[G.R. No. 120482.January 27, 1997]REFORMIST UNION OF R. B. INER, IN!., "E#ER $ETROS, ETAL., petitioners, vs. N%TION% %BOR RE%TIONS!OMMISSION, R.B. INER, IN!., BERNIT%$EJERO, FEI&E$EJERO, RO$EIO $EJERO, %N% TERES% $EJERO, an'RO$EIO R(%N $EJERO, respondents.$ E ! I S I O N$%#I$E, JR., J.)Thisisaspecial civil actionfor certiorari under Rule65of theRulesof Courtseeking to set aside the decision [1] of the National Labor Relations Commission NLRC!in NLRC NCR C" No# $$%115&'() *hich affirmed the decision [(] of the Labor "rbiter inthe consolidated cases NLRC NCR Case Nos# $$&$+&$1+'(&'$ and $$&$%&$($,,&'$)andtheresolutionof theformer den-ingthemotionfor thereconsiderationof itsdecision# [+].etitioner Reformist /nionof R#0# Liner) 1nc# hereinafter Reformist! *ith2ever3etros as its president) is composed of drivers) conductors) and mechanics of privaterespondent R#0# Liner) 1nc#.rivate respondents 0ernita) 4elipe) Rodelio) "na Teresa)and Rodelio R-an) all surnamed 3e5ero) are the incorporators of R#0# Liner) 1nc#4rom the record and the pleadings filed b- the parties) *e cull the follo*ing materialfacts in this case6Petitioner union was organized in May 1989 "by affiliating itself with Lakas Manggagawa sa Pilipinas (hereinafter Lakas)." !" Lakas filed a noti#e of strike on 1$ %o&e'ber 1989 be#ause of alleged a#ts of unfair labor pra#ti#e #o''itted by the pri&ate respondents. (" )espite #on#iliation hearings held on ! and * )e#e'ber 1989+ the parties failed to rea#h an agree'ent.Later+ another a#t of unfair labor pra#ti#e allegedly #o''itted by the pri&ate respondents i'pelled Reformist+ with the authorization of Lakas+ to go on strike on 1$ )e#e'ber 1989 e&en as #on#iliation pro#eedings #ontinued. *",n -1 )e#e'ber 1989+ ../. Liner+ 0n#. petitioned then 1e#retary 2anklin )rilon of the )epart'ent of Labor and 3'ploy'ent (),L3) to assu'e 4urisdi#tion o&er the ongoing dispute or #ertify it to the %L.5. 6" 1e#retary )rilon deter'ined that "t"he ongoing work stoppage in the #o'pany . . . . ad&ersely affe#ts an industry indispensable to the national interest7" thus on -8 )e#e'ber 1989+ he #ertified the dispute to the %L.5 for #o'pulsory arbitration and issued a return8to8work order. 8"9he #ertified #ase (%L.5 5ertified #ase %o. :(!-+ entitled In Re: Labor Dispute at RB Liner, Inc.) was dis'issed on 1$ 2ebruary 199: 9" after the union and the #o'pany rea#hed all agree'ent 1:" on 19 ;anuary 199: pro&iding+ a'ong other 'atters+ for the holding of a #ertifi#ation ele#tion.,n $1 ;anuary 199:+ a #ertifi#ation ele#tion was held where Lakas won as the #olle#ti&e bargaining agent of the rank8and8file e'ployees. 11" ,n 1$ 2ebruary 199:+ Lakas presented a proposal for a #olle#ti&e bargaining agree'ent to /ernita and.odelia )e4ero+ 1-" but they refused to bargain. 1$" Meanwhile+ as ad'itted by pri&ate respondents< witness =r#ile 9an4uat#o+ ;r.+ eight ../. Liner buses were "#on&erted" to 1ultran Lines+ one "be#a'e M5L+" and another "be#a'e 119 Liner."1!"9he petitioners filed %L.5 %5. 5ase %o. %5. ::8:$8:1$9-89: #harging the pri&aterespondents with unfair labor pra#ti#e+ i.e.+ illegal lo#k out.9he pri&ate respondents #ountered with %L.5 5ase %o. %5.8::8:!8:-:8889:+ whi#h sought to de#lare as illegal the union#onferen#es between the parties. -$"The dispute or strike *as settled *hen the compan- and the union entered into anagreement on1'?anuar-1''$*heretheprivaterespondentsagreedtoaccept allemplo-ees*hob-then) hadnot -et returnedto*ork# 0-accedingtothepeacefulsettlement brokeredb-theNLRC) theprivaterespondents*aivedtheissueof theillegalit- of the strike#The ver- nature of compulsor- arbitration makes the settlement binding upon theprivate respondents) for compulsor- arbitration has been defined both as 13B#.etitioners&emplo-ees are hereb- a*arded fullback *ages and separation pa- to be determined b- the Labor "rbiter as prescribedabove *ithin thirt- +$! da-s from notice of this 5udgment#SO OR$ERE$.Narvasa, C.J., (Chairman), elo, !rancisco, and "anganiban, JJ., concur.[5$] C#R# No# 111651) *here the Court re&e:amined and abandoned the ruling in .ines Cit- BducationalCenter vs# NLRC((7>CR" 655 [1''+]!*hich reinstatedtherule priorto the=ercur-3rugCase56>CR"6'%[1'7%]! that inascertainingthetotal amount of back*agesduetheemplo-ee) the total amount derived from emplo-ment else*here from the date of his dismissal uptothedateof hisreinstatement if an-) shouldbedeductedtherefrom# 2enceforth) nosuchdeduction shall be made) the Court ruling thus6The clear legislative intent of the amendment in Rep# "ct No# 6715 is to give more benefits to *orkersthan*aspreviousl-giventhenunder the=ercur-3rugruleor the84T2B./0L1CRB>.8N3BNTNLRCT2"TT2B.R1I"TBRB>.8N3BNT> ABRB 1LLBC"LLM 31>=1>>B3F11#L R/L1NC T2"T T2B .R1I"TB RB>.8N3BNT> "RB BNT1TLB3 T8>B."R"T18N ."M "N3 4/LL 0"CNA"CB>F111#L R/L1NC T2"T .BT1T18NBR 1> L1"0LB 48R C8>T> 84 >/1T#['].etitioner contends that the dismissal of private respondents *as for a 5ust and validcause) pursuant to the provisions of the compan-Hs rules and regulations# 1t also allegeslack of 5urisdiction on the part of the labor arbiter) claiming that the cases should havebeenresolvedthroughthegrievance machiner-) and eventuall-referredtovoluntar-arbitration) as prescribed in the C0"#4or their part) private respondents contend that the- *ere illegall- dismissed fromemplo-ment becausemanagement discoveredthat the-intendedto formanotherunion) and because the- *ere vocal in asserting their rights#1n an- case) according toprivate respondents) the petition involves factual issues that cannot be properl- raisedin a petition for revie* on certiorari under Rule %5 of the Revised Rules of Court#[1$]1n fine) there are three issues to be resolved6 1! *hether private respondents *erelegall- and validl- dismissedF (! *hether the labor arbiter and the NLRC had 5urisdictionto decide complaints for illegal dismissalF and +! *hether petitioner is liable for costs ofthe suit#The first issue primaril- involves @uestions of fact) *hich can serve as basis for theconclusion that private respondents *ere legall- and validl- dismissed#The burden ofproving that the dismissal of private respondents *as legal and valid falls uponpetitioner#TheNLRCfoundthat petitioner failedtosubstantiateitsclaimthat bothprivate respondents committed certain acts that violated compan- rules and regulations)[11]hence*efindnofactual basistosa-that privaterespondentsH dismissal *asinorder#Aesee no compelling reason to deviate fromthe NLRCruling that theirdismissal *as illegal) absent a sho*ing that it reached its conclusion arbitraril-#[1(] =oreover) factual findings of agencies e:ercising @uasi&5udicial functions are accordednot onl- respect but even finalit-) aside from the consideration here that this Court is nota trier of facts# [1+]"nent the second issue) "rticle (17 of the Labor Code provides that labor arbitershave original and e:clusive 5urisdiction over termination disputes#" possible e:ceptionis provided in "rticle (61 of the Labor Code) *hich provides that&9he Doluntary =rbitrator or panel of &oluntary arbitrators shall ha&e original and eC#lusi&e 4urisdi#tion to hear and de#ide all unresol&ed grie&an#es arising fro' the interpretation or i'ple'entation of the 5olle#ti&e /argaining =gree'ent and those arising fro' the interpretation or enfor#e'ent of #o'pany personnel poli#ies referred to in the i''ediately pre#eding arti#le.=##ordingly+ &iolations of a 5olle#ti&e /argaining =gree'ent+ eC#ept those whi#h are gross in #hara#ter+ shall no longer be treated as unfair labor pra#ti#e and shall be resol&ed as grie&an#es under the 5olle#ti&e /argaining =gree'ent.2or purposes of this arti#le+ gross &iolations of 5olle#ti&e /argaining =gree'ent shall 'ean flagrant and or 'ali#ious refusal to #o'ply with the e#ono'i# pro&isions of su#h agree'ent.9he 5o''ission+ its .egional ,ffi#es and the .egional )ire#tors of the )epart'ent of Labor and 3'ploy'ent shall not entertain disputes+ grie&an#es or 'atters under theeC#lusi&e and original 4urisdi#tion of the Doluntary =rbitrator or panel of Doluntary =rbitrators and shall i''ediately dispose and refer the sa'e to the grie&an#e Ma#hinery or =rbitration pro&ided in the 5olle#ti&e /argaining =gree'ent.0ut as held in %ivero vs. C&,[1%] Jpetitioner cannot arrogate into the po*ers ofIoluntar- "rbitrators the original and e:clusive 5urisdiction of Labor "rbiters over unfairlaborpractices) terminationdisputes) andclaimsfordamages) intheabsenceof ane:pressagreement bet*eenthepartiesinorder for "rticle(6(of theLabor Code[?urisdiction over other labor disputes] to appl- in the case at bar#K=oreover) per ?ustice 0ellosillo60t 'ay be obser&ed that under Poli#y 0nstru#tion %o. (* of the 1e#retary of Labor+ dated * =pril 199$+ J5larifying the ;urisdi#tion /etween Doluntary =rbitrators and Labor =rbiters ,&er 9er'ination 5ases and Pro&iding Guidelines for the .eferral of 1aid 5ases ,riginally 2iled with the %L.5 to the %5M/+K ter'ination #ases arising in or resulting fro' the interpretation and i'ple'entation of #olle#ti&e bargaining agree'ents and interpretation and enfor#e'ent of #o'pany personnel poli#ies whi#h were initially pro#essed at the &arious steps of the plant8le&el Grie&an#e Pro#edures under the partiesL #olle#ti&e bargaining agree'ents fall within the original and eC#lusi&e 4urisdi#tion of the &oluntary arbitrator pursuant to =rt. -16 (#) and =rt. -*1 of the Labor 5ode7 and+ if filed before the Labor =rbiter+ these #ases shall be dis'issed by the Labor =rbiter for la#k of 4urisdi#tion and referred to the #on#erned %5M/ .egional /ran#h for appropriate a#tion towards an eCpeditious sele#tion by the parties of a Doluntary =rbitrator or Panel of =rbitrators based on the pro#edures agreed upon in the 5/=.