GR L 37952; (February, 1975) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-37952. February 25, 1975.
Firestone Pilipinas Employees Association, et al., petitioners, vs. Firestone Tire and Rubber Company of the Philippines, Hon. Alberto S. Veloso and Court of Industrial Relations, respondents.
FACTS
The petitioners, members of the Firestone Pilipinas Employees Association, filed an unfair labor practice case (No. 5980-ULP) against respondent Firestone Tire and Rubber Company. The Court of Industrial Relations (CIR) issued an order on March 9, 1973, dismissing the case, and later denied a motion to set aside the dismissal on November 6, 1973. The petitioners elevated the matter to the Supreme Court.
In a Decision dated December 10, 1974, the Supreme Court nullified the CIR’s orders for being bereft of legal force or effect. The Court, emphasizing constitutional objectives of social justice and protection to labor, remanded the case to the newly constituted National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) pursuant to Article 338 of the new Labor Code, which mandated the transfer of all pending CIR cases to the NLRC.
ISSUE
Whether the Supreme Court correctly denied the respondent company’s motion for reconsideration and affirmed the remand of the unfair labor practice case to the National Labor Relations Commission.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the motion for reconsideration. The Court clarified that the remand was not a prejudgment of the merits but a procedural necessity to cure a due process defect and to allow the proper administrative body to hear the case. The decision to remand was anchored on the advent of the new Labor Code and the creation of the reconstituted NLRC, which was vested with broad powers to implement state labor policy. The Court found no merit in the respondent’s apprehension that the remand would negate amicable settlements or deter industrial peace. On the contrary, the remand afforded the NLRC the full opportunity to evaluate the controversy, including the releases and quitclaims executed by some petitioners, which the respondent company cited in its motion. The Court stressed that the NLRC was precisely the appropriate forum to determine the validity and effects of such documents while ensuring a fair and legally sound resolution. The respondent’s resistance to the remand was viewed as an underestimation of the NLRC’s capacity to administer justice and a potential disregard for executive efforts in promoting equitable labor dispute resolution. Thus, the denial of the motion for reconsideration stood.