SECOND DIVISION
[ G.R. No. 177283, April 07, 2009 ]
DE LA SALLE UNIVERSITY AND DR. CARMELITA I. QUEBENGCO PETITIONERS, VS.DE LA SALLE UNIVERSITY EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION (DLSUEA-NAFTEU), RESPONDENT.
D E C I S I O N
CARPIO MORALES, J.:
On challenge by the De La Salle University and its Executive Vice President Dr. Carmelita I. Quebengco (petitioners) via the present petition for review on certiorari is the Court of Appeals First Division Decision of September 16, 2005[1] in CA-G.R. No. SP No. 81220 which SET ASIDE the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) Second Division Orders of June 26, 2003 and September 30, 2003 affirming the dismissal of the complaint for Unfair Labor Practices (ULP) filed by De La
Salle University Employees Association (respondent), and directed the NLRC Second Division to transmit the records of the said complaint to the NLRC Third Division.
The antecedent facts of the case are as follows:
In 2001, a splinter group of respondent led by one Belen Aliazas (Aliazas group) filed a petition for conduct of elections with the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE), alleging that the then incumbent officers of respondent had failed to call for a regular election since 1985.
Disputing the Aliazas group's allegation, respondent claimed that an election was conducted in 1987 but by virtue of the enactment of Republic Act 6715,[2] which amended the Labor Code, the term of office of its officers was extended to five years or until 1992 during which a general assembly was held affirming their hold-over tenure until the termination of collective bargaining negotiations; and that a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) was executed only on March 30, 2000.
Acting on the petition for the conduct of election filed by the Aliazas group, the DOLE-NCR held, by Decision of March 19, 2001, that the holdover authority of respondent's incumbent set of officers had been extinguished by virtue of the execution of the CBA. It accordingly ordered the conduct of elections to be placed under the control and supervision of its Labor Relations Division[3] and subject to pre-election conferences.
The conditions for the conduct of election imposed by the DOLE-NCR notwithstanding, respondent called for a regular election on July 9, 2001, without prior notice to the DOLE and without the conduct of pre-election conference, prompting the Aliazas group to file an Urgent Motion for Intervention with the Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR) of the DOLE. The BLR granted the Aliaza's group's motion for intervention three days before the intended date of election or on July 6, 2001 and thus disposed as follows:
Responding to the Aliazas group's request, petitioners, citing the abovementioned DOLE and BLR Orders, advised respondent by letter of August 16, 2001 as follows:
During the pendency of its ULP complaint or on March 7, 2002, respondent filed its First Notice of Strike with the Office of the Secretary of Labor (OSL), charging petitioners for 1) gross violation of the CBA and 2) bargaining in bad faith which was certified for compulsory arbitration to the NLRC (certified case). The certified case, docketed as NLRC-NCR CC000222-02, was raffled to the NLRC Third Division.
In the meantime, Labor Arbiter Felipe Pati, by Decision of July 12, 2002, dismissed respondent's ULP complaint. Respondent appealed to the NLRC. The appeal was docketed as NLRC-NCR CA No. 033173-02 and lodged at the NLRC Second Division.
While the dismissal of its ULP complaint was pending appeal before the NLRC Second Division, respondent, on behalf of some of its members, filed four other cases against petitioners which were lodged at the NLRC Second Division.
Respondent thereafter filed in the certified case which was lodged at the NLRC Third Division a motion to have its four other cases and its ULP complaint then pending appeal before the NLRC Second Division to have these cases "subsumed" in the certified case. The NLRC Third Division granted respondent's motion by Order of April 30, 2003. Petitioners moved to reconsider this Order but it was denied, prompting petitioners to elevate the matter via certiorari to the Court of Appeals. This petition, docketed as CA G.R. No. SP-79798, was raffled to the appellate court's Tenth Division.
The NLRC Second Division, in the meantime, affirmed by Decision of June 26, 2003, the dismissal by the Arbiter of respondent's ULP complaint. Respondent thus elevated the case to the Court of Appeals via certiorari, docketed as CA-G.R. No. 81220. This was raffled to the appellate court's First Division.
