Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 164032 January 19 2009
!O!IT" ". !OPE# JOSECITO M. DE !" VEG" M"NUE! "NTIO$UI"
E!MER G. HI!"US !UCI" %. MONTEM"&OR C"RO!IN" ESPIRITU
!EON"RDO 'ORTE HE!EN N"TIVID"D ROGER C. O%INS" C"R!OS
C. "SI!O JR. RIC"RDO 'ROND" "!E( S"NTI"GO !EONOR" S.J.
%"!"%%O C"T"!INO %"!"%%O 'E S. S"NTOS VICTORI" V. MO!"S
"NTONIO "TENT" M". DONN" SUSVI!!" "NDRES V. OC"MPO
JOVENCIO JUS"&"N "RGI! !"%RIS EDN" R. MOR"! NESTOR
!ERIOS E'REN TUR%"N"D" RIC)& "SP"N EMM"NUE! ME"N" M".
CECI!I" P"NG"N HI!"RIO J. C"CHO RON"!DO !IM r*+r*,*n-*. /y
ESTE!IT" !IM !IM r*+r*,*n-*. /y ESTE!IT" !IM '. P"GUERG"N
RO!"NDO H. "%"0O JOSEPH M"C"R"N"S M"RG"RITO PERI!!"
M"RTIN GON#"!ES JOE& M"HIN"& M"RDI '. "!"RDE DOMINGITO
D"O SER"PIO M"RDO$UIO NOR%ERT" DE GUI" P"STOR" S.
%"S"!!O ME!CHOR %"RCE!ON" D"NI!O V"!ENCI" 'ERN"NDO
TO!ENTINO "RIE! D"C"&O r*+r*,*n-*. /y !EON"RD" G. D"C"&O
a--orn*y12n13a4- TERESIT" %"NDO 2n 5*r /*5a63 an. 2n /*5a63 o3 5*r 72nor
4526.r*n MICH"E! J"& !EE !"RR" ME!ISS" an. M"R& "NNE a66
,urna7*. %"NDO RONI!O E. !EE r*+r*,*n-*. /y THE!M" V. !EE
a--orn*y12n13a4- "NGE!ITO %"SI!IO an. HEIRS O' VICTORINO
C"R"IG na7*6y8 EDN" !. "URE!IO VD". DE C"R"IG 72nor, JENNIC"
JESS" CHRISTINE M"& an. C"THERINE a66 ,urna7*. C"R"IG
r*+r*,*n-*. /y -5*2r 7o-5*r EDN" "URE!IO VD". DE C"R"IG petitioner,
vs.
$UE#ON CIT& SPORTS C!U% INC. respondents.
TING" J.8
Before us is a Petition for Review on Certiorari
1
under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court,
seeking to reverse and set aside the 1 !ebruar" #$$4 decision
#
and the % &une #$$4
resolution
%
of the Court of 'ppeals in C'()R *P +o. ,#45.
-he factual antecedents of the case follow.
Clai.ing that it is a registered independent labor organi/ation and the incu.bent
collective bargaining agent of 0ue/on Cit" *ports Club 10C*C2, the 3asapiang
Manggagawa sa 0ue/on Cit" *ports Club 1union2 filed a co.plaint for unfair labor
practice
4
against 0C*C on 1# +ove.ber 144,, alleging that the latter co..itted the
following unfair labor practices5
1. 6nterference with, restraining and7or coercing e.plo"ees, particularl"
.e.bers of the incu.bent union in their e8ercise of their rights to self(
organi/ation9
#. :iscri.ination in regards to pa".ent of wages, hours of work and other
ter.s and conditions of e.plo".ent in order to discourage continued
.e.bership to the incu.bent union9
%. ;iolation of several econo.ic provisions of the CB' such as, across the
board i.ple.entation of an" legislated wage increases, non(pa".ent of
salaries and wages for <the= period alread" worked, and non(pa".ent of
overti.e pa" to so.e e.plo"ees and other related econo.ic benefits which
will be specificall" enunciated b" the petitioner in the succeeding pleadings to
be filed.
5
-he >nion averred that it was ordered to sub.it a new infor.ation sheet.
?
6t
i..ediatel" wrote a letter addressed to the general .anager, 'ngel *adang, to in@uire
about the infor.ation sheet, onl" to be insulted b" the latter. -he .e.bers of the
union were not paid their salaries on %$ &une 144,.
