[Toyota Motor vs NLRC]/[2007] terminated on grounds of abandonment and very serious
misconduct.
[J.Velasco Jr.]
The mass dismissal led the Union to stage another strike
I. FACTS on March 17, 2001. The activities escalated from March
TMP-CWA is the union of R & F employees of Toyota 28,2001-April 12, 2001 as the union blocked ingress and
Motor Philippines. The union filed a CE on 2/14/99 egress to the Bicutan and Sta. Rosa plants and hurled
before the NCMB which was granted by the Med-Arbiter. invectives as their Japanese Officers.
TMP-CWA was certified on 5/12/00. Nonetheless, the The company filed a TRO with the NLRC to enable them
decision of the med-arbiter was appealed by Toyota to to enter the two plants. The NLRC issued the TRO
the SOLE. against the Union. Afterwards, the company filed a
TMP-CWA submitted its CBA proposals to Toyota but petition with the NLRC to declare the strike illegal and for
the company refused to bargain since it is still appealing the dismissal of the union officers and members who
the certification of the Union. The Union thus filed a participated in illegal activities.
Notice of Strike before the NCMB. The NCMB converted Afterwards, the SOLE assumed jurisdiction and certified
the same to a preventive mediation to resolve the issue the dispute to the NLRC. The SOLE also issued a return
of the representation status of the Union. to work order. Toyota implemented a payroll-
reinstatement.
Going back to Toyota’s appeal of the CE results, the
BLR required both parties to appear at a hearing for the However, some payroll reinstated employees still rallied
exclusion of votes of supervisory employees in the CE. with placards and banners in front of the plants despite
In this regard, the Union asked the company to allow its the SOLE’s orders.
members to attend the hearing of the BLR. Toyota did
not allow said members to attend. Despite several accommodations for the union to file its
position paper in the NLRC, the union failed to do so.
In this regard, a mass action of some 200 employees Ultimately the NLRC held the strike illegal and the
before the BLR and DOLE offices transpired on 2/22 and dismissal of the employees involved legal. It also granted
2/23/01. The mass absence cost Toyota some Php 58 severance compensation to the affected workers.
M.
Initially the CA removed the severance pay but later on
On 2/27/01, Toyota gave said workers a letter to explain affirmed in toto the NLRC order. The case was then
their absence and why they should not be dismissed. On elevated to the SC via Rule 45.
the same day, the Union issued a manifesto urging its
members to join a strike/picket. II. ISSUE
On 2/28/01 the Union filed its 2nd Notice of Strike with the WON the strikes staged by the Union were illegal? YES
NCMB on grounds of Union Busting. Neverthless the WON separation pay should be awarded? NO
Union still submitted its explanation for the mass
absence, citing its constitutional right for redress of III. RATIONALE
grievances and Toyota’s condonation of said acts as
On the Different Kinds of Illegal Strikes
justification.
Noted authority on labor law, Ludwig Teller, lists six (6)
Two memoranda were issued to the concerned
categories of an illegal strike, viz:
employees were sent by Toyota asking them if they are
adopting the justification of the Union and asking them to
attend an investigative interview. The employees refused
and hence 227 of them were
(1) [when it] is contrary to a specific prohibition of law, assemble and ask government for redress of their
such as strike by employees performing governmental complaints, but are illegal strikes in breach of the Labor
functions; or Code.
(2) [when it] violates a specific requirement of law[, such The Union's position is weakened by the lack of permit
as Article 263 of the Labor Code on the requisites of a from the City of Manila to hold "rallies." Shrouded as
valid strike]; or demonstrations, they were in reality temporary
stoppages of work perpetrated through the concerted
(3) [when it] is declared for an unlawful purpose, such as action of the employees who deliberately failed to report
inducing the employer to commit an unfair labor practice for work on the convenient excuse that they will hold a
against non-union employees; or rally at the BLR and DOLE offices in Intramuros, Manila,
(4) [when it] employs unlawful means in the pursuit of its on February 21 to 23, 2001.
objective, such as a widespread terrorism of non-strikers
It is obvious that the February 21 to 23, 2001 concerted
[for example, prohibited acts under Art.264(e) of the
actions were undertaken without satisfying the
Labor Code]; or
prerequisites for a valid strike under Art. 263 of the Labor
(5) [when it] is declared in violation of an existing Code.
injunction[, such as injunction, prohibition, or order
With respect to the strikes committed from March 17 to
issued by the DOLE Secretary and the NLRC under Art.
