Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila

SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 155109 September 29, 2010

C. ALCANTARA & SONS, INC., Petitioner, vs. COURT OF

APPEALS, LABOR ARBITER ANTONIO M. VILLANUEVA, LABOR
ARBITER ARTURO L. GAMOLO, SHERIFF OF NLRC RAB-XI-
DAVAO CITY, NAGKAHIUSANG MAMUMUO SA ALSONS-SPFL
(NAMAAL-SPFL), FELIXBERTO IRAG, JOSHUA BARREDO,
ERNESTO CUARIO, EDGAR MONDAY, EDILBERTO DEMETRIA,
HERMINIO ROBILLO, ROMULO LUNGAY, MATROIL DELOS
SANTOS, BONERME MATURAN, RAUL CANTIGA, EDUARDO
CAMPUSO, RUDY ANADON, GILBERTO GABRONINO,
BONIFACIO SALVADOR, CIRILO MINO, ROBERTO ABONADO,
WARLITO MONTE, PEDRO ESQUIERDO, ALFREDO TROPICO,
DANILO MEJOS, HECTOR ESTUITA, BARTOLOME
CASTILLANES, EDUARDO CAPUYAN, SATURNINO CAGAS,
ALEJANDRO HARDER, EDUARDO LARENA, JAIME
MONTEDERAMOS, ERMELANDO BASADRE, REYNALDO
LIMPAJAN, ELPIDIO LIBRANZA, TEDDY SUELO, JOSE
AMOYLIN, TRANQUILINO ORALLO, CARLOS BALDOS,
MANOLITO SABELLANO, CARMELITO TOBIAS, PRIMITIVO
GARCIA, JUANITO ALDEPOLLA, LUDIVICO ABAD, WENCISLAO
INGHUG, RICARDO ALTO, EPIFANIO JARABAY, FELICIANO
AMPER, ALEXANDER JUDILLA, ROBERTO ANDRADE,
ALFREDO LESULA, JULIO ANINO, BENITO MAGPUSAO, PEDRO
AQUINO, EDDIE MANSANADES, ROMEO ARANETA,
ARGUILLAO MANTICA, CONSTANCIO ARNAIZ, ERNESTO
HOTOY, JUSTINO ASCANO, RICARDO MATURAN, EDILBERTO
YAMBAO, ANTONIO MELARGO, JESUS BERITAN, ARSENIO
MELICOR, DIOSDADO BONGABONG, LAURO MONTENEGRO,
CARLITO BURILLO, LEO MORA, PABLO BUTIL, ARMANDO
GUCILA, JEREMIAH CAGARA, MARIO NAMOC, CARLITO CAL,
GERWINO NATIVIDAD, ROLANDO CAPUYAN, EDGARDO ORDIZ,
LEONARDO CASURRA, PATROCINIO ORTEGA, FILEMON
CESAR, MARIO PATAN, ROMEO COMPRADO, JESUS PATOC,
RAMON CONSTANTINO, ALBERTO PIELAGO, SAMUEL DELA
LLANA, NICASIO PLAZA, ROSALDO DAGONDON, TITO
GUADES, BONIFACIO DINAGUDOS, PROCOPIO RAMOS, JOSE
EBORAN, ROSENDO SAJOL, FRANCISCO EMPUERTO,
PATRICIO SALOMON, NESTOR ENDAYA, MARIO SALVALEON,
ERNESTO ESTILO, BONIFACIO SIGUE, VICENTE FABROA,
JAIME SUCUAHI, CELSO HUISO, ALEX TAUTO-AN, SATURNINO
YAGON, CLAUDIO TIROL, SULPECIO GAGNI, JOSE TOLERO,
FERVIE GALVEZ, ALFREDO TORALBA and EDUARDO
GENELSA, Respondents.