By Decision of June 17, 2004, the Court of Appeals Tenth Division, to which petitioners' certiorari petition in CA-G.R. No. SP-79798 challenging the April 30, 2003 NLRC Third Division Order "subsuming" respondent's complaints including the ULP Complaint under the certified case, REVERSED the said Order of the NLRC Third Division[6] with respect to the "subsuming" of respondent's ULP complaint under the certified case, the ULP complaint having been, at the time the NLRC Third Division Order was issued, "already disposed of" (dismissed) by the Arbiter and was in fact pending appeal before the NLRC Second Division. Thus the Tenth Division of the appellate court held:
The Court of Appeals First Division subsequently resolving respondent's petition for certiorari in CA-G.R. No. 81220 (which assailed the affirmance by the NLRC Second Division of the Arbiter's dismissal of its ULP complaint), upon the sole issue of "whether the NLRC [Second Division] committed grave abuse of discretion . . . in ignoring the order of the [NLRC] 3rd Division declaring subsumed or absorbed [herein respondent's ULP complaint] in the certified case," answered the same in the affirmative via the herein challenged September 16, 2005 Decision. It thus set aside the NLRC Second Division Order affirming the dismissal of respondent's ULP complaint and accordingly ordered said NLRC Second Division to transmit the entire records of the ULP complaint to the NLRC Third Division to which said ULP complaint had priorly been ordered consolidated by the latter Division with the certified case.
Petitioners contend that the First Division of the Court of Appeals disregarded the ruling of the appellate court's Tenth Division setting aside the NLRC Third Division Order "subsuming" respondent's ULP complaint, which was lodged at the NLRC Second Division, under the certified case pending with said NLRC Third Division. They fault the First Division of the appellate court for
The June 17, 2004 Decision of the appellate court's Tenth Division setting aside the order of consolidation issued by the NLRC Third Division became final and executory on July 11, 2004. The herein challenged appellate court's First Division Decision reversing the NLRC Second Division Order which affirmed the dismissal of respondent's ULP complaint and directing that the records of said complaint be transmitted to the NLRC Third Division was promulgated on September 16, 2005.
It is thus clear that the appellate court's Tenth Division Decision declaring that the NLRC Third Division's order "subsuming" respondent's ULP complaint (then pending appeal before the NLRC Second Division) under the certified case pending before it (NLRC Third division) had become final and executory on July 11, 2004. Therefore, with respect to the herein challenged Decision of the appellate court's First Division ordering the NLRC Second Division to transmit the records of respondent's ULP complaint to the NLRC Third Division, the same can no longer be effected, the appellate court's Tenth Division ruling having, it bears repeating, become final.
To still transmit to the NLRC Third Division respondent's ULP complaint on appeal which has already been resolved by the NLRC Second Division would lead to absurd consequences.
On the other matter raised by petitioners - that their acts of withholding union and agency dues and suspension of normal relations with respondent's incumbent set of officers pending the intra-union dispute did not constitute interference, the Court finds for respondent.
Pending the final resolution of the intra-union dispute, respondent's officers remained duly authorized to conduct union affairs. The clarification letter of May 16, 2003 issued by BLR Director Hans Leo J. Cacdac enlightens:
Respecting the issue of damages, respondent, in its Position Paper before the Labor Arbiter, prayed for the award of exemplary damages, nominal damages, and attorney's fees.
Exemplary or corrective damages are imposed by way of example or correction for the public good in addition to the moral, temperate, liquidated or compensatory damages. While the amount of exemplary damages need not be proved, respondent must show proof of entitlement to moral, temperate or compensatory damages before the Court may consider awarding exemplary damages. No such damages were prayed for, however, hence, the Court finds no basis to grant the prayer for exemplary damages.
Nonetheless, the grant of nominal damages and attorney's fees to respondent under Article 2221[13] and Article 2208 (8)[14] of the Civil Code, respectively, is in order.
WHEREFORE, the petition, insofar as the challenged Court of Appeals First Division Decision ordering the transmittal by the NLRC Second Division of the records of respondent's ULP complaint to the NLRC Third Division is concerned, has become moot.
In so far as the petition involves the merits of the NLRC Second Division Decision is concerned, the same is REVERSED and a NEW one is entered finding petitioners liable for Unfair Labor Practice, and ordering them to pay respondent nominal damages in the amount of P250,000 and attorney's fees in the amount of P50,000.
SO ORDERED.
Quisumbing, (Chairman), and Tinga, JJ., concur.
Brion, J., see concurring opinion and dissenting opinion.
Velasco, Jr., J., join the concurring and dissenting opinion of J. Brion.
[1] Penned by former Presiding Justice Romeo A. Brawner with the concurrence of Associate Justices Edgardo P. Cruz and Jose C. Mendoza; CA rollo, pp. 488-496.