April 12, 2001, those were initially legal as the legal
263 of the Labor Code]; or
requirements were met. However, on March 28 to
(6) [when it] is contrary to an existing agreement, such April12, 2001, the Union barricaded the gates of the
as a no-strike clause or conclusive arbitration clause. Bicutan and Sta. Rosa plants and blocked the free
ingress to and egress from the company premises.
Petitioner Union contends that the protests or rallies Toyota employees, customers, and other people having
conducted on February 21 and 23, 2001 are not within business with the company were intimidated and were
the ambit of strikes as defined in the Labor Code, since refused entry to the plants. As earlier explained, these
they were legitimate exercises of their right to peaceably strikes were illegal because unlawful means were
assemble and petition the government for redress of employed. The acts of the Union officers and members
grievances. are in palpable violation of Art. 264 (e), which proscribes
While the facts in Philippine Blooming Mills Employees acts of violence, coercion, or intimidation, or which
Organization are similar in some respects to that of the obstruct the free ingress to and egress from the
present case, the Union fails to realize one major company premises. Undeniably, the strikes from March
difference: there was no labor dispute in Philippine 28 to April 12, 2001 were illegal.
Blooming Mills Employees Organization. In the present On the liability of Union Members
case, there was an on-going labor dispute arising from
Toyota's refusal to recognize and negotiate with the After a scrutiny of the records, we Knd that the 227
Union, which was the subject of thenotice of strike Kled employees indeed joined the February 21, 22, and 23,
by the Union on January 16, 2001. Thus, the 2001 rallies and refused to render overtime work or
Union's reliance on Phililippine Blooming Mills report for work. These rallies, as we earlier ruled, are in
Employees Organization is misplaced, as it cannot be reality illegal strikes, as the proceduralrequirements for
considered a precedent to the case at bar. strikes under Art. 263 were not complied with. Worse,
said strikes were in violation of the company rule
Applying pertinent legal provisions and jurisprudence, we prohibiting acts "in citing or participating in riots,
rule that the protest actions undertaken by the Union disorders, alleged strikes or concerted action detrimental
officials and members on February 21 to 23, 2001 are to Toyota's interest."
not valid and proper exercises of their right to
On Severance Compensation
GR: The general rule is that when just causes for
terminating the services of an employee under Art. 282
of the Labor Code exist, the employee is not entitled
to separation pay. The apparent reason behind the
forfeiture of the right to termination pay is that
lawbreakers should not benefit from their illegal
acts.
XPN: As in any rule, there are exceptions. One
exception where separation pay is given even though an
employee is validly dismissed is when the court finds
justification in applying the principle of social justice well
entrenched in the 1987 Constitution.
XPN to XPN: Explicit in PLDT are two exceptions when
the NLRC or the courts should not grantseparation pay
based on social justice — serious misconduct (which is
the first ground for dismissal under Art. 282) or acts that
reflect on the moral character of the employee.
The CA's grant of separation pay is an erroneous
departure from our ruling in Phil. Long Distance
Telephone Co. v. NLRC that serious misconduct
forecloses the award of separation pay. Secondly, the
advertence to the alleged honest belief on the part of the
227 employees that Toyota committed a breach of the
duty to bargain collectively and an abuse of valid
exercise of management prerogative has not been
substantiated by the evidence extant on record.
IV. DISPOSITIVE
WHEREFORE, the petitions in G.R. Nos. 158786 and
158789 are DENIED while those in G.R. Nos. 158798-99
are GRANTED.
The June 20, 2003 CA Resolution in CA-G.R. SP Nos.
67100 and 67561 restoring the grant of severance
compensation is ANNULLED and SET ASIDE.
The February 27, 2003 CA Decision in CA-G.R. SP Nos.
67100 and 67561, which affirmed the August 9, 2001
Decision of the NLRC but deleted the grant of severance
compensation, is REINSTATED and AFFIRMED.
No costs.
SO ORDERED.
Quisumbing, Carpio, Carpio-Morales and Tinga, JJ.,
concur.
