Professional Documents
Culture Documents
15 PNOC vs. NLRC
15 PNOC vs. NLRC
2. WON the union officers were validly dismissed – NO, the dismissals On Management Prerogative vis-à-vis Security of Tenure
were illegal The actions of PNOC are clearly tainted with abuse of power and with
illegality.
Having ruled that the strike staged by respondent unions was legal, the o While we recognize the prerogative of management to regulate all
subsequent dismissals of their officers due to their staging of said strike aspects of employment, the power to discipline and terminate an
cannot be countenanced. employee’s services may not be exercised in a despotic or
The NLRC correctly observed that, although PNOC averred that the whimsical manner as to erode or render meaningless the
dismissals of individual respondents were due to infractions of company constitutional guarantees of security of tenure and due process.
rules and regulations, the alleged infractions actually arose from their Time and again, we have held that the employment status of workers
participation in the strike. cannot be trifled with, such that their constitutional and statutory rights as
o This is crystal clear from the charges leveled against the union well as those arising from valid agreements will, in effect, be defeated or
officers, such as active participation in the illegal work stoppage, circumvented.
disruption of company operations resulting in losses, violation of No less than the Constitution itself guarantees state protection of labor and
the NO STRIKE clause of the existing CBA, among others, cited assures workers of security of tenure in their employment.
in their similarly worded notices of investigation that eventually led
to their dismissals. 3. WON PNOC should be awarded actual and exemplary damages – NO
On the Investigations Conducted by PNOC vis-à-vis SOLE’s Order The actual and exemplary damages sought by petitioner have no basis in
Furthermore, such investigations conducted by PNOC were in flagrant law, much less in equity and fair play.
disregard of the authority and jurisdiction of NLRC and in defiance of the From the foregoing discussion, the strike was staged by respondent
Memorandum of Agreement with the striking unions, executed upon the unions in the honest belief that petitioner, among the other PNOC
order of then acting SOLE Confesor. subsidiaries involved, was guilty of ULP due to the discrimination in the
o The issues relating to the strike and lockout were already grant of salary increase believed to discourage union membership, and to
submitted before the NLRC through the corresponding complaints its refusal to bargain collectively on the matter.
filed by PNOC itself and the unions. There was good faith on the part of the striking unions.
o By filing a formal complaint for illegal strike, it behooved PNOC to o Thus, they cannot be penalized by imposing upon them payment
desist from undertaking its own investigation on the same matter, of damages.
concluding upon the illegality of the union activity and dismissing
outright the union officers involved. DISPOSITIVE PNOC’s PETITION is DISMISSED
o The PNOC, in fact, to the conduct of such investigations precisely NLRC’s Decision AFFIRMED
due to the pendency before the NLRC of an action based on the
same grounds.
o Instead, PNOC preempted the NLRC from ascertaining the merits
of the complaints.