[2] An Act to Extend Protection to Labor, Strengthen the Constitutional Rights of Workers to Self Organization, Collective Bargaining and Peaceful Concerted Activities, Foster Industrial Peace and Harmony, Promote the Preferential Use of Voluntary Modes of Settling Labor disputes and reorganize the National Labor Relations Commission, amending for these purpose certain provisions of Presidential Decree No. 442, as amended, otherwise known as the Labor Code of the Philippines, appropriating funds therefore and for other purposes.
[3] Decision of March 19, 2001.
[4] NLRC records, p. 203.
[5] Id. at p. 204.
[6] Penned by Associate Justice Salvador J. Valdez, Jr. with the concurrence of Associate Justices Rebecca De Guia-Salvador and Aurora Santiago-Lagman; CA rollo, pp. 520-530.
[7] Rollo at pp. 393-394.
[8] CA rollo, p. 495.
[9] Rollo, p. 22.
[10] Ibid.
[11] Rollo, p. 286
[12] TSPIC Corporation v. TSPIC Employees Union (FFW), G.R. No. 163419, February 13, 2008, 545 SCRA 215, 225 citing Honda Phils. Inc. v. Samahan ng Malayang Manggagawa sa Honda, G.R. No. 145561, June 15, 2005, 460 SCRA 186, 190-191.
[13] Article 2221. Nominal damages are adjudicated in order that a right of the plaintiff, which has been violated or invaded by the defendant, may be vindicated or recognized, and not for the purpose of indemnifying the plaintiff for any loss suffered by him. (Underscoring supplied)
[14] Article 2208 (2) When the defendant's act or omission has compelled the plaintiff to litigate with third persons or to incur expenses to protect his interest. (Underscoring supplied)
The antecedent facts of the case are as follows:
In 2001, a splinter group of respondent led by one Belen Aliazas (Aliazas group) filed a petition for conduct of elections with the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE), alleging that the then incumbent officers of respondent had failed to call for a regular election since 1985.
Disputing the Aliazas group's allegation, respondent claimed that an election was conducted in 1987 but by virtue of the enactment of Republic Act 6715,[2] which amended the Labor Code, the term of office of its officers was extended to five years or until 1992 during which a general assembly was held affirming their hold-over tenure until the termination of collective bargaining negotiations; and that a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) was executed only on March 30, 2000.
Acting on the petition for the conduct of election filed by the Aliazas group, the DOLE-NCR held, by Decision of March 19, 2001, that the holdover authority of respondent's incumbent set of officers had been extinguished by virtue of the execution of the CBA. It accordingly ordered the conduct of elections to be placed under the control and supervision of its Labor Relations Division[3] and subject to pre-election conferences.
The conditions for the conduct of election imposed by the DOLE-NCR notwithstanding, respondent called for a regular election on July 9, 2001, without prior notice to the DOLE and without the conduct of pre-election conference, prompting the Aliazas group to file an Urgent Motion for Intervention with the Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR) of the DOLE. The BLR granted the Aliaza's group's motion for intervention three days before the intended date of election or on July 6, 2001 and thus disposed as follows:
WHEREFORE, without necessarily resolving the merits of the appeal and considering the urgency of the issues raised by appellees and the limited time involved, the motion is hereby GRANTED. Consequently, appellants and or the members of the DLSUEA-COMELEC headed by Mr. Dominador Almodovar or any of their authorized representatives are hereby directed to cease and desist from holding the general election of DLSUEA officers on 9 July 2001, until further ordered by this Office.The Aliazas group thereupon, via letter of August 7, 2001 to Brother Rolando Dizon, FSC, President of petitioner DLSU, requested the University "to please put on escrow until such time that an election of union officials has been scheduled and subsequent elections has been held."[5] (Underscoring in the original; emphasis supplied)
SO ORDERED.[4] (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
Responding to the Aliazas group's request, petitioners, citing the abovementioned DOLE and BLR Orders, advised respondent by letter of August 16, 2001 as follows:
x x x By virtue of the 19 March 2001 Decision and the 06 July 2001 Order of the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE), the hold-over authority of your incumbent set of officers has been considered extinguished and an election of new union officers, to be conducted and supervised by the DOLE has been directed to be held. Until the result of this election comes out and a declaration by the DOLE of the validly elected officers is made, a void in the Union leadership exists.Petitioners' above-quoted move drew respondent to file a complaint against petitioners for Unfair Labor Practice (ULP complaint), claiming that petitioners unduly interfered with its internal affairs and discriminated against its members. The ULP complaint was docketed as NLRC-NCR Case No. S-30-08-03757-01.
