THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 195163. December 13, 2017.]

ERGONOMIC SYSTEMS PHILIPPINES, INC., PHILLIP C. NG and MA.

LOURMINDA O. NG , petitioners, vs. EMERITO C. ENAJE, BENEDICTO
P. ABELLO, ALEX M. MALAYLAY, FRANCISCO Q. ENCABO, JR., RICO
SAMSON, ROWENA BETITIO, FELIPE N. CUSTOSA, JAIME A.
JUATAN, LEOVINO J. MULINTAPANG, NELSON L. ONTE, EMILIANO
P. RONE, ROLIETO LLAMADO, AMORPIO R. ADRIANO, JIMMY
ALCANTARA, BERNARDO ANTONI, HERMINITO BEDRIJO, ROMEO
BELARMINO, YOLANDA CANOPIN, ALMELITO CUABO, RICARDO DEL
PILAR, ELMER DESQUITADO, WINEFREDO DESQUITADO, DEMETRIO
DIAZ, ERICK ECRAELA, QUINTERO ENRIQUEZ, CRISANTO
FERNANDEZ, ROMMEL FLORES, NELSON FRIAS, PEDRITO GIRON,
DOMINADOR C. GUIMALDO, JR., AMBROSIO HENARES, TERENCIO
HENARES, ALBERT LACHICA, ALBERTO LORENZO, JOEL MALAYLAY,
SUSAN MALBAS, ROLANDO MAMARIL, TEDDY MONTIBLE,
FERNANDO OFALDA, RONNIE V. OLIVAY, RAUL PAGOLONG,
LORENZO RANIEGO, AMADO V. SAMSON IV, ROEL P. SORIANO,
JONATHAN SUALIBIO, ESTEBAN SUMICAO, JOSEPH TABADAY,
EPIFANIO TABAREZ, REGIE TOTING, REYNALDO TOTING, NORMAN
VALENZUELA, ROLANDO YONSON, DIOSCORO BALAJADIA, NERRY
BALINAS, NOEL BALMEO, ARNALDO A. CASTRO, GERONCIO DELA
CUEVA, ALBERTO GAPASIN, JULIUS GENOVA, LORETO GRACILLA,
JR., ROBERTO S. INGIENTE, ROQUE JOVEN, PATERNO LINOGO,
ISAGANI MASANGKA, ANGELITO MONTILLA, PECIFICO
NIGPARANON, NOBE SALVADOR, MANUEL OAVENGA, REYNADO
ORTIZ, ROMEO QUINTANA, JERNALD REMOTIN, REYNALDO
ROBLESA, SAMUEL ROSALES, ROBERTO SANTOS, RONALDO M.
SANTOS, ROCKY TALOLONG, EMILIO TONGA, BERNARDO VALDEZ,
DANTE L. VELASCO, RENE V. VICENTE, JAIME BENTUCO, MARINO
CACAO, CARLITO DELA CERNA, CHRISTOPHER MASAGCA,
CHRISTOPHER PALOMARES, ROLANDO PATOTOY, ASER PESADO,
JR., LEONILO RICAFORT, FELIX SANCHEZ and FRANCIS O. ZANTUA ,
respondents.

DECISION

MARTIRES , J : p

This is a petition for review on certiorari assailing the Decision, 1 dated 21

September 2010, and Resolution, 2 dated 14 January 2011, of the Court of Appeals
(CA), in CA-G.R. SP No. 102802, which a rmed with modi cation the decision, 3 dated
31 October 2007, and resolution, 4 dated 21 December 2007, of the National Labor
Relations Commission (NLRC) in NLRC NCR No. RAB IV-01-16813-03-L. The NLRC, in
turn, a rmed the decision, 5 dated 31 January 2005, of Labor Arbiter Generoso V.
Santos (LA) in NLRC NCR No. RAB IV-01-16813-03-L, a case for illegal dismissal and
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 unfair labor practice. EATCcI

