VICTORIA V INCIONG
Facts:
Saturno Victoria worked as a radio transmitter operator of Far East Broadcasting Company, Incorporated. Along with some of his co-workers, they organized the
Far East Broadcasting Company Employees Association which they have registered with the Department of Labor; however the respondent refused to recognize
the association on the ground that it is a non-profit, non-stock, non-commercial and religious corporation, which makes it not covered by Republic Act 875,
otherwise known as the Industrial Peace Act, the labor law enforced at that time. When the union members were advised that the company could not be forced to
recognize them or to bargain collectively with them because it is a non-profit, non-commercial and religious organization, Victoria led the union in declaring a strike
and picketed the company’s premises for the purpose of seeking recognition of the labor union. Because of what happened, the respondent filed a case for
damages against the strikers which was addressed with an injunction or a ban putting a stop to the three-day-old strike staged against the company.
The Labor Arbiter rendered a decision that ordered the striking members of the Far East Broadcasting Company Employees Association return to their respective
positions in the corporation and for the company to accept back the returning strikers without loss in rank seniority or status. This decision was appealed and the
Court of First Instance of Bulacan rendered a judgment declaring that Far East Broadcasting Company is a non-profit organization since it does not declare
dividends and that the strike is declared illegal as it was to compel the company to recognize their labor union which cannot be done since the respondent is not
covered by Republic Act 875. With this decision, the petitioner was subsequently dismissed from the company and he alleged that he was illegally dismissed since
prior clearance is needed from the Secretary before the dismissal of employees or cessation of business
Issues:
Whether or not a clearance from the Secretary of Labor is still necessary before the petitioner could be dismissed and whether the decision of the Court of First
Instance of Bulacan can be used by the respondent as basis of authority to dismiss the petitioner without any clearance from the Secretary of Labor.
Held:
The substantive law on the matter enforced during the time of petitioner's dismissal was Article 267 [b] of the Labor Code [in conjunction with the rules and
regulations implementing said substantive law.] Article 267 reads:
No employer that has no collective bargaining agreement may shut down his establishment or dismiss or terminate the service of regular employees with at least
one [1] year of service except managerial employees as defined in this book without previous written clearance from the Secretary of Labor.
The Supreme Court ruled to dismiss the petition as the union’s strike was deemed illegal which granted the respondent the authority to dismiss the said petitioner
from employment. Although there was no clearance obtained by the respondent from the then Secretary of Labor, the respondent explained to the then Secretary
of Labor of its intention to terminate the services of the petitioner, which is in effect an application for clearance to dismiss the petitioner from employment; this was
supported by the affirmation as evidenced by the conformity to the dismissal of the Secretary of Labor.In addition, the Supreme Court mentioned that the strike
staged by the union in 1972 was a futile move as the law enforced then, Republic Act 875, excluded respondent company from its coverage which implies that as
the union leader, the petitioner should have made sure that the conduct of the union’s operations are within the law. The Supreme Court likewise ruled that
petitioner is entitled to separation pay equivalent to one-half month salary for every year of service now that his dismissal is deemed legal.