=s earlier stated+ the instant #ase is a ter'ination dispute falling under the original andeC#lusi&e 4urisdi#tion of the Labor =rbiter+ and does not spe#ifi#ally in&ol&e the appli#ation+ i'ple'entation or enfor#e'ent of #o'pany personnel poli#ies #onte'plated in Poli#y 0nstru#tion %o. (*.5onse?uently+ Poli#y 0nstru#tion %o. (* does not apply in the #ase at bar.1(" C C CRecords sho*) ho*ever) that private respondents sought *ithout success to avail ofthe grievance procedureintheir C0"#[16] 8n thispoint) petitionermaintains that b- sodoing) privaterespondentsrecogniOedthat their casesstill fell under thegrievancemachiner-# "ccording to petitioner) *ithout having e:hausted said machiner-) the privaterespondentsfiledtheir actionbeforetheNLRC) inaclear act of forum&shopping#[17]2o*ever) it is *orth pointing out that private respondents *ent to the NLRC onl- afterthelaborarbiterdismissedtheiroriginal complaint forillegal dismissal#/nderthesecircumstances private respondents had to find another avenue for redress#Ae agree*iththeNLRCthat it *aspetitioner *hofailedtosho*proof that it tookstepstoconvene the grievance machiner- after the labor arbiter first dismissed the complaintsfor illegal dismissal and directed the parties to avail of the grievance procedure under"rticle I11 of the e:isting C0"#The- could not no* be faulted for attempting to find animpartial forum) after petitioner failed to listen to them and after the intercession of thelabor arbiter proved futile#The NLRC had aptl- concluded in part that privaterespondents had alread- e:hausted the remedies under the grievance procedure#[1,] 1terred onl- in finding that their cause of action *as ripe for arbitration#1nthecaseof anejavs. NLRC)[1'] *eheldthatthedismissal casedoesnot fall*ithin the phrase Jgrievances arising from the interpretation or implementation of thecollective bargaining agreement and those arisingfrom the interpretation or enforcementof compan- personnel policies#K 1n aneja) the hotel emplo-ee *as dismissed *ithouthearing#Ae ruled that her dismissal *as un5ustified) and her right to due process *asviolated) absent thet*inre@uirementsof noticeandhearing#Aealsoheldthat thelabor arbiter had original and e:clusive 5urisdiction over the termination case) and that it*as error to give the voluntar- arbitrator 5urisdiction over the illegal dismissal case#1n %iverovs. C&,[($] privaterespondentsattemptedto5ustif-the5urisdictionof thevoluntar-arbitrator over aterminationdisputeallegingthat theissueinvolvedtheinterpretationandimplementationofthe grievanceprocedure in theC0"#There) *eheld that since *hat *as challenged *as the legalit- of the emplo-eeHs dismissalforlack of cause and lack of due process) the case *as primaril- a termination dispute# Theissue of *hether there *as proper interpretation and implementation of the C0"provisions came into pla- onl- because the grievance procedure in the C0" *as notobserved) after he sought his unionHs assistance#>ince the real issue then *as*hether there*asavalidtermination) there*asnoreasontoinvoketheneedtointerpret nor @uestion an implementation of an- C0" provision#8ne significant fact in the present petition also needs stressing#.ursuant to "rticle(6$[(1] of the Labor Code) the parties to a C0" shall name or designate their respectiverepresentativestothegrievancemachiner-andif thegrievanceisunsettledinthatlevel) it shall automaticall- be referred to the voluntar- arbitrators designated in advanceb-thepartiestoaC0"#Conse@uentl-onl-disputesinvolvingtheunionandthecompan- shall be referred to the grievance machiner- or voluntar- arbitrators# 1n thesetermination cases of private respondents) the union had no participation) it having failedto ob5ect to the dismissalof the emplo-ees concerned b- the petitioner#1t is obviousthat arbitration*ithout the unionHsactive participation onbehalf of thedismissedemplo-ees *ould be pointless) or even pre5udicial to their cause#Coming to the merits of the petition) the NLRC found that petitioner did not compl-*ith the re@uirementsof a validdismissal# 4or a dismissalto bevalid)the emplo-ermustsho*that6 1!theemplo-ee*asaccordeddueprocess)and (!thedismissalmust be for an- of the valid causes provided for b- la*#[((] No evidence *as sho*n thatprivate respondents refused) as alleged) to receive the notices re@uiring them to sho*cause *h- no disciplinar- action should be taken against them#Aithout proof of notice)private respondents *ho *ere subse@uentl- dismissed *ithout hearing *ere alsodeprived of a chance to air their side at the level of the grievance machiner-#Civen thefact of dismissal) it canbesaidthat thecases*ereeffectivel-removedfromthe5urisdictionof thevoluntar-arbitrator)thusplacingthem*ithinthe5urisdictionof thelabor arbiter#Ahere the dispute is 5ust in the interpretation) implementation orenforcement stage) it ma- be referred to the grievance machiner- set up in the C0") orbrought to voluntar- arbitration#0ut) *here there *as alread- actual termination) *ithalleged violation of the emplo-eeHs rights) it is alread- cogniOable b- the labor arbiter#[(+]1n sum) *e conclude that the labor arbiter and then the NLRC had 5urisdiction overthe cases involving private respondentsH dismissal) and no error *as committed b- theappellate court in upholding their assumption of 5urisdiction#2o*ever) *efindthat amodificationof themonetar-a*ardsisinorder#"saconse@uence of their illegal dismissal) private respondents are entitled to reinstatementto their former positions# 0ut since reinstatement is no longer feasible becausepetitioner had alread- closed its shop) separation pa- in lieu of reinstatement shall bea*arded#[(%] " terminated emplo-eeHs receipt of his separation pa- and other monetar-benefits does not preclude reinstatement or full benefits under the la*) shouldreinstatement be no longer possible#[(5] "s held in Cari'o vs. &CC!&6[(6]=##eptan#e of those benefits would not a'ount to estoppel. 9he reason is plain. 3'ployer and e'ployee+ ob&iously+ do not stand on the sa'e footing.9he e'ployer dro&e the e'ployee to the wall.9he latter 'ust ha&e to get hold of the 'oney./e#ause out of 4ob+ he had to fa#e the harsh ne#essities of life.Fe thus foundhi'self in no position to resist 'oney proffered. Fis+ then+ is a #ase of adheren#e+ not of #hoi#e.,ne thing sure+ howe&er+ is that petitioners did not relent their #lai'. 9hey pressed it.9hey are dee'ed not to ha&e wai&ed their rights. Renuntiato non praesumitur. Conformabl-) private respondents are entitled to separation pa- e@uivalent to onemonthHs salar- for ever- -ear of service) in lieu of reinstatement#[(7] "s regards the a*ardof damages) inorder not tofurther dela-thedispositionof thiscase) *efinditnecessar-toe:pressl-set forththee:tent of theback*agesasa*ardedb-theappellatecourt#.ursuant toR#"# 6715) asamended) privaterespondentsshall beentitled to full back*ages computed from the time of their illegal dismissal up to the dateof promulgation of this decision *ithout @ualification) considering that reinstatement isno longer practicable under the circumstances#[(,]2aving found private respondentsH dismissal to be illegal) and the labor arbiter andthe NLRC dul- vested *ith 5urisdiction to hear and decide their cases) *e agree *ith theappellate court that petitioner should pa- the costs of suit#*"EREFORE) the petition is 3BN1B3 for lack of merit#The decision of the Courtof "ppeals inC"&C#R# >.No# 5(7,$is "441R=B3*ith the=83141C"T18N thatpetitioner isorderedtopa-privaterespondentsa! separationpa-) in lieu of theirreinstatement) e@uivalent toonemonthHssalar-for ever--ear of service) b! fullback*ages from the date of their dismissalup to the date of the promulgation of thisdecision) together *ith c! the costs of suit# SO OR$ERE$.Bellosillo, (Chairman), endo(a, and Callejo, )r., JJ., concur.&ustria*artine(, J., on leave.[G.R. No. 118918. O23o.,r 24, 2000]!EESTINO #I#IERO, petitioner, vs. !OURT OF %&&E%S,"%MMONI%M%RINE SER#I!ES, an' "%NSE%TI! S"I&&ING!O., T$. respondents.$ E ! I S I O NBEOSIO, J.)CBLB>T1N8 I1IBR8) in this petition for revie*) seeks the reversal of the 3ecisionof the Court of "ppeals of (6 =a- 1''' setting aside the 3ecision of the National LaborRelations Commission of (, =a- 1'', as *ell as its Resolution of (+ ?ul- 1'', den-inghis motion for its reconsideration) and reinstating the decision of the Labor "rbiter of (1?anuar- 1''7#.etitioner Iivero) a licensed seaman) is a member of the "ssociated =arine8fficers and >eamen9s /nion of the .hilippines "=8>/.!# The Collective 0argaining"greement entered into b- "=8>/. and private respondents provides) among others &=.905L3 M00GRIEV!CE "R#CED$RE: : : :1e#. $. = dispute or grie&an#e arising in #onne#tion with the ter's and pro&isions of this =gree'ent shall be ad4usted in a##ordan#e with the following pro#edure@1. =ny sea'an who feels that he has been un4ustly treated or e&en sub4e#ted to an unfair #onsideration shall endea&or to ha&e said grie&an#e ad4usted by the designated representati&e of the unli#ensed depart'ent abroad the &essel in the following 'anner@=. Presentation of the #o'plaint to his i''ediate superior./. =ppeal to the head of the depart'ent in whi#h the sea'an in&ol&ed shall be e'ployed.5. =ppeal dire#tly to the Master.1e#. !. 0f the grie&an#e #annnot be resol&ed under the pro&ision of 1e#tion $+ the de#ision of the Master shall go&ern at sea C C C C in foreign ports and until the &essel arri&es at a port where the Master shall refer su#h dispute to either the 5,MP=%H or the A%0,% in order to resol&e su#h dispute. 0t is understood+ howe&er+ if the dispute #ould not be resol&ed then both parties shall a&ail of the grie&an#e pro#edure.1e#. (. 0n furtheran#e of the foregoing prin#iple+ there is hereby #reated a G.03D=%53 5,MM09933 to be #o'posed of two 5,MP=%H .3P.313%9=90D31 to be designated by the 5,MP=%H and two L=/,. .3P.313%9=90D31 to be designated by the A%0,%.1e#. *. =ny grie&an#e+ dispute or 'isunderstanding #on#erning any ruling+ pra#ti#e+ wages or working #onditions in the 5,MP=%H+ or any brea#h of the 3'ploy'ent 5ontra#t+ or any dispute arising fro' the 'eaning or the appli#ation of the pro&ision of this =gree'ent or a #lai' of &iolation thereof or any #o'plaint that any su#h #rew'e'bers 'ay ha&e against the 5,MP=%H+ as well as #o'plaint whi#h the 5,MP=%H 'ay ha&e against su#h #rew'e'bers shall be brought to the attention of the G.03D=%53 5,MM09933 before either party takes any a#tion+ legal or otherwise.1e#. 6. 9he 5,MM09933 shall resol&e any dispute within se&en (6) days fro' and after the sa'e is sub'itted to it for resolution and if the sa'e #annot be settled by the 5,MM09933 or if the 5,MM09933 fails to a#t on the dispute within the 68day period herein pro&ided+ the sa'e shall be referred to a D,LA%9=.H =./09.=90,% 5,MM09933.=n "i'partial arbitrator" will be appointed by 'utual #hoi#e and #onsent of the A%0,% and the 5,MP=%H who shall hear and de#ide the dispute or issue presented to hi' and his de#ision shall be final and unappealable C C C C1""s found b- the Labor "rbiter &5o'plainant was hired by respondent as 5hief ,ffi#er of the &essel "%.V. &unn' "rince" on 1: ;une 199! under the ter's and #onditions+ to wit@)uration of 5ontra#t 8 8 8 8 1: 'onths/asi# Monthly 1alary 8 8 8 8 A1 N1+1::.::Fours of Eork 8 8 8 8 !! hrs.>week,&erti'e 8 8 8 8 !9( lu'p ,.9.Da#ation lea&e with pay 8 8 8 8 A1 N--:.::>'o.,n grounds of &ery poor perfor'an#e and #ondu#t+ refusal to perfor' his 4ob+ refusal to report to the 5aptain or the &esselLs 3ngineers or #ooperate with other ship offi#ers about the proble' in #leaning the #argo holds or of the shipping pu'p and his dis'al relations with the 5aptain of the &essel+ #o'plainant was repatriated on 1( ;uly 199!.,n :1 =ugust 199!+ #o'plainant filed a #o'plaint for illegal dis'issal at =sso#iated Marine ,ffi#ersL and 1ea'anLs Anion of the Philippines (=M,1AP) of whi#h #o'plainant was a 'e'ber. Pursuant to =rti#le M00 of the 5olle#ti&e /argaining =gree'ent+ grie&an#e pro#eedings were #ondu#ted7 howe&er+ parties failed to rea#h and settle the dispute a'i#ably+ thus+ on -8 %o&e'ber 199!+ #o'plainant filed a" #o'plaint with the Philippine ,&erseas 3'ploy'ent =d'inistration (P,3=).