Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

GOLD CITY INTEGRATED PORT SERVICE v. NLRC - ADELE EBUNA CASE

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 193789 2012-09-19	ALEX Q. NARANJO v. BIOMEDICA HEALTH CARE VELASCO JR., J.
But setting aside from the nonce the facts established above, the most pivotal argument against the dismissal of petitioners is that the penalty of dismissal from employment cannot be imposed even if we assume that petitioners went on an illegal strike. It has not been shown that petitioners are officers of the Union. On this issue, the NLRC correctly cited Gold City Integrated Port Service, Inc. v. NLRC,[40] wherein We ruled that: "An ordinary striking worker cannot be terminated for mere participation in an illegal strike. There must be proof that he committed illegal acts during a strike."
	GR No. 159460 2010-11-15	SOLIDBANK CORPORATION v. ERNESTO U. GAMIER VILLARAMA, JR., J.
Article 212 of the Labor Code, as amended, defines strike as any temporary stoppage of work by the concerted action of employees as a result of an industrial or labor dispute. A labor dispute includes any controversy or matter concerning terms and conditions of employment or the association or representation of persons in negotiating, fixing, maintaining, changing or arranging the terms and conditions of employment, regardless of whether or not the disputants stand in the proximate relation of employers and employees.[41] The term "strike" shall comprise not only concerted work stoppages, but also slowdowns, mass leaves, sitdowns, attempts to damage, destroy or sabotage plant equipment and facilities and similar activities.[42] Thus, the fact that the conventional term "strike" was not used by the striking employees to describe their common course of action is inconsequential, since the substance of the situation, and not its appearance, will be deemed to be controlling.[43]
	GR No. 167401 2010-07-05	BAGONG PAGKAKAISA NG MANGGAGAWA NG TRIUMPH INTERNATIONAL v. SECRETARY OF DEPARTMENT OF LABOR BRION, J.
In a different vein, the union faulted the company for having dismissed the officers, there being no case filed on the legality or illegality of the strike. We see no merit in this argument. In Gold City Integrated Port Service, Inc. v. NLRC,[82] we held that "[t]he law, in using the word `may,' grants the employer the option of declaring a union officer who participated in an illegal strike as having lost his employment." We reiterated this principle in San Juan De Dios Educational Foundation Employees Union-Alliance of Filipino Workers v. San Juan De Dios Educational Foundation, Inc.,[83] where we stated that "Despite the receipt of an order from the SOLE to return to their respective jobs, the Union officers and members refused to do so and defied the same. Consequently, then, the strike staged by the Union is a prohibited activity under Article 264 of the Labor Code. Hence, the dismissal of its officers is in order. The respondent Foundation was, thus, justified in terminating the employment of the petitioner Union's officers."
	GR No. 146408 2008-02-29	PHILIPPINE AIRLINES v. ENRIQUE LIGAN CARPIO MORALES, J.
Auxtero, having been declared to be a regular employee of petitioner, and found to be illegally dismissed from employment, should be entitled to salary differential[37] from the time he rendered one year of service until his dismissal, reinstatement plus backwages until the finality of this decision.[38] In view, however, of the long period of time[39] that had elapsed since his dismissal on November 15, 1992, it would be appropriate to award separation pay of one (1) month salary for each year of service, in lieu of reinstatement.[40]
	GR NO. 160058 2007-06-22	PILIPINO TELEPHONE CORPORATION v. PILIPINO TELEPHONE EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION PUNO, C.J.
The effects of illegal strikes, as outlined in Article 264 of the Labor Code, make a distinction between ordinary workers and union officers who participate therein. Under established jurisprudence, a union officer may be terminated from employment for knowingly participating in an illegal strike. The fate of union members is different. Mere participation in an illegal strike is not a sufficient ground for termination of the services of the union members. The Labor Code protects ordinary, rank-and-file union members who participated in such a strike from losing their jobs provided that they did not commit illegal acts during the strike.[34] In Gold City Integrated Port Service, Inc. v. NLRC,[35] the Court held that "[t]he law, in using the word may, grants the employer the option of declaring a union officer who participated in an illegal strike as having lost his employment." Thus, in a number of cases,[36] proof that an employee who knowingly participated in an illegal strike is a union officer was enough to warrant his dismissal from employment.
	GR NO. 155679 2006-12-19	BIFLEX PHILS. INC. LABOR UNION v. FILFLEX INDUSTRIAL
[22] G.R. No. 103560, July 6, 1995, 245 SCRA 627, 641.
	GR No. 140992 2004-03-25	SAMAHANG MANGGAGAWA SA SULPICIO LINES v. SULPICIO LINES SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
In Gold City Integrated Port Service, Inc. vs. NLRC,[9] we stressed that "the language of the law leaves no room for doubt that the cooling-off period and the seven-day strike ban after the strike-vote report were intended to be mandatory."