View full case

C. ALCANTARA v. CA

FACTS:

The case involves a dispute between C. Alcantara & Sons, Inc. (CASI) and Nagkahiusang Mamumuo sa Alsons-SPFL (the Union) regarding the economic provisions of their Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA). The negotiation ended in a deadlock, prompting the Union to stage a strike. However, the strike was later declared illegal by the Labor Arbiter (LA) for violating the no strike-no lockout provision of the CBA. The Union officers were deemed to have forfeited their employment and were held liable for damages, while the Union members were ordered to be reinstated without backwages. The LA decision was affirmed by the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) with modifications, declaring the Union members to have been validly dismissed for committing prohibited and illegal acts during the strike.

The Court of Appeals (CA) later annulled the NLRC decision and reinstated the LA decision. Several motions for reconsideration were filed, resulting in the consolidation of the cases. The Court rendered a decision granting the petition of CASI and partially granting the petition of the Union, ordering CASI to pay the terminated Union members backwages and separation pays.

CASI filed a motion for partial reconsideration, questioning the award of backwages and separation pay, while the Union filed a separate motion for reconsideration, seeking the reversal of the Court's conclusions on the strike's illegality, the termination of Union officers and members, and the award of damages and attorney's fees.

The Court, after a careful review of the records, found it necessary to reconsider the award of separation pay but affirmed the conclusions on the illegality of the strike and the termination of Union officers and members.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the strike staged by the Union is illegal for violating the no strike-no lockout provision of the CBA.

  2. Whether the Union officers and members can be declared to have lost their employment status for knowingly participating in an illegal strike or committing illegal acts during a strike.

  3. Whether the striking Union members committed prohibited acts warranting their dismissal.

  4. Whether the reinstatement order of the LA, pending appeal, makes the employer liable to pay the striking Union members their accrued wages.

  5. Whether separation pay in the form of financial assistance should be awarded to dismissed employees who were found to have committed illegal acts during an illegal strike.

  6. Whether the award of separation pay in this case is justified.

RULING:

  1. Yes, the strike staged by the Union is illegal for violating the no strike-no lockout provision of the CBA.

  2. Yes, the Union officers and members can be declared to have lost their employment status for knowingly participating in an illegal strike or committing illegal acts during a strike.

  3. Yes, the striking Union members committed prohibited acts warranting their dismissal.

  4. Yes, the reinstatement order of the LA, pending appeal, makes the employer liable to pay the striking Union members their accrued wages.

  5. Separation pay in the form of financial assistance should not be awarded to dismissed employees who were found to have committed illegal acts during an illegal strike.

  6. The award of separation pay in this case is not justified.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The Commission of prohibited acts by the striking Union members warrants their dismissal from employment.

  • A Union officer who knowingly participates in an illegal strike or commits illegal acts during a lawful strike may be declared to have lost his employment status.

  • Mere participation of a worker in a lawful strike shall not constitute sufficient ground for termination of his employment.

  • The decision of the LA reinstating a dismissed or separated employee, insofar as the reinstatement aspect is concerned, shall immediately be executory, pending appeal.

  • If the employer fails to exercise the option of re-admitting the employee to work or to reinstate him in the payroll, the employer must pay the employee's salaries during the period between the LA's order of reinstatement pending appeal and the resolution of the higher court overturning that of the LA.

  • The award of accrued salaries to the Union members is different from the backwages referred to in jurisprudence.

  • Separation pay may be given as a form of financial assistance when a worker is dismissed due to specific grounds defined in the law.

  • When just causes for terminating the services of an employee exist, the employee is not entitled to separation pay because lawbreakers should not benefit from their illegal acts. However, there are exceptions to this rule.

  • Separation pay may be allowed as a measure of social justice only in instances where the employee is validly dismissed for causes other than serious misconduct or those reflecting on his moral character.

  • The award of financial assistance may be granted if the employee's infraction is not so reprehensible and unscrupulous and considering the employee's previous records.

  • Financial assistance may not be awarded to individuals who participated in or committed illegal acts during an illegal strike.

  • The open and willful defiance of the assumption order of the Secretary of Labor constitutes serious misconduct and reflects the moral character of the strikers, justifying the denial of financial assistance.

  • Financial assistance may not be granted to employees who participated in an unlawful and violent strike, resulting in multiple deaths and extensive property damage, as it constitutes serious misconduct.