-"The la* in force at the time petitioner filed his Com+laint *ith the .8B" *as B8 No#(%7#[+]Ahile the case *as pending before the .8B") private respondents filed a otion to,ismiss onthegroundthat the.8B"had no 5urisdiction over thecaseconsideringpetitioner Iivero9s failure to refer it to a Ioluntar- "rbitration Committee in accordance*ith the C0"bet*een the parties# /pon the enactment of R",$%() the igrant-orkers and .verseas !ili+inos &ct of /001) the case *as transferred to the"d5udication 0ranch of the National Labor Relations Commission#8n(1?anuar-1''7Labor "rbiter ?ovencioLl# =a-or ?r#) onthebasisof thepleadings and documents available on record) rendered a decision dismissingthe Com+laint for *ant of 5urisdiction#[%] "ccording to the Labor "rbiter) since the C0" ofthepartiesprovidedforthereferral toaIoluntar- "rbitrationCommitteeshouldtheCrievance Committee fail to settle the dispute) and considering the mandate of "rt# (61of the Labor Code on the original and e:clusive 5urisdiction of Ioluntar- "rbitrators) theLabor "rbiter clearl- had no 5urisdiction over the case#[5].etitioner complainant beforetheLabor "rbiter! appealedthedismissal of hispetition to the NLRC# 8n (, =a- 1'', the NLRC set aside the decision of the Labor"rbiter on the ground that the record *as clear that petitioner had e:hausted his remed-b- submitting his case to the Crievance Committee of "=8>/.# Considering ho*everthat he could not obtain an- settlement he had to ventilate his case before the properforum) i.e#) the.hilippine8verseasBmplo-ment "dministration#[6] TheNLRCfurtherheld that the contested portion in the C0" providing for the intercession of a Ioluntar-"rbitrator *as not binding upon petitioner since both petitioner and private respondentshad to agreevoluntaril- tosubmitthecasebefore a Ioluntar- "rbitrator or .anel ofIoluntar- "rbitrators# This *ould entail e:penses as the Ioluntar- "rbitrator chosen b-the parties had to be paid# 1nasmuch ho*ever as petitioner chose to filehis Com+laint originall-*ith.8B") thentheLabor "rbiter to*homthecase*astransferred *ould have to take cogniOance of the case#[7]The NLRC then remanded the case to the Labor "rbiter for further proceedings# 8n+ ?ul- 1'', respondents filed a otion for Reconsideration *hich *as denied b- theNLRC on (+ ?ul- 1'',#Thus) private respondents raised the case to the Court of "ppeals contending thatthe provision in the C0"re@uiring a dispute *hich remained unresolved b- theCrievance Committee to be referred to a Ioluntar- "rbitration Committee) *asmandator-incharacterinvie*of theC0" bet*eentheparties# The-stressedthat13B and the case isremandedtotheLabor "rbitertodisposeof thecase*ithdispatchuntil terminatedconsidering the undue dela- alread- incurred#SO OR$ERE$.endo(a, 7uisumbing, Buena, and ,e Leon, Jr., JJ., concur#JUANITO A. GARCIA and ALBERTO J. DUMAGO, Petitioners, - versus - PILIPPINE AIRLINE!, INC.,Res"ondent. G.R. No. #$%&'$

Present( PA%,+ C.*.,PA01AM/0%G+H%=.3181=%90=G,+5=.P0,+=A19.0=8M=.90%3Q+5,.,%=+5=.P0, M,.=L31+=Q5A%=+90%G=+5F05,8%=Q=.0,+D3L=15,+ ;..+%=5FA.=+L3,%=.),8)3 5=19.,+ and/.0,%+ **. Pro)u*+ated( ;anuary -:+ -::9C88888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888C D E C I ! I O N CARPIO MORALE!, J.( Petitioners ;uanito =. Gar#ia and =lberto ;. )u'ago assail the )e#e'ber (+-::$ )e#ision and =pril 1*+ -::! .esolution of the 5ourt of =ppeals1" in 5=8G...1P %o. *9(!: whi#h granted the petition for #ertiorari of respondent+ Philippine=irlines+ 0n#. (P=L)+ and denied petitionersL Motion for .e#onsideration+respe#ti&ely.9he dispositi&e portion of the assailed )e#ision reads@ EF3.32,.3+ pre'ises #onsidered and in &iew of the foregoing+the instant petition is hereby G0D3%)A35,A.13.9he assailed%o&e'ber -*+ -::1 .esolution as well as the ;anuary -8+ -::-.esolutionof publi#respondent%ational Labor.elations 5o''ission%L.5" is hereby =%%ALL3) and 139 =10)3 for ha&ing been issuedwith gra&e abuse of dis#retion a'ounting to la#k or eC#ess of4urisdi#tion.5onse?uently+ the Erit of 3Ce#ution and the %oti#e ofGarnish'ent issued by the Labor =rbiter are hereby likewise=%%ALL3) and 139 =10)3. 1, ,.)3.3).-" 9he#ase ste''ed fro'the ad'inistrati&e#harge filed byP=L againstitse'ployees8herein petitioners$" after they were allegedly #aught in the a#t of sniffingshabuwhenatea'of#o'panyse#uritypersonnelandlawenfor#ersraidedtheP=L 9e#hni#al 5enterLs 9oolroo' 1e#tion on ;uly -!+ 199(. =fter due noti#e+ P=L dis'issed petitioners on ,#tober 9+ 199( fortransgressing the P=L 5ode of )is#ipline+!" pro'pting the' to file a #o'plaint forillegal dis'issal andda'ages whi#hwas+ by )e#isionof ;anuary 11+ 1999+(" resol&ed by the Labor =rbiter in their fa&or+ thus ordering P=L to+ interalia, i''ediately #o'ply with the reinstate'ent aspe#t of the de#ision. Prior to the pro'ulgation of the Labor =rbiterLs de#ision+ the 1e#urities and3C#hange5o''ission(135)pla#edP=L (hereafterreferredtoasrespondent)+whi#h was suffering fro' se&ere finan#ial losses+ under an 0nteri' .ehabilitation.e#ei&er+ who was subse?uently repla#ed by a Per'anent .ehabilitation .e#ei&eron ;une 6+ 1999. 2ro' the Labor =rbiterLs de#ision+ respondent appealed to the %L.5 whi#h+by .esolution of ;anuary $1+ -:::+ re&ersed said de#ision and dis'issedpetitionersL #o'plaint for la#k of 'erit.*" PetitionersL Motion for .e#onsideration was denied by .esolution of =pril-8+ -::: and 3ntry of ;udg'ent was issued on ;uly 1$+ -:::.6" 1ubse?uentlyor on ,#tober (+ -:::+ theLabor =rbiter issuedaErit of3Ce#ution (Erit) respe#ting the reinstate'ent aspe#t of his ;anuary 11+1999 )e#ision+ andon ,#tober -(+ -:::+ he issueda %oti#e of Garnish'ent(%oti#e)..espondentthereupon'o&edto?uashthe Eritandtolift the%oti#ewhile petitioners 'o&ed to release the garnished a'ount. 0n a related 'o&e+ respondent filed an Argent Petition for 0n4un#tion with the%L.5 whi#h+ by .esolutions of %o&e'ber -*+ -::1 and ;anuary -8+-::-+ affir'ed the &alidity of the Erit and the %oti#eissued by the Labor=rbiter but suspendedandreferredthea#tiontothe.ehabilitation.e#ei&erforappropriate a#tion. .espondent ele&ated the 'atter to the appellate #ourt whi#h issued the herein#hallenged)e#isionand.esolutionnullifyingthe %L.5.esolutions ontwogrounds+ essentially espousing that@ ,#- a subse?uent finding of a &alid dis'issalre'o&es the basis for i'ple'enting the reinstate'ent aspe#t of a labor arbiterLsde#ision (the first ground)+ and ,.- the i'possibility to #o'ply with thereinstate'ent order due to #orporate rehabilitation pro&ides a reasonable4ustifi#ation for the failure to eCer#ise the options under =rti#le --$ of the Labor5ode (the se#ond ground). /y)e#isionof =ugust -9+ -::6+ this5ourtP=.90=LLH G.=%93)thepresent petition and effe#ti&ely reinstated the %L.5 .esolutions insofar asitsuspended the pro#eedings+ .i/@ 1in#e petitionersL #lai' against P=L is a 'oney #lai' for theirwages duringthependen#yof P=LLsappeal tothe%L.5+ thesa'eshould ha&e been suspended pending the rehabilitation pro#eedings.9heLabor =rbiter+ the %L.5+ as well as the 5ourt of =ppeals should ha&eabstained fro' resol&ing petitionersL #ase for illegal dis'issal and shouldinstead ha&e dire#ted the' to lodge their #lai' before P=LLs re#ei&er. Fowe&er+tostill re?uirepetitionersat thisti'etore8filetheirlabor #lai' against P=L under pe#uliar #ir#u'stan#es of the #aseR thattheir dis'issal was e&entually held &alid with only the 'atter ofreinstate'ent pending appeal being the issueR this 5ourt dee's it legallyeCpedient to suspend the pro#eedings in this #ase. EF3.32,.3+ the instant petition is P=.90=LLH G.=%93) inthat the instant pro#eedings herein are 1A1P3%)3)until furt+er noticefromt+is Court.=##ordingly+ respondent Philippine =irlines+ 0n#. ishereby )0.3593) to ?uarterly update the 5ourt as to the status of itsongoing rehabilitation.%o #osts. 1, ,.)3.3).8" (0tali#s in the original7 unders#oring supplied) /y Manifestation and 5o'plian#e of ,#tober $:+ -::6+ respondent infor'edthe 5ourt that the 135+ by ,rder of 1epte'ber -8+ -::6+ granted its re?uest to eCitfro' rehabilitation pro#eedings.9"

0n &iew of the ter'ination of the rehabilitation pro#eedings+ the 5ourt nowpro#eeds to resol&e the re'aining issue for #onsideration+ whi#h is /0et0er"etitioners )a12o**e2t t0eir/a+es durin+t0e "eriod3et/eent0e La3orAr3iter4s order o5 reinstate)ent "endin+a""ea* andt0e NLRCde2isionoverturnin+ t0at o5 t0e La3or Ar3iter, no/ t0at res"ondent 0as e6ited 5ro)re0a3i*itation "ro2eedin+s. Amplification of the First Ground 9he appellate #ourt #ounted on as its first ground the &iew that a subse?uentfinding of a &alid dis'issal re'o&es the basis for i'ple'enting the reinstate'entaspe#t of a labor arbiterLs de#ision. ,n this s#ore+ the 5ourtLs attention is drawn to see'ingly di&ergentde#isions#on#erningreinstate'ent pendingappeal or+ parti#ularly+the o"tiono5"a1ro** reinstate)ent.,n the one hand is the 4urisprudential trend as eCpoundedin a line of #ases in#luding ir "+ilippines Corp. .. 0amora,1:" while on the otheris the re#ent #ase of Genuino .. !ational Labor Relations Commission.11"=t the#ore of the see'ing di&ergen#e is the appli#ation of paragraph $ of =rti#le --$ ofthe Labor 5ode whi#h reads@ 0n any e&ent+ the de#ision of the Labor =rbiter reinstating adis'issed or separated e'ployee+ insofar as thereinstate)ent as"e2tis#on#erned+ shalli))ediate*1 3e e6e2utor1, "endin+ a""ea*.9hee'ployee shall either be ad'itted ba#k to work under the sa'e ter's and#onditions pre&ailing prior to his dis'issal or separation or+ at the optionof the e'ployer+ 'erely reinstated in the payroll. 9he posting of a bondby the e'ployer shall not stay the eCe#ution for reinstate'ent pro&idedherein. (3'phasis and unders#oring supplied) 9he &iew as 'aintained in a nu'ber of #ases is that@ C C C E"ven i5 t0e order o5 reinstate)ent o5 t0e La3or Ar3iteris reversed on a""ea*, it is o3*i+ator1 on t0e "art o5 t0e e)"*o1er toreinstateand"a1t0e/a+eso5t0edis)issede)"*o1eedurin+t0e"eriodo5 a""ea* unti* reversa* 31t0e0i+0er2ourt. ,ntheotherhand+ if the e'ployee has been reinstated during the appeal period andsu#h reinstate'ent order is re&ersed with finality+ the e'ployeeisnotre?uired to rei'burse whate&er salary he re#ei&ed for he is entitledtosu#h+ 'oresoif hea#tuallyrenderedser&i#es duringtheperiod.1-" (3'phasis in the original7 itali#s and unders#oring supplied) 0n other words+ a dis'issed e'ployee whose #ase was fa&orably de#ided by theLabor =rbiter is entitledtore#ei&ewages pendingappeal uponreinstate'ent+whi#h is i''ediately eCe#utory.Anless there is a restraining order+ it is 'inisterialupon the Labor =rbiter to i'ple'ent the order of reinstate'ent and it is 'andatoryon the e'ployer to #o'ply therewith.1$" 9he opposite &iew is arti#ulated in Genuino whi#h states@ 0f the de#ision of the labor arbiter is later re&ersed on appeal uponthe finding that the ground for dis'issal is &alid+ thent0e e)"*o1er 0ast0e ri+0t to re7uire t0e dis)issed e)"*o1eeon payrollreinstatementtore5und t0esa*ariess80e re2eivedwhile the#asewaspending appeal+ or it #an be dedu#ted fro' the a##rued benefits that thedis'issed e'ployee was entitled to re#ei&e fro' his>her e'ployer undereCisting laws+ #olle#ti&e bargaining agree'ent pro&isions+ and #o'panypra#ti#es.Fowe&er+ if the e'ployee was reinstated to work during thependen#y of the appeal+ then the e'ployee is entitled to the #o'pensationre#ei&ed for a#tual ser&i#es rendered without need of refund. 