LABOR LAW 2 A2010 - 235 - Disini

(The CASE UNDER CIVIL REMEDIES) ISSUES:

NUEVA ECIJA I ELECTRIC COOP, INC., 1. WON the appeal taken by the NEECO I from the NLRC-RAB-
(NEECO I) EMPLOYEES ASSO. V NLRC III DOLE to NLRC Manila was perfected within the reglementary
323 SCRA 86 period
QUISUMBING; January 24, 2000 2. WON NLRC acted without or in excess of jurisdiction when it
resolved to delete en toto moral damages, exemplary damages,
attorney's fees and costs of litigation the factual basis of which
FACTS
were ascertained by the labor arbiter below
-Petitioners Reynaldo Fajardo, Ernesto Marin, Ever Guevarra, Petronilo
3. WON the order to apply and deduct receivable backwages
Baguisa, Victorino Carillo, and Erdie Javate were permanent employees
from received benefits is unrealistic and arbitrary.
of respondent Nueva Ecija I Electric Cooperative (NEECO I). They were
members of petitioner NEECO I Employees Association, a labor
HELD
organization established for the mutual aid and protection of its
1. NO, but there was substantial compliance.
members. Petitioner Rodolfo Jimenez was the president of the
Indisputable is the legal doctrine that the appeal of a decision
association.
involving a monetary award in labor cases may be perfected
-Respondent NEECO I is an electric cooperative under the general
"only upon the posting of a cash or surety bond. (see Art. 223 of
supervision and control of the National Electrification Administration
the Labor Code, as amended by RA 6715). Also, the perfection
(NEA). The management of NEECO I is vested on the Board of
of an appeal within the reglementary period and in the manner
Directors. Respondent Patricio dela Pea was NEECO's general
prescribed by law is jurisdictional, and noncompliance with such
manager on detail from NEA.
legal requirement is fatal and effectively renders the judgment
-The Board of Directors adopted Policy No. 3-33, which set the
final and executory.
guidelines for NEECO I's retirement benefits. All regular employees
-However, in a number of cases, this Court relaxed the rule to
were ordered by NEECO I to accomplish applications for either
resolve controversies on the merits, specifically, when there are
retirement, resignation, or separation from service.
special meritorious circumstances and issues, such as when
-The applications of Baguisa and Guevarra were approved; they were
there was substantial compliance with the rule, so that on
paid the appropriate separation pay. These successive events, followed
balance, SC made technical considerations to give way to equity
by the promotion of certain union officers to supervisory rank, caused
and justice.
apprehension in the labor association. They were considered as
-In this case, the decision of the labor arbiter was issued on
harassment threatening the union members, and circumventing the
Dec21,92. Respondents filed their appeal on Dec28,92 barely
employees' security of tenure. To strengthen and neutralize
seven days from receipt thereof. The bonding company issued
management's arbitrary moves, the union held a "snap election" of
the bond dated Jan4,93 the last day for filing an appeal.
officers.
However, it was forwarded to NLRC only on the following day,
-Petitioner labor association passed a resolution withdrawing the
Jan5,93. Considering these and the holiday season, SC finds it
applications for retirement of all its members, but petitioners Marin,
equitable to ease the rules.
Fajardo and Carillo were compulsorily retired by management. They
-As to the amount of bond, we note that there had been changes
received their separation pay under protest. Javate was terminated from
in the Rules promulgated by the NLRC. Previously the
employment allegedly due to misappropriation of funds and dishonesty.
computation of the cash or surety bond to be posted by an
He was not paid separation or retirement benefits.
employer who wishes to appeal contained in the original rules
-Petitioners and Erdie Javate instituted a complaint for illegal dismissal
was "exclusive of moral and exemplary damages and attorney's
and damages with the NLRC Regional Arbitration Branch in San
fees". It was later deleted sometime in 1991 and 1992, then
Fernando. They alleged they were purposely singled out for retirement
restored on Nov20,93. It may be noted that while NLRC in its
from a listing of employees who were made to submit retirement forms,
Resolution No. 11-01-91 dated Nov7,91 deleted the phrase
even if they were not on top of the list because they were union officers,
"exclusive of moral and exemplary damages as well as
past officers or active members of the association. Further, petitioners
attorney's fees" in the determination of the amount of the bond, it
claimed that their acceptance of the money offered by NEECO I did not
provided a safeguard against the imposition of excessive bonds
constitute estoppel nor waiver, since their acceptances were with
providing "(T)he Commission may, in meritorious cases and
vehement objections and without prejudice to all their rights resulting
upon Motion of the Appellant, reduce the amount of the bond."
from an illegal dismissal. Additionally, Javate averred he was framed up
-The unreasonable and excessive amount of bond would be
and dismissed without due process.
oppressive and unjust and would have the effect of depriving a
-The labor arbiter rendered judgment declaring the employer guilty of
party of his right to appeal. Besides, private respondents stress
illegal dismissal and unfair labor practice act, as charged; ordering
that the petitioners were paid their retirement benefits and that
respondents to reinstate individual complainants to their former positions
the cooperative has sufficient assets from which the other claims
without loss of seniority rights and other privileges, either physically or in
for damages and attorney's fees may be obtained.
the payroll, at the option of the respondents, with payment of full
backwages; and ordering respondents to pay complainants moral and
2. YES. But the award given by the Labor Arbiter, being
exemplary damages, attorneys fees and the costs of litigation.
excessive, is reduced.
-Private respondents appealed to the NLRC and posted a surety bond
-To warrant an award of moral damages, it must be shown that
(P244,891.93). But herein petitioners filed an omnibus motion to dismiss
the dismissal of the employee was attended to by bad faith, or
on the ground of late appeal, claiming that insufficient bond was filed by
constituted an act oppressive to labor, or was done in a manner
NEECO I only on January 5, 1993. The bond excluded the award of
contrary to morals, good customs or public policy. The Labor
moral and exemplary damages, attorneys' fees and costs of litigation.
Arbiter ruled that there was unfair labor practice.
-Respondent NLRC denied the motion and instead gave due course to
-Unfair labor practices violate the constitutional rights of
the appeal, and later modified the decision, by deleting the awards of
workers and employees to self-organization, are inimical to
moral and exemplary damages, attorney's fees and cost of litigation; and
the legitimate interests of both labor and management,
ruling that the amounts of retirement benefits received by the individual
including their right to bargain collectively and otherwise
complainants are to be applied to the backwages that may be due to
deal with each other in an atmosphere of freedom and
them.
mutual respect; and disrupt industrial peace and hinder the
-Meanwhile, petitioners were reinstated by NEECO I pending appeal.
promotion of healthy and stable labor-management
Erdie Javate withdrew his complaint and opted to receive his retirement
relations. As the conscience of the government, it is the
benefits (P42,114.09).
Court's sworn duty to ensure that none trifles with labor
-Both parties filed MFRs, which were both denied, Hence this special
rights.
civil action under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court, by the
petitioners.
 LABOR LAW 2 A2010 - 236 -
-For this reason, we find it proper in this case to impose moral and
exemplary damages on private respondent. However, the damages
awarded by the labor arbiter, to our mind, are excessive. In determining
the amount of damages recoverable, the business, social and financial
position of the offended parties and the business and financial position
of the offender are taken into account. It is our view that herein private
respondents had not fully acted in good faith. However, we are
cognizant that a cooperative promotes the welfare of its own members.
The economic benefits filter to the cooperative members. Either equally
or proportionally, they are distributed among members in correlation with
the resources of the association utilized. Cooperatives help promote
economic democracy and support community development. Under these
circumstances, we deem it proper to reduce the award for moral and
exemplary damages.
3. NO.
-Having been illegally dismissed, individual petitioners are entitled to
reinstatement from the time they were illegally dismissed, until they were
reinstated on March 16, 1993. For that period they are likewise entitled
to backwages minus the amount petitioners were forced to receive as
"retirement" pay. A recomputation is therefore proper and in the event
that the amount of "retirement" pay received by an individual petitioner
exceeds the amount of his backwages, the excess should be deemed as
advances of salary which should be refundable until fully repaid by him.
Disposition Petition partially granted.
PART 9
CONCERTED ACTIVITIES
9.01 BASIS OF RIGHT TO ENGAGE IN
CONCERTED ACTIVITIES
1. CONSTITUTION- ART XIII, SEC. 3
LABOR
Section 3. The State shall afford full protection to
labor, local and overseas, organized and
unorganized, and promote full employment and
equality of employment opportunities for all.
It shall guarantee the rights of all workers to self-
organization, collective bargaining and negotiations, and
peaceful concerted activities, including the right to strike in
accordance with law. They shall be entitled to security of
tenure, humane conditions of work, and a living wage. They
shall also participate in policy and decision-making processes
affecting their rights and benefits as may be provided by law.
The State shall promote the principle of shared
responsibility between workers and employers and
the preferential use of voluntary modes in settling
disputes, including conciliation, and shall enforce
their mutual compliance therewith to foster
industrial peace.
The State shall regulate the relations between
workers and employers, recognizing the right of
labor to its just share in the fruits of production
and the right of enterprises to reasonable returns
to investments, and to expansion and growth.
Disini
LUZON MARINE DEPT., UNION V ROLDAN
(LUZON STEVEDORING CO.)
86 PHIL 507
OZAETA; MAY 30, 1950
NATURE Petition for certiorari to review a resolution of the
Court of Industrial Relations.
FACTS
- June 17, 1948: Petitioner Luzon Marine Union (UNION)
presented to respondent Luzon Stevedoring Co. (LSC) a petition
containing demands, including that it be granted of full
recognition with the right to collective bargaining, closed-shop
and check-off. The Union initiated the petition in the CIR praying
that LSC be directed to comply immediately with the demands.
- The Union de Obreros Estivadores de Filipinas (UOEF) a labor
organization divided into units of which Universal Marine Union is
a part, intervened on behalf of the Union because it alleged that
the demand of the Union for recognition with the right to
collective bargaining, closed-shop, etc. would violate an
agreement entered into between LSC and UOEF, where the
company recognized UOEF as the labor organization of the
workers rendering services to LSC., with full right of collective
bargaining.
- UOEF moved for dismissal for lack of jurisdiction, on the
ground that the Union did not count with more than 30 members
employed in the LSC. Judge Bautista issued an order denying
the motion to dismiss. Before the receipt of the order, 65 alleged
members of the Union initiated a strike without notice (July 19). It
was only on July 21 that the LSC received the notice of strike.
- July 20, 1948: Union filed with CIR a petition alleging that all its
members (more than 300) went on strike on July 19 due to the
refusal of LSC to grant their demands, and prayed for the
issuance of a restraining order to prevent the respondent from
employing strike breakers.
- August 16, 1948: Judge Bautista issued an order directing the
strikers to return to work, and the LSC to reinstate them in their
previous positions. Acting on a motion for reconsideration, the
court set said order aside on the ground that the strike was
unjustified and illegal.
- Judges Roldan and Castillo held that although Sec. 19 of
Commonwealth Act 103 provides that pending award or
decision by the CIR, the employee, tenant or laborer shall
not strike or walk out of his employment when so enjoined
by the Court, and although the Court had not enjoined the
petitioner NOT TO STRIKE, it does not necessarily follow
that the strike was legal and justified xxx Although the Act
recognizes the laborers right to strike, it also creates all the
means by which a resort thereto may be avoided, because
a strike is a remedy essentially coercive in character and
general in its disturbing effects upon the social order and
the public interests.
- The CIR found out that the reason the members went
on strike was because the opposite party claims or
asserts that they had no members inside the company,
and because they were becoming impatient. From The
court concluded that the purpose of the strike was to
influence the decision and to compel the Court to decide
promptly. The union insists that the strike was called for
a lawful purpose: 1) to show they had more than 30
members; 2) to answer the challenge of Alejo Villanueva
that he will dismiss the members from the company.
ISSUES
WON the strike was called for a lawful purpose.
HELD
1. NO
Ratio In cases not falling within the prohibition against strikes,
the legality or illegality of a strike depends upon the 1) purpose
LABOR LAW 2 A2010 - 237 -
for which it is maintained, and 2) upon the means employed in carrying it
on.
- The law does not look with favor upon strikes and lockouts because of
their disturbing and pernicious effects upon the social order and the
public interests.
Reasoning The reasons presented by the Union do not justify the
drastic measure of a strike, which necessarily entails pernicious
consequences not only to the company but also to the laborers
themselves and public.
- If the purpose of a strike is trivial, unreasonable or unjust, or if violence
was committed, the strike, although not prohibited by injunction, may be
declared by the court illegal, with adverse consequences to the strikers.
- If the laborers resort to a strike to enforce their demands (instead of
exhausting legal processes first) they do so at their own risk, and should
the court find the strike was unjustified, the strikers would suffer the
adverse consequences.
DISPOSITION The petition appealed from is affirmed.
STANFORD MARKETING CORP V JULIAN
BLT BUS CO V NLRC
212 SCRA 792
CRUZ; August 21, 1992
NATURE Special civil action for certiorari
FACTS
- Tinig at Lakas ng Manggagawa sa BLTB Co. NAFLU, an affiliate of
NAFLU, filed a Notice of Strike against the Batangas Laguna Tayabas
Bus Company (BLTB Co.) on the grounds of unfair labor practice and
violation of the CBA.
- BLTB Co. asked the Sec. of Labor to assume jurisdiction or to certify it
to the NLRC. The Acting Sec of Labor later certified it to the NLRC. A
copy of the certification order was served upon NAFLU. The union
secretary, however, refused to receive it.
- The officers and members of TLM-BLTBCo-NAFLU went on strike. The
NLRC issued a resolution ordering the employees to stop the strike.
BLTBCo caused the publication of the resolution and called on all
striking workers to return to work.
- Of the some 1,730 BLTBCo employees who went on strike, only 1,116
reported back for work. Seventeen others were later re-admitted.
Subsequently, about 614 employees, including those who were
allegedly dismissed for causes other than the strike, filed individual
complaints for illegal dismissal. Their common ground was that they
were refused admission when they reported back for work.
- The NLRC issued a resolution ordering the reinstatement of the union
members.
ISSUE/S
1. WON the union members who participated in the illegal strike should
be reinstated
HELD
1. YES.
Reasoning
- First, there was inadequate service of the certification order on the
union as of the date the strike was declared and there was no showing
that the striking members had been apprised of such order by the
NAFLU.
- Second, by virtue of the priniciple of vicarious liability, only the union
officers deserve not to be reinstated. The leaders of the union are the
moving force in the declaration of the strike and the Rank-in-file
employees merely followed. Likewise, viewed in the light of Article 264,
paragraph (e), those who participated in the commission of illegal acts
who stood charged criminally thereof in court must be penalized
- The contention of the petitioner that the private respondents
abandoned their position is also not acceptable. An employee who
forthwith takes steps to protest his lay-off cannot by any logic be said to
have abandoned his work.
-The loss of employment status of striking union members is limited to
those "who knowingly participates in the commission of illegal acts."
Disini
(Article 264, Labor Code) Evidence must be presented to
substantiate the commission thereof and not merely an
unsubstantiated allegation
- The right to strike is one of the rights recognized and guaranteed by
the Constitution as an instrument of labor for its protection against
exploitation by management. By virtue of this right, the workers are
able to press their demands for better terms of employment with more
energy and persuasiveness, poising the threat to strike as their
reaction to the employer's intransigence. The strike is indeed a
powerful weapon of the working class. But precisely because of this, it
must be handled carefully, like a sensitive explosive, lest it blow up in
the workers' own hands. Thus, it must be declared only after the most
thoughtful consultation among them, conducted in the only way
allowed, that is, peacefully, and in every case conformably to
reasonable regulation. Any violation of the legal requirements and
strictures, such as a defiance of a return-to-work order in industries
affected with public interest, will render the strike illegal, to the
detriment of the very workers it is supposed to protect
Disposition Petition dismissed
2. STATUTORY- 263 (b)
STRIKES AND LOCKOUTS
ART. 263. Strikes, picketing and lockouts. - (a)xxx
(b) Workers shall have the right to engage in
concerted activities for purposes of collective
bargaining or for their mutual benefit and
protection. The right of legitimate labor
organizations to strike and picket and of employers
to lockout, consistent with the national interest,
shall continue to be recognized and respected.
However, no labor union may strike and no
employer may declare a lockout on grounds
involving inter-union and intra-union disputes.
BLT BUS CO V NLRC
212 SCRA 792
CRUZ; August 21, 1992
NATURE Special civil action for certiorari
FACTS
- Tinig at Lakas ng Manggagawa sa BLTB Co. NAFLU, an
affiliate of NAFLU, filed a Notice of Strike against the Batangas
Laguna Tayabas Bus Company (BLTB Co.) on the grounds of
unfair labor practice and violation of the CBA.
- BLTB Co. asked the Sec. of Labor to assume jurisdiction or to
certify it to the NLRC. The Acting Sec of Labor later certified it to
the NLRC. A copy of the certification order was served upon
NAFLU. The union secretary, however, refused to receive it.
- The officers and members of TL M-BLTBCo-NAFLU
went on strike. The NLRC issued a resolution ordering the
employees to stop the strike. BLTBCo caused the publication of
the resolution and called on all striking workers to return to work.
- Of the some 1,730 BLTBCo employees who went on strike,
only 1,116 reported back for work. Seventeen others were later
re-admitted. Subsequently, about 614 employees, including
those who were allegedly dismissed for causes other than the
strike, filed individual complaints for illegal dismissal. Their
common ground was that they were refused admission when
they reported back for work.
- The NLRC issued a resolution ordering the reinstatement of the
union members.
ISSUE/S
1. WON the union members who participated in the illegal strike
LABOR LAW 2 A2010 - 238 -
should be reinstated
HELD
1. YES.
Reasoning
- First, there was inadequate service of the certification order on the
union as of the date the strike was declared and there was no showing
that the striking members had been apprised of such order by the
NAFLU.
- Second, by virtue of the priniciple of vicarious liability, only the union
officers deserve not to be reinstated. The leaders of the union are the
moving force in the declaration of the strike and the Rank-in-file
employees merely followed. Likewise, viewed in the light of Article 264,
paragraph (e), those who participated in the commission of illegal acts
who stood charged criminally thereof in court must be penalized
- The contention of the petitioner that the private respondents
abandoned their position is also not acceptable. An employee who
forthwith takes steps to protest his lay-off cannot by any logic be said to
have abandoned his work.
-The loss of employment status of striking union members is limited to
those "who knowingly participates in the commission of illegal acts."
(Article 264, Labor Code) Evidence must be presented to substantiate
the commission thereof and not merely an unsubstantiated allegation
- The right to strike is one of the rights recognized and guaranteed by
the Constitution as an instrument of labor for its protection against
exploitation by management. By virtue of this right, the workers are able
to press their demands for better terms of employment with more energy
and persuasiveness, poising the threat to strike as their reaction to the
employer's intransigence. The strike is indeed a powerful weapon of the
working class. But precisely because of this, it must be handled carefully,
like a sensitive explosive, lest it blow up in the workers' own hands. Thus,
it must be declared only after the most thoughtful consultation among
them, conducted in the only way allowed, that is, peacefully, and in
every case conformably to reasonable regulation. Any violation of the
legal requirements and strictures, such as a defiance of a return-to-work
order in industries affected with public interest, will render the strike
illegal, to the detriment of the very workers it is supposed to protect
Lapanday Workers Union v. NLRC
248 SCRA 95
Puno ; Sept. 7, 1995
Facts
-Lapanday Agricultural and Development Corporation and CADECO
Agro Development Philippines Inc. (Private respondents) are sister
companies. Lapanday Workers Union (Union) is the duly certified
bargaining agent of the rank and file employees of private respondent.
The Union is affiliated with the KMU-ANGLO.
-Union has a collective bargaining agreement. A few months before the
expiration of their CBA, private respondent initiated certain management
policies which disrupted the relationship of the parties- 1. Contracting of
Philippine Eagle Protectors and Security Agency Inc., the Union branded
the security guards posted within the company premises as private
respondents' "goons" and "special forces." It also accused the guards of
intimidating and harassing their members. 2. The Union claimed that the
module on the Philippines political spectrum lumped the ANGLO
(Alliance of Nationalist and Genuine Labor Organization), with other
outlawed labor organization such as the National Democratic Front or
other leftist groups.
-These issues were discussed during a labor-management meeting, the
Union agreed to allow its members to attend the HDIR seminar for the
rank-and-filers but the Union directed its members not to attend the
seminars scheduled on said dates. They picketed the premises of the
Philippine Eagle Protectors to show their displeasure on the hiring of the
guards. Union filed a Notice of Strike with the National Conciliation and
Mediation Board (NCMB). NCMB called conciliation conference. The
conference yielded the agreements that Union officers, including the
officials of KMU-ANGLO, and the Executive Director of the NMB would
attend the HDIR seminar and a committee shall convene to establish
guidelines governing the guards. With the apparent settlement of their
difference, private respondents notified the NCMB that there were no
more base for the notice of strike.
Disini
-Danilo Martinez. a member of the Board of Directors of the
Union, was gunned down in his house in the presence of his wife
and children. The gunman was later identified as Eledio Samson,
an alleged member of security forces of private respondent. After
the killing, most of the members of the Union refused to report
for work. They returned to work the following day but they did not
comply with the "quota system" adopted by the management to
bolster production output. Allegedly, the Union instructed the
workers to reduce their production to thirty percent (30%) Private
respondents charged the Union with economic sabotage through
slowdown. Private respondents filed separate charged against
the Union and it member for illegal strike. unfair labor practice
and damages, with prayer for injunction. Petitioners skipped
work to pay their last respect to the slain Danilo Martinez. who
was laid to rest. Again on another date petitioner did not report
for work. Instead, they proceeded to private respondents' office
at Lanang, carrying placards and posters which called for the
removal of the security guards. the ouster of certain
management officials, and the approval of their mass leave
application. Their mass action did not succeed.
-Labor Arbiter decision: Illegal strike and employees have lost
their employment status and order to desist. NLRC limited the
penalty of dismissal only to the leaders of the illegal strike
especially the officers of the union who served as its major
player and union members were merely instigated to participate
in the illegal strike and should be treated differently from their
leaders. Petitioners claim that public respondent NLRC gravely
abused it discretion.
Issue WON the strike is legal
Held
No. The applicable law are Articles 263 and 264 of the Labor
Code, as amended by E.O. No. 111, dated December 24. 1986.
Paragraphs (c) and (f) of Article 263 of the Labor Code, as
amended by E.O. 111, provides.
"c) In cases of bargaining deadlocks. the duly certified or
recognized bargaining agent may file a notice of strike or the
employer may file a notice of lockout with the Ministry at
least 30 days before the intended date thereof. In cases of
unfair labor practice, the notice shall be 15 days and in the
absence of a duly certified or recognized bargaining agent,
the notice of strike may be filed by any legitimate labor
organization in behalf of its member. However, in case of
dismissal from employment of union officer duly elected in
accordance with the union constitution and by-laws, which
may constitute union busting where the existence of the
union is threatened, the 15-day cooling-off period shall not
apply and the union may take action immediately.
xxx xxx xxx
"f) A decision to declare a strike must be approved by a
majority of the total union membership in the bargaining unit
concerned, obtained by secret ballot in meetings or
referenda called for that purpose. A decision to declare a
lockout must be approved by a majority of the board of
director of the corporation or association or of the partner in
a partnership, obtained by secret ballot in a meeting called
for that purpose. The decision shall be valid for the duration
of the dispute based on substantially the same grounds
considered when the strike or lockout vote was taken. The
Ministry may, at its own initiative or upon the request of any
affected party, supervise the conduct of secret ballot In every
case the union or the employer shall furnish the Ministry the
result of the voting at least seven (7) days before the
intended strike or lockout subject to the cooling-off period
herein provided.
Article 264 of the same Code reads:
"Art 264. Prohibited activities. - (a) No labor
organization or employer shall declared a strike or
lockout without first having bargained collectively in
accordance with Title VII of this Book or without first
LABOR LAW 2 A2010 - 239 -
having filed the notice required in the preceding Article or without
the necessary strike or lockout vote first having been obtained and
reported to the Ministry.
xxx xxx xxx
". . . Any union officer who knowingly participates in an illegal strike and
any worker or union officer who knowingly participates in the
commission of illegal acts during a strike may be declared to have lost
his employment status: Provided that mere participation of a worker in a
lawful strike shall not constitute sufficient ground for termination of his
employment, even if a replacement had been hired by the employer
during such lawful strike."
A strike is "any temporary stoppage of work by the concerted action of
employees as a result of an industrial or labor dispute." It is the most
preeminent of the economic weapons or workers which they unsheathe
to force management to agree to an equitable sharing of the point
product of labor and capital. Undeniably, strikes exert some disquieting
effects not only on the relationship between labor and management but
also on the general peace and progress of society. Our laws thus
regulate their exercise within reasons by balancing the interests of labor
and management together with the overarching public interest.
Some of the limitations on the exercise of the right of strike are provided
for in paragraph (c) and (f) of Article 263 of the labor Code, as amended,
supra. They provide for the procedural steps to be followed before
staging a strike - filing of notice of strike, taking of strike vote, and
reporting of the strike vote result to the Department of Labor and
Employment. In National Federation of Sugar Workers (NFSW) vs.
Overseas, et al., we ruled that these steps are mandatory in
character. thus:
"If only the filing of the strike notice and the strike-vote report would be
deemed mandatory. but not the waiting periods so specifically and
emphatically prescribed by law, the purposes (hereafter discussed) for
which the filing of the strike notice and strike-vote report is required
cannot be achieved . . .
xxx xxx xxx
"So too, the 7 day strike-vote report is not without a purpose. As pointed
out by the Solicitor General -
'. . . The submission of the report gives assurance that a strike vote has
been taken and that, if the report concerning it is false, the majority of
the members can take appropriate remedy before it is too late.'
The seven (7) day waiting period is intended to give the Department of
Labor and Employment an opportunity to verify whether the projected
strike really carries the imprimatur of the majority of the union members.
The need for assurance that majority of the union members support the
strike cannot be gainsaid. Strike is usually the last weapon of labor to be
gainsaid. Strike compel capital to concede to its bargaining demands or
to defend itself against unfair labor practices of management. It is a
weapon that can either breathe life to or destroy the union and its
members in their struggle with management for a more equitable due of
their labors. The decision to wield the weapon of strike must, therefore,
rest on a rational basis, free from emotionalism. unswayed by the
tempers and tantrums of a few hothead, and firmly focused on the
legitimate interest of the union which should not, however, be antithetical
to the public welfare. Thus, our laws require the decision to strike to be
the consensus of the majority for while majority is not infallible, still, it is
the best hedge against haste and error. In addition, a majority vote
assures the union it will go to war against management with the strength
derived from unity and hence, with better chance to succeed. In
Batangas Laguna Tayabas Bus Company vs. NLRC, we held:
xxx xxx xxx
"The right to strike is one of the right recognized and guaranteed by the
Constitution as an instrument of labor for it protection against
exploitation by management. by virtue of his right. the workers are able
to press their demands for better terms of employment with more energy
and persuasiveness. poising the threat to strike at their reaction to
employer s intransigence. The strike is indeed a powerful weapon of the
working class. But precisely because of this, it must be handled carefully
like a sensitive explosive, but it blow up in the workers' own hands.
Thus. it must de declared only after the most thoughtful consultation
among them, conducted in the only was allowed that is, peacefully, and
in every case conformably to reasonable regulation. Any violation of the
Disini
legal requirements and strictures, . . . will render the strike illegal.
to the detriment of the very workers it is supposed to protect.
"Every war must be lawfully waged. A labor dispute demands no
less observance of the rules. for the benefit of all concerned."
Applying the law to the case at bar, we rule that strike conducted
by the union on October 12, 1988 is plainly illegal as it was held
within the seven (7) day waiting period provided for by paragraph
(f), Article 263 of the Labor Code. as amended. The haste in
holding the strike prevented the Department of Labor and
Employment from verifying whether it carried the approval of the
majority of the union members. It set to naught an important
policy consideration of our law on strike. Considering this finding,
we need not exhaustively rule on the legality of the work
stoppage conducted by the union and some of their members on
September 9 and 23, 1988. Suffice to state, that the ruling of the
public respondent on the matter is supported by substantial
evidence.
Disposition Reinstating rank-and-file workers who were merely
misled in supporting illegal strikes but not be entitled to
backwages as they should not be compensated for services
skipped during the illegal strike. Dismissed.
GRAND BOULEVARD HOTEL V GENUINE
LABORERS ORGANIZATION
406 SCRA 688
CALLEJO; July 18, 2003
NATURE
Petition for review on certiorari
FACTS
- Respondent Genuine Labor Organization of Workers in Hotel,
Restaurant and Allied Industries Silahis International Hotel
Chapter (Union) and the petitioner Grand Boulevard Hotel (then
Silahis International Hotel, Inc.) executed a CBA covering the
period from July 10, 1985 up to July 9, 1988.
- Thereafter, Union filed several notices of strike on account of
alleged violations of CBA, illegal dismissal and suspension of
EEs. In these instances, SOLE issued a status quo ante bellum
order certifying the labor dispute to the NLRC for compulsory
arbitration pursuant to Article 263(g) of LC. After notice was
given by Hotel re its decision to implement retrenchment
program, Union informed the DOLE that the union will conduct a
strike vote referendum. The members of the Union voted to
stage a strike. Union informed the DOLE of the results of the
strike vote referendum. SOLE issued another status quo ante
bellum order certifying the case to the NLRC for compulsory
arbitration and enjoining the parties from engaging in any strike
or lockout. Then, another notice of strike was filed by Union on
account of the illegal dismissal of EEs pusrsuant to Hotels act of
retrenching around 171 EEs. Officers of the respondent union
and some members staged a picket in the premises of the hotel,
obstructing the free ingress and egress thereto. Because of this,
they were terminated.
- Hotel filed a complaint with NLRC for illegal strike against the
union, its members and officers. Petitioner Hotel alleged inter
alia that the union members and officers staged a strike on
November 16, 1990 which lasted until November 29, 1990
without complying with the requirements provided under Articles
263 and 264 of the Labor Code. It further alleged that the officers
and members of the respondent union blocked the main ingress
to and egress from the hotel.
- The respondent Union denied the material allegations of the
complaint and alleged that the petitioner committed ULP prior to
the filing of the Nov. 16, 1990 notice of strike. Hence, there was
no need for the union to comply with A263 and 264 of LC, as the
notice
- LA Linsangans Ruling: Unions failure to comply with the
requirements laid down in A263 and 264 of LC, the strike that
was staged was illegal. Considering the admissions of the
individual respondents that they participated in the said strike,
LABOR LAW 2 A2010 - 240 - Disini
the termination of their employment by the petitioner was legal. LA noted - Even if the union acted in good faith in the belief that the
that if as alleged by the respondent union the petitioner was guilty of company was committing an unfair labor practice, if no notice of
ULP, it should have filed a complaint therefor against the Hotel and/or its strike and a strike vote were conducted, the said strike is illegal.
officials for which the latter could have been meted penal and
administrative sanctions as provided for in A272 of LC. The Union failed. 2. YES
- Appeal by Union to NLRC: that it had complied with the requirements Re: Effect of Illegality
laid down in A263 and 264 of LC because its Nov 16, 1990 notice of Ratio Since a strike that is undertaken, despite the issuance by
strike was a mere reiteration of its Sept 27, 1990 notice of strike, which, the SOLE of an assumption or certification order, becomes a
in turn, complied with all the requirements of the aforementioned prohibited activity and, thus, illegal pursuant to A264 of LC, the
articles, i.e., the cooling-off period, the strike ban, the strike vote and the union officers and members, as a result, are deemed to have lost
strike vote report. their employment status for having knowingly participated in an
- NLRC affirmed LA Decision. Compliance of the requirements laid down illegal act.
in A263 and 264 of LC respecting the Sept 27, 1990 notice of strike filed
by the union cannot be carried over to the Nov 16, 1990 notice of strike. Disposition Petition is GRANTED. LA Decision REINSTATED.
Resultantly, for failure of the union to comply with the requirements, the
strike staged on November 16 up to November 29, 1990 was illegal.
- CA reversed NLRC and LA: It took into account the observation of the
Sol-Gen that the Hotel retrenched EEs pending the resolution of the 3. INTERNATIONAL COVENANT ON
certified cases respecting the alleged illegal suspension and dismissals
effected by Hotel during and prior to the notices of strike filed by Union. ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND
Sol-Gen opined that even if the strike was staged without the proper CULTURAL RIGHTS ART. 8 (d)
notice and compliance with the cooling-off period, resort thereto was
simply triggered by the petitioners' belief in good faith that Hotel was
engaged in ULP. Hence, this petition INTL COVENANT ON ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND
CULTURAL RIGHTS
ISSUES Article 8
1 WON the strike staged by the respondent union on Nov16-29, 1990
is legal 1. The States Parties to the present Covenant
2 WON the dismissals of the officers and some members of the Union undertake to ensure:
as a consequence of the strike on Nov16-29, 1990 are valid. -xxx-
(d) The right to strike, provided that it is exercised
HELD in conformity with the laws of the particular
1. NO
Re: Procedural Requirements country.
- Under A263 (c) and (f) of LC, the requisites for a valid strike are as
follows: (a) a notice of strike fled with the DOLE 30 days before the
intended date thereof or 15 days in case of ULP; (b) strike vote 4. LIMITATIONS
approved by a majority of the total union membership in the bargaining
unit concerned obtained by secret ballot in a meeting called for that PHILIPPINE DIAMOND HOTEL AND RESORT
purpose; (c) notice given to the DOLE of the results of the voting at least INC (MANILA DIAMOND HOTEL v MANILA
7 days before the intended strike. The requisite 7-day period is intended
to give the DOLE an opportunity to verify whether the projected strike DIAMOND HOTEL EMPLOYEES UNION
really carries the approval of the majority of the union members. The 494 SCRA 195
notice of strike and the cooling-off period were intended to provide an CARPIO MORALES; June 30, 2006
opportunity for mediation and conciliation. The requirements are
mandatory and failure of a union to comply therewith renders the strike FACTS
illegal. A strike simultaneously with or immediately after a notice of strike
-Union filed a petition for certification election to be declared the
will render the requisite periods nugatory. exclusive bargaining representative of the Hotels employees.
This petition was dismissed by DOLE for lack of legal
- In this case, union filed its notice of strike with the DOLE on Nov 16, requirements.
1990 and on the same day, staged a picket on the premises of the hotel, -after a few months, Union sent a letter to Hotel informing it of its
in violation of the law. Union cannot argue that since the notice of strike desire to negotiate for a collective bargaining agreement. This
on Nov 16, 1990 were for the same grounds as those contained in their was rejected by the Hotel stating that the Union was not the
notice of strike on September 27, 1990 which complied with the employees bargaining agent as their petition for certification
requirements of the law on the cooling-off period, strike ban, strike vote election was denied.
and strike vote report, the strike staged by them on Nov16, 1990 was -Union filed a Notice of Strike with the NCMB alleging the Hotel
lawful. The matters contained in the notice of strike of Sept 27, 1990 had refusal to bargain and for acts of unfair labor practices. NCMB
already been taken cognizance of by the SOLE when he issued on Oct summoned both parties and held series of dialogues. Union
31, 1990 a status quo ante bellum order enjoining union from intending
however suddenly went on strike
or staging a strike. Despite SOLE order, the union nevertheless staged a -Secretary of DOLE assumed jurisdiction and ordered
strike on Nov16, 1990 simultaneously with its notice of strike, thus compulsory arbitration pursuant to art. 263 (g) of LC. And Union
violating A264(a) LC
members were directed to return to work and for Hotel to accept
them back. Hotel refused to accept the employees return. The
Grounds
order was modified (by a different Secretary) such that
- A strike that is undertaken, despite the issuance by the SOLE of an
reinstatement was to be done only in the payroll.
assumption or certification order, becomes a prohibited activity and, thus,
-Union filed for certiorari alleging grave abuse of discretion. Case
illegal pursuant to A264 of LC: No strike or lockout shall be declared was referred to the CA. CA affirmed that the payroll
after assumption of jurisdiction by the President or the Secretary or after
reinstatement was not a grave abuse of discretion. On appeal, it
certification or submission of the dispute to compulsory or voluntary
modified NLRC decision ordering reinstatement with back wages
arbitration or during the pendency of cases involving the same grounds of union members.
for the strike or lockout.
ISSUE
LABOR LAW 2 A2010 - 241 -
1) WON the Union can bargain only in behalf of its members and not for
all the employees of the Hotel.
2) WON the strike conducted by the Union was illegal.
3) WON those employees who participated in the strike should be given
back wages
HELD
1) No.
-As provided by art 255 of the LC only the labor organization designated
or selected by the majority of the employees in an appropriate collective
bargaining unit is the exclusive representative of the employees in such
unit for the purpose of collective bargaining.
-The Unions petition for certificate election was denied by the DOLE.
The union thus is admittedly not the exclusive representative of the
majority of the employees of petitioner, hence, it could not demand from
petitioner the right to bargain collectively in their behalf
-Respondent insists, however, that it could validly bargain in behalf of
"its members," relying on Article 242 of the Labor Code.
-the CA ruled that what [respondent] will be achieving is to divide the
employees, more particularly, the rank-and-file employees of
[petitioner] . . . the other workers who are not members are at a serious
disadvantage, because if the same shall be allowed, employees who are
non-union members will be economically impaired and will not be able to
negotiate their terms and conditions of work, thus defeating the very
essence and reason of collective bargaining, which is an effective
safeguard against the evil schemes of employers in terms and
conditions of work
- Petitioners refusal to bargain then with respondent can not be
considered a ULP to justify the staging of the strike.
TOPICS: Union registration and procedure, factors, majority union
2) yes.
