Aris (Phil) v. NLRC et.al.

G.R. No. 90501

August 5, 1991
Davide, JR, J.:
DESCRIPTION OF THE CASE:
This case is about the constitutionality of the power of the labor arbiter
to reinstate a dismissed employee.
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
April 11, 1988, employees (respondents) under ARIS (petitioner) were
aggrieved by the management's failure to attend to their complaints
regarding their work area which was hazardous and detrimental to them.
Result was the respondents grouping together and marching to the office of
the petitioner to protest their silence and inaction.
April 12, 1988, the management issued a memorandum to each
respondent who were identified to be most active in the protest were
required to explain why they should not be terminated. Despite their
explanation, they were dismissed on the grounds of violation of company
rules and regulations - on the provisions on security, and public order, and on
inciting or participating in illegal strikes or concerted actions.
Private respondents filled a complaint for illegal dismissal against
petitioner and Mr. Gavino Bayan with National Labor Relations
Commission(NLRC) at the National Capital Region (NCR). June 2, 1989 Felipe Garduque III (Labor Arbiter) ordered the immediate reinstatement of
the dismissed or separated employees. They shall be admitted back under
same working conditions or merely be reinstated in payroll.
July 9 1989 - Respondents then filled a Motion for Issuance of a Writ of
Execution.
July 21, 1989 - Petitioners filed its appeal.
July 26, 1989 - Respondents except for Flor Rayos del Sol Filed a partial
appeal.
August 10, 1989 - Flor Rayos Del Sol filed a partial appeal.

August 29, 1989 - petitioner filled a petition to the motion of execution

alleging that Section (Sec.) 12 of Republic Act (R.A.) 6715 cannot be given
retroactive effect because it was not expressly provided and to do so would
burden the petitioner to additional obligations and diluting its right to appeal.

September 1, 1989 - Respondents argue that R.A. 6715 is not sought

for retroactive since the case at bar was rendered after the effectivity of this
act.
(Law too effect on March 21, 1989 | Decision was rendered on June 22,
1989)
September 5, 1989 - Petitioner Submitted a rejoinder to the reply
*Note* - Rejoinder is an angry Reply

October 5, 1989 - Labor Arbiter granted motion for execution and

issuance of partial writ of execution regarding the reinstatement of the
respondents.
October 26, 1989 - Petitioner filed the instant petition assailing the
decision of the labor arbiter and that he was in excess in jurisdiction
March 7, 1989 - Supreme Court (SC) made a resolution requiring NLRC
to comment on the petition. November 20, 1989 - NLRC, through the
Solicitor General, said that reinstatement of labor arbiter was valid exercise
since it was only procedural, and that it was a valid exercise of police power.
December 11, 1989 - Respondents adopted the decision of the Solicitor
General, then filled a case against petitioners failed to comply with Rule 65
of Court
December 20, 1989 - Petitioner Filed a Rejoinder.
SC, then set deliberation on the case
STATEMENT OF THE CASE:
Respondents filed a case against the petitioner for illegal dismissal
before the NLRC - NCR region. Felipe Garduque III (Labor Arbiter) ruled in
their favor ordering the immediate reinstatement of the dismissed or
separated employees. They shall be admitted back under same working
conditions or merely be reinstated in payroll.
Petitioners assail the decision of the labor arbiter thus the SC prompted
the NLRC to comment on the issues assailed by the petitioners. The NLRC,
through the Solicitor General, commented in favor of the decision of the
Labor arbiter. of labor arbiter was valid exercise since it was only procedural,
and that it was a valid exercise of police power.
Respondents adopted the decision of the Solicitor General, then filled a
case against petitioners failed to comply with Rule 65 of Court (petition for
certiorari). Petitioners filed a rejoinder. SC then deliberated on the Case.

*Note* Rejoinder is an angry reply (based on Webster Dictionary)

ISSUES:
1.
Whether or
unconstitutional

not

Whether

or

not

Section.

12of

R.A.

6715

is

2.
Whether or not the interim rules of the NLRC can be given a retroactive
effect.
RULING:
Petition is DISMISSED
1.
No, Section 12 or R.A. 6715 is constitutional. The validity of the said
law was supported by the Solicitor General. The right of an employer to
freely discharge his employees is subject to regulation by the State for it is
the exercise of its inherent powers namely the police power. It is police
power on the grounds that the preservation of the lives of the citizens is a
basic duty of the State, hence is more vital than the preservation of
corporate profits. Pursuant to the same power, the State may authorize an
immediate implementation, pending appeal, of a decision reinstating a
dismissed or separated employee since that saving act is designed to stop,
although temporarily since the appeal may be decided in favor of the
appellant. Since the intention of the said law is for the protection dismissed
or separated employee and its family from the dangers and the harshness of
life.
2.
Yes, the questioned interim rules of the NLRC can validly be given
retroactive effect. They are procedural or remedial in character, promulgated
pursuant to the authority vested upon it under Article 218(a) of the Labor
Code of the Philippines, as amended. Settled is the rule that procedural laws
may be given retroactive effect. There are no vested rights in rules of
procedure. A remedial statute may be made applicable to cases pending at
the time of its enactment.
DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit. Costs
against petitioner.
SO ORDERED.