x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

G.R. No. 155135

NAGKAHIUSANG MAMUMUO SA ALSONS-SPFL (NAMAAL-

SPFL), FELIXBERTO IRAG, JOSHUA BARREDO, ERNESTO
CUARIO, EDGAR MONDAY, EDILBERTO DEMETRIA, HERMINIO
ROBILLO, ROMULO LUNGAY, MATROIL DELOS SANTOS,
BONERME MATURAN, RAUL CANTIGA, EDUARDO CAMPUSO,
RUDY ANADON, GILBERTO GABRONINO, BONIFACIO
SALVADOR, CIRILO MINO, ROBERTO ABONADO, WARLITO
MONTE, PEDRO ESQUIERDO, ALFREDO TROPICO, DANILO
MEJOS, HECTOR ESTUITA, BARTOLOME CASTILLANES,
EDUARDO CAPUYAN, SATURNINO CAGAS, ALEJANDRO
HARDER, EDUARDO LARENA, JAIME MONTEDERAMOS,
ERMELANDO BASADRE, REYNALDO LIMPAJAN, ELPIDIO
LIBRANZA, TEDDY SUELO, JOSE AMOYLIN, TRANQUILINO
ORALLO, CARLOS BALDOS, MANOLITO SABELLANO,
CARMELITO TOBIAS, PRIMITIVO GARCIA, JUANITO
ALDEPOLLA, LUDIVICO ABAD, WENCISLAO INGHUG, RICARDO
ALTO, EPIFANIO JARABAY, FELICIANO AMPER, ALEXANDER
JUDILLA, ROBERTO ANDRADE, ALFREDO LESULA, JULIO
ANINO, BENITO MAGPUSAO, PEDRO AQUINO, EDDIE
MANSANADES, ROMEO ARANETA, ARGUILLAO MANTICA,
CONSTANCIO ARNAIZ, ERNESTO HOTOY, JUSTINO ASCANO,
RICARDO MATURAN, EDILBERTO YAMBAO, ANTONIO
MELARGO, JESUS BERITAN, ARSENIO MELICOR, DIOSDADO
BONGABONG, LAURO MONTENEGRO, CARLITO BURILLO, LEO
MORA, PABLO BUTIL, ARMANDO GUCILA, JEREMIAH
CAGARA, MARIO NAMOC, CARLITO CAL, GERWINO
NATIVIDAD, ROLANDO CAPUYAN, JUANITO NISNISAN,
AURELIO CARIN, PRIMO OPLIMO, ANGELITO CASTANEDA,
EDGARDO ORDIZ, LEONARDO CASURRA, PATROCINIO
ORTEGA, FILEMON CESAR, MARIO PATAN, ROMEO
COMPRADO, JESUS PATOC, RAMON CONSTANTINO, MANUEL
PIAPE, ROY CONSTANTINO, ALBERTO PIELAGO, SAMUEL
DELA LLANA, NICASIO PLAZA, ROSALDO DAGONDON, TITO
GUADES, BONIFACIO DINAGUDOS, PROCOPIO RAMOS, JOSE
EBORAN, ROSENDO SAJOL, FRANCISCO EMPUERTO,
PATRICIO SALOMON, NESTOR ENDAYA, MARIO SALVALEON,
ERNESTO ESTILO, BONIFACIO SIGUE, VICENTE FABROA,
JAIME SUCUAHI, CELSO HUISO, ALEX TAUTO-AN, SATURNINO
YAGON, CLAUDIO TIROL, SULPECIO GAGNI, JOSE TOLERO,
FERVIE GALVEZ, ALFREDO TORALBA and EDUARDO
GENELSA, Petitioners, vs. C. ALCANTARA & SONS, INC.,
EDITHA I. ALCANTARA, ATTY. NELIA A. CLAUDIO, CORNELIO
E. CAGUIAT, JESUS S. DELA CRUZ, ROLANDO Z. ANDRES and
JOSE MA. MANUEL YRASUEGUI, Respondents.

x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

G.R. No. 179220

NAGKAHIUSANG MAMUMUO SA ALSONS-SPFL (NAMAAL-

SPFL), and its members whose names are listed below,
Petitioners, vs. C. ALCANTARA & SONS, INC., Respondent.

DECISION

ABAD, J.:

This case is about a) the consequences of an illegally staged strike

upon the employment status of the union officers and its ordinary
members and b) the right of reinstated union members to go back to
work pending the companys appeal from the order reinstating them.