-as was mentioned, the first ground mentioned by the Union- the Hotels
refusal to bargain- was not a valid ground to stage the strike.
-The second ground that petitioner prevented or intimidated some
workers from joining the union before, during or after the strike was
correctly discredited by the appellate court.. Since it is the union who
alleges that unfair labor practices were committed by the Hotel, the
burden of proof is on the union to prove its allegations by substantial
evidence. the facts and the evidence did not establish events [sic] least
a rational basis why the union would [wield] a strike based on alleged
unfair labor practices it did not even bother to substantiate.
-It is doctrinal that the exercise of the right of private sector employees
to strike is not absolute. Thus Section 3 of Article XIII of the Constitution,
provides:
SECTION 3. x x x
It shall guarantee the rights of all workers to self-organization, collective
bargaining and negotiations and peaceful concerted activities, including
the right to strike in accordance with law
-Even if the purpose of a strike is valid, the strike may still be held illegal
where the means employed are illegal. Thus, the employment of
violence, intimidation, restraint or coercion in carrying out concerted
activities which are injurious to the rights to property renders a strike
illegal. Evidence show s that some of the workers-strikers who joined the
strike indeed committed illegal acts blocking the free ingress to and
egress from the Hotel, holding noise barrage, threatening guests, and
the like.
TOPICS: right to engage in concerted activities-limitations
3) No.
-The general rule is that backwages shall not be awarded in an
economic strike on the principle that "a fair days wage" accrues only for
a "fair days labor. If there is no work performed by the employee there
can be no wage or pay, unless of course, the laborer was able, willing
and ready to work but was illegally locked out, dismissed or suspended.
"when employees voluntarily go on strike, even if in protest against
unfair labor practices," no back wages during the strike is awarded.
-The Court ruled that only those members of the union who did not
commit illegal acts during the course of the illegal strike should be
reinstated but without back wages
TOPIC: illegal strikes- burden of economic loss
Disini
BISIG NG MANGGAGAWA SA CONCRETE
AGGREGATES, INC. V NLRC
G.R. No. 105090
PUNO; September 16, 1993
NATURE Petition for certiorari and mandamus
FACTS
- The labor conflict between the parties broke out in the open
when the petitioner union struck on April 6, 1992 protesting
issues ranging from unfair labor practices and union busting
allegedly committed by the private respondent. The union
picketed the premises of the private respondent in Quezon City,
Rizal, Pampanga and Laguna.
- On April 8, 1992, private respondent filed with the NLRC a
petition for injunction to stop the strike which it denounced as
illegal.
- The petition was set for hearing but the union claimed that it
was not furnished a copy of the petition. Allegedly, the company
misrepresented its address to be at Rm. 205-6 Herald Bldg.,
Muralla St., Intramuros, Manila.
- On April 13, 1992, the NLRC heard the evidence of the
company alone. Before the day was over, the respondent NLRC
issued a temporary restraining order against the union. No copy
of this Order was furnished the union. The union learned of the
Order only when it was posted on April 15, 1992 at the premises
of the company..
- On April 24, 1992, the union also filed its own Petition for
Injunction to enjoin the company "from asking the aid of the
police and the military officer in escorting scabs to enter the
struck establishment." The records show that the case was
heard on April 24 and 30, May 4 and 5, 1992 by respondent
Labor Arbiter Enrilo Pealosa. On April 30, 1992, the company
filed a Motion for the Immediate Issuance of Preliminary
Injunction, which the union opposed. On May 5, 1992, however,
the respondent NLRC issued its disputed Order granting the
company's motion for preliminary injunction.
ISSUE WON Order of the NLRC infringes petitioners' right to
strike and must be struck down
HELD YES
- The records will show that the respondent NLRC failed to
comply with the letter and spirit of Article 218 (e), (4) and (5) of
the Labor Code in issuing its Order of May 5, 1992. Article 218
(e) of the Labor Code provides both the procedural and
substantive requirements which must strictly be complied with
before a temporary or permanent injunction can issue in a labor
dispute, viz:
"ART. 218. Powers of the Commission. -- The Commission
shall have the power and authority:
xxx xxx xxx
(e) To enjoin or restrain any actual or threatened commission of
any or all prohibited or unlawful acts or to require the
performance of a particular act in any labor dispute which, if not
restrained or performed forthwith, may cause grave or
irreparable damage to any party or render ineffectual any
decision in favor of such party: Provided, That no temporary or
permanent injunction in any case involving or growing out of a
labor dispute as defined in this Code shall be issued except after
hearing the testimony of witnesses, with opportunity for cross-
examination, in support of the allegations of a complaint made
under oath, and testimony in opposition thereto, if offered, and
only after a finding of fact by the commission, to the effect:
"(1) That prohibited or unlawful acts have been threatened and
will be committed and will be continued unless restrained but no
injunction or temporary restraining order shall be issued on
account of any threat, prohibited or unlawful act, except against
LABOR LAW 2 A2010 - 242 - Disini
the person or persons, association or organization making the threat or CRUZ; August 21, 1992
committing the prohibited or unlawful act or actually authorizing or
ratifying the same after actual knowledge thereof; NATURE Special civil action for certiorari
"(2) That substantial and irreparable injury to complainants property will
FACTS
follow;
- Tinig at Lakas ng Manggagawa sa BLTB Co. NAFLU, an
affiliate of NAFLU, filed a Notice of Strike against the Batangas
"(3) That as to each item of relief to be granted, greater injury will be
Laguna Tayabas Bus Company (BLTB Co.) on the grounds of
inflicted upon complainant by the denial of relief than will be inflicted
unfair labor practice and violation of the CBA.
upon defendants by the granting of relief;
- BLTB Co. asked the Sec. of Labor to assume jurisdiction or to
certify it to the NLRC. The Acting Sec of Labor later certified it to
"(4) That complainant has no adequate remedy at law; and"(5) That the
the NLRC. A copy of the certification order was served upon
public officers charged with the duty to protect complainants property
NAFLU. The union secretary, however, refused to receive it.
are unable or unwilling to furnish adequate protection.
- The officers and members of TL M-BLTBCo-NAFLU
went on strike. The NLRC issued a resolution ordering the
"Such hearing shall be held after due and personal notice thereof has
employees to stop the strike. BLTBCo caused the publication of
been served, in such manner as the Commission shall direct, to all
the resolution and called on all striking workers to return to work.
known persons against whom relief is sought, and also to the Chief
- Of the some 1,730 BLTBCo employees who went on strike,
Executive and other public officials of the province or city within which
only 1,116 reported back for work. Seventeen others were later
the unlawful have been threatened or committed charged with the duty
re-admitted. Subsequently, about 614 employees, including
to protect complainant's property: . . ."
those who were allegedly dismissed for causes other than the
strike, filed individual complaints for illegal dismissal. Their
- In his Comment, the Solicitor General cited various evidence on record
common ground was that they were refused admission when
showing the failure of public respondents to fulfill the requirements,
they reported back for work.
especially of paragraphs four and five of the above cited law. The
- The NLRC issued a resolution ordering the reinstatement of the
factual circumstances proven by the evidence show that there was no
union members.
concurrence of the five prerequisites mandated by Art. 218(e) of the
Labor Code. Thus there is no justification for the issuance of the
ISSUE/S
questioned Order of preliminary injunction.
1. WON the union members who participated in the illegal strike
- Moreover, the records reveal the continuing misuse of unfair strategies
should be reinstated
to secure ex parte temporary restraining orders against striking
employees. Petitioner union did not receive any copy of private
HELD
respondent's petition for injunction. Its address, as alleged by the private
1. YES.
respondent, turned out to be "erroneous". Consequently, the petitioner
Reasoning
was denied the right to attend the hearing while the private respondent
- First, there was inadequate service of the certification order on
enjoyed a field day presenting its evidence ex parte. On the basis of
the union as of the date the strike was declared and there was
uncontested evidence, the public respondent temporarily enjoined the
no showing that the striking members had been apprised of such
petitioner from committing certain alleged illegal acts. Again, a copy of
order by the NAFLU.
the Order was sent to the wrong address of the petitioner. Knowledge of
- Second, by virtue of the priniciple of vicarious liability, only the
the Order came to the petitioner only when its striking members read it
union officers deserve not to be reinstated. The leaders of the
after it was posted at the struck areas of the private respondent.
union are the moving force in the declaration of the strike and the
- To be sure, the issuance of an ex parte temporary restraining order in
Rank-in-file employees merely followed. Likewise, viewed in the
a labor dispute is not per se prohibited. Its issuance, however, should be
light of Article 264, paragraph (e), those who participated in the
characterized by care and caution for the law requires that it be clearly
commission of illegal acts who stood charged criminally thereof
justified by considerations of extreme necessity, i.e., when the
in court must be penalized
commission of unlawful acts is causing substantial and irreparable injury
- The contention of the petitioner that the private respondents
to company properties and the company is, for the moment, bereft of an
abandoned their position is also not acceptable. An employee
adequate remedy at law. This is as it ought to be, for imprudently issued
who forthwith takes steps to protest his lay-off cannot by any
temporary restraining orders can break the back of employees engaged
logic be said to have abandoned his work.
in a legal strike. Often times, they unduly tilt the balance of a labor
-The loss of employment status of striking union members is
warfare in favor of capital. When that happens, the deleterious effects of
limited to those "who knowingly participates in the commission of
a wrongfully issued, ex parte temporary restraining order on the rights of
illegal acts." (Article 264, Labor Code) Evidence must be
striking employees can no longer be repaired for they defy simple
presented to substantiate the commission thereof and not merely
monetization. Moreover, experience shows that ex parte applications for
an unsubstantiated allegation
restraining orders are often based on fabricated facts and concealed
- The right to strike is one of the rights recognized and
truths. A more becoming sense of fairness, therefore, demands that
guaranteed by the Constitution as an instrument of labor for its
such ex parte applications should be more minutely examined by
protection against exploitation by management. By virtue of this
hearing officers, lest, our constitutional policy of protecting labor
right, the workers are able to press their demands for better
becomes nothing but a synthetic shibboleth. The immediate need to
terms of employment with more energy and persuasiveness,
hear and resolve these ex parte applications do not provide any excuse
poising the threat to strike as their reaction to the employer's
to lower our vigilance in protecting labor against the issuance of
intransigence. The strike is indeed a powerful weapon of the
indiscriminate injunctions. Stated otherwise, it behooves hearing officers
working class. But precisely because of this, it must be handled
receiving evidence in support of ex parte injunctions against employees
carefully, like a sensitive explosive, lest it blow up in the workers'
in strike to take a more active stance in seeing to it that their right to
own hands. Thus, it must be declared only after the most
social justice is in no way violated despite their absence. This equalizing
thoughtful consultation among them, conducted in the only way
stance was not taken in the case at bar by the public respondents.
allowed, that is, peacefully, and in every case conformably to
reasonable regulation. Any violation of the legal requirements
Disposition The petition is granted.
and strictures, such as a defiance of a return-to-work order in
industries affected with public interest, will render the strike
illegal, to the detriment of the very workers it is supposed to
BLT BUS CO V NLRC protect
212 SCRA 792
LABOR LAW 2 A2010 - 243 -
Disposition Petition dismissed
Lapanday Workers Union v. NLRC
248 SCRA 95
Puno ; Sept. 7, 1995
Facts
-Lapanday Agricultural and Development Corporation and CADECO
Agro Development Philippines Inc. (Private respondents) are sister
companies. Lapanday Workers Union (Union) is the duly certified
bargaining agent of the rank and file employees of private respondent.
The Union is affiliated with the KMU-ANGLO.
-Union has a collective bargaining agreement. A few months before the
expiration of their CBA, private respondent initiated certain management
policies which disrupted the relationship of the parties- 1. Contracting of
Philippine Eagle Protectors and Security Agency Inc., the Union branded
the security guards posted within the company premises as private
respondents' "goons" and "special forces." It also accused the guards of
intimidating and harassing their members. 2. The Union claimed that the
module on the Philippines political spectrum lumped the ANGLO
(Alliance of Nationalist and Genuine Labor Organization), with other
outlawed labor organization such as the National Democratic Front or
other leftist groups.
-These issues were discussed during a labor-management meeting, the
Union agreed to allow its members to attend the HDIR seminar for the
rank-and-filers but the Union directed its members not to attend the
seminars scheduled on said dates. They picketed the premises of the
Philippine Eagle Protectors to show their displeasure on the hiring of the
guards. Union filed a Notice of Strike with the National Conciliation and
Mediation Board (NCMB). NCMB called conciliation conference. The
conference yielded the agreements that Union officers, including the
officials of KMU-ANGLO, and the Executive Director of the NMB would
attend the HDIR seminar and a committee shall convene to establish
guidelines governing the guards. With the apparent settlement of their
difference, private respondents notified the NCMB that there were no
more base for the notice of strike.
-Danilo Martinez. a member of the Board of Directors of the Union, was
gunned down in his house in the presence of his wife and children. The
gunman was later identified as Eledio Samson, an alleged member of
security forces of private respondent. After the killing, most of the
members of the Union refused to report for work. They returned to work
the following day but they did not comply with the "quota system"
adopted by the management to bolster production output. Allegedly, the
Union instructed the workers to reduce their production to thirty percent
(30%) Private respondents charged the Union with economic sabotage
through slowdown. Private respondents filed separate charged against
the Union and it member for illegal strike. unfair labor practice and
damages, with prayer for injunction. Petitioners skipped work to pay their
last respect to the slain Danilo Martinez. who was laid to rest. Again on
another date petitioner did not report for work. Instead, they proceeded
to private respondents' office at Lanang, carrying placards and posters
which called for the removal of the security guards. the ouster of certain
management officials, and the approval of their mass leave application.
Their mass action did not succeed.
-Labor Arbiter decision: Illegal strike and employees have lost their
employment status and order to desist. NLRC limited the penalty of
dismissal only to the leaders of the illegal strike especially the officers of
the union who served as its major player and union members were
merely instigated to participate in the illegal strike and should be treated
differently from their leaders. Petitioners claim that public respondent
NLRC gravely abused it discretion.
Issues
WON the strike is legal
Held
No. The applicable law are Articles 263 and 264 of the Labor Code, as
amended by E.O. No. 111, dated December 24. 1986.
Paragraphs (c) and (f) of Article 263 of the Labor Code, as amended by
E.O. 111, provides.
Disini
"c) In cases of bargaining deadlocks. the duly certified or
recognized bargaining agent may file a notice of strike or the
employer may file a notice of lockout with the Ministry at least 30
days before the intended date thereof. In cases of unfair labor
practice, the notice shall be 15 days and in the absence of a duly
certified or recognized bargaining agent, the notice of strike may
be filed by any legitimate labor organization in behalf of its
member. However, in case of dismissal from employment of
union officer duly elected in accordance with the union
constitution and by-laws, which may constitute union busting
where the existence of the union is threatened, the 15-day
cooling-off period shall not apply and the union may take action
immediately.
xxx xxx xxx
"f) A decision to declare a strike must be approved by a majority
of the total union membership in the bargaining unit concerned,
obtained by secret ballot in meetings or referenda called for that
purpose. A decision to declare a lockout must be approved by a
majority of the board of director of the corporation or association
or of the partner in a partnership, obtained by secret ballot in a
meeting called for that purpose. The decision shall be valid for
the duration of the dispute based on substantially the same
grounds considered when the strike or lockout vote was taken.
The Ministry may, at its own initiative or upon the request of any
affected party, supervise the conduct of secret ballot In every
case the union or the employer shall furnish the Ministry the
result of the voting at least seven (7) days before the intended
strike or lockout subject to the cooling-off period herein provided.
Article 264 of the same Code reads:
"Art 264. Prohibited activities. - (a) No labor organization or
employer shall declared a strike or lockout without first having
bargained collectively in accordance with Title VII of this Book or
without first having filed the notice required in the preceding
Article or without the necessary strike or lockout vote first having
been obtained and reported to the Ministry.
xxx xxx xxx
". . . Any union officer who knowingly participates in an illegal
strike and any worker or union officer who knowingly participates
in the commission of illegal acts during a strike may be declared
to have lost his employment status: Provided that mere
participation of a worker in a lawful strike shall not constitute
sufficient ground for termination of his employment, even if a
replacement had been hired by the employer during such lawful
strike."
A strike is "any temporary stoppage of work by the concerted
action of employees as a result of an industrial or labor dispute."
It is the most preeminent of the economic weapons or workers
which they unsheathe to force management to agree to an
equitable sharing of the point product of labor and capital.
Undeniably, strikes exert some disquieting effects not only on the
relationship between labor and management but also on the
general peace and progress of society. Our laws thus regulate
their exercise within reasons by balancing the interests of labor
and management together with the overarching public interest.
Some of the limitations on the exercise of the right of strike are
provided for in paragraph (c) and (f) of Article 263 of the labor
Code, as amended, supra. They provide for the procedural steps
to be followed before staging a strike - filing of notice of strike,
taking of strike vote, and reporting of the strike vote result to the
Department of Labor and Employment. In National Federation of
Sugar Workers (NFSW) vs. Overseas, et al., we ruled that these
steps are mandatory in character. thus:
"If only the filing of the strike notice and the strike-vote report
would be deemed mandatory. but not the waiting periods so
specifically and emphatically prescribed by law, the purposes
(hereaf
ter
discus ART. 212. Definitions. (o) "Strike" means any
sed) temporary stoppage of work by the concerted
for action of employees as a result of an industrial or
labor dispute.
LABOR LAW 2 A2010 - 244 -
which the filing of the strike notice and strike-vote report is required
cannot be achieved . . .
xxx xxx xxx
"So too, the 7 day strike-vote report is not without a purpose. As pointed
out by the Solicitor General -
'. . . The submission of the report gives assurance that a strike vote has
been taken and that, if the report concerning it is false, the majority of
the members can take appropriate remedy before it is too late.'
The seven (7) day waiting period is intended to give the Department of
Labor and Employment an opportunity to verify whether the projected
strike really carries the imprimatur of the majority of the union members.
The need for assurance that majority of the union members support the
strike cannot be gainsaid. Strike is usually the last weapon of labor to be
gainsaid. Strike compel capital to concede to its bargaining demands or
to defend itself against unfair labor practices of management. It is a
weapon that can either breathe life to or destroy the union and its
members in their struggle with management for a more equitable due of
their labors. The decision to wield the weapon of strike must, therefore,
rest on a rational basis, free from emotionalism. unswayed by the
tempers and tantrums of a few hothead, and firmly focused on the
legitimate interest of the union which should not, however, be antithetical
to the public welfare. Thus, our laws require the decision to strike to be
the consensus of the majority for while majority is not infallible, still, it is
the best hedge against haste and error. In addition, a majority vote
assures the union it will go to war against management with the strength
derived from unity and hence, with better chance to succeed. In
Batangas Laguna Tayabas Bus Company vs. NLRC, we held:
xxx xxx xxx
"The right to strike is one of the right recognized and guaranteed by the
Constitution as an instrument of labor for it protection against
exploitation by management. by virtue of his right. the workers are able
to press their demands for better terms of employment with more energy
and persuasiveness. poising the threat to strike at their reaction to
employer s intransigence. The strike is indeed a powerful weapon of the
working class. But precisely because of this, it must be handled carefully
like a sensitive explosive, but it blow up in the workers' own hands. Thus.
it must de declared only after the most thoughtful consultation among
them, conducted in the only was allowed that is, peacefully, and in every
case conformably to reasonable regulation. Any violation of the legal
requirements and strictures, . . . will render the strike illegal. to the
detriment of the very workers it is supposed to protect.
"Every war must be lawfully waged. A labor dispute demands no less
observance of the rules. for the benefit of all concerned."
Applying the law to the case at bar, we rule that strike conducted by the
union on October 12, 1988 is plainly illegal as it was held within the
seven (7) day waiting period provided for by paragraph (f), Article 263 of
the Labor Code. as amended. The haste in holding the strike prevented
the Department of Labor and Employment from verifying whether it
carried the approval of the majority of the union members. It set to
naught an important policy consideration of our law on strike.
Considering this finding, we need not exhaustively rule on the legality of
the work stoppage conducted by the union and some of their members
on September 9 and 23, 1988. Suffice to state, that the ruling of the
public respondent on the matter is supported by substantial evidence.
Disposition
Reinstating rank-and-file workers who were merely misled in supporting
illegal strikes but not be entitled to backwages as they should not be
compensated for services skipped during the illegal strike. Dismissed.
9.02 STRIKE ACTIVITY
1. DEFINITION- 212 (O)
Disini
BUKLURAN NG MANGGAGAWA SA
CLOTHMAN KNITTING CORPORATION
SOLIDARITY OF UNIONS IN THE PHILIPPINES
FOR EMPOWERMENT AND REFORMS (BMC-
SUPER) vs. CA (CLOTHMAN KNITTING
CORPORATION)
448 SCRA 642
CALLEJO, SR.; Jan 17, 2005
NATURE
Petition for review
FACTS
- Clothman Knitting Corporation (CKC), a domestic corporation
engaged in knitting/textiles, issued a Memorandum informing its
employees at the Dyeing and Finishing Division that a temporary
shutdown of the operations therein would be effected for one
week due to change in the schedule brought about by the
decrease in the orders from the customers.
- Petitioner Tomaroy, with sixteen (16) members of the petitioner
union, staged a picket in front of the respondents compound,
carrying placards with slogans.
- CKC filed a petition to declare the strike illegal for failure to
comply with the procedural requirements for staging a strike.
The petition was granted and the employees who participated
lost their employment status with CKC.
ISSUE WON the stage is illegal for failure of the petitioners to
comply with the procedural requirements
HELD YES
Ratio In order for a strike to be valid, the following requirements
laid down in paragraphs (c) and (f) of Article 263 of the Labor
Code must be complied with: (a) a notice of strike must be filed;
(b) a strike-vote must be taken; and
(c) the results of the strike-vote must be reported to the DOLE.
It bears stressing that these requirements are mandatory,
meaning, non-compliance therewith makes the strike illegal. The
evident intention of the law in requiring the strike notice and
strike-vote report is to reasonably regulate the right to strike,
which is essential to the attainment of legitimate policy objectives
embodied in the law.
Reasoning
a. The strikers/picketers did not conduct a strike vote and no
cooling-off period was observed;
b. The strikers/picketers did not file a notice of strike;
c. The reasons for the strike/picket involve a non-strikeable
issue;
d. It was not based on a valid factual ground, either based on
Collective Bargaining Deadlock and/or Unfair Labor Practice;
e. There was no strike-vote report submitted to the DOLE at
least seven (7) days before the intended date of the strike;
f. The 7-day visiting period after submission of the strike vote
report was not fully observed.
DISPOSITION Petition DENIED.
AIRLINE PILOTS ASSOCIATION v CIR
76 SCRA 274
CASTRO, April 15, 1977
FACTS:
On 2 January 1971, Gomez, who claimed to be the President of
the Air Line Pilots Association of the Philippines (ALPAP) filed a
petition with the Court of Industrial Relations (CIR) praying for
certification as sole and exclusive bargaining representative of
LABOR LAW 2 A2010 - 245 -
all pilots under employment of Philippine Airlines and are on active
flights or operational assignments. ALPAP led by Gaston, who also
claimed to be its President, opposed said petition on the ground that the
CIR had no jurisdiction over the subject matter thereof. However, prior to
the filing of the said certification petitition, an ALPAP meeting was held
on 30 October 1970 where 221 out of 270 members adapted a section
which amended ALPAPs constitution and by-laws, it provided that any
member who shall be forced to retire or to resign or otherwise
terminated for union activities may either continue his membership, or
resign from the association. During this time, PAL and ALPAP where
locked in a labor dispute as certified to the CIR. A return-to-work order
was then issued by the CIR to all participants of the strike while PAL
was ordered not to dismiss or terminate any employee. On 12
December 1970, despite of a no-work-stoppage order of the CIR, a
majority of ALPAP members filed resignation / retirement letters. PAL
accepted the said letters with the caveat that the pilots will not be
entitled to any of the benefits / privileges since their acts constituted
violation of the order of the CIR. Thereafter, Gaston was elected as
President of ALPAP on the election held on 18-22 December 1970 by
181 votes. Meanwhile, 45 pilots who did not resign / retire from PAL
elected Gomez as President on 23 December 1970. The CIR granted
the certification petition filed by Gomez and thus, he was declared as
President of ALPAP and entitled ALPAP to all the rights and privileges of
a legitimate labor organization. Among the grounds cited by the CIR that
justified said decision were (1) the PAL pilots belonging to the Gaston
Group retired / resigned en masse from PAL and accompanied this with
actual acts of not reporting, (2) that the pilots associtated with the
Gaston group tried to relieve their deposits from the ALPAP Credit Union
on the ground that they had resigned /retired from PAL. However
Gaston and some of the pilots who retired sought reinstatement saying
that their retirement was a form of a strike. And that they were made to
believe that it was a legitimate action thus they should be reinstated.
ISSUE: WON Gaston Groups action of retiring was a legitimate
concerted activity.
HELD:NO
-Parenthetically, contrary to ALPAP (Gaston)'s argument that the pilots'
retirement' resignation was a legitimate concerted activity , citing Section
2(1) of the Industrial Peace Act which defines "strike" as "any temporary
stoppage of work by the concerted action of employees as a result of an
industrial dispute," it is worthwhile to observe that as the law defines it, a
strike means only a "temporary stoppage of work." What the mentioned
pilots did, however, cannot be considered, in the opinion of this Court,
as mere "temporary stoppage of work." What they contemplated was
evidently a permanent cut-off of employment relationship with their
erstwhile employer, the Philippine Air Lines. In any event, the dispute
below having been certified as existing in an industry indispensable to
the national interest, the said pilots' rank disregard for the compulsory
orders of the industrial court and their daring and calculating venture to
disengage themselves from that court's jurisdiction, for the obvious
purpose of satisfying their narrow economic demands to the prejudice of
the public interest, are evident badges of bad faith.
ENRIQUE V ZAMORA
146 SCRA 393
FERNAN; December 29, 1986
NATURE
In this petition for certiorari and mandamus, pilots Rafael Enriquez
and Virgilio Ecarma seek the restoration of their seniority rights and
other privileges which the Philippine Air Lines [PAL] declared as
forfeited by the pilots who joined the mass retirement/resignation of
the members of the Air Lines Pilot Association of the Philippines
[ALPAP] to protest the dismissal of their president, Captain Felix
Gaston.
FACTS
- Enriquez and Ecarma were employed by PAL on October 2, 1961 and
March 3, 1966, respectively. Consequently, they became members of
Disini
ALPAP. On October 3, 1970, Philippine Air Lines Employees
Association [PALEA] and ALPAP staged a strike against PAL to
demand pay increases, better working conditions on the Manila-
Karachi and Rome-Amsterdam flights, and a better retirement
plan.
- The President of the Philippines certified the strike to the CIR.
Said court issued an order dated October 7, 1970 directing the
officers and members of PALEA and ALPAP to call off the strike,
lift the picket lines in all places of operation of PAL, and return to
work not later than Friday, October 9, 1970. PAL management,
on the other hand, was ordered to admit the striking employees
"back to work under the same terms and conditions of
employment existing before the strikes" and "not to suspend,
dismiss or lay-off any employee as a result" of said strikes. The
CIR further stated that failure to comply with its order would
constitute contempt of court and "the employee failing or refusing
to return to work by October 9, 1970, without justifiable cause,
shall immediately be replaced by PAL, and may not be reinstated
without prior Court order and on justifiable grounds".
- The strikers moved for a reconsideration of the order but after it
was denied by the court, they returned to work on October 22,
1970. Five days later or on October 27, 1970, PAL dismissed
strike leader Captain Gaston.
- On October 30, 1970, the board of directors of ALPAP adopted
a resolution condemning PAL's alleged "continued acts of
harassment and other unfair labor practices" against the ALPAP
such as the attempted lockout of ten members, the actual
lockout of three other members, the forced retirement of Captain
Regino Masias [Macias] and the dismissal of ALPAP leader
Captain Gaston. The board resolved to undertake the grounding
of all PAL planes and the filing of applications for "protest
retirement" of members who had completed five years of
continuous service, and "protest resignation" for those who had
rendered less than five years of service in the company.
- Upon learning that many members of the ALPAP had signed
their respective "protest retirement/resignation" papers, and that
ALPAP would submit them en masse to PAL at a time to
coincide with the then forthcoming Papal visit, PAL filed with the
CIR an ex-parte urgent motion to enjoin ALPAP officers and
members from retiring or resigning en masse from PAL.
- Acting on said motion, the Court of Industrial Relations issued
an order on November 26, 1970 which states:
WHEREFORE, pending hearing of the subject motion, the
petitioner, its members and officers, and respondents and its
officers are hereby ordered to maintain status quo; the
members and officers of said petitioner ALPAP, and ALPAP
itself, are ordered not to strike or in any way cause any
stoppage in the operation and service of PAL, under pain of
dismissal and forfeiture of rights and privileges accruing to
their respective employments should they disregard this
Order; and PAL is also ordered not to lockout any of such
members and officers of ALPAP under pain of contempt and
cancellation of its franchise.
- Notwithstanding this order, some of the officers and majority of
the members of ALPAP submitted their respective retirement or
resignation letters to PAL on December 12, 1970. The pilots
tendered their retirement or resignation individually.
- Among the pilots whose "protest resignation/retirement" was
accepted by PAL were petitioners Enriquez and Ecarma.
However, on January 12, 1971, Ecarma returned to PAL after
having been away for thirty days. Enriquez, who had, not
reported to work for thirty-six days, followed suit on January 18,
1971.
- Before their re-admission, PAL required them to accept two
conditions, namely: that they sign conformity to PAL's letter of
acceptance of their retirement and/or resignation and that they
submit an application for employment as new employees without
protest or reservation
- On March 17, 1971, PAL issued a new seniority list for pilots.
Enriquez's and Ecarmas new seniority dates were listed as
January 18, 1971 and January 12, 1971, respectively. Thus,
LABOR LAW 2 A2010 - 246 -
Enriquez and Ecarma respectively lost their almost 10yeai and 5-year
seniority, and started from zero seniority.
- Aggrieved by this action of PAL, Enriquez and Ecarma, together with
twenty-three other pilots, filed before the CIR a petition to restore their
seniority and other privileges.
- PAL opposed the petition. It alleged that the mass
retirement/resignation of the pilots constituted contempt of court and that
the returning pilots, who had filed applications for employment as new
pilots, "were accepted on probationary basis for a period of six months".
PAL added that as the pilots' retirement or resignation violated the
November 26, 1970 order of the CIR, said pilots lost whatever privileges
or benefits they had acquired as employees of PAL
- During the pendency of the petition, the CIR was abolished, and the
case was turned over to the NLRC for adjudication. On March 31, 1975,
Acting Labor Arbiter Lim issued an order denying the petition for
restoration of seniority and other privileges. Said order stated that the
seniority ranking on March 17, 1971 should be respected to avoid
injustice and demoralization in the ranks of the pilots and to forestall the
disruption of the smooth operation of PAL. To eliminate sources of
irritants between PAL and its employees and "by way of mitigating the
penalty" on the returning pilots, they were allowed to receive "fifty
percent [50%] or one-half of the retirement benefits which they would
have received under the PAL-ALPAP Retirement Plan, were it not for
the fact that their retirement/resignation was in violation of a court order".
ISSUE/S
1. WON the mass strike was a concerted action protected by law.
HELD
1. NO
Ratio Strike means only a 'temporary stoppage of work'.
Reasoning What the mentioned pilots did, however, cannot be
considered as mere 'temporary stoppage of work'. What they
contemplated was evidently a permanent cut-off of employment
relationship with their erstwhile employer, the Philippine Air Lines.
The pilots' mass action was not a strike because employees who go
on strike do not quit their employment. Ordinarily, the relationship of
employer and employee continues until one or the other of the
parties acts to sever the relationship or they mutually act to
accomplish that purpose. As they did not assume the status of
strikers, their "protest retirement/resignation" was not a concerted
activity which was protected by law. Petitioners cannot, therefore,
validly claim that PAL committed an unfair labor practice because,
having voluntarily terminated their employment relationship with
PAL, they were not dismissed.
Disposition WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari and mandamus is
hereby dismissed. The public respondents' orders and decision are
hereby affirmed subject to the modification that petitioners are granted
full retirement and separation benefits with legal interest from their
accrual until petitioners are fully paid. No costs.
PHIL. BLOOMING MILLS INC. V PBM EMPLOYEES
ORGANIZATION
(mini bernardo)
Lapanday Workers Union v. NLRC
248 SCRA 95
Puno ; Sept. 7, 1995
Facts
-Lapanday Agricultural and Development Corporation and CADECO
Agro Development Philippines Inc. (Private respondents) are sister
companies. Lapanday Workers Union (Union) is the duly certified
bargaining agent of the rank and file employees of private respondent.
The Union is affiliated with the KMU-ANGLO.
-Union has a collective bargaining agreement. A few months before the
expiration of their CBA, private respondent initiated certain management
policies which disrupted the relationship of the parties- 1. Contracting of
Disini
Philippine Eagle Protectors and Security Agency Inc., the Union
branded the security guards posted within the company
premises as private respondents' "goons" and "special forces." It
also accused the guards of intimidating and harassing their
members. 2. The Union claimed that the module on the
Philippines political spectrum lumped the ANGLO (Alliance of
Nationalist and Genuine Labor Organization), with other
outlawed labor organization such as the National Democratic
Front or other leftist groups.
-These issues were discussed during a labor-management
meeting, the Union agreed to allow its members to attend the
HDIR seminar for the rank-and-filers but the Union directed its
members not to attend the seminars scheduled on said dates.
They picketed the premises of the Philippine Eagle Protectors to
show their displeasure on the hiring of the guards. Union filed a
Notice of Strike with the National Conciliation and Mediation
Board (NCMB). NCMB called conciliation conference. The
conference yielded the agreements that Union officers, including
the officials of KMU-ANGLO, and the Executive Director of the
NMB would attend the HDIR seminar and a committee shall
convene to establish guidelines governing the guards. With the
apparent settlement of their difference, private respondents
notified the NCMB that there were no more base for the notice of
strike.
-Danilo Martinez. a member of the Board of Directors of the
Union, was gunned down in his house in the presence of his wife
and children. The gunman was later identified as Eledio Samson,
an alleged member of security forces of private respondent. After
the killing, most of the members of the Union refused to report
for work. They returned to work the following day but they did not
comply with the "quota system" adopted by the management to
bolster production output. Allegedly, the Union instructed the
workers to reduce their production to thirty percent (30%) Private
respondents charged the Union with economic sabotage through
slowdown. Private respondents filed separate charged against
the Union and it member for illegal strike. unfair labor practice
and damages, with prayer for injunction. Petitioners skipped
work to pay their last respect to the slain Danilo Martinez. who
was laid to rest. Again on another date petitioner did not report
for work. Instead, they proceeded to private respondents' office
at Lanang, carrying placards and posters which called for the
removal of the security guards. the ouster of certain
management officials, and the approval of their mass leave
application. Their mass action did not succeed.
-Labor Arbiter decision: Illegal strike and employees have lost
their employment status and order to desist. NLRC limited the
penalty of dismissal only to the leaders of the illegal strike
especially the officers of the union who served as its major
player and union members were merely instigated to participate
in the illegal strike and should be treated differently from their
leaders. Petitioners claim that public respondent NLRC gravely
abused it discretion.
Issues
WON the strike is legal
Held
No. The applicable law are Articles 263 and 264 of the Labor
Code, as amended by E.O. No. 111, dated December 24. 1986.
Paragraphs (c) and (f) of Article 263 of the Labor Code, as
amended by E.O. 111, provides.
"c) In cases of bargaining deadlocks. the duly certified or
recognized bargaining agent may file a notice of strike or the
employer may file a notice of lockout with the Ministry at least 30
days before the intended date thereof. In cases of unfair labor
practice, the notice shall be 15 days and in the absence of a duly
certified or recognized bargaining agent, the notice of strike may
be filed by any legitimate labor organization in behalf of its
member. However, in case of dismissal from employment of
union officer duly elected in accordance with the union
constitution and by-laws, which may constitute union busting
where the existence of the union is threatened, the 15-day
LABOR LAW 2 A2010 - 247 -
cooling-off period shall not apply and the union may take action
immediately.
xxx xxx xxx
"f) A decision to declare a strike must be approved by a majority of the
total union membership in the bargaining unit concerned, obtained by
secret ballot in meetings or referenda called for that purpose. A decision
to declare a lockout must be approved by a majority of the board of
director of the corporation or association or of the partner in a
partnership, obtained by secret ballot in a meeting called for that
purpose. The decision shall be valid for the duration of the dispute
based on substantially the same grounds considered when the strike or
lockout vote was taken. The Ministry may, at its own initiative or upon
the request of any affected party, supervise the conduct of secret ballot
In every case the union or the employer shall furnish the Ministry the
result of the voting at least seven (7) days before the intended strike or
lockout subject to the cooling-off period herein provided.
Article 264 of the same Code reads:
"Art 264. Prohibited activities. - (a) No labor organization or employer
shall declared a strike or lockout without first having bargained
collectively in accordance with Title VII of this Book or without first
having filed the notice required in the preceding Article or without the
necessary strike or lockout vote first having been obtained and reported
to the Ministry.
xxx xxx xxx
". . . Any union officer who knowingly participates in an illegal strike and
any worker or union officer who knowingly participates in the
commission of illegal acts during a strike may be declared to have lost
his employment status: Provided that mere participation of a worker in a
lawful strike shall not constitute sufficient ground for termination of his
employment, even if a replacement had been hired by the employer
during such lawful strike."
