a strike. Considering that the concerted
activity was illegal, AER had the right to immediately dismiss them.
Unyon and the concerned employees filed a petition before the
CA advancing the following
748
ARGUMENTS
PUBLIC RESPONDENT ACTED WITH ORAVE ABUSE OF
DISCRETION IN HOLDING THAT THERE ARE ONLY THREE (3)
REMAINING COMPLAINANTS IN THE CASE FILED BY THE
PETITIONERS.
PUBLIC RESPONDENT ACTED WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF
DISCRETION IN HOLDING THAT THE SUSPENSION OF SEVERAL
PETITIONERS WAS VALID DESPITE THE ABSENCE OF DUE
PROCESS.
PUBLIC RESPONDENT ACTED WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF
DISCRETION IN SUSTAINING THE VALIDITY OF THE DISMISSAL
OF EMPLOYEES WHO TESTED POSITIVE DURING THE DRUG
TEST.
PUBLIC RESPONDENT ACTED WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF
DISCRETION IN ABSOLVINO PRIVATE RESPONDENTS OF THE
OFFENSE OF UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE.
PUBLIC RESPONDENT ACTED WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF
DISCRETION IN DISMISSING PETITIONERS' COMPLAINT FOR
ILLEGAL DISMISSAL.
The CA Ruling
On June 27, 2003, the CA rendered a decision,9 the dispositive
portion of which reads as follows:
749
''The petitioners themselves have admitted that all of them were ordered
to give their urine samples for the drug test; that the drug test was applicable
to all the employees lends credence that such test was not related to any
union activity. The union members were not singled out for said drug
testing.
The complainants who tested positive for illegal drugs were validly
suspended under the company rules. The Employee's Handbook of Company
Rules and Regulations prohibit employees from reporting for work under the
influence of intoxicating liquor and drugs.
With the finding that the petitioners tested positive for illegal drugs,
AER merely exercised their management prerogative to require a medical
certificate that said employees were already fit to work before they can be
admitted back to work.
Due to the failure of the affected petitioners to submit a medical
certificate that they are already fit to work, they were dismissed. Petitioners'
act of not reporting for duty upon presentation of the medical certificate that
they are fit to work as per agreement with the DOLE NCMB on January 25,
1999 had the marks of willfu1 disobedience giving AER the right to
terminate employment. "11
750
The CA further ruled that both parties were guilty of unfair labor
practice. It stated that the hostile attitude of AER towards its
workers and vice-versa started when the workers began organizing
themselves into a union. AER tried to have a runaway shop when it
transferred some of its machinery from the main building to the
AER- PSC office located on another street on the pretext that the
main building was undergoing renovation. AER also prevented its
employees, even those who were excluded from its complaint, from
going back to work for allegedly staging an illegal strike. On the
other hand, the concerted work slowdown staged by the concerned
employees as a result of their alleged illegal suspension was
unjustified. Hence, both parties were found by the CA to be in pari
delicto and must bear the consequences of their own wrongdoing.
On October 1, 2003, upon the motion for partial reconsideration
filed by Unyon praying for the payment of full backwages and the
reinstatement of all suspended employees, the CA rendered the
assailed Amended Decision, the dispositive portion of which reads,
as follows:
751
GROUNDS
FOR UNYON:
THE COURT OF APPEALS LEGALLY ERRED IN NOT
AWARDING BACKWAGES TO INDIVIDUAL PETITIONERS
NOTWITHSTANDING HAVING ORDERED THEIR
REINSTATEMENT TO THEIR PREVIOUS POSITIONS.
FOR AER:
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED GRIEVOUSLY
WHEN IT GAVE SO MUCH WEIGHT ON THE PRIVATE
RESPONDENTS' PARTIAL MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
BY AMENDING ITS DECISION IN ORDERING THEIR
IMMEDIATE REINSTATEMENT INCLUDING THOSE WHO
HAVE TESTED POSITIVE FOR ILLEGAL DRUGS (DRUG
ADDICTS) AND HAVE FAILED TO SUBMIT ANY MEDICAL
CERTIFICATE.
G.R No. 160138
AER's Position
752
752 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Automotive Engine Rebuildres, Inc. (AER) vs. Progresibong Unyon
ng mga Manggagawa sa AER
AER likewise insists that the drug test that it conducted was not
related to any union activity because the test covered all employees.
The drug test was part of company rules and guidelines designed to
instill discipline and good behavior among its employees as
contained in its Employees Manual Company Rules and
Regulations. AER also claims that it simply exercised its employer's
prerogative in requiring a medical certificate from the affected
employees.
Finally, AER avers that the complaining employees, who did not
report back to work despite their medical certificate attesting that
they were fit to work, committed willful disobedience. AER claims
that the complaining employees violated their agreement with the
DOLE-National Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB) dated
January 25, 1999. AER likewise contends that the complaining
employees are deemed to have lost their employment status when
they engaged in unlawful activities such as abandonment of work,
stoppage of work and the commission of attempted theft involving
its boring machine. Hence, the termination of their employment was
valid.
Unyon 's Position
Unyon argues that the complaint it filed indicated that there were
32 complainants who signed the complaint. Out of the 32, six (6)
executed waivers and quitclaims leaving 26 complainants, not 3 as
claimed by AER.
Unyon likewise avers that the dismissal of the affected
employees was unlawful for lack of valid ground and prior notice.
Although it admits that some of the complainant employees tested
positive for drugs, it posits that AER should have, at least, required
those affected employees to explain why they tested positive for
drugs because it could be possible that the drug taken was a
regulated drug for an ailment and prescribed by a doctor. Therefore,
prior notice or due process was still necessary.
