Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PHIMCO INDUSTRIES v. PHIMCO INDUSTRIES LABOR ASSOCIATION

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 203332 2014-06-18	FLORENCIO LIBONGCOGON v. PHIMCO INDUSTRIES BRION, J.
In its Comment (on the petition),[25] the respondent PHIMCO asks for the dismissal of the petition on grounds that: (1) the CA is correct in relying on the decisions of this Court in the illegal strike case (G.R. No. 170830) and the illegal dismissal case (G.R. No. 192875) as basis for its amended decision; and (2) the rule on "commonality of interests" is applicable to the petitioners.
	GR No. 203332 2014-06-18	FLORENCIO LIBONGCOGON v. PHIMCO INDUSTRIES BRION, J.
PHIMCO maintains that when the CA denied its urgent motion, it filed on October 4, 2010 a Motion for Reconsideration with a Reply to the comment of the employees[27] where it first attempted to raise the "supervening event" issue by manifesting before the CA that this Court's decision in the illegal strike case (G.R. No. 170830) positively identified the petitioners Libongcogon, Villareal and Claudio as among the union members who participated in the strike and who committed illegal acts during the strike. It adds that for this reason, the Court declared in the illegal strike case that they had been validly dismissed.
	GR No. 203332 2014-06-18	FLORENCIO LIBONGCOGON v. PHIMCO INDUSTRIES BRION, J.
PHIMCO moved for reconsideration of the CA decision. It argued in the main that independent of the issue on the abolition of the employees' positions, their reinstatement should not have been upheld in view of the ruling of this Court in G.R. No. 170830, Phimco Industries, Inc. v. Phimco Industries Labor Association (PILA)[15] (illegal strike case) promulgated on August 11, 2010, as well as the Court's Resolution in G.R. No. 192875, Phimco Industries Labor Association (PILA) et al, v. Phimco Industries, Inc.[16] (illegal dismissal case) issued on January 19, 2011.
	GR No. 203332 2014-06-18	FLORENCIO LIBONGCOGON v. PHIMCO INDUSTRIES BRION, J.
As the CA pointed out in its amended decision, the evidence in the illegal strike case clearly identified the petitioners as among the union members who, in concert with the other identified union members, blocked the points of ingress and egress of PHIMCO through a human blockade and the mounting of physical obstructions in front of the company's main gate.[33] This is a prohibited act under the law.[34] "For participating in illegally blocking ingress to and egress from company premises, this Court's 3rd Division declared in the illegal strike case these union members dismissed for their illegal acts in the conduct of the union's strike."[35]
	GR No. 203332 2014-06-18	FLORENCIO LIBONGCOGON v. PHIMCO INDUSTRIES BRION, J.
A strike is a concerted union action for purposes of collective bargaining or for the workers' mutual benefit and protection.[37] It is manifested in a work stoppage whose main objective is to paralyze the operations of the employer establishment. Because of its potential adverse consequences to the striking workers and the employer, as well as the community, a strike enjoys recognition and respect only when it complies with the conditions laid down by law. One of these conditions, as far as union members are concerned, is the avoidance of illegal acts during the strike[38] such as those committed by the petitioners, in concert with the other union members, during the PHIMCO strike in 1995.[39]
	GR No. 203332 2014-06-18	FLORENCIO LIBONGCOGON v. PHIMCO INDUSTRIES BRION, J.
We appreciate the CA's concern. The petitioners were also respondents in the illegal strike case,[40] yet through the expedient of filing an illegal dismissal case separate from the main illegal dismissal action filed by PILA involving all the other union members dismissed by the company, they would go scot free for their commission of illegal acts during the strike.
	GR No. 182957 2013-06-13	ST. JOSEPH ACADEMY OF VALENZUELA FACULTY ASSOCIATION -FUR CHAPTER-TUCP v. VS.ST. JOSEPH ACADEMY OF VALENZUELA REYES, J.
In Phimco Industries, Inc. v. Phimco Industries Labor Association,[20] the Court reiterated the basic approach in the review of CA decisions in labor cases, viz:In a Rule 45 review, we consider the correctness of the assailed CA decision, in contrast with the review for jurisdictional error that we undertake under Rule 65. Furthermore, Rule 45 limits us to the review of questions of law raised against the assailed CA decision. In ruling for legal correctness, we have to view the CA decision in the same context that the petition for certiorari it ruled upon was presented to it; we have to examine the CA decision from the prism of whether it correctly determined the presence or absence of grave abuse of discretion in the NLRC decision before it, not on the basis of whether the NLRC decision on the merits of the case was correct. In other words, we have to be keenly aware that the CA undertook a Rule 65 review, not a review on appeal, of the NLRC decision challenged before it. This is the approach that should be basic in a Rule 45 review of a CA ruling in a labor case. In question form, the question to ask is: Did the CA correctly determine whether the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in ruling on the case?[21] Applying the foregoing rule, the question now is whether the CA committed an error in deleting the award of backwages and reinstatement originally granted by the SOLE.