A strike is "any temporary stoppage of work by the concerted action of
employees as a result of an industrial or labor dispute." It is the most
preeminent of the economic weapons or workers which they unsheathe
to force management to agree to an equitable sharing of the point
product of labor and capital. Undeniably, strikes exert some disquieting
effects not only on the relationship between labor and management but
also on the general peace and progress of society. Our laws thus
regulate their exercise within reasons by balancing the interests of labor
and management together with the overarching public interest.
Some of the limitations on the exercise of the right of strike are provided
for in paragraph (c) and (f) of Article 263 of the labor Code, as amended,
supra. They provide for the procedural steps to be followed before
staging a strike - filing of notice of strike, taking of strike vote, and
reporting of the strike vote result to the Department of Labor and
Employment. In National Federation of Sugar Workers (NFSW) vs.
Overseas, et al., we ruled that these steps are mandatory in character.
thus:
"If only the filing of the strike notice and the strike-vote report would be
deemed mandatory. but not the waiting periods so specifically and
emphatically prescribed by law, the purposes (hereafter discussed) for
which the filing of the strike notice and strike-vote report is required
cannot be achieved . . .
xxx xxx xxx
"So too, the 7 day strike-vote report is not without a purpose. As pointed
out by the Solicitor General -
'. . . The submission of the report gives assurance that a strike vote has
been taken and that, if the report concerning it is false, the majority of
the members can take appropriate remedy before it is too late.'
The seven (7) day waiting period is intended to give the Department of
Labor and Employment an opportunity to verify whether the projected
strike really carries the imprimatur of the majority of the union members.
The need for assurance that majority of the union members support the
strike cannot be gainsaid. Strike is usually the last weapon of labor to be
gainsaid. Strike compel capital to concede to its bargaining demands or
to defend itself against unfair labor practices of management. It is a
weapon that can either breathe life to or destroy the union and its
members in their struggle with management for a more equitable due of
their labors. The decision to wield the weapon of strike must, therefore,
Disini
rest on a rational basis, free from emotionalism. unswayed by
the tempers and tantrums of a few hothead, and firmly focused
on the legitimate interest of the union which should not, however,
be antithetical to the public welfare. Thus, our laws require the
decision to strike to be the consensus of the majority for while
majority is not infallible, still, it is the best hedge against haste
and error. In addition, a majority vote assures the union it will go
to war against management with the strength derived from unity
and hence, with better chance to succeed. In Batangas Laguna
Tayabas Bus Company vs. NLRC, we held:
xxx xxx xxx
"The right to strike is one of the right recognized and guaranteed
by the Constitution as an instrument of labor for it protection
against exploitation by management. by virtue of his right. the
workers are able to press their demands for better terms of
employment with more energy and persuasiveness. poising the
threat to strike at their reaction to employer s intransigence. The
strike is indeed a powerful weapon of the working class. But
precisely because of this, it must be handled carefully like a
sensitive explosive, but it blow up in the workers' own hands.
Thus. it must de declared only after the most thoughtful
consultation among them, conducted in the only was allowed
that is, peacefully, and in every case conformably to reasonable
regulation. Any violation of the legal requirements and strictures,
. . . will render the strike illegal. to the detriment of the very
workers it is supposed to protect.
"Every war must be lawfully waged. A labor dispute demands no
less observance of the rules. for the benefit of all concerned."
Applying the law to the case at bar, we rule that strike conducted
by the union on October 12, 1988 is plainly illegal as it was held
within the seven (7) day waiting period provided for by paragraph
(f), Article 263 of the Labor Code. as amended. The haste in
holding the strike prevented the Department of Labor and
Employment from verifying whether it carried the approval of the
majority of the union members. It set to naught an important
policy consideration of our law on strike. Considering this finding,
we need not exhaustively rule on the legality of the work
stoppage conducted by the union and some of their members on
September 9 and 23, 1988. Suffice to state, that the ruling of the
public respondent on the matter is supported by substantial
evidence.
Disposition
Reinstating rank-and-file workers who were merely misled in
supporting illegal strikes but not be entitled to backwages as they
should not be compensated for services skipped during the
illegal strike. Dismissed.
SAMAHAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA v.
SULPICIO LINES, INC.
426 SCRA 319
(SARAH CABRERA)
2. NATURE AND PURPOSE
PHIL CAN CO. V CIR (Liberal Labor Union)
87 Phil 9
MONTEMAYOR; July 13, 1950
NATURE Petition for certiorari
FACTS
- Philippine Can Company is engaged in the manufacture of tin
cans for packing biscuits, candies, etc., and for making pails for
carrying water and basins for washing purposes. On March 14,
1949, laborers belonging to Liberal Labor Union working in Phil
Cans factory staged a strike and established a picket line
LABOR LAW 2 A2010 - 248 -
around the company's compound. Strikers and picketers prevented
other laborers from continuing to work in the factory so that the company
officials were compelled to appeal to the police to restore order and
protect the loyal workers and officials. The company posted notices at
the gate of the company compound notifying the strikers that those who
did not return to work in the afternoon will be considered dismissed; in
fact those who did not return to work were declared dismissed and
dropped from the payroll.
- Liberal Labor Union filed a petition with the CIR alleging that Phil Can
had reduced the wages of seven laborers, and that after the negotiations
had failed, the strike was declared. The Union asked the CIR to order
Phil Can to restore the former rate of wages and to refund all deductions
made in their salaries. Phil Can alleged that the strike declared by the
union was illegal, the same having been declared without due and
proper notice to the management, no verbal nor written demands having
been presented beforehand for its study, consideration and/or actuation.
- The CIR issued an order directing the laborers to immediately return to
work and Phil Can to admit them under the same conditions which
prevailed before the conflict arose. The reason in support of the order
was to maintain the parties in status quo before the strike, and because
the conflict could not be promptly decided. Two Judges dissented.
ISSUE
WON the CIR erred in ordering Phil Can to admit the laborers back to
work despite the issue of the strikes illegality being raised
HELD
YES.
Ratio [NATURE & PURPOSE OF A STRIKE] A strike is a coercive
measure resorted to by laborers to enforce their demands. The idea
behind a strike is that a company engaged in a profitable business
cannot afford to have its production or activities interrupted, much less,
paralyzed. Any interruption or stoppage of production spells loses, even
disaster. The capital invested in machinery, factory and other properties
connected with the business would be unproductive during a strike or
the stoppage of the business. On the other hand, the overhead
expenses consisting of salaries of its official, including real taxes and
license fees continue. Knowing this, the strikers by going on strike seek
to interrupt and paralyze the business and production of the company.
The employer company is on the defensive. It almost invariably wants
the strike stopped and the strikers back to work so as to resume and
continue production. Because of this threat or danger of loss to the
company, it not frequently gives in to the demands of the strikers, just so
it can maintain the continuity of its production. Or, if the strikers refuse to
return to work, the employer company seeks permission from the court
to employ other laborers to take their places. In such cases, pending
determination of the conflict, especially where public interests so require
or when the court cannot promptly decide the case, the strikers are
ordered back to work.
Reasoning The facts in the present case are far different. Public
interests are hardly affected or involved in the present strike. The
business of Phil Can is not such that the public is keenly interested in its
continuance. Many similar companies have sprung up since 1947,
resulting in intense and even ruinous competition, thus explaining the
downward trend in the business and its desire to lay off laborers. After
the strike was staged the company did not employ other laborers to take
the places of the strikers. It claims that it no longer needs the services of
the strikers. It becomes consequently apparent that the need for
ordering the strikers back to work in ordinary cases does not obtain or
exist in the present case. The resolution says that no damage will be
caused to the company by the return of the strikers because the laborers
will be rendering service to their employer. But this is hardly correct
because due to the loss in business of the company, it does not need
the services of others to take their places. So, if they return to work
before the case is definitely decided, they would practically be loafing in
the factory, not exactly for lack of interest or desire to work but because
there is no work to be done or performed. According to the company, the
re-employment of the strikers would mean an outlay of about P1,400 a
week, or P5,600 a month in wages, which the company cannot afford. It
would be a considerable loss to the company. But as the strikers, they
would suffer no damage by not being readmitted pending decision of the
case. Should it be found after due hearing that the strike was legal and
Disini
the laborers were improperly discharged, the employer company
can be ordered to pay their back wages.
- What the CIR should have done as suggested by Presiding
Judge Roldan (one of the 2 dissenters in the CIR), was to give
priority to this case so that it could be decided in the shortest
time possible.
Disposition Petition is DISMISSED.
3. EFFECT ON WORK
RELATIONSHIP- 212 (g)
ART. 212. Definitions. (o) "Strike" means any
temporary stoppage of work by the concerted
action of employees as a result of an industrial or
labor dispute.
ELIZALDE ROPE COMPANY V SOCIAL
SECURITY COMMISSION
4 SCRA 512
PADILLA; February 28, 1962
NATURE
Appeal from Resolution No. 41 adopted by the respondent
Commission
FACTS
- The laborers of the Elizalde Rope Factory went on strike.
During the period of time the strike lasted, the factory did not pay
to the Social Security Commission any premium for Tupas, a
laborer and one of the strikers. After the strike, the factory
resumed to pay the premium until Tupas death.
- Social Security sent bill No. 138 representing the unpaid
premium for Tupas. Factory claims that it should be for the
account of Tupas since he was considered unemployed by the
company at the time of the strike.
- Social Security declared that the strike was not unlawful and
reiterated the companys obligation to pay premiums. Factory
requested for reconsideration, which was denied thru Resolution
No. 41.
ISSUE
WON social security premium corresponding to a period when a
covered worker is on strike should be paid by the employer
HELD
YES
Ratio Although during a strike the worker renders no work or
service and receives no compensation, yet his relationship
as an employee with his employer is not severed or
dissolved. Strike is the workers' means of expressing their
grievances to employers and enforcing compliance with their
demands made upon them. And when laborers go on strike,
it cannot be said that they intend to cut off or terminate their
relationship with their employer. On the contrary, a strike
may improve the employer-employee relationship bringing
about better working conditions and more efficient services
Reasoning
- Sec 18 of RA 1161 as amended by RA 1792 provides that:
Beginning as of the last day of the calendar month
immediately preceding the month when an employee's
compulsory coverage age takes effect and every month
thereafter during his employment, there shall be deducted
and withheld from the monthly compensation of such
covered employee a contribution equal to two and a half per
centum of his monthly compensation.
LABOR LAW 2 A2010 - 249 -
and Sec 19 thereof provides that:
Beginning as of the last day of the month immediately preceding the
month when an employee's compulsory coverage takes effect and
every month thereafter during his employment, his employer shall
pay, with respect to such covered employee in his employ, a
monthly contribution equal to three and a half per centum of the
monthly compensation of said covered employee...
- The above legal provisions do not require that the employer's 3-
1/2% and employee's 2-1/2% contributions be based on the latters
monthly compensation actually earned or received by the employee
covered by the Social Security System. They only provide that after
an employee is compulsorily covered by the System he and his
employer will contribute to pay the premium every month during his
employment.
Disposition Resolution appealed from is AFFIRMED
4. TYPES, CHANGES AND CONVERSION
1. TYPES
1) ULP 263 (c)
2) BARGAINING DEADLOCK- ECONOMIC 263 (c)
Art. 263
Strikes, picketing and lockouts.
(c) In case of bargaining deadlocks, the duly certified
or recognized bargaining agent may file a notice of
strike or the employer may file a notice of lockout
with the Ministry at least 30 day before the intended
date thereof.
In cases of unfair labor practice, the period of
notice shall be 15 days and in the absence of a duly
certified or recognized bargaining agent, the notice of
strike may be filed by any legitimate labor
organization in behalf of its members.
However, in case of dismissal from employment of
union officers duly elected in accordance with the
union constitution and by-laws, which may constitute
union busting, where the existence of the union is
threatened, the 15-day cooling-off period shall not
apply and the union may take action immediately.
CONSOLIDATED LABOR ASSOCIATION OF THE
PHILS v. MARSMAN and CO., INC. [CIR]
&
MARSMAN and Co., INC. v. CONSOLIDATED LABOR
ASSOCIATION OF THE PHILIPPINES [BAUTISTA,
MARTINEZ, VILLANUEVA, &TABIGNE]
11 SCRA 589
MAKALINTAL; July 31, 1964
FACTS:
- MARCELA-FFW submitted to the Company a set of proposals for
collective bargaining, which the Company answered.
- In spite of negotiations held between the Company and the Union, they
failed to reach In agreement; so the Union, failed a notice of strike with
the DOLE.
- Mediation by the Conciliation Service of that Department proved
fruitless.
- the Union declared a strike and at the same time placed a "round-the-
clock" picket line around the Company's premises in Intramuros, Manila.
The tense situation in the strike zone prompted the Manila Police
Department to send policemen thereto to preserve peace.
- Meanwhile the Labor Department's Conciliation Service continued to
mediate between the representatives of the Union and of the Company.
Disini
- Eventually, after a conference where Marsmans VPs proposal
(that they stop the strike and go back to work, and that when
they were already working the Company would discuss with
them their demands) was accepted, the strikers returned to work.
However, complainants herein were refused admittance and
were informed by Company officials that they would not be
reinstated unless they ceased to be active Union members and
that in any case the Company already had enough men for its
business operations.
-As a result the strike and the picketing were resumed, because
of which employees who had been admitted to work had to stay
inside the Company premises, where the Company furnished
them food and quarters. Nevertheless some of those employed
could go in and out after office hours to visit their families.
- During the strike, some of the picketers and some non-strikers
were arrested within the strike zone for having committed
unlawful acts, and were duly charged therewith.
- A petition for writ of injunction filed by the Company against
MARCELA on the ground that the strike and picket were being
maintained illegally, was denied by the CFI Manila, which
pointed out that proper criminal complaints should have been
filed against the individual strikers in the corresponding courts.
- Because of the Company's consistent refusal to reinstate the
69 complainants even after repeated requests, the
Confederation of Labor Associations of the Philippines (CLAP),
to which the Union had affiliated after seceding from the FFW
initiated the present charge for unfair labor practice.
- Initially the strike staged by the Union was meant to compel
the Company to grant it certain economic benefits set forth in its
proposal for collective bargaining. The strike was an economic
one,1 and the striking employees would have a tight to be
reinstated if, in the interim, the employer had not hired other
permanent workers to replace them. For it is recognized that
during the pendency of an economic strike an employer may
take steps to continue and protect his business by supplying
places left vacant by the strikers, and is not bound to discharge
those hired for that purpose upon election of the strikers to
resume their employment. But the strike changed its character
from the time the Company refused to reinstate complainants
because of their union activities after it had offered to admit all
the strikers and in fact did readmit the others. It was then
converted into an unfair labor practice strike.
- J. Bautista, after hearing, found Marsman guilty of the charge
and ordered it to reinstate 60 of the aforementioned 69
complainants to their former positions or to similar ones with the
same rate of pay, without back wages.
- On the MR, the Court en banc affirmed the decision.
- Both the Union and Marsman appealed. The former claims that
the 60 reinstated employees should be granted backpay while
the latter questions the CIR's finding of ULP.
Issue: WON Marsman committed ULP
HELD: YES.
Reasoning:
- Marsman alleges that it was economic reasons, i.e., its policy of
retrenchment, not labor discrimination, which prevented it from
rehiring complainants. This is disproved, however, by the fact
that it not only readmitted the other strikers, but also hired new
employees and even increased the salaries of its personnel by
almost 50%. SC is convinced that it was not business exigency
but a desire to discourage union activities which prompted the
Company to deny readmittance to complainants. This is an
indubitable case of unfair labor practice.
- The Union began the strike because it believed in good faith
that settlement of their demands was at an impasse and that
further negotiations would only come to naught. It stopped the
strike upon the belief they could go back to work. Then it
renewed the strike (or it started a new strike) as a protest against
the discrimination practiced by the Company. Both are valid
grounds for going on a strike.
- The Company further argues that since the methods used by
the strikers were illegal, it had the right to refuse them
readmission. Of the 69 complainants, nine, namely Alejandro
LABOR LAW 2 A2010 - 250 -
Mojar, Manuel Mazo, Esteban Borja, Cecilio Walo, Eugenio Valenzuela,
Elias Matic, Marcos Buccat, Malisimo Vargas and Ricardo Antonio, were
charged with and convicted of various crimes like coercion, malicious
mischief, physical injuries, breach of the peace, light threats, and
damage to property, all committed during the period from September 4,
1954 to October 12, 1954. Admittedly, the Company could not have
condoned these acts which were committed after it had offered to
reinstate the strikers. Nevertheless, as the lower court reasoned out, it
does not appear that the aforementioned individual acts were authorized
or even impliedly sanctioned by the Union. Hence, the other strikers who
were innocent of and did not participate in the illegal acts should not be
punished by being deprived of their right of reinstatement. It is only
those who had been found guilty who should be penalized by the loss of
3
the right.
- On the other hand, even after the court has made a finding of unfair
labor practice, it still has the discretion to determine whether or not to
grant back pay. Such discretion was not abused when it denied back
wages to complainants, considering the climate of violence which
attended the strike and picket that the complainants conducted. While
the complainants ordered reinstated did not actively take part in the acts
of violence, their minatory attitude towards the Company may be
gathered from the fact that from the very first day of the strike policemen
had to patrol the strike zone in order to preserve peace.
DISPOSITIVE: Judgment appealed from is affirmed.
1
An economic strike is defined as one which is to force wage or
other concessions from the employer which he is not required by
law to grant.
2. CHANGE IN TYPE
Consolidated Labor Assoc. of the Phil. V.
Marsman and Co. (supra)
Initially the strike staged by the Union was meant to compel the
Company to grant it certain economic benefits set forth in its proposal for
collective bargaining. The strike was an economic one, and the striking
employees would have a right to be reinstated if, in the interim, the
employer had not hired other permanent workers to replace them. For it
is recognized that during the pendency of an economic strike an
employer may take steps to continue and protect his business by
supplying places left vacant by the strikers, and is not bound to
discharge those hired for that purpose upon election of the strikers to
resume their employment.
But the strike changed its character from the time the Company refused
to reinstate complainants because of their union activities after it had
offered to admit all the strikers and in fact did readmit the others. It was
then converted into an unfair labor practice strike.
The Union began the strike because it believed in good faith that
settlement of their demands was at an impasse and that further
negotiations would only come to naught. It stopped the strike upon the
belief they could go back to work.
Then it renewed the strike (or it started a new strike) as a
protest against the discrimination practiced by the
Company.
Both are valid grounds for going on a strike.
In an economic strike, the strikers are not entitled to backpay, since the
employer should get the equivalent day's work for what he pays his
employees. During the time that the strike was an economic one,
complainants had no right to back pay.
The Industrial Court could not have made a finding of unfair
labor practice with respect to such time, as none had so far been
committed.
This being an unfair labor practice case, it cannot, therefore,
order reinstatement much less back pay for that period.
Disini
On the other hand, even after the court has made a finding of
unfair labor practice, it still has the discretion to determine
whether or not to grant back pay.
Such discretion was not abused when it denied back
wages to complainants, considering the climate of violence
which attended the strike and picket
that the complainants conducted.
While the complainants ordered reinstated did not
actively take part in the acts of violence, their minatory attitude
towards the Company may be gathered from the fact that from
the very first day of the strike policemen had to patrol the strike
zone in order to preserve peace.
3. NON-CONVERSION
RIZAL CEMENT WORKERS UNION (FFW) ET AL
V COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS
(MADRIGAL & COMPANY, INC., CANDIDO DE
LEON and JOHNNY DE LEON)
6 SCRA 841
BARRERA; APRIL 30, 1964
NATURE Petition for review on certiorari
FACTS
The Rizal Cement Workers Union, affiliated with the Federation
of Free Workers, heretofore referred to as the Union, is a
legitimate labor organization. The twenty-one complainant
workers are members of the Union and work at the Bodega
Tanque, Paco, Manila.
Rizal Cement Co., Inc. is a corporation likewise organized under
the laws of the Philippines and is engaged principally in the
manufacture of cement. It operates a plant in Binangonan, Rizal,
where it manufactures cement. The bags of cement are then
sent in barges to the Bodega Tanque at Paco, where they are
unloaded by workers therein and sent either directly to
customers on trucks and pick-ups or stored in the warehouse for
future deliveries.
On May 27, 1956, the Union staged a strike at the plant of Rizal
Cement Co., Inc. in Binangonan, Rizal. In the early morning of
the following day, that is, on May 28, 1956, Candido de Leon
warehouseman-encargado at the Bodega Tanque, received a
telephone call from one Johnny de Leon, manager of the
respondent Rizal Cement Co., Inc., with the information that the
Union staged a strike against the company on the previous day,
May 27, 1956, in Binangonan, Rizal De Leon further informed
him that he should take precautionary measures in protecting the
properties of the company stored at the Bodega Tanque
because of the strikers caused damage to the factory in
Binangonan and sabotage might occur. For this reason, he was
advised by the manager to request the members of the Union to
stay meanwhile outside the premises of the Bodega Tanque.
What he did in the morning of May 28, 1956 was to station
himself at the gate of the compound. When the workers arrived
for work at 7:00 a.m., he did not allow the 21 complaining
workers who are members of the Union to enter the gate and
allowed only those who are not members of said Union. Upon
refusal of Candido de Leon to allow the complaining workers to
work on that day, the Union, through Ramon L. Kabigting, Vice-
President of the FFW, sent a letter addressed to the Manager,
Bodega Tanque, Rizal Cement Co., Inc
On May 30, 1956, the complaining workers formed a picket line
in front of the Madrigal Building on the Escolta, Manila, where
the Offices of the respondent companies are located. The picket
lasted up to April, 1957.
LABOR LAW 2 A2010 - 251 -
After the complaining workers were not allowed to work on May 28,
1956, the respondent Rizal Cement Co., Inc. hired substitutes in order
that the work in the Bodega Tanque, which consists mainly in unloading
and loading cement, may not be paralyzed.
With the foregoing facts, the Court of Industrial Relations resolved in the
negative the issue presented therein, i.e., whether the Company's denial
to the 21 complaining workers, of entrance to the compound and work
constitutes a lockout, for the reason that the said act was resorted to
forestall any possible sabotage in the warehouse. It was pointed out that
although the strike was declared in and confined the factory in
Binangonan Rizal, the activities in the Tanque warehouse in Paco
Manila, where the complainants work, complement those at the plant.
Also, in the letter of the Union dated September 24, 1954, addressed to
the management, and as found by the lower court, the Union made it
clear that the set of demands (presented to the Company and denial of
which led to the declaration of the strike in question) covers all
employees of the Rizal Cement Co., Inc. "including those workers at the
Bodega Tanque" (p. 31, decision of Dec. 14, 1961), and that in the
notice of strike filed by the Union (Exhs. 125-Rizal and 125-A-Rizal), it
was specifically declared that the establishment covered by the objected
strike covers the "factory, quarry and warehouse," the last place
obviously referring to Bodega Tanque. Thus the court held that, under
the circumstances, the court was resorted to as a defensive weapon or
dictated by economic necessity and, consequently, did not constitute an
unfair labor practice. And, as in the decision rendered in the main case
(No. 14-IPA) the strikers were ordered reinstated to their former
positions without back wages, which decision became final and
executory on May 27, 1961, the court directed the Company in this case
to reinstate the 21 complainants with back wages only from May 28,
1961. This decision was affirmed by the court en banc by resolution of
January 27, 1962. Hence, the filing of the instant petition.
ISSUE
WON the Company's refusal to admit the 21 complainants to work in the
warehouse, simply because they belong to the same Union that staged
the strike in the factory, constituted a violation of Section (a) (4) of the
Industrial Peace Act (Rep. Act 875)
HELD
NO. Republic Act 875, on unfair labor practices provides:
SEC. 4. Unfair Labor Practices
(a) It shall be unfair labor practice for an employer:
xxx xxx xxx
(4) To discriminate in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term
or condition of employment to encourage or discourage membership in
any labor organization: Provided, That nothing in this Act or any other
Act or statute of the Republic of the Philippines shall preclude an
employer from making agreement with a labor organization to require as
condition of employment membership therein, if such labor organization
is the representative of the employees as provided in section twelve.
xxx xxx xxx
It is not herein controverted that the complainants were locked out or
denied work by the respondent Company. Under Republic Act 875,
however, for the discrimination by reason of union membership to be
considered an unfair labor practice, the same must have been
committed to courage or discourage such membership in the union. This
cannot be said of the act of the Company complained of. As clearly
established by the evidence, its refusal to all complainants to work and
requirement that the latter stay out of the premises in the meantime
(perhaps while the strike was still going on at the factory) was borne out
of the Company's justified apprehension and fear that sabotage might
be committed in the warehouse where the products machinery and
spare parts were stored, as has been the case in Binangonan. It has
never been shown that the act of the Company was intended to induce
the complain ants to renounce their union-membership or as a deterrent
for non-members to affiliate therewith, nor as a retaliatory measure for
activities in the union or in furtherance of the cause of the union. As the
strikers were declared entitled to wages only from the finality of the
decision in the main case (No. 14-IPA) or from May 28, 1961, the award
of back wages to herein complainants, also from said date, is justified
and reasonable. It may even be stated in support thereof that on May 30,
Disini
1956, complainants actually joined the picket line formed in front
of the Company's office at Escolta, Manila.
Dispositive Decision affirmed
5. GROUNDS
1) Allowable grounds
Art. 263
Strikes, picketing and lockouts.
(c) In case of bargaining deadlocks, the duly
certified or recognized bargaining agent may file
a notice of strike or the employer may file a
notice of lockout with the Ministry at least 30 day
before the intended date thereof.
In cases of unfair labor practice, the period of
notice shall be 15 days and in the absence of a
duly certified or recognized bargaining agent, the
notice of strike may be filed by any legitimate
labor organization in behalf of its members.
However, in case of dismissal from employment
of union officers duly elected in accordance with
the union constitution and by-laws, which may
constitute union busting, where the existence of
the union is threatened, the 15-day cooling-off
period shall not apply and the union may take
action immediately.
2) Prohibited Strikes
ART. 263. Strikes, picketing and lockouts. - xxx
(b) Workers shall have the right to engage in concerted
activities for purposes of collective bargaining or for their mutual
benefit and protection. The right of legitimate labor organizations
to strike and picket and of employers to lockout, consistent with
the national interest, shall continue to be recognized and
respected. However, no labor union may strike and no employer
may declare a lockout on grounds involving inter-union and intra-
union disputes.
-xxx-
(g) When, in his opinion, there exists a labor dispute causing or
likely to cause a strike or lockout in an industry indispensable to
the national interest, the Secretary of Labor and Employment
may assume jurisdiction over the dispute and decide it or certify
the same to the Commission for compulsory arbitration. Such
assumption or certification shall have the effect of automatically
enjoining the intended or impending strike or lockout as specified
in the assumption or certification order. If one has already taken
place at the time of assumption or certification, all striking or
locked out employees shall immediately return-to-work and the
employer shall immediately resume operations and readmit all
workers under the same terms and conditions prevailing before
the strike or lockout. The Secretary of Labor and Employment or
the Commission may seek the assistance of law enforcement
agencies to ensure compliance with this provision as well as with
such orders as he may issue to enforce the same.
 LABOR LAW 2 A2010 - 252 -
(263 (g) contd)
In line with the national concern for and the highest respect accorded to
the right of patients to life and health, strikes and lockouts in hospitals,
clinics and similar medical institutions shall, to every extent possible, be
avoided, and all serious efforts, not only by labor and management but
government as well, be exhausted to substantially minimize, if not
prevent, their adverse effects on such life and health, through the
exercise, however legitimate, by labor of its right to strike and by
management to lockout. In labor disputes adversely affecting the
continued operation of such hospitals, clinics or medical institutions, it
shall be the duty of the striking union or locking-out employer to provide
and maintain an effective skeletal workforce of medical and other health
personnel, whose movement and services shall be unhampered and
unrestricted, as are necessary to insure the proper and adequate
protection of the life and health of its patients, most especially
emergency cases, for the duration of the strike or lockout. In such
cases, therefore, the Secretary of Labor and Employment may
immediately assume, within twenty four (24) hours from knowledge of
the occurrence of such a strike or lockout, jurisdiction over the same or
certify it to the Commission for compulsory arbitration. For this purpose,
the contending parties are strictly enjoined to comply with such orders,
prohibitions and/or injunctions as are issued by the Secretary of Labor
and Employment or the Commission, under pain of immediate
disciplinary action, including dismissal or loss of employment status or
payment by the locking-out employer of backwages, damages and
other affirmative relief, even criminal prosecution against either or both
of them.
The foregoing notwithstanding, the President of the Philippines shall not
be precluded from determining the industries that, in his opinion, are
indispensable to the national interest, and from intervening at any time
and assuming jurisdiction over any such labor dispute in order to settle
or terminate the same.
ART. 264. Prohibited activities. - (a) No labor organization or employer
shall declare a strike or lockout without first having bargained
collectively in accordance with Title VII of this Book or without first
having filed the notice required in the preceding Article or without the
necessary strike or lockout vote first having been obtained and reported
to the Ministry.
No strike or lockout shall be declared after assumption of jurisdiction by
the President or the Minister or after certification or submission of the
dispute to compulsory or voluntary arbitration or during the pendency of
cases involving the same grounds for the strike or lockout.
Any worker whose employment has been terminated as a consequence
of any unlawful lockout shall be entitled to reinstatement with full
backwages. Any union officer who knowingly participates in an illegal
strike and any worker or union officer who knowingly participates in the
commission of illegal acts during a strike may be declared to have lost
his employment status: Provided, That mere participation of a worker in
a lawful strike shall not constitute sufficient ground for termination of his
employment, even if a replacement had been hired by the employer
during such lawful strike.
ART. 265. Improved offer balloting. - In an effort to settle a strike, the
Department of Labor and Employment shall conduct a referendum by
secret ballot on the improved offer of the employer on or before the
30th day of the strike. When at least a majority of the union members
vote to accept the improved offer the striking workers shall immediately
return to work and the employer shall thereupon readmit them upon the
signing of the agreement.
In case of a lockout, the Department of Labor and Employment shall
also conduct a referendum by secret balloting on the reduced offer of
the union on or before the 30th day of the lockout. When at least a
majority of the board of directors or trustees or the partners holding the
controlling interest in the case of a partnership vote to accept the
reduced offer, the workers shall immediately return to work and the
employer shall thereupon readmit them upon the signing of the
agreement.
Disini
ILAW at BUKLOD ng MANGGAGAWA v NLRC
198 SCRA 586
NARVASA; June 27, 1991
FACTS
-The controversy at bar had its origin in the "wage distortions"
affecting the employees of respondent San Miguel Corporation
allegedly caused by Republic Act No. 6727, otherwise known as
the Wage Rationalization Act.
-Upon the effectivity of the Act on June 5, 1989, the union known
as "Ilaw at Buklod Ng Manggagawa (IBM)" said to represent
4,500 employees of San Miguel Corporation, more or less,
"working at the various plants, offices, and warehouses located
at the National Capital Region" - presented to the company a
"demand" for correction of the "significant distortion in . . . (the
workers') wages."
-Union claims that demand was ignored
- The Union's position (set out in the petition subsequently filed
in this Court, infra) was that the workers' refusal "to work
beyond eight (8) hours everyday as a legitimate means of
compelling SMC to correct "the distortion in their wages
brought about by the implementation of the said laws (R.A.
6640 and R.A. 6727) to newly-hired employees." There
ensued thereby a change in the work schedule which had been
observed by daily-paid workers at the Polo Plant for the past five
(5) years, i.e., "ten (10) hours for the first shift and ten (10) to
fourteen (14) hours for the second shift, from Mondays to
Fridays . . .; (and on) Saturdays, . . . eight (8) hours for both
shifts" a work schedule which, SMC says, the workers had
"welcomed, and encouraged" because the automatic overtime
built into the schedule "gave them a steady source of extra-
income," and pursuant to which it (SMC) "planned its production
targets and budgets.
-This abandonment of the long-standing schedule of work and
the reversion to the eight-hour shift apparently caused
substantial losses to SMC.
-SMC filed with the Arbitration Branch of the National Labor
Relations Commission a complaint against the Union and its
members "to declare the strike or slowdown illegal" and to
terminate the employment of the union officers and shop
stewards.
-it is SMC's submittal that the coordinated reduction by the
Union's members of the work time theretofore willingly and
consistently observed by them, thereby causing financial losses
to the employer in order to compel it to yield to the demand for
correction of "wage distortions," is an illegal and "unprotected"
activity. It is, SMC argues, contrary to the law and to the
collective bargaining agreement between it and the Union.
ISSUE
WON the strike is illegal
HELD
YES. Among the rights guaranteed to employees by the Labor
Code is that of engaging in concerted activities in order to attain
their legitimate objectives. Article 263 of the Labor Code, as
amended, declares that in line with "the policy of the State to
encourage free trade unionism and free collective bargaining, . . .
(w)orkers shall have the right to engage in concerted activities
for purposes of collective bargaining or for their mutual benefit
and protection." A similar right to engage in concerted activities
for mutual benefit and protection is tacitly and traditionally
recognized in respect of employers.
The more common of these concerted activities as far as
employees are concerned are: strikes the temporary stoppage
of work as a result of an industrial or labor dispute; picketing
the marching to and fro at the employer's premises, usually
accompanied by the display of placards and other signs making
known the facts involved in a labor dispute; and boycotts the
concerted refusal to patronize an employer's goods or services
and to persuade others to a like refusal. On the other hand, the
LABOR LAW 2 A2010 - 253 -
counterpart activity that management may licitly undertake is the lockout
the temporary refusal to furnish work on account of a labor dispute. In
this connection, the same Article 263 provides that the "right of
legitimate labor organizations to strike and picket and of employer to
lockout, consistent with the national interest, shall continue to be
recognized and respected." The legality of these activities is usually
dependent on the legality of the purposes sought to be attained
and the means employed therefor (ON TEST OF LEGALITY).
It goes without saying that these joint or coordinated activities may be
forbidden or restricted by law or contract. In the particular instance of
"distortions of the wage structure within an establishment"
resulting from "the application of any prescribed wage increase by
virtue of a law or wage order," Section 3 of Republic Act No. 6727
prescribes a specific, detailed and comprehensive procedure for
the correction thereof, thereby implicitly excluding strikes or
lockouts or other concerted activities as modes of settlement of the
issue. The legislative intent that solution of the problem of wage
distortions shall be sought by voluntary negotiation or arbitration,
and not by strikes, lockouts, or other concerted activities of the
employees or management, is made clear in the rules
implementing RA 6727 issued by the Secretary of Labor and
Employment pursuant to the authority granted by Section 13 of the
Act. Section 16, Chapter I of these implementing rules, after
reiterating the policy that wage distortions be first settled
voluntarily by the parties and eventually by compulsory arbitration,
declares that, "Any issue involving wage distortion shall not be a
ground for a strike/lockout."
-Moreover, the collective bargaining agreement between the SMC and
the Union, relevant provisions of which are quoted by the former without
the latter s demurring to the accuracy of the quotation, also prescribes
a similar eschewal of strikes or other similar or related concerted
activities as a mode of resolving disputes or controversies, generally,
said agreement clearly stating that settlement of "all disputes,
disagreements or controversies of any kind" should be achieved by the
stipulated grievance procedure and ultimately by arbitration.
Disposition PETITION DENIED
GRAND BOULEVARD HOTEL V GENUINE LABORERS
ORGANIZATION
406 SCRA 688
CALLEJO; July 18, 2003
NATURE
Petition for review on certiorari
FACTS
- Respondent Genuine Labor Organization of Workers in Hotel,
Restaurant and Allied Industries Silahis International Hotel Chapter
(Union) and the petitioner Grand Boulevard Hotel (then Silahis
International Hotel, Inc.) executed a CBA covering the period from July
10, 1985 up to July 9, 1988.
- Thereafter, Union filed several notices of strike on account of alleged
violations of CBA, illegal dismissal and suspension of EEs. In these
instances, SOLE issued a status quo ante bellum order certifying the
labor dispute to the NLRC for compulsory arbitration pursuant to Article
263(g) of LC. After notice was given by Hotel re its decision to
implement retrenchment program, Union informed the DOLE that the
union will conduct a strike vote referendum. The members of the Union
voted to stage a strike. Union informed the DOLE of the results of the
strike vote referendum. SOLE issued another status quo ante bellum
order certifying the case to the NLRC for compulsory arbitration and
enjoining the parties from engaging in any strike or lockout. Then,
another notice of strike was filed by Union on account of the illegal
dismissal of EEs pusrsuant to Hotels act of retrenching around 171
EEs. Officers of the respondent union and some members staged a
picket in the premises of the hotel, obstructing the free ingress and
egress thereto. Because of this, they were terminated.
- Hotel filed a complaint with NLRC for illegal strike against the union, its
members and officers. Petitioner Hotel alleged inter alia that the union
members and officers staged a strike on November 16, 1990 which
lasted until November 29, 1990 without complying with the requirements
Disini
provided under Articles 263 and 264 of the Labor Code. It further
alleged that the officers and members of the respondent union
blocked the main ingress to and egress from the hotel.
- The respondent Union denied the material allegations of the
complaint and alleged that the petitioner committed ULP prior to
the filing of the Nov. 16, 1990 notice of strike. Hence, there was
no need for the union to comply with A263 and 264 of LC, as the
notice
- LA Linsangans Ruling: Unions failure to comply with the
requirements laid down in A263 and 264 of LC, the strike that
was staged was illegal. Considering the admissions of the
individual respondents that they participated in the said strike,
the termination of their employment by the petitioner was legal.
LA noted that if as alleged by the respondent union the petitioner
was guilty of ULP, it should have filed a complaint therefor
against the Hotel and/or its officials for which the latter could
have been meted penal and administrative sanctions as provided
for in A272 of LC. The Union failed.