753
Unyon further asserts that the penalty for testing positive for
illegal drugs was only a 15-day suspension, which was already
served by the affected employees. It also points out that AER never
imposed the policy of drug examination on its employees before the
union was organized. Clearly, AER adopted a hostile attitude
towards the workers when they organized themselves into a union.
Moreover, of the 32 complaining employees in the illegal
dismissal case against AER, only 18 were charged by AER with
illegal strike. Unyon argues that AER should have admitted back to
work those employees who were not included in the charge. There
was no allegation either that those excluded were involved in the
January 28, 1999 incident.
Lastly, Unyon claims that the penalty of outright dismissal
against the eighteen (18) employees charged with illegal strike was
grossly disproportionate to their offense.
G.R.160192
754
755
the CA that neither party came to court with clean hands. Both were
in pari delicto.
It cannot be disputed that both parties filed charges against each
other, blaming the other party for violating labor laws. AER filed a
complaint against Unyon and its 18 members for illegal concerted
activities. It likewise suspended 7 union members who tested
positive for illegal drugs. On the other hand, Unyon filed a
countercharge accusing AER of unfair labor practice, illegal
suspension and illegal dismissal. In other words, AER claims that
Unyon was guilty of staging an illegal strike while Unyon claims
that AER committed an illegal lockout.
AER's fault is obvious from the fact that a day after the union
filed a petition for certification election before the DOLE, it hit back
by requiring all its employees to undergo a compulsory drug test.
Although AER argues that the drug test was applied to all its
employees, it was silent as to whether the drug test was a regular
company policy and practice in their 35 years in the automotive
engine repair and rebuilding business. As the Court sees it, it was
AER's first ever drug test of its employees immediately
implemented after the workers manifested their desire to organize
themselves into a union. Indeed, the timing of the drug test was
susp1c1ous.
Moreover, AER failed to show proof that the drug test conducted
on its employees was performed by an authorized drug testing
center. It did not mention how the tests were conducted and whether
the proper procedure was employed. The case of Nacague v.
Sulpicio Lines,15 is instructive:
756
The NLRC and the Court of Appeals ruled that Sulpicio Lines validly
terminated Nacague's employment because he was found guilty of using
illegal drugs which constitutes serious misconduct and loss of trust and
confidence. However, we find that Sulpicio Lines failed to clearly show that
Nacague was guilty of using illegal drugs. We agree with the Labor Arbiter
that the lack of accreditation of S.M. Lazo Clinic made its drug test results
doubtful.
Section 36 of R.A. No. 9165 provides that drug tests shall be
performed only by authorized drug testing centers. Moreover, Section
36 also prescribes that drug testing shall consist of both the screening
test and the confirmatory test. Section 36 of R.A. No. 9165 reads:
SEC. 36. Authorized Drug Testing. - Authorized drug testing shall
be done by any government forensic laboratories or by any of the drug
testing laboratories accredited and monitored by the DOH to safeguard
the quality of test results. The DOH shall take steps in setting the price of
the drug test with DOH accredited drug testing centers to further reduce the
cost of such drug test. The drug testing shall employ, among others, two
(2) testing methods, the screening test which will determine the positive
result as well as the type of drug used and the confirmatory test which
will confirm a positive screening test. xxx (Emphases supplied)
Department Order No. 53-03 further provides:
Drug Testing Program for Officers and Employees
Drug testing shall conform with the procedures as prescribed by the
Department of Health (DOH) (www.doh.gov.ph). Only drug testing centers
accredited by the DOH shall be utilized. A list of accredited centers may
be accessed through the OSHC website (www.oshc.dole.gov.ph).
Drug testing shall consist of both the screening test and the
confirmatory test; the latter to be carried out should the screening test
tum positive. The employee concerned must be informed of the test results
whether positive or negative.
In Social Justice Society v. Dangerous Drugs Board, we explained:
As to the mechanics of the test, the law specifies that the procedure shall
employ two testing methods, i.e., the screening
757
758
759
760
''The Solicitor General has correctly stated in his comment that "from
these facts are derived the following conclusions which are likewise
undisputed: that petitioner engaged in an illegal lockout while the NAFLU
engaged in an illegal strike; that the unconditional offer of the 150 striking
employees to return to work and to withdraw their complaint of illegal
lockout against petitioner constitutes condonation of the illegal lock-out; and
that the unqualified acceptance of the offer of the 150 striking employees by
petitioner likewise constitutes condonation of the illegal strike insofar as the
reinstated employees are concerned."
761
762
the case to the end, simply means that it did not pardon the 1 14
strikers.
xxx xxx xxx
763
VOL. 653, JULY 13, 201 1 763
Automotive Engine Rebuildres, Inc. (AER) vs. Progresibong Unyon
ng mga Manggagawa sa AER
In the case at bar, since both AER and the union are at fault or in
pari delicto, they should be restored to their respective positions
prior to the illegal strike and illegal lockout. Nonetheless, if
reinstatement is no longer feasible, the concerned employees should
be given separation pay up to the date set for the return of the
complaining employees in lieu of reinstatement.
WHEREFORE, the petitions are DENIED. Accordingly, the
complaining employees should be reinstated without backwages. If
reinstatement is no longer feasible, the concerned employees should
be given separation pay up to the date set for their return in lieu of
reinstatement.
764
764 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Automotive Engine Rebuildres, Inc. (AER) vs. Progresibong Unyon
ng mga Manggagawa sa AER
SO ORDERED.
.. ...
Carpio, Velasco, Jr. (Chai"rperson), Abad and Sereno, JJ.,
concur.
Petitions denied.