,
' board .e.ber, 'ntonio Chua
allegedl" harassed one of the e.plo"ees and told hi. not to Aoin the strike and even
pro.ised a pro.otion.

Bn 4 &ul" 144,, the union wrote a letter to the .anage.ent

for the release of the .e.bersC salaries for the period 1?(%$ &une 144,,
i.ple.entation of Dage Brder +o. 5, and granting of wage increases .andated b"
the Collective Bargaining 'gree.ent 1CB'2.
4
Dhen its letter went unanswered, the
union filed a notice of strike on 1$ &ul" 144, for violation of 'rticle #4 1a21c21e2 of
the Eabor Code, nonpa".ent of overti.e pa", refusal to hear its grievances, and
.alicious refusal to co.pl" with the econo.ic provisions of the CB'.
1$
'fter
conducting a strike vote,
11
it staged a strike on 1# 'ugust 144,. Bn 1? 'ugust 144,,
the 0C*C placed so.e of its e.plo"ees under te.porar" la"(off status due to
redundanc".
1#
6t appears that on ## :ece.ber 144,, 0C*C also filed a petition for
cancellation of registration against the union.
1%
0C*C, for its part, contended that the union was not a legiti.ate labor union as it had
a pending co.plaint for cancellation of certificate of registration9 that there was no
valid CB'9 that it had not co..itted an" unfair labor practice9 and that the union had
staged an illegal strike.
14
Bn #4 :ece.ber 144, Eabor 'rbiter &oel *. Eustria pro.ulgated a decision
15
(Lustria decision) finding 0C*C guilt" of unfair labor practice and ordering it to pa"
the affected e.plo"ees their separation pa", backwages, and salar" increase, totaling
P#,,5$4,?4.4?.
1?
0C*C appealed fro. the labor arbiterCs decision.
1,
6n turn, the
union filed a .otion to dis.iss the appeal for non(perfection due to failure to post the
appeal bond.
1
0C*C filed a .otion for reduction of the appeal bond to !B>R M6EE6B+ PF*B*
1P4,$$$,$$$.$$2.
14
Bn 4 &anuar" #$$$, 0C*C filed a supple.ent to its appeal, citing a decision 1:inopol
decision2 dated 4 Bctober 144 of Eabor 'rbiter Frnesto :inopol declaring the strike
of the union illegal. -he dispositive portion reads5
9HERE'ORE, in view of the >nionCs having violated the no(strike(no(
lockout provision of the Collective Bargaining 'gree.ent, the strike it staged
on 'ugust 1#, 144 is hereb" declared illegal and conse@uentl", pursuant to
'rticle #?4 of the Eabor Code, the individual respondents, na.el"5 RONI!O
C. !EE EDU"RDO V. S"NTI" CECI!!E C. P"NG"N ROMEO M.
MORG" GEN"RO C. %"NDO "ND "!E( J. S"NTI"GO who
ad.itted in paragraph 1 of their position paper that the" are officers7.e.bers
of the co.plaining >nion are hereb" declared to have lost their e.plo".ent
status.
-he clai. for da.ages is hereb" DISMISSED for lack of .erit.
SO ORDERED.
#$
Meanwhile, the +ational Eabor Relations Co..ission 1+ERC2
#1
ordered the posting
of an additional *6G M6EE6B+ PF*B 1P?,$$$,$$$.$$2(bond. 'nd on 1 'ugust #$$1,
it
##
rendered a decision granting the appeal and reversing the Lustria decision. 6t
ratiocinated5
De are now called upon to har.oni/e two conflicting decisions rendered b"
two different Eabor 'rbiters, as discussed above, in order to .aintain
unifor.it" of our :ecision. Both :ecisions involve the sa.e rights and
interests of the sa.e contending parties.
!ro. all indications, Eabor 'rbiter Eustria was apparentl" of the i.pression
that herein individual co.plainants still retain their e.plo".ent status when
he decided this case. He was unaware, presu.abl", of the e8istence of the
:ecision rendered in +ERC C'*F +B. $$($4($??,(4, which has alread"
attained finalit" when he issued his decision granting the .onetar" clai.s of
herein individual co.plainants.