- Appeal by Union to NLRC: that it had complied with the
requirements laid down in A263 and 264 of LC because its Nov
16, 1990 notice of strike was a mere reiteration of its Sept 27,
1990 notice of strike, which, in turn, complied with all the
requirements of the aforementioned articles, i.e., the cooling-off
period, the strike ban, the strike vote and the strike vote report.
- NLRC affirmed LA Decision. Compliance of the requirements
laid down in A263 and 264 of LC respecting the Sept 27, 1990
notice of strike filed by the union cannot be carried over to the
Nov 16, 1990 notice of strike. Resultantly, for failure of the union
to comply with the requirements, the strike staged on November
16 up to November 29, 1990 was illegal.
- CA reversed NLRC and LA: It took into account the observation
of the Sol-Gen that the Hotel retrenched EEs pending the
resolution of the certified cases respecting the alleged illegal
suspension and dismissals effected by Hotel during and prior to
the notices of strike filed by Union. Sol-Gen opined that even if
the strike was staged without the proper notice and compliance
with the cooling-off period, resort thereto was simply triggered by
the petitioners' belief in good faith that Hotel was engaged in
ULP. Hence, this petition
ISSUES
1 WON the strike staged by the respondent union on Nov16-29,
1990 is legal
2 WON the dismissals of the officers and some members of the
Union as a consequence of the strike on Nov16-29, 1990 are
valid.
HELD
1. NO
Re: Procedural Requirements
- Under A263 (c) and (f) of LC, the requisites for a valid strike are
as follows: (a) a notice of strike fled with the DOLE 30 days
before the intended date thereof or 15 days in case of ULP; (b)
strike vote approved by a majority of the total union membership
in the bargaining unit concerned obtained by secret ballot in a
meeting called for that purpose; (c) notice given to the DOLE of
the results of the voting at least 7 days before the intended
strike. The requisite 7-day period is intended to give the DOLE
an opportunity to verify whether the projected strike really carries
the approval of the majority of the union members. The notice of
strike and the cooling-off period were intended to provide an
opportunity for mediation and conciliation. The requirements are
mandatory and failure of a union to comply therewith renders the
strike illegal. A strike simultaneously with or immediately after a
notice of strike will render the requisite periods nugatory.
- In this case, union filed its notice of strike with the DOLE on
Nov 16, 1990 and on the same day, staged a picket on the
premises of the hotel, in violation of the law. Union cannot argue
that since the notice of strike on Nov 16, 1990 were for the same
grounds as those contained in their notice of strike on
September 27, 1990 which complied with the requirements of the
law on the cooling-off period, strike ban, strike vote and strike
LABOR LAW 2 A2010 - 254 -
vote report, the strike staged by them on Nov16, 1990 was lawful. The
matters contained in the notice of strike of Sept 27, 1990 had already
been taken cognizance of by the SOLE when he issued on Oct 31, 1990
a status quo ante bellum order enjoining union from intending or staging
a strike. Despite SOLE order, the union nevertheless staged a strike on
Nov16, 1990 simultaneously with its notice of strike, thus violating
A264(a) LC
Grounds
- A strike that is undertaken, despite the issuance by the SOLE of an
assumption or certification order, becomes a prohibited activity and, thus,
illegal pursuant to A264 of LC: No strike or lockout shall be declared
after assumption of jurisdiction by the President or the Secretary or after
certification or submission of the dispute to compulsory or voluntary
arbitration or during the pendency of cases involving the same grounds
for the strike or lockout.
- Even if the union acted in good faith in the belief that the company was
committing an unfair labor practice, if no notice of strike and a strike vote
were conducted, the said strike is illegal.
2. YES
Re: Effect of Illegality
Ratio Since a strike that is undertaken, despite the issuance by the - It is quite clear from this provision that BLR has the original and
SOLE of an assumption or certification order, becomes a prohibited exclusive jurisdiction on all inter-union and intra-union
activity and, thus, illegal pursuant to A264 of LC, the union officers and conflicts. An intra-union conflict would refer to a conflict within or
members, as a result, are deemed to have lost their employment status inside a labor union, and an inter-union controversy or dispute,
for having knowingly participated in an illegal act.
Disposition Petition is GRANTED. LA Decision REINSTATED.
BAUTISTA v. CA (CRUZ)
452 SCRA 406
CHICO-NAZARIO; February 28, 2005
NATURE
Petition for review on certiorari
FACTS
- A petition for election of officers of Kaisahan at Kapatiran ng mga
Manggagawa at Kawani sa Metropolitan Waterworks and
Sewerage System (KKMK-MWSS) was filed by Bonifacio De
Guzman, former auditor of KKMK-MWSS. The Director of the BLR
granted the position and directed the KKMK-MWSS to
immediately conduct an election of the following union officers: 1.
President, 2. 1st Vice President, 3. 2nd Vice President, 4. Executive
Secretary, 5. Assistant Executive Secretary, 6. Treasurer, 7.
Assistant Treasurer, 8. Auditor, 9. Assistant Auditor, 10. Public
Relations Officer, 11. Twenty Three (23) Directors, 12. Four
Sergeants at Arms, and 13. Business Manager, after the usual
pre-election conferences. She also decreed that the Labor
Organizations Division, this Bureau, shall supervise the conduct of
said election.
- The President of KKMK-MWSS, Genaro Bautista, appealed the
decision to the Office of the SOLE. The USec granted the petition
for the reason that the controversy is an intra union conflict
involving an employees organization in the public sector created
and registered pursuant to Executive Order No. 180.
Consequently, this office (referring to the Secretary of Labor and
Employment) has no other recourse but to dismiss the appeal for
lack of jurisdiction.
- (marami pang procedural stuff pero in the end the CA ruled that
the BLR has jurisdiction.)
ISSUE
WON the BLR has jurisdiction to call for and conduct the election of -Enrique Huyan informed petitioner that he was not interested in accepting the
officers of an employees association in the public sector.
HELD
YES.
- The BLR has the jurisdiction to call for and supervise the conduct of -Eventually, on 03 December 1990, Huyan was given a "notice of dismissal"
certification elections in the public sector.
Disini
- The authority of the BLR in assuming jurisdiction over a
certification election, or any inter-union or intra-union conflicts, is
found in Article 226 of the Labor Code of the Philippines, which
reads:
ART. 226. BUREAU OF LABOR RELATIONS.
The Bureau of Labor Relations and the Labor
Relations Division in the regional offices of the
Department of Labor shall have original and
exclusive authority to act, at their own initiative or
upon request of either or both parties, on all inter-
union and intra-union conflicts, and all disputes,
grievances or problems arising from or affecting
labor-management relations in all workplaces
whether agricultural or nonagricultural, except those
arising from the implementation or interpretation of
collective bargaining agreements which shall be the
subject of grievance procedure and/or voluntary
arbitration.
The Bureau shall have fifteen (15) working
days to act on labor cases before it, subject to
extension by agreement of the parties.
one occurring or carried on between or among unions. The
subject of the case at bar, which is the election of the officers
and members of the board of KMKK-MWSS, is, clearly, an intra-
union conflict, being within or inside a labor union. It is well within
the powers of the BLR to act upon.
- Executive Order No. 180 (1987), particularly Section 16 thereof,
is completely lucid as to the settlement of disputes involving
government employees:
SEC. 16. The Civil Service and labor laws
and procedures, whenever applicable, shall be
followed in the resolution of complaints, grievances
and cases involving government employees.
- Since Article 226 of the Labor Code has declared that the BLR
shall have original and exclusive authority to act on all inter-
union and intra-union conflicts, then there should be no more
doubt as to its jurisdiction.
Disposition PETITION DENIED
3) No Strike Clause
PANAY ELECTRIC CO. INC V NLRC (PANAY ELECTRIC CO.
EMPLOYEES AND WORKERS ASSOCIATION
248 SCRA 668
VITUG; October 4, 1995
NATURE
Petiton for certiorari
FACTS
-On 30 October 1990, petitioner Panay Electric Company, Inc., posted a notice
announcing the need for a "Report Clerk" who could assume the responsibility
of gathering accounting and computer data at its power plant
-When nobody applied for the position, the EDP/Personnel Manager
recommended Enrique Huyan who was at the time an Administrative
Personnel Assistant at the head office. Huyan was then also a Vice President
of respondent union. The recommendation was approved by the company's
President and General Manager.
new position.
-The EDP/Personnel Manager required Huyan to explain within 48 hours why
no disciplinary action should be taken against him for gross insubordination
and for failure to follow the General Manager's approved directive.
-An administrative investigation was conducted; thereafter, Huyan was ordered
dismissed effective 10 December 1990.
LABOR LAW 2 A2010 - 255 - Disini
-On 22 January 1991, the respondent union went on strike. and By-laws. The federation advised respondent company of the expulsion of
-Forthwith, the company filed a petition to declare the strike illegal as it was a serious the 30 union officers and demanded their separation from employment
breach of the "no strike, no lock out clause," of the Collective Bargaining Agreement pursuant to the Union Security Clause in their CBA.
("CBA") - Upon demand of the federation, the company terminated the petitioners
-The NLRC found the strike conducted by the Union from January 22 to 25, 1991 to be without conducting a separate and independent investigation. The expelled
illegal as the same was staged in violation of the no strike, no lock-out clause in the union officers assigned in the first shift were physically or bodily brought out of
Collective Bargaining Agreement existing between the parties and also because the the company premises by the company's security guards. Those assigned to
same disregarded the grievance procedure the second shift were not allowed to report for work. This provoked some of the
members of the local union to demonstrate their protest for the dismissal of the
ISSUE said union officers. Some union members left their work posts and walked out
WON the strike committed by the respondent union was illegal of the company premises.
- Labor Arbiter ruled that the dismissed union officers were validly and legally
HELD terminated because the dismissal was effected in compliance with the union
Yes security clause of the CBA which is the law between the parties. This was
-The State guarantees the right of all workers to self-organization, collective bargaining affirmed by the NLRC on appeal.
and negotiations, as well as peaceful concerted activities, including the right to strike, in > On the ISSUE of STRIKE:
accordance with law. - Labor Arbiter held that the strike was illegal for the following reasons: (1) it
-The right to strike, however, is not absolute. It has heretofore been held that a "no strike, was based on an intra-union dispute which cannot properly be the subject of a
no lock-out" provision in the Collective Bargaining Agreement ("CBA") is a valid strike, the right to strike being limited to cases of bargaining deadlocks and
stipulation although the clause may be invoked by an employer only when the strike is unfair labor practice (2) it was made in violation of the "no strike, no lock-out"
economic in nature or one which is conducted to force wage or other concessions from clause in the CBA, and (3) it was attended with violence, force and intimidation
the employer that are not mandated to be granted by the law itself. upon the persons of the company officials, other employees reporting for work
-It would be inapplicable to prevent a strike which is grounded on unfair labor practice. and third persons having legitimate business with the company, resulting to
-In this situation, it is not essential that the unfair labor practice act has, in fact, been serious physical injuries to several employees and damage to company
committed; it suffices that the striking workers are shown to have acted honestly on an property.
impression that the company has committed such unfair labor practice and the
surrounding circumstances could warrant such a belief in good faith. ISSUE/S
-In the instant case, the NLRC found Enrique Huyan and Prescilla Napiar, the "principal * WON the union officers were validly terminated
leaders" of the strike, not to have acted in good faith. The NLRC said: It is bad enough 1. WON the strike was illegal for being grounded on a non-strikeable issue
that the Union struck despite the prohibition in the CBA. What is worse is that its (intra-union conflict between the federation and the local union)
principal leaders, Napiar and Huyan, cannot honestly claim that they were in good faith 2. WON the no strike, no lock-out clause in the CBA was violated
in their belief that the Company was committing unfair labor practice. The absence of 3. WON the strike was attended with violence force and intimidation
good faith or the honest belief that the Company is committing Unfair Labor Practice,
therefore, is what inclines us to rule that the strike conducted by the Union from January HELD
22 to 25, 1991 is illegal for being in violation of the "no strike, no lock-out" proviso and * NO
the failure to bring the union's grievances under the grievance procedure in the CBA. It Reasoning Although this Court has ruled that union security clauses embodied
must be borne in mind that prior to the dismissal of Huyan, there was sufficient time to in the collective bargaining agreement may be validly enforced and that
have the matter of Huyan's transfer subjected to the grievance procedure. That the dismissals pursuant thereto may likewise
Union considered the procedure an exercise in futility is not reason enough to disregard
the same given the circumstances in this case. Whatever wrong the Union felt the
Company committed cannot be remedied by another wrong on the part of the Union.
6. STRIKING PARTY- 263 (b) (c)
Disposition
Decision is affirmed (as regards the illegality of the stirke)
ART. 263. Strikes, picketing and lockouts. - xxx

(b) Workers shall have the right to engage in concerted

MALAYANG SAMAHAN NG MANGGAGAWA SA M. GREENFIELD
V RAMOS, NLRC, M. GREENFIELD
326 SCRA 248
PURISIMA; February 28, 2000
NATURE
Petition for Certiorari to annul the NLRC decision
FACTS
- Malayang Samahan ng mga Manggagawa sa M. Greenfield, Inc. (MSMG) (Local
Union) is an affiliate of United Lumber and General Workers of the Philippines
(ULGWP) (Federation).
- The CBA between MSMG and M. Greenfield, Inc. states that it is entered into by the
corporation and MSMG / ULGWP.
- The CBA includes a Union Security Clause requiring all employees who are covered by
the CBA and presently members of the UNION to remain members of the UNION for the
duration of the CBA as a condition precedent to continued employment.
- Local union imposed a P50 fine on non-attending union members which became the
subject of bitter disagreement between the Federation and the local union. MSMG then
declared general autonomy from the ULGWP. In retaliation, the national federation
asked respondent company to stop the remittance of the local union's share in the
education funds. It also disauthorized incumbent union officers from representing the
employees.
- Petitioner union officers were expelled by the federation for allegedly committing acts
of disloyalty and/or inimical to the interest of ULGWP and in violation of its Constitution
activities for purposes of collective bargaining or for their
mutual benefit and protection. The right of legitimate
labor organizations to strike and picket and of employers
to lockout, consistent with the national interest, shall
continue to be recognized and respected. However, no
labor union may strike and no employer may declare a
lockout on grounds involving inter-union and intra-union
disputes.
(c) In case of bargaining deadlocks, the duly certified or
recognized bargaining agent may file a notice of strike or
the employer may file a notice of lockout with the Ministry
at least 30 day before the intended date thereof. In
cases of unfair labor practice, the period of notice shall
be 15 days and in the absence of a duly certified or
recognized bargaining agent, the notice of strike may be
filed by any legitimate labor organization in behalf of its
members. However, in case of dismissal from
employment of union officers duly elected in accordance
with the union constitution and by-laws, which may
constitute union busting, where the existence of the
union is threatened, the 15-day cooling-off period shall
not apply and the union may take action immediately.
LABOR LAW 2 A2010 - 256 -
7. PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS
1) Effort Bargain
ART. 264. Prohibited activities. - (a) No labor organization or
employer shall declare a strike or lockout without first having
bargained collectively in accordance with Title VII of this Book or
without first having filed the notice required in the preceding Article
or without the necessary strike or lockout vote first having been
obtained and reported to the Ministry.
No strike or lockout shall be declared after assumption of jurisdiction
by the President or the Minister or after certification or submission of
the dispute to compulsory or voluntary arbitration or during the
pendency of cases involving the same grounds for the strike or
lockout.
Any worker whose employment has been terminated as a
consequence of any unlawful lockout shall be entitled to
reinstatement with full backwages. Any union officer who knowingly
participates in an illegal strike and any worker or union officer who
knowingly participates in the commission of illegal acts during a
strike may be declared to have lost his employment status:
Provided, That mere participation of a worker in a lawful strike shall
not constitute sufficient ground for termination of his employment,
even if a replacement had been hired by the employer during such
lawful strike.
ART. 250. Procedure in collective bargaining. - The following
procedures shall be observed in collective bargaining:
(a) When a party desires to negotiate an agreement, it shall serve a
written notice upon the other party with a statement of its proposals.
The other party shall make a reply thereto not later than ten (10)
calendar days from receipt of such notice;
(b) Should differences arise on the basis of such notice and reply,
either party may request for a conference which shall begin not later
than ten (10) calendar days from the date of request.
(c) If the dispute is not settled, the Board shall intervene upon
request of either or both parties or at its own initiative and
immediately call the parties to conciliation meetings. The Board shall
have the power to issue subpoenas requiring the attendance of the
parties to such meetings. It shall be the duty of the parties to
participate fully and promptly in the conciliation meetings the Board
may call;
(d) During the conciliation proceedings in the Board, the parties are
prohibited from doing any act which may disrupt or impede the early
settlement of the disputes; and
(e) The Board shall exert all efforts to settle disputes amicably and
encourage the parties to submit their case to a voluntary arbitrator.
(As amended by Section 20, Republic Act No. 6715, March 21,
1989).
ART. 251. Duty to bargain collectively in the absence of collective
bargaining agreements. - In the absence of an agreement or other
voluntary arrangement providing for a more expeditious manner of
collective bargaining, it shall be the duty of employer and the
representatives of the employees to bargain collectively in
accordance with the provisions of this Code.
ART. 252. Meaning of duty to bargain collectively. - The duty to
bargain collectively means the performance of a mutual obligation to
meet and convene promptly and expeditiously in good faith for the
purpose of negotiating an agreement with respect to wages, hours
of work and all other terms and conditions of employment including
proposals for adjusting any grievances or questions arising under
such agreement and executing a contract incorporating such
agreements if requested by either party but such duty does not
compel any party to agree to a proposal or to make any concession.
Disini
2) Filing of Notice Intention
ART. 263. Strikes, picketing and lockouts. xxx-
(c) In case of bargaining deadlocks, the duly certified
or recognized bargaining agent may file a notice of
strike or the employer may file a notice of lockout with
the Ministry at least 30 day before the intended date
thereof. In cases of unfair labor practice, the period of
notice shall be 15 days and in the absence of a duly
certified or recognized bargaining agent, the notice of
strike may be filed by any legitimate labor organization
in behalf of its members. However, in case of
dismissal from employment of union officers duly
elected in accordance with the union constitution and
by-laws, which may constitute union busting, where
the existence of the union is threatened, the 15-day
cooling-off period shall not apply and the union may
take action immediately. (As amended by Executive
Order No. 111, December 24, 1986).
(d) The notice must be in accordance with such
implementing rules and regulations as the Minister of
Labor and Employment may promulgate.
(e) During the cooling-off period, it shall be the duty of
the Ministry to exert all efforts at mediation and
conciliation to effect a voluntary settlement. Should the
dispute remain unsettled until the lapse of the requisite
number of days from the mandatory filing of the notice,
the labor union may strike or the employer may
declare a lockout.
ART. 264. Prohibited activities. - (a) No labor
organization or employer shall declare a strike or
lockout without first having bargained collectively in
accordance with Title VII of this Book or without first
having filed the notice required in the preceding Article
or without the necessary strike or lockout vote first
having been obtained and reported to the Ministry.
No strike or lockout shall be declared after assumption
of jurisdiction by the President or the Minister or after
certification or submission of the dispute to
compulsory or voluntary arbitration or during the
pendency of cases involving the same grounds for the
strike or lockout.
Any worker whose employment has been terminated
as a consequence of any unlawful lockout shall be
entitled to reinstatement with full backwages. Any
union officer who knowingly participates in an illegal
strike and any worker or union officer who knowingly
participates in the commission of illegal acts during a
strike may be declared to have lost his employment
status: Provided, That mere participation of a worker in
a lawful strike shall not constitute sufficient ground for
termination of his employment, even if a replacement
had been hired by the employer during such lawful
strike.
LABOR LAW 2 A2010 - 257 -
3) Observance Cooling- Off Period
ART. 263. Strikes, picketing and lockouts. xxx-
(c) In case of bargaining deadlocks, the duly certified or
recognized bargaining agent may file a notice of strike or the
employer may file a notice of lockout with the Ministry at least
30 day before the intended date thereof. In cases of unfair labor
practice, the period of notice shall be 15 days and in the
absence of a duly certified or recognized bargaining agent, the
notice of strike may be filed by any legitimate labor organization
in behalf of its members. However, in case of dismissal from
employment of union officers duly elected in accordance with
the union constitution and by-laws, which may constitute union
busting, where the existence of the union is threatened, the 15-
day cooling-off period shall not apply and the union may take
action immediately. (As amended by Executive Order No. 111,
December 24, 1986).
(e) During the cooling-off period, it shall be the duty of the
Ministry to exert all efforts at mediation and conciliation to effect
a voluntary settlement. Should the dispute remain unsettled
until the lapse of the requisite number of days from the
mandatory filing of the notice, the labor union may strike or the
employer may declare a lockout.
4) Vote, Conduct of; and Period of Validity
ART. 263. Strikes, picketing and lockouts. xxx-
(f) A decision to declare a strike must be approved by a majority of the
total union membership in the bargaining unit concerned, obtained by
secret ballot in meetings or referenda called for that purpose. A
decision to declare a lockout must be approved by a majority of the
board of directors of the corporation or association or of the partners in
a partnership, obtained by secret ballot in a meeting called for that
purpose. The decision shall be valid for the duration of the dispute
based on substantially the same grounds considered when the strike or
lockout vote was taken. The Ministry may, at its own initiative or upon
the request of any affected party, supervise the conduct of the secret
balloting. In every case, the union or the employer shall furnish the
Ministry the results of the voting at least seven days before the intended
strike or lockout, subject to the cooling-off period herein provided
ART. 264. Prohibited activities. - (a) No labor organization or employer
shall declare a strike or lockout without first having bargained
collectively in accordance with Title VII of this Book or without first
having filed the notice required in the preceding Article or without the
necessary strike or lockout vote first having been obtained and reported
to the Ministry.
No strike or lockout shall be declared after assumption of jurisdiction by
the President or the Minister or after certification or submission of the
dispute to compulsory or voluntary arbitration or during the pendency of
cases involving the same grounds for the strike or lockout.
Any worker whose employment has been terminated as a consequence
of any unlawful lockout shall be entitled to reinstatement with full
backwages. Any union officer who knowingly participates in an illegal
strike and any worker or union officer who knowingly participates in the
commission of illegal acts during a strike may be declared to have lost
his employment status: Provided, That mere participation of a worker in
a lawful strike shall not constitute sufficient ground for termination of his
employment, even if a replacement had been hired by the employer
during such lawful strike.
Disini
GRAND BOULEVARD HOTEL V GENUINE
LABORERS ORGANIZATION
406 SCRA 688
CALLEJO; July 18, 2003
NATURE
Petition for review on certiorari
FACTS
- Respondent Genuine Labor Organization of Workers in Hotel,
Restaurant and Allied Industries Silahis International Hotel
Chapter (Union) and the petitioner Grand Boulevard Hotel (then
Silahis International Hotel, Inc.) executed a CBA covering the
period from July 10, 1985 up to July 9, 1988.
- Thereafter, Union filed several notices of strike on account of
alleged violations of CBA, illegal dismissal and suspension of
EEs. In these instances, SOLE issued a status quo ante bellum
order certifying the labor dispute to the NLRC for compulsory
arbitration pursuant to Article 263(g) of LC. After notice was
given by Hotel re its decision to implement retrenchment
program, Union informed the DOLE that the union will conduct
a strike vote referendum. The members of the Union voted to
stage a strike. Union informed the DOLE of the results of the
strike vote referendum. SOLE issued another status quo ante
bellum order certifying the case to the NLRC for compulsory
arbitration and enjoining the parties from engaging in any strike
or lockout. Then, another notice of strike was filed by Union on
account of the illegal dismissal of EEs pusrsuant to Hotels act
of retrenching around 171 EEs. Officers of the respondent
union and some members staged a picket in the premises of
the hotel, obstructing the free ingress and egress thereto.
Because of this, they were terminated.
- Hotel filed a complaint with NLRC for illegal strike against the
union, its members and officers. Petitioner Hotel alleged inter
alia that the union members and officers staged a strike on
November 16, 1990 which lasted until November 29, 1990
without complying with the requirements provided under
Articles 263 and 264 of the Labor Code. It further alleged that
the officers and members of the respondent union blocked the
main ingress to and egress from the hotel.
- The respondent Union denied the material allegations of the
complaint and alleged that the petitioner committed ULP prior to
the filing of the Nov. 16, 1990 notice of strike. Hence, there was
no need for the union to comply with A263 and 264 of LC, as
the notice
- LA Linsangans Ruling: Unions failure to comply with the
requirements laid down in A263 and 264 of LC, the strike that
was staged was illegal. Considering the admissions of the
individual respondents that they participated in the said strike,
the termination of their employment by the petitioner was legal.
LA noted that if as alleged by the respondent union the
petitioner was guilty of ULP, it should have filed a complaint
therefor against the Hotel and/or its officials for which the latter
could have been meted penal and administrative sanctions as
provided for in A272 of LC. The Union failed.
- Appeal by Union to NLRC: that it had complied with the
requirements laid down in A263 and 264 of LC because its Nov
16, 1990 notice of strike was a mere reiteration of its Sept 27,
1990 notice of strike, which, in turn, complied with all the
requirements of the aforementioned articles, i.e., the cooling-off
period, the strike ban, the strike vote and the strike vote report.
- NLRC affirmed LA Decision. Compliance of the requirements
laid down in A263 and 264 of LC respecting the Sept 27, 1990
notice of strike filed by the union cannot be carried over to the
Nov 16, 1990 notice of strike. Resultantly, for failure of the
union to comply with the requirements, the strike staged on
November 16 up to November 29, 1990 was illegal.
- CA reversed NLRC and LA: It took into account the
observation of the Sol-Gen that the Hotel retrenched EEs
pending the resolution of the certified cases respecting the
alleged illegal suspension and dismissals effected by Hotel
during and prior to the notices of strike filed by Union. Sol-Gen
LABOR LAW 2 A2010 - 258 - Disini
opined that even if the strike was staged without the proper notice and -SMC and Ilaw at Buklod ng Manggagawa (IBM) executed a
compliance with the cooling-off period, resort thereto was simply CBA wherein they agreed to submit all disputes to grievance and
triggered by the petitioners' belief in good faith that Hotel was engaged arbitration proceedings, aside from no-strike, no-lockout
in ULP. Hence, this petition agreement.
-IBM, through its VP and subsequently through its president
ISSUES (which was opposed by the VP), filed with NCMB a notice of
1 WON the strike staged by the respondent union on Nov16-29, 1990 strike against SMC for allegedly committing: (1) illegal dismissal
is legal of union members, (2) illegal transfer, (3) violation of CBA, (4)
2 WON the dismissals of the officers and some members of the Union contracting out of jobs being performed by union members, (5)
as a consequence of the strike on Nov16-29, 1990 are valid. labor-only contracting, (6) harassment of union officers and
members, (7) non-recognition of duly-elected union officers, and
HELD (8) other acts of unfair labor practice. SMC filed a Motion for
1. NO Severance of Notices of Strike with Motion to Dismiss on the
Re: Procedural Requirements grounds that the notices raised non-strikeable issues and that
- Under A263 (c) and (f) of LC, the requisites for a valid strike are as they affected 4 corporations.
follows: (a) a notice of strike fled with the DOLE 30 days before the -NCMB: issues are non-strikeable, as only SMC was impleaded
intended date thereof or 15 days in case of ULP; (b) strike vote when 4 different companies were involved. Notices of strike
approved by a majority of the total union membership in the bargaining converted into preventive mediation.
unit concerned obtained by secret ballot in a meeting called for that -while separate preventive mediation conferences were ongoing,
purpose; (c) notice given to the DOLE of the results of the voting at least the Union through its VP filed a notice of holding a strike vote.
7 days before the intended strike. The requisite 7-day period is intended SMC opposed, invoking PAL v. Drilon (no strike could be legally
to give the DOLE an opportunity to verify whether the projected strike declared during the pendency of preventive mediation). NCMB
really carries the approval of the majority of the union members. The reiterated conversion of notice of strike into preventive mediation
notice of strike and the cooling-off period were intended to provide an and grounds raised were only intra-union conflict nonstrikeable
opportunity for mediation and conciliation. The requirements are (who between the 2 groups shall represent the workers for
mandatory and failure of a union to comply therewith renders the strike collective bargaining purposes, union leadership).
illegal. A strike simultaneously with or immediately after a notice of strike -IBM President group filed 2 nd notice of strike against SMC,
will render the requisite periods nugatory. NCMB found the additional grounds to be mere amplifications of
issues alleged in the 1st notice of strike. Ordered consolidation of
- In this case, union filed its notice of strike with the DOLE on Nov 16, the 2 nd notice of strike with 1st notice of strike. Group informed
1990 and on the same day, staged a picket on the premises of the hotel, SMC of its plan to hold a strike.
in violation of the law. Union cannot argue that since the notice of strike -VP group notified the NCMB that their strike vote favored the
on Nov 16, 1990 were for the same grounds as those contained in their holding of a strike. NCMB issued a letter reminding the group of
notice of strike on September 27, 1990 which complied with the the PAL v Drilon. IBM went on strike. Strike paralyzed the
requirements of the law on the cooling-off period, strike ban, strike vote operations of SMC, which caused millions of loses.
and strike vote report, the strike staged by them on Nov16, 1990 was -SMC filed with NLRC a Petition for Injunction with Prayer for the
lawful. The matters contained in the notice of strike of Sept 27, 1990 had Issuance of TRO, Free Ingress and Egress Order and
already been taken cognizance of by the SOLE when he issued on Oct Deputization Order, which was issued by NLRC, without
31, 1990 a status quo ante bellum order enjoining union from intending prejudice to the unions right to peaceful picketing and
or staging a strike. Despite SOLE order, the union nevertheless staged a continuous hearings on the injunction case. SMC also entered
strike on Nov16, 1990 simultaneously with its notice of strike, thus into a Memorandum of Agreement with Union, calling for lifting of
violating A264(a) LC picket lines and resumption of work in exchange of good faith
talks between the management and the labor management
Grounds committees. The MOA also stated that cases filed in relation to
- A strike that is undertaken, despite the issuance by the SOLE of an their dispute will continue and will not be affected in any manner
assumption or certification order, becomes a prohibited activity and, thus, whatsoever by the agreement. Work was then resumed.
illegal pursuant to A264 of LC: No strike or lockout shall be declared -NLRC reconsidered the issuance of TRO, and sought to dismiss
after assumption of jurisdiction by the President or the Secretary or after the injunction case. SMC opposed, submitted copies of flyers
certification or submission of the dispute to compulsory or voluntary wherein IBM expressed their threat to revive the strike. NLRC
arbitration or during the pendency of cases involving the same grounds issued decision denying the petition for injunction for lack of
for the strike or lockout. factual basis, there being no circumstance to constitute an actual
- Even if the union acted in good faith in the belief that the company was or threatened commission of unlawful acts. MFR denied
committing an unfair labor practice, if no notice of strike and a strike vote
were conducted, the said strike is illegal. ISSUES
WON the strike held by IBM was illegal (therefore, NLRC
2. YES committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the petition for
Re: Effect of Illegality injunction filed by SMC)
Ratio Since a strike that is undertaken, despite the issuance by the
SOLE of an assumption or certification order, becomes a prohibited HELD
activity and, thus, illegal pursuant to A264 of LC, the union officers and YES
members, as a result, are deemed to have lost their employment status a. Procedural aspect of the strike
for having knowingly participated in an illegal act. -For a strike to be valid, it must be pursued within legal bounds.
One of the procedural requisites that A263 of the LC and its IRR
Disposition Petition is GRANTED. LA Decision REINSTATED. prescribe is the filing of a valid notice of strike with the NCMB.
Imposed for the purpose of encouraging the voluntary settlement
SAN MIGUEL CORP v. NLRC, IBM of disputes, this requirement has been held to be mandatory, the
403 SCRA 418 lack of which shall render a strike illegal.
-In accordance with the Implementing Rules of the Labor Code,
AZCUNA, June 10, 2003 the conversion of the notice of strike to preventive mediation has
the effect of dismissing the notices of strike filed by respondent.
NATURE Petition for certiorari and prohibition A case in point is PAL v. Drilon, where we declared a strike
illegal for lack of a valid notice of strike, in view of the NCMBs
FACTS conversion of the notice therein into a preventive mediation case.
LABOR LAW 2 A2010 - 259 -
During the pendency of preventive mediation proceedings no strike
could be legally declared.
-therefore, since the notice of strike filed by the union was converted into
preventive mediation proceedings, the union had lost the notices of
strike required under A263. However, the union defiantly proceeded with
the strike while mediation was ongoing. Such disregard of the mediation
proceedings was a blatant violation of theImplementing Rules, which
explicitly oblige the parties to bargain collectively in good faith and
prohibit them from impeding or disrupting the proceedings.
b. on ruling of NLRC that there was lack of factual basis (no
circumstance to constitute an actual or threatened commission of
unlawful acts)
-at the time the injunction was being sought, there existed a threat to
revive the unlawful strike as evidenced by the flyers then being
circulated by the IBM, which were not denied by the respondent union.
Moreover, a declaration of strike without first having filed the required
notice is a prohibited activity (A264(a)), which may be prevented through
an injunction in accordance with A254.
c. on IBMs failure to observe the CBA provisions on grievance and
arbitration
- Strikes held in violation of the terms contained in a collective
bargaining agreement are illegal especially when they provide for
conclusive arbitration clauses. These agreements must be strictly
adhered to and respected if their ends have to be achieved.
-We cannot sanction the respondent-unions brazen disregard of legal
requirements imposed purposely to carry out the state policy of
promoting voluntary modes of settling disputes. The states commitment
to enforce mutual compliance therewith to foster industrial peace is
affirmed by no less than our Constitution. Trade unionism and strikes
are legitimate weapons of labor granted by our statutes. But misuse of
these instruments can be the subject of judicial intervention to forestall
grave injury to a business enterprise.
Disposition. WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby GRANTED.
The decision and resolution of the NLRC in Injunction Case No. 00468-
94 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Petitioner and private respondent
are hereby directed to submit the issues raised in the dismissed notices
of strike to grievance procedure and proceed with arbitration
proceedings as prescribed in their CBA, if necessary. No
pronouncement as to costs. SO ORDERED.
PIERO v NLRC
437 SCRA 112
YNARES-SANTIAGO; August 20, 2004
FACTS
- Dumaguete Cathedral College, Inc.,(DCCI) is the employer of the
faculty and staff members comprising the labor union DUCACOFSA-
NAFTEU. In 1986, the union and DCCI entered into a CBA effective for
3 years. Upon the expiration of their CBA in 1989, the parties failed to
conclude another CBA which led the union to file a notice of strike with
the DOLE on the ground of refusal to bargain.
- The union conducted a strike in the premises of DCCI without
submitting to the DOLE the required results of the strike vote obtained
from the members of the union. Consequently,DCCI filed with theDOLE
a complaint to declare the strike illegal and to dismiss the officers of the
union.
- The LA declared the strike illegal and declared the union officers to
have lost their employment status effective on the date of this decision.
The union officers appealed to the NLRC.
- Meanwhile, said officers returned to work by virtue of an MOA entered
into by the union and DCI allowing them to resume service without
prejudice to the outcome of the instant case then pending appeal with
the NLRC.
- The NLRC affirmed the decision of the LA. The NLRC ratiocinated
that the strike was illegal because of the unions failure to comply with
strike vote requirements.
ISSUES
WON the strike staged by DUCACOFSA- NAFTEU was illegal
HELD
Disini
YES
There is no doubt that the strike staged by DUCACOFSA-
NAFTEU is illegal for non-compliance with the strike-vote
requirements. The relevant provisions of Article 263 of the Labor
Code read:
Article 263. x x x
(c) x x x the duly certified or recognized bargaining agent
may file a notice of strike or the employer may file a notice of
lockout with the Department at least 30 days before the intended
date thereof. In cases of unfair labor practice, the period of
notice shall be 15 days and in the absence of a duly certified or
recognized bargaining agent, the notice of strike may be filed by
any legitimate labor organization in behalf of its members.
However, in case of dismissal from employment of union officers
duly elected in accordance with the union constitution and by-
laws, which may constitute union busting where the existence of
the union is threatened, the 15-day cooling-off period shall not
apply and the union may take action immediately.
(f) A decision to declare a strike must be approved by a
majority of the total union membership in the bargaining unit
concerned, obtained by secret ballot in meetings or referenda
called for that purpose. A decision to declare a lockout must be
approved by a majority of the board of directors of the
corporation or association or of the partners in a partnership,
obtained by secret ballot in a meeting called for the purpose.
The decision shall be valid for the duration of the dispute based
on substantially the same grounds considered when the strike or
lockout vote was taken. The Department may, at its own
initiative or upon the request of any affected party, supervise the
conduct of the secret balloting. In every case, the union or the
employer shall furnish the Department the results of the voting at
least seven days before the intended strike or lock-out, subject to
the cooling-off period herein provided.
Under the aforequoted provisions, the requisites for a valid
strike are as follows: (a) a notice of strike filed with the
DOLE thirty days before the intended date thereof or fifteen
days in case of unfair labor practice; (b) strike vote
approved by a majority of the total union membership in the
bargaining unit concerned obtained by secret ballot in a
meeting called for that purpose; (c) notice given to the
DOLE of the results of the voting at least seven days before
the intended strike. These requirements are mandatory and
failure of a union to comply therewith renders the strike
illegal.
Pursuant to Article 264 of the Labor Code, any union officer who
knowingly participates in an illegal strike and any worker or union
officer who knowingly participates in the commission of illegal
acts during a strike may be declared to have lost his employment
status.
In the case at bar, DUCACOFSA-NAFTEU failed to prove that it
obtained the required strike-vote among its members and that
the results thereof were submitted to the DOLE. The strike was
therefore correctly declared illegal, for non-compliance with the
procedural requirements of Article 263 of the Labor Code.