In the light of these circumstances, the University has no other alternative but to temporarily do the following:
We are informing you of this decision of the University not only for your guidance but also for the apparent reason that the University does not want itself to be unnecessarily involved in your intra-union dispute. This is the only way that the University can maintain neutrality on this matter of grave concern. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
- Establish a savings account for the Union where all collected union dues and agency fees will be deposited and held in trust; and
- Discontinue normal relations with any group within the Union including the incumbent set of officers.
During the pendency of its ULP complaint or on March 7, 2002, respondent filed its First Notice of Strike with the Office of the Secretary of Labor (OSL), charging petitioners for 1) gross violation of the CBA and 2) bargaining in bad faith which was certified for compulsory arbitration to the NLRC (certified case). The certified case, docketed as NLRC-NCR CC000222-02, was raffled to the NLRC Third Division.
In the meantime, Labor Arbiter Felipe Pati, by Decision of July 12, 2002, dismissed respondent's ULP complaint. Respondent appealed to the NLRC. The appeal was docketed as NLRC-NCR CA No. 033173-02 and lodged at the NLRC Second Division.
While the dismissal of its ULP complaint was pending appeal before the NLRC Second Division, respondent, on behalf of some of its members, filed four other cases against petitioners which were lodged at the NLRC Second Division.
Respondent thereafter filed in the certified case which was lodged at the NLRC Third Division a motion to have its four other cases and its ULP complaint then pending appeal before the NLRC Second Division to have these cases "subsumed" in the certified case. The NLRC Third Division granted respondent's motion by Order of April 30, 2003. Petitioners moved to reconsider this Order but it was denied, prompting petitioners to elevate the matter via certiorari to the Court of Appeals. This petition, docketed as CA G.R. No. SP-79798, was raffled to the appellate court's Tenth Division.
The NLRC Second Division, in the meantime, affirmed by Decision of June 26, 2003, the dismissal by the Arbiter of respondent's ULP complaint. Respondent thus elevated the case to the Court of Appeals via certiorari, docketed as CA-G.R. No. 81220. This was raffled to the appellate court's First Division.
By Decision of June 17, 2004, the Court of Appeals Tenth Division, to which petitioners' certiorari petition in CA-G.R. No. SP-79798 challenging the April 30, 2003 NLRC Third Division Order "subsuming" respondent's complaints including the ULP Complaint under the certified case, REVERSED the said Order of the NLRC Third Division[6] with respect to the "subsuming" of respondent's ULP complaint under the certified case, the ULP complaint having been, at the time the NLRC Third Division Order was issued, "already disposed of" (dismissed) by the Arbiter and was in fact pending appeal before the NLRC Second Division. Thus the Tenth Division of the appellate court held:
Anent ULP case with docket No. NLRC-NCR Case No. S-30-08-03757-01 raffled to Labor Arbiter Pati for resolution, private respondent gravely erred in including it among the cases to be consolidated with NLRC NCR CC No. 000222-02. The case is obviously no longer under arbitration.The NLRC had thus already exhausted its jurisdiction over NLRC-NCR CA No. 033173-02. Consequently, the same case is now removed from the ambit of compulsory arbitration and may only be subject of judicial review via the special civil action of certiorari in this Court. But we are not informed if such a judicial action has been taken.[7] (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
The records show that when complainant-appellee (respondent Union) filed its motion to consolidate the cases on January 28, 2003 and the resolution of the said motion by the Third Division of the NLRC on April 30, 2003 granting the desired consolidation, NLRC-NCR Case No. S-30-08-03757-01 had already been disposed of by Labor Arbiter Pati and was, in fact, already on appeal before the Second Division of the NLRC, docketed therein as NLRC-NCR CA No. 033173-02. According to the Union itself, on June 26, 2003, the NLRC affirmed the decision of Labor Arbiter Pati and on September 30, 2003, it denied the Union's motion for reconsideration. x x x (Citation omitted)
The Court of Appeals First Division subsequently resolving respondent's petition for certiorari in CA-G.R. No. 81220 (which assailed the affirmance by the NLRC Second Division of the Arbiter's dismissal of its ULP complaint), upon the sole issue of "whether the NLRC [Second Division] committed grave abuse of discretion . . . in ignoring the order of the [NLRC] 3rd Division declaring subsumed or absorbed [herein respondent's ULP complaint] in the certified case," answered the same in the affirmative via the herein challenged September 16, 2005 Decision. It thus set aside the NLRC Second Division Order affirming the dismissal of respondent's ULP complaint and accordingly ordered said NLRC Second Division to transmit the entire records of the ULP complaint to the NLRC Third Division to which said ULP complaint had priorly been ordered consolidated by the latter Division with the certified case.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is granted. Accordingly, the Order dated June 26, 2003 of National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) as well as the Order dated September 30, 2003 are hereby set aside. The 2nd Division of the NLRC is hereby directed to transmit the entire records of the case to the 3rd Division [of the NLRC] for its resolution.Hence, petitioner's petition for review on certiorari at bar.
