Reinstatement With Backwages for Employees Excluded From Illegal Strike Charges

The Supreme Court recently clarified an important principle in labor law: employees who are not charged with participating in an illegal strike cannot be treated as equally at fault with those who were charged. In Automotive Engine Rebuilders, Inc. v. Progresibong Unyon Ng Mga Manggagawa Sa AER (G.R. No. 160138, January 16, 2013), the Court ordered the reinstatement with backwages of nine workers who were excluded from the employer's illegal strike complaint, even though their union colleagues were found to have engaged in an illegal strike.

The Dispute

The case began in February 1999 when 32 employees of Automotive Engine Rebuilders, Inc. (AER) filed a complaint against the company for unfair labor practices, illegal dismissal, and illegal suspension. The employees sought reinstatement and payment of full backwages.

AER, in turn, filed its own complaint against the union and 18 of its members, charging them with illegal strike and other prohibited concerted activities. The company also suspended seven union members who tested positive for illegal drugs.

Of the 32 employees who filed the original complaint, only 18 were charged by AER with illegal strike. This left 14 employees who were not included in the illegal strike charge. The question before the Court was whether these 14 excluded employees should be treated the same as those who were charged.

The Issue

The core issue was whether the 14 employees excluded from the illegal strike complaint should be reinstated with backwages, or whether they should suffer the same consequences as their colleagues who were found guilty of participating in an illegal strike.

The Ruling

The Supreme Court ruled that employees who are not charged with illegal strike cannot be considered in pari delicto (equally at fault). Since no charges were filed against them, they cannot be found guilty of an illegal strike. The Court held that these employees should be reinstated and given their backwages.

However, the Court carefully reviewed the records and found that only nine of the 14 excluded employees had properly authorized the union to represent them in the petition before the Court of Appeals. The other five failed to affix their names and signatures to the Membership Resolution authorizing the union president to act on their behalf. Because of this procedural defect, the Court could not grant them the same relief.

The nine employees entitled to reinstatement with backwages were: Ruperto Mariano II, Arnold Rodriguez, Froilan Madamba, Danilo Quiboy, Roger Belatcha, Roberto Caldeo, Crisanto Lumbao, Jr., Arnold Villota, and Renato Sarabuno.

The Court also ruled that the backwages should earn interest at six percent (6%) per annum, which increases to twelve percent (12%) after the judgment becomes final.

The Principle of Pari Delicto

The Court's ruling underscores a fundamental principle: a person cannot be penalized for an offense with which they were never charged. The doctrine of in pari delicto applies only to those who actually participated in the wrongful act. Employees who were not charged with illegal strike cannot be lumped together with those who were, simply because they belong to the same union or filed a related complaint.

Practical Takeaways

• Employers must be precise in identifying who participated in an illegal strike. Failure to include an employee in the charge may mean that employee cannot be disciplined for the strike.
• Employees not charged with illegal strike are entitled to reinstatement and backwages if they were dismissed or not admitted back to work.
• Procedural requirements matter. Employees who fail to properly authorize their representatives in legal proceedings may lose their claims.
• Backwages accrue interest. The Court confirmed that backwages earn interest at the legal rate, which increases after finality of judgment.
• Reinstatement may be conditioned on medical fitness. In this case, the Court noted that reinstatement was without prejudice to the employer's right to require medical check-ups for drug dependency.

This article is general information and not legal advice. For your specific situation, consult a lawyer or ask ASG Legal AI.