Be that as it .a", De are of the view that the :ecision in +ERC C'*F +B.
$$($4($??%(4, .ust perforce prevail over the appealed :ecision and the latter
to "ield to it. 6t .ust re.ain undisturbed following the established doctrine on
pri.ac" and finalit" of decision. 6t bears stressing at this Auncture, at the risk
of being repetitious, that in +ERC Case +o. $$($4($??%(4, the e.plo".ent
status of herein individual co.plainants was alread" declared lost or forfeited
as of 'ugust 1#, 144, the da" the illegal strike was staged. !ro. then on, the"
ceased to be e.plo"ees of respondent *ports Club. -he forfeiture of their
e.plo".ent status carries with it the e8tinction of their right to de.and for
and be entitled to the econo.ic benefits accorded the. b" law and the e8isting
CB'. !or, such right is pre.ised on the fact of e.plo".ent.
*uch being the case, it follows that the assailed decision did not create a
de.andable right or obligation, and therefore, an" .onetar" award granted in
their favor in the appealed decision pursuant to such right .ust necessaril" be
declared as wanting in legal basis, devoid of an" force and effect. Co.pliance
therewith can not be co.pelled as the respondent(appellant has nothing to
co.pl".
#%
6n said decision, the +ERC noted that fort"(three 14%2 co.plainants had alread"
entered into an a.icable settle.ent with 0C*C.
-he other co.plainants 1petitioners2 .eanwhile filed a .otion for reconsideration
which was denied b" the +ERC. -hus, the" filed a petition for certiorari under Rule
?5 before the Court of 'ppeals. -he petition was dis.issed for lack of .erit.
Petitioners assailed the ruling of the +ERC for having been decided with grave abuse
of discretion on two grounds5 first, when it entertained the appeal despite the failure
of respondent to post an appeal bond within the regle.entar" period and in ordering
the reduction of the a.ount of the appeal bond to P1$,$$$,$$$.$$9 and second, when
it reversed the Lustria decision and upheld the Dinopol decision.
Rel"ing heavil" on the +ERC decision, the Court of 'ppeals dis.issed the petition
for certiorari.
6n the instant petition, petitioners insist that the re@uire.ent for perfecting an appeal
before the +ERC had not been .et because under the Lustria decision, 0C*C was
ordered to pa" the su. of P#5,$$4,44#.## but it .erel" posted P4,$$$,$$$.$$ and
filed a .otion for reduction of the bond. Moreover, 0C*C failed to provide a
sufficient Austification in support of its .otion to reduce the bond. Bn the substantive
.atter, petitioners once again challenge the ruling of the +ERC in declaring the. to
have lost their e.plo".ent contrar" to the Dinopol decision which onl" affected a
few of the e.plo"ees who were union .e.bers. Participation in an illegal strike,
according to petitioners, does not auto.aticall" result in ter.ination. Eikewise, the"
.aintain that the award of backwages in the Lustria decision was grounded on the
la"(offs effected b" 0C*C, which are considered constructive dis.issals.
!urther.ore, petitioners assail the +ERC decision when it avoided giving a definitive
ruling on the charge of unfair labor practice. -he" also counter that the labor arbiter
had Aurisdiction over the .one" clai.s pertaining to wage orders and increases
.andated b" the CB' in the absence of a valid grievance .achiner" and for gross
violation of the CB', which is considered an unfair labor practice.
-his petition essentiall" presents two legal @uestions. !irst, do the si.ultaneous filing
of the .otion to reduce the appeal bond and posting of the reduced a.ount of bond
within the regle.entar" period for appeal constitute substantial co.pliance with
'rticle ##% of the Eabor CodeI
't the outset, it should be stressed that the right to appeal is not a natural right or a
part of due process9 it is .erel" a statutor" privilege, and .a" be e8ercised onl" in the
.anner and in accordance with the provisions of law. -he part" who seeks to avail
hi.self of the sa.e .ust co.pl" with the re@uire.ents of the rules. !ailing to do so,
the right to appeal is lost.