THE FACTS

Respondents were union o cers and members of Ergonomic System

Employees Union-Workers Alliance Trade Unions (local union). On 29 October 1999, the
local union entered into a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) 6 with petitioner
Ergonomic Systems Philippines, Inc. (ESPI), 7 which was valid for ve (5) years or until
October 2004. The local union, which was affiliated with Workers Alliance Trade Unions-
Trade Union Congress of the Philippines (Federation), was not independently
registered. Thus, on 15 November 2001, before the CBA expired, the union o cers
secured the independent registration of the local union with the Regional O ce of the
Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE). Later on, the union o cers were
charged before the Federation and investigated for attending and participating in other
union's seminars and activities using union leaves without the knowledge and consent
of the Federation and ESPI as well as in initiating and conspiring in the disa liation
before the freedom period. 8
On 10 January 2002, the Federation rendered a decision 9 nding respondents-
union o cers Emerito C. Enaje, Benedicto P. Abello, Alex M. Malaylay, Francisco G.
Encabo, Jr., Rico Samson, Rowena Betitio, Felipe N. Custosa, Jaime A. Juatan, Leovino
Mulintapang, Nelson L. Onte, Emiliano P. Rone, and Rolieto Llamado guilty of disloyalty.
They were penalized with immediate expulsion from the Federation. 1 0
On 11 January 2002, the Federation furnished ESPI with a copy of its decision
against respondents-union o cers and recommended the termination of their
employment by invoking Sections 2 and 3, Article 2 of the CBA. 1 1
ESPI noti ed respondents-union o cers of the Federation's demand and gave
them 48 hours to explain. Except for Nelson Onte, Emiliano Rone, and Rico Samson, the
rest of the o cers refused to receive the notices. Thereafter, on 20 February 2002,
respondents-union o cers were issued letters of termination, which they again refused
to receive. On 26 February 2002, ESPI submitted to the DOLE a list of the dismissed
employees. On the same day, the local union led a notice of strike with the National
Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB). 1 2
From 21 February to 23 February 2002, the local union staged a series of noise
barrage and "slow down" activities. Meanwhile, on 22 February 2002, 40 union
members identi ed as: Amorpio Adriano, Jimmy Alcantara, Bernardo Antoni, Herminito
Bedrijo, Romeo Belarmino, Yolanda Canopin, Almelito Cuabo, Ricardo Del Pilar, Elmer
Desquitado, Winefredo Desquitado, Demetrio Diaz, Erick Ecraela, Quintero Enriquez,
Crisanto Fernandez, Rommel Flores, Nelson Frias, Pedrito Geron, Dominador Guimaldo,
Ambrosio Henarez, Terencio Henares, Albert Lachica, Alberto Lorenzo, Joel Malaylay,
Susan Malbas, Rolando Manaril, Teddy Montible, Fernando Ofaldo, Ronie Olivay, Raul
Pagolong, Lorenzo Raniego, Amado Samson-Ty, Roel Soriano, Jonathan Sualibio,
Esteban Sumicao, Joseph Tabaday, Epifanio Tabarez, Regie Toting, Reynaldo Toting,
Norman Valenzuela and Rolando Yonson refused to submit their Daily Production
Reports (DPRs) .
On 26 February 2002, 28 union members namely Dioscoro Balajadia, Nerry
Balinas, Noel Balmeo, Arnaldo Castro, Geroncio Dela Cueva, Alberto Gapasin, Julius
Genova, Loreto Gracilla, Roberto Ingiente, Jr., Roque Joven, Paterno Linogo, Isagani
Masangka, Angelito Montilla, Peci co Nigparanon, Salvador Nobe, Manuel Oavenga,
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 Reynaldo Ortiz, Romeo Quintana, Jernard Remotin, Reynaldo Roblesa, Samuel Rosales,
Roberto Santos, Ronaldo Santos, Rocky Talolong, Emilio Tonga, Bernardo Valdez, Dante
Velasco and Rene Vicente abandoned their work and held a picket line outside
the premises of ESPI .
Then, from 26 February 2002 to 2 March 2002, 10 union members, namely Jaime
Bentuco, Marina Cacao, Carlito Dela Cerna, Christopher Masagca, Christopher
Palomares, Rolando Patotoy, Aser Pesado, Jr., Leonilo Ricafort, Felix Sanchez and
Francis Santua did not report for work without o cial leave. The union members were
required to submit their explanation why they should not be sanctioned for their refusal
to submit DPRs and abandonment of work, but they either refused to receive the
notices or received them under protest. Further, they did not submit their explanation as
required. Subsequently, for refusal to submit DPRs and for abandonment, respondents-
union members were issued letters of termination. 1 3
On 27 January 2003, the respondents led a complaint for illegal dismissal and
unfair labor practice against ESPI, Phillip C. Ng, and Ma. Lourminda O. Ng (petitioners).
14 DHITCc

