THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 207898. October 19, 2016.]

ERROL RAMIREZ, JULITO APAS, RICKY ROSELO and ESTEBAN

MISSION, JR. , petitioners, vs. POLYSON INDUSTRIES, INC. and
WILSON S. YU , respondents.

DECISION

PERALTA , J : p

Before the Court is a petition for review on certiorari seeking to annul and set
aside the Decision 1 and Resolution 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA), dated January 23,
2013 and June 17, 2013, respectively, in CA-G.R. SP No. 125091. The assailed CA
Decision af rmed the March 28, 2012 Resolution of the Fourth Division of the National
Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), which found that respondent corporation validly
dismissed petitioners from their employment, while the CA Resolution denied
petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration.
The facts of the case are as follows:
Respondent Polyson Industries, Inc. (Polyson) is a duly organized domestic
corporation which is primarily engaged in the business of manufacturing plastic bags
for supermarkets, department stores and the like. Petitioners, on the other hand, were
employees of Polyson and were of cers of Obrero Pilipino (Obrero), the union of the
employees of Polyson.
The instant case arose from a labor dispute, between herein petitioners and
respondent corporation, which was certi ed by the Secretary of the Department of
Labor and Employment (DOLE) to the NLRC for compulsory arbitration.
In its Position Paper 3 submitted to the NLRC, Polyson alleged that: on April 28,
2011, it received a notice of hearing from the DOLE with respect to the petition for
certi cation election led by Obrero; on May 31, 2011, Polyson, through counsel and
management representative, met with the of cers of Obrero, led by the union president,
herein petitioner Ramirez; Obrero asked that it be voluntarily recognized by Polyson as
the exclusive bargaining agent of the rank-and- le employees of Polyson, but the latter
refused and opted for a certi cation election; furious at such refusal, the Obrero
of cers threatened the management that the union will show its collective strength in
the coming days; on June 7, 2011, Polyson received a rush order from one of its clients
for the production of 100,000 pieces of plastic bags; the management of Polyson
informed the operators of its Cutting Section that they would be needing workers to
work overtime because of the said order; based on the usual practice of the company,
those who intend to perform overtime work were expected to sign the "time sheet"
indicating their willingness to work after their shift; on June 7, 2011, the supervisors
approached the operators but were told that they would be unable to work overtime
because they have other commitments after their shift; the supervisors then requested
that the operators set aside their time for the following day to work beyond their
regular shift; on June 8, 2011, ve (5) operators indicated their desire to work overtime;
4 however, after their regular shift, three of the ve workers did not work overtime
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 which resulted in the delay in delivery of the client's order and eventually resulted in the
cancellation of the said order by reason of such delay; 5 when management asked the
workers, who initially manifested their desire to work overtime, to indicate in the time
sheet the reason for their failure to do so, two of the three workers, namely, Leuland
Visca (Visca) and Samuel Tuting (Tuting) gave the same reason, to wit: "Ayaw nila/ng
iba na mag-OT [overtime] ako" ; 6 the management then conducted an investigation and
a hearing where Visca af rmed his previous claim that petitioners were the ones who
pressured him to desist from rendering overtime work; 7 on even date, Tuting executed
a written statement claiming that herein petitioners induced or threatened them not to
work overtime; 8 the management then gave notices to petitioners asking them to
explain why no disciplinary action would be taken against them; 9 petitioners submitted
their respective explanations to the management denying their liability; 10 after
evaluation, the management informed petitioners that it has decided to terminate
petitioners' employment on the ground that they instigated an illegal concerted activity
resulting in losses to the company. 11
In their Position Paper, 12 petitioners denied the allegations of Polyson
contending that they were terminated from their employment not because they induced
or threatened their co-employees not to render overtime work but because they
established a union which sought to become the exclusive bargaining agent of the rank-
and- le employees of Polyson; that their termination was undertaken without affording
them substantive and procedural due process; and that Polyson is guilty of unfair labor
practice. DHITCc

