Bigg’S Inc v. Boncacas
Bigg's, Inc. v. Boncacas, G.R. No. 200487; Arines v. Bigg's Incorporated, G.R. No. 200636, March 06, 2019
- Labor Law
- illegal strike
- sit-down strike
- notice of strike
- cooling-off period
- union busting allegations
- preventive suspension
- no backwages rule
- separation pay in lieu of reinstatement
- Rule 45 certiorari
- NLRC
- Labor Arbiter
I. Facts of the Case
Bigg's, Inc. (employer) and its registered labor union, Bigg's Employees Union, were in conflict after union members staged two work stoppages against management: a “sit-down strike” on February 16, 1996 and another strike on March 5, 1996. Bigg's alleged that both strikes were illegal because the union failed to comply with strike prerequisites (including notice to the NCMB and the strike-vote/cooling-off requirements for a valid strike), and further claimed the March 5 strike involved violence and obstruction. The union countered that Bigg's interfered with union activity, dismissed employees because of union membership, and prevented union officers from entering the premises, while the union itself had filed a Notice of Strike with the NCMB. The Labor Arbiter initially ruled both strikes illegal and ordered reinstatement of some employees, but the NLRC and the Court of Appeals repeatedly reversed parts of those findings; the Supreme Court had to resolve the legality of the strikes, the validity of dismissals, and the proper monetary awards and parties bound by the ruling.
January 30, 1996
The Department of Employment (DOLE) issued the union a Certificate of Registration.
February 16, 1996
Bigg's alleged union members staged an illegal “sit-down strike” without complying with required strike procedures; Bigg's placed the striking union members under preventive suspension and required them to explain within 24 hours. The union alleged Bigg's interfered with union activities, prevented union president Boncacas and others from entering the premises, and filed a Notice of Strike with the NCMB the same day.
February 17, 1996
The union members attempted to return to work but were told to obtain memoranda stating suspension for participating in a sit-down strike.
February 19, 1996
Bigg's sent employment termination letters to the union members for participating in the February 16, 1996 sit-down strike.
March 5, 1996
After mediation with an impasse, the union conducted another strike; Bigg's alleged the strike involved violent and disruptive acts and obstruction of ingress and egress.
January 31, 2000
Labor Arbiter Rolando L. Bobis issued a Joint Decision: he declared the February 16, 1996 strike illegal for failure to comply with mandatory strike prerequisites and declared the March 5, 1996 strike illegal due to violence/aggression and obstruction, ordering reinstatement of certain employees while dismissing the unfair labor practices/union busting allegations for lack of substantial evidence.
April 30, 2002
The NLRC reversed the Labor Arbiter’s decision and ruled the February 16, 1996 strike valid, reasoning it was grounded on unfair labor practices by Bigg's; it also found no evidence supporting violence or prevention of free ingress/egress during the March 5, 1996 strike.
October 22, 2002
On motion for reconsideration, the NLRC issued an Amended Decision reinstating the Labor Arbiter’s rulings, declaring both strikes illegal: February 16, 1996 for lack of notice/strike prerequisites and March 5, 1996 for violence/aggression evidence.
June 10, 2011
The Court of Appeals partially granted the union’s appeal: it overturned the Labor Arbiter/NLRC finding of a February 16, 1996 sit-down strike for lack of substantial evidence by Bigg's, and it ruled the March 5, 1996 strike illegal due to violence and restraint; it upheld dismissal of some union officers but exonerated union president Boncacas and ordered reinstatement with backwages for certain union members.
January 20, 2012
The Court of Appeals issued an Amended Decision limiting reinstatement to specific union members, finding the compromise agreements vague and insufficient to waive rights, and excluding some persons based on jurisdiction and party-inclusion issues.
March 06, 2019
The Supreme Court partially granted the consolidated petitions and modified the CA decisions: it declared the February 16, 1996 strike illegal, deleted the award of backwages, substituted separation pay in lieu of reinstatement, corrected the scope of parties bound by the ruling (only those who joined the petition), and remanded the case to the Labor Arbiter for execution and computation of separation pay.
II. Issues
Whether or not the strikes held on February 16, 1996 and March 5, 1996 were illegal.
Whether or not the union officers and employees were validly dismissed, including as to whether reinstatement of union president Boncacas was proper.
Whether or not the proper monetary awards and the parties covered by the case were correctly determined, including whether backwages should be deleted and whether separation pay in lieu of reinstatement should be granted.
III. Ruling
Whether or not the strikes held on February 16, 1996 and March 5, 1996 were illegal.
The February 16, 1996 sit-down strike was illegal for failure to comply with mandatory strike prerequisites, and the March 5, 1996 strike was also illegal due to violence, aggression, vandalism, and blockage of free passage.
How the Court reasoned
- The Court corrected the CA’s reversible error in overturning the uniform findings of the Labor Arbiter and NLRC regarding the February 16, 1996 sit-down strike.
- The Court held that the union failed to comply with mandatory pre-requisites for a valid strike (including the required notice/NCMB and related procedural requirements), making the February 16, 1996 strike illegal.
- The Court maintained the consistent factual findings of the CA, NLRC, and Labor Arbiter that the March 5, 1996 strike involved illegal conduct—violence, aggression, vandalism, and obstruction of free ingress and egress.
- Although the CA considered March 5, 1996 illegal and the conflict involved different treatments by tribunals, the Supreme Court affirmed the illegality based on the evidentiary findings on violent and obstructive acts.
“With regard to the first strike conducted by the union members on February 16, 1996 (first strike), the Court holds that the CA committed reversible error in overturning the findings of the NLRC and LA.”