The Labor Arbiter's Ruling

In a decision, dated 31 January 2005, the LA held that the local union was the real
party in interest and the Federation was merely an agent in the CBA; thus, the union
o cers and members who caused the implied disa liation did not violate the union
security clause. Consequently, their dismissal was unwarranted. Nevertheless, the LA
ruled that since ESPI effected the dismissal in response to the Federation's demand
which appeared to be justi ed by a reading of the union security clause, it would be
unjust to hold ESPI liable for the normal consequences of illegal dismissal.
The LA further opined that there was no ground for the dismissal of the union
members because the refusal to submit DPRs and failure to report for work were
meant to protest the dismissal of their o cers, not to sever employer-employee
relationship. He added that neither ESPI nor the respondents were at fault for they were
merely protecting their respective interests. In sum, the LA ordered all the respondents
to return to work but without back wages. The fallo reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered ordering
the complainants to report back to their former jobs within ten (10) days from
receipt of this Decision and the respondent company is in turn directed to
accept them back but without back wages. In the event however, that this is no
longer possible, the respondent company is ordered to pay the complainants
their separation pay computed at one-half (1/2) month salary for every year of
service, a fraction of at least six (6) months to be considered as one (1) whole
year. The respondent is likewise ordered to pay complainants attorney's fees
equivalent to ten (10%) percent of the total thereof as attorney's fees.
All other claims are dismissed for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED. 1 5
Unconvinced, petitioners and respondents appealed before the NLRC.
The NLRC Ruling

In a decision, dated 31 October 2007, the NLRC a rmed the ruling of the LA. It
adjudged that the dismissal of the union o cers was effected only in response to the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 demand of the Federation and to comply with the union security clause under the CBA.
The NLRC concluded that since there was no disloyalty to the union, but only
disa liation from the Federation which was a mere agent in the CBA, the cause for the
respondents' dismissal was non-existent. It disposed the case in this wise:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeals separately led by
complainants and respondents from the Decision of Labor Arbiter Generoso V.
Santos dated January 31, 2005 are both DISMISSED for lack of merit.
The appeal led by complainants from the Order dated January 4, 2007
is likewise DISMISSED for lack of merit.
The assailed Orders are hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED. 1 6
Undeterred, petitioners and respondents moved for reconsideration. Their
motions, however, were denied by the NLRC in a resolution, dated 21 December 2007.
The CA Ruling

In its decision, dated 21 September 2010, the CA a rmed with modi cation the
NLRC ruling. It held that ESPI and the respondents acted in good faith when the former
dismissed the latter and when the latter, in turn, staged a strike without complying with
the legal requirements. The CA, however, pronounced that the concept of separation
pay as an alternative to reinstatement holds true only in cases wherein there is illegal
dismissal, a fact which does not exist in this case. The dispositive portion reads:
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is PARTIALLY GRANTED. The Decision
of the Labor Arbiter, as sustained by the National Labor Relations Commission,
reverting the employer-employee position of the parties to the status quo ante is
AFFIRMED, with MODIFICATION, in that the provision on the award of
separation pay in lieu of reinstatement is deleted.
SO ORDERED. 1 7
Aggrieved, petitioners and respondents moved for reconsideration but the same
was denied by the CA in a resolution, dated 14 January 2011.
Hence, this petition.