Subsequently, on June 29, 2011, Obrero led a Notice of Strike with the National
Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB) which was predicated on various grounds,
among which was the alleged illegal dismissal of herein petitioners.
Thereafter, on July 21, 2011, the DOLE Secretary certi ed the labor dispute to the
NLRC for immediate compulsory arbitration where the parties were required to
maintain the status quo, in accordance with Article 263 (g) of the Labor Code. 13
On December 26, 2011, the NLRC rendered its Decision 14 nding petitioners
illegally dismissed from their employment and ordering their reinstatement to their
former positions without loss of seniority rights and other privileges and bene ts as
well as to pay petitioners their backwages and attorney's fees. The NLRC ruled that, for
failure of Polyson to submit in evidence petitioners' supposed written explanations in
answer to the company's Notice to Explain, Polyson failed to discharge its burden of
proving that petitioners were indeed terminated for a valid cause and in accordance
with due process.
Polyson then led a Motion for Reconsideration 15 submitting, for the
consideration of the NLRC, the subject written explanations of petitioners and
reiterating their position that petitioners were, indeed, validly dismissed.
On March 28, 2012, the NLRC issued a Resolution 16 granting Polyson's Motion
for Reconsideration, thereby reversing and setting aside its December 26, 2011
Decision and rendering a new judgment which declared petitioners as validly
dismissed. In the said Resolution, the NLRC found that Polyson was able to present
suf cient evidence to establish that petitioners' termination from employment was for
a valid cause, as they were found guilty of inducing or threatening their co-employees
not to render overtime work, and that petitioners' dismissal was in conformity with due
process requirements.
Aggrieved by the above Resolution, petitioners led a special civil action for
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 certiorari with the CA assailing the said Resolution and praying for the reinstatement of
the December 26, 2011 Decision of the NLRC. 17
In its questioned Decision dated January 23, 2013, the CA denied petitioners'
petition for certiorari and af rmed the March 28, 2012 Resolution of the NLRC. The CA
ruled that petitioners' defense, which is anchored primarily on their denial of the
allegations of Polyson, cannot overcome the categorical statements of Polyson's
witnesses who identi ed petitioners as the persons who induced or threatened them
not to render overtime work.
Petitioners led a Motion for Reconsideration, 18 but the CA denied it in its
Resolution dated June 17, 2013.
Hence, the present petition for review on certiorari based on the following
grounds:
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DIVISION, COMMITTED
GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN RENDERING THE HEREIN ASSAILED
DECISIONS.
THE THIRTEENTH DIVISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS MISAPPRECIATED
THE ACTUAL FACTS OF THE INSTANT CASE. THUS, A REVIEW IS NECESSARY
AND THE ASSAILED DECISIONS VACATED. 19
The basic issue in the instant case is whether petitioners' dismissal from their
employment was valid.
Due process under the Labor Code involves two aspects: rst is substantive,
which refers to the valid and authorized causes of termination of employment under the
Labor Code; and second is procedural, which points to the manner of dismissal. 20
Thus, to justify fully the dismissal of an employee, the employer must, as a rule, prove
that the dismissal was for a just or authorized cause and that the employee was
afforded due process prior to dismissal. 21 As a complementary principle, the employer
has the onus of proving with clear, accurate, consistent, and convincing evidence the
validity of the dismissal. 22
Anent the substantive aspect, the question that should be resolved, in the context
of the facts involved in and the charges leveled against petitioners in the present case,
is whether petitioners are guilty of an illegal act and, if so, whether such act is a valid
ground for their termination from employment.
In its Resolution dated March 28, 2012, the NLRC ruled that "[t]he evidence on
record clearly establishes that herein [petitioners] resorted to an illicit activity. The act
of inducing and/or threatening workers not to render overtime work, given the
circumstances surrounding the instant case, was undoubtedly a calculated effort
amounting to 'overtime boycott' or 'work slowdown.' [Petitioners], in their apparent
attempt to make a statement — as a response to [Polyson's] refusal to voluntarily
recognize Obrero Pilipino — Polyson Industries Chapter as the sole and exclusive
bargaining representative of the rank-and- le employees, unduly caused [Polyson]
signi cant losses in the aggregate amount of Two Hundred Ninety Thousand Pesos
(PhP290,000.00)." 23
The Court nds no cogent reason to depart from the above ndings, which were
affirmed by the CA. The Court is not duty-bound to delve into the accuracy of the factual
ndings of the NLRC in the absence of clear showing that these were arbitrary and
bereft of any rational basis. 24 In the present case, petitioners failed to convince this
Court that the NLRC's ndings that they instigated the slowdown on June 8, 2011 are
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 not reinforced by substantial evidence. Verily, said ndings have to be maintained and
upheld. This Court reiterates, as a reminder to labor leaders, the rule that union of cers
are duty-bound to guide their members to respect the law. 25 Contrarily, if the of cers
urge the members to violate the law and defy the duly-constituted authorities, their
dismissal from the service is a just penalty or sanction for their unlawful acts. 26 cEaSHC