SO ORDERED.[8] (Underscoring supplied)
Petitioners contend that the First Division of the Court of Appeals disregarded the ruling of the appellate court's Tenth Division setting aside the NLRC Third Division Order "subsuming" respondent's ULP complaint, which was lodged at the NLRC Second Division, under the certified case pending with said NLRC Third Division. They fault the First Division of the appellate court for
In any event, petitioners contend thatI
. . . RULING THAT THE SECOND DIVISION OF THE NLRC COMMITTED SERIOUS ERROR OR GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION WHEN IT AFFIRMED THE RULING OF LABOR ARBITER FELIPE P. PATI DATED 12 JULY 2002 (THROUGH ITS RESOLUTION AND ORDER DATED 26 JUNE 2003 AND 30 SEPTEMBER 2003, RESPECTIVELY) CONSIDERING THAT:
- WHEN THE NLRC'S SECOND DIVISION RENDERED ITS 26 JUNE 2003 RESOLUTION, WHICH DISMISSED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE UNION AND AFFIRMED THE 12 JULY 2002 DECISION OF LABOR ARBITER FELIPE P. PATI IN NLRC NCR CASE NO. 30-08-0357-01 (NLRC NCR CA NO. 033173-02), THE CONSOLIDATION ORDER OF THE NLRC THIRD DIVISION IN NCMB-NCR-NS NO. 03-093-02 (NLRC NCR CC NO. 000222-02) WHICH WAS ISSUED ON 30 APRIL 2003 HAD NOT YET ATTAINED FINALITY.
- . . . [NOT] TAK[ING] COGNIZANCE OF THE DECISION RENDERED BY THE TENTH DIVISION OF THE SAME COURT DATED 17 JUNE 2004, ANNULLING AND SETTING ASIDE THE 30 APRIL 2003 AND 28 JULY 2003 RESOLUTIONS OF THE THIRD DIVISION, WHICH ORDERED THE CONSOLIDATION OF ALL CASES FILED BY THE UNION AGAINST THE UNIVERSITY.[9]
The petition is partly meritorious.II
THE SECOND DIVISION OF THE NLRC DID NOT GRAVELY ABUSE ITS DISCRETION WHEN IT HELD THAT THE PETITIONERS WERE NOT GUILTY OF UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE, CONSIDERING THAT THE TEMPORARY MEASURES IMPLEMENTED BY THE UNIVERSITY WERE UNDERTAKEN IN GOOD FAITH AND ONLY TO MAINTAIN ITS NEUTRALITY AMID THE INTRA-UNION DISPUTE."[10] (Underscoring supplied)
The June 17, 2004 Decision of the appellate court's Tenth Division setting aside the order of consolidation issued by the NLRC Third Division became final and executory on July 11, 2004. The herein challenged appellate court's First Division Decision reversing the NLRC Second Division Order which affirmed the dismissal of respondent's ULP complaint and directing that the records of said complaint be transmitted to the NLRC Third Division was promulgated on September 16, 2005.
It is thus clear that the appellate court's Tenth Division Decision declaring that the NLRC Third Division's order "subsuming" respondent's ULP complaint (then pending appeal before the NLRC Second Division) under the certified case pending before it (NLRC Third division) had become final and executory on July 11, 2004. Therefore, with respect to the herein challenged Decision of the appellate court's First Division ordering the NLRC Second Division to transmit the records of respondent's ULP complaint to the NLRC Third Division, the same can no longer be effected, the appellate court's Tenth Division ruling having, it bears repeating, become final.
To still transmit to the NLRC Third Division respondent's ULP complaint on appeal which has already been resolved by the NLRC Second Division would lead to absurd consequences.
On the other matter raised by petitioners - that their acts of withholding union and agency dues and suspension of normal relations with respondent's incumbent set of officers pending the intra-union dispute did not constitute interference, the Court finds for respondent.