ISSUES

I. WHETHER THE FEDERATION MAY INVOKE THE UNION SECURITY CLAUSE

IN DEMANDING THE RESPONDENTS' DISMISSAL; cEaSHC

II. WHETHER THE STRIKE CONDUCTED BY THE RESPONDENTS COMPLIED

WITH THE LEGAL REQUIREMENTS;
III. WHETHER THE RESPONDENTS' DISMISSAL FROM EMPLOYMENT WAS
VALID.
The petitioners argue that the respondents failed to comply with two (2) of the
procedural requirements for a valid strike, i.e., taking of a strike vote and observance of
the seven-day period after submission of the strike vote report; that mere participation
of union o cers in the illegal strike is a ground for termination of employment; that the
union members committed illegal acts during the strike which warranted their
dismissal, i.e., obstruction of the free ingress to and egress from ESPI's premises and
commission of acts of violence, coercion or intimidation; that the respondents are not
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 entitled to reinstatement or separation pay because they were validly dismissed from
employment; that the union members who unjustly refused to submit their DPRs and
abandoned their work were rightfully terminated because their acts constituted serious
misconduct or willful disobedience of lawful orders; and that reinstatement is no longer
possible because the industrial building owned by Ergo Contracts Philippines, Inc. was
totally destroyed by fire on 6 February 2005. 1 8
In their comment, 1 9 the respondents counter that they were not legally
terminated because the grounds relied upon by the petitioners were non-existent; that
as ruled by the NLRC, they merely disa liated from the Federation but they were not
disloyal to the local union; that reinstatement is not physically impossible because it
was the industrial building owned by Ergo Contracts Philippines, Inc. that was gutted
down by re, not that of ESPI; that even if the manufacturing plant of ESPI was indeed
destroyed by re, the petitioners have other o ces around the country where the
respondents may be reinstated; and that having failed to comply with the order to
reinstate them and having ceased operations, the petitioners must be ordered to pay
their separation pay.
In their reply, 2 0 the petitioners aver that the respondents violated the union
security clause under the CBA; that their termination was effected in response to the
Federation's demand to dismiss them; that they did not comply with the requisites of a
valid strike; that they refused to submit their DPRs and abandoned their work; and that
the award of separation pay had no basis because the respondents had been legally
dismissed from their employment.

THE COURT'S RULING

Only the local union may

invoke the union security
clause in the CBA.

The controversy between ESPI and the respondents originated from the
Federation's act of expelling the union o cers and demanding their dismissal from
ESPI. Thus, to arrive at a proper resolution of this case, one question to be answered is
whether the Federation may invoke the union security clause in the CBA.
"Union security is a generic term, which is applied to and comprehends 'closed
shop,' 'union shop,' 'maintenance of membership,' or any other form of agreement which
imposes upon employees the obligation to acquire or retain union membership as a
condition affecting employment. There is union shop when all new regular employees
are required to join the union within a certain period as a condition for their continued
employment. There is maintenance of membership shop when employees, who are
union members as of the effective date of the agreement, or who thereafter become
members, must maintain union membership as a condition for continued employment
until they are promoted or transferred out of the bargaining unit, or the agreement is
terminated. A closed shop, on the other hand, may be de ned as an enterprise in which,
by agreement between the employer and his employees or their representatives, no
person may be employed in any or certain agreed departments of the enterprise unless
he or she is, becomes, and, for the duration of the agreement, remains a member in
good standing of a union entirely comprised of or of which the employees in interest
are a part." 2 1