Samahang Manggagawa v. Sulpicio Lines, Inc.
426 SCRA 319
(Sarah Cabrera)
CAPITOL MEDICAL CENTER VS NLRC (CMC
EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION)
320 SCRA 478
CALLEJO; April 26, 2005
FACTS
-Whether respondent Capitol Medical Center Employees
Association (The Union) was the exclusive bargaining agent of
LABOR LAW 2 A2010 - 260 - Disini
the rank-and-file EEs of petitioner had been the bone of contention BUKLURAN NG MANGGAGAWA SA
between the 2 parties. Another union, CMC-ACE demanded a CLOTHMAN KNITTING CORPORATION
certification election which was granted by the Med-Arbiter which was
later appealed to SOLE and granted by Usec Laguesma. SOLE denied SOLIDARITY OF UNIONS IN THE PHILIPPINES
the MFR filed by ACE which the Court affirmed. FOR EMPOWERMENT AND REFORMS (BMC-
SUPER) vs. CA (CLOTHMAN KNITTING
-Petitioner rejected a meeting proposed by the Union to negotiate a CBA, CORPORATION)
and later filed a Petition for the Cancellation of the Unions Certificate
Registration with DOLE on the grounds that the Union failed for several 448 SCRA 642
years to submit its Annual financial statements and engaged in an illegal CALLEJO, SR.; Jan 17, 2005
strike. The Union filed a notice of strike with the NCMB due to
petitioners refusal to bargain but failed to later furnish the NCMB with a
copy of the notice of the meeting where the strike was conducted. The
NATURE Petition for review
Union submitted to the NCMB the minutes of the alleged strike vote,
supposedly held in a parking lot in front of CMC.
FACTS
- Clothman Knitting Corporation (CKC), a domestic corporation
-The Union filed an ex parte motion with DOLE to assume jurisdiction
engaged in knitting/textiles, issued a Memorandum informing its
and impose sanctions against the hospital director/corporate officers for
employees at the Dyeing and Finishing Division that a temporary
refusal to bargain. SOLE assumed jurisdiction over the labor dispute,
shutdown of the operations therein would be effected for one
and issued a return to work order to which the EEs complied.
week due to change in the schedule brought about by the
Meanwhile, DOLE denied the petition for cancellation of the Unions
decrease in the orders from the customers.
certificate registration.
- Petitioner Tomaroy, with sixteen (16) members of the petitioner
union, staged a picket in front of the respondents compound,
-The Labor Arbiter then declared the strike illegal, ruling that no strike
carrying placards with slogans.
vote had actually taken place as evidenced by witnesses presented by
- CKC filed a petition to declare the strike illegal for failure to
CMC (the overseer of the purported parking lot and sworn statements
comply with the procedural requirements for staging a strike.
from 17 union members) and no mandatory notice was furnished to
The petition was granted and the employees who participated
NCMB at least 24 hours prior to the strike vote. He also held that instead
lost their employment status with CKC.
of staging a strike, the Union should have filed a motion for a writ of
execution of the resolution of Usec Laguesma in accordance with Art.
ISSUE
263. The NLRC reversed said decision upon appeal and denied the
WON the stage is illegal for failure of the petitioners to comply
petition to declare the strike illegal. Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari
with the procedural requirements
with the CA which was dismissed hence this petition for review on
certiorari under Rule 45.
HELD
YES
ISSUE/s
Ratio In order for a strike to be valid, the following requirements
WON the CA erred in upholding NLRCs finding that the Union
laid down in paragraphs (c) and (f) of Article 263 of the Labor
complied with the legal requirements for staging a strike
Code must be complied with: (a) a notice of strike must be filed;
(b) a strike-vote must be taken; and
HELD
(c) the results of the strike-vote must be reported to the DOLE.
It bears stressing that these requirements are mandatory,
YES. Sec. 10, Rule XXII of the Omnibus Rules of the NLRC requires
meaning, non-compliance therewith makes the strike illegal. The
that a majority vote by secret ballot be obtained before declaring a strike.
evident intention of the law in requiring the strike notice and
Article 263 further provides that a union intending to strike is mandated
strike-vote report is to reasonably regulate the right to strike,
to notify the NCMB of the meeting (date, place and time) for the conduct
which is essential to the attainment of legitimate policy objectives
of strike vote, at least 24 hours prior to such meeting. NCMB is to call
embodied in the law.
the parties to a conference to assist them in an amicable settlement and
Reasoning
in the event of its failure, voluntary arbitration is encouraged. If the
a. The strikers/picketers did not conduct a strike vote and no
parties refuse, the union may hold a strike vote to ensure the decision to
cooling-off period was observed;
strike rests on the majority of the union members.
b. The strikers/picketers did not file a notice of strike;
c. The reasons for the strike/picket involve a non-strikeable issue;
-Such requirement is designed to inform the NCMB of the intent to strike,
d. It was not based on a valid factual ground, either based on
and to give it ample time to decide WON there is a need to supervise the
Collective Bargaining Deadlock and/or Unfair Labor Practice;
strike vote to prevent violence/irregularities. Failure to comply with such
e. There was no strike-vote report submitted to the DOLE at
requirement renders the subsequent strike staged illegal; in the instant
least seven (7) days before the intended date of the strike;
case, the Union failed to comply with said requirement.
f. The 7-day visiting period after submission of the strike vote
report was not fully observed.
-The NLRC held that although the parking lot overseer attested to not
having witnessed any such strike vote, it did not mean no strike vote
DISPOSITION Petition DENIED.
occurred at all. It also furthered that the 17 sworn statements seemed
coerced as they were pro forma. This Court however, held that the
respondents failed to prove the existence of a parking lot other than the
parking lot across CMC which the overseer, in an affidavit, stated that no
voting or election was conducted on the date of the alleged strike vote.
Also, the respondents failed to adduce substantial evidence that the
affiants, the 17 union members who executed separate affidavits that no
secret balloting took place, were coerced into executing the same. The
fact that some portions of the affidavit are similarly worded is no proof
that petitioner forced said members into executing said affidavits.

Disposition The petition is granted

LABOR LAW 2 A2010 - 261 -
8. TEST OF LEGALITY
1) Purpose and Means Test
LUZON MARINE DEPT., UNION V ROLDAN (LUZON
STEVEDORING CO.)
86 PHIL 507
OZAETA; MAY 30, 1950
NATURE
Petition for certiorari to review a resolution of the Court of Industrial
Relations.
FACTS
- June 17, 1948: Petitioner Luzon Marine Union (UNION) presented to
respondent Luzon Stevedoring Co. (LSC) a petition containing demands,
including that it be granted of full recognition with the right to collective
bargaining, closed-shop and check-off. The Union initiated the petition
in the CIR praying that LSC be directed to comply immediately with the
demands.
- The Union de Obreros Estivadores de Filipinas (UOEF) a labor
organization divided into units of which Universal Marine Union is a part,
intervened on behalf of the Union because it alleged that the demand of
the Union for recognition with the right to collective bargaining, closed-
shop, etc. would violate an agreement entered into between LSC and
UOEF, where the company recognized UOEF as the labor organization
of the workers rendering services to LSC., with full right of collective
bargaining.
- UOEF moved for dismissal for lack of jurisdiction, on the ground that
the Union did not count with more than 30 members employed in the
LSC. Judge Bautista issued an order denying the motion to dismiss.
Before the receipt of the order, 65 alleged members of the Union
initiated a strike without notice (July 19). It was only on July 21 that the
LSC received the notice of strike.
- July 20, 1948: Union filed with CIR a petition alleging that all its
members (more than 300) went on strike on July 19 due to the refusal of
LSC to grant their demands, and prayed for the issuance of a restraining
order to prevent the respondent from employing strike breakers.
- August 16, 1948: Judge Bautista issued an order directing the strikers
to return to work, and the LSC to reinstate them in their previous
positions. Acting on a motion for reconsideration, the court set said order
aside on the ground that the strike was unjustified and illegal.
- Judges Roldan and Castillo held that although Sec. 19 of
Commonwealth Act 103 provides that pending award or decision by
the CIR, the employee, tenant or laborer shall not strike or walk out
of his employment when so enjoined by the Court, and although
the Court had not enjoined the petitioner NOT TO STRIKE, it does
not necessarily follow that the strike was legal and justified xxx
Although the Act recognizes the laborers right to strike, it also
creates all the means by which a resort thereto may be avoided,
because a strike is a remedy essentially coercive in character and
general in its disturbing effects upon the social order and the
public interests.
- The CIR found out that the reason the members went on strike was
because the opposite party claims or asserts that they had no members
inside the company, and because they were becoming impatient. From
The court concluded that the purpose of the strike was to influence the
decision and to compel the Court to decide promptly. The union insists
that the strike was called for a lawful purpose: 1) to show they had more
than 30 members; 2) to answer the challenge of Alejo Villanueva that he
will dismiss the members from the company.
ISSUES
1. WON the strike was called for a lawful purpose.
HELD
2. NO
Ratio In cases not falling within the prohibition against strikes, the
legality or illegality of a strike depends upon the 1) purpose for which it is
maintained, and 2) upon the means employed in carrying it on.
Disini
- The law does not look with favor upon strikes and lockouts
because of their disturbing and pernicious effects upon the social
order and the public interests.
Reasoning The reasons presented by the Union do not justify
the drastic measure of a strike, which necessarily entails
pernicious consequences not only to the company but also to the
laborers themselves and public.
- If the purpose of a strike is trivial, unreasonable or unjust, or if
violence was committed, the strike, although not prohibited by
injunction, may be declared by the court illegal, with adverse
consequences to the strikers.
- If the laborers resort to a strike to enforce their demands
(instead of exhausting legal processes first) they do so at their
own risk, and should the court find the strike was unjustified, the
strikers would suffer the adverse consequences.
DISPOSITION The petition appealed from is affirmed.
CALTEX PHIL. INC. V PHIL. LABOR
ORGANIZATIONS, CALTEX CHAPTER
(Giulia Pineda)
PHILIPPINE MARINE OFFICERS GUILD V CIA.
MARITIMA
(Ajang Pineda)
Acts of violence in this jurisdiction, when committed in carrying
on a strike are not to be overlooked in determining its legality or
illegality.
To overlook these acts of violence would encourage
abuses and terrorism and subvert the purpose of the law which
provides for arbitration and peaceful settlement of disputes.
If a strike is unjustified as when it is declared for
trivial, unjust or unreasonable purpose, the employer may not be
compelled to reinstate the strikers to their employment. More so,
when the strike is carried on illegally.
UNION OF FILIPRO EMPLOYEES v. NESTLE
192 SCRA 396
MEDIALDEA; December 19, 1990
NATURE
This petition assails the decision of the NLRC, dated November
2, 1988 on the consolidated appeals of petitioners
FACTS
- UFE filed a notice of strike with the Bureau of Labor Relations
against Filipro (now Nestle Philippines).
- UFE filed a complaint for Unfair Labor Practice (ULP) against
Nestle and its officials for violation of the Labor Code (Art. 94) on
Holiday Pay, non-implementation of the CBA provisions (Labor
Management Corporation scheme), Financial Assistance and
other unfair labor practice.
- Acting on Nestle's petition seeking assumption of jurisdiction
over the labor dispute or its certification to the NLRC for
compulsory arbitration, then Minister of Labor and Employment
Blas F. Ople assumed jurisdiction over the dispute and issued
the following order enjoining any strike, lockout, or any other
form of concerted action such as slowdowns, sitdowns, noise
barrages during office hours, which tend to disrupt company
operations.
- UFE filed a petition for certiorari with prayer for issuance of
temporary restraining order, with this Court assailing the
assumption of jurisdiction by the Minister. Notwithstanding the
automatic injunction against any concerted activity, and an
absence of a restraining order, the union members, at the
instigation of its leaders, and in clear defiance of Minister Ople's
LABOR LAW 2 A2010 - 262 - Disini
Order of December 11, 1986, staged a strike and continued to man Resolution, dated March 7, 1989, are both AFFIRMED in their
picket lines at the Makati Administrative Office and all of Nestle's entirety. No costs.
factories and warehouses at Alabang, Muntinlupa, Cabuyao, Laguna,
and Cagayan de Oro City. Likewise, the union officers and members
distributed leaflets to employees and passersby advocating a boycott of RELIANCE SURETY AND INSURANCE CO. INC.
company products.
- Nestle filed a petition to declare the strike illegal premised on violation V NLRC
of the CBA provisions on "no strike/no lockout" clause and the grievance 193 SCRA 365
machinery provisions on settlement of disputes. Sarmiento, J; 1991
- Despite receipt of the second order dated January 30, 1986, and
knowledge of a notice caused to be published by Nestle in the Bulletin NATURE
on February 1, 1986, advising all workers to report to work not later than Petition for Ceriorari to review NLRC decision
February 3, 1986, the officers and members of UFE continued with the FACTS
strike. - It appears that to avoid unnecessary loss of productive working
- Minister B. Ople denied their motion for reconsideration of the return- time due to personal and non-work-related conversations,
to-work order. personal telephone calls and non-work-connected visits by
- UFE defied the Minister and continued with their strike. Nestle filed personnel to other departments, the respondent Reliance Surety
criminal charges against those involved. Insurance Co., Inc. (company for short) on 21 November 1986,
thru the manager (Mr.Celso Eleazar) of its underwriting
ISSUE department, effected a change in the seating arrangement of its
WON the strike is legal. personnel in said department.
- Among those affected were members of the labor union who
HELD claimed that the change was done merely to harass them. In the
NO. UFE completely misses the underlying principle embodied in Art. ensuing discussions, the manager and the union members
264(g) on the settlement of labor disputes and this is, that assumption apparently had heated words and the union members hurled
and certification orders are executory in character and are to be strictly unprintable insults. Some employees refused to stay at their
complied with by the parties even during the pendency of any petition designated places. The company then asked the recalcitrants to
questioning their validity. This extraordinary authority given to the explain within 48 hours why no disciplinary action should be
Secretary of Labor is aimed at arriving at a peaceful and speedy solution taken against them. Due to the continuing hostility by the union
to labor disputes, without jeopardizing national interests. members they were place under preventive suspension and
- Regardless therefore of their motives, or the validity of their claims, the finally dismissed.
striking workers must cease and/or desist from any and all acts that tend - Illegal dismissal complaints were filed. These were amended to
to, or undermine this authority of the Secretary of Labor, once an include a charge of unfair labor practice. The members alleged
assumption and/or certification order is issued. They cannot, for instance, that the seating arrangement was changed to pressure or
ignore return-to-work orders, citing unfair labor practices on the part of intimidate labor union members. While the action was pending,
the company, to justify their actions. the union filed a notice of strike. Before a conciliation conference
- The return to work order does not so much confer a right as it imposes can be held, the union struck and picketed the company
a duty; and while as a right it may be waived, it must be discharged as a premises thus preventing officials and other employees from
duty even against the worker's will. Returning to work in this situation is doing their usual duties.
not a matter of option or voluntariness but of obligation. The worker must - Company filed a petition to declare the strike illegal since there
return to his job together with his co-workers so the operations of the was no strike vote and the required cooling off period was not
company can be resumed and it can continue serving the public and followed. The Arbiter found the strike illegal. The finding was
promoting its interest." modified by the NLRC and ruled that the strike while illegal
- An assumption and/or certification order of the Secretary of Labor should not result in the termination of the employees involved
automatically results in a return-to-work of all striking workers, whether since the members truly believed that the company was
or not a corresponding order has been issued by the Secretary of Labor. committing unfair labor practice in terminating the other
Thus, the striking workers erred when they continued with their strike employees. It ruled that the employees be reinstated but without
alleging absence of a return-to-work order. Article 264(g) is clear. backwages.
- Once an assumption/certification order is issued, strikes are enjoined, - Hence this appeal to the SC.
or if one has already taken place, all strikers shall immediately return to
work. ISSUE/S
- A strike that is undertaken despite the issuance by the Secretary of WON strikers who have found to have staged an illegal strike
Labor of an assumption or certification order becomes a prohibited may be reinstated to work
activity and thus illegal, pursuant to the second paragraph of Art. 264 of
the Labor Code as amended. The Union officers and members, as a HELD
result, are deemed to have lost their employment status for having No. There is no question that the strike itself was prompted by no
knowingly participated in an illegal act. actual, existing unfair labor practice committed by the petitioner.
- Thus, the NLRC correctly upheld the illegality of the strikes and the In effecting a change in the seating arrangement in the office of
corresponding dismissal of the individual complainants because of their the underwriting department, the petitioner merely exercised a
"brazen disregard of successive lawful orders of then Labor Ministers reasonable prerogative employees could not validly question,
Blas F. Ople, Augusto Sanchez and Labor Secretary Franklin Drilon much less assail as an act of unfair labor practice. The Court is
dated December 11, 1985, January 30, 1986 and February 4, 1986, indeed at a loss how rearranging furniture, as it were, can justify
respectively, and the cavalier treatment of the provisions of the Labor a four-month-long strike. As to the private respondent's charges
Code and the return-to-work orders of the Minister (now Secretary) of of harassment, the Commission found none, and as a general
Labor and Employment, or Articles 264 and 265 (now renumbered Arts. rule, we are bound by its findings of fact. Amid this background,
263 and 264). the Court must grant the petition. In staging the strike in
- No strike or lockout shall be declared after assumption of jurisdiction by question, a strike that was illegal in more ways than one, the
the President or the Minister or after certification or submission of the reinstated union officers were clearly in bad faith, and to
dispute to compulsory or voluntary arbitration or during the pendency o f reinstate them without, indeed, loss of seniority rights, is to
cases involving the same grounds for the strike or lockout. reward them for an act public policy does not sanction.
Disposition ACCORDINGLY, the petition is DISMISSED, and the - As a general rule, the sympathy of the Court is on the side of
decision of public respondent NLRC, dated November 2, 1988, and its the laboring classes, not only because the Constitution imposes
sympathy but because of the one-sided relation between labor
LABOR LAW 2 A2010 - 263 -
and capital. The Court must take care, however, that in the contest
between labor and capital, the results achieved are fair and in conformity
with the rules. We will not accomplish that objective here by approving
the act of the National Labor Relations Commission which we hold to
constitute a grave abuse of discretion.
Disposition Petition is granted.
ILAW at BUKLOD ng MANGGAGAWA v NLRC
198 SCRA 586
NARVASA; June 27, 1991
FACTS
-The controversy at bar had its origin in the "wage distortions" affecting
the employees of respondent San Miguel Corporation allegedly caused
by Republic Act No. 6727, otherwise known as the Wage Rationalization
Act.
-Upon the effectivity of the Act on June 5, 1989, the union known as
"Ilaw at Buklod Ng Manggagawa (IBM)" said to represent 4,500
employees of San Miguel Corporation, more or less, "working at the
various plants, offices, and warehouses located at the National Capital
Region" - presented to the company a "demand" for correction of the
"significant distortion in . . . (the workers') wages."
-Union claims that demand was ignored
- The Union's position (set out in the petition subsequently filed in this
Court, infra) was that the workers' refusal "to work beyond eight (8)
hours everyday as a legitimate means of compelling SMC to correct "the
distortion in their wages brought about by the implementation of the said
laws (R.A. 6640 and R.A. 6727) to newly-hired employees." There
ensued thereby a change in the work schedule which had been
observed by daily-paid workers at the Polo Plant for the past five (5)
years, i.e., "ten (10) hours for the first shift and ten (10) to fourteen (14)
hours for the second shift, from Mondays to Fridays . . .; (and on)
Saturdays, . . . eight (8) hours for both shifts" a work schedule which,
SMC says, the workers had "welcomed, and encouraged" because the
automatic overtime built into the schedule "gave them a steady source of
extra-income," and pursuant to which it (SMC) "planned its production
targets and budgets.
-This abandonment of the long-standing schedule of work and the
reversion to the eight-hour shift apparently caused substantial losses to
SMC.
-SMC filed with the Arbitration Branch of the National Labor Relations
Commission a complaint against the Union and its members "to declare
the strike or slowdown illegal" and to terminate the employment of the
union officers and shop stewards.
-it is SMC's submittal that the coordinated reduction by the Union's
members of the work time theretofore willingly and consistently
observed by them, thereby causing financial losses to the employer in
order to compel it to yield to the demand for correction of "wage
distortions," is an illegal and "unprotected" activity. It is, SMC argues,
contrary to the law and to the collective bargaining agreement between it
and the Union.
ISSUE
WON the strike is illegal
HELD
YES. Among the rights guaranteed to employees by the Labor Code is
that of engaging in concerted activities in order to attain their legitimate
objectives. Article 263 of the Labor Code, as amended, declares that in
line with "the policy of the State to encourage free trade unionism and
free collective bargaining, . . . (w)orkers shall have the right to engage in
concerted activities for purposes of collective bargaining or for their
mutual benefit and protection." A similar right to engage in concerted
activities for mutual benefit and protection is tacitly and traditionally
recognized in respect of employers.
The more common of these concerted activities as far as employees are
concerned are: strikes the temporary stoppage of work as a result of
an industrial or labor dispute; picketing the marching to and fro at the
employer's premises, usually accompanied by the display of placards
and other signs making known the facts involved in a labor dispute; and
boycotts the concerted refusal to patronize an employer's goods or
Disini
services and to persuade others to a like refusal. On the other
hand, the counterpart activity that management may licitly
undertake is the lockout the temporary refusal to furnish work
on account of a labor dispute. In this connection, the same
Article 263 provides that the "right of legitimate labor
organizations to strike and picket and of employer to lockout,
consistent with the national interest, shall continue to be
recognized and respected." The legality of these activities is
usually dependent on the legality of the purposes sought to be
attained and the means employed therefor (ON TEST OF
LEGALITY).
It goes without saying that these joint or coordinated activities
may be forbidden or restricted by law or contract. In the
particular instance of "distortions of the wage structure within an
establishment" resulting from "the application of any prescribed
wage increase by virtue of a law or wage order," Section 3 of
Republic Act No. 6727 prescribes a specific, detailed and
comprehensive procedure for the correction thereof, thereby
implicitly excluding strikes or lockouts or other concerted
activities as modes of settlement of the issue. The legislative
intent that solution of the problem of wage distortions shall be
sought by voluntary negotiation or arbitration, and not by strikes,
lockouts, or other concerted activities of the employees or
management, is made clear in the rules implementing RA 6727
issued by the Secretary of Labor and Employment pursuant to
the authority granted by Section 13 of the Act. Section 16,
Chapter I of these implementing rules, after reiterating the policy
that wage distortions be first settled voluntarily by the parties and
eventually by compulsory arbitration, declares that, "Any issue
involving wage distortion shall not be a ground for a
strike/lockout."
-Moreover, the collective bargaining agreement between the
SMC and the Union, relevant provisions of which are quoted by
the former without the latter s demurring to the accuracy of the
quotation, also prescribes a similar eschewal of strikes or other
similar or related concerted activities as a mode of resolving
disputes or controversies, generally, said agreement clearly
stating that settlement of "all disputes, disagreements or
controversies of any kind" should be achieved by the stipulated
grievance procedure and ultimately by arbitration.
Disposition PETITION DENIED
ASSOCIATION OF INDEPENDENT UNIONS IN
THE PHILIPPINES V NLRC (CENAPRO
CHEMICAL CORP, GO SING CHAN)
305 SCRA 219
PURISIMA; March 25, 1999
NATURE
Petition for review on Certiorari seeking to reinstate the Labor
Arbiter decision ordering the reinstatement and payment of
backwages of the four petitioners which was affirmed in toto by
NLRC but later modified, by deleting the award of backwages,
ordering payment of separation pay in lieu of reinstatement, and
declaring the loss of employment status of petitioner Densing
FACTS
- Joel Densing, Henedino Mirafuentes, Christopher Patentes,
and Andres Tejana, the petitioners, were casual employees of
CENAPRO Chemicals Corporation. The collective bargaining
representative of all rank and file employees was CENAPRO
Employees Association (CCEA). Their CBA excluded casual
employees from membership in the incumbent union. The casual
employees who rendered at least one to six years of service
sought regularization of their employment. When their demand
was denied, they formed themselves into an organization and
affiliated with the Association of Independent unions in the
Philippines (AIUP). AIUP filed a petition for certification election,
which petition was opposed by the company. The CCEA
anchored its opposition on the contract bar rule.
LABOR LAW 2 A2010 - 264 -
- May 4, and July 3, 1990 > union filed a notice of strike, minutes of
strike vote, and the needed documentation, with DOLE. The notice of
strike cited as grounds the acts of the company constituting unfair labor
practice, more specifically coercion of employees and systematic union
busting.
- July 23, 1992 > union proceeded to stage a strike in which they
perpetrated illegal acts.
1) strikers padlocked the gate of the company
2) areas fronting the gate of the company were barricaded and blocked
by union strikers
3) strikers prevented and coerced other non-striking employees from
reporting for work
- the company filed a petition for injunction with NLRC, which granted a
TRO enjoining the strikers from doing further acts of violence, coercion,
or intimidation and from blocking free ingress and egress to the
company premises.
- July 24, 1990 > petitioners filed a complaint for unfair labor practice
and illegal lockout against the company
- July 25, 1990 > the company filed a complaint for illegal strike.
- September 10, 1993 > Labor Arbiter declared as illegal the strike and
dismissed the charge of illegal lockout and unfair labor practice, Five
union officers were declared to have lost their employment status, fifteen
union members were not reinstated because they executed quit claims
in favor of the company, and six workers, Bantulan, Regner, Densing
Mirafuentes, Patentes, and Tejana, were ordered to be reinstated.
- October 8, 1993 > Labor Arbiter issued an Order excluding Bantulan
and Regner from the list of those to be reinstated and to be paid
backwages. The remaining four workers, Densing, Mirafuentes,
Patentes, and Tejana, are the petitioners here.
- October 5, 1993 > the company appealed insofar as it ordered the
reinstatement of some of the strikers.
- October 7, 1993 > petitioners also appealed the same decision of the
Labor Arbiter.
- October 15, 1993 > Pending resolution of the appeals, AUIP filed with
Labor Arbiter a Motion for Execution of the Decision directing
reinstatement of some of its members. Motion was granted
- December 7, 1993 > the company presented a Manifestation/Motion
praying that instead of reinstatement, it be allowed to pay separation pay
to petitioners.
- December 16, 1993 > petitioners presented a motion for payroll
reinstatement, which was opposed by the company, alleging mainly that
the circumstances of the case have strained the relationship, rendering
their reinstatement unwise and inappropriate.
- March 23, 1994 > such opposition was overruled by the Labor Arbiter.
Labor Arbiter issued a second writ of execution directing actual, if not
payroll reinstatement of the strikers.
- April 6, 1994 > the company appealed the second order for the
reinstatement of the strikers, placing reliance on the same grounds
- August 15, 1994 > NLRC affirmed in toto the Labor Arbiters decision,
dismissed both appeals and reiterated the Labor Arbiters Order for the
reinstatement of the petitioners. The company moved for
reconsideration of that portion of the NLRCs decision ordering the
reinstatement of the strikers. NLRC modified its Decision by ordering the
payment of separation pay in lieu of the reinstatement of the petitioners,
deleting the award of backwages, and declaring the loss of employment
status of Densing.
- Petitioners claim: NLRC acted with grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction
ISSUES
1. WON there is an illegal strike
2. WON the company committed an illegal lockout
3. WON the dismissal of the union officers is valid
4. WON NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in declaring
Densings loss of employement status in connection with his
participation in the illegal strike
5. WON Mirafuentes et al reinstatement and payment of salaries is
valid
HELD
1. YES
Ratio A strike is a legitimate weapon in the universal struggle for
existence. [Alcantara, Philippine Labor and Social Legislation, 1994] It is
Disini
considered as the most effective weapon in protecting the rights
of the employees to improve the terms and conditions of their
employment. [Bisig ng Mangagawa sa Concrete Aggregates, Inc.
vs. NLRC] But to be valid, a strike must be pursued within legal
bounds. The right to strike as a means for the attainment of
social justice is never meant to oppress or destroy the employer.
The law provides limits for its exercise. Among such limits are
the prohibited activities under A264 LC, particularly paragraph
(e), which states that no person engaged in picketing shall:
a) commit any act of violence, coercion, or intimidation or
b) obstruct the free ingress to or egress from the employers
premises for lawful purposes or
c) obstruct public thoroughfares.
Reasoning
- the strike staged by petitioners was in the nature of a union-
recognition-strike. A union-recognition-strike, as its legal
designation implies, is calculated to compel the employer to
recognize ones union and not other contending group, as the
employees bargaining representative to work out a collective
bargaining agreement despite the striking unions doubtful
majority status to merit voluntary recognition and lack of formal
certification as the exclusive representative in the bargaining
unit. It is undisputed that at the time the petition for certification
election was filed by AIUP, the petitioner union, there was an
existing CBA between the company and CCEA, the incumbent
bargaining representative of all rank and file employees. The
petition should have not been entertained because of the
contract bar rule. When a collective bargaining has been duly
registered in accordance with A231 LC, a petition for certification
election or motion for intervention may be entertained only within
sixty (60) days prior to the expiry date of the agreement. [Sec 3,
par. 2, Rule XI, Book V, of the Rules and Regulations
implementing the Labor Code, as amended by D.O. No. 09,
which took effect on 21 Jun 1997] Outside the said period, as in
the present case, the petition for certification election or motion
for intervention cannot be allowed.
- the strike staged by the petitioner union was illegal for the
reasons, that:
1) The strikers committed illegal acts in the course of the strike.
They formed human barricades to block the road, prevented the
passage of the companys truck, padlocked the companys gate,
and prevented co-workers from entering the company premises.
2) violated the TRO enjoining the union and/or its members from
obstructing the company premises, and ordering the removal of
all the barricades.
- Even if the strike is valid because its objective or purpose is
lawful, the strike may still be declared invalid where the means
employed are illegal. For instance, the strike was considered
illegal as the "strikers formed a human cordon along the side of
the Sta. Ana wharf and blocked all the ways and approaches to
the launches and vessels of Petitioners". [United Seamens
Union of the Philippines vs. Davao Shipowners Association]
2. NO
Reasoning
- the company committed no illegal lockout. Lockout means
temporary refusal of the employer to furnish work as a result of
an industrial or labor dispute. [A212 (p) LC]
- it was the appellant-workers who voluntarily stopped working
because of their strike. In fact, the workers admitted that non-
striking workers who wanted to return to work were allowed to do
so. Their being without work could not therefore be attributed to
the employers refusal to give them work but rather, to the
voluntary withdrawal of their services in order to compel the
company to recognize their union.
3. YES
Ratio Union officers are duty bound to guide their members to
respect the law. If instead of doing so, the officers urge the
members to violate the law and defy the duly constituted
authorities, their dismissal from the service is a just penalty or
sanction for their unlawful acts. The officers responsibility is
greater than that of the members. [Continental Cement Labor
Union vs. Continental Cement Corporation]
Reasoning
LABOR LAW 2 A2010 - 265 -
- the dismissal of the officers of the striking union was justified and valid.
Their dismissal as a consequence of the illegality of the strike staged by
them finds support in A264 (a) LC: " x x Any union officer who knowingly
participates in an illegal strike and any x x union officer who knowingly
participates in the commission of illegal acts during a strike may be
declared to have lost his employment status. x x"
4. YES
Ratio A264 (a) LC: "x x any worker x x who knowingly participates in the
commission of illegal acts during a strike may be declared to have lost
his employment status. x x" It can be gleaned unerringly from the
provision that an ordinary striking employee cannot be terminated for
mere participation in an illegal strike. There must be proof that he
committed illegal acts during the strike [Gold City Integrated Port Service
Inc. vs. NLRC] and the striker who participated in the commission of
illegal act must be identified. But proof beyond reasonable doubt is not
required. Substantial evidence available may suffice.
Ang Tibay vs. CIR: Not only must there be some evidence to support a
finding or conclusion, but the evidence must be "substantial". Substantial
evidence is more than a mere scintilla. It means such relevant evidence
that a reasonable mind might accept as sufficient to support a
conclusion.
Reasoning
- It is worthy to point out the sole basis of NLRC for declaring the loss of
employment status of petitioner Densing was a testimony of a witness
who pointed to 5 members of AIUP in connection with the illegal act.
And the photograph which supposedly portrayed the illegal acts done by
the petitioners was not shown and presented to the petitioners for it to
be discerned properly. The court is not convinced that the quantum of
proof on record hurdled the substantiality of evidence test to support a
decision, a basic requirement in administrative adjudication. The
identification of the alleged pictures of the strikers, if properly made,
could have been categorized as substantial evidence, which a
reasonable mind may accept as adequate to support a conclusion that
Densing participated in blocking the gate of the company.
5. YES
Ratio For the severest administrative penalty of dismissal to attach, the
erring strikers must be duly identified. Simply referring to them as
"strikers", "AIU strikers" " complainants in this case" is not enough to
justify their dismissal. Article 223 LC: "x x x In any event, the decision of
the labor arbiter reinstating a dismissed employee shall be immediately
executory, even pending appeal. The employee shall either be admitted
back to work under the same terms and conditions prevailing prior to his
dismissal or separation or, at the option of the employer, merely
reinstated in the payroll. The posting of bond shall not stay the execution
of the reinstatement provided therein. x x x"
Disposition Petition is GRANTED that Densing, Mirafuentes, Patentes,
and Tejana be paid full backwages computed from October 15, 1993
until full payment of their separation pay. The payment of separation pay
in lieu of reinstatement, is hereby authorized
SAN MIGUEL CORP v. NLRC, IBM
SCRA
AZCUNA, June 10, 2003
NATURE Petition for certiorari and prohibition
FACTS
-SMC and Ilaw at Buklod ng Manggagawa (IBM) executed a CBA
wherein they agreed to submit all disputes to grievance and arbitration
proceedings, aside from no-strike, no-lockout agreement.
-IBM, through its VP and subsequently through its president (which was
opposed by the VP), filed with NCMB a notice of strike against SMC for
allegedly committing: (1) illegal dismissal of union members, (2) illegal
transfer, (3) violation of CBA, (4) contracting out of jobs being performed
by union members, (5) labor-only contracting, (6) harassment of union
officers and members, (7) non-recognition of duly-elected union officers,
and (8) other acts of unfair labor practice. SMC filed a Motion for
Severance of Notices of Strike with Motion to Dismiss on the grounds
that the notices raised non-strikeable issues and that they affected 4
corporations.
Disini
-NCMB: issues are non-strikeable, as only SMC was impleaded
when 4 different companies were involved. Notices of strike
converted into preventive mediation.
-while separate preventive mediation conferences were ongoing,
the Union through its VP filed a notice of holding a strike vote.
SMC opposed, invoking PAL v. Drilon (no strike could be legally
declared during the pendency of preventive mediation). NCMB
reiterated conversion of notice of strike into preventive mediation
and grounds raised were only intra-union conflict nonstrikeable
(who between the 2 groups shall represent the workers for
collective bargaining purposes, union leadership).
nd
-IBM President group filed 2 notice of strike against SMC,
NCMB found the additional grounds to be mere amplifications of
st
issues alleged in the 1 notice of strike. Ordered consolidation of
the 2 notice of strike with 1st notice of strike. Group informed
nd
SMC of its plan to hold a strike.
-VP group notified the NCMB that their strike vote favored the
holding of a strike. NCMB issued a letter reminding the group of
the PAL v Drilon. IBM went on strike. Strike paralyzed the
operations of SMC, which caused millions of loses.
-SMC filed with NLRC a Petition for Injunction with Prayer for the
Issuance of TRO, Free Ingress and Egress Order and
Deputization Order, which was issued by NLRC, without
prejudice to the unions right to peaceful picketing and
continuous hearings on the injunction case. SMC also entered
into a Memorandum of Agreement with Union, calling for lifting of
picket lines and resumption of work in exchange of good faith
talks between the management and the labor management
committees. The MOA also stated that cases filed in relation to
their dispute will continue and will not be affected in any manner
whatsoever by the agreement. Work was then resumed.
-NLRC reconsidered the issuance of TRO, and sought to dismiss
the injunction case. SMC opposed, submitted copies of flyers
wherein IBM expressed their threat to revive the strike. NLRC
issued decision denying the petition for injunction for lack of
factual basis, there being no circumstance to constitute an actual
or threatened commission of unlawful acts. MFR denied
ISSUES
WON the strike held by IBM was illegal (therefore, NLRC
committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the petition for
injunction filed by SMC)
HELD
YES
a. Procedural aspect of the strike
-For a strike to be valid, it must be pursued within legal bounds.
One of the procedural requisites that A263 of the LC and its IRR
prescribe is the filing of a valid notice of strike with the NCMB.
Imposed for the purpose of encouraging the voluntary settlement
of disputes, this requirement has been held to be mandatory, the
lack of which shall render a strike illegal.
-In accordance with the Implementing Rules of the Labor Code,
the conversion of the notice of strike to preventive mediation has
the effect of dismissing the notices of strike filed by respondent.
A case in point is PAL v. Drilon, where we declared a strike
illegal for lack of a valid notice of strike, in view of the NCMBs
conversion of the notice therein into a preventive mediation case.
During the pendency of preventive mediation proceedings no
strike could be legally declared.
-therefore, since the notice of strike filed by the union was
converted into preventive mediation proceedings, the union had
lost the notices of strike required under A263. However, the
union defiantly proceeded with the strike while mediation was
ongoing. Such disregard of the mediation proceedings was a
blatant violation of theImplementing Rules, which explicitly oblige
the parties to bargain collectively in good faith and prohibit them
from impeding or disrupting the proceedings.
b. on ruling of NLRC that there was lack of factual basis (no
circumstance to constitute an actual or threatened commission of
unlawful acts)
LABOR LAW 2 A2010 - 266 -
-at the time the injunction was being sought, there existed a threat to
revive the unlawful strike as evidenced by the flyers then being
circulated by the IBM, which were not denied by the respondent union.
