Reporter: Monterola, Mykee Merll S.

LM4A

Group D LabRel

Oct. 12, 2016

Isalama Machine Works Corp. v. NLRC, G.R. No. 100167, March 2, 1995
Facts:
On 25 March 1987, petitioner Isalama Machine Works Corp. and private respondent
Isalama Machine Works Corp. Labor Union-Workers Alliance Trade Union entered into a
collective bargaining agreement (CBA). The unresolved dispute between the parties on
13th month pay differentials under P.D. No. 851, i.e., the proper manner of its application
and computation, was traced to be the real reason behind the precipitate (sudden) and illconsidered strike of the union. The Executive Labor Arbiter rendered a decision holding
the strike to be illegal and declaring Henry Baygan and the participating union members
to have hereby lost their employment status.
The dismissed EEs appealed the decision of the Executive LA to the NLRC wherein the
latter ordered the reinstatement, w/o back salaries of the dismissed union members except
for Baygan. The corp. filed a motion for reconsideration which was denied due to lack of
merit. It then filed for a TRO enjoining respondent NLRC to execute its judgment
submitting the ff: 1. that the union cannot claim good faith in staging their strike, 2. 13th
month pay is a non-strikeable issue and, 3. It can no longer accept strikers due to the
corp.'s decision to close down its operations on account of damages and losses incurred
because of the strike and that the corp. has a new owner.
Issue:
Was the strike illegal?
Ruling:
Yes. The strike was illegal and the union was found to have violated Art. 264(e) of the
LCP when they blocked and barricaded the entrance of petitioner's premises preventing
free ingress (entrance) and egress (exit). Unfortunately for the petitioner, the identity of
the 16 participants of the strike, except Baygan whose dismissal was warranted, was not
adequately established therefore no sufficient evidence of the commission of illegal acts
during the strike could be pinned down on the aforenamed respondents. The questioned
decision was affirmed subject to modifications; reinstating the 16 union members with
back salaries limited to only three years w/o deduction or qualification. Baygan was
dismissed for being the union leader who is responsible for his member's actions
Art. 264(e) states that:
No person engaged in picketing shall commit any act of violence, coercion or
intimidation or obstruct the free ingress and egress from the employers premises for
lawful purposes, or obstruct public thoroughfares.