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com

 Before an employer terminates an employee pursuant to the union security
clause, it needs to determine and prove that: (1) the union security clause is applicable;
(2) the union is requesting the enforcement of the union security provision in the CBA;
and (3) there is su cient evidence to support the decision of the union to expel the
employee from the union. 2 2
In this case, the primordial requisite, i.e., the union is requesting the enforcement
of the union security provision in the CBA, is clearly lacking. Under the Labor Code, a
chartered local union acquires legal personality through the charter certi cate issued
by a duly registered federation or national union and reported to the Regional O ce. 2 3
"A local union does not owe its existence to the federation with which it is a liated. It is
a separate and distinct voluntary association owing its creation to the will of its
members. Mere a liation does not divest the local union of its own personality, neither
does it give the mother federation the license to act independently of the local union. It
only gives rise to a contract of agency, where the former acts in representation of the
latter. Hence, local unions are considered principals while the federation is deemed to
be merely their agent." 2 4 CTIEac

The union security clause in the CBA between ESPI and the local union provides:
SECTION 1. Union Shop. All regular, permanent employees covered by this
Agreement who are members of the UNION as of the date of effectivity of this
Agreement as well as any employees who shall subsequently become members
of the UNION during the lifetime of this Agreement or any extension, thereof,
shall as a condition of continued employment, maintain their membership in the
UNION during the term of this Agreement or any extension thereof.
xxx xxx xxx
SECTION 3. The COMPANY shall terminate the services of any concerned
employee when so requested by the UNION for any of the following reasons:
a. Voluntary Resignation from the Union during the term of
this Agreement or any extension thereof;
b. Non-payment of membership fee, regular monthly dues,
mutual aid bene t and other assessments submitted by the
UNION to the COMPANY;
c. Violation of the UNION Constitution and Bylaws. The UNION
shall furnish the COMPANY a copy of their Constitution and
Bylaws and any amendment thereafter.
d. Joining of another Union whose interest is adverse to the
UNION, AWATU, during the lifetime of this Agreement.
e. Other acts which are inimical to the interests of the UNION
and AWATU. 2 5
There is no doubt that the union referred to in the foregoing provisions is the
Ergonomic Systems Employees Union or the local union as provided in Article I of the
CBA. 2 6 A perusal of the CBA shows that the local union, not the Federation, was
recognized as the sole and exclusive collective bargaining agent for all its workers and
employees in all matters concerning wages, hours of work, and other terms and
conditions of employment. Consequently, only the union may invoke the union security
clause in case any of its members commits a violation thereof. Even assuming that the
union o cers were disloyal to the Federation and committed acts inimical to its
interest, such circumstance did not give the Federation the prerogative to demand the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 union o cers' dismissal pursuant to the union security clause which, in the rst place,
only the union may rightfully invoke. Certainly, it does not give the Federation the
privilege to act independently of the local union. At most, what the Federation could do
is to refuse to recognize the local union as its a liate and revoke the charter certi cate
it issued to the latter. In fact, even if the local union itself disa liated from the
Federation, the latter still has no right to demand the dismissal from employment of the
union o cers and members because concomitant to the union's prerogative to a liate
with a federation is its right to disa liate therefrom which the Court explained in
Philippine Skylanders, Inc. v. NLRC, 2 7 viz.:
The right of a local union to disa liate from its mother federation is not
a novel thesis unillumined by case law. In the landmark case of Liberty Cotton
Mills Workers Union vs. Liberty Cotton Mills, Inc., we upheld the right of local
unions to separate from their mother federation on the ground that as separate
and voluntary associations, local unions do not owe their creation and existence
to the national federation to which they are a liated but, instead, to the will of
their members. The sole essence of affiliation is to increase, by collective action,
the common bargaining power of local unions for the effective enhancement
and protection of their interests. Admittedly, there are times when without
succor and support local unions may nd it hard, unaided by other support
groups, to secure justice for themselves.
Yet the local unions remain the basic units of association, free to serve
their own interests subject to the restraints imposed by the constitution and
bylaws of the national federation, and free also to renounce the a liation upon
the terms laid down in the agreement which brought such a liation into
existence. 2 8
In sum, the Federation could not demand the dismissal from employment of the
union o cers on the basis of the union security clause found in the CBA between ESPI
and the local union.
A strike is deemed illegal for
failure to take a strike vote and
to submit a report thereon to
the NCMB.