Pending the final resolution of the intra-union dispute, respondent's officers remained duly authorized to conduct union affairs. The clarification letter of May 16, 2003 issued by BLR Director Hans Leo J. Cacdac enlightens:
We take this opportunity to clarify that there is no void in the DLSUEA leadership. The 19 March 2001 Decision of DOLE-NCR Regional Director should not be construed as an automatic termination of the incumbent officers' tenure of office. As duly-elected officers of the DLSUEA, their leadership is not deemed terminated by the expiration of their terms of office, for they shall continue their functions and enjoy the rights and privileges pertaining to their respective positions in a hold-over capacity, until their successors shall have been elected and qualified.[11] (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)It bears noting that at the time petitioners' questioned moves were adopted, a valid and existing CBA had been entered between the parties. It thus behooved petitioners to observe the terms and conditions thereof bearing on union dues and representation. It is axiomatic in labor relations that a CBA entered into by a legitimate labor organization and an employer becomes the law between the parties, compliance with which is mandated by express policy of the law.[12]
Respecting the issue of damages, respondent, in its Position Paper before the Labor Arbiter, prayed for the award of exemplary damages, nominal damages, and attorney's fees.
Exemplary or corrective damages are imposed by way of example or correction for the public good in addition to the moral, temperate, liquidated or compensatory damages. While the amount of exemplary damages need not be proved, respondent must show proof of entitlement to moral, temperate or compensatory damages before the Court may consider awarding exemplary damages. No such damages were prayed for, however, hence, the Court finds no basis to grant the prayer for exemplary damages.
Nonetheless, the grant of nominal damages and attorney's fees to respondent under Article 2221[13] and Article 2208 (8)[14] of the Civil Code, respectively, is in order.
WHEREFORE, the petition, insofar as the challenged Court of Appeals First Division Decision ordering the transmittal by the NLRC Second Division of the records of respondent's ULP complaint to the NLRC Third Division is concerned, has become moot.
In so far as the petition involves the merits of the NLRC Second Division Decision is concerned, the same is REVERSED and a NEW one is entered finding petitioners liable for Unfair Labor Practice, and ordering them to pay respondent nominal damages in the amount of P250,000 and attorney's fees in the amount of P50,000.
SO ORDERED.
Quisumbing, (Chairman), and Tinga, JJ., concur.
Brion, J., see concurring opinion and dissenting opinion.
Velasco, Jr., J., join the concurring and dissenting opinion of J. Brion.
[1] Penned by former Presiding Justice Romeo A. Brawner with the concurrence of Associate Justices Edgardo P. Cruz and Jose C. Mendoza; CA rollo, pp. 488-496.
[2] An Act to Extend Protection to Labor, Strengthen the Constitutional Rights of Workers to Self Organization, Collective Bargaining and Peaceful Concerted Activities, Foster Industrial Peace and Harmony, Promote the Preferential Use of Voluntary Modes of Settling Labor disputes and reorganize the National Labor Relations Commission, amending for these purpose certain provisions of Presidential Decree No. 442, as amended, otherwise known as the Labor Code of the Philippines, appropriating funds therefore and for other purposes.
[3] Decision of March 19, 2001.
[4] NLRC records, p. 203.
[5] Id. at p. 204.
[6] Penned by Associate Justice Salvador J. Valdez, Jr. with the concurrence of Associate Justices Rebecca De Guia-Salvador and Aurora Santiago-Lagman; CA rollo, pp. 520-530.
[7] Rollo at pp. 393-394.
[8] CA rollo, p. 495.
[9] Rollo, p. 22.
[10] Ibid.
[11] Rollo, p. 286
[12] TSPIC Corporation v. TSPIC Employees Union (FFW), G.R. No. 163419, February 13, 2008, 545 SCRA 215, 225 citing Honda Phils. Inc. v. Samahan ng Malayang Manggagawa sa Honda, G.R. No. 145561, June 15, 2005, 460 SCRA 186, 190-191.
[13] Article 2221. Nominal damages are adjudicated in order that a right of the plaintiff, which has been violated or invaded by the defendant, may be vindicated or recognized, and not for the purpose of indemnifying the plaintiff for any loss suffered by him. (Underscoring supplied)
[14] Article 2208 (2) When the defendant's act or omission has compelled the plaintiff to litigate with third persons or to incur expenses to protect his interest. (Underscoring supplied)