In any case, a review of the records at hand shows that the evidence presented
by Polyson has proven that petitioners are indeed guilty of instigating two employees
to abstain from working overtime. In the Cutting Section Overtime Sheet 27 dated June
8, 2011, employees Visca and Tuting indicated that "ayaw nila/ng iba na mag-OT
[overtime] ako" as the reason why they did not render overtime work despite having
earlier manifested their desire to do so. In the Administrative Hearing 28 conducted on
June 9, 2011, Visca identi ed petitioners as the persons who pressured them not to
work overtime. In the same manner, Tuting, in his written statement, 29 also pointed to
petitioners as the ones who told him not to work overtime.
Petitioners question the credibility of Tuting and Visca's claims contending that
these are self-serving and that they were merely used by the management to
manufacture evidence against them. However, there is nothing on record to indicate any
ulterior motive on the part of Visca and Tuting to fabricate their claim that petitioners
were the ones who threatened or induced them not to work overtime. Absent
convincing evidence showing any cogent reason why a witness should testify falsely,
his testimony may be accorded full faith and credit. 30 Moreover, petitioners' defense
consists of mere denials and negative assertions. As between the af rmative
assertions of unbiased witnesses and a general denial and negative assertions on the
part of petitioners, weight must be accorded to the affirmative assertions. 31
In addition, the Court nds no error in the ndings of the NLRC in its questioned
Resolution that, contrary to petitioners' claims, the slowdown was indeed planned, to
wit:
The abovementioned nding is bolstered by the Incident Report dated 10
June 2011 wherein it is stated that upon inquiry by Respondent Wilson Yu as
regards the reason for the non-rendering of overtime work, [petitioner] Errol
Ramirez retorted, thus: "[DI BA] SABI NINYO EIGHT (8) HOURS LANG KAMI. EH
DI EIGHT (8) NA LANG KUNG MAG[-]OOVERTIME KAMI DAPAT LAHAT MAY
OVERTIME. AYAW KO MAGKAWATAK WATAK ANG MGA TAO KO." It is,
therefore, unmistakably clear that [petitioners] were completely aware of and, in
fact, were responsible for what transpired during the scheduled overtime.
[Petitioners] cannot now feign ignorance and simply deny liability upon the
implausible pretext that the "overtime boycott" was undertaken without their
knowledge and not upon their prodding. Note that the exchange was witnessed
by several other workers and, interestingly, was never disputed by herein
[petitioners]. 32
The Court agrees with both the NLRC and the CA that petitioners are guilty of
instigating their co-employees to commit slowdown, an inherently and essentially illegal
activity even in the absence of a no-strike clause in a collective bargaining contract, or
statute or rule. 33 Jurisprudence defines a slowdown as follows:
. . . a "strike on the installment plan ;" as a willful reduction in the rate
of work by concerted action of workers for the purpose of restricting the output
of the employer, in relation to a labor dispute; as an activity by which workers,
without a complete stoppage of work, retard production or their performance of
duties and functions to compel management to grant their demands. The Court
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 also agrees that such a slowdown is generally condemned as inherently
illicit and unjusti able , because while the employees "continue to work and
remain at their positions and accept the wages paid to them," they at the same
time "select what part of their allotted tasks they care to perform of their own
volition or refuse openly or secretly, to the employer's damage, to do other work;"
in other words, they "work on their own terms." 34
The Court is not persuaded by petitioners' contention that they are not guilty of
"illegal concerted activity" as they claim that this term contemplates a "careful planning
of a considerable number of participants to insure that the desired result is attained."
Nothing in the law requires that a slowdown be carefully planned and that it be
participated in by a large number of workers. The essence of this kind of strike is that
the workers do not quit their work but simply reduce the rate of work in order to restrict
the output or delay the production of the employer. It has been held that while a
cessation of work by the concerted action of a large number of employees may more
easily accomplish the object of the work stoppage than if it is by one person, there is, in
fact no fundamental difference in the principle involved as far as the number of persons
involved is concerned, and thus, if the act is the same, and the purpose to be
accomplished is the same, there is a strike, whether one or more than one have ceased
to work. 35 Furthermore, it is not necessary that any xed number of employees should
quit their work in order to constitute the stoppage a strike, and the number of persons
necessary depends in each case on the peculiar facts in the case and no de nite rule
can be laid down. 36 As discussed above, petitioners engaged in slowdown when they
induced two of their co-workers to quit their scheduled overtime work and they
accomplished their purpose when the slowdown resulted in the delay and restriction in
the output of Polyson on June 8, 2011.
With respect to procedural due process, it is settled that in termination
proceedings of employees, procedural due process consists of the twin requirements
of notice and hearing. 37 The employer must furnish the employee with two written
notices before the termination of employment can be effected: (1) the rst apprises
the employee of the particular acts or omissions for which his dismissal is sought; and
(2) the second informs the employee of the employer's decision to dismiss him. 38 The
requirement of a hearing is complied with as long as there was an opportunity to be
heard, and not necessarily that an actual hearing was conducted. 39 In the present case,
Polyson was able to establish that these requirements were suf ciently complied with.
CTIEac

