VOL.

193, JANUARY 25, 1991 365

Reliance Surety & Insurance Co., Inc. vs. NLRC

*
G.R. Nos. 86917-18. January 25, 1991.

RELIANCE SURETY & INSURANCE CO., INC.,

petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
COMMISSION and RELIANCE SURETY &
INSURANCE EMPLOYEES UNION, respondents.

Labor Law; Strikes; Requirements of a Legal Strike; The

strike in question was illegal for failure of the striking
personnel to observe legal strike requirements.—There is no
dispute that the strike in question was illegal, for failure of the
striking personnel to observe legal strike requirements, to wit:
(1) as to the fifteen-day notice; (2) as to the two-thirds
required vote to strike done by secret ballot; (3) as to submis-

_______________

* SECOND DIVISION.

25 People vs. De la Cruz, 158 SCRA 537 (1988); People vs. Alvarez,
163 SCRA 745 (1988); People vs. Murallon, supra.

366

366 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

/
 Reliance Surety & Insurance Co., Inc. vs. NLRC

prior to the strike. As found likewise by the Commission, in

the course of the strike held on April 1, 1987, certain strikers
harassed non-striking employees, called company officers
names, and committed acts of violence (as a result of which,
criminal charges were brought with the fiscal’s office.) There
is no question, finally, that the strike itself was prompted by
no actual, existing unfair labor practice committed by the
petitioner. In effecting a change in the seating arrangement in
the office of the underwriting department, the petitioner
merely exercised a reasonable prerogative employees could
not validly question, much less assail as an act of unfair labor
practice. The Court is indeed at a loss how rearranging
furniture, as it were, can justify a four-month-long strike. As
to the private respondent’s charges of harassment, the
Commission found none, and as a general rule, we are bound
by its findings of fact.

Same; Same; Same; Reinstatement; It is not proper to

reinstate workers who staged an illegal strike and who clearly
acted in bad faith.—Amid this background, the Court must
grant the petition. In staging the strike in question, a strike
that was illegal in more ways than one, the reinstated union
officers were clearly in bad faith, and to reinstate them
without, indeed, loss of seniority rights, is to reward them for
an act public policy does not sanction. The private
respondents can not find sanctuary in the cases of Ferrer v.
Court of Industrial Relations and Almira v. BF Goodrich
Philippines, Inc., in which we affirmed reinstatement in spite
of an “illegal” strike. In the first place, neither Ferrer nor
Almira involved an illegal strike. What was involved in
Ferrer was a defective strike, that is, one conducted in
violation of the thirty-day “cooling-off” period, but one
carried out in good faith “to offset what petitioners were
warranted in believing in good faith to be unfair labor
practices [committed by] Management.” What Almira on the
other hand declared was that a violent strike alone does not
/
make the action illegal, which would justify the dismissal of
strikers. It is therefore clear that we ordered reinstatement in
both cases not in spite of the illegality of the strike but on the
contrary, because the same was “legal”, that is to say, carried
out in good faith.

Same; While as a general rule, the Court is on the side of

labor, it must also take care, that in the contest between labor
and capital the results achieved are fair and in conformity
with the rules.—As a general rule, the sympathy of the Court
is on the side of the laboring classes, not only because the
Constitution imposes sympathy but because of the one-sided
relation between labor and capital. The Court

367

VOL. 193, JANUARY 25, 1991 367

Reliance Surety & Insurance Co., Inc. vs. NLRC

must take care, however, that in the contest between labor and
capital, the results achieved are fair and in conformity with
the rules. We will not accomplish that objective here by
approving the act of the National Labor Relations
Commission which we hold to constitute a grave abuse of
discretion.

PETITION for certiorari to review the decision of the

National Labor Relations Commission.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

     Ambrosio Padilla, Mempin & Reyes Law Offices
for petitioner.
     Banzuela, Flores, Miralles, Rañeses, Sy, Taquio
& Associates for private respondent.

SARMIENTO, J.:
/
The only question in this petition for certiorari is
whether or not strikers who have been found to have
staged an illegal strike may be reinstated to work.
The facts are as follows:

xxx     xxx     xxx
It appears that to avoid unnecessary loss of productive
working time due to personal and non-work-related
conversations, personal telephone calls and non-work-
connected visits by personnel to other departments, the
respondent Reliance Surety Insurance Co., Inc. (company for
short) on 21 November 1986, thru the manager (Mr. Celso
Eleazar) of its underwriting department, effected a change in
the seating arrangement of its personnel in said department.
Four of those affected namely: Isagani Rubio, Rosalinda
Macapagal, Glene Molina, and Severa Cansino protested the
transfer of their tables and seats, claiming that the change was
without prior notice and was done merely to harass them as
union members. When the manager insisted, a heated
discussion ensued, during which Rubio and companions were
alleged to have hurled unprintable insults (sipsip, balimbing,
vacuum, etc.) to the manager and supervisors.
Rubio, Macapagal, Molina and Cansino were asked to
explain within 48 hours why no disciplinary action should be
taken against them for misconduct, insubordination, and gross
disrespect. The work atmosphere in the department had
allegedly become charged or tense as Rubio continued to
refuse to stay at his designated place, and Molina and
Macapagal still levelled insults to those who testified

