Friday, January 04, 2008 10 former GMC workers to SC: NLRC disregarded your ruling
TEN former workers of General Milling Corp. (GMC) elevated before the Supreme Court (SC) their case against four National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) officials, whom they accused of ignoring the SC’s ruling on their case.
They accused Presiding Commissioner Violeta Ortiz-Bantug of the fourth division, Commissioners Oscar Uy and Aurelio Menzon and NLRC 7 Chairman Gerardo Nograles of gross ignorance of the law, grave abuse of authority, oppression and of violating the anti-graft law.
Sun.Star Cebu has been trying to get Bantug’s comment even before Dec. 25, but was repeatedly refused an interview, for various reasons.
The case stemmed from Bantug’s Nov. 22, 2006 order recalling the writ of execution and the notices of garnishment she issued to seven commercial banks in Cebu and Lapu-Lapu cities that have a GMC account.
Promotion
She was then the executive labor arbiter of the Regional Arbitration Branch. Her promotion as presiding commissioner of the fourth division took effect only this year.
GMC had lost in the labor case lodged by 436 former workers, mostly members of the GMC Independent Union.
In its Feb. 11, 2004 decision, the GMC awarded the former workers P433.7 million in back wages and other benefits, covering 15 years that started in December 1991.
It also ordered GMC to give each complainant a sack of rice per month.
Bantug reduced the award to P37,711,092 and 6,372 sacks of rice, to be divided among 281 complainants. The award covered only two years.
They said this violated Article 253 of the Labor Code, which states that a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) stays in force until a new bargaining agreement is reached between the employer and the union.
Dismissal
Their appeal before the fourth division was dismissed by Nograles, Uy and Menzon.
They went to the Court of Appeals (CA), which reversed the ruling of the fourth division.
But despite the CA’s decision, Bantug issued on Nov. 8, 2006 the writ of execution and notices of garnishment for GMC’s seven bank accounts, so the workers can be paid based on the recomputed benefits. The writ and the garnishment order were served by sheriff Matthias Navarro the following day.
Commissioners
To the former workers’ surprise, however, Bantug recalled the writ and the notices of garnishment 13 days later, after GMC filed a petition for certiorari. Commissioners Uy and Menzon upheld the recall order.
Victor Lastimosa, former union president, said the NLRC officials have ignored the SC ruling and given GMC an “unwarranted advantage by their manifest partiality.”
“The order to recall has caused undue injury to complainants and the other members of the union who were deprived of their claims and denied the right to enjoy the fruits of their struggle against GMC for 15 years,” said the former workers’ joint affidavit that the SC received last Dec. 7.
They argued that the recall of the writ was a violation of Section 10, Rule XI of the 2005 Revised Rules of Procedure of NLRC and Memorandum Circular 12-10-A of then NLRC Chairman Roy Señeres.
Both rules state that a petition for certiorari with the CA or with the SC shall not stay the execution of the assailed decision, unless a temporary restraining order is issued by the CA or the SC. (AIV)