The Facts and the Case

C. Alcantara & Sons, Inc., (the Company) is a domestic corporation

engaged in the manufacture and processing of plywood.
Nagkahiusang Mamumuo sa Alsons-SPFL (the Union) is the
exclusive bargaining agent of the Companys rank and file
employees. The other parties to these cases are the Union officers1
and their striking members.2

The Company and the Union entered into a Collective Bargaining

Agreement (CBA) that bound them to hold no strike and no lockout in
the course of its life. At some point the parties began negotiating the
economic provisions of their CBA but this ended in a deadlock,
prompting the Union to file a notice of strike. After efforts at
conciliation by the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE)
failed, the Union conducted a strike vote that resulted in an
overwhelming majority of its members favoring it. The Union reported
the strike vote to the DOLE and, after the observance of the
mandatory cooling-off period, went on strike.

During the strike, the Company filed a petition for the issuance of a
writ of preliminary injunction with prayer for the issuance of a
temporary restraining order (TRO) Ex Parte3 with the National Labor
Relations Commission (NLRC) to enjoin the strikers from intimidating,
threatening, molesting, and impeding by barricade the entry of non-
striking employees at the Companys premises. The NLRC first
issued a 20-day TRO and, after hearing, a writ of preliminary
injunction, enjoining the Union and its officers and members from
performing the acts complained of. But several attempts to implement
the writ failed. Only the intervention of law enforcement units made
such implementation possible. Meantime, the Union filed a petition4
with the Court of Appeals (CA), questioning the preliminary injunction
order. On February 8, 1999 the latter court dismissed the petition.
The Union did not appeal from such dismissal.

The Company, on the other hand, filed a petition with the Regional
Arbitration Board to declare the Unions strike illegal,5 citing its
violation of the no strike, no lockout, provision of their CBA.
Subsequently, the Company amended its petition to implead the
named Union members who allegedly committed prohibited acts
during the strike. For their part, the Union, its officers, and its affected
members filed against the Company a counterclaim for unfair labor
practices, illegal dismissal, and damages. The Union also assailed as
invalid the service of summons on the individual Union members
included in the amended petition.
On June 29, 1999 the Labor Arbiter rendered a decision,6 declaring
the Unions strike illegal for violating the CBAs no strike, no lockout,
provision. As a consequence, the Labor Arbiter held that the Union
officers should be deemed to have forfeited their employment with the
Company and that they should pay actual damages of P3,825,000.00
plus 10% interest and attorneys fees. With respect to the striking
Union members, finding no proof that they actually committed illegal
acts during the strike, the Labor Arbiter ordered their reinstatement
without backwages. The Labor Arbiter denied the Unions
counterclaim for lack of merit.

On June 29, 1999 the terminated Union members promptly filed a

motion for their immediate reinstatement but the Labor Arbiter did not
act on the same. At any rate, the Company did not reinstate them.
Both parties appealed7 the Labor Arbiters decision to the NLRC. The
Company impugned the Labor Arbiters decision insofar as it ordered
the reinstatement of the terminated Union members. The Union, on
the other hand, questioned the declaration of illegality of the strike as
well as the dismissal of its officers and the order for them to pay
damages.

On November 8, 1999 the NLRC rendered a decision,8 affirming that

of the Labor Arbiter insofar as the latter declared the strike illegal,
ordered the Union officers terminated, and directed them to pay
damages to the Company. The NLRC ruled, however, that the Union
members involved, who were identified in the proceedings held in the
case, should also be terminated for having committed prohibited and
illegal acts.

The Union filed a petition for certiorari9 with the CA, questioning the
NLRC decision. Finding merit in the petition, the CA rendered a
decision on March 20, 2002,10 annulling the NLRC decision and
reinstating that of the Labor Arbiter. The Company and the Union with
its officers and members filed separate petitions for review of the CA
decision in G.R. 155109 and 155135, respectively.

