Olvido vs. CA

 Olvido vs. CA

G.R. No.141166-67

October 15, 2017

DOCTRINE: 

An employee who is unjustly dismissed from work shall be entitled to reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and other privileges and to his full backwages, inclusive of allowances, and to his other benefits or their monetary equivalent computed from the time his compensation was withheld from him up to the time of his actual reinstatement.

FACTS:

Petitioners Ronilo Olvido (President), Cristina Dulguime, Sofronia Hernandez, Wilma Suico (VP), Arsenia Mayores, Erlinda Hidalgo, Marietta Mondero, Ma. Theresa Macasinag (Sergeant-at-Arms), Elmira Pamaranglas, Cristina Sambitan, Elizabeth Manalon, Gloria Vizcarra, Laarni Apuli, Castiela Mendoza and Meriam Olvido were regular employees of respondent Sicaltek Manufacturing, Inc. and founding or original members of Sicaltek Employees Union-ADFLO 3 (SEU-ADFLO). On August 24, 1992, R. Olvido, Suico, and Macasinag, with the assistance of respondent Antonio C. Cedilla, President of their Federation, ADFLO, filed a complaint for illegal lay-off, illegal deductions, non-payment of overtime pay, premium pay for holiday, service incentive leave pay, 13th month pay, and night shift differential pay.

 

In the meantime, SEU-ADFLO filed a petition for certification election on August 28, 1992. During the certification proceedings, ADFLO and Sicaltek agreed that SEU-ADFLO will withdraw the labor case in exchange for the company's voluntary recognition of SEU-ADFLO as the sole bargaining agent of its employees. On September 10, 1992, the Med-Arbiter issued an order certifying SEU-ADFLO as the sole bargaining agent of Sicaltek's rank- and-file employees. ADFLO then prepared a motion to dismiss the labor case, but petitioners refused to sign it. Thus, ADFLO barred R. Olvido and Suico from attending and participating in the initial negotiations of the new Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA).

 

This prompted petitioners to disaffiliate from SEU-ADFLO on September 17, 1992. They formed another union, the Sicaltek Workers Union (SWU), and filed a petition for certification election on October 5, 1992. The petition was, however, dismissed due to the earlier certification order by the Med-Arbiter. SWU appealed to the Secretary of Labor and Employment, but the appeal was also denied. On October 10, 1992, Sicaltek and SEU-ADFLO concluded their new CBA made effective on October 1, 1992.

 

SEU-ADFLO, through its new President, respondent Dina Villagracia, forthwith demanded that Sicaltek dismiss petitioners as provided in the Modified Union Shop Provision in the CBA, due to falsification and disloyalty. On March 3, 1993, Sicaltek required petitioners to explain in writing why they should not be dismissed. Petitioners countered that the demand for their dismissal was pure harassment since the certification issue between the two unions was still pending at the time with the Secretary of Labor and Employment while the falsification charge had no basis. On March 22, 1993, Sicaltek dismissed petitioners. Petitioners then filed a complaint for unfair labor practice, illegal dismissal, damages, and attorney's fees. Labor Arbiter - dismissed the complaint for lack of merit.

On appeal, the NLRC - reversed the decision of the Labor Arbiter and ordered petitioners' reinstatement to their former positions but without backwages. The appellate court ruled that petitioners were not covered by the Modified Union Shop provision in the CBA. The provision requires all new employees to become union members after sometime, but does not require present employees to join the union. Nevertheless, the appellate court ruled that the dismissal was not attended by bad faith. The appellate court held that contrary to petitioners' contentions, there was nothing sinister about the company's act of settling amicably the labor case with ADFLO. Petitioners contend that their dismissal was effected by Sicaltek in bad faith, thus, entitling them not only to reinstatement but also the payment of backwages. Sicaltek counters that it merely complied in good faith with its covenant in the CBA.

ISSUE: 

Whether or not petitioners are entitled to backwages.

HELD: 

YES. It is now provided in the Labor Code that an employee who is unjustly dismissed from work shall be entitled to reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and other privileges and to his full backwages, inclusive of allowances, and to his other benefits or their monetary equivalent computed from the time his compensation was withheld from him up to the time of his actual reinstatement. Thus, where reinstatement is adjudged, the award of backwages and other benefits continues beyond the date of the Labor Arbiter's decision ordering reinstatement and extends up to the time said order of reinstatement is actually carried out. Petitioners are hereby awarded full backwages and other allowances, without qualifications and diminutions, computed from the time they were illegally dismissed up to the time they are actually reinstated. Let this case be remanded to the Labor Arbiter for proper computation of the full backwages due petitioners, in accordance with Article 279 of the Labor Code, as expeditiously as possible.