Moreover, a declaration of strike without first having filed the required
notice is a prohibited activity (A264(a)), which may be prevented through
an injunction in accordance with A254.
c. on IBMs failure to observe the CBA provisions on grievance and
arbitration
- Strikes held in violation of the terms contained in a collective
bargaining agreement are illegal especially when they provide for
conclusive arbitration clauses. These agreements must be strictly
adhered to and respected if their ends have to be achieved.
-We cannot sanction the respondent-unions brazen disregard of legal
requirements imposed purposely to carry out the state policy of
promoting voluntary modes of settling disputes. The states commitment
to enforce mutual compliance therewith to foster industrial peace is
affirmed by no less than our Constitution. Trade unionism and strikes
are legitimate weapons of labor granted by our statutes. But misuse of
these instruments can be the subject of judicial intervention to forestall
grave injury to a business enterprise.
Disposition. WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby GRANTED.
The decision and resolution of the NLRC in Injunction Case No. 00468-
94 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Petitioner and private respondent
are hereby directed to submit the issues raised in the dismissed notices
of strike to grievance procedure and proceed with arbitration
proceedings as prescribed in their CBA, if necessary. No
pronouncement as to costs. SO ORDERED.
MALAYANG SAMAHAN NG MANGGAGAWA SA M.
GREENFIELD V RAMOS, NLRC, M. GREENFIELD
326 SCRA 248
PURISIMA; February 28, 2000
NATURE
Petition for Certiorari to annul the NLRC decision
FACTS
- Malayang Samahan ng mga Manggagawa sa M. Greenfield, Inc.
(MSMG) (Local Union) is an affiliate of United Lumber and General
Workers of the Philippines (ULGWP) (Federation).
- The CBA between MSMG and M. Greenfield, Inc. states that it is
entered into by the corporation and MSMG / ULGWP.
- The CBA includes a Union Security Clause requiring all employees
who are covered by the CBA and presently members of the UNION to
remain members of the UNION for the duration of the CBA as a
condition precedent to continued employment.
- Local union imposed a P50 fine on non-attending union members
which became the subject of bitter disagreement between the
Federation and the local union. MSMG then declared general autonomy
from the ULGWP. In retaliation, the national federation asked
respondent company to stop the remittance of the local union's share in
the education funds. It also disauthorized incumbent union officers
from representing the employees.
- Petitioner union officers were expelled by the federation for allegedly
committing acts of disloyalty and/or inimical to the interest of ULGWP
and in violation of its Constitution and By-laws. The federation advised
respondent company of the expulsion of the 30 union officers and
demanded their separation from employment pursuant to the Union
Security Clause in their CBA.
- Upon demand of the federation, the company terminated the
petitioners without conducting a separate and independent investigation.
The expelled union officers assigned in the first shift were physically or
bodily brought out of the company premises by the company's security
guards. Those assigned to the second shift were not allowed to report
for work. This provoked some of the members of the local union to
demonstrate their protest for the dismissal of the said union officers.
Some union members left their work posts and walked out of the
company premises.
Disini
- Labor Arbiter ruled that the dismissed union officers were
validly and legally terminated because the dismissal was
effected in compliance with the union security clause of the CBA
which is the law between the parties. This was affirmed by the
NLRC on appeal.
> On the ISSUE of STRIKE:
- Labor Arbiter held that the strike was illegal for the following
reasons: (1) it was based on an intra-union dispute which cannot
properly be the subject of a strike, the right to strike being limited
to cases of bargaining deadlocks and unfair labor practice (2) it
was made in violation of the "no strike, no lock-out" clause in the
CBA, and (3) it was attended with violence, force and
intimidation upon the persons of the company officials, other
employees reporting for work and third persons having legitimate
business with the company, resulting to serious physical injuries
to several employees and damage to company property.
ISSUE/S
* WON the union officers were validly terminated
1. WON the strike was illegal for being grounded on a non-
strikeable issue (intra-union conflict between the federation and
the local union)
2. WON the no strike, no lock-out clause in the CBA was violated
3. WON the strike was attended with violence force and
intimidation
HELD
* NO
Reasoning Although this Court has ruled that union security
clauses embodied in the collective bargaining agreement may be
validly enforced and that dismissals pursuant thereto may
likewise be valid, this does not erode the fundamental
requirement of due process. The reason behind the enforcement
of union security clauses which is the sanctity and inviolability of
contracts cannot override one's right to due process.
1. NO
Reasoning When respondent company dismissed the union
officers, the issue was transformed into a termination dispute
and brought respondent company into the picture. Petitioners
believed in good faith that in dismissing them upon request by
the federation, respondent company was guilty of unfair labor
practice in that it violated the petitioner's right to self-
organization. The strike was staged to protest respondent
company's act of dismissing the union officers. Even if the
allegations of unfair labor practice are subsequently found out to
be untrue, the presumption of legality of the strike prevails.
2. NO
Reasoning A no strike, no lock out provision can only be
invoked when the strike is economic in nature, i.e. to force wage
or other concessions from the employer which he is not required
by law to grant. Such a provision cannot be used to assail the
legality of a strike which is grounded on unfair labor practice, as
was the honest belief of herein petitioners. Again, whether or not
there was indeed unfair labor practice does not affect the strike.
3. NO
Reasoning The Labor Arbiter and the Commission found that
"the parties are agreed that there were violent incidents resulting
to injuries to both sides, the union and management." The
evidence on record show that the violence cannot be attributed
to the striking employees alone for the company itself employed
hired men to pacify the strikers. With violence committed on both
sides, the management and the employees, such violence
cannot be a ground for declaring the strike as illegal.
Dispositive Petition is GRANTED; the NLRC decision is
REVERSED and SET ASIDE; respondent company is ordered to
immediately reinstate the petitioners to their respective
positions.1
1
Should reinstatement be not feasible, respondent company shall pay
separation pay of one month salary for every year of service. Since petitioners
were terminated without the requisite written notice at least 30 days prior to
their termination, following the recent ruling in the case of Ruben Serrano vs.
National Labor Relations Commission and Isetann Department Store, the
LABOR LAW 2 A2010 - 267 -
2) Guidelines and Balancing of Interest
SHELL OIL WORKERS UNION V SHELL CO
00 SCRA 000
FERNANDO; May 31, 1971
NATURE
Petition for review order of ca
FACTS
- Shell Company decided to dissolve its security guard section from its
Pandacan Installation, notwithstanding the tenure of the said section
being embraced in and assured by an existing collective bargaining
contract
- this resulted in a strike by the union (for unfair labor practice). During
the strike, violent acts were committed by some of the members of the
union
- the CA declared the strike illegal, saying that there was no unfair labor
practice for the dissolution was a a valid exercise of management
prerogative and ordered the dismissal of the officers who participated in
the strike)
ISSUE
1. WON the strike was illegal
HELD
1. NO
Ratio The dissolution of the security guard section was in violation of the
CBA, thus amounting to unfair labor practice. What was stipulated in an
existing CBA certainly precluded Shell Company from carrying out what
otherwise would have been within prerogative if to do so would be
violative thereof.
Reasoning there was specific inclusion of the category of the security
guards in the CBA. Specific mention is made of the CBA covering rank
and file personnel regularly employed by the Company, including the
work area covered by the Pandacan Installation. There was likewise
specific reference to such positions in the wage schedule as well as in
the appendix of regular remuneration, premium pay and night
compensation. Nonetheless, Shell Company was bent on doing away
with the security guard section, to be replaced by an outside security
agency.
- Essentially, the freedom to manage the business remains with
management. It still has plenty of elbow room for making its wishes
prevail. In much the same way that labor unions may be expected to
resist to the utmost what they consider to be an unwelcome intrusion
into their exclusive domain, they cannot justly object to management
equally being jealous of its prerogatives. Non-compliance With the CBA
constitutes ULP
- the ULP strike called by the Union did have the impress of validity.
- the legality of the strike follows as a corollary to the finding of fact,
made in the decision appealed from - which is supported by substantial
evidence to the effect that the strike had been triggered by the
Company's failure to abide by the terms and conditions of its CBA
- The assumption is that labor can be trusted to determine for itself when
the right to strike may be availed of in order to attain a successful fruition
in their disputes with management. It is true that there is a requirement
in the Act that before the employees may do so, they must file with the
Conciliation Service of the Department of Labor a notice of their
intention to strike. Such a requisite however does not have to be
respondent company is hereby ordered to pay full backwages to petitioner-employees
while the Federation is also ordered to pay full backwages to petitioner-union officers
who were dismissed upon its instigation. Since the dismissal of petitioners was without
cause, backwages shall be computed from the time the herein petitioner employees and
union officers were dismissed until their actual reinstatement. Should reinstatement be
not feasible, their backwages shall be computed from the time petitioners were terminated
until the finality of this decision. Vitug and Panganiban reiterate their stand in Serrano v NLRC.
Disini
complied with in case of ULP strike, which certainly is entitled to
greater judicial protection if the Industrial Peace Act is to be
rendered meaningful.
- Care is to be taken, however, especially where an unfair labor
practice is involved, to avoid stamping it with illegality just
because it is tainted by violent acts. To avoid rendering illusory
the recognition of the right to strike, responsibility in such a case
should be individual and not collective. A different conclusion
would be called for, of course, if the existence of force while the
strike lasts is pervasive and widespread, consistently and
deliberately resorted to as a matter of policy. It could be
reasonably concluded then that even if justified as to ends, it
becomes illegal because of the means employed.
- on balancing of interests: the violent acts made by some union
members does not render the strike illegal. The right of the
management to prevent strike cannot override the right of the
workers against ULP
Disposition Petition is granted. Order is modified (order against
individual members who committed violent acts affirmed)
ALMIRA V B.F. GOODRICH, PHILS
58 SCRA 120
FERNANDO; July 25, 1974
Facts
Due to the refusal of the management to consider petitioners'
union as the exclusive bargaining representative, petitioners
staged a strike and picketed the company's premises. In the
course of the mass picketing, illegal and unlawful acts were
committed by the petitioners. Respondent CIR declared
petitioners to have committed an illegal strike and dismissed the
petitioners.
Held
REASON FOR PENALTY LESS PUNITIVE THAN DISMISSAL.-
Where a penalty less punitive would suffice, whatever missteps
may be committed by labor ought not to be visited with a
consequence so severe. it is not only because of the law's
concern for the workingman.
There is, in addition, his family to consider, Unemployment
brings untold hardships and sorrows on those dependent on the
wage-earner. The misery and pain attendant on the loss of jobs
then could be avoided if there be acceptance of the view that
under all the circumstances of this case, petitioners should not
be deprived of their means of livelihood. Nor is this to condone
what had been done by them, For all this while, since private
respondent considered them separated from the service, they
had not been paid. From the strictly juridical standpoint, it cannot
be too strongly stressed, to follow Davis in his masterly work,
Discretionary Justice, that where a decision may be made to rest
an informed judgment rather than rigid rules, all the equities of
the case must be accorded their due weight. Finally, labor law
determinations to quote from Bultmann, should be not only
secundum rationem but also secundum caritatem.
SECURITY OF TENURE FORTIFIES PROTECTION TO
LABOR.-The conclusion that the dismissal of petitioners in view
of their unlawful acts during the strike is uncalled for is fortified
by the stress on the security of tenure that is a notable feature of
the present Constitution as pointed out in a decision rendered
only last month in Philippine Air Lines, Inc. vs. Philippine Air
Lines Employees Association, L-24626, June 28, 1974.
ATTENDANT RESPONSIBILITY ON THE WORKING FORCE
AND MANAGEMENT.-The basic doctrine underlying the
provisions of the Constitution so solicitous of labor as well as the
applicable statutory norms is that both the working force and
management are necessary components of the economy. The
rights of labor have been expanded. Concern is evident for its
LABOR LAW 2 A2010 - 268 -
welfare. The advantages thus conferred, however, call for attendant
responsibilities. The ways of the law are not to be ignored. Those who
seek comfort from the shelter that it affords should be the last to engage
in activities which negates the very concept of a legal order as
antithetical to force and coercion. What is equally important is that in the
steps to be taken by it in the pursuit of what it believes to be its rights,
the advice of those conversant with the requirements of legal norms
should be sought and should not be ignored. It is even more important
that reason and not violence should be its milieu.
3) Defenses- Good Faith ULP
INTERWOOD EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, vs.
INTERNATIONAL HARDWOOD & VENEER COMPANY
OF THE PHILIPPINES (INTERWOOD)
99 P 82
PADILLA; May 18 , 1956
FACTS
Mr. Enrique Marcelo, president of the Interwood Employees Association,
was originally employed by the petitioner since July 26, 1949, as shop
helper with a daily compensation of P3. Desiring to move to a better
position in the company, he tendered a letter of resignation from his
current position to make himself available for another position. However,
he later found out that the new position was not available. He then tried
to go back to his original position but was refused by management on
the ground that the old position had been abolished. The union declared
a strike on his behalf.
ISSUE
1. Whether or not Mr. Marcelo was illegally terminated
2. Whether or not the striking union members should be dismissed for
fighting for the cause of Mr. Marcelo.
HELD
1. NO
Mr. Marcelo also claims that his letter of resignation was misinterpreted
by the management. From the contents of Exhibit "A" there could be no
other meaning from the sentence "I am resigning from my present post
as Supervisor effective March 7, 1953," except that as used in ordinary
parlance, he is quitting or giving up his present position effective March
7, 1953. The letter of resignation being clear and concise, it should be
taken in its face value. Marcelo in his letter of resignation also gave his
reason why he is resigning from his present position and signified his
desire or intention to work in the powerhouse.
Here, Marcelo wanted to assign himself to the powerhouse. The
question of transfer and assignment of employees or laborers from one
section or department to another is purely an act of the management
which Mr. Marcelo cannot impose upon the company, otherwise, if he
will be allowed to do so, it would undoubtedly encroach upon the
managerial functions of the management.
Resignation is not synonymous with separation or dismissal. In his letter
of resignation he stated or expressed the wish to be returned to his
former position as shift engineer in the powerhouse which he, at that
time, did not hold, because the job held by him and the one to which he
wanted to be transferred or returned were two different positions.
Marcelo's pretension which amounted to an imposition upon the
respondent cannot and should not be countenanced and sustained.
There was no vacancy in the powerhouse to which he could be
transferred.
2. YES.
Disini
Even granting, just for the sake of argument, that there was
really a misinterpretation of the letter of resignation (Exhibit "A"),
and because of this, the management refused to readmit Mr.
Marcelo, notwithstanding the request made to that effect, is this
a sufficient cause for the members to declare a strike? As
lengthily discussed above, Mr. Marcelo was not dismissed for
union activities. If he was separated from the service of the
company, it was because of his voluntary resignation which was
duly accepted by the management. If the management refuses
to reemploy him, it is merely acting in the exercise of its
prerogative.
Mr. Marcelo without resorting to some pacific means and
processes prevailed upon the members of the Association to
declare a strike simply because he was harboring the belief that
he was illegally dismissed. A strike as a weapon of labor must be
used judiciously. It should be used in redress of just and lawful
grievances and not to be used whimsically or capriciously even
by the President of the union who caused the strike to be
declared in protest of his fancied notion that he was dismissed
by the management on account of union activities.
If the determination whether a strike is legal or illegal were to
depend upon the reason or motive, no matter how groundless or
false it may be, the striking members of a labor union had in
mind or believed in good faith at the time they staged the strike,
there would then be no need for the court to pass upon that
question, because what the strikers had in mind or believed in
good faith at the time they struck can hardly be refuted, rebutted
or disproved. If the Court of Industrial Relations were bound to
believe and so find what the striking members of a labor union
allege or claim to be the reason or motive for their staging a
strike, because as claimed by the petitioner the right of the
members of a labor union to strike for mutual aid or protection,
as recognized in section 3, Republic Act No. 875, is an absolute
right, then there would no longer be any necessity for holding or
conducting a hearing, where both parties to the controversy may
present their proofs and upon which the Court is to determine
which of the claims or contentions is true, correct and lawful, as
disclosed by the evidence before it. Parenthetically, Republic Act
No. 875 took effect on 17 June 1953. THE STRIKE HELD
ILLEGAL WAS STAGED BY THE MEMBERS OF THE
PETITIONER ON 9 MARCH 1953. THE ACT CANNOT BE
INVOKED AND APPLIED TO STRIKE STAGED BEFORE THE
ACT TOOK EFFECT. 1 NEVERTHELESS, SUCH RIGHT TO
STRIKE FOR MUTUAL AID OR PROTECTION IS NOT
ABSOLUTE. IT COMES INTO BEING AND IS SAFEGUARDED
BY LAW IF AND WHEN THE ACT OR ACTS INTENDED TO
RENDER MUTUAL AID OR PROTECTION TO AFFILIATES OF
A LABOR UNION ARISE FROM A LAWFUL GROUND,
REASON OR MOTIVE. IF THE MOTIVE BE LAWFUL, ANY ACT
THAT WOULD TEND TO GIVE SUCH MUTUAL AID OR
PROTECTION SHOULD AND MUST BE PROTECTED AND
UPHELD. BUT IF THE MOTIVE THAT HAD IMPELLED,
PROMPTED, MOVED OR LED MEMBERS OF A LABOR
UNION OR ORGANIZATION TO STAGE A STRIKE, EVEN IF
THEY HAD ACTED IN GOOD FAITH IN STAGING IT, BE
UNLAWFUL ILLEGITIMATE, UNJUST, UNREASONABLE OR
TRIVIAL, AND THE COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS,
THE AGENCY ENTRUSTED BY THE GOVERNMENT TO
DETERMINE IT, FINDS IT SO, THEN THE STRIKE MAY BE
DECLARED ILLEGAL.
REYES, J.B.L., J., with whom PARAS, C.J., BAUTISTA and
CONCEPCION, JJ., concur, concurring and dissenting:
I fully concur with the majority in its view that Enrique
Marcelo's conduct was unjustifiable and that he was properly
dismissed; but regret not being able to assent to the dismissal
of the other strikers, for this extreme penalty seems to me
excessive under the circumstances of record. Where
LABOR LAW 2 A2010 - 269 -
unemployment is rife, as at present, dismissal may mean risk of
starvation for the laborers and their families.
It is practically conceded, and there is no showing otherwise, that the
labor union declared the strike in the honest belief that Marcelo had
been dismissed because of union activities, and no unlawful means
were employed. Such action can not be regarded as trivial, illegal or
unreasonable: defense of its members goes to the very root of a
union's reason for existence. I concede that the strike was injudicious
and hasty, since no serious attempt was made to ascertain the side of
management. But it seems to me that reinstatement without backpay
would have been a sufficient stern sanction for such inconsiderate
action and a reminder against its repetition in the future.
Nor is the guilt of the union in acting without due inquiry upon the
biased report of its president (Marcelo) too serious or unprecedented
an offense. Our experience is that precipitate action upon one-sided
reports is not confined to labor unions. The truth is that if in labor-
capital conflicts labor is often too quick to conclude that every move of
management is an attempt to grind it back to slavery, so are capital
and management much too predisposed to view every petition of labor
as unjustified demand and harassing insolence. Save rare and
honorable exceptions, both sides appear to suffer from emotional
infantilism.
In the present case it does not appear that management endeavored
to present the true facts to the union. Had it done so, the strike would
have probably been averted, for a laborer does not take lightly to the
suspension of the earnings upon which he and his family depend for
their living.
PNOC DOCKYARD AND ENGINEERING
CORPORATION v. NLRC (BATAAN REFINERS UNION
OF THE PHILIPPINES et al)
G.R. No. 118223
PANGANIBAN; June 26, 1998
NATURE
Petition for review under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court
FACTS
- private respondent (KMM-PDEC), among unions namely: BRUP,
PEDEA, PCC-ELU and PSTCEA, filed with the DOLE a notice of strike
against Phil. National Oil Company (PNOC) and Monico Jacob as
President/Chairman, on the ground of discrimination constituting ULP.
The dispute arose from the grant by petitioner and PNOC of the amount
of P2,500.00 increase in monthly salaries to Managerial, Professionals
and Technical Employees (MPT) but not to Non-Managerial,
Professional and Technical Employees (NMPT).
- Acting Secretary Nieves Confesor certified the dispute subject of the
notice of strike to the NLRC for compulsory arbitration.
- the day when respondent union was poised to strike, its officers and
members decided to report for work but petitioner thru its Operations
Manager, Nemesio Guillermo, padlocked the gate and refused entry to
the employees. Some officers and members of respondent union were
able to enter the premises of petitioner and punch-in their timecards;
however, they were immediately escorted back outside
- Confesor issued a return to work order directing all striking workers to
return to work within 24 hours form receipt of the Order and for the
Company to accept them under the same terms and conditions
prevailing prior to the work stoppage.
- respondent union thru its President, Felimon Paglinawan filed before
the NLRC a complaint against petitioner for Illegal Lock-out
- all members of the private respondent union reported and were
accepted back to work
- Subsequently, petitioner filed before the DOLE a petition to declare the
strike illegal with a motion to cite the striking workers in contempt for
defying the DOLE Orders.
- the President, Secretary, Auditor and Treasurer of the respondent
union, after due notice and investigation, were dismissed by petitioner
from their employment on the ground, among others of their participation
in the work stoppage on December 18 to 21, 1991
Disini
- the dismissed union officers filed before the NLRC a complaint
for illegal dismissal. The cases were consolidated and in the
herein challenged Decision, public respondent ordered the
reinstatement of the dismissed officers of private respondent
union. The same Decision further ruled that, where reinstatement
was no longer feasible "on account of the sale of any of
respondent companies," separation pay shall be awarded,
equivalent to "1 month's pay for every year of service, a fraction
of at least 6 months considered as 1 whole year, in addition to
the award of backwages."
- The parties filed their respective motions for reconsideration. In
its December 9, 1994 Decision, the NLRC modified its earlier
disposition and ordered PNOC to pay its separated employees
severance benefit equivalent to "two months for every year of
service" in accordance with the company's established business
practice. The separate motions of PNOC and its subsidiaries
were all denied.
ISSUES
1. WON KMM-PDEC and its officers are guilty of illegal strike.
2. WON the termination of KMM-PDEC union officers, who led
the illegal strike, was legal and for just cause.
3. WON PNOC is entitled to the award of damages.
HELD
1. NO.
Ratio A strike does not automatically carry the stigma of illegality
even if no unfair labor practice were committed by the employer.
It suffices if such a belief in good faith is entertained by labor as
the inducing factor for staging a strike. Indeed, the presumption
of legality prevails even if the allegation of unfair labor practice is
subsequently found to be untrue, provided that the union and its
members believed in good faith in the truth of such averment.
Reasoning In resolving that the strike was legal, the labor
tribunal took note of the following facts: (1) the notice of strike
was filed only after the union members lost hope for the redress
of their grievance arising from their exclusion from the P2,500
salary increase; (2) the union members honesty believed that
they were discriminated against, since the company practice in
the past was to grant salary increases to all employees
regardless of whether they were MPTs or NMPTs; (3) such
discriminatory grant appeared to be an unfair labor practice
intended to discourage union membership, since MPTs were
non-union members; and (4) the labor unions complied with the
legal requirements before going on strike, such as the members'
strike vote by secret ballot, the submission of the results thereof
to the National Conciliation and Meditation Board, the filing of a
notice to strike and the observance of the 15-day cooling-off
period. Respondent Commission opined that the unions had a
reason to regard the salary discrimination, believed to
discourage membership in the labor organization, as an unfair
labor practice.
- The NLRC noted further that the strike was peaceful and
orderly, unmarred by any form of violence or untoward incident.
2. NO.
Ratio Having ruled that the strike staged by respondent unions
was legal, the subsequent dismissals of their officers due to their
staging of said strike cannot be countenanced.
- The NLRC correctly observed that, although petitioner averred
that the dismissals of individual respondent were due to
infractions of company rules and regulations, the alleged
infractions actually arose from their participation in the strike.
This is crystal clear from the charges leveled against the union
officers, such as "active participation in the illegal work
stoppage." "disruption of company operations resulting [in]
losses." "violation of the 'NO STRIKE' clause of the existing
CBA," among others, cited in their similarly worded notices of
investigation that eventually led to their dismissals.
- The issues relating to the strike and lockout were already
submitted before the NLRC through the corresponding
complaints filed by petitioner itself and private respondents. By
filing a formal complaint for illegal strike, it behooved petitioner to
desist from undertaking its own investigation on the same matter,
 LABOR LAW 2 A2010 - 270 -
concluding upon the illegality of the union activity and dismissing outright
the union officers involved.
- Moreover, the MOA, other than enjoining the striking workers to return
to work, likewise ordered the management to accept them under the
same terms and conditions prevailing prior to the work stoppage. In
glaring defiance, petitioner arbitrarily undertook to change the work
schedule of some employee on the very day they resumed work, aside
from deducting in full the wages and holiday pays of the striking
employees pertaining to the strike period, even before the LMC could
convene.
3. NO.
The actual and exemplary damages sought by petitioner have no basis
in law, much less in equity and fair play. From the foregoing discussion,
the strike was staged by respondent unions in the honest belief that
petitioner, among the other PNOC subsidiaries involved, was guilty of
unfair labor practice due to the discrimination in the grant of salary
increase believed to discourage union membership, and to its refusal to
bargain collectively on the matter. There was good faith on the part of
the striking unions. Thus, they cannot be penalized by imposing upon
them payment of damages.
Disposition WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DISMISSED. The
assailed Decisions are AFFIRMED.
9. ILLEGAL STRIKES
1) Basis Illegality
ART. 263. Strikes, picketing and lockouts. xxx-
(b) Workers shall have the right to engage in concerted activities
for purposes of collective bargaining or for their mutual benefit
and protection. The right of legitimate labor organizations to
strike and picket and of employers to lockout, consistent with the
national interest, shall continue to be recognized and respected.
However, no labor union may strike and no employer may
declare a lockout on grounds involving inter-union and intra-
union disputes.
(c) In case of bargaining deadlocks, the duly certified or
recognized bargaining agent may file a notice of strike or the
employer may file a notice of lockout with the Ministry at least 30
day before the intended date thereof. In cases of unfair labor
practice, the period of notice shall be 15 days and in the
absence of a duly certified or recognized bargaining agent, the
notice of strike may be filed by any legitimate labor organization
in behalf of its members. However, in case of dismissal from
employment of union officers duly elected in accordance with the
union constitution and by-laws, which may constitute union
busting, where the existence of the union is threatened, the 15-
day cooling-off period shall not apply and the union may take
action immediately.
ART. 264. Prohibited activities. - (a) No labor organization or
employer shall declare a strike or lockout without first having
bargained collectively in accordance with Title VII of this Book or
without first having filed the notice required in the preceding
Article or without the necessary strike or lockout vote first having
been obtained and reported to the Ministry.
No strike or lockout shall be declared after assumption of
jurisdiction by the President or the Minister or after certification
or submission of the dispute to compulsory or voluntary
arbitration or during the pendency of cases involving the same
grounds for the strike or lockout.
Disini
(contd A264)
Any worker whose employment has been terminated as
a consequence of any unlawful lockout shall be entitled
to reinstatement with full backwages. Any union officer
who knowingly participates in an illegal strike and any
worker or union officer who knowingly participates in the
commission of illegal acts during a strike may be
declared to have lost his employment status: Provided,
That mere participation of a worker in a lawful strike shall
not constitute sufficient ground for termination of his
employment, even if a replacement had been hired by
the employer during such lawful strike.
ART. 265. Improved offer balloting. - In an effort to settle
a strike, the Department of Labor and Employment shall
conduct a referendum by secret ballot on the improved
offer of the employer on or before the 30th day of the
strike. When at least a majority of the union members
vote to accept the improved offer the striking workers
shall immediately return to work and the employer shall
thereupon readmit them upon the signing of the
agreement.
In case of a lockout, the Department of Labor and
Employment shall also conduct a referendum by secret
balloting on the reduced offer of the union on or before
the 30th day of the lockout. When at least a majority of
the board of directors or trustees or the partners holding
the controlling interest in the case of a partnership vote
to accept the reduced offer, the workers shall
immediately return to work and the employer shall
thereupon readmit them upon the signing of the
agreement.
SUKHOTHAI CUISINE v CA (NLRC, PLAC)
495 SCRA 336
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ; JULY 17, 2006
NATURE
Appeal by certiorari
FACTS
- On December 3, 1998, employees of Sukhothai Cuisine and
Restaurant (duly organized as a union, affiliated with private
respondent Philippine Labor Alliance Council [PLAC], and
designated as PLAC local 460 Sukhothai chapter) filed a Notice
of Strike with the National Conciliation and Mediation Board
(NCMB) on the ground of unfair labor practice (ULP) and
particularly, acts of harassment, fault-finding, and union busting
through coercion and interference with union affairs.
- In a subsequent conciliation conference, representatives of the
petitioner agreed and guaranteed that there will be no
termination of the services of private respondents during the
pendency of the case, with the reservation of the management
prerogative to issue memos to erring employees for the infraction,
or violation of company policies.
- In a Submission Agreement, the issue of unfair labor practice
was later submitted for voluntary arbitration, during the pendency
of which, the petitioner, through its president, Ernesto Garcia,
dismissed Eugene Lucente, a union member, due to an alleged
petty quarrel with a co-employee. In view of this termination,
private respondent Union filed with the NLRC a complaint for
illegal dismissal. Another employee, private respondent Jose
LABOR LAW 2 A2010 - 271 -
Lanorias, likewise a union member, was relieved from his post and
terminated from employment. Shortly thereafter, respondents staged a
wildcat strike which was later transformed into an actual strike. egress from the employer's premises for lawful purposes, or (c)
- On June 29, 1999, the petitioner filed a complaint for illegal strike with
the NLRC against private respondents, and for a declaration that
respondents who participated in the commission of illegal acts have lost
their employment status. The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of petitioner
and held that the Notice of Strike and the Strike Vote referred to a prior
dispute submitted for voluntary arbitration and cannot apply to the strike
staged about six months later; that, instead of resorting to a strike,
private respondents should have availed of the proper legal remedies
such as the filing of complaints for illegal suspension or illegal dismissal
with the NLRC; and that even if private respondents complied with all
the requisites of a valid strike, the strike is still illegal due to the
commission of prohibited acts, including the obstruction of free ingress
and egress of the premises, intimidation, and threat inflicted upon non-
striking employees.
- Private respondents appealed to the NLRC which decided in their favor
and held that the petitioner is guilty of union busting; of violating the
Submission Agreement that no termination shall be effected during the
voluntary arbitration proceedings; that the Notice of Strike and Strike
Vote are applicable to the strike of June 24, 25, and 26, 1999 since the
same issues of ULP were involved and that ULPs are continuing
offenses.
- After the NLRC denied the MFR, petitioner appealed to the CA, which
later denied the petition and affirmed the NLRC hence this case.
ISSUES
1. WON the strike was illegal
2. WON private respondents are deemed to have lost their employment
status by participating in the commission of illegal acts during the strike.
3. WON the requisites for a valid strike may be dispensed with in case of
union-busting.
HELD
1. YES. The strike was illegal.
Ratio Art.264 of the LC provides: No strike or lockout shall be declared
after assumption of jurisdiction by the Pres. or the Secretary or after
certification or submission of the dispute to compulsory or voluntary
arbitration or during the pendency of cases involving the same grounds
for the strike or lockout.
- Strikes staged in violation of agreements providing for arbitration are
illegal, since these agreements must be strictly adhered to and
respected if their ends are to be achieved, for it is among the chief
policies of the State to promote and emphasize the primacy of free
collective bargaining and negotiations, including voluntary arbitration,
mediation, and conciliation, as modes of settling labor, or industrial
disputes.
Reasoning Once jurisdiction over the labor dispute has been properly
acquired by competent authority, that jurisdiction should not be
interfered with by the application of the coercive processes of a strike.
- The alleged dismissals of Lucente and respondent Lanorias, both
union members, which allegedly triggered the wildcat strike, are not
sufficient grounds to justify the radical recourse on the part of the private
respondents. These matters should have been raised and resolved in
the voluntary arbitration proceedings that were commenced precisely to
address them.
- Private respondents should have first availed of the appropriate
remedies under the Labor Code, such as the institution of cases of
illegal dismissal or, by agreement of the parties, the submission of the
cases to the grievance machinery of the CBA, if one is available, so that
they may be subjected to separate voluntary arbitration proceedings, or
simply seek to terminate the pending voluntary arbitration case and
complete the mandatory procedure for a lawful strike. Private
respondents should have availed themselves of any of these alternative
remedies instead of resorting to a drastic and unlawful measure,
specifically, the holding a wildcat strike. And because of the fact that the
Union was fully aware that the arbitration proceedings were pending,
good faith cannot be invoked as a defense.
- Moreover, even if the strike were to be declared valid because its
objective or purpose is lawful, the strike may still be declared invalid
where the means employed are illegal. Among such limits are the
prohibited activities under Art. 264(e) of the LC, which states that no
Disini
person engaged in picketing shall: a) commit any act of violence,
coercion, or intimidation or b) obstruct the free ingress to or
obstruct public thoroughfares.
2. YES. The strike had been attended by the widespread
commission of prohibited acts.
Reasoning Under Art.264(a) of the LC: Any union officer who
knowingly participates in an illegal strike and any worker or union
officer who knowingly participates in the commission of illegal
acts during a strike may be declared to have lost his employment
status: Provided, that mere participation of a worker in a lawful
strike shall not constitute sufficient ground for termination of his
employment, even if a replacement had been hired by the
employer during such lawful strike.
- The evidence in the record clearly and extensively shows that
the individual respondents engaged in illegal acts during the
strike, such as the intimidation and harassment of a considerable
number of customers to turn them away and discourage them
from patronizing the business of the petitioner; waving their arms
and shouting at the passersby, Huwag kayong pumasok sa
Sukhothai! and Nilagyan na namin ng lason ang pagkain
dyan! as well as numerous other statements made to discredit
the reputation of the establishment; preventing the entry of
customers; angry and unruly behavior calculated to cause
commotion which affected neighboring establishments within the
mall; openly cursing and shouting at the president in front of
customers and using loud and abusive language, such as
Putang ina niyong lahat!, toward the rest of the management as
well as their co-workers who refused to go on strike; physically
preventing non-strikers from entering the premises, as well as
deliberately blocking their movements inside the restaurant, at
times by sharply bumping into them or through indecent physical
contact; openly threatening non-strikers with bodily harm, such
as Pag hindi sila pumayag, upakan mo!; and shouting at the
security guard Granada! which caused panic among the
customers and prompted security to report a possible death
threat to management and the security agency.
3. NO.
Reasoning In case of alleged union busting, it is only the 15-day
cooling-off period that may be dispensed with, the three
remaining requirements notice, strike vote, and seven-day
report period cannot be dispensed with.
Disposition Petition GRANTED. Decisions of the CA and the
NLRC are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Decision of the LA
REINSTATED. The strike held ILLEGAL and Union officers who
participated in the illegal strike and in the commission of illegal
acts, as well as the union members who participated in the
commission of illegal acts during the strike, are declared to have
lost their employment status.
ALLIED BANKING CORP v NLRC (ALLIED
BANKING EMPLOYEES UNION-NUBE et al)
258 SCRA 724
HERMOSISIMA; July 12, 1996
Facts
- The dispute between petitioner and Union started when their
CBA which was to expire on June 30, 1984 came up for renewal.
They failed to reach an amicable settlement particularly on the
wage increase issue. The Union filed a notice of strike with the
Bureau of Labor Relations.
- On Dec 16, 1984, then Minister of Labor and Employment, Blas
Ople assumed jurisdiction over the dispute pursuant to Article
263 (g) LC. The orders enjoined the Union from declaring a
strike and the management from effecting a lock out. The orders
notwithstanding, Union filed on Dec 20, 1984, a report on the
results of the strike vote that it earlier conducted. On Jan 3,
LABOR LAW 2 A2010 - 272 -
1985, Union staged a strike upon the Union president's contention that
the Labor Minister's assumption order was a mere scrap of paper.
- On Jan 4, 1985, petitioner filed with MOLE a Manifestation and Urgent
Motion praying for a return-to-work order. On Jan 6, 1985, Minister Ople
granted the motion and issued a return-to-work order which included a
P1,000.00 grant per employee chargeable to future CBA benefits.
- Minister Ople directed the parties to continue negotiations until Jan 31,
1985; otherwise, if no compromise agreement is reached, he will
personally resolve the bargaining deadlock.
- The parties failed to break the deadlock; Minister Ople directed them to
incorporate in their collective agreement the awards granted in his order.
- On Feb 11, 1985, "certain members of the Union resumed the strike
and, on the following days, acts of violence were committed . . . resulting
in the filing of criminal charges against some of the strikers."
- Petitioner, through notices published in the Bulletin Today, the Times
Journal, and the Daily Express, directed the striking employees to return
to work not later than 1:00 p.m. of Feb 13, 1985.
- respondents failed to report for work on the stated deadline, and
explained that the resumption of their picketing activities was brought
about by their belief that Minister Ople's decision was not based on
justice, equity and reason. Petitioner issued notices of their termination.
- Meeting the Union demands halfway, Minister Ople issued a
Resolution modifying his Jan 31, 1985 Order, and so the union lifted its
picket lines and notified petitioner that the striking employees were
returning back to work. Petitioner refused to accept them back on the
ground that the strikers have already been dismissed for abandonment
of work when they failed to obey the assumption order.
- In order to quell further dispute, Minister Ople issued an Order which
directed the bank to reinstate provisionally all striking workers except (a)
those who have already accepted their separation pay; (b) officers of the
union; and (c) those with pending criminal charges.