During the pendency of these cases, the affected Union members

filed with the Labor Arbiter a motion for reinstatement pending appeal
by the parties and the computation of their backwages based on the
CA decision. After hearing, the Labor Arbiter issued a resolution
dated November 21, 2002,11 holding that due to the delay in the
resolution of the dispute and the impracticability of reinstatement
owing to the fact that the relations between the terminated Union
members and the Company had been severely strained by the
prolonged litigation, payment of separation pay to such Union
members was in order. The Labor Arbiter thus approved the
computation and payment of their separation pay and denied all their
other claims.

Both parties appealed the Labor Arbiters resolution12 to the NLRC.

Initially, in its resolution dated April 30, 2003,13 the NLRC declared
the Labor Arbiters resolution of November 21, 2002 void for lack of
factual and legal basis but ordered the Company to pay the affected
employees accrued wages and 13th month pay considering the
Companys refusal to reinstate them pending appeal. On motion for
reconsideration by both parties, however, the NLRC issued a
resolution on August 29, 2003,14 modifying its earlier resolution by
deleting the grant of accrued wages and 13th month pay to the
subject employees, thus denying their motion for computation.

Upon the Unions petition for certiorari15 with the CA, questioning the
NLRCs denial of the terminated Union members claim for separation
pay, accrued wages, and other benefits, the CA rendered a decision
on February 24, 2005,16 dismissing the petition. The CA ruled that the
reinstatement pending appeal provided under Article 223 of the Labor
Code contemplated illegal dismissal or termination cases and not
cases under Article 263. Thus, the CA ruled that the resolution
ordering the reinstatement of the terminated Union members and the
payment of their wages and other benefits had no basis. Aggrieved,
the Union sought intervention by this Court.

The Issues Presented

The issues presented in these cases are:

1. Whether or not the NLRC properly acquired jurisdiction over the

persons of the individual Union members impleaded in the case;

2. Whether or not the Union staged an illegal strike;

3. Assuming the strike to be illegal, whether or not the impleaded

Union members committed illegal acts during the strike, justifying
their termination from employment;

4. Whether or not the terminated Union members are entitled to the

payment of backwages on account of the Companys refusal to
reinstate them, pending appeal by the parties, from the Labor
Arbiters decision of June 29, 1999; and

5. Whether or not the terminated Union members are entitled to

accrued backwages and separation pay.

The Rulings of the Court

One. The NLRC acquires jurisdiction over parties in cases before it

either by summons served on them or by their voluntary appearance
before its Labor Arbiter. Here, while the Union insists that summons
were not properly served on the impleaded Union members with
respect to the Companys amended petition that sought to declare the
strike illegal, the records show that they were so served. The Return
of Service of Summons17 indicated that 74 out of the 8118 impleaded
Union members were served with summons. But they refused either
to accept the summons or to acknowledge receipt of the same. Such
refusal cannot of course frustrate the NLRCs acquisition of
jurisdiction over them. Besides, the affected Union members
voluntarily entered their appearance in the case when they sought
affirmative relief in the course of the proceedings like an award of
damages in their favor.

Two. A strike may be regarded as invalid although the labor union

has complied with the strict requirements for staging one as provided
in Article 263 of the Labor Code when the same is held contrary to an
existing agreement, such as a no strike clause or conclusive
arbitration clause.19 Here, the CBA between the parties contained a
"no strike, no lockout" provision that enjoined both the Union and the
Company from resorting to the use of economic weapons available to
them under the law and to instead take recourse to voluntary
arbitration in settling their disputes.

No law or public policy prohibits the Union and the Company from
mutually waiving the strike and lockout maces available to them to
give way to voluntary arbitration. Indeed, no less than the 1987
Constitution recognizes in Section 3, Article XIII, preferential use of
voluntary means to settle disputes. Thus

The State shall promote the principle of shared responsibility between

workers and employers and the preferential use of voluntary modes
in settling disputes, including conciliation, and shall enforce their
mutual compliance therewith to foster industrial peace.

The Court finds no compelling reason to depart from the findings of

the Labor Arbiter, the NLRC, and the CA regarding the illegality of the
strike. Social justice is not one-sided. It cannot be used as a badge
for not complying with a lawful agreement.