5onsidering that Genuino was not reinstated to work or pla#ed onpayroll reinstate'ent+ and her dis'issal is based on a 4ust #ause+ then sheis not entitled to be paid the salaries stated in ite' no. $ of the fallo of the1epte'ber $+ 199! %L.5 )e#ision.1!" (3'phasis+ itali#s andunders#oring supplied) 0t has thus been ad&an#ed that there is no point in releasing the wages topetitioners sin#e their dis'issal was foundtobe &alid+ andtodosowould#onstitute un4ust enri#h'ent. Prior to Genuino+ there had been no known si'ilar #ase #ontaining adispositi&e portion where the e'ployee was re?uired to refund the salaries re#ei&edon payroll reinstate'ent.0n fa#t+ in a #atena of #ases+1(" the 5ourt did not order therefund of salaries garnished or re#ei&ed by payroll8reinstated e'ployees despite asubse?uent re&ersal of the reinstate'ent order. 9he dearth of authority supporting Genuino is not diffi#ult to fatho' for itwould otherwise render inutile the rationale of reinstate'ent pending appeal. CCC9"helawitself has laiddowna#o'passionatepoli#ywhi#h+ on#e'ore+ &i&ifies andenhan#es thepro&isions of the19865onstitution on labor and the working 'an. C C C C 9hese duties and responsibilities of the 1tate are i'posed not so'u#htoeCpress sy'pathyfor the working'anas tofor#efullyand'eaningfully unders#ore labor as a pri'ary so#ial and e#ono'i# for#e+whi#h the 5onstitution also eCpressly affir's with e?ual intensity. Laboris an indispensable partner for the nationervices)on?ul-(1) 1',6# 2o*ever)on?ul- (1) 1',7).." did notrene* the permit of the =etrostar#1t took over) managed and operated the =1CT itself#8n=a-1') 1',,) .."a*ardedthemanagement andoperationof =1CTto1nternational Container Terminal >ervices) 1nc# 1CT>1!) herein petitioner#8n ?une 1()1',,) 1CT>1 then took over the operation and management of =1CT#Thereafter) .." and petitioner enteredintoacontract*herein1CT>1 shall utiliOeand emplo- .."Hs present emplo-ees as ma-be needed in the cargo&handlingoperations#2o*ever) said contract is sub5ect to the condition that petitioner *ill conductindividual screeningstoenableit todeterminethe*orkersit *ill retainunder itsemplo-#1t *as also agreed upon) that petitioner shall enter into a collective bargainingagreement C0"! *ith one labor union representing the labor force and said C0" shallnot e:tend be-ond the term of the arrastre and stevedoring contract#1n compliance there*ith) petitioner conducted individual screenings of the *orkerspresentl- emplo-ed to determineH *ho are @ualified and *ho *ill be re&emplo-ed as itsne* probationar- emplo-ees#"s a result) more than 6$$ *orkers of the =1CT underthe .." *ere not absorbed b- petitioner *hen it took over the operation on ?une 1()1',,#Thereafter) petitioner) in compliance *ith the contract) turned to the "ssociated .ortCheckersandAorkers/nion".CA/!) thelabor unionrepresentingthee:isting*orkers) for a C0" negotiation# 2o*ever) *hen the parties *ere about to conclude theirC0") the "duana >killed S /nskilled Labor /nion "3>/L/!) together *ith LuOviminda1ntegrated >tevedoring Labor /nion L1>L/!) filed on ?ul- 1+) 1',, *ith the NCR&0LR)[1] a petition for certification election *hich resulted in the temporar- suspension of thenegotiation#The said unions claimed that) as legitimate labor organiOations) their officers andgeneral membership banded together under the umbrella of "3>/L/ to file the petitionbecause there *as no e:isting C0" in the 1CT>1#This is due to the fact that the C0"bet*een the =etrostar1CT>1H s predecessor&operator! and the "ssociated .ortCheckers and Aorkers /nion ".CA/!) had alread- e:pired *hen .." did not rene*=etrostarHspermit tooperate#".CA/intervenedandopposedthepetitionfor acertification election#8n "ugust %)1',,) "3>/L/) and L1>L/ *hose members *ere not emplo-ed b-petitioner) 5ointl- filed *ith the 3epartment of Labor and Bmplo-ment a Notice of >trikeagainst petitioner based on the follo*ing grounds61.)is'issal without ter'ination papers7-.Lea&ing regular workers floating7$.)is'issal of regular e'ployees and their repla#e'ent by new re#ruits7!.%o 4ob assign'ent despite their being regular e'ployees7(.5onfis#ation of the e'ployees 0.).Ls and*.0llegal #hange of pro'otions and assign'ent.Conciliation conferences *ere scheduled on "ugust 1$ and /1, 1',,) butpetitionerHs representative failed to appear on both dates) despite due notice#8n "ugust 16) 1',,) "3>/L/ and L1>L/ 5ointl- staged their first strike#8n"ugust 17) 1',,) aconciliation*asheldat theNational Conciliationand=ediation 0oard NC=0! *herein the parties concerned) namel- 1CT>1 and "3>/L/&L1>L/) including .." and ".CA/) signed an agreement) to *it6J1. 1te&edores should be gi&en e?ual opportunities in the rotation of work regardless of union affiliation7-. 2or'er regular ?ualified e'ployees who were e'ployed by the for'er operator and who ha&e not been absorbed by 05910 should be gi&en priority when there will beopenings as stated in the #ontra#t.$. Master list of ste&edores should be furnished PP= and likewise a list of those not yet absorbed.!. PP= should assist in the assign'ent>rotation of ste&edores for a period of two (-) weeks.(. 9hat upon signing of this agree'ent+ the pi#ket line shall be i''ediately lifted and free egress and ingress will be allowed.K-"8n "ugust 1') 1',,) "3>/L/&L1>L/*rote petitioner a letter declaring theaforesaid agreement as null and void due to alleged violations committed b- ".CA/and 1CT>1#8n >eptember () 1',,) petitioner then filed a petition *ith the 8ffice of the>ecretar- of Labor) to certif- the case to the NLRC for compulsor- arbitration# 3espitethepetition) theNC=0continuedtheconciliationproceedingsinthehopethat theparties might still reach an amicable settlement but it proved futile#=ean*hile the 0ureau of Labor Relations 0LR!) in its Resolution dated 8ctober 1()1',, set aside the =ed&"rbiterHs order granting the certification election and dismissedthe petition on the ground that "3>/L/&L1>L/ has no legal personalit- to represent thebargainingunit at the1CT>1#1t foundout that "3>/L/&L1>L/isnot aregisteredalliance as re@uired b- B#8# No# 111 and that) as stated in their respective constitutionand b-&la*s) their area of operation is at the >outh 2arbor) .ort "rea) =anila) and 1CT>1*hich is located at the North 2arbor) is be-ond their place of operation# The 0LR alsoratiocinatedthat thereisane:istingC0"bet*een".CA/and.."*hich1CT>1impliedl- recogniOes and *hich bars an- petition for certification election#Ahen "3>/L/&L1>L/ threatened to declare a strike) the >ecretar- of Labor issuedanorder certif-ingthelabor disputetotheNational Labor Relations CommissionNLRC! for compulsor- arbitration) thus6J=ny work stoppage at 05910 will #ause paralization of the flow of goods and 'er#handise thereby #reating serious ad&erse i'pli#ations on trade and #o''er#e in Metro Manila and other parts of the #ountry.K$"8n 3ecember 16) 1',,) an emplo-ee named Romeo Rosal filed a case for illegaldismissal[%] *hile the aforecited case *as pending before the said Commission#/ponmotionof petitioner)thesame*asfor*ardedtotheNLRCforconsolidationontheground that the issues raised therein are the same issues raised in this case#Like*ise) on ?une (') 1',,) another emplo-ee b- the name of =arcelo >#Iillacarlos filed a complaint for illegaldismissalalso *ith the NCR "rbitration 0ranch#[5] The said case) upon motion of petitioner) *as also for*arded on ?anuar- 17) 1''1 forconsolidation*iththiscasebecausethe-involvethesameissuesandthesameemplo-er#8n4ebruar-() 1',')"3>/L/againfiledaNoticeof >trikeagainst 1CT>1 andactuall- staged a strike on petitionerHs establishment on =arch 1) ( and +) 1','#"s aresult thereof) petitioner filed on =arch 1+) 1',' a complaint to declare illegal the t*ostrikes) vi(: the first strike dated "ugust 16 and 17) 1',, and the second strike dated=arch 1) ( and +) 1','#The said dispute *as then certified to the NLRCforcompulsor- arbitration#[6]8n=arch+1) 1','"3>/L/andits(1individual membersfiledacomplaintagainst petitioners for illegal dismissal and unfair labor practice *ith the NCR "rbitration0ranchanddocketedasCaseNo# NCR&$$&$+&$1557&,'#1t appearedthat petitionerissued suspension letters dated =arch ,) 1',' and dismissal letters dated "pril1, 1','to (1 individualcomplainants on the grounds of insubordination) activel- engaging inunion activities during *orking hours and activel- participating in an illegal strike#8n 4ebruar- 7) 1''1) the NLRC rendered a Resolution) the dispositive portion of*hich provides as follo*s) to *it6J0n the light of the foregoing+ it is but proper@a)9o de#lare the strike on =ugust 18 and 16+ 1988 staged by =)1ALA and L01LA illegal7b) 9o de#lare the non8absorption of the e'ployees C C C spe#ifi#ally Mauri#io Ga'ao+;o&en 1an#hez+ =ntonio 2a'isaran+ =rturo Landrito+ .o'an 2ilo'eno 000+ ;ose ,tayde+ Filario Ga&an+ .eynaldo /ordelo+ ;a'es 1#hloboh'+ .ogelio 9atel+ =ntonio ;arabelo+ .i#hard 5alu'pang+ 3''anuel /a?uer and %i#holas Madrid in#luding .o'eo .osal+ Mar#elo 1. Dilla#arlos+ .eynaldo 9olentino+ =rsenio Dillasin+ Pio =#osta+ =ntonio 5arino+ .olando de la Paz+ )ewey ;ose Asteria and .odolfo )ones whose ser&i#es were briefly eCtended beyond the #ut8off period (1- ;une 1988) fiCed in the #ontra#t for 'anage'ent of the M059+ as #onstituting a #onstru#ti&e illegal dis'issal7#) 9o order the reinstate'ent of these afore'entioned dis'issed e'ployees without loss of seniority and other pri&ileges+ plus ba#kwages for a period not eC#eeding three years7CCCCCC CCCe) 9o de#lare the strike staged on Mar#h 1+ - and $+ 1989 by =)1 ALA8L01LA illegal with a stern warning that a repetition of si'ilar illegal a#ts (strike) would result in the #an#ellation of the #ertifi#ate of registration of their respe#ti&e unions7 andf) 9o order reinstate'ent without ba#kwages of )o'ingo M. Paano+ %ar#iso 2uertes+ 3nri?ue 9orres+ Miguel Ma#abutas+ 3rnesto )o'ingo+ Mario 1ta. =na+ 3usebio Pa#ete+ .odolfo 3r'oneta+ /ernardo /alza+ ;ose /onoan+ Guiller'o Mariano+ .eC Dergara+ Fe#tor .eyes+ .o'ulo .ael+ .i#ardo 1oriano+ 3rnesto =l#araz+ 1r. )aniel =dia+ 3duardo 2or'a#il+ Manuel 3nso'o+ ,rlando 3s#urel and =lberto 9ayabas7 C C C.K6"2ence) this present petition raising t*o (! issues) to *it6IJ)id 05910Ls non8absorption of the 1: workers #onstitute #onstru#ti&e illegal dis'issalBII0s the order of reinstate'ent of )o'ingo Paano and the -: others on the ground that they 'erely parti#ipated in the strike 4ustified+ despite the fa#t that the offi#er of the union were outsiders and not e'ployees of 05910 and Paano eCpressly ad'itted that he and the -: others were the leaders of about (:: for'er PP= e'ployees absorbed by05910 who parti#ipated in the strikeBK8".etitioner assails as grave abuse of discretion the NLRCHs finding that in e:tendingthe services of the t*ent- three .."