Rule applied
Article 278 (formerly Article 263) and Article 279 (formerly Articles 264[a] and 264[e]) of the Labor Code; Article 279 (formerly Article 264)(e) and the related provisions on notice/strike vote/cooling-off under the Labor Code and its implementing rules; Department Order No. 40-03 (Amending the Implementing Rules of Book V of the Labor Code, including DO 40-A-03).
Whether or not the union officers and employees were validly dismissed, including as to whether reinstatement of union president Boncacas was proper.
Reinstatement of union president Boncacas (and the CA’s contrary dismissal ruling as to him) was reversed; Boncacas’ dismissal was not invalid under the Supreme Court’s evaluation of participation/illegal acts in relation to the illegal strike findings.
How the Court reasoned
- The Supreme Court found that the CA improperly set aside the dismissal/relevant liability determination as to union president Boncacas based on an incorrect appreciation of the record.
- The Court reinstated and affirmed the NLRC/Labor Arbiter’s view that the February 16 strike was illegal due to procedural noncompliance, which affected the legal status of participation and consequences.
- On the March 5, 1996 strike findings, the Court rejected the CA’s premise that Boncacas was not shown to have committed illegal acts during that strike, aligning the outcome with the established illegality findings.
- Thus, the Court reversed the CA’s rulings concerning Boncacas.
“The Court, however, reverses the CA's findings that the union president Boncacas' dismissal was invalid as he did not commit illegal acts during the March 5, 1996 strike.”
Rule applied
Article 219 (formerly Article 212)(o) of the Labor Code (unfair labor practice framework and related labor dispute rules); Article 278 (formerly Article 263) and Article 279 (formerly Article 264[a] and 264[e]) of the Labor Code (strike legality requirements and consequences).
Whether or not the proper monetary awards and the parties covered by the case were correctly determined, including whether backwages should be deleted and whether separation pay in lieu of reinstatement should be granted.
The Supreme Court limited the ruling’s application to union members who joined the petitions, deleted backwages (no backwages for employees who participated in illegal strikes), and granted separation pay in lieu of reinstatement due to the long lapse of time and strained/trust concerns, remanding for execution and computation.
How the Court reasoned
- Only certain union members (e.g., Sheila Raymundo and Menandro Ramos) joined the Supreme Court petitions, so the Court limited its decision to those parties and treated omitted individuals as no longer parties in light of Orion v. Pereyra.
- The Court applied the principle that reversal as to parties appealing does not automatically require reversal for parties who did not appeal, absent situations that would affect co-debtor/co-party rights.
- The Court deleted the backwages award, adopting Escario v. NLRC: employees dismissed for participating in an illegal strike are not entitled to backwages for the period of the strike even if later reinstated.
- The Court found no exception applied because both strikes were illegal; it stressed that the Philippine Marine Officers' Guild exception presupposes a legal strike.
- Given the passage of about 23 years since dismissal and the employer’s position that it could no longer trust the striking employees in the food service industry, the Court found separation pay in lieu of reinstatement more appropriate.
- The Court ordered legal interest on the monetary award following Nacar v. Gallery Frames and remanded to the Labor Arbiter for computation and execution.
“In _Escario v. NLRC_72 (_Escario_), the Court held: Conformably with the long honored principle of a fair day's wage for a fair day's labor, employees dismissed for joining an illegal strike are not entitled to backwages for the period of the strike even if they are reinstated by virtue of their being merely members of the striking union who did not commit any illegal act during the strike.”
Rule applied
Municipality of Orion v. Pereyra; Escario v. NLRC; Philippine Marine Officers' Guild v. Compañia Maritima; Nacar v. Gallery Frames; and the standards for separation pay in lieu of reinstatement adopted in jurisprudence; Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
Doctrines
Reversal as to parties who appealed does not necessarily require reversal for parties who did not appeal; their judgment may be affirmed or left undisturbed, except where co-party/co-debtor rights would be affected.
Employees dismissed for joining an illegal strike are not entitled to backwages for the period of the strike even if they are later reinstated, under the principle of “fair day’s wage for fair day’s labor.”
The exception to the “no backwages” rule recognized in Philippine Marine Officers' Guild requires that the strike be legal; where the strike is illegal, the exception does not apply.
Separation pay in lieu of reinstatement may be awarded when reinstatement is no longer feasible or no longer serves the best interests of the parties, especially after a long lapse of time or where strained relations and practical realities make reinstatement inequitable.
Legal interest is due on monetary awards at the rates set in Nacar v. Gallery Frames: 12% per annum from the date of judicial demand (or the reckoning date used by the Court) until June 30, 2013, and 6% per annum from July 1, 2013 until full satisfaction.
Final Disposition
WHEREFORE, the petitions are PARTIALLY GRANTED. The Decision dated June 10, 2011 and the Amended Decision dated January 20, 2012 of the Court of Appeals are MODIFIED in that (a) the February 16, 1996 strike is declared ILLEGAL; (b) the award of backwages is DELETED; (c) reinstatement is replaced by separation pay in lieu thereof for the proper union members; and (d) the ruling applies only to those who joined the petitions. The case is REMANDED to the Labor Arbiter for execution and computation of the separation pay, with the monetary award to earn legal interest in accordance with Nacar v. Gallery Frames until full satisfaction.
Notes
The Supreme Court treated the CA’s earlier findings on the February 16, 1996 sit-down strike and the dismissal of union president Boncacas as reversible errors. It also limited the binding effect of its disposition to union members who actually joined the petitions and recalibrated the relief by deleting backwages and granting separation pay in lieu of reinstatement due to the extensive passage of time.