Three. Since the Unions strike has been declared illegal, the Union
officers can, in accordance with law be terminated from employment
for their actions. This includes the shop stewards. They cannot be
shielded from the coverage of Article 264 of the Labor Code since the
Union appointed them as such and placed them in positions of
leadership and power over the men in their respective work units.

As regards the rank and file Union members, Article 264 of the Labor
Code provides that termination from employment is not warranted by
the mere fact that a union member has taken part in an illegal strike.
It must be shown that such a union member, clearly identified,
performed an illegal act or acts during the strike.20
1avvphi1

Here, although the Labor Arbiter found no proof that the dismissed
rank and file Union members committed illegal acts, the NLRC found
following the injunction hearing in NLRC IC M-000126-98 that the
Union members concerned committed such acts, for which they had
in fact been criminally charged before various courts and the
prosecutors office in Davao City. Since the CA held that the
existence of criminal complaints against the Union members did not
warrant their dismissal, it becomes necessary for the Court to go into
the records to settle the issue.

The striking Union members allegedly committed the following

prohibited acts:

a. They threatened, coerced, and intimidated non-striking employees,

officers, suppliers and customers;
b. They obstructed the free ingress to and egress from the company
premises; and

c. They resisted and defied the implementation of the writ of

preliminary injunction issued against the strikers.

Cornelio Caguiat, Ruben Tungapalan, and Eufracio Rabusa depicted

the above prohibited acts in their affidavits and testimonies. The
Sheriff of the NLRC said in his Report21 that, in the course of his
implementation of the writ of injunction, he observed that the striking
employees blocked the exit lane of the Alson drive with their tent.
Tungapalan, a non-striking employee, identified the Union members
who threatened and coerced him. Indeed, he filed criminal actions
against them. Lastly, the photos taken of the strike show the strikers,
properly identified, committing the acts complained of. These
constitute substantial evidence in support of the termination of the
subject Union members.

The mere fact that the criminal complaints against the terminated
Union members were subsequently dismissed for one reason or
another does not extinguish their liability under the Labor Code. Nor
does such dismissal bar the admission of the affidavits, documents,
and photos presented to establish their identity and guilt during the
hearing of the petition to declare the strike illegal. The technical
grounds that the Union interposed for denying admission of the
photos are also not binding on the NLRC.22

Four. The terminated Union members contend that, since the

Company refused to reinstate them after the Labor Arbiter rendered a
decision in their favor, the Company should be ordered to pay them
their wages during the pendency of the appeals from the Labor
Arbiters decision.

It will be recalled that after the Labor Arbiter rendered his decision on
June 29, 1999, which decision ordered the reinstatement of the
terminated Union members, the latter promptly filed a motion for their
reinstatement pending appeal. But the Labor Arbiter did not for some
reason act on the motion. As it happened, after about four months or
on November 8, 1999, the NLRC reversed the Labor Arbiters
reinstatement order. It cannot be said, therefore, that the Company
had resisted a standing order of reinstatement directed at it at this
point.

Of course, on March 20, 2002 the CA restored the Labor Arbiters

reinstatement order. And this prompted the affected Union members
to again file with the Labor Arbiter a motion for their reinstatement
pending appeal. But, acting on the motion, the Labor Arbiter resolved
at this point that reinstatement was no longer practicable because of
the severely strained relation between the company and the
terminated Union members. In place of reinstatement, the Labor
Arbiter ordered the Company to pay them their separation pays.

Both parties appealed the Labor Arbiters above ruling23 to the NLRC.
But, as it turned out the NLRC did not also favor reinstatement. It
instead ordered the Company to pay the terminated Union members
their accrued wages and 13th month pay considering its refusal to
reinstate them pending appeal. On motion for reconsideration,
however, the NLRC reconsidered and deleted altogether the grant of
accrued wages and 13th month pay. The Union appealed the NLRC
ruling to the CA on behalf of its terminated members but the CA
denied their appeal.

The CA denied reinstatement for the reason that the reinstatement

pending appeal provided under Article 223 of the Labor Code
contemplated illegal dismissal or termination cases and not cases
under Article 264. But this perceived distinction does not find support
in the provisions of the Labor Code.