&=1CT emplo-ees and pa-ing their *ages) it *asdeemedtohaveabsorbedsaidemplo-eesandtheirsubse@uent termination*ithoutcauseistantamount toaconstructivedismissal# .etitionerfurtherclaimsthat publicrespondent disregardedthe.."memorandum) sho*ingthat it *asthe.."&=1CTgeneral manager *ho e:tended the services of the *orkers and that pa-ment of their*ages b- petitioner *as a mere deliver- on behalf of .."&=1CT#[']Ae find petitionerHs averments unpersuasive#" perusal of the records sho* that petitioner formall- signed the =1CT contract *ith.." on =a- 1') 1',, but it took over =1CTHs operations on ?une 1() 1',,# 3uring theperiod bet*een =a- 1' and ?une 1() 1',, petitioner screened the @ualifications of the.."&=1CT emplo-ees to determine *ho *illbe retained for its operation# "s a resultthereof) 6$$ out of 1)5$$ *orkers of .."&=1CT *ere not absorbed b- petitioner#This islegal since under the =1CT contract) petitioner has the prerogative to absorb or retainthe *orkers *hom it chooses#2o*ever) *ith regard to private respondents) petitioner opted to e:tend theirservices be-ond the cut&off period agreed upon#>uch actuation could onl- beinterpreted to mean that petitioner found that private respondents are @ualified and thatpetitioner chosetoretaintheir servicestoperformdutiesreasonabl-necessar-inpetitionerHs business#2ence) private respondentsH rights and privileges as emplo-eessurvive so as to be operative against the successor&emplo-er compan-#[1$]Aith regard to petitionerHs allegation that it *as .."&=1CT *hich e:tended privaterespondentsH servicesandthat pa-ment of their salariesb-petitioner *asameredeliver- for .."&=1CT) *e advert to NLRCH s findings of fact) vi(:J2irst+ that in al'ost all of its pleadings+ respondent 05910 has in&ariably #lai'ed thatit assu'ed operation of the M059 on 1- ;une 1988.0f this was so+ how #an the PP=8M059+ whi#h in the 'eanti'e had #eased to ha&e any say in the operation of the M059 authorize an eCtension of the 1! e'ployeesL ser&i#es as late as 16 ;une 1988B1e#ond+ that the pay'ent of the salaries of those whose ser&i#es were eCtended fro' 1- to -$ ;une 1988 were #ontained in a pay en&elope bearing the letter8head T05910L and whi#h e&en refle#ted the e'ployeesL dedu#tions for 111 and Medi#are pre'iu's.9his also in#ludes .o'eo .osal+ Mar#elo 1. Dilla#arlos and the se&en other afore'entioned e'ployees in =nneCes JFK+ JF81K to JF8*K who #ontinued to work with 05910 on ;une 1-8-$+ 1988 as e&iden#ed by their Pay 3n&elopes for that period.1n other *ords) on the basis of the foregoing revealing circumstances) it *ould notbe too much to assume and conclude that b- e:tending even for eleven 11! da-s theservices of the (+ =1CT emplo-ees) respondent 1CT>1 had in effect absorbed them tothe point of making illegal their subse@uent termination or retrenchment *ithoutcause#4or it hasbeenruledb-nolessthanthe>upremeCourt that emplo-eesabsorbed b- a successor&emplo-er en5o- the continuit- of their emplo-ment status andtheir rights andprivileges survivesoas tobeoperativeagainst suchsuccessor&emplo-er >umadi vs. Leogardo) et al#) C#R# No# 676+5) promulgated 17 ?anuar- 1',5)citingthecasesof Liberation>teamshipCo# vs. C1R) %>CR"%57F andCuerreroTransportation >ervice vs. 0la-lock) 71 >CR" 6(1!#To hold other*ise) *ould render meaningless the securit- of tenure granted b- la*"rt# (,$) Labor Code) asamended! toregular emplo-ees*ho) likethedismissedemplo-ees in the case at bar) perform functions and duties reasonabl- necessar- ordesirable in the usual trade or business of their emplo-ees#K[11].etitioner further claims that public respondent committed grave abuse of discretionin directing the reinstatementof privaterespondentsdespite their participation in theillegal strikes#.etitioner also alleges that private respondents *ere not mereparticipantsbut *ereinfact theleadersof thestrikethe-conductednot for an-grievance against petitioner but for their dislike against ".CA/#/nder "rticle (6%a! of the Labor Code) it is clearl- stated therein that an- unionofficer*hokno*ingl- participatesinanillegalstrikeandan- @orA,r orunion officer*ho Ano@8nB9y par38287a3,4 8n 3C, 2o--8448on oD 899,Ba9 a234 during a strike ma- bedeclared to have lost his emplo-ment status#"s aptl- stated b- the >olicitor Ceneral6JAnion offi#ers 'ay be dis'issed not only for their knowing parti#ipation in an illegalstrike+ but also for their #o''ission of illegal a#ts in the #ourse of strike+ whether legal or illegal but union 'e'bers 'ay only be dis'issed for their parti#ipation in the#o''ission of illegal a#ts during a strike+ whether legal or illegal (='ador+ Law on 1trikes+ 1991 ed. p. 1!6).K1-"2ence) for a *orker or union member to suffer the conse@uence of loss ofemplo-ment) hemust havekno*ingl-participatedinthecommissionof illegal actsduring the strike i#e#) infliction of ph-sicalin5uries) assault) breaking of truck side and*indo*s) thro*ing of empt- bottles at non&strikers#[1+]1nthecaseat bench) thereisnothingintherecords*hichsho*that privaterespondent .aano and the ($ others e:pressl- admitted that the- are the leaders of thestrike# " perusal of the testimon- of respondent .aano 1s @uoted hereunder6J"TTM# 3/R1"N 6 1snHt it a fact that onl- the (1 -ou mentioned in the complaint *ere thepersons or emplo-ees actuall- *orking alread- in the pa-roll of the 1CT>1 that staged the strike on =arch 1 and ( and thereafter in 1','PA1TNB>>6 Ae *ere not the onl- ones# Ae *ere man-#"TTM# 3/R1"N 6 2o* man- of the others *ho *ere alread- emplo-ed in the pa-roll of the 1CT>1 5oined in the 1CT>1 on =arch 1) 1',' and thereafterPA1TNB>>6 The- *ere not identified as members of the striking group becausethe- *ere 5ust standing b- the side and onl- those *ho *ere active inthe group *ho *ere making a circle *ere the ones identified#:::::: :::"TTM# 3/R1"N 6 Those companions sic! the co&emplo-ees of -ours *hom -ou said *ere not active in the picketing but *ere 5ust standing b- the side) ho* man- of them) more or lessPA1TNB>>6 =a-be 1;;.M%N, II% &ERE>, ROBERTO BEST%MONTE, %I$% O&EN%, RE(N%$O TORI%$O, %&OIN%RIO G%G%"IN%, RUFINO $E !%STRO, FOR$EI>% R%(OS $E SO, STE#E S%N!"O, ESTER !%IRO, M%RIET% M%G%%$, an' M%R( B. N%$%%, respondents#Cesar C. Cru( 8 "artners for +etitioner.>osimo orillo for res+ondent Ra3os del )ol.Ban(uela, !lores, iralles, Raneses, )3 8 &ssociates for +rivate res+ondents. $%#I$E, JR., J.:p.etitioner assails the constitutionalit- of the amendment introduced b- >ection 1( of Republic "ct No# 6715 to "rticle ((+ of the Labor Code of the .hilippines .3 No# %%() as amended! allo*inge:ecution pending appeal of the reinstatement aspect of a decision of a labor arbiter reinstating a dismissed or separated emplo-ee and of >ection ( of the NLRC 1nterim Rules on "ppeals under R#"# No# 6715 implementing the same# 1t also @uestions the validit- of the Transitor- .rovision >ection 17! of the said 1nterim Rules#The challenged portion of >ection 1( of Republic "ct No# 6715) *hich took effect on (1 =arch 1',') reads as follo*s6>BC 1(# "rticle ((+ of the same code is amended to read as follo*s6"RT# ((+# &++eal#::: ::: :::1n an- event) the decision of the Labor "rbiter reinstating a dismissed or separatedemplo-ee) in so far as the reinstatement aspect is concerned) shall immediatel- be e:ecutor-) even pending appeal# The emplo-ee shall either be admitted back to *ork under the same terms and conditions prevailing prior to his dismissal or separation or) at the option of the emplo-er)merel- reinstated in the pa-roll# The posting of a bond b- the emplo-er shall notsta- the e:ecution for reinstatement provided therein#This is a ne* paragraph ingrafted into the "rticle#>ections ( and 17 of the ection (# .rder of Reinstatement and 9ffect of Bond# E 1n so far as the reinstatement aspect is concerned) the decision of the Labor "rbiter reinstating a dismissed or separated emplo-ee shall immediatel- be e:ecutor- even pending appeal# The emplo-ee shall either be admitted back to *ork under the same terms and conditions prevailing prior to his dismissal or separation) or) at the option of the emplo-er) merel- be reinstated in the pa-roll#The posting of a bond b- the emplo-er shall not sta- the e:ecution for reinstatement#::: ::: :::>ection 17# 6ransitor3 +rovision# E "ppeals filed on or after =arch (1) 1',') but prior to the effectivit- of these 1nterim Rules must conform to the re@uirements asherein set forth or as ma- be directed b- the Commission#The antecedent facts and proceedings *hich gave rise to this petition are not disputed68n 11 "pril 1',,) private respondents) *ho *ere emplo-ees of petitioner) aggrieved b- management9s failure to attend to their complaints concerning their *orking surroundings *hich had become detrimental and haOardous) re@uested for a grievance conference# "s none *as arranged) and believing that their appeal *ould be fruitless) the- grouped together after the end of their *ork that da- *ith other emplo-ees and marched directl- to the management9s office to protest its long silence and inaction on their complaints#8n 1( "pril 1',,) the management issued a memorandum to each of the private respondents) *ho *ere identified b- the petitioner9s supervisors as the most active participants in the rall- re@uiring them to e:plain *h- the- should not be terminated from the service for their conduct# 3espite their e:planation) private respondents *ere dismissed for violation of compan- rules and regulations) more specificall- of the provisions on securit- and public order and on inciting or participating in illegalstrikes or concerted actions#.rivate respondents lost no time in filing a complaint for illegal dismissal against petitioner and=r# Cavino 0a-an *ith the regional office of the NLRC at the National Capital Region) =anila) *hich *as docketed therein as NLRC&NCR&$$&$%$16+$&,,#"fter due trial) Labor "rbiter 4elipe Cardu@ue 111 handed do*n on (( ?une 1',' a decision9 the dispositive portion of *hich reads6"CC8R31NCLM) respondent "ris .hils#!) 