368

368 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Reliance Surety & Insurance Co., Inc. vs. NLRC

against them. Hence, Rubio and companions were placed

under preventive suspension on 3 February 1987 and
ultimately dismissed after investigation on 3 March 1987.
/
 On 6 March 1987, the Reliance Surety & Insurance
Employees Union (or union for short) filed in behalf of Rubio,
Macapagal, Molina, and Cansino with the NLRC-NRC
Branch, Manila, against the respondent company a complaint
for illegal dismissal (NLRC-NCR Case No. 00-03-00828-87)
which it subsequently amended on 7 April 1987 to include the
charge of unfair labor practice.
The union claims that the company was guilty of unfair
labor practice because it, among others, effected transfer and
changes in the seating arrangement to pressure or intimidate
union members; because it interfered in the union members’
exercise of their right to self-organization by forcing them to
undertake overtime work even on a non-working Saturday
and in times when there were scheduled union meetings to
prevent them from attending the same; and because, thru its
manager and assistant managers, it caused the resignation and
withdrawal of union members from the union. It also appears
that on 12 March 1987, or while the complaint for illegal
dismissal and ULP was hibernating in the NCR Arbitration
Branch, the union filed with the DOLE a notice of strike
predicated on unfair labor practices (dismissal of union
officers/members, discrimination and coercion on employees)
allegedly committed by the company.
On 13 March 1987, the company received a copy of the
notice of strike and a telegram from the DOLE setting the
notice of strike for initial conciliation conference on 17 March
1987 at 2:00 p.m. But even before the initial conference could
take place, the union in the morning of 17 March 1987 struck
and picketed the company premises by forming human
barricades, which effectively obstructed the free ingress to
and egress from its premises, more particularly at the lobby of
the 8th floor of the building where it has its office, thereby
preventing its officials and employees from doing their usual
duties.
Because of this new development, the company filed on 31
March 1987 with the NLRC-NCR Arbitration Branch,
Manila, a petition to declare the strike illegal (NLRC-CR
Case No. 00-03-001179-87) on the grounds that the 30 or 15
/
day cooling-off period was blatantly defied; that the legal
requirement to furnish the department with the results of the
strike vote at least 7 days before the strike was ignored; just as
the 24-hour period within which BLR or the Regional Office
should be furnished with a written notice of the meeting to
declare a strike was also not complied with.
Charged, together with the union and its members, as
individual respondents in the petition to declare the strike
illegal were the

369

VOL. 193, JANUARY 25, 1991 369

Reliance Surety & Insurance Co., Inc. vs. NLRC

following officers: Rolando Tugade, president; Joseph Aying,

vice-president; Isagani Rubio, treasurer; Ms. Glene Molina
and Ms. Rosalinda Macapagal, secretaries; Froilan Garcia and
Ms. Luz Monroy, Sgts. at arms: Orlando Calma, auditor; and
Manolo Que, pro, who, the company claims, should be
divested of their employment status for having knowingly
participated in the illegal strike and in the commission of
1
illegal acts.
xxx     xxx     xxx

The Labor Arbiter found the strike to be illegal, a

finding the National Labor Relations Commission, on
appeal, affirmed. However, the Commission held:

xxx xxx xxx

However, while we are convinced that the strike is illegal,
we are equally convinced that it should not be visited with the
consequence so harsh as the supreme penalty of dismissal,
where merely reinstating them (strikers) without backwages
would suffice in view of the union’s belief, in proceeding with
strike, that the company was committing unfair labor practice
in terminating the services of some of its officers and
members, in line with the Supreme Court ruling in the case of
/
Ferrer vs. CIR, 17 SCRA 352, to that effect. In justifying the
imposition of a penalty lesser than dismissal even in cases
involving strikes tainted with illegality, the Supreme Court in
the case of Almira vs. B.F. Goodrich Phils., Inc., 58 SCRA
120 ruled:

It would imply at the very least that where a penalty less punitive
would suffice, whatever missteps may be committed by labor ought
not to be visited with a consequence so severe. It is not only because
of the law’s concern for the workingman. There is, in addition, his
family to consider. Unemployment brings untold hardships and
sorrows on those depending on the wage-earner. The misery and pain
attendant on the loss of jobs then could be avoided.
xxx

In other words, under the circumstances obtaining in this

case, we find it more in keeping with justice and equity if the
striking union officers are reinstated, instead of being
dismissed, to their former positions without loss of seniority
rights but without backwages to serve as penalty for their
2
indiscretion in launching an illegal strike.