A strike is the most powerful weapon of workers in their struggle with

management in the course of setting their terms and conditions of employment. As
such, it either breathes life to or destroys the union and its members. 2 9
Procedurally, for a strike to be valid, it must comply with Article 278 3 0 of the
Labor Code, which requires that: (a) a notice of strike be led with the NCMB 30 days
before the intended date thereof, or 15 days in case of unfair labor practice; (b) a strike
vote be approved by a majority of the total union membership in the bargaining unit
concerned, obtained by secret ballot in a meeting called for that purpose; and (c) a
notice be given to the NCMB of the results of the voting at least seven days before the
intended strike. These requirements are mandatory, and the union's failure to comply
renders the strike illegal. 3 1 SaCIDT

The union led a notice of strike on 20 February 2002. 3 2 The strike commenced
on 21 February 2002. 3 3 The strike vote was taken on 2 April 2002 3 4 and the report
thereon was submitted to the NCMB on 4 April 2002. 3 5 Indeed, the first requisite or the
cooling-off period need not be observed when the ground relied upon for the conduct
of strike is union-busting. 3 6 Nevertheless, the second and third requirements are still
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 mandatory. In this case, it is apparent that the union conducted a strike without seeking
a strike vote and without submitting a report thereon to the DOLE. Thus, the strike
which commenced on 21 February 2002 was illegal.
Liabilities of union officers
and members

Article 279 (a) 3 7 of the Labor Code provides:

Art. 279. Prohibited activities. — (a) x x x
xxx xxx xxx
Any union o cer who knowingly participates in an illegal strike and any worker
or union o cer who knowingly participates in the commission of illegal acts
during a strike may be declared to have lost his employment status: Provided,
That mere participation of a worker in a lawful strike shall not constitute
su cient ground for termination of his employment, even if a replacement had
been hired by the employer during such lawful strike.
In the determination of the consequences of illegal strikes, the law makes a
distinction between union members and union o cers. The services of an ordinary
union member cannot be terminated for mere participation in an illegal strike; proof
must be adduced showing that he or she committed illegal acts during the strike. A
union o cer, on the other hand, may be dismissed, not only when he actually commits
an illegal act during a strike, but also if he knowingly participates in an illegal strike. 3 8
In the present case, respondents-union o cers stand to be dismissed as they
conducted a strike despite knowledge that a strike vote had not yet been approved by
majority of the union and the corresponding strike vote report had not been submitted
to the NCMB.
With respect to respondents-union members, the petitioners merely alleged that
they committed illegal acts during the strike such as obstruction of ingress to and
egress from the premises of ESPI and execution of acts of violence and intimidation.
There is, however, a dearth of evidence to prove such claims. Hence, there is no basis to
dismiss respondents-union members from employment on the ground that they
committed illegal acts during the strike.
Dismissed respondents-union
members are not entitled to
back wages.

While it is true that the award of back wages is a legal consequence of a nding
of illegal dismissal, in G & S Transport Corporation v. Infante , 3 9 the Court pronounced
that the dismissed workers are entitled only to reinstatement considering that they did
not render work for the employer during the strike, viz.:
With respect to back wages, the principle of a "fair day's wage for a
fair day's labor" remains as the basic factor in determining the award
thereof. If there is no work performed by the employee there can be no wage or
pay unless, of course, the laborer was able, willing and ready to work but was
illegally locked out, suspended or dismissed or otherwise illegally prevented
from working. While it was found that respondents expressed their intention to
report back to work, the latter exception cannot apply in this case. In Philippine
Marine Officers' Guild v. Compañia Maritima, as affirmed in Philippine Diamond
Hotel and Resort v. Manila Diamond Hotel Employees Union , the Court stressed
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 that for this exception to apply, it is required that the strike be legal , a
situation that does not obtain in the case at bar. 4 0 (emphases supplied)
Thus, in the case at bar, respondents-union members' reinstatement without
back wages su ces for the appropriate relief. Fairness and justice dictate that back
wages be denied the employees who participated in the illegal concerted activities to
the great detriment of the employer. 4 1
Nevertheless, separation pay is made an alternative relief in lieu of reinstatement
in certain circumstances, like: (a) when reinstatement can no longer be effected in view
of the passage of a long period of time or because of the realities of the situation; (b)
reinstatement is inimical to the employer's interest; (c) reinstatement is no longer
feasible; (d) reinstatement does not serve the best interests of the parties involved; (e)
the employer is prejudiced by the workers' continued employment; (f) facts that make
execution unjust or inequitable have supervened; or (g) strained relations between the
employer and employee. 4 2 cHECAS

