Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PANAY ELECTRIC COMPANY v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR NOS. 158786 & 158789 2007-10-19	TOYOTA MOTOR PHILS. CORP. WORKERS ASSOCIATION v. NLRC VELASCO, JR., J.
In justifying the recall of the severance compensation, the CA considered the participation in illegal strikes as serious misconduct. It defined serious misconduct as a transgression of some established and definite rule of action, a forbidden act, a dereliction of duty, willful in character, and implies wrongful intent and not mere error in judgment. It cited Panay Electric Company, Inc. v. NLRC,[26] where we revoked the grant of separation benefits to employees who lawfully participated in an illegal strike based on Art. 264 of the Labor Code, which states that "any union officer who knowingly participates in an illegal strike and any worker or union officer who knowingly participates in the commission of illegal acts during a strike may be declared to have lost his employment status."[27]
	GR NO. 160058 2007-06-22	PILIPINO TELEPHONE CORPORATION v. PILIPINO TELEPHONE EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION PUNO, C.J.
The Union and its officers maintain that their September 4, 1998 strike was legal. They allege that the Company was guilty of union busting in promoting a substantial number of Union members and officers to positions outside the bargaining unit during the period of CBA negotiations. Allegedly, said Union members and officers maintained the same jobs and duties despite their promotion. They also capitalize on the CA's finding that the company was guilty of unfair labor practice in refusing to turn over the deducted contingency fees of the union members to the union. Citing Bacus v. Ople,[19] Panay Electric Company v. NLRC[20] and PNOC Dockyard and Engineering Corporation v. NLRC,[21] they contend that this finding of unfair labor practice precludes the CA from ruling that the strike was illegal and that the Union was in bad faith in conducting the strike.
	GR NOS. 164302-03 2007-01-24	SANTA ROSA COCA-COLA PLANT EMPLOYEES UNION v. COCA-COLA BOTTLERS PHILS. CALLEJO, SR., J.
Neither can the petitioners find refuge in the rulings of this Court in Panay Electric Company v. NLRC[46] or in Lapanday Workers Union v. NLRC.[47] In the Panay case, the Court meted the suspension of the union officers, instead of terminating their employment status since the NLRC found no sufficient proof of bad faith on the part of the union officers who took part in the strike to protest the dismissal of their fellow worker, Enrique Huyan which was found to be illegal. In Lapanday, the Court actually affirmed the dismissal of the union officers who could not claim good faith to exculpate themselves. The officers, in fact, admitted knowledge of the law on strike, including its procedure in conducting the same. The Court held that the officers cannot violate the law which was designed to promote their interests.