1nc# is hereb- ordered to reinstate *ithin ten 1$! da-s from receipt hereof) herein complainants Leodegario de CuOman) Rufino de Castro) Lilia =# .ereO) =arieta =agalad) 4lordeliOa Ra-os del >ol) Re-naldo Toriado) Roberto 0esmonte) "polinario Cagahina) "idam sic! 8pena) >teve C# >ancho Bster Cairo) and =ar- 0# Nadala to their former respective positions or an- substantial e@uivalent positions if alread- filled up) *ithout loss of seniorit- right and privileges but *ith limited back*ages of si: 6! months e:cept complainant Leodegario de CuOman#"ll other claims and pra-ers are hereb- denied for lack of merit#>8 8R3BRB3#8n 1' ?ul- 1',') complainants herein private respondents! filed a =otion 4or 1ssuance of a Arit of B:ecution 2pursuant to the above&@uoted >ection 1( of R#"# No# 6715#8n (1 ?ul- 1',') petitioner filed its "ppeal# 18n (6 ?ul- 1',') the complainants) e:cept 4lor Ra-os del >ol) filed a .artial "ppeal# 48n 1$ "ugust 1',') complainant 4lor Ra-os del >ol filed a .artial "ppeal# 58n (' "ugust 1',') petitioner filed an 8pposition : to the motion for e:ecution alleging that >ection 1( of R#"# No# 6715 on e:ecution pending appeal cannot be applied retroactivel- to cases pending at the time of its effectivit- because it does not e:pressl- provide that it shall be given retroactive effect 7 and to give retroactive effect to >ection 1( thereof to pending cases *ould not onl- result in the imposition of an additional obligation on petitioner but *ould also dilute its right to appeal since it *ould be burdened *ith the conse@uences of reinstatement *ithout the benefit of a final 5udgment# 1n their Repl- 8 filed on 1 >eptember 1',') complainants argued that R#"# No# 6715 is not sought to be given retroactive effect in this case since the decision to be e:ecuted pursuant to it *as rendered after the effectivit- of the "ct# The said la* took effect on (1 =arch 1',') *hile the decision *as rendered on (( ?une 1','#.etitioner submitted a Re5oinder to the Repl- on 5 >eptember 1','# 98n 5 8ctober 1',') the Labor "rbiter issued an 8rder granting the motion for e:ecution and the issuance of a partial *rit of e:ecution 10 as far as reinstatement of herein complainants is concerned in consonance *ith the provision of >ection ( of the rules particularl-the last sentence thereof#1n this 8rder) the Labor "rbiter also made referenceto >ection 17 of the NLRC 1nterim Rules in this *ise6>ince >ection 17 of the said rules made mention of appeals filed on or after =arch (1) 1',') but prior to the effectivit- of theseinterim rules *hich must conform *ith the re@uirements as therein set forth >ection '! or as ma- be directed b- the Commission) it obviousl- treats of decisions of Labor "rbiters before =arch (1)1','# Aith more reason these interim rules be made to appl- to the instant case since the decision hereof sic! *as rendered thereafter# 11/nable to accept the above 8rder) petitioner filed the instant petition on (6 8ctober 1',' 12 raising the issues adverted to in the introductor- portion of this decision under the follo*ing assignment of errors6"# T2B L"08R "R01TBR " 7?. "N3 T2B NLRC) 1N 8R3BR1NC T2B RB1N>T"TB=BNT 84 T2B .R1I"TB RB>.8N3BNT> .BN31NC "..B"L "N3 1N .R8I131NC 48R >BCT18N ( 84 T2B 1NTBR1= R/LB>) RB>.BCT1IBLM) "CTB3 A1T28/T "N3 1N BQCB>> 84 ?/R1>31CT18N >1NCB T2B 0">1> 48R >"13 8R3BR "N3 1NTBR1= R/LB) i#e#) >BCT18N 1( 84 R#"# 6715 1> I18L"T1IB 84 T2B C8N>T1T/T18N"L C/"R"NTM 84 3/B .R8CB>> 1T 0B1NC 8..RB>>1IB "N3 /NRB">8N"0LB#0# CR"NT1NC &R2?9N,. T2"T T2B .R8I1>18N 1N>1C! RB1N>T"TB=BNT .BN31NC "..B"L 1> I"L13) N8NBT2BLB>>) T2B L"08R "R01TBR "D/8 "N3 T2B NLRC >T1LL "CTB3 1N BQCB>> "N3 A1T28/T ?/R1>31CT18N 1N RBTR8"CT1IBLM "..LM1NC >"13 .R8I1>18N T8 .BN31NC L"08R C">B>#1n 8ur resolution of 7 =arch 1',') Ae re@uired the respondents to comment on the petition#Respondent NLRC) through the 8ffice of the >olicitor Ceneral) filed its Comment on ($ November 1','# 11=eeting s@uarel- the issues raised b- petitioner) it submits that the provision concerning the mandator- and automatic reinstatement of an emplo-ee *hose dismissal is found un5ustified b- the labor arbiter is a valid e:ercise of the police po*er of the state and the contested provision ection ((+ of the Labor Code introduced b- >ection 1( of R#"# No# 6715) as *ell as the implementing provision covered b- >ection ( of the NLRC 1nterim Rules) allo*ing immediate e:ecution) even pending appeal) of the reinstatement aspect of a decision of a labor arbiterreinstating a dismissed or separated emplo-ee) petitioner submits that said portion violates the due process clause of the Constitution in that it is oppressive and unreasonable# 1t argues that a reinstatement pending appeal negates the right of the emplo-er to self&protection for it has been ruledthat an emplo-er cannot be compelled to continue in emplo-ment an emplo-ee guilt- of acts inimical to the interest of the emplo-erF the right of an emplo-er to dismiss is consistent *ith the legal truism that the la*) in protecting the rights of the laborer) authoriOes neither the oppression nor the destruction of the emplo-er# 4or) social 5ustice should be implemented not through mistaken s-mpath- for or misplaced antipath- against an- group) but even&handedl- and fairl-# 17To clinch its case) petitioner tries to demonstrate the oppressiveness of reinstatement pending appeal b- portra-ing the follo*ing conse@uences6 a! the emplo-er *ould be compelled to hire additional emplo-ees or ad5ust the duties of other emplo-ees simpl- to have someone *atch over thereinstated emplo-ee to prevent the commission of further acts pre5udicial to the emplo-er) b! reinstatement of an undeserving) if not undesirable)emplo-ee ma- demoraliOe the rank and file) and c!it ma- encourage and embolden not onl- the reinstated emplo-ees but also other emplo-ees to commit similar) if not graver infractions#These rationaliOations and portra-als are misplaced and are purel- con5ectural *hich) unfortunatel-) proceed from a misunderstanding of the nature and scope of the relief of e:ecution pending appeal#B:ecution pending appeal is interlinked *ith the right to appeal# 8ne cannot be divorced from the other# The latter ma- be availed of b- the losing part- or a part- *ho is not satisfied *ith a 5udgment) *hile the former ma- be applied for b- the prevailing part- during the pendenc- of the appeal# The right to appeal) ho*ever) is not a constitutional) natural or inherent right# 1t is a statutor- privilege of statutor- origin 18 and) therefore) available onl- if granted or provided b- statute# The la* ma- then validl- provide limitations or @ualifications theretoor relief to the prevailing part- in the event an appeal is interposed b- the losing part-# B:ecution pending appeal is one such relief long recogniOed in this 5urisdiction# The Revised Rules of Court allo*s e:ecution pending appeal and the grant thereof is left to the discretion of the court upon good reasons to be stated in a special order# 190efore its amendment b- >ection 1( of R#"# No# 6715) "rticle ((+ of the Labor Code alread- allo*ed e:ecution of decisions of the NLRC pending their appeal to the >ecretar- of Labor and Bmplo-ment#1n authoriOing e:ecution pending appeal of the reinstatement aspect of a decision of the Labor "rbiter reinstating a dismissed or separated emplo-ee) the la* itself has laid do*n a compassionate polic- *hich) once more) vivifies and enhances the provisions of the 1',7 Constitution on labor and the *orking&man#These provisions are the @uintessence of the aspirations of the *orkingman for recognition of hisrole in the social and economic life of the nation) forthe protection of his rights) and the promotion of his*elfare# Thus) in the "rticle on >ocial ?ustice and 2uman Rights of the Constitution) 20 *hich principall- directs Congress to give highest priorit- to the enactment of measures that protect and enhance the right of all people to human dignit-) reduce social) economic) and political ine@ualities) and remove cultural ine@uitiesb- e@uitabl- diffusing *ealth and political po*er for the common good) the >tate is mandated to afford fullprotection to labor) local and overseas) organiOed and unorganiOed) and promote full emplo-ment and e@ualit- of emplo-ment opportunities for allF to guarantee the rights of all *orkers to self&organiOation) collective bargaining and negotiations) and peaceful concerted activities) including the right to strike in accordance *ith la*) securit- of tenure) human conditions of *ork) and a living *age) to participate in polic- and decision&making processes affecting their rights and benefits as ma- be provided b- la*F and to promote the principle of shared responsibilit- bet*een *orkers and emplo-ers and the preferential use of voluntar- modes in settling disputes# 1ncidentall-) a stud- of the Constitutions of various nations readil- reveals that it is onl- our Constitution *hich devotes a separate article on >ocial ?ustice and 2uman Rights# Thus) b- no less than its fundamental la*) the .hilippines has laid do*n the strong foundations of a trul- 5ust and humane societ-# This "rticle addresses itself to specified areas of concern labor) agrarian and natural resources reform) urban land reform and housing) health) *orking *omen) and people9s organiOations and reaches out to the underprivileged sector of societ-) for *hich reason the .resident of the Constitutional Commission of 1',6) former "ssociate ?ustice of this Court Cecilia =uGoO&.alma) aptl-describes this "rticle as the tate are imposed not so much to e:press s-mpath- for the *orkingman as to forcefull- and meaningfull- underscore labor as a primar- social and economicforce) *hich the Constitution also e:pressl- affirms Aith e@ual intensit-# 22 Labor is an indispensable partner for the nation9s progress and stabilit-#1f in ordinar- civil actions e:ecution of 5udgment pending appeal is authoriOed for reasons the determination of *hich is merel- left to the discretion of the 5udge) Ae find no plausible reasonto *ithhold it in cases of decisions reinstating dismissed or separated emplo-ees# 1n such cases) the poor emplo-ees had been deprived of their onl-source of livelihood) their onl- means of support fortheir famil- their ver- lifeblood# To /s) this special circumstance is far better than an- other *hich a 5udge) in his sound discretion) ma- determine# 1n short) *ith respect to decisions reinstating emplo-ees) the la* itself has determined a sufficientl- over*helming reason for its e:ecution pending appeal#The validit- of the @uestioned la* is not onl- supported and sustained b- the foregoing considerations# "s contended b- the >olicitor Ceneral) it is a valid e:ercise of the police po*er ofthe >tate# Certainl-) if the right of an emplo-er to freel- discharge his emplo-ees is sub5ect to regulation b- the >tate) basicall- in the e:ercise of its permanent police po*er on the theor- that the preservation of the lives of the citiOens is a basic dut- of the >tate) that is more vital than the preservation of corporate profits# 21 Then) b- and pursuant to the same po*er) the >tate ma- authoriOe an immediate implementation) pending appeal) of a decision reinstating a dismissed or separated emplo-ee since that saving act is designed to stop) although temporaril- since the appeal ma- be decided in favor of the appellant) a continuing threat or danger to thesurvival or even the life of the dismissed or separated emplo-ee and its famil-#The charge then that the challenged la* as *ell as the implementing rule are unconstitutional is absolutel- baseless# La*s are presumed constitutional# 24 To 5ustif- nullification of a la*) there must