Given the lapse of considerable time from the occurrence of the strike, the Court
rules that the award of separation pay of one (1) month salary for each year of service,
in lieu of reinstatement, is in order. This relief strikes a balance between the
respondents-union members who may not have known that they were participating in
an illegal strike but who, nevertheless, have rendered service to the company for years
prior to the illegal strike which caused a rift in their relations, and the employer who
de nitely suffered losses on account of respondents-union members' failure to report
to work during the illegal strike.
WHEREFORE , the petition is PARTIALLY GRANTED . The 21 September 2010
Decision and 14 January 2011 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No.
102802 are AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in that petitioners are hereby ORDERED
to pay each of the above-named individual respondents, except union o cers who are
hereby declared validly dismissed, separation pay equivalent to one (1) month salary
for every year of service. Whatever sums already received from petitioners under any
release, waiver or quitclaim shall be deducted from the total separation pay due to each
of them.
SO ORDERED.
Velasco, Jr., Leonen and Gesmundo, JJ., concur.
Bersamin, * J., is on official leave.
Footnotes
* On Official Leave.
1. Rollo, pp. 40-55; penned by Associate Justice Antonio L. Villamor with Associate Justice
Jose C. Reyes, Jr. and Associate Justice Amy C. Lazaro-Javier, concurring.
2. Id. at 57-58.
3. Id. at 92-100; penned by Commissioner Gregorio O. Bilog III with Presiding Commissioner
Lourdes C. Javier and Commissioner Tito F. Genilo, concurring.
4. Id. at 102-104.
5. Id. at 76-90.
6. Id. at 59-71.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 7. Also referred as "Ergonomics Systems Philippines, Inc." in some parts of the rollo.
8. Rollo, p. 77.
9. Id. at 72-A-73.
10. Id. at 77.

11. Id. at 78.

12. Id.
13. Id. at 79-80.
14. Id. at 80.
15. Id. at 90.

16. Id. at 99.

17. Id. at 54.
18. Petition for Review on Certiorari; id. at 9-35.
19. Id. at 125-132.

20. Id. at 168-180.

21. PICOP Resources, Incorporated (PRI) v. Tañeca, 641 Phil. 175, 187-188 (2010).
22. PICOP Resources, Inc. v. Dequilla, 678 Phil. 118, 127-128 (2011).
23. Article 234-A (As renumbered).
24. Coastal Subic Bay Terminal, Inc. v. Department of Labor and Employment-Office of the
Secretary, 537 Phil. 459, 471 (2006).
25. Rollo, p. 60.

26. Id. at 59.

27. 426 Phil. 35 (2002).
28. Id. at 44.
29. Phimco Industries, Inc. v. Phimco Industries Labor Association, 642 Phil. 275, 289 (2010).
30. As renumbered.

31. Piñero v. National Labor Relations Commission, 480 Phil. 534, 542 (2004).
32. Rollo, p. 85.
33. Id.
34. CA rollo, pp. 149-154.
35. Rollo, p. 87.

36. Article 278-C, Labor Code (as renumbered).

37. As renumbered.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com

 38. Samahang Manggagawa sa Sulpicio Lines, Inc.-NAFLU v. Sulpicio Lines, Inc., 470 Phil. 115,
127-128 (2004).
39. 559 Phil. 701 (2007).

40. Id. at 714.

41. Abaria, et al. v. National Labor Relations Commission, et al., 678 Phil. 64, 100 (2011).
42. Escario v. National Labor Relations Commission, 645 Phil. 503, 516 (2010).

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com