As to petitioners' liability, the second paragraph of Article 264 (a) of the Labor
Code provides:
xxx xxx xxx
. . . Any union of cer who knowingly participates in an illegal
strike and any worker or union of 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 suf cient ground for termination of his
employment, even if a replacement had been hired by the employer during such
lawful strike. 40
Finally, it cannot be overemphasized that strike, as the most preeminent
economic weapon of the workers to force management to agree to an equitable
sharing of the joint product of labor and capital, exert some disquieting effects not only
on the relationship between labor and management, but also on the general peace and
progress of society and economic well-being of the State. 41 This weapon is so critical
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 that the law imposes the supreme penalty of dismissal on union of cers who
irresponsibly participate in an illegal strike and union members who commit unlawful
acts during a strike. 42 The responsibility of the union of cers, as main players in an
illegal strike, is greater than that of the members as the union of cers have the duty to
guide their members to respect the law. 43 The policy of the State is not to tolerate
actions directed at the destabilization of the social order, where the relationship
between labor and management has been endangered by abuse of one party's
bargaining prerogative, to the extent of disregarding not only the direct order of the
government to maintain the status quo, but the welfare of the entire workforce though
they may not be involved in the dispute. 44 The grave penalty of dismissal imposed on
the guilty parties is a natural consequence, considering the interest of public welfare. 45
WHEREFORE , the instant petition is DENIED . The Decision and Resolution of the
Court of Appeals, dated January 23, 2013 and June 17, 2013, respectively, in CA-G.R. SP
No. 125091 are AFFIRMED .
SO ORDERED .
Velasco, Jr., Perez, Reyes and Jardeleza, JJ., concur.
Footnotes
1. Penned by Associate Justice Isaias P. Dicdican, with the concurrence of Associate Justices
Michael P. Elbinias and Nina G. Antonio-Valenzuela, Annex "A" to Petition: rollo, pp.
25-36.
2. Id. at 38-39.
3. Id. at 132-138.
4. Id. at 142.

5. Id. at 147.
6. Id. at 142.
7. Id. at 144.
8. Id. at 145.
9. Id. at 148-151.

10. CA rollo, pp. 68-70, 72.

11. Rollo, pp. 152-155.
12. CA rollo, pp. 81-92.
13. Id. at 56-58.

14. Id. at 28-35.

15. Id. at 62-67.
16. Id. at 44-55.
17. Id. at 3-27.
18. Id. at 172-183.

19. Rollo, p. 13.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 20. King of Kings Transport, Inc. v. Mamac, 553 Phil. 108, 114 (2007).

21. Aliling v. Feliciano, et al., 686 Phil. 889, 909 (2012).

22. Id.
23. CA rollo, p. 50.
24. Toyota Motors Phil. Corp. Workers Association (TMPCWA) v. National Labor Relations
Commission, Second Division, 562 Phil. 759, 798 (2007).
25. Id.
26. Id.

27. Rollo, p. 142.

28. Id. at 144.
29. Id. at 145.
30. Arboleda v. National Labor Relations Commission, 362 Phil. 383, 391 (1999).
31. Id.

32. Rollo, pp. 82-83. (Citation omitted)

33. Ilaw at Buklod ng Manggagawa (IBM) v. National Labor Relations Commission, et al. , 275
Phil. 635, 649 (1991).
34. Interphil Laboratories Employees Union-FFW, et al. v. Interphil Laboratories, Inc., et al. , 423
Phil. 948, 964 (2001), citing Ilaw at Buklod ng Manggagawa (IBM) v. NLRC, supra , at
649-650. (Emphases ours)
35. 83 C.J.S. 543, citing Sammons v. Hotel & Restaurant Emp. Local Union No. 363 , Com. Pl.,
93 N.E. 2D 301, 302.
36. 83 C.J.S. 544, citing People on Complaint of Mandel v. Tapel , 3 N.Y.S. 2D 779, 781 and
Walter W. Oeflein, Inc. v. State, 188 N.W. 633, 635, 177 Wis. 394.
37. New Puerto Commercial, et al. v. Lopez, et al., 639 Phil. 437, 445 (2010).

38. Id.
39. Id.
40. Emphasis supplied.
41. Pilipino Telephone Corporation v. Pilipino Telephone Employees Association (PILTEA), et
al., 552 Phil. 432, 452 (2007).
42. Id.
43. Id.

44. Id.
45. Id.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com