be a clear and une@uivocal breach of the Constitution) not a doubtful and argumentative implicationF a la* shall not be declared invalid unless the conflict *ith the constitution is clear be-ond reasonable doubt# 25 1n "arades, et al. vs. 9$ecutive )ecretar3 2: Ae stated6(# 4or one thing) it is in accordance *ith thesettled doctrine that bet*een t*o possible constructions) one avoiding a finding of unconstitutionalit- and the other -ielding such a result) the former is to be preferred# That *hich *ill save) not that *hich *ill destro-) commends itself for acceptance# "fter all) the basic presumption all these -ears is one of validit-# The onerous task ofproving other*ise is on the part- seeking tonullif- a statute# 1t must be proved b- clear and convincing evidence that there is an infringement of a constitutional provision) save in those cases *here the challenged act is void on its face# "bsent such a sho*ing) there can be no finding of unconstitutionalit-# " doubt) even if *ell&founded) does not suffice# ?ustice =alcolm9s aphorism is a+ro+os6 To doubt isto sustain# 27The reason for this6### can be traced to the doctrine of separation of po*ers *hich en5oins on each department a proper respect for the acts of the other departments# ### The theor- is that) as the 5oint act of the legislative and e:ecutive authorities) a la* is supposed to have been carefull- studied and determined to be constitution before it *as finall- enacted# 2ence) as long as there is some other basis that can be used b- the courts for its decision) the constitutionalit- of the challenged la* *ill not be touched upon and the case *ill be decided on other available grounds# 28The issue concerning >ection 17 of the NLRC 1nterim Rules does not deserve a measure of attention# The reference to it in the 8rder of the Labor "rbiter of 5 8ctober 1',' *as unnecessar- since the procedure of the appeal proper is not involved in this case# =oreover) the @uestioned interim rules of the NLRC) promulgated on , "ugust 1',') can validl- be given retroactive effect#The- are procedural or remedial in character) promulgated pursuant to the authorit- vested upon it under "rticle (1,a! of the Labor Code of the .hilippines) as amended# >ettled is the rule that procedural la*s ma- be given retroactive effect# 29 There are no vested rights in rules of procedure# 10 " remedial statute ma- be made applicable to cases pending at the time of its enactment# 11A2BRB48RB) the petition is hereb- 31>=1>>B3 for lack of merit# Costs against petitioner#>8 8R3BRB3#!ernan, C.J., Narvasa, elencio*@errera, 2utierre(, Jr., Cru(, "aras, !eliciano, 2anca3co, "adilla, Bidin, )armiento, 2ri'o*&Auino, edialdeaand Regalado, JJ., concur.>G.R. No. #:?&$$.!e"te)3er #$, #@@&A!T. MARTIN F. %o. 1:!(-.18"0nsponsoring1enate /ill %o. 1!9(+ 1enator .aul 1. .o#odeli&eredhis sponsorshipspee#h19" fro' whi#h we reprodu#e the following eC#erpts@9he ;udi#iary .eorganization =#t+ Mr. President+ /atas Pa'bansa /lg. 1-9+ reorganized the 5ourt of =ppeals and at the sa'e ti'e eCpanded its 4urisdi#tion and powers.='ong others+ its appellate 4urisdi#tion was eCpanded to #o&er not only final 4udg'ent of .egional 9rial 5ourts+ but also all final 4udg'ent(s)+ de#isions+ resolutions+ orders or awards of ?uasi84udi#ial agen#ies+ instru'entalities+ boards and #o''issions+ eC#ept those falling within the appellate 4urisdi#tion of the 1upre'e 5ourt in a##ordan#e with the 5onstitution+ the pro&isions of /P /lg. 1-9 and of subparagraph 1 of the third paragraph and subparagraph ! of 1e#tion 16 of the ;udi#iary =#t of 19!8.Mr. President+ the purpose of the law is to ease t+e 1orkload of t+e &upreme Court b' t+e transfer of some of its burden of re.ie1 of factual issues to t+e Court of ppeals.7o1e.er, 1+ate.er benefits t+at can be deri.ed from t+e e,pansion of t+e appellate 4urisdiction of t+e Court of ppeals 1as cut s+ort b' t+e last paragrap+ of &ection 8 of Batas "ambansa Blg. 968 1+ic+ e,cludes from its co.erage t+e :decisions and interlocutor' orders issued under t+e Labor Code of t+e "+ilippines and by the 5entral /oard of =ssess'ent =ppeals.K='ong the highest nu'ber of #ases that are brought up to the 1upre'e 5ourt are labor cases.Fen#e+ 1enate /ill %o. 1!9( seeks to eliminate t+e e,ceptions enumerated in &ection 8 and+ additionally+ eCtends the #o&erage of appellate re&iew of the 5ourt of =ppeals in the de#ision(s) of the 1e#urities and 3C#hange 5o''ission+ the 1o#ial 1e#urity 5o''ission+ and the 3'ployees 5o'pensation 5o''ission to redu#e the nu'ber of #ases ele&atedto the 1upre'e 5ourt.(3'phases and #orre#tions ours)C C C1enate /ill %o. 1!9( authored by our distinguished 5olleague fro' Laguna pro&ides the ideal situation of drasti#ally redu#ing the workload of the 1upre'e 5ourt without depri&ing the litigants of the pri&ilege of re&iew by an appellate tribunal.0n #losing+ allow 'e to ?uote the obser&ations of for'er 5hief ;usti#e 9eehankee in 198* in the =nnual .eport of the 1upre'e 5ourt@CCC ='endatory legislation is suggested so as to relie&e the 1upre'e 5ourt of the burden of re&iewing these #ases whi#h present no i'portant issues in&ol&ed beyond the parti#ular fa#t and the partiesin&ol&ed+ so that the 1upre'e 5ourt 'ay wholly de&ote its ti'e to #ases of publi# interest in the dis#harge of its 'andated task as the guardian of the 5onstitution and the guarantor of the peopleLs basi# rights and additional task eCpressly &ested on it now Jto deter'ine whether or not there has been a gra&e abuse of dis#retion a'ounting to la#k of 4urisdi#tion on the part of any bran#h or instru'entality of the Go&ern'ent.KEe used to ha&e (::+::: #ases pending all o&er the land+ Mr. President.0t hasbeen #ut down to $::+::: #ases so'e fi&e years ago.0 understand we are nowba#k to !::+::: #ases.Anless we distribute the work of the appellate #ourts+ we shall #ontinue to 'ount and add to the nu'ber of #ases pending.0n &iew of the foregoing+ Mr. President+ and by &irtue of all the reasons we ha&e sub'itted+ the 5o''ittee on ;usti#e and Fu'an .ights re?uests the support and #ollegial appro&al of our 5ha'ber.CCC1urprisingly+ howe&er+ in a subse?uent session+ the following 5o''ittee ='end'ent wasintrodu#ed by the said sponsor and the following pro#eedings transpired@-:"1enator .o#o.,n page -+ line (+ after the line J1upre'e 5ourt in a##ordan#e with the 5onstitution+K add t+e p+rase :(7E LB#R C#DE #) (7E "7ILI""I!E& $!DER ".D. 556, & %E!DED.;&o t+at it becomes clear, %r. "resident, t+at issues arising from t+e Labor Code 1ill still be appealable to t+e &upreme Court.9he President.0s there any ob4e#tionB(1ilen#e)Fearing none+ the a'end'ent is appro&ed.1enator .o#o.,n the sa'e page+ we 'o&e that lines -( to $: be deleted.9his was also dis#ussedwith our 5olleagues in the Fouse of .epresentati&es and as we understand it+ as appro&ed in theFouse+ this was also deleted+ Mr. President.9he President.0s there any ob4e#tionB(1ilen#e) Fearing none+ the a'end'ent is appro&ed.1enator .o#o.9here are no further 5o''ittee a'end'ents+ Mr. President.1enator .o'ulo.Mr. President+ 0 'o&e that we #lose the period of 5o''ittee a'end'ents.9he President.0s there any ob4e#tionB(1ilen#e) Fearing none+ the a'end'ent is appro&ed.(0tali#ssupplied)CCC9hereafter+ sin#e there were no indi&idual a'end'ents+ 1enate /ill %o. 1!9( was passed onse#ond reading and being a #ertified bill+ its unani'ous appro&al on third reading followed.-1"7.e#ordofthe1enate+Dol.D+%o. *$+ pp. 18:8181.-1 9he5onferen#e5o''ittee.eporton1enate /ill %o. 1!9( and Fouse /ill %o. 1:!(-+ ha&ing theretofore been appro&ed by the Fouseof .epresentati&es+ thesa'ewas likewiseappro&edbythe1enateon2ebruary-:+ 199(+--" in#lusi&e of the dubious for'ulation on appeals to the 1upre'e 5ourt earlier dis#ussed.9he 5ourt is+ therefore+ of the #onsidered opinion that e&er sin#e appeals fro' the %L.5 tothe 1upre'e 5ourt were eli'inated+ the legislati&e intend'ent was that the spe#ial #i&il a#tion of#ertiorari was and still is the proper &ehi#le for 4udi#ial re&iew of de#isions of the %L.5. 9heuse of the word JappealK in relation thereto and in the instan#es we ha&e noted #ould ha&e beena lapsusplumae be#auseappealsby#ertiorari andtheoriginal a#tionfor #ertiorari areboth'odes of 4udi#ial re&iew addressed to the appellate #ourts.9he i'portant distin#tion betweenthe'+ howe&er+ and with whi#h the 5ourt is parti#ularly #on#erned here is that the spe#ial #i&ila#tion of #ertiorari is within the #on#urrent original 4urisdi#tion of this 5ourt and the 5ourt of=ppeals7-$" whereas to indulge in the assu'ption that appeals by #ertiorari to the 1upre'e 5ourtare allowed would not subser&e+ but would sub&ert+ the intention of 5ongress as eCpressed in thesponsorship spee#h on 1enate /ill %o. 1!9(.0n#identally+ it was noted by the sponsor therein that so'e ?uarters were of the opinion thatre#ourse fro' the %L.5to the5ourt of =ppealsas an initial step in the pro#ess of4udi#ialre&iewwould be #ir#uitous and would prolong the pro#eedings.,n the #ontrary+ as he#o''endably and realisti#ally e'phasized+ that pro#edure would be ad&antageous to theaggrie&ed party on this reasoning@,n the other hand+ Mr. President+ to allow these #ases to be appealed to the 5ourt of =ppeals would gi&e litigants the ad&antage to ha&e all the e&iden#e on re#ord be reeCa'ined and reweighed after whi#h the findings of fa#ts and #on#lusions of said bodies are #orrespondingly affir'ed+ 'odified or re&ersed.Ander su#h guarantee+ the 1upre'e 5ourt #an then apply stri#tly the aCio' that fa#tual findings of the 5ourt of =ppeals are final and 'ay not be re&ersed on appeal to the 1upre'e 5ourt.= perusal of the re#ords will re&eal appeals whi#h are fa#tual in nature and 'ay+ therefore+ be dis'issed outright by 'inute resolutions.-!"Ehile we do not wish to intrude into the 5ongressional sphere on the 'atter of the wisdo'of a law+ on this s#ore we add the further obser&ations that there is a growing nu'ber of labor#ases being ele&ated to this 5ourt whi#h+ not being a trier of fa#t+ has at ti'es been #onstrainedto re'and the #ase to the %L.5 for resolution of un#lear or a'biguous fa#tual findings7 that the5ourt of =ppeals is pro#edurally e?uipped for that purpose+ aside fro' the in#reased nu'ber ofits #o'ponent di&isions7 and that there is undeniably an i'perati&e need for eCpeditious a#tionon labor #ases as a 'a4or aspe#t of #onstitutional prote#tion to labor.9herefore+all referen#esinthea'ended 1e#tion 9 of /.P. %o. 1-9 to supposed appealsfro' the %L.5 to the 1upre'e 5ourt are interpreted and hereby de#lared to 'ean and refer topetitionsfor#ertiorari under .ule*(.5onse?uently+all su#hpetitionsshouldhen#eforthbeinitially filed in the 5ourt of =ppeals in stri#t obser&an#e of the do#trine on the hierar#hy of#ourts as the appropriate foru' for the relief desired.=propos to this dire#ti&e that resort to the higher #ourts should be 'ade in a##ordan#e withtheir hierar#hi#al order+ this pronoun#e'ent in &antiago .s. Vas3ue/, et al.