#4
'rticle ##% of the Eabor Code partl" provides that5
'rt. ##%. 'ppeal. :ecisions, awards, or orders of the Eabor 'rbiter are final
and e8ecutor" unless appealed to the Co..ission b" an" or both parties
within ten 11$2 calendar da"s fro. receipt of such decisions, awards, or
orders. *uch appeal .a" be entertained onl" on an" of the following grounds5
a. 6f there is pri.a facie evidence of abuse of discretion on the part of the
Eabor 'rbiter9
b. 6f the decision, order or award was secured through fraud or coercion,
including graft and corruption9
c. 6f .ade purel" on @uestions of law9 and
d. 6f serious errors in the findings of facts are raised which would cause
grave or irreparable da.age or inAur" to the appellant.
6n case of a Audg.ent involving a .onetar" award, an appeal b" the e.plo"er
.a" be perfected onl" upon the posting of a cash or suret" bond issued b" a
reputable bonding co.pan" dul" accredited b" the Co..ission in the a.ount
e@uivalent to the .onetar" award in the Audg.ent appealed fro..
Eikewise, *ections 41a2 and ? of Rule ;6 of the +ew Rules of Procedure of the
+ERC, as a.ended, provide5
*FC-6B+ 4. Re@uisites for Perfection of 'ppeal.J1a2 -he 'ppeal shall be
filed within the regle.entar" period as provided in *ection 1 of this Rule9
shall be verified b" appellant hi.self in accordance with *ection 4, Rule , of
the Rules of Court, with proof of pa".ent of the re@uired appeal fee and the
posting of a cash or suret" bond as provided in *ection ? of this Rule9 shall be
acco.panied b" a .e.orandu. of appeal in three 1%2 legibl" t"pewritten
copies which shall state the grounds relied upon and the argu.ents in support
thereof9 the relief pra"ed for9 and a state.ent of the date when the appellant
received the appealed decision, resolution or order and a certificate of non(
foru. shopping with proof of service on the other part" of such appeal. '
.ere notice of appeal without co.pl"ing with the other re@uisites aforestated
shall not stop the running of the period of perfecting an appeal.
*FC-6B+ ?. Bond.J6n case the decision of the Eabor 'rbiter or the
Regional :irector involves a .onetar" award, an appeal b" the e.plo"er .a"
be perfected onl" upon the posting of a cash or suret" bond. -he appeal bond
shall either be in cash or suret" in an a.ount e@uivalent to the .onetar"
award, e8clusive of da.ages and attorne"Cs fees.
8 8 8
+o .otion to reduce bond shall be entertained e8cept on .eritorious grounds
and upon the posting of a bond in a reasonable a.ount in relation to the
.onetar" award.
-he filing of the .otion to reduce bond without co.pliance with the re@uisites
in the preceding paragraph shall not stop the running of the period to perfect
an appeal.
>nder the Rules, appeals involving .onetar" awards are perfected onl" upon
co.pliance with the following .andator" re@uisites, na.el"5 112 pa".ent of the
appeal fees9 1#2 filing of the .e.orandu. of appeal9 and 1%2 pa".ent of the re@uired
cash or suret" bond.
#5
-hus, the posting of a bond is indispensable to the perfection of an appeal in cases
involving .onetar" awards fro. the decision of the labor arbiter. -he intention of the
law.akers to .ake the bond a .andator" re@uisite for the perfection of an appeal b"
the e.plo"er is clearl" e8pressed in the provision that an appeal b" the e.plo"er .a"
be perfected Konl" upon the posting of a cash or suret" bond.K -he word Konl"K .akes
it un.istakabl" plain that the law.akers intended the posting of a cash or suret" bond
b" the e.plo"er to be the essential and e8clusive .eans b" which an e.plo"erLs
appeal .a" be perfected. -he word K.a"K refers to the perfection of an appeal as
optional on the part of the defeated part", but not to the co.pulsor" posting of an
appeal bond, if he desires to appeal. -he .eaning and the intention of the legislature
in enacting a statute .ust be deter.ined fro. the language e.plo"ed9 and where
there is no a.biguit" in the words used, then there is no roo. for construction. -he
filing of the bond is not onl" .andator" but also a Aurisdictional re@uire.ent that .ust
be co.plied with in order to confer Aurisdiction upon the +ERC. +on(co.pliance
with the re@uire.ent renders the decision of the labor arbiter final and e8ecutor". -his
re@uire.ent is intended to assure the workers that if the" prevail in the case, the" will
receive the .one" Audg.ent in their favor upon the dis.issal of the e.plo"erLs
appeal. 6t is intended to discourage e.plo"ers fro. using an appeal to dela" or evade
their obligation to satisf" their e.plo"eesL Aust and lawful clai.s.