The grounds for termination under Article 264 are based on

prohibited acts that employees could commit during a strike. On the
other hand, the grounds for termination under Articles 282 to 284 are
based on the employees conduct in connection with his assigned
work. Still, Article 217, which defines the powers of Labor Arbiters,
vests in the latter jurisdiction over all termination cases, whatever be
the grounds given for the termination of employment. Consequently,
Article 223, which provides that the decision of the Labor Arbiter
reinstating a dismissed employee shall immediately be executory
pending appeal, cannot but apply to all terminations irrespective of
the grounds on which they are based.
Here, although the Labor Arbiter failed to act on the terminated Union
members motion for reinstatement pending appeal, the Company
had the duty under Article 223 to immediately reinstate the affected
employees even if it intended to appeal from the decision ordaining
such reinstatement. The Companys failure to do so makes it liable
for accrued backwages until the eventual reversal of the order of
reinstatement by the NLRC on November 8, 1999,24 a period of four
months and nine days. 1avvphi1

Five. While it is true that generally the grant of separation pay is not
available to employees who are validly dismissed, there are, in
furtherance of the laws policy of compassionate justice, certain
circumstances that warrant the grant of some relief in favor of the
terminated Union members based on equity.

Bitter labor disputes, especially strikes, always generate a throng of

odium and abhorrence that sometimes result in unpleasant, although
unwanted, consequences.25 Considering this, the striking employees
breach of certain restrictions imposed on their concerted actions at
their employers doorsteps cannot be regarded as so inherently
wicked that the employer can totally disregard their long years of
service prior to such breach.26 The records also fail to disclose any
past infractions committed by the dismissed Union members. Taking
these circumstances in consideration, the Court regards the award of
financial assistance to these Union members in the form of one-half
month salary for every year of service to the company up to the date
of their termination as equitable and reasonable.

WHEREFORE, the Court DENIES the petition of the Nagkahiusang

Mamumuo sa Alsons-SPFL and its officers and members in G.R.
155135 for lack of merit, and REVERSES and SETS ASIDE the
decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP 59604 dated March
20, 2002. The Court, on the other hand, GRANTS the petition of C.
Alcantara & Sons, Inc. in G.R. 155109 and REINSTATES the
decision of the National Labor Relations Commission in NLRC CA M-
004996-99 dated November 8, 1999.

Further, the Court PARTIALLY GRANTS the petition of the

Nagkahiusang Mamumuo sa Alsons-SPFL and their dismissed
members in G.R. 179220 and ORDERS C. Alcantara & Sons, Inc. to
pay the terminated Union members backwages for four (4) months
and nine (9) days and separation pays equivalent to one-half month
salary for every year of service to the company up to the date of their
termination, with interest of 12% per annum from the time this
decision becomes final and executory until such backwages and
separation pays are paid. The Court DENIES all other claims.

SO ORDERED.

ROBERTO A. ABAD Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

ANTONIO T. CARPIO Associate Justice

ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA DIOSDADO M. PER

Associate Justice Associate Justic
JOSE CATRAL MENDOZA Associate Justice

ATTESTATION

I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached
in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the
opinion of the Courts Division.

ANTONIO T. CARPIO Associate Justice Chairperson, Second

Division

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the

Division Chairpersons Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the
above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case
was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Courts Division.

