#81.

San Miguel Corporation vs NLRC and IBM (2003)

FACTS:
Petitioner SMC and Ilaw Buklod ng Manggawa (IBM), exclusive bargaining agent of
SMC rank-and-file employees, executed a CBA in which they agreed to submit all their
disputes to grievance and arbitration proceedings. The CBA included a mutually
enforceable no-strike-no-lockout agreement.
Subsequently, two groups from IBM filed notice of strike with the NCMB against SMC
for allegedly commiting ULP.
The NCMB held that the issues were non-strikeable, and issued letter-orders to both
union groups converting their notice of strike into a preventive mediation.
While preventive mediation is ongoing, the Colomeda group filed with the NCMB a
notice of holding a strike vote. The NCMB Director issued another letter reiterating the
conversion of notice of strike into a preventive mediation. He emphasized that the
grounds raised were centered on an intra-union conflict, which is non-strikeable, since the
cases simply calls for the resolution of the question as to who between the two groups
shall represent the workers for collective bargaining puroses.
Still, the Colomeda group later notified the NCMB of the results of their strike vote,
which favoured the holding of strike.
The NCMB issued another letter, informing the Colomeda group that their notice of
strike is deemed to have not been filed due to their conversion ionto a case of preventive
mediation. Despite this and the pendency of the preventive mediation proceedings, IBM
went on strike.
Upon action by petitioner, the NLRC issued a TRO and directing free ingress to and
egress from petitioners plants, without prejudice to the unions right to oeaceful
picketing and continuous hearings on the injunction case.
SMC and IBM then entered into a Memorandum Agreement calling for the lifting of the
picket lines and resumption of work in exchange for good faith talks between the
management and the management committees. Thus, the picket lined ended and work
was resumed.
Later, the IBM moved to reconsider the issuance of the TRO and sought to dismiss the
injnction case in view of the cessation of the picketing activities as a result of their MOA.
The NLRC denied the petition for injunction for lack o0f factual basis, finding that there
were no actual or threatened commission of unlawful acts at that time.
ISSUE: WON the NLRC should have granted the petition for injunction.
HELD:
Article 254 of the Labor Code provides that no injunction or restraining order shall be
issued by the court except as otherwise provided in Art. 218[266] and 264 [278]. Under Art.
266(e), injunction may be used to restrain an actual threat or threatened unlawful strike.
SMC is correct in claiming that the union falied to comply with the procedural
requirements of a valid strike, because it failed to file a valid notice of strike with the NCMB as

prescribed by Art. 263[277] of the LC. When the NCMB converted the notice to preventive
mediation,this had the effect of dismissing the notices of stirike filed by the IBM. In the case of
PAL vs Drilon. The court ruled that after such conversion, it is as if there were no notice of
strike. And that during the pendency of the preventive mediation proceedings, no strike could be
legally declared.
IBM went on strike despite of lack of valid notice of strike, and despite the pendency of
the mediation proceedings. And even after the execution of MOA by the parties, IBM circulated
fliers declaring, ipaalala nyo sa management na hindi iniaatras an gating Notice of Strike at
anumang oras ay pwede nating itirik ang picket line. This shows that at the time, there were
threats of commission of prohibited activities. Clearly, it was grave abuse of discretion on the
part of the NLRC when it faile to grant the petition for injunction filed by the SMC.
And since the CBA contained provisions on grievance and arbitration, obviously, the
union violated such provisions when it files the notice of strike witgour availing the remedies
therin. Such infringement of the grienvance and arbitration provisions constitures further
justification for the issuance of injunction against the strike.
As held by the Court in the case of IPP & PWU vs ISRC Strikes held in violation of the
terms contained in the CBA are illegal when they provide for conclusive arbitration clauses.
These sgreemenrs must be strictly adhered to and respected if their ends have to be achieved.