[ G.R. Nos. 171618-19. March 13, 2009 ] 600 Phil. 336
FIRST DIVISION
[ G.R. Nos. 171618-19. March 13, 2009 ]
JACKBILT INDUSTRIES, INC., PETITIONER, VS. JACKBILT EMPLOYEES WORKERS UNION-NAFLU-KMU, RESPONDENT. D E C I S I O N
CORONA, J.:
This petition for review on certiorari[1] seeks to reverse and set aside the July 13, 2005 decision[2] and February 9, 2006 resolution[3] of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 65208 and CA-G.R. SP No. 65425. Due to the adverse effects of the Asian economic crisis on the construction industry beginning 1997, petitioner Jackbilt Industries, Inc. decided to temporarily stop its business of producing concrete hollow blocks, compelling most of its employees to go on leave for six months. [4] Respondent Jackbilt Employees Workers Union-NAFLU-KMU immediately protested the temporary shutdown. Because its collective bargaining agreement with petitioner was expiring during the period of the shutdown, respondent claimed that petitioner halted production to avoid its duty to bargain collectively. The shutdown was allegedly motivated by anti-union sentiments. Accordingly, on March 9, 1998, respondent went on strike. Its officers and members picketed petitioner’s main gates and deliberately prevented persons and vehicles from going into and out of the compound. On March 19, 1998, petitioner filed a petition for injunction[5] with a prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining order (TRO) in the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). It sought to enjoin respondent from obstructing free entry to and exit from its production facility.[6] On April 14, 1998, the NLRC issued a TRO directing the respondents to refrain from preventing access to petitioner’s property. The reports of both the implementing officer and the investigating labor arbiter revealed, however, that respondent union violated the April 14, 1998 order. Union members, on various occasions, stopped and inspected private vehicles entering and exiting petitioner’s production facility. Thus, in a decision dated July 17, 1998, the NLRC ordered the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction.[7] Meanwhile, petitioner sent individual memoranda to the officers and members of respondent who participated in the strike[8] ordering them to explain why they should not be dismissed for committing illegal acts in the course of a strike.[9] However, respondent repeatedly ignored petitioner’s memoranda despite the extensions granted.[10] Thus, on May 30, 1998, petitioner dismissed the concerned officers and members and barred them from entering its premises effective June 1, 1998. Aggrieved, respondent filed complaints for illegal lockout, runaway shop and damages,[11] unfair labor practice, illegal dismissal and attorney’s fees,[12] and refusal to bargain[13] on behalf of its officers and members against petitioner and its corporate officers. It argued that there was no basis for the temporary partial shutdown as it was undertaken by petitioner to avoid its duty to bargain collectively. Petitioner, on the other hand, asserted that because respondent conducted a strike without observing the procedural requirements provided in Article 263 of the Labor Code,[14] the March 9, 1998 strike was illegal. Furthermore, in view of the July 17, 1998 decision of the NLRC (which found that respondent obstructed the free ingress to and egress from petitioner’s premises), petitioner validly dismissed respondent’s officers and employees for committing illegal acts in the course of a strike. In a decision dated October 15, 1999, [15] the labor arbiter dismissed the complaints for illegal lockout and unfair labor practice for lack of merit. However, because petitioner did not file a petition to declare the strike illegal[16] before terminating respondent’s officers and employees, it was found guilty of illegal dismissal. The dispositive portion of the decision read:
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered finding [petitioner and its corporate officers] liable for the illegal dismissal of the 61 union officer and members of [respondent] and concomitantly, [petitioner and its corporate officers] are hereby jointly and severally ordered to pay [respondents’ officers and members] limited backwages from June 1, 1998 to October 4, 1998. [Petitioner and its corporate officers] are further ordered to pay [respondents’ officers and members] separation pay based on ½ salary for every year of credited service, a fraction of at least 6 months to be considered as one whole year in lieu of reinstatement. The complaint for unfair labor practice, moral and exemplary damages and runaway shop are hereby disallowed for lack of merit. SO ORDERED.
On December 28, 2000, the NLRC, on appeal, modified the decision of the labor arbiter. It held that only petitioner should be liable for monetary awards granted to respondent’s officers and members.[17] Both petitioner and respondent moved for reconsideration but they were denied for lack of merit.[18] Aggrieved, petitioner assailed the December 28, 2000 decision of the NLRC via a petition for certiorari[19] in the CA. It asserted that the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in disregarding its July 17, 1998 decision[20] wherein respondent’s officers and employees were found to have committed illegal acts in the course of the March 9, 1998 strike. In view thereof and pursuant to Article 264(a)(3) of the Labor Code,[21] petitioner validly terminated respondent’s officers and employees. The CA dismissed the petition but modified the December 28, 2000 decision of the NLRC.[22] Because most of affected employees were union members, the CA held that the temporary shutdown was moved by anti-union sentiments. Petitioner was therefore guilty of unfair labor practice and, consequently, was ordered to pay respondent’s officers and employees backwages from March 9, 1998 (instead of June 1, 1998) to October 4, 1998 and separation pay of one month salary for every year of credited service. Petitioner moved for reconsideration but it was denied.[23] Thus, this recourse. The primordial issue in this petition is whether or not the filing of a petition with the labor arbiter to declare a strike illegal is a condition sine qua non for the valid termination of employees who commit an illegal act in the course of such strike. Petitioner asserts that the filing of a petition to declare the strike illegal was unnecessary since the NLRC, in its July 17, 1998 decision, had already found that respondent committed illegal acts in the course of the strike. We grant the petition. The principle of conclusiveness of judgment, embodied in Section 47(c), Rule 39 of the Rules of Court,[24] holds that the parties to a case are bound by the findings in a previous judgment with respect to matters actually raised and adjudged therein.[25] Article 264(e) of the Labor Code prohibits any person engaged in picketing from obstructing the free ingress to and egress from the employer’s premises. Since respondent was found in the July 17, 1998 decision of the NLRC to have prevented the free entry into and exit of vehicles from petitioner’s compound, respondent’s officers and employees clearly committed illegal acts in the course of the March 9, 1998 strike. The use of unlawful means in the course of a strike renders such strike illegal.[26] Therefore, pursuant to the principle of conclusiveness of judgment, the March 9, 1998 strike was ipso facto illegal. The filing of a petition to declare the strike illegal was thus unnecessary. Consequently, we uphold the legality of the dismissal of respondent’s officers and employees. Article 264 of the Labor Code[27] further provides that an employer may terminate employees found to have committed illegal acts in the course of a strike.[28] Petitioner clearly had the legal right to terminate respondent’s officers and employees.[29] WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby granted. The July 13, 2005 decision and February 9, 2006 resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 65208 and CA-G.R. SP No. 65425 are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The December 28, 2000 and March 6, 2001 resolutions of the National Labor Relations Commission in NLRC-CA No. 022614-2000 are MODIFIED insofar as they affirmed the October 15, 1999 decision of the labor arbiter in NLRC-NCR-Case No. 00-06-05017-98 finding petitioner Jackbilt Industries, Inc. guilty of illegal dismissal for terminating respondent’s officers and employees. New judgment is hereby entered DISMISSING NLRC-NCR-Case No. 00-06-05017-98 for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. Ynares-Santiago, Carpio, Leonardo-De Castro, and Brion, JJ., concur.