#?
However, *ection ? of the +ew Rules of Procedure of the +ERC also .andates,
a.ong others, that no .otion to reduce bond shall be entertained e8cept on
.eritorious grounds and upon the posting of a bond in a reasonable a.ount in relation
to the .onetar" award. Hence, the +ERC has the full discretion to grant or den" the
.otion to reduce the a.ount of the appeal bond.
#,
6n addition, while the bond re@uire.ent on appeals involving a .onetar" award has
been rela8ed in certain cases, this can onl" be done where there was substantial
co.pliance with the Rules9 or where the appellants, at the ver" least, e8hibited
willingness to pa" b" posting a partial bond.
#
-his rule was given a liberal interpretation b" this Court in Nicol v. Footjoy Industrial
Corporation.
#4
6n said case, !ootAo" 6ndustrial Corporation was sued b" its
e.plo"ees for illegal dis.issal. -he Eabor 'rbiter declared the e.plo"ees as having
been constructivel" ter.inated and ordered !ootAo" 6ndustrial Corporation to pa"
wage differentials, backwages and attorne"Cs fees totaling P51,45?,%14.$$. !ootAo"
6ndustrial Corporation appealed to the +ERC and .oved to reduce its appeal bond to
P1$,$$$,$$$.$$. -he +ERC, however, denied !ootAo" 6ndustrial CorporationCs .otion
and later dis.issed its appeal. -he Court of 'ppeals reversed the +ERC. -his Court
through the *econd :ivision ruled that the bond re@uire.ent on appeals involving
.onetar" awards had been and could be rela8ed in .eritorious cases such as5 112 there
was substantial co.pliance with the Rules9 1#2 the surrounding facts and
circu.stances constitute .eritorious grounds to reduce the bond9 1%2 a liberal
interpretation of the re@uire.ent of an appeal bond would serve the desired obAective
of resolving controversies on the .erits9 or 142 the appellants, at the ver" least,
e8hibited their willingness and7or good faith b" posting a partial bond during the
regle.entar" period.
%$
'ppl"ing these Aurisprudential guidelines, we find and hold that the +ERC did not err
in reducing the a.ount of the appeal bond and considering the appeal as having been
filed within the regle.entar" period. 's correctl" observed b" the +ERC5
*ince, in its Brder of #4 !ebruar" #$$$, the Co..ission <with for.er
Chair.an Rogelio 6. Ra"ala acting as Ponente= granted the .otion to reduce
bond, and in fact, directed respondent(appellant to post an additional cash or
suret" bond in the a.ount of *i8 Million 1P?,$$$,$$$.$$2 a .atter which
respondent co.plied with on March #1, #$$$, it then is clear that respondentCs
appeal was perfected on ti.e. Co.plainants(.ovantsC @uestioning the. anew
in their .otion for reconsideration is @uite futile because under 'rticle ##% of
the Eabor Code, our aforesaid #4 !ebruar" #$$$ Brder obtained finalit" 1$
da"s fro. co.plainant >nionCs receipt thereof, a fact that is not being
disputed here.
%1
1citations o.itted2
Moreover, the posting of the a.ount of P4,$$$,$$$.$$ si.ultaneousl" with the filing
of the .otion to reduce the bond to that a.ount, as well as the filing of the
.e.orandu. of appeal, all within the regle.entar" period, altogether constitute
substantial co.pliance with the Rules.
-he +ERCCs favorable ruling on 0C*CCs .otion to reduce the appeal bond should be
accorded due weight and respect absent an" indication of grave error.
-he second legal @uestion deals with the validit" of the +ERC decision, as affir.ed
b" the Court of 'ppeals. De rule in favor of petitioners.