RENATO C. CORONA Chief Justice

Footnotes
1
The officers of the Union are the following: Felixberto Irag, Joshua
Barredo, Edilberto Demetria, Romulo Lungay, Bonerme Maturan,
Eduardo Campuso, Gilberto Gabronino, Cirilo Mino, Roberto
Abonado, Fructoso Cabahog, Alfredo Tropico, Hector Estuita,
Eduardo Capuyan, Alejandro Harder, Jaime Montederamos,
Reynaldo Limpajan, Ernesto Cuario, Edgar Monday, Herminio
Robillo, Matroil delos Santos, Raul Cantiga, Rudy Anadon, Bonifacio
Salvador, Florente Seno, Warlito Monte, Pedro Esquierdo, Danilo
Mejos, Bartolome Castillanes, Saturnino Cagas, Eduardo Larena,
Ermelando Basadre, Elpidio Libranza.Teddy Suelo, Tranquilino
Orallo, Manolito Sabellano, Primitivo Garcia, Jose Amoylin, Carlos
Baldos, Carmelito Tobias and Juanito Aldepolla.
2
These are Ludivicio Abad, Ricardo Alto, Feliciano Amper, Roberto
Andrade, Julio Anino, Pedro Aquino, Romeo Araneta, Constancio
Arnaiz, Justino Ascano, Ernesto Baino, Jesus Beritan, Diosdado
Bongabong, Carilito Cal, Rolando Capuyan, Aurelio Carin, Angelito
Castaeda, Leonaro Casurra, Filemon Cesar, Romeo Comprado,
Ramon Constantino, Roy Constantino, Samuel dela Llana, Rosaldo
Dagondon, Bonifacio Dinagudos, Jose Eboran, Francisco Empuerto,
Nestor Endaya, Ernesto Estilo, Vicente Fabroa, Ramon Fernando,
Samson Fulgueras, Sulpecio Gagni, Fervie Galvez, Eduardo
Genelsa, Tito Guades, Armando Gucila, Ernesto Hotoy, Wencislao
Inghug, Epifanio Jarabay, Alexander Judilla, Alfredo Lesula, Benito
Magpusao, Eddie Mansanades, Arguilao Mantica, Silverio Maranian,
Ricardo Maturan, Antonio Melargo, Arsenio Melicor, Lauro
Montenegro, Leo Mora, Ronaldo Naboya, Mario Namoc, Gerwino
Natividad, Juanito Nisnisan, Primo Oplimo, Edgardo Ordiz, Patrocino
Ortega, Mario Patan, Jesus Patoc, Manuel Piape, Alberto Pielago,
Nicasio Plaza, Fausto Quibod, Procopio Ramos, Rosendo Sajol,
Patricio Solomon, Mario Salvaleon, Bonifacio Sigue, Jaime Sucuahi,
Alex Tauto-an, Claudio Tirol, Jose Tolero, Alfredo Toralba, Eusebio
Tumulak, Hermes Villacarlos, Saturnino Yagon and Edilberto
Yambao.
3
Docketed as NLRC IC M-000126-98.
4
Docketed as CA-G.R. SP 50371.
5
Docketed as NLRC RAB-11-08-01064-98.
6
NLRC records, Vol. 1, pp. 845-869.
7
Docketed as NLRC CA M-004996-99.
8
NLRC records, Vol. 3, pp. 575-591.
9
Docketed as CA-G.R. SP 59604.
10
CA rollo, Vol. 2, pp. 1090-1097.
11
NLRC records, Vol. 6, pp. 164-170.
12
Docketed as NLRC CA M-007314-2002.
13
Id. at 612-620.
14
Id. at 1177-1184.
15
Docketed as CA-G.R. SP 80507.
16
Rollo (G.R. 155109), pp. 787-800.
17
NLRC records, Vol. 1, pp. 57-58, 123-127.
18
Respondents Ricardo Alto, Ramon Constantino, Rosaldo
Dagondon, Vicente Fabroa, Jose Tolero, Mario Namoc and Rolando
Naboya were not served with summons due to incomplete address.
19
I Teller 314-317 cited in Azucena, C. Everyones Labor Code, 2007
edition, p. 291.
20
Toyota Motor Phils. Corp. Workers Association (TMPCWA) v.
National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. Nos. 158786, 158789 &
158798-99, October 19, 2007, 537 SCRA 171, 212.
21
NLRC records, Vol. 1, pp. 110-111.
22
Labor Code, Article 221.
23
Docketed as NLRC CA M-007314-2002.
24
See Garcia v. Philippine Airlines, Inc., G.R. No. 164856, January
20, 2009, 576 SCRA 479, 489.
25
Kimberly Clark (Phils.) v. Facundo, G.R. No. 144885. July 12,
2006.
26
Rollo (G.R. 155109), p. 1011. Some of them were hired as early as
1972.