CA upholds 2007 decision clearing LRTA of liability in non-payment of P229-M backwages to employees

MANILA, May 13, 2008 (Asia Pulse Data Source via COMTEX) -- -- The Court of Appeals (CA) has upheld its 2007 decision which earlier stated that state-run Light Rail Transit Authority (LRTA) cannot be made liable with Metro Transit Organization Inc. (MTOI) to pay P229 million as backwages and separation pay of some 211 employees who were dismissed due to their participation in a strike in July 2000.

The CAs 13th Division, in a nine-page decision written by Associate Justice Marlene Gonzales-Sison, dismissed the motion for reconsideration filed by employees union Pinag-isang Lakas ng Manggagawa ng Metro-National Federation of Workers Union Kilusang Mayo Uno (Piglas-NFWU-KMU) seeking to reinstitute the ruling of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) declaring LRTA as equally liable to compensate the dismissed employees.

Concurring with the ruling were Associate Justices Juan Enriquez, Jr. and Vicente Veloso.

The CA earlier ruled that the dismissed workers were actually employees of Metro Transit, the former operator of LRT Line 1 traversing the areas between Baclaran of Paranaque City and Monumento of Caloocan City, and not of LRTA.

The CA held that the employment in LRTA should be governed only by civil service rules, and not the Labor Code, since it is a government-owned and controlled corporation while Metro Transit was organized under the Corporation Code and became a government-owned and controlled corporation only after it was acquired by LRTA.

The CA concluded that the NLRC never assumed jurisdiction over LRTA, thus, the decision rendered against it was null and void.

In the case at bar, it was not only grave abuse of discretion tantamount to lack of jurisdiction that was present it was pure and simple no jurisdiction at all. We now ask the private respondents which is more serious mere grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction or no jurisdiction at all? With this alone, the instant motion for reconsideration should be outrightly denied, the CA said.

The CA also did not give credence to the claim of the employees that the CA Tenth Division has already declared final and executory the NLRC decision owing to the lapse of the 60-day temporary restraining order of LRTA and for the failure of the latter to post the required bond.

While it may be true that this Courts Tenth Division stated that the 60-day lifetime of TRO has expired and that there is no longer any legal impediment of the respondents execution of the NLRC decision, nowhere in the said resolution can we infer that the said decision has already become final, the CA said.

It noted that the resolution of the Tenth Division actually required the parties to submit their respective memorandum which contradicts the claim of the employees that the case has already become final.

The case stemmed from the complaint filed by regular rank-and-file employees of Metro Transit and LRTA accusing the two corporations of illegal dismissal.

Prior to the controversy, LRTA and Metro Transit entered into a contract for the management and operation of the Metro Manila Light Rail Transit System in consideration of P5 million annual fee.

But on July 25, 2000, more than 200 employees staged a after negotiations of their collective bargaining agreement reached a deadlock.

This resulted to the temporary delay in the operation of the LRT 1 System, prompting then Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) Secretary Bienvenido Laguesma to assume jurisdiction over the dispute.

DOLE subsequently issued a return to work order, directing striking employees to report for work immediately and for Metro Transit and LRTA to hire them under the same terms and conditions of employment prior to the strike.

But on July 28, 2000, LRTA informed Metro Transit that its board of directors has passed a resolution allowing the expiration of their agreement and directing the take over by the LRTA of the operations and maintenance of the LRT Line 1.

The move resulted in the dismissal of the striking employees but the latter claimed their dismissal was unjustified and they were not accorded due process.

They further claimed that the closure of Metro Transit is tantamount to unfair labor practice aimed at busting the union and to pave the way for contractualization of labor scheme.

The NLRC ruled in favor of the dismissed employees and order Metro Transit and LRTA to jointly compensate them. (PNA)<br>DCT/PFN

More News:   Market Updates | Stock Alerts | All Trading News | Stock Index