-he assailed Dinopol decision involves a co.plaint for illegal strike filed b" 0C*C
on the ground of a Kno(strike no lockoutK provision in the CB'. -he challenged
decision was rendered in accordance with law and is supported b" factual evidence on
record. 6ndeed, the grounds for declaring the strike, as alleged b" the >nion, were not
substantiall" proven. 6n the notice of strike, the union did not state in particular the
acts which allegedl" constitute unfair labor practice. Moreover, b" virtue of the Kno(
strike no lockoutK provision in the CB', the union was prohibited fro. staging an
econo.ic strike, i.e., to force wage or other concessions fro. the e.plo"er which he
is not re@uired b" law to grant. However, it should be noted that while the strike
declared b" the union was held illegal, onl" the union officers were declared as having
lost their e.plo".ent status. 6n effect, there was a ruling onl" with respect to so.e
union .e.bers while the status of all others had re.ained disputed.
-hen ca.e the Lustria decision, issued two 1#2 .onths later, finding that 0C*C had
co..itted unfair labor practices against the union and accordingl" granting
backwages and separation pa" in favor of 11# e.plo"ees. -he Lustria decision
e.anated fro. a co.plaint for unfair labor practice against 0C*C. Culled fro. the
unionCs pleadings were the specific acts co..itted b" 0C*C, such as5
1. 6nsulting of the >nion President as evidenced b" the *ala"sa" of Ma.
Cecilia Pangan9
#. Cuddling and treating the .inorit" union with favor, such as pa"ing their
salaries7wages full" and ahead of the incu.bent union and as if it were the
incu.bent bargaining agents9
%. :iscouraging the .e.bers of the incu.bent union fro. continuing their
.e.bership with the incu.bent union as evidenced b" the Pinagsa.ang
*ala"sa" of Ra.iro Fspinosa and Ronaldo 0. Ei.9
4. Bribing union .e.ber and pro.ising pro.otion if he will not Aoin the
strike as evidenced b" the *ala"sa" of Bernard :elta9
5. -ransferring union .e.bers to another Aob description9
?. Replacing the. with .e.bers of .inorit" union evidenced b" Eeslie
-a.a"oCs *ala"sa"9
,. *ubAecting one union .e.ber to a ver" tense confrontation in the )eneral
ManagerCs Bffice after she co..ented during the +CMB conference that the
#$1 file of the e.plo"ees are intact, resulting to her being taken to the hospital
for nervous breakdown9 and
. Re@uiring the union .e.bers to sub.it another infor.ation sheet, and
failure to do so would .ean no pa".ent of their &une 1?(%$, 144, salar".
%#
'ppl"ing the totalit" of the conduct doctrine, Eabor 'rbiter Eustria held that 0C*C
had co..itted unfair labor practices.
-here is no conflict between the Dinopol and the Lustria decisions. Dhile both
rulings involve the sa.e parties and sa.e issues, there is a distinction between the
re.edies sought b" the parties in these two cases. 6n the Dinopol decision, it was
0C*C which filed a petition to declare the illegalit" of the 1# 'ugust 144, strike b"
the union. -he conse@uence of the declaration of an illegal strike is ter.ination fro.
e.plo".ent, which the Eabor 'rbiter did so rule in said case. However, not all union
.e.bers were ter.inated. 6n fact, onl" a few union officers were validl" dis.issed in
accordance with 'rticle #?4 of the Eabor Code. Corollaril", the other union .e.bers
who had .erel" participated in the strike but had not co..itted an" illegal acts were
not dis.issed fro. e.plo".ent. Hence, the +ERC erred in declaring the
e.plo".ent status of all e.plo"ees as having been lost or forfeited b" virtue of the
Dinopol decision.
Bn the other hand, the Lustria decision involved the unfair labor practices alleged b"
the union with particularit". 6n said case, Eabor 'rbiter Eustria sided with the >nion
and found 0C*C guilt" of such practices. 's a conse@uence, the affected e.plo"ees
were granted backwages and separation pa". -he grant of backwages and separation
pa" however was not pre.ised on the declaration of the illegalit" of the strike but on
the finding that these affected e.plo"ees were constructivel" dis.issed fro. work, as
evidenced b" the la"offs effected b" the co.pan". 's e8plained in the Lustria
decision5
Considering that the te.porar" la"(off of listed e.plo"ees effected b" the
respondents on 1? 'ugust 144, was without docu.entar" evidence to
deter.ine its validit", it is our considered view and we so hold that said
e.plo"ees were constructivel" dis.issed without Aust or authori/ed cause and
observance of due process. -his opinion finds support fro. the hard and cold
fact of absence of prior notice, report with the regional office of the
:epart.ent of Eabor and F.plo".ent having Aurisdiction over the area and
the" re.ain under la"(off status of e.plo".ent. 6n conclusion, the" are
entitled to backwages and separation pa" in lieu of reinstate.ent as pra"ed.