_______________

1 Rollo, 156-159.
2 Id., 164-165.

370

370 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Reliance Surety & Insurance Co., Inc. vs. NLRC

xxx     xxx     xxx

The Commission then disposed as follows:

WHEREFORE, under the premises, the decision appealed

from is hereby AFFIRMED, subject to the modification that
all the striking officers of the appellant union should be
/
reinstated to their former positions without loss of seniority
rights but without backwages except Isagani Rubio, Glene
Molina, and Rosalinda Macapagal, whose dismissal due to
gross disrespect was found to be justified, and Luz Monroy
who, in consideration of the financial assistance of P4,500.00
had withdrawn her appeal and allowed the arbiter’s order of
dismissal to be binding upon her. The dismissal of Severa
Cansino due to gross disrespect is likewise upheld. However,
the company is directed to pay said employees, namely
Isagani Rubio, Glene Molina, Rosalinda Macapagal and
Severa Cansino one month salary each including cost of
3
living allowance and other benefits.

The petitioner argues that in so disposing, the

Commission is guilty of a grave abuse of discretion.
There is no dispute that the strike in question was
illegal, for failure of the striking personnel to observe
legal strike requirements, to wit: (1) as to the fifteen-
day notice; (2) as to the two-thirds required vote to
strike done by secret ballot; (3) as to submission of the
strike vote to the Department of Labor at least seven
4
days prior to the strike.
As found likewise by the Commission, in the course
of the strike held on April 1, 1987, certain strikers
harassed non-striking employees, called company
officers names, and committed acts of violence (as a
result of which,5 criminal charges were brought with the
fiscal’s office.)
There is no question, finally, that the strike itself was
prompted by no actual, existing unfair labor practice
committed by the petitioner. In effecting a change in the
seating arrangement in the office of the underwriting
department, the petitioner merely exercised a
reasonable prerogative employees could not validly
question, much less assail as an act of unfair labor
practice. The

_______________
/
 3 Id., 165.
4 Id., 162-163.
5 Id., 164-165.

371

VOL. 193, JANUARY 25, 1991 371

Reliance Surety & Insurance Co., Inc. vs. NLRC

Court is indeed at a loss how rearranging furniture, as it

were, can justify a four-month-long strike. As to the
private respondent’s charges of harassment, the
Commission found none, and as a general rule, we are
bound by its findings of fact.
Amid this background, the Court must grant the
petition. In staging the strike in question, a strike that
was illegal in more ways than one, the reinstated union
officers were clearly in bad faith, and to reinstate them
without, indeed, loss of seniority rights, is to reward
them for an act public policy does not sanction.
The private respondents can not find sanctuary in the
6
cases of Ferrer v. Court of Industrial Relations and
7
Almira v. BF Goodrich Philippines, Inc., in which we
affirmed reinstatement in spite of an “illegal” strike. In
the first place, neither Ferrer nor Almira involved an
illegal strike. What was involved in Ferrer was a
defective strike, that is, one conducted in violation of
the thirty-day “cooling-off” period, but one carried out
in good faith “to offset what petitioners were warranted
in believing in good faith to be8 unfair labor practices
[committed by] Management.” What Almira on the
other hand declared was that a violent strike alone does
not make the action illegal, which would justify the
dismissal of strikers. It is therefore clear that we
ordered reinstatement in both cases not in spite of the
illegality of the strike but on the contrary, because the

/
same was “legal”, that is to say, carried out in good
faith.
We can not apply, either, the ruling in Bacus v.
9
Ople, where we held that the mere finding of illegality
attending a strike does not justify the “wholesale”
dismissal of strikers who were otherwise impressed
with good faith.
The Court must not be understood to be abandoning
the teachings of either Ferrer, Almira, or Bacus. The
Court reiterates that good faith is still a valid defense
against claims of illegality of a strike. We do find,
however, not a semblance of good faith here, but rather,
plain arrogance, pride, and cyni-

_______________

6 Nos. L-24267-8, May 31, 1966, 17 SCRA 352.

7 No. L-34974, July 25, 1974, 58 SCRA 120.
8 Ferrer, supra, 360.
9 No. 56856, October 23, 1984, 132 SCRA 690. See also Nos.
59711-12, May 29, 1987, 150 SCRA 429.

372

372 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Reliance Surety & Insurance Co., Inc. vs. NLRC

cism of certain workers.

With respect to the private respondent, Isagani
Rubio, what militates against his readmission to the
firm is the fact that he had accepted the sum of
P2,448.80 “in full satisfaction of the . . . Decision” (of
the Labor Arbiter). He can not now insist on
reinstatement after accepting the legality of his
dismissal. He can not have his cake and eat it too.
As a general rule, the sympathy of the Court is on
the side of the laboring classes, not only because the
/
 Constitution imposes sympathy but because of the one-
sided relation between labor and capital. The Court
must take care, however, that in the contest between
labor and capital, the results achieved are fair and in
conformity with the rules. We will not accomplish that
objective here by approving the act of the National
Labor Relations Commission which we hold to
constitute a grave abuse of discretion.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED.
SO ORDERED.

          Melencio-Herrera (Chairman), Paras and

Regalado, JJ., concur.
          Padilla, J., No part; related to petitioner’s
counsel.

Petition granted.

Note.—Mere finding of illegality of strike should

not be followed by wholesale dismissal of strikers from
employment. (Bacus vs. Ople, 132 SCRA 690.)

——o0o——

373

© Copyright 2019 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.