BILFLEX PHIL. INC. LABOR UNION et al. v. FILFLEX MANUFACTURING CORPORATION AND BILFLEX (PHILS.), INC.

511 SCRA 247 (2006), THIRD DIVISION (Carpio Morales, J.)

INDUSTRIAL

AND

Any union officer who knowingly participates in an illegal strike and any worker or union who knowingly participates in the commission of illegal acts during a strike may be declared to have lost his employment status. Biflex Philippines Inc. Labor Union and Filflex Industrial and Manufacturing Labor Union are the respective collective bargaining agents of the employees of the sister companies Biflex and Filflex which are engaged in the garment business. They are situated in one big compound and they have a common entrance. On October 24, 1990, the labor sector staged a welga ng bayan to protest against oil price hike; the unions staged a work stoppage which lasted for several days, prompting the companies to file a petition to declare the work stoppage illegal for failure to comply with procedural requirements. The Labor Arbiter held that the strike is illegal and declared the officers of the union to have lost their employment status. ISSUE: Whether or not the staged strike is illegal and a ground for the lost of employment status of the union officers HELD: Article 264 (a) of the Labor Code states that any union officer who knowingly participates in an illegal strike and any worker or union who knowingly participates in the commission of illegal acts during a strike may be declared to have lost his employment status. Thus, a union officer may be declared to have lost his employment status if he knowingly participates in an illegal strike and in this case, the strike is declared illegal by the court because the means employed by the union are illegal. Here, the unions blocked the egress and ingress of the company premises thus, a violation of Article 264 (e) of the Labor Code which would affect the strike as illegal even if assuming arguendo that the unions had complied with legal formalities and thus, the termination of the employees was valid. The court said that the legality of a strike is determined not only by compliance with its legal formalities but also by means by which it is carried out.