Law School Noob: [CASE DIGEST] Batangas Laguna Tayabas Bus Co. v. NLRC, Tinig at Lakas ng Manggagawa sa BLTB Co.-NAFLU and 190 members (G.R. No. 101858)

Thursday, January 6, 2022

[CASE DIGEST] Batangas Laguna Tayabas Bus Co. v. NLRC, Tinig at Lakas ng Manggagawa sa BLTB Co.-NAFLU and 190 members (G.R. No. 101858)

August 21, 1992

FACTS:

On May 23, 1988, Tinig at Lakas ng Manggagawa sa BLTB Co. NAFLU filed a Notice of Strike against the Batangas Laguna Tayabas Bus Company on the grounds of unfair labor practice (ULP) and violation of the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA).

BLTB Co. asked the Labor Secretary to assume jurisdiction over the dispute or to certify it to the NLRC for compulsory arbitration. The company also moved to dismiss the notice of strike.

Subsequently, Acting Labor Secretary Castro certified the dispute to NLRC on August 29, 1988. However, it was noted in the notice of order that the union secretary Jerry Soriano refused to receive it.

Two days later, the officers and members of the Union went on strike and maintained picket lines blocking the premises of BLTB Co.’s terminals.

NLRC en banc then issued an order to lift their picket and remove all obstructions and barricades. It also issued a return-to-work order, which BLTB Co. published in the Manila Bulletin. Per the resolution, the striking workers were to return no later than September 19.

Only 1,116 of the 1,730 striking workers reported by the end of the deadline, while 17 others were later re-admitted. A total of 614 employees, including those allegedly dismissed for causes other than the strike, filed individual complaints for illegal dismissal.

The NLRC dismiss the charges for ULP and union busting, noting that dismissal of the union officers was valid. It also held that the strike was illegal while ruling for the reinstatement of all striking employees who did not commit illegal acts.

ISSUE:

Whether the 190 striking workers who participated in the strike and who did not heed the return to work order deemed to have lost their employment. - NO.

HELD:

The Supreme Court held that the employees did not abandon their jobs just because they reported late or beyond the period required by the NLRC and by BLTB Co.

The circumstances of time and place of employment and the residences of the employees as well as the lack of individual notice to them are reasons enough to justify their failure to beat the deadline.

Further, the SC held that it cannot reasonably expect the complainants, who are ordinary workers, to be regular readers of Manila Bulletin.

The mere fact that the majority of the strikers were able to return to work does not necessarily mean that the rest deliberately defied the return-to-work order or that they had been sufficiently notified thereof.

Ultimately, the right to strike is one of the rights recognized and guaranteed by the Constitution as an instrument of labor for its protection against exploitation by management. It must be declared only after the most thoughtful consultation among them, conducted in the only way allowed, that is, peacefully, and in every case conformably to reasonable regulation. Any violation of the legal requirements and strictures, such as a defiance of a return-to-work order in industries affected with public interest, will render the strike illegal, to the detriment of the very workers it is supposed to protect.

LAW SCHOOL LIFE

The real score on law school and alcohol

Law school is so demanding an endeavor, no decent law student would want to deliberately skip clat asses for a tall glass of beer, no matter how deliciously ice cold such beverage is. It just isn't done. At all [. . .]

Should law students take a leave of absence until the COVID-19 pandemic ends?

For many, the abrupt shift to digital learning due to the pandemic is a novel concept that is particularly difficult to adjust to. This is more pronounced among law students, where daily physical interactions with classmates and professors are necessary in fostering a robust academic experience [. . .]

So you took the Bar Exams and failed. Now what?

Failing the Bar constitutes an abysmal point in any law graduate's life. It can trigger a lot of negative things, which is why it is very important that Bar examinees should have a support system to cling on to in the event of failure [. . .]

Bar review season pitfalls and tips to make reviewing for the Bar Exams less stressful

The Bar Exam review season is when reviewees try to conjur everything they have learned in law school and condense everything into neat mental folders easily retrievable when needed. Doing so requires focus, concentration, determination, and wise use of resources, particularly time and money [. . .]

The lowdown on law school entrance exams: Top 3 law schools in the Philippines

The top three law schools in the Philippines by reputation, quality of their alumni, and passing rate in the Bar exams are the College of Law of the University of the Philippines in Quezon City, the Ateneo School of Law in Makati, and the College of Law of the San Beda University in Manila. Each year these schools manage to attract graduates from all over the Philippines. As such, competition for slots in any of these schools is intense [. . .]

The Filipino law student's guide to scoring law textbooks on the cheap

Law books are often thick and heavy tomes of specialized legal information, mostly annotations of laws or statutes with a discussion of existing jurisprudence. They can be very intimidating. Even worse, they are bound to punch a gaping hole in your wallet [. . .]

To digest or not to digest -- that's the question

Relying on digests spares one the trouble of having to go through the case itself, identifying relevant facts, determining key issues, and analyzing the court's rationale in coming up with its decision [. . .]