Digested by: MANGANTULAO, Laura P.

4B (2020-2021)

AUTOMOTIVE ENGINE REBUILDERS, INC. (AER) vs.

PROGRESIBONG UNYON NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA AER
GR No. 160138 | July 13, 2011 | Mendoza, J.

Topic: Recruitment and Placement

DOCTRINE – “Since both parties are at fault or in pari delicto, they should be restored to their respective
positions prior to the illegal strike and illegal lockout.”

FACTS:

AER filed a complaint against Unyon and its 18 members for illegal concerted activities. It
likewise suspended 7 union members who tested positive for illegal drugs. On the other hand, Unyon
filed a countercharge accusing AER of unfair labor practice, illegal suspension and illegal dismissal. In
other words, AER claims that Unyon was guilty of staging an illegal strike while Unyon claims that AER
committed an illegal lockout.

ISSUE:
Whether the penalty of dismissal imposed by AER against the striking employees is proper.

RULING:
NO. In any event, the penalty of dismissal imposed by AER against the striking employees, who,
by the way, only staged a one day walkout, was too severe.

There were no injuries during the brief walkout. Neither was there proof that the striking
workers inflicted harm or violence upon the other employees. In fact, the Police Memorandum dated
January 29, 1999 reported no violent incidents and stated that all parties involved in the January 28,
1999 incident were allowed to go home and the employees involved were just given a stern warning.

The complaining workers temporarily walked out of their jobs because they strongly believed
that management was committing an unfair labor practice. They had no intention of hurting anybody or
steal company property. Contrary to AER's assertion, the striking workers did not intend to steal the line
boring machine which they tried to cart away from the AER-PSC compound; they just wanted to return it
to the main AER building.

Like management, the union and the affected workers were also at fault for resorting to a
concerted work slowdown and walking out of their jobs of protest for their illegal suspension. It was also
wrong for them to have forced their way to the AER-PSC premises to try to bring out the boring
machine. The photos shown by AER are enough proof that the picketing employees prevented the entry
and exit of non-participating employees and possibly AER's clients. Although the union's sudden work
stoppage lasted a day, it surely caused serious disturbance and tension within AER's premises and could
have adversely affected AER's clients and business in general.

In the case at bar, since both AER and the union are at fault or in pari delicto, they should be
restored to their respective positions prior to the illegal strike and illegal lockout. Nonetheless, if

1
LABOR LAW REVIEW
Digested by: MANGANTULAO, Laura P.
4B (2020-2021)

reinstatement is no longer feasible, the concerned employees should be given separation pay up to the
date set for the return of the complaining employees in lieu of reinstatement.

2
LABOR LAW REVIEW