- Union then filed with SC a petition for certiorari, with a prayer for the
issuance of a preliminary mandatory injunction, asking that the Order of
Minister Ople be modified to likewise direct the reinstatement of all union
officers, employees with pending criminal cases and employees who
have received their separation pay with full back wages, emergency cost
of living allowance (ECOLA) and employee benefits counted from March
8, 1985 until actually reinstated. SC remanded the petition to MOLE,
with the instruction to resolve all pending factual and legal issues
relative to the petition.
- Minister Augusto Sanchez, successor of Minister Ople, modified the
last Order of the latter by ordering the reinstatement of all striking
employees, except those who have already accepted their separation
pay. The bank filed a petition with the SC to nullify the aforesaid Order.
- SC issued resolution: 1) granting "a Temporary Restraining Order"
enjoining enforcement of the order of the Minister of Labor and
Employment only insofar as it directs the payment of back wages,
allowances, and other benefits due to private respondents effective
March 11, 1985 until their actual reinstatement; 2) ordering petitioner to
advance the equivalent of two (2) months salary to each of the private
respondents entitled to reinstatement under the MOLE order, said
amount to be repaid to the petitioner or charged to accumulated back
wages depending on the final outcome of the case.
Issue:
WON the striking union members terminated for abandonment of work
after failing to obey the return-to-work order of the Secretary of Labor
and Employment should be reinstated with back wages.
Held:
NO. The respondents were validly dismissed considering their defiance
of the return-to-work order issued by the Secretary of Labor. As a
consequence of such defiance, they are considered severed from their
employment. An award of back wages is incompatible with the findings
of the NLRC upholding the dismissal of respondents.
- Mere participation of union members in an illegal strike should not
automatically result in their termination from employment. However, a
perusal of the records shows that respondents were terminated from
employment by reason of their defiance to the return-to-work order of
the Secretary of Labor.
- The provisions of law which govern the effects of defying a return-to-
work order are:
1) Article 263 (g) of the Labor Code
xxx xxx xxx
Disini
When, in his opinion, there exists a labor dispute causing or
likely to cause a strike or lockout in an industry indispensable to
the national interest, the Secretary of Labor and Employment
may assume jurisdiction over the dispute and decide it or certify
the same to the Commission for compulsory arbitration. Such
assumption or certification shall have the effect of automatically
enjoining the intended or impending strike or lockout as specified
in the assumption or certification order. If one has already taken
place at the time of assumption or certification, all striking or
locked out employees shall immediately return to work and the
employer shall immediately resume operations and readmit all
workers under the same terms and conditions prevailing before
the strike or lockout. The Secretary of Labor and Employment or
the Commission may seek the assistance of law enforcement
agencies to ensure compliance with this provision as well as with
such orders as he may issue to enforce the same . . . (as
amended by Sec. 27, R.A. 6715; emphasis supplied.)
2) Article 264 (a)
No strike or lockout shall be declared after assumption of
jurisdiction by the President or the Minister or after certification or
submission of the dispute to compulsory or voluntary arbitration
or during the pendency of cases involving the same grounds for
the strike or lockout.
Any worker whose employment has been terminated as a
consequent of an unlawful lockout shall be entitled to
reinstatement with full back wages. Any union officer who
knowingly participates in an illegal strike and any worker or union
officer who knowingly participates in the commission of illegal
acts during a strike may be declared to have lost his employment
status: Provided, That mere participation of a worker in a lawful
strike shall not constitute sufficient ground for termination of his
employment, even if a replacement had been hired by the
employer during such lawful strike.
- Union of Filipro Employees v. Nestle Philippines, Inc.: xxx the
underlying principle embodied in Art. 263 (g) on the settlement of
labor disputes is that assumption and certification orders are
executory in character and are to be strictly complied with by the
parties even during the pendency of any petition questioning
their validity. This extraordinary authority given to the Secretary
of Labor is aimed at arriving at a peaceful and speedy solution to
labor disputes, without jeopardizing national interests.
Regardless therefore of their motives, or the validity of their
claims, the striking workers must cease and/or desist from any
and all acts that tend to, or undermine this authority of the
Secretary of Labor, once an assumption and/or certification order
is issued. They cannot, for instance, ignore return-to-work
orders, citing unfair labor practices on the part of the company,
to justify their actions. . . .xxx xxx xxx
- The return-to-work order is issued pending the determination of
the legality or illegality of the strike. It is not correct to say that it
may be enforced only if the strike is legal and may be
disregarded if the strike is illegal, for the purpose precisely is to
maintain the status quo while the determination is being made.
Otherwise, the workers who contend that their strike is legal can
refuse to return to their work and cause a standstill on the
company operations while retaining the positions they refuse to
discharge or allow the management to fill. Worse, they will also
claim payment for work not done, on the ground that they are still
legally employed although actually engaged in the activities
inimical to their employer's interest.
- Sarmiento v. Tuico, and Asian Transmission Corporation v.
National Labor Relations Commission: It is also important to
emphasize that the return-to-work order not so much confers a
right as it imposes a duty; and while as a right it may be waived,
it must be discharged as a duty even against the worker's will.
Returning to work in this situation is not a matter of option or
voluntariness but of obligation. The worker must return to his job
together with his co-workers so the operations of the company
can be resumed and it can continue serving the public and
promoting its interest. That is the real reason such return can be
compelled. So imperative is the order in fact that it is not even
considered violative of the right against involuntary servitude...
The worker can of course give up his work, thus severing his ties
LABOR LAW 2 A2010 - 273 -
with the company, if he does not want to obey the order; but the order
must be obeyed if he wants to retain his work even if his inclination is to
strike.
Disposition NLRC Decision is AFFIRMED with respect to the finding
that private respondents were validly dismissed. As to the issue of
reinstatement and computation of back wages, the same, being
inconsistent with the finding of valid dismissal, is ANNULLED and SET
ASIDE.
INTERPHIL LABORATORIES EMPLOYEES UNION V
INTERPHIL LABORATORIES
(boots tirol)
SAMAHAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA MOLDEX
PRODUCTS V NLRC (MADRIAGA, MOLDEX AND UY)
324 SCRA 242
PURISIMA; February 1, 2000
NATURE
Petition for certiorari
FACTS
- In the earlier part of 1993, petitioners and private respondents
negotiated for the renewal of their Collective Bargaining Agreement. Due
to some economic differences, the negotiations ended in a deadlock.
- April 2, 1993 - Petitioners filed a notice of strike with the National
Conciliation and Mediation Board. The series of conferences proved
unavailing.
- April 24, 1993 - Union conducted a strike vote among its members, and
the results of the voting were thereafter conveyed to the Alliance of
Nationalist and Genuine Labor Organization for submission to the NCMB,
but for some unknown reason, the same was not made.
- May 5, 1993 - Petitioners went on strike without the report of the strike
vote submitted to the NCMB.
- June 17, 1993 - Moldex filed a petition to declare the strike illegal and to
authorize the dismissal of the officers involved. The petition alleged that
the petitioners barricaded the three gates of the company and committed
acts of violence, threats and coercion.
- An amicable settlement failed so trial on the merits began. Moldex
presented witnesses whereas the union only presented its memorandum.
They alleged that the pieces of evidence presented by Moldex were
hearsay.
- March 7, 1994 The Labor Arbiter came out with an order which
declared the strike illegal and ordered the dismissal of employees
responsible for the strike.
- An appeal before the NLRC was made and the NLRC ordered a remand
of the case for the reason that both parties were not able, for reasons
and/or causes known only to them, to submit crucial evidence in support
of their respective contentions.
ISSUE
WON the order of the NLRC was correct
HELD NO
Reasoning
- Reception of evidence would be a futile exercise considering that the
facts are already clear and complete, and would not alter the outcome of
the case.
- It has been shown that the results of the strike-vote were never
forwarded to the NCMB, as admitted by petitioners themselves and as
attested to by a Certification of Non-Submission of Strike Vote issued by
the NCMB. There is thus no need for additional evidence on the matter,
as it would not change the fact that the results of the strike-vote were not
submitted to the NCMB. Without the submission of the results of the
strike-vote, the strike was illegal, pursuant to Article 264 of the Labor
Code.
Disini
- The requirements of procedural due process had been
complied with. Petitioners and private respondents were allowed
to present their witnesses and evidence. Private respondents
presented their witnesses, while petitioners did not, opting
instead to file a Memorandum, challenging the admissibility of
private respondents' pieces of evidence. So long as a party is
given an opportunity to be heard and to submit his evidence, the
requirements of procedural due process are complied with.
- Aside from not submitting the result of the strike-vote to the
NCMB, petitioners also committed acts of violence, threats,
coercion and intimidation during the strike.
- It bears stressing that factual findings of labor officials are
conclusive and binding on the Supreme Court when supported
by substantial evidence. After going over the records on hand,
the Court discerns no ground for disturbing the above-quoted
findings of the Labor Arbiter as the same are basically supported
by substantial evidence and his conclusion accords with law.
Disposition Decision set aside
PHILIPPINE DIAMOND HOTEL AND RESORT
INC (MANILA DIAMOND HOTEL V MANILA
DIAMOND HOTEL EMPLOYEES UNION
494 SCRA 195
CARPIO MORALES; June 30, 2006
FACTS
-Union filed a petition for certification election to be declared the
exclusive bargaining representative of the Hotels employees.
This petition was dismissed by DOLE for lack of legal
requirements.
-after a few months, Union sent a letter to Hotel informing it of its
desire to negotiate for a collective bargaining agreement. This
was rejected by the Hotel stating that the Union was not the
employees bargaining agent as their petition for certification
election was denied.
-Union filed a Notice of Strike with the NCMB alleging the Hotel
refusal to bargain and for acts of unfair labor practices. NCMB
summoned both parties and held series of dialogues. Union
however suddenly went on strike
-Secretary of DOLE assumed jurisdiction and ordered
compulsory arbitration pursuant to art. 263 (g) of LC. And Union
members were directed to return to work and for Hotel to accept
them back. Hotel refused to accept the employees return. The
order was modified (by a different Secretary) such that
reinstatement was to be done only in the payroll.
-Union filed for certiorari alleging grave abuse of discretion. Case
was referred to the CA. CA affirmed that the payroll
reinstatement was not a grave abuse of discretion. On appeal, it
modified NLRC decision ordering reinstatement with back wages
of union members.
ISSUE
-xxx-
3) WON those employees who participated in the strike should
be given back wages
HELD
-xxx-
3) No.
-The general rule is that backwages shall not be awarded in an
economic strike on the principle that "a fair days wage" accrues
only for a "fair days labor. If there is no work performed by the
employee there can be no wage or pay, unless of course, the
laborer was able, willing and ready to work but was illegally
locked out, dismissed or suspended. "when employees
voluntarily go on strike, even if in protest against unfair labor
practices," no back wages during the strike is awarded.
LABOR LAW 2 A2010 - 274 -
-The Court ruled that only those members of the union who did not
commit illegal acts during the course of the illegal strike should be
reinstated but without back wages
TOPIC: illegal strikes- burden of economic loss
2) Effect of Illegality
ART. 264. Prohibited activities. - (a) No labor organization
or employer shall declare a strike or lockout without first
having bargained collectively in accordance with Title VII of
this Book or without first having filed the notice required in
the preceding Article or without the necessary strike or
lockout vote first having been obtained and reported to the
Ministry.
No strike or lockout shall be declared after assumption of
jurisdiction by the President or the Minister or after
certification or submission of the dispute to compulsory or
voluntary arbitration or during the pendency of cases
involving the same grounds for the strike or lockout.
Any worker whose employment has been terminated as a
consequence of any unlawful lockout shall be entitled to
reinstatement with full backwages. Any union officer who
knowingly participates in an illegal strike and any worker or
union officer who knowingly participates in the commission
of illegal acts during a strike may be declared to have lost
his employment status: Provided, That mere participation
of a worker in a lawful strike shall not constitute sufficient
ground for termination of his employment, even if a
replacement had been hired by the employer during such
lawful strike.
NISSAN MOTORS PHILIPPINES, INC. V SOLE
(BANAL-NMPI-OLALIA-KMU)
491 SCRA 605
GARCIA; June 21, 2006
FACTS
- The labor dispute was triggered by a collective bargaining deadlock
between Nissan Motor and the Union resulting in the filing of four notices
of strike with the NCMB.
- DOLE issued an Order consolidating the 4th notice of strike with the
first three (3) notices and reiterating the injunction contained in the
assumption of jurisdiction
- The Company filed a Motion to Deputize PNP Laguna to Secure,
Maintain and Preserve Free Ingress and Egress of NMPI, alleging that
despite the injunctions against any slowdown and strike, the Union went
on actual strike, picketed and blocked the company offices, and plant
premises; unlawfully blocked and obstructed all entrances and exits
points.
- The Secretary of Labor issued an Order deputizing the [PNP]
- DOLE issued the assailed Decision which affirmed the suspension of
the 140 employees which is the subject of the first notice of strike and
sustained the dismissal of the Union officers but recalled the dismissal of
the Union members and reinstated to their former positions without back
wages. It also directed BANAL-NMPI-OLALIA-KMU and Nissan Motor
Philippines, Inc. to conclude a Collective Bargaining Agreement
- The Company and the Union each sought partial reconsideration, but
their corresponding motions were denied
- Therefrom, both the Company and the Union went to the CA
- The CA, denied the parties separate petitions and affirmed the
respondents resolution
ISSUES
Disini
1. WON the CA acted within the bounds of the law when it
spared the striking workers or union members from the penalty
of dismissal.
2. WON the award of salary increases made by SOLE in the
disposition of economic aspects of the CBA which was based on
revelations sourced from the confidential position given to the
NCMB Administrator is proper.
HELD
1. YES.
- The Union engaged in work slowdown which under the
circumstances in which they were undertaken constitutes illegal
strike. The Company is therefore right in dismissing the subject
Union officers in accordance with Article 264 (a) of the Labor
Code, for participating in illegal strike in defiance of the
assumption of jurisdiction order by the Labor Secretary.
- While the employer is authorized to declare a union officer who
participated in an illegal strike as having lost his employment,
his/its option is not as wide with respect to union members or
workers for the law itself draws a line and makes a distinction
between union officers and members/ordinary workers. An
ordinary striking worker or union member cannot, as a rule, be
terminated for mere participation in an illegal strike; there must
be proof that he committed illegal acts during the strike.
- The law invests the Secretary of Labor and Employment the
prerogative of tempering the consequence of the defiance to the
assumption order. The Secretary may thus merely suspend
rather than dismiss the employee involved.
- Chief, Justice Artemio V. Panganiban in Solvic Industrial
Corporation vs. NLRC: Except for the most serious causes
affecting the business of the employer, our labor laws frown
upon dismissal. Where a penalty less punitive would suffice, an
employee should not be sanctioned with a consequence so
severe.
- This disposition takes stock of the following circumstances
justifying a less drastic penalty for ordinary striking workers: a)
the employees who engaged in slowdown actually reported for
work and continued to occupy their respective posts, or, in fine,
did not abandon their jobs; b) they were only following orders of
their leaders; and c) no evidence has been presented to prove
their participation in the commission of illegal activities during the
strike.
- Not to be overlooked is a factor which the CA, regarded as
justifying the leniency assumed by the public respondent
Secretary towards the members of the Union. It is the fact that
Nissan Motor appeared to have also exacerbated, the emerging
volatile atmosphere among which is the en masse termination of
most of the Union members.
- Any worker who participates in a strike or otherwise engages in
any prohibited act in defiance of the assumption order may be
meted the penalty of loss of employment status. However, the
law itself authorizes the graduation of penalties, Article 264 of
the Labor Code making, as it were, a distinction between union
officers and its members or any other workers, the main differing
line contextually being that the latter do not necessarily lose their
job by mere participation in an illegal strike absent proof that they
committed illegal acts.
- Association of Independent Union in the Philippines vs. NLRC:
the responsibility of union officers, as main players in an illegal
strike, is greater than that of the members and, therefore, limiting
the penalty of dismissal only for the former for participation in an
illegal strike is in order.
2. NO.
- The disposition made by the public respondent Secretary
relating to the economic aspects of the CBA, such as, but not
limited, transportation allowance, 14th month pay, seniority pay,
separation pay and the effectivity of the new CBA, appears to be
proper.
- However, there is a need to modify some of the awards among
which is the annual salary increases. In this regard, the Court
LABOR LAW 2 A2010 - 275 -
cannot sanction the award made by the public respondent Secretary
based ostensibly on the revelation of NCMB Administrator Olalia that
was sourced from the confidential position given him by the Company.
The reason for this is simple. Article 233 of the Labor Code prohibits the
use in evidence of confidential information given during conciliation
proceedings. NCMB Administrator Olalia clearly breached this provision
of law. Moreover, as correctly pointed out by the Company, this
confidential information given to Administrator Olalia was made prior to
the Unions slowdown and defiance of the Assumption Order of August
22, 2001 causing it additional losses.
Disposition Decision and Resolution of the CA AFFIRMED , with
modifications
Disini
hearing that may thereafter be scheduled and to submit its
position paper as may be required. It however dismissed the
unions charges of ULP against the Company. It further issued a
return-to-work order and directed the parties to cease and desist
from committing any acts that may aggravate the situation.
- Philcom filed MFR and Motion to Certify Labor Dispute to the
NLRC for Compulsory Arbitration. PEU also filed MFR insofar as
the Order dismissed the ULP charges against Philcom and
included the illegal strike issue in the labor dispute. The
Secretary denied both MFRs.
-PEU filed with CA a petition for certiorari and prohibition under
Rule 65. CA denied the petition and affirmed the orders of the
DOLE Sec. Hence, this petition.

ISSUES
1. WON CA erred when it affirmed the order/resolution of the
PHILCOM EMPLOYEES UNION V PHILIPPINE DOLE Sec including the issue of illegal strike notwithstanding the
GLOBAL COMMUNICATIONS absence of any petition to declare the strike illegal.
494 SCRA 214 2. WON CA erred when it affirmed the order/resolution of the
CARPIO; July 17, 2006 Secretary of Labor dismissing the Unions charges of unfair labor
practices.
3. WON CA erred when it failed to issue such order
NATURE
mandating/directing the issuance of a writ of execution directing
Petition for review to annul the CA Decision which affirmed the orders of
the Company to unconditionally accept back to work the Union
the Secretary of Labor and Employment in OS-AJ-0022-97.
officers and members under the same terms and conditions prior
to the strike and as well as to pay their salaries/backwages and
FACTS
the monetary equivalent of their other benefits.
-Upon the expiration of the CBA between petitioner Philcom union (PEU)
and respondent employer (Philcom, Inc.), the parties started
HELD
negotiations for its renewal. While negotiations were ongoing, PEU filed
1. NO. The Secretary properly took cognizance of the issue on
with the National Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB) NCR, a
the legality of the strike. Since the very reason of the Secretarys
Notice of Strike, due to perceived unfair labor practice committed by the
assumption of jurisdiction was PEUs declaration of the strike,
company. In view of the filing of said Notice of Strike, the company
any issue regarding the strike is not merely incidental to, but is
suspended negotiations on the CBA. This moved the union to file
essentially involved in, the labor dispute itself.
another Notice of Strike on the ground of bargaining deadlock.
-The powers granted to the Secretary under Article 263(g) of the
-At a conciliation conference held at the NCMB-NCR office, the parties
Labor Code have been characterized as an exercise of the
agreed to consolidate the two Notices of Strike filed by the union and to
police power of the State, with the aim of promoting public good.
maintain the status quo during the pendency of the proceedings.
When the Secretary exercises these powers, he is granted
However, while the union and the company officers and representatives
"great breadth of discretion" in order to find a solution to a labor
were meeting, the remaining union officers and members staged a strike
dispute. The most obvious of these powers is the automatic
at the company premises, barricading the entrances and egresses
enjoining of an impending strike or lockout or its lifting if one has
thereof and setting up a stationary picket at the main entrance of the
already taken place. In this case, the Secretary assumed
building. The following day, the company immediately filed a petition for
jurisdiction over the dispute because it falls in an industry
the Secretary of Labor and Employment to assume jurisdiction over the
indispensable to the national interest: the telecommunications
labor dispute in accordance with Article 263(g) of the Labor Code.
industry.
-Then Acting Labor Sec Cresenciano Trajano issued an Order assuming
-The authority of the Secretary to assume jurisdiction over a
jurisdiction over the dispute, enjoining any strike or lockout, whether
labor dispute causing or likely to cause a strike or lockout in an
threatened or actual, directing the parties to cease and desist from
industry indispensable to national interest includes and extends
committing any act that may exacerbate the situation, directing the
to all questions and controversies arising from such labor dispute.
striking workers to return to work within 24hours from receipt of the
The power is plenary and discretionary in nature to enable him to
Secretarys Order and for management to resume normal operations, as
effectively and efficiently dispose of the dispute. Besides, it was
well as accept the workers back under the same terms and conditions
upon Philcoms petition that the Secretary immediately assumed
prior to the strike. The parties were likewise required to submit their
jurisdiction over the labor dispute. Moreover, a careful study of
respective position papers and evidence within 10days from receipt of
all the facts alleged, issues raised, and arguments presented in
said order. A few days later, a second order was issued reiterating the
the position paper leads us to hold that the portions PEU seek to
previous directive to all striking employees to return to work immediately.
expunge are necessary in the resolution of the present case.
-The union filed MFR assailing, among others, the authority of then
Acting Secretary Trajano to assume jurisdiction over the labor dispute.
2. NO.
Said motion was denied and as directed, the parties submitted their
-Unfair labor practice refers to acts that violate the workers right
respective position papers. In its position paper, the union raised the
to organize. The prohibited acts are related to the workers right
issue of the alleged ULP of the company. The company, on the other
to self-organization and to the observance of a CBA. Without that
hand, raised in its position paper the sole issue of the illegality of the
element, the acts, no matter how unfair, are not unfair labor
strike staged by the union.
practices. The only exception is Article 248(f), which in any case
-On the premise that the Labor Secretary cannot rule on the issue of the
is not one of the acts specified in PEUs charge of unfair labor
strike since there was no petition to declare the same illegal, petitioner
practice.
union filed a Manifestation/ Motion to Strike Out Portions of &
-A review of the acts complained of as ULP of Philcom convinces
Attachments in Philcoms Position Paper for being irrelevant, immaterial
us that they do not fall under any of the prohibited acts defined
and impertinent to the issues assumed for resolution. In opposition, the
and enumerated in Article 248 of the Labor Code. The issues of
company argued that it was precisely due to the strike suddenly staged
misimplementation or non-implementation of employee benefits,
by the union that the dispute was assumed by the Labor Secretary.
non-payment of overtime and other monetary claims, inadequate
Hence, the case would necessarily include the issue of the legality of the
transportation allowance, water, and other facilities, are all a
strike.
matter of implementation or interpretation of the economic
-The Secretary issued the first assailed order. Said order directed the
provisions of the CBA between Philcom and PEU subject to the
issuance of summons to Philcom Corporation to appear before any
LABOR LAW 2 A2010 - 276 -
grievance procedure. All the charges were adequately rebutted by the
employer.
-The Court has always respected a companys exercise of its
prerogative to devise means to improve its operations. Management is
free to regulate, according to its own discretion and judgment, all
aspects of employment, including hiring, work assignments, supervision
and transfer of employees, working methods, time, place and manner of
work. This is so because the law on ULP is not intended to deprive
employers of their fundamental right to prescribe and enforce such rules
as they honestly believe to be necessary to the proper, productive and
profitable operation of their business.
-Even assuming arguendo that Philcom had violated some provisions in
the CBA, there was no showing that the same was a flagrant or
malicious refusal to comply with its economic provisions. The law
mandates that such violations should not be treated as unfair labor
practices.
3. NO.
-SC ruled on the legality of the strike if only to put an end to this
protracted labor dispute. The facts necessary to resolve the legality of
the strike are not in dispute. The strike and the strike activities that PEU
had undertaken were patently illegal for the following reasons:
1. Philcom is engaged in a vital industry protected by PD 823, as
amended by PD 849, from strikes and lockouts. It is therefore clear that
the striking employees violated the no-strike policy of the State in regard
to vital industries.
2. The Secretary had already assumed jurisdiction over the dispute.
Despite the issuance of the return-to-work orders, the striking
employees failed to return to work and continued with their strike.
-A return-to-work order imposes a duty that must be discharged more
than it confers a right that may be waived. While the workers may
choose not to obey, they do so at the risk of severing their relationship
with their employer. see Art.264 of the Labor Code.
-A strike undertaken despite the Secretarys issuance of an
assumption or certification order becomes a prohibited activity,
and thus, illegal, under Article 264(a) of the Labor Code. The union
officers who knowingly participate in the illegal strike are deemed
to have lost their employment status. The union members,
including union officers, who commit specific illegal acts or who
knowingly defy a return-to-work order are also deemed to have lost
their employment status. Otherwise, the workers will simply refuse
to return to their work and cause a standstill in the company
operations while retaining the positions they refuse to discharge
and preventing management to fill up their positions.
3. PEU staged the strike using unlawful means and methods.
-e.g., human barricades at all entrances to and egresses from the
company premises; use of coercive methods to prevent company
officials and other personnel from leaving the company premises;
prohibiting other tenants at the Philcom building from entering and
leaving the premises. see Art. 264(e) of the Labor Code.
-The sanction provided in Article 264(a) is so severe that any
worker or union officer who knowingly participates in the
commission of illegal acts during a strike may be declared to have
lost his employment status. By insisting on staging the prohibited
strike and defiantly picketing Philcoms premises to prevent the
resumption of company operations, the striking employees have
forfeited their right to be readmitted.
4. PEU declared the strike during the pendency of preventive
mediation proceedings at the NCMB.
-see Art264(a), LC. Section 6, Book V, Rule XXII of the IRR: During the
proceedings, the parties shall not do any act which may disrupt or
impede the early settlement of dispute. They are obliged, as part of their
duty, to bargain collectively in good faith, to participate fully and promptly
in the conciliation meetings called by the regional branch of the Board.
5. PEU staged the strike in utter disregard of the grievance procedure
established in the CBA.
-PEU should have immediately resorted to the grievance machinery
provided for in the CBA. In disregarding this procedure, the union
leaders who knowingly participated in the strike have acted
unreasonably. The law cannot interpose its hand to protect them from
the consequences of their illegal acts.
-A strike declared on the basis of grievances which have not been
submitted to the grievance committee as stipulated in the CBA of the
Disini
parties is premature and illegal. Having held the strike illegal
and having found that PEUs officers and members have
committed illegal acts during the strike, we hold that no writ
of execution should issue for the return to work of PEU
officers who participated in the illegal strike, and PEU
members who committed illegal acts or who defied the
return-to-work orders that the Secretary issued. The issue of
who participated in the illegal strike, committed illegal acts, or
defied the return-to-work orders is a question of fact that must be
resolved in the appropriate proceedings before the Secretary of
Labor.
Disposition Petition dismissed. CA decision affirmed with the
modification that the DOLE Sec is directed to determine who
among the PEU officers participated in the illegal strike, and who
among the union members committed illegal acts or defied the
return-to-work orders.
GRAND BOULEVARD HOTEL V GENUINE
LABORERS ORGANIZATION
406 SCRA 688
CALLEJO; July 18, 2003
NATURE
Petition for review on certiorari
FACTS
- Respondent Genuine Labor Organization of Workers in Hotel,
Restaurant and Allied Industries Silahis International Hotel
Chapter (Union) and the petitioner Grand Boulevard Hotel (then
Silahis International Hotel, Inc.) executed a CBA covering the
period from July 10, 1985 up to July 9, 1988.
- Thereafter, Union filed several notices of strike on account of
alleged violations of CBA, illegal dismissal and suspension of
EEs. In these instances, SOLE issued a status quo ante bellum
order certifying the labor dispute to the NLRC for compulsory
arbitration pursuant to Article 263(g) of LC. After notice was
given by Hotel re its decision to implement retrenchment
program, Union informed the DOLE that the union will conduct a
strike vote referendum. The members of the Union voted to
stage a strike. Union informed the DOLE of the results of the
strike vote referendum. SOLE issued another status quo ante
bellum order certifying the case to the NLRC for compulsory
arbitration and enjoining the parties from engaging in any strike
or lockout. Then, another notice of strike was filed by Union on
account of the illegal dismissal of EEs pusrsuant to Hotels act of
retrenching around 171 EEs. Officers of the respondent union
and some members staged a picket in the premises of the hotel,
obstructing the free ingress and egress thereto. Because of this,
they were terminated.
- Hotel filed a complaint with NLRC for illegal strike against the
union, its members and officers. Petitioner Hotel alleged inter
alia that the union members and officers staged a strike on
November 16, 1990 which lasted until November 29, 1990
without complying with the requirements provided under Articles
263 and 264 of the Labor Code. It further alleged that the officers
and members of the respondent union blocked the main ingress
to and egress from the hotel.
- The respondent Union denied the material allegations of the
complaint and alleged that the petitioner committed ULP prior to
the filing of the Nov. 16, 1990 notice of strike. Hence, there was
no need for the union to comply with A263 and 264 of LC, as the
notice
- LA Linsangans Ruling: Unions failure to comply with the
requirements laid down in A263 and 264 of LC, the strike that
was staged was illegal. Considering the admissions of the
individual respondents that they participated in the said strike,
the termination of their employment by the petitioner was legal.
LA noted that if as alleged by the respondent union the petitioner
was guilty of ULP, it should have filed a complaint therefor
against the Hotel and/or its officials for which the latter could
have been meted penal and administrative sanctions as provided
for in A272 of LC. The Union failed.
LABOR LAW 2 A2010 - 277 - Disini
- Appeal by Union to NLRC: that it had complied with the requirements Ratio Since a strike that is undertaken, despite the issuance by
laid down in A263 and 264 of LC because its Nov 16, 1990 notice of the SOLE of an assumption or certification order, becomes a
strike was a mere reiteration of its Sept 27, 1990 notice of strike, which, prohibited activity and, thus, illegal pursuant to A264 of LC, the
in turn, complied with all the requirements of the aforementioned union officers and members, as a result, are deemed to have lost
articles, i.e., the cooling-off period, the strike ban, the strike vote and the their employment status for having knowingly participated in an
strike vote report. illegal act.
- NLRC affirmed LA Decision. Compliance of the requirements laid down
in A263 and 264 of LC respecting the Sept 27, 1990 notice of strike filed Disposition Petition is GRANTED. LA Decision REINSTATED.
by the union cannot be carried over to the Nov 16, 1990 notice of strike.
Resultantly, for failure of the union to comply with the requirements, the
strike staged on November 16 up to November 29, 1990 was illegal.
- CA reversed NLRC and LA: It took into account the observation of the SAN JUAN DE DIOS UNION ALLIANCE OF
Sol-Gen that the Hotel retrenched EEs pending the resolution of the
certified cases respecting the alleged illegal suspension and dismissals FILIPINO WORKERS V SAN JUAN DE DIOS
effected by Hotel during and prior to the notices of strike filed by Union. EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATION, INC.
Sol-Gen opined that even if the strike was staged without the proper 430 SCRA 193
notice and compliance with the cooling-off period, resort thereto was
CALLEJO, SR.; May 28, 2004
simply triggered by the petitioners' belief in good faith that Hotel was
engaged in ULP. Hence, this petition
NATURE
ISSUES Petition for review on certiorari of decision and resolution of CA.
1 WON the strike staged by the respondent union on Nov16-29, 1990
is legal FACTS
2 WON the dismissals of the officers and some members of the Union - San Juan De Dios Educational Foundation Inc. (Foundation) is
as a consequence of the strike on Nov16-29, 1990 are valid. a domestic foundation operating as a college and hospital. San
Juan De Dios Educational Foundation Employees Union-Alliance
HELD of Filipino Workers (Union) is the sole and exclusive bargaining
1. NO representative of the rank-and-file employees.
Re: Procedural Requirements - Rodolfo Calucin, Jr. had been employed at the Foundation as a
- Under A263 (c) and (f) of LC, the requisites for a valid strike are as medical clerk for almost 12 years. The Foundation informed him
follows: (a) a notice of strike fled with the DOLE 30 days before the that his incurred absences affected his efficiency, and was asked
intended date thereof or 15 days in case of ULP; (b) strike vote to explain why he should not be terminated for gross and
approved by a majority of the total union membership in the bargaining habitual neglect of his duties.
unit concerned obtained by secret ballot in a meeting called for that - July 27, 1994: the Foundation wrote Calucin, Jr. terminating
purpose; (c) notice given to the DOLE of the results of the voting at least him for gross and habitual neglect of duties. Calucin Jr. filed a
7 days before the intended strike. The requisite 7-day period is intended complaint for illegal dismissal before the NLRC. Calucin, Jr. was
to give the DOLE an opportunity to verify whether the projected strike a union officer, and officers and employees who were also
really carries the approval of the majority of the union members. The members of the Union staged a strike.
notice of strike and the cooling-off period were intended to provide an - August 26, 1994: DOLE Sec. Confesor directed the striking
opportunity for mediation and conciliation. The requirements are employees to go to work, and directing the Foundation to accept
mandatory and failure of a union to comply therewith renders the strike all employees under the previous terms of employment. The
illegal. A strike simultaneously with or immediately after a notice of strike order was served on the officers and members of the Union,
will render the requisite periods nugatory. nevertheless, the strike continued.
- The Foundation filed a petition before the NCMB to declare the
- In this case, union filed its notice of strike with the DOLE on Nov 16, strike illegal on ground that the Union committed prohibited acts
1990 and on the same day, staged a picket on the premises of the hotel, during the strike staged on August 26 to 31 1994.
in violation of the law. Union cannot argue that since the notice of strike - Since the Union did not heed the Return to Work Order
on Nov 16, 1990 were for the same grounds as those contained in their (RTWO), Confesor issued another one. The Foundation and the
notice of strike on September 27, 1990 which complied with the Union entered into an agreement on August 30, 1994 regarding
requirements of the law on the cooling-off period, strike ban, strike vote the Calucin issue, and that the Foundation would waive any legal
and strike vote report, the strike staged by them on Nov16, 1990 was action relating to the illegal strike and the illegal acts committed
lawful. The matters contained in the notice of strike of Sept 27, 1990 had by the officers and members of the Union.
already been taken cognizance of by the SOLE when he issued on Oct - In a complaint filed by the Union against the Union before the
31, 1990 a status quo ante bellum order enjoining union from intending NLRC, it alleged that the Foundation was guilty of illegal
or staging a strike. Despite SOLE order, the union nevertheless staged a dismissal of Union officers, discrimination, union-busting, and
strike on Nov16, 1990 simultaneously with its notice of strike, thus that the strike was legal and conducted in a peaceful and orderly
violating A264(a) LC manner. The NLRC held that the strike was illegal, that the
officers of the Union lost their employment status. At the
Grounds inception the strike was legal; when the RTWO was issued and
- A strike that is undertaken, despite the issuance by the SOLE of an the officers and members refused to return to work, that was
assumption or certification order, becomes a prohibited activity and, thus, when they lost their employment status.
illegal pursuant to A264 of LC: No strike or lockout shall be declared - In an appeal before the CA, the court held there was a valid
after assumption of jurisdiction by the President or the Secretary or after service of the RTWO, and that the refusal to return to work
certification or submission of the dispute to compulsory or voluntary rendered the strike illegal.
arbitration or during the pendency of cases involving the same grounds
for the strike or lockout. ISSUES
- Even if the union acted in good faith in the belief that the company was 1. WON the petitioners were validly served with the RTWO.
committing an unfair labor practice, if no notice of strike and a strike vote 2. WON the strike staged by the officers and members was
were conducted, the said strike is illegal. legal.

2. YES HELD
Re: Effect of Illegality 1. NO
LABOR LAW 2 A2010 - 278 -
Reasoning The return of Sheriff Alfredo C. Antonio shows that copies of
the Order were served on the striking employees and the petitioners. A
copy of the Order was served to the Union president at 7:55pm of
August 26, 1994but the striking employees refused to acknowledge
receipt of the copies
2. NO
Reasoning
Art. 264. (a)
No strike or lockout shall be declared after assumption of jurisdiction
by the President or Secretary or after certification or submission of
the dispute to compulsory or voluntary arbitration or during the
pendency of cases involving the same grounds for the strike or
lockout.
- Despite the receipt of an order from then Secretary to return to their
respective jobs, the Union officers refused to do so and defied the same.
Consequently, the strike staged by the Union is a prohibited activity
under Art. 264 of the Labor Code. The dismissal of its officers is in
order.
DISPOSITION
The petition is denied.
STAMFORD MARKETING CORP V JULIAN
(jonas azura)
Article 264 of the Labor Code, in providing for the consequences of an
illegal strike, makes a distinction between union officers and members
who participated thereon. Thus, knowingly participating in an illegal
strike is a valid ground
for termination from employment of a union officer. The law, however,
treats differently mere union members. Mere participation in an illegal
strike is not a sufficient ground for termination of the services of the
union members. The Labor
Code protects an ordinary, rank-and-file union member who participated
in such a strike from losing his job, provided that he did not commit an
illegal act during the strike. Thus, absent any clear, substantial and
convincing proof of illegal acts committed during an illegal strike, an
ordinary striking worker or employee may not be terminated from work.
With respect to union officers, however, there is no dispute they could
be dismissed for participating in an illegal strike. Union officers are duty-
bound to guide their members to respect the law. Nonetheless, as in
other termination cases, union officers must be given the required
notices for terminating an employment, i.e., notice of hearing to enable
them to present their side, and notice of termination, should their
explanation prove unsatisfactory. Nothing in Article 264 of the Labor
Code authorizes an immediate dismissal of a union officer for
participating in an illegal strike.