-(" shouldbetakenintoa##ount@,ne final obser&ation.Ee dis#ern in the pro#eedings in this #ase a propensity on the part of petitioner+ and+ for that 'atter+ the sa'e 'ay be said of a nu'ber of litigants who initiate re#ourses before us+ to disregard the hierar#hy of #ourts in our 4udi#ial syste' by seeking relief dire#tly fro' this 5ourt despite the fa#t that the sa'e is a&ailable in the lower #ourts in the eCer#ise of their original or #on#urrent 4urisdi#tion+ or is e&en 'andated by law to be sought therein.9his pra#ti#e 'ust be stopped+ not only be#ause of the i'position upon the pre#ious ti'e of this 5ourt but also be#ause of the ine&itable and resultant delay+ intended or otherwise+ in the ad4udi#ation of the #ase whi#h often has to be re'anded or referred to the lower #ourt as the proper foru' under the rules of pro#edure+ or as better e?uipped to resol&e the issues sin#e this 5ourt is not a trier of fa#ts.Ee+ therefore+ reiterate the 4udi#ial poli#y that this 5ourt will not entertain dire#t resort to it unless the redress desired #annot be obtained in the appropriate #ourts or where eC#eptional and #o'pelling #ir#u'stan#es 4ustify a&ail'ent of a re'edy within and #alling for the eCer#ise of our pri'ary 4urisdi#tion.;ERE, $OMINO$E%!RU>, SEGUN$O$EIGERO, R%(MUN$O $ES%M&%R%$O, G%U$ISIO $E#E(R%,"ENR( ENERIO, %NTONIO EN!ISO, %NSEMO FEI%S JR.,JUI%N G%N>%N,%%N "ON!U%$%, BIEN#ENI$OIB%%NG,FRE$ERI!= J%NO&O,S%MUE JUM%MO(,IS%BEO OREN,&RO!ORIO OOR, RESTITUTO OMO!SO, &E$RO O>%$%,&E$RO O>%G%, &%STOR M%G%RO, %%N M%N%G%, SIM&I!IOM%N$%S, S%TURNINO M%NIS%N, $IOS$%$OM%T%, EMM%NUEM%TUTO$, M%EIMO ME$%E, M%R!EINO MINO>%, NORBERTOMOR$EN, %RNO$ MOR$EN, *II%MMOR%$%, R%(MUN$OMOR%G%S, RO$RIGO MOS0UI$%,BENITO NEMENO JR., RI!OOG!%NG, EMEI%NO ON$%&, FR%N!IS!O &%N$%*%T%N,%FRE$O &%IG%N, #EN%N!IO &%JO, E( 0UINONES,%EJ%N$RO0UI&ET, BENIGNORE&OI$O, &%BOSUMI$O,JOSE SUM%INOG, S%MUE T%B%, OS!%R T%B%N%O,M%RIO TEIN, M%NOITOTIMTIM, FEIETIN$UG%N, $%NIO#EUESTO, %EJ%N$RO #I#ESTRE, TEOFIO >%&%NT%,RO$UFO%!%%, &ER!(%I&IN, %NGEO%M%$%, &%0UITO%N!%J%S, E$G%R$ %RBISO, &ERFE!TO%R%B%!%, JU$IT"B%MORI%, JO"%NNESBONG%TO, N%R!ISOBUE!ERJR.,BERN%$IT% BUR$EOS, *EN!ES%O BUS%, RO$RIGO !%B%,$ON%$!%$IIN%, JOSE!%ING"OG, RO$OFO!%TUBIG,G%$IOSO !%STRO$ES, #IRGINI% !ERRO, FORTUN%TO!EETON%, JU%N !EO, M%R!I%NO !ORTE>, RO%N$O!UMB%, %M%R $%&%R, M%RIS% $E% !RU>,SIMEON$EIGERO, $IOS$%$O $OMINISE, FORENTINO $UN!%NO,!%U$IO $UMO, M%RI$E EFREN, ROMU%$O ESTRETO,J%IME FORES, ESMER%$O G%O&E, &RO!ESSO "ERN%N$O,%FRE$O J%#IER, !RIS&INO JUG%R%&, $%NIE %BRI!%,ERNESTO%B%$%N, %UREIOINOG%O, BEN%$OO&E>,%M%$OR UMONGSO$, FRES!O UNO(, FOREN!IOM%G%S%NG, EUTI0UEO M%J%IT, %BINO M%N%, FEI&EM%NTI%, !%SI%NO MEI!OR, %NE!IT% MEN$O>%,NEMERI%NON%!%, >%!%RI%S N%%M, SIETON%&% JR.,%M%0UIO OBE$EN!IO, GO$OFRE$O O%I>, #IRGII%OSORIO, EEUTRIO&%G%$OR, %R$EN&%SI%NG, $IONESIO&%SI%NG, %$E%I$O &%0UI&OT, FERN%N$O &%TIN$O,#IRGIIO &EN$I!%, FR%N=IN &IOTON, GI &IOTON,!"%RIT% &%>%, EUFR%!I% &%>%, TORIBEO &US%,FR%N!IS!OR%MIR%, BEEN ROJ%S, %FONSO S%B%N$%,!%RMEN S%BE%NO, ROGEIO SIM&RON, !ENI% SUMIE,ES&ERE$IONT%BI0UE, %RE!IOT%G"O(, SI#%N%T%&%ES,JEM!IETIMTIM, EENOTORIO, T"OM%S TERRE!%M&O, FE#%EN>UE%, FOREN!IO %BE0UIBE, EFREN UMIN%RIO,JUITO ON$%&,respondents.$ E ! I S I O N&%NG%NIB%N, J.:Not ever-lossincurredor e:pectedtobeincurredb-emplo-erscan5ustif-retrenchment#The- must +rove) amongothers) that thelossesaresubstantial and that the retrenchment is reasonabl- necessar- to avert thoselosses#TC, !a4,0efore us is a .etition for Revie*[1] under Rule %5 of the Rules of Court)challenging the 3ecember (1) ($$$ 3ecision[(] and the ?une ($)($$1 Resolution[+] of the Court of "ppeals[%] C"! in C"&CR >. No# 51'67#Theassailed 3ecision disposed as follo*s6J;ERE Puantity of Eork)"7T-)1#hedule the unspent DL>1L of your 'en withoutne#essary repla#e'ents. C C CLJPer 3M5,Ls noti#e to the ),L3+ one hundred four (1:!) workers were proposed forin#lusion in its retren#h'ent progra'.=s it turned out+ though+ 3M5, ter'inated two hundred fifty (-(:) workers.='ong the' were herein respondents".J.espondents" re#ei&ed their separation pay in the a'ount of four thousand eight hundred fifteen pesos (P!+81(.::) ea#h.)edu#tions were+ ne&ertheless+ 'ade by 3M5, purportedly for the attorneyLs fees payable to respondentsL" lawyer+ for the latterLs effort in purportedly renegotiating+ so'eti'e in 199$+ the three peso (P$.::) in#rease in the wages of respondents"+ as now #ontained in the 5olle#ti&e /argaining =gree'ent.JApon re#eipt of their separation pay+ respondents" were 'ade to sign ?uit#lai's+ whi#h read@T9, EF,M 09 M=H 5,%53.%@T0+ OOOOOOOOOOO of legal age and a resident of OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO+ for and in #onsideration of the a'ount of (POOOO)+ the re#eipt of whi#h+ in full+ is hereby a#knowledged+ fore&er dis#harge and release C C C 3M5, PLHE,,) 5,.P,.=90,% and all its offi#ers 'en agents and #orporate assigns fro' any and all for's of a#tions>suits+ debts+ su's of 'oney+ unpaid wages+ o&erti'e pay allowan#es+ o&erti'e pay or an other liability of any nature by reason of 'y e'ploy'ent whi#h has #eased by this date.T)one this OOOOOOOOOOOOOO+ at Magallanes+ =gusan del %orte.LJ=bout two (-) years later+ respondents"+ through their labor union+ lodged a #o'pliant against 3M5, for illegal dis'issal+ da'ages and attorneyLs fees.J0n the 'ain+ respondents" ?uestioned the &alidity of their retren#h'ent and the suffi#ien#y of the separation pay re#ei&ed by the'.J3M5, #ountered by interposing the defense of la#k of #ause of a#tion+ #ontending that respondents"+ by signing the ?uit#lai's in fa&or of 3M5,+ had+ in fa#t+ wai&ed whate&er #lai's they 'ay ha&e against the latter.J2inding for 3M5,+ the Labor =rbiter dis'issed respondentsL" #o'plaint.J.espondentsL" subse?uent appeal to the %L.5 was dis'issed for la#k of 'erit and the de#ision of the Labor =rbiter was affir'ed.%otably+ the %L.5 glossed o&er the issue of whether respondents" were &alidly retren#hed+ and an#hored its dis'issal of the appeal on the effe#t of respondentsL" wai&ers or ?uit#lai's+ to ?uote@L9he pi&otal issue brought to fore is whether or not the ?uit#lai's>wai&ers eCe#uted by respondents" are &alid and binding.9he other issues raised by respondents" are either related to 'ere te#hni#ality+ or are 'erely an#illary or dependent on the 'ain issue.TC C CC C CC C CT9here is no doubt that the respondents" &oluntarily eCe#uted their ?uit#lai's>wai&ersas 'anifested by the fa#t that they did not pro'ptly ?uestion their &alidity within a reasonable ti'e.0t took the' two (-) years to #hallenge and dispute the &alidity of the wai&ers by #lai'ing belatedly that they were either for#ed or 'isled into signing the sa'e.5learly+ this #ase was instituted by respondents" to unduly eCa#t 'ore pay'ent of separation benefits fro' petitioner" at the eCpense of fairness and 4usti#e.LJ0n passing+ the %L.5 likewise affir'ed 3M5,Ls dedu#tions of attorneyLs fees fro' the separation pay re#ei&ed by the respondents".J= 'otion for re#onsideration of the afore8?uoted resolution was filed by respondents" on Mar#h 1:+ 1996+ but was denied by the %L.5+ purportedly+ for la#k of 'erit and for ha&ing been filed out of ti'e.K*"(5itations o'itted)Ru98nB oD 3C, !our3 oD %77,a94The C" held that the evidence *as insufficient to 5ustif- a ruling in favor ofB=C8) *hich had not complied *ith the one&month prior notice re@uirementunder the LaborCode#Theappellate court addedthat thecorporationhadnot served on the emplo-ees the re@uired notice of termination#1t opined thatthe =emorandum) having merel- provided the guidelines on the conduct ofthe intended la-&off) did not constitute such notice# 4urthermore) the=emorandum*asnot addressedtothe*orkers) but totheforemen) thedepartment supervisors and the section heads#=oreover) there *as noproper notice to 38LB#The corporation terminated the services of (5$emplo-ees but included onl- 1$% of them in the list it filed *ith38LB#B=C8Hsargument that the1%6unlistedemplo-eeshadvoluntaril-resigned *as brushed aside b- the appellate court#The C" also held that before B=C8 resorted to retrenchment) the latterhad failed to adduce evidence of its losses and to prove that it had undertakenmeasures to prevent the occurrence of its alleged actual or impending losses#=oreover) theC"ruledthat thecorporationhadnot paidthelegall-prescribed separation pa-) *hich *as e@ual to one&month pa- or at least one&half monthpa-forever--earof service) *hichever*ashigher# 3eductingattorne-Hs fees from the supposed separation pa- of the emplo-ees *as heldtobeinclear violationof thela*#>uchfeesshouldhavebeenchargedagainst the funds of their union#The appellate court further held that the cause of action of the emplo-eeshad not -et prescribed *hen the case *as filed) because an action for illegaldismissal constituted an in5ur- to their rights#The C" added that the provisionapplicable to the case *as "rticle 11%6 of the Ne* Civil Code) according to*hich the prescriptive period for such causes of action *as four %!-ears#TheComplaint) havingbeenfiledb-theemplo-eesonl-t*o-earsafter their dismissal) had not prescribed#"ll in all) the appellate court concluded that the retrenchment *as illegal)because of B=C8Hs failure to compl- *ith the legal re@uirements#2ence) this .etition#[7]TC, I44u,41n their =emorandum) petitioners raise these issues for our consideration6FI.Ehether or not respondent 5ourt of =ppeals seriously erred in re&ersing the fa#tual findings of both the Labor =rbiter and the %L.5 that petitioners had substantially #o'plied with the re?uisites for a &alid retren#h'entBFII.Ehether or not respondent 5ourt 'anifestly erred in re&ersing the fa#tual findings of both the Labor =rbiter and the %L.5 that pri&ate respondents had &oluntarily eCe#uted their respe#ti&e Puit#lai'sBFIII.Ehether or not respondent 5ourt 'ay+ in a petition for #ertiorari under .ule *( of the .ules of 5ourt+ #orre#t the e&aluation of e&iden#e 'ade by both the Labor =rbiter andthe %L.5+ and thereafter substitute its own findings for those of the Labor =rbiter and the %L.5BK8">impl- put) petitioners are insisting on the validit- of the retrenchment andthe enforceabilit- of the Duitclaims#The- are also @uestioning *hether or notthe appellate court ma- disturb the findings of the labor arbiter and the NLRC#TC84 !our3G4 Ru98nBThe .etition has no merit#Ma8n I44u,)RetrenchmentRetrenchment is one of the authoriOed causes for the dismissal ofemplo-ees#Resorted to b- emplo-ers to avoid or minimiOe business losses)['] it is recogniOed under "rticle (,+ of the Labor Code#[1$]TheJlossK referredtointhisprovisioncannot beof 5ust an-kindoramountF other*ise)acompan- couldeasil- feign e:cuses to suit its *himsandpre5udicesor toriditself of un*antedemplo-ees#TheCourt haslaiddo*n the follo*ing standards that a compan- must meet to 5ustif-retrenchment and to guard against abuse6JC C C 2irstly+ the losses eCpe#ted should be substantial and not 'erely de minimis in eCtent.0f the loss purportedl