%%
Clearl", there are two separate decisions issued b" two different labor arbiters
involving the sa.e parties and interests. Considering that the re.edies sought b" the
parties in each case differ, these two rulings .a" co(e8ist.
-herefore, with respect to petitioners and union officers 'le8 &. *antiago, Ma. Cecilia
Pangan, Ronilo F. Eee, and )enaro Bando, who apparentl" had been substituted b"
present petitioner -eresita Bando, the :inopol decision declaring the. as having lost
their e.plo".ent status still stands.
-o recapitulate, the +ERC erred in setting aside the Lustria decision, as well as in
deleting the award of backwages and separation pa", despite the finding that the
affected e.plo"ees had been constructivel" dis.issed.
Based on the foregoing, the Lustria decision should be upheld and therefore reinstated
e8cept as regards the four petitioners.
9HERE'ORE, the petition is GR"NTED IN P"RT. -he decision of the Court of
'ppeals affir.ing the +ERC ruling is REVERSED "ND SET "SIDE. -he decision
of Eabor 'rbiter Eustria dated #4 :ece.ber 144 in +ERC Case +o. $$(11($11(4,
granting the .onetar" clai.s of petitioners is REINST"TED, e8cept with respect to
petitioners 'le8 &. *antiago, Ma. Cecilia Pangan, Ronilo F. Eee and -eresita Bando.
SO ORDERED.
QUISUMBIN! ".! C#airperson! C$%&I' M'%$L(S! )IN$! C*IC'+N$,$%I'!
- ! and B%I'N! "".! concur.
'oo-no-*,8
M
's replace.ent of &ustice Presbitero &. ;elasco, &r. per 'd.inistrative
Circular +o. 4(#$$,.
1
%ollo,pp. 1?(5%.
#
6d. at 54(??9 Penned b" 'ssociate &ustice 'ndres B. Re"es, &r., and concurred
in b" 'ssociate &ustices Buenaventura &. )uerrero and Regalado F.
Maa.bong.
%
6d. at ?,.
4
Records 1;ol. 12, pp. 1(4.
5
%ollo, p. 1%1.
?
6d. at 1%?.
,
6d. at 1%,.

6d. at 1%.
4
Records 1;ol. 12, pp. 1%?(1%,.
1$
6d. at 14#.
11
6d. at 144(145.
1#
Records 1;ol 662, pp. %4?(%4,, %5(%54.
1%
6d. at %4%(%45.
14
C' rollo, pp. %%5(%4$.
15
%ollo, pp. 1,5(14#.
1?
%ollo, p. 14#.
1,
6d. at 14%(144.
1
6d. at #$4.
14
6d. at #$?.
#$
6d. at #14.
#1
Presided b" Co..issioner Rogelio 6. Ra"ala and concurred in b"
Co..issioners ;icente *.F. ;eloso and 'lberto R. 0ui.po.
##
Presided b" Co..issioner Ro" ;. *eNeres, and concurred in b"
Co..issioners ;icente *.F. ;eloso and 'lberto R. 0ui.po.
#%
C' rollo, pp. 4%(45.
#4
Col.y Construction and Mana/e0ent Corporation v. National La.or
%elations Co00ission, ).R. +o. 1,$$44, # +ove.ber #$$,, 5%4 *CR' 154.
#5
Ciudad Fernandina Food Corporation (0ployees Union+$ssociate La.or
Unions v. Court o1 $ppeals, ).R. +o. 1??544, #$ &ul" #$$?, 445 *CR' $,,
1,.
#?
$ccessories Specialist Inc. v. $la.an2a, ).R. +o. 1?45, #% &ul" #$$.
#,
6d.
#
Col.y Construction v. NL%C, ).R. +o. 1,$$44, # +ove.ber #$$,, 5%4
*CR' 154.
#4
).R. +o. 154%,#, #, &ul" #$$,, 5# *CR' %$$.
%$
6d. at %1.
%1
%ollo, p. ?#.
%#
C' rollo, p. 115.
%%
C' rollo, p. 1#1.