The act of dismissal is not intended to happen ipso facto but rather as
an option that can be exercised by the employer and after compliance
with the notice requirements for terminating an employee. In this case,
petitioners did not give the required
notices to the union officers.
PHILIPPINE DIAMOND HOTEL AND RESORT INC
(MANILA DIAMOND HOTEL V MANILA DIAMOND
HOTEL EMPLOYEES UNION
494 SCRA 195
CARPIO MORALES; June 30, 2006
FACTS
-Union filed a petition for certification election to be declared the
exclusive bargaining representative of the Hotels employees. This
petition was dismissed by DOLE for lack of legal requirements.
-after a few months, Union sent a letter to Hotel informing it of its desire
to negotiate for a collective bargaining agreement. This was rejected by
the Hotel stating that the Union was not the employees bargaining
agent as their petition for certification election was denied.
Disini
-Union filed a Notice of Strike with the NCMB alleging the Hotel
refusal to bargain and for acts of unfair labor practices. NCMB
summoned both parties and held series of dialogues. Union
however suddenly went on strike
-Secretary of DOLE assumed jurisdiction and ordered
compulsory arbitration pursuant to art. 263 (g) of LC. And Union
members were directed to return to work and for Hotel to accept
them back. Hotel refused to accept the employees return. The
order was modified (by a different Secretary) such that
reinstatement was to be done only in the payroll.
-Union filed for certiorari alleging grave abuse of discretion. Case
was referred to the CA. CA affirmed that the payroll
reinstatement was not a grave abuse of discretion. On appeal, it
modified NLRC decision ordering reinstatement with back wages
of union members.
ISSUE
1) WON the Union can bargain only in behalf of its members and
not for all the employees of the Hotel.
2) WON the strike conducted by the Union was illegal.
3) WON those employees who participated in the strike should
be given back wages
HELD
1) No.
-As provided by art 255 of the LC only the labor organization
designated or selected by the majority of the employees in an
appropriate collective bargaining unit is the exclusive
representative of the employees in such unit for the purpose of
collective bargaining.
-The Unions petition for certificate election was denied by the
DOLE. The union thus is admittedly not the exclusive
representative of the majority of the employees of petitioner,
hence, it could not demand from petitioner the right to bargain
collectively in their behalf
-Respondent insists, however, that it could validly bargain in
behalf of "its members," relying on Article 242 of the Labor Code.
-the CA ruled that what [respondent] will be achieving is to
divide the employees, more particularly, the rank-and-file
employees of [petitioner] . . . the other workers who are not
members are at a serious disadvantage, because if the same
shall be allowed, employees who are non-union members will be
economically impaired and will not be able to negotiate their
terms and conditions of work, thus defeating the very essence
and reason of collective bargaining, which is an effective
safeguard against the evil schemes of employers in terms and
conditions of work
- Petitioners refusal to bargain then with respondent can not be
considered a ULP to justify the staging of the strike.
TOPICS: Union registration and procedure, factors, majority
union
2) yes.
-as was mentioned, the first ground mentioned by the Union- the
Hotels refusal to bargain- was not a valid ground to stage the
strike.
-The second ground that petitioner prevented or intimidated
some workers from joining the union before, during or after the
strike was correctly discredited by the appellate court.. Since it
is the union who alleges that unfair labor practices were
committed by the Hotel, the burden of proof is on the union to
prove its allegations by substantial evidence. the facts and the
evidence did not establish events [sic] least a rational basis why
the union would [wield] a strike based on alleged unfair labor
practices it did not even bother to substantiate.
-It is doctrinal that the exercise of the right of private sector
employees to strike is not absolute. Thus Section 3 of Article XIII
of the Constitution, provides:
SECTION 3. x x x
It shall guarantee the rights of all workers to self-organization,
collective bargaining and negotiations and peaceful concerted
activities, including the right to strike in accordance with
law
LABOR LAW 2 A2010 - 279 -
-Even if the purpose of a strike is valid, the strike may still be held illegal
where the means employed are illegal. Thus, the employment of
violence, intimidation, restraint or coercion in carrying out concerted
activities which are injurious to the rights to property renders a strike
illegal. Evidence show s that some of the workers-strikers who joined
the strike indeed committed illegal acts blocking the free ingress to
and egress from the Hotel, holding noise barrage, threatening guests,
and the like.
TOPICS: right to engage in concerted activities-limitations
3) No.
-The general rule is that backwages shall not be awarded in an
economic strike on the principle that "a fair days wage" accrues only for
a "fair days labor. If there is no work performed by the employee there
can be no wage or pay, unless of course, the laborer was able, willing
and ready to work but was illegally locked out, dismissed or suspended.
"when employees voluntarily go on strike, even if in protest against
unfair labor practices," no back wages during the strike is awarded.
-The Court ruled that only those members of the union who did not
commit illegal acts during the course of the illegal strike should be
reinstated but without back wages
ARELLANO V CA
502 SCRA 219
CARPIO-MORALES; September 19, 2006
NATURE
Petition for certiorari
FACTS
- University Employees and Workers Union (the Union), the
exclusive bargaining representative of about 380 rank-and-file
employees of Arellano University, Inc. (the University), filed with
the National Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB) a Notice of
Strike charging the University with Unfair Labor Practice (ULP)
- The DOLE secretary certified the notice of strike to the NLRC.
- The Union filed another notice of strike charging other unfair
labor practices against the University.
- A strike was staged by the union on August 5, 1998. The DOLE
secretary directed the strikers to return to work the following day.
The Union lifted its strike on August 7.
- The University filed a petition to direct the strike illegal. The
NLRC ruled that the strike was illegal and that the workers who
joined such strike have lost their employment.
ISSUE/S
1. WON the employees who participated in the illegal strike should be
dismissed
HELD
Union officers - YES
Union members - NO.
Ratio
- A264: Any union officer who knowingly participates in an illegal strike
and any worker or union officer who knowingly participates in the
commission of illegal acts during a strike may be declared to have lost
his employment status
Reasoning
- Under the immediately quoted provision, an ordinary striking worker
may not be declared to have lost his employment status by mere
participation in an illegal strike. There must be proof that he knowingly
participated in the commission of illegal acts during the strike. While the
University adduced photographs showing strikers picketing outside the
university premises, it failed to identify who they were. It thus failed to
meet the substantiality of evidence test applicable in dismissal cases.
-Petitioner-union members must thus be reinstated to their former
position, without backwages. If reinstatement is no longer possible, they
should receive separation pay of One (1) Month for every year of service
in accordance with existing jurisprudence.
- With respect to the union officers, as already discussed, their mere
participation in the illegal strike warrants their dismissal.
Disposition Decision affirmed
Disini
3) Employment of Strike Breakers
ART. 264. Prohibited activities. xxx-
(c) No employer shall use or employ any strike-
breaker, nor shall any person be employed as a
strike-breaker.
ART. 212. Definitions. xxx-
(r) "Strike-breaker" means any person who obstructs,
impedes, or interferes with by force, violence,
coercion, threats, or intimidation any peaceful
picketing affecting wages, hours or conditions of work
or in the exercise of the right of self-organization or
collective bargaining.
4) Run-Away Shop
Complex Electronics Employees Assoc. v.
NLRC
310 SCRA 403
Kapunan ; 1999 July 19
Facts
-Complex Electronics Corporation (Complex) was engaged in the
manufacture of electronic products, a subcontractor of electronic
products where its customers gave their job orders, sent their
own materials and consigned their equipment to it. The
customers were foreign-based companies with different product
lines and specifications requiring the employment of workers with
specific skills for each product line. Thus, there was the AMS
Line for the Adaptive Micro System, Inc., the Heril Line for Heril
Co., Ltd., the Lite-On Line for the Lite-On Philippines Electronics
Co., etc. The rank and file workers of Complex were organized
into a union known as the Complex Electronics Employees
Association (Union).
-Complex received a facsimile message from Lite-On Philippines
Electronics Co., requiring it to lower its price by 10%.
-Complex informed its Lite-On personnel that such request of
lowering their selling price by 10% was not feasible as they were
already incurring losses at the present prices of their products.
Under such circumstances, Complex regretfully informed the
employees that it was left with no alternative but to close down
the operations of the Lite-On Line but promised that it wont be
after 1 month, if possible it would be prolonged and they would
all receive retrenchment pay, half a month for every year of
service in accordance with Article 283 of the Labor Code of
Philippines.
-The Union, on the other hand, pushed for a retrenchment pay
equivalent to one (1) month salary for every year of service,
which Complex refused.
-Complex filed a notice of closure of the Lite-On Line with the
Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) and the
retrenchment of the ninety-seven (97) affected employees.
- Union filed a notice of strike with the National Conciliation and
Mediation Board (NCMB). A total closure of company operation
was effected at Complex.
-Labor Arbiter: reinstate the 531 employees to their former
position with all the rights, privileges and benefits appertaining
thereto, and to pay said complainants-employees the aggregate
backwages amounting P26,949,891.80 as of April 6, 1993 and to
such further backwages until their actual reinstatement.
-The Union anchors its position on the fact that Lawrence Qua is
both the president of Complex and Ionics and that both
companies have the same set of Board of Directors. It claims
LABOR LAW 2 A2010 - 280 -
that business has not ceased at Complex but was merely transferred to
Ionics, a runaway shop. To prove that Ionics was just a runaway shop,
petitioner asserts that out of the 80,000 shares comprising the increased
capital stock of Ionics, it was Complex that owns majority of said shares
with P1,200,000.00 as its capital subscription and P448,000.00 as its
paid up investment, compared to P800,000.00 subscription and
P324,560.00 paid-up owing to the other stockholders, combined. Thus,
according to the Union, there is a clear ground to pierce the veil of
corporate fiction.
-The Union further posits that there was an illegal lockout/illegal
dismissal considering that as of March 11, 1992, the company had a
gross sales of P61,967,559 from a capitalization of P1,500,000.00. It
even ranked number thirty among the top fifty corporations in Muntinlupa.
Complex, therefore, cannot claim that it was losing in its business which
necessitated its closure.
Issue
WON Ionics was a runaway shop
Held
No. A runaway shop is defined as an industrial plant moved by its
owners from one location to another to escape union labor regulations or
state laws, but the term is also used to describe a plant removed to a
new location in order to discriminate against employees at the old plant
because of their union activities. It is one wherein the employer moves
its business to another location or it temporarily closes its business for
anti-union purposes. A runaway shop in this sense, is a relocation
motivated by anti-union animus rather than for business reasons. In this
case, however, Ionics was not set up merely for the purpose of
transferring the business of Complex. At the time the labor dispute
arose at Complex, Ionics was already existing as an independent
company. As earlier mentioned, it has been in existence since July 5,
1984. It cannot, therefore, be said that the temporary closure in
Complex and its subsequent transfer of business to Ionics was for anti-
union purposes. The Union failed to show that the primary reason for
the closure of the establishment was due to the union activities of the
employees.
The mere fact that one or more corporations are owned or controlled by
the same or single stockholder is not a sufficient ground for disregarding
separate corporate personalities.
Ionics may be engaged in the same business as that of Complex, but
this fact alone is not enough reason to pierce the veil of corporate fiction
of the corporation. Well-settled is the rule that a corporation has a
personality separate and distinct from that of its officers and
stockholders. This fiction of corporate entity can only be disregarded in
certain cases such as when it is used to defeat public convenience,
justify wrong, protect fraud, or defend crime. To disregard said separate
juridical personality of a corporation, the wrongdoing must be clearly and
convincingly established.
Disposition
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the assailed decision of the NLRC
is AFFIRMED.
5)Burden of Economic Loss
PHIL DIAMOND HOTEL AND RESORT INC V MANILA
DIAMOND HOTEL EMPLOYEES UNION
CROMWELL COMMERCIAL EMPLOYEES AND
LABORERS UNION (PTUC) V CIR
12 SCRA 124
REGALA; September 30, 1964
NATURE
Appeal from CIR Decision
FACTS
- Cromwell Commercial Co. and the Cromwell Commercial Employees
and Laborers Union (PTUC) signed a CBA
Disini
- Changes in the working conditions in the company and the
latter's failure to carry out its part of the CBA became a source of
complaint among the EEs. 3 days after, the company dismissed
Gaddi and Andrada, leaders of the shipping department-
employees. So the union protested the dismissal. It gave the
company 48 hrs within which to act on its grievance and
reinstate the dismissed employees.
- From then on the relation between the company and the union
steadily deteriorated. The company took back the keys from the
warehouseman and ordered the salesmen to put their trucks in
the garage. Then finally, the union struck and picketed the
premises of the company.
- The company in turn gave the strikers a period within which to
return to work otherwise they would be considered dismissed for
cause. It warned them that the strike was illegal for being against
the no strike clause of the collective bargaining agreement.
- In a conference called by DOLE, the strikers offered to return to
work provided the company observed the provisions of the
bargaining contract. But the company insisted that the strikers
could be taken back only under the terms of its March 1 order.
As already stated, this order reverted salesmen to salary and
commission basis, abolished their helper's allowance and
stopped the payment of per diem and other allowances to provl
salesmen.
- In addition, the company set as price for continued conciliation
conference the remittance by the salesmen of their collections
and the return of delivery trucks and stocks on hand. The union
replied that the strikers had not lost their employee status and
that at any rate they were bonded. It suffered though to deposit
with the Conciliation Service of the Department of Labor the
things demanded by the company, but the company was
unyielding in its demand. Anyway, nothing came out of the
conference. The employees gradually gave up the strike and the
salesmen later settled their accounts and returned the property
of the company.
- Case was filed in the CIR, charging the company with unfair
labor practice. After trial, the court rendered judgment in favor of
employees. The union moved for a reconsideration of the
decision, contending that the trial judge erred (1) in awarding
only half back wages to Gaddi and the five salesmen, (2) in
awarding no back wages to the rest of the strikers and (3) in
denying reinstatement to Andrada and Dario and to those who
might have found substantially equivalent employment
elsewhere. The court in banc affirmed the decision. Hence this
appeal.
ISSUE
WON CIR erred in its order of reinstatement of and payment of
back wages to the dismissed employees
HELD
NO
As to reinstatement
- At the outset, two types of employees involved in this case
must be distinguished, namely, those who were discriminatorily
dismissed for union activities (Gaddi and Andrada and 5
salesmen) and those who voluntarily went on strike, following the
failure of the company-union conference to settle their dispute.
- Both types of EEs are entitled to reinstatement. Striking EEs
are entitled to reinstatement WON the strike was the
consequence of the ER's unfair labor practice, unless, where the
strike was not due to any unfair labor practice, the employer has
hired others to take the place of the strikers and has promised
them continued employment. Exception: Those who, although
discriminatorily discharged, must nonetheless be denied
reinstatement because of (1) unlawful conduct or (2) because of
violence.
- It is not for SC to judge the effect of misconduct by EEs. It is
primarily for the CIR to determine. In the absence of proof of
abuse of discretion on the part of CIR, SC will not interfere.
- The same thing may be said of the denial of reinstatement to
those who might have found substantial employment elsewhere.
The mere fact that strikers or dismissed employees have found
LABOR LAW 2 A2010 - 281 -
such employment elsewhere is not necessarily a bar to their
reinstatement.
As to payment of back wages
- The decision assailed directs the company "to reinstate all the strikers,
without backwages, in view of the circumstances, as explained on the
subject of the strike, unless they have found substantial employment
elsewhere during the pendency of this case." The union says this order
is erroneous. Union says it is unfair to deny backwages to the strikers
after finding that the strike declared by them was legal because it was
provoked by unfair labor practices of the company.
- The denial of backpay may be justified, although on a different ground.
For this purpose, SC adverts to the distinction earlier made between
discriminatorily dismissed employees and those who struck, albeit in
protest against the company's unfair labor practice. Discriminatorily
dismissed employees received backpay from the date of the act of
discrimination, that is, from the day of their discharge. On this score, the
award of backpay to Gaddi, Andrada and the salesmen may be justified.
The salesmen, as already stated, were practically locked out when they
were ordered to put their trucks in the garage; they did not voluntarily
strike. Hence, the award of backwages.
- In contrast, the rest of the employees struck as a voluntary act of
protest against what they considered unfair labor practices of the
company. The stoppage of their work was not the direct consequence of
the company's unfair labor practice. Hence their economic loss should
not be shifted to the employer. When employees voluntarily go on strike,
even if in protest against unfair labor practices, it has been our policy not
to award them backpay during the strike.
- However, where, as in this case, an employer refuses to reinstate
strikers except upon their acceptance of the new conditions that
discriminate against them because of their union membership or
activities, the strikers who refuse to accept the conditions and are
consequently refused reinstatement are entitled to be made whole for
any losses of pay they may have suffered by reason of the respondent's
discriminatory acts."
- While it is true that the strikers in this case offered to return to work,
their offer was conditional. Their offer was predicated on the company's
observance of the provisions of the CBA, the very bone of contention
between the parties by reason of which the union walked out.
Disposition CIR decision AFFIRMED, without pronouncement as to
costs.
REYES, J.B.L., J., dissenting:
- I cannot agree to the denial of backpay to the reinstated laborers.
There is no dispute that the ER was the first to infringe the CBA by
refusing to implement its provisions, and by insisting on it as a condition
for taking back the strikers. Industrial Peace Act cannot be said to be
promoted by placing the economic loss on the strikers, denying them
backpay. While the laborers technically violated the no-strike clause, the
facts as found reveal that the ER goaded the laborers into striking, by
repeatedly violating the CBA and by preventing the organization of the
grievance committee through the ER's refusal to name its
representatives therein.
CONSOLIDATED LABOR ASSOCIATION OF THE
PHILS v. MARSMAN and CO., INC. [CIR]
&
MARSMAN and Co., INC. v. CONSOLIDATED LABOR
ASSOCIATION OF THE PHILIPPINES [BAUTISTA,
MARTINEZ, VILLANUEVA, &TABIGNE]
11 SCRA 589
MAKALINTAL; July 31, 1964
FACTS:
- MARCELA-FFW submitted to the Company a set of proposals for
collective bargaining, which the Company answered.
- In spite of negotiations held between the Company and the Union, they
failed to reach In agreement; so the Union, failed a notice of strike with
the DOLE.
- Mediation by the Conciliation Service of that Department proved
fruitless.
Disini
- the Union declared a strike and at the same time placed a
"round-the-clock" picket line around the Company's premises in
Intramuros, Manila. The tense situation in the strike zone
prompted the Manila Police Department to send policemen
thereto to preserve peace.
- Meanwhile the Labor Department's Conciliation Service
continued to mediate between the representatives of the Union
and of the Company.
- Eventually, after a conference where Marsmans VPs proposal
(that they stop the strike and go back to work, and that when
they were already working the Company would discuss with
them their demands) was accepted, the strikers returned to work.
However, complainants herein were refused admittance and
were informed by Company officials that they would not be
reinstated unless they ceased to be active Union members and
that in any case the Company already had enough men for its
business operations.
-As a result the strike and the picketing were resumed, because
of which employees who had been admitted to work had to stay
inside the Company premises, where the Company furnished
them food and quarters. Nevertheless some of those employed
could go in and out after office hours to visit their families.
- During the strike, some of the picketers and some non-strikers
were arrested within the strike zone for having committed
unlawful acts, and were duly charged therewith.
- A petition for writ of injunction filed by the Company against
MARCELA on the ground that the strike and picket were being
maintained illegally, was denied by the CFI Manila, which
pointed out that proper criminal complaints should have been
filed against the individual strikers in the corresponding courts.
- Because of the Company's consistent refusal to reinstate the
69 complainants even after repeated requests, the
Confederation of Labor Associations of the Philippines (CLAP),
to which the Union had affiliated after seceding from the FFW
initiated the present charge for unfair labor practice.
- Initially the strike staged by the Union was meant to compel the
Company to grant it certain economic benefits set forth in its
proposal for collective bargaining. The strike was an economic
1
one, and the striking employees would have a tight to be
reinstated if, in the interim, the employer had not hired other
permanent workers to replace them. For it is recognized that
during the pendency of an economic strike an employer may
take steps to continue and protect his business by supplying
places left vacant by the strikers, and is not bound to discharge
those hired for that purpose upon election of the strikers to
resume their employment. But the strike changed its character
from the time the Company refused to reinstate complainants
because of their union activities after it had offered to admit all
the strikers and in fact did readmit the others. It was then
converted into an unfair labor practice strike.
- J. Bautista, after hearing, found Marsman guilty of the charge
and ordered it to reinstate 60 of the aforementioned 69
complainants to their former positions or to similar ones with the
same rate of pay, without back wages.
- On the MR, the Court en banc affirmed the decision.
- Both the Union and Marsman appealed. The former claims that
the 60 reinstated employees should be granted backpay while
the latter questions the CIR's finding of ULP.
Issue: WON Marsman committed ULP
HELD: YES.
Reasoning:
- Marsman alleges that it was economic reasons, i.e., its policy of
retrenchment, not labor discrimination, which prevented it from
rehiring complainants. This is disproved, however, by the fact
that it not only readmitted the other strikers, but also hired new
employees and even increased the salaries of its personnel by
almost 50%. SC is convinced that it was not business exigency
but a desire to discourage union activities which prompted the
Company to deny readmittance to complainants. This is an
indubitable case of unfair labor practice.
- The Union began the strike because it believed in good faith
that settlement of their demands was at an impasse and that
LABOR LAW 2 A2010 - 282 -
further negotiations would only come to naught. It stopped the strike
upon the belief they could go back to work. Then it renewed the strike
(or it started a new strike) as a protest against the discrimination
practiced by the Company. Both are valid grounds for going on a strike.
- The Company further argues that since the methods used by the
strikers were illegal, it had the right to refuse them readmission. Of the
69 complainants, nine, namely Alejandro Mojar, Manuel Mazo, Esteban
Borja, Cecilio Walo, Eugenio Valenzuela, Elias Matic, Marcos Buccat,
Malisimo Vargas and Ricardo Antonio, were charged with and convicted
of various crimes like coercion, malicious mischief, physical injuries,
breach of the peace, light threats, and damage to property, all
committed during the period from September 4, 1954 to October 12,
1954. Admittedly, the Company could not have condoned these acts
which were committed after it had offered to reinstate the strikers.
Nevertheless, as the lower court reasoned out, it does not appear that
the aforementioned individual acts were authorized or even impliedly
sanctioned by the Union. Hence, the other strikers who were innocent of
and did not participate in the illegal acts should not be punished by
being deprived of their right of reinstatement. It is only those who had
been found guilty who should be penalized by the loss of the right.3
- On the other hand, even after the court has made a finding of unfair
labor practice, it still has the discretion to determine whether or not to
grant back pay. Such discretion was not abused when it denied back
wages to complainants, considering the climate of violence which
attended the strike and picket that the complainants conducted. While
the complainants ordered reinstated did not actively take part in the acts
of violence, their minatory attitude towards the Company may be
gathered from the fact that from the very first day of the strike policemen
had to patrol the strike zone in order to preserve peace.
DISPOSITIVE: Judgment appealed from is affirmed.
1
An economic strike is defined as one which is to force wage or
other concessions from the employer which he is not required by
law to grant.
SSS V SSS SUPERVISORS UNION
117 SCRA 746
MELENCIO-HERRERA; October 23, 1982
NATURE
Petition for certiorari
FACTS
- The instant case is an offshoot of Case No. 46-IPA (49) certified to the
CIR by the President of the Philippines for compulsory arbitration of
labor dispute between the SSS and the PAFLU concerning the
interpretation of certain provisions of their Collective Bargaining
Agreement. The PAFLU had staged a strike in defiance of the CIR Order
of August 29, 1968 "enjoining the parties, for the sake of industrial
peace . . . to maintain the status quo - the Union not to declare any
strike and the Management not to dismiss nor suspend any of its
employees nor to declare any lockout." On 3 September 1968, in that
same case, the SSS filed an Urgent Petition to declare the strike illegal.
- On 26 September 1968, respondent Union filed a Motion for
Intervention in the said case averring, inter alia that it had not
participated in the strike; that its members wanted to report for work but
were prevented by the picketers from entering the work premises; that
under the circumstances, they were entitled to their salaries
corresponding to the duration of the strike, which could be deducted
from the accrued leave credits of their members. The SSS had no
objection to the intervention sought but opposed the demand for the
payment of salaries pertaining to the entire period of the strike.
- Respondent Court, through Judge Joaquin M. Salvador, issued the
Order of 3 March 1970, ordering the payment of salaries of the members
of respondent Union during the strike period, but not to be chargeable to
accrued leave credits. The reasons given were that this Court had
already declared the strike premature, and that the members of
respondent Union had not participated in the strike and had actually
manifested their desire to work but could not cross the heavy picket lines
during the height of the strike.
Disini
- The SSS moved to reconsider the Order arguing that since
respondent Union members actually rendered no service at all
during the strike, they were not entitled to the payment of
salaries. Respondent Court, en banc, denied reconsideration.
ISSUE
WON CIR has the authority to issue the Order
HELD
NO
- "The age-old rule governing the relation between labor and
capital or management and employee is that of a `fair day's
wage for a fair day's labor.' If there is no work performed by the
employee there can be no wage or pay, unless of course the
laborer was able, willing and ready to work but was illegally
locked out, dismissed or suspended. It is hardly fair or just for an
employee or laborer to fight or litigate against his employer on
the employer's time."
- In this case, the failure to work on the part of the members of
respondent Union was due to circumstances not attributable to
themselves. But neither should the burden of the economic loss
suffered by them be shifted to their employer, the SSS, which
was equally faultless, considering that the situation was not a
direct consequence of the employer's lockout or unfair labor
practice. Under the circumstances, it is but fair that each party
must bear his own loss.
- "Considering, therefore, that the parties had no hand or
participation in the situation they were in, and that the stoppage
of the work was not the direct consequence of the company's
lockout or unfair labor practice, `the economic loss should not be
shifted to the employer.' Justice and equity demand that each
must have to bear its own loss, thus placing the parties in equal
footing where none should profit from the other there being no
fault of either."
Disposition The assailed order is set aside.
PHILIPPINES INTER-FASHION INC. V NLRC
G.R. No. L-59847
TEEHANKEE : October 18, 1982
FACTS:
- Sometime on 12 December 1979, the workers in the
COMPANY grouped themselves and organized a labor union
known as the Philippine Inter-Fashion Workers Union and
thereafter directly affiliated the same with the NAFLU.
- Believing that it has a majority of the more or less 600
employees, it filed on 26 December 1979 a petition for direct
certification as the exclusive bargaining agent of the
employees which, as of the date of submission for resolution
of this case, remained unresolved.
- Sometime in January 1980, the COMPANY conceived and
decided to retrench its employees and selected about 40
employees to be dismissed effective 20 February 1980
allegedly because of lack of work
- Sometime on 8, 9 and 11 February 1980, Asterio Guanzon,
Personnel Assistant of the COMPANY, called about 20 of the
affected employees and informed them of the intended
retrenchment and offered them to voluntarily resign and be
paid retrenchment benefit. Since said employees refused,
Guanzon asked them "to acknowledge receipt of the
clearance application and the termination letter but except for
two (2) workers, they refused even to acknowledge receipt of
the forms.
- The following day, 12 February 1980, about 200 employees
boarded two buses and went to the Ministry of Labor and
talked with then Deputy Minister who advised them to return to
their work. These employees actually returned in the
afternoon but stayed outside the compound.
LABOR LAW 2 A2010 - 283 -
- On 14 February 1980, the employees returned to the Ministry of Labor
and on the same day obtained a Return to Work Order
- The following day, 15 February 1980, the employees returned to the
company with the aforesaid Order and were allowed to enter the
compound but they merely stayed in the canteen because they were
not given work on the pretext that machines were undergoing repairs
and servicing and because the sewing lines were reorganized and
workers were reassigned to new lines
- On February 1980, more than 200 employees returned and reported
for work but again they were only made to stay at the canteen inside
the compound and were not allowed to work but they were
nevertheless paid their wages from 12 February 1980 to 20 February
1980
- On the same date, 20 February 1980, the COMPANY filed with this
Ministry "applications for clearance to terminate the workers who
participated in the alleged walkout for serious misconduct, effective
March 1, 1980 placing the affected employees under preventive
suspension in the meantime."
- Subsequently, the COMPANY hired "additional workers to be able to
complete twelve (12) production lines and to be able to deliver
according to my production schedule."
- On 20 October 1980, one hundred fifty (150) employees who were not
re- admitted before were allowed to return to work and in so doing
withdrew their case or complaint against the COMPANY, thereby
leaving 114 employees still subject of its clearance application.
- The Solicitor General has stated in his comment that "from these facts
are derived the following conclusions which are likewise undisputed:
that petitioner engaged in an illegal lockout while the NAFLU engaged
in an illegal strike; that the unconditional offer of the 150 striking
employees to return to work and to withdraw their complaint of illegal
lockout against petitioner constitutes condonation of the illegal lock-
out; and that the unqualified acceptance of the offer of the 150 striking
employees by petitioner likewise constitutes condonation of the illegal
strike insofar as the reinstated employees are concerned."
ISSUES:
1. WON petitioner must be deemed to have waived its right to pursue
the case of illegal strike
2. WON the said 114 employees are entitled to reinstatement with three
months' backwages
HELD:
1.
Reasoning
- The Court approves the stand taken by the Solicitor General that
there was no clear and unequivocal waiver on the part of petitioner
and on the contrary the record shows that it tenaciously pursued its
application for their dismissal, but nevertheless in view of the
undisputed findings of illegal strike on the part of the 114 employees
and illegal lockout on petitioner's part, both parties are in pari delicto
and such situation warrants the restoration of the status quo ante and
bringing the parties back to the respective positions before the illegal
strike and illegal lockout through the reinstatement of the said 114
employees
2.
Reasoning
- With such restoration of the status quo ante it necessarily follows, as
likewise submitted by the Solicitor General, that the petition must be
granted insofar as it seeks the setting aside of the award of three
months' backwages to the 114 employees ordered reinstated on the
basis of the general rule that strikers are not entitled to backwages
DISPOSITIVE:
Decision of NLRC affirmed
Lapanday Workers Union v. NLRC
248 SCRA 95
Puno ; Sept. 7, 1995
Facts
Disini
-Lapanday Agricultural and Development Corporation and
CADECO Agro Development Philippines Inc. (Private
respondents) are sister companies. Lapanday Workers Union
(Union) is the duly certified bargaining agent of the rank and file
employees of private respondent. The Union is affiliated with the
KMU-ANGLO.
-Union has a collective bargaining agreement. A few months
before the expiration of their CBA, private respondent initiated
certain management policies which disrupted the relationship of
the parties- 1. Contracting of Philippine Eagle Protectors and
Security Agency Inc., the Union branded the security guards
posted within the company premises as private respondents'
"goons" and "special forces." It also accused the guards of
intimidating and harassing their members. 2. The Union claimed
that the module on the Philippines political spectrum lumped the
ANGLO (Alliance of Nationalist and Genuine Labor
Organization), with other outlawed labor organization such as the
National Democratic Front or other leftist groups.
-These issues were discussed during a labor-management
meeting, the Union agreed to allow its members to attend the
HDIR seminar for the rank-and-filers but the Union directed its
members not to attend the seminars scheduled on said dates.
They picketed the premises of the Philippine Eagle Protectors to
show their displeasure on the hiring of the guards. Union filed a
Notice of Strike with the National Conciliation and Mediation
Board (NCMB). NCMB called conciliation conference. The
conference yielded the agreements that Union officers, including
the officials of KMU-ANGLO, and the Executive Director of the
NMB would attend the HDIR seminar and a committee shall
convene to establish guidelines governing the guards. With the
apparent settlement of their difference, private respondents
notified the NCMB that there were no more base for the notice of
strike.
-Danilo Martinez. a member of the Board of Directors of the
Union, was gunned down in his house in the presence of his wife
and children. The gunman was later identified as Eledio Samson,
an alleged member of security forces of private respondent. After
the killing, most of the members of the Union refused to report
for work. They returned to work the following day but they did not
comply with the "quota system" adopted by the management to
bolster production output. Allegedly, the Union instructed the
workers to reduce their production to thirty percent (30%) Private
respondents charged the Union with economic sabotage through
slowdown. Private respondents filed separate charged against
the Union and it member for illegal strike. unfair labor practice
and damages, with prayer for injunction. Petitioners skipped
work to pay their last respect to the slain Danilo Martinez. who
was laid to rest. Again on another date petitioner did not report
for work. Instead, they proceeded to private respondents' office
at Lanang, carrying placards and posters which called for the
removal of the security guards. the ouster of certain
management officials, and the approval of their mass leave
application. Their mass action did not succeed.
-Labor Arbiter decision: Illegal strike and employees have lost
their employment status and order to desist. NLRC limited the
penalty of dismissal only to the leaders of the illegal strike
especially the officers of the union who served as its major
player and union members were merely instigated to participate
in the illegal strike and should be treated differently from their
leaders. Petitioners claim that public respondent NLRC gravely
abused it discretion.
Issue WON the strike is legal
Held
No. The applicable law are Articles 263 and 264 of the Labor
Code, as amended by E.O. No. 111, dated December 24. 1986.
Paragraphs (c) and (f) of Article 263 of the Labor Code, as
amended by E.O. 111, provides.
"c) In cases of bargaining deadlocks. the duly certified or
recognized bargaining agent may file a notice of strike or the
employer may file a notice of lockout with the Ministry at
least 30 days before the intended date thereof. In cases of
unfair labor practice, the notice shall be 15 days and in the
LABOR LAW 2 A2010 - 284 -
absence of a duly certified or recognized bargaining agent, the
notice of strike may be filed by any legitimate labor organization in
behalf of its member. However, in case of dismissal from
employment of union officer duly elected in accordance with the
union constitution and by-laws, which may constitute union busting
where the existence of the union is threatened, the 15-day cooling-
off period shall not apply and the union may take action
immediately.
xxx xxx xxx
"f) A decision to declare a strike must be approved by a majority of
the total union membership in the bargaining unit concerned,
obtained by secret ballot in meetings or referenda called for that
purpose. A decision to declare a lockout must be approved by a
majority of the board of director of the corporation or association or
of the partner in a partnership, obtained by secret ballot in a meeting
called for that purpose. The decision shall be valid for the duration
of the dispute based on substantially the same grounds considered
when the strike or lockout vote was taken. The Ministry may, at its
own initiative or upon the request of any affected party, supervise
the conduct of secret ballot In every case the union or the employer
shall furnish the Ministry the result of the voting at least seven (7)
days before the intended strike or lockout subject to the cooling-off
period herein provided.
Article 264 of the same Code reads:
"Art 264. Prohibited activities. - (a) No labor organization or
employer shall declared a strike or lockout without first having
bargained collectively in accordance with Title VII of this Book
or without first having filed the notice required in the preceding
Article or without the necessary strike or lockout vote first having
been obtained and reported to the Ministry.
xxx xxx xxx
". . . Any union officer who knowingly participates in an illegal strike and
any worker or union officer who knowingly participates in the
commission of illegal acts during a strike may be declared to have lost
his employment status: Provided that mere participation of a worker in a
lawful strike shall not constitute sufficient ground for termination of his
employment, even if a replacement had been hired by the employer
during such lawful strike."
A strike is "any temporary stoppage of work by the concerted action of
employees as a result of an industrial or labor dispute." It is the most
preeminent of the economic weapons or workers which they unsheathe
to force management to agree to an equitable sharing of the point
product of labor and capital. Undeniably, strikes exert some disquieting
effects not only on the relationship between labor and management but
also on the general peace and progress of society. Our laws thus
regulate their exercise within reasons by balancing the interests of labor
and management together with the overarching public interest.
Some of the limitations on the exercise of the right of strike are provided
for in paragraph (c) and (f) of Article 263 of the labor Code, as amended,
supra. They provide for the procedural steps to be followed before
staging a strike - filing of notice of strike, taking of strike vote, and
reporting of the strike vote result to the Department of Labor and
Employment. In National Federation of Sugar Workers (NFSW) vs.
Overseas, et al., we ruled that these steps are mandatory in
character. thus:
"If only the filing of the strike notice and the strike-vote report would be
deemed mandatory. but not the waiting periods so specifically and
emphatically prescribed by law, the purposes (hereafter discussed) for
which the filing of the strike notice and strike-vote report is required
cannot be achieved . . .
xxx xxx xxx
"So too, the 7 day strike-vote report is not without a purpose. As pointed
out by the Solicitor General -
'. . . The submission of the report gives assurance that a strike vote has
been taken and that, if the report concerning it is false, the majority of
the members can take appropriate remedy before it is too late.'
Disini
The seven (7) day waiting period is intended to give the
Department of Labor and Employment an opportunity to verify
whether the projected strike really carries the imprimatur of the
majority of the union members. The need for assurance that
majority of the union members support the strike cannot be
gainsaid. Strike is usually the last weapon of labor to be
gainsaid. Strike compel capital to concede to its bargaining
demands or to defend itself against unfair labor practices of
management. It is a weapon that can either breathe life to or
destroy the union and its members in their struggle with
management for a more equitable due of their labors. The
decision to wield the weapon of strike must, therefore, rest on a
rational basis, free from emotionalism. unswayed by the tempers
and tantrums of a few hothead, and firmly focused on the
legitimate interest of the union which should not, however, be
antithetical to the public welfare. Thus, our laws require the
decision to strike to be the consensus of the majority for while
majority is not infallible, still, it is the best hedge against haste
and error. In addition, a majority vote assures the union it will go
to war against management with the strength derived from unity
and hence, with better chance to succeed. In Batangas Laguna
Tayabas Bus Company vs. NLRC, we held:
xxx xxx xxx
"The right to strike is one of the right recognized and guaranteed
by the Constitution as an instrument of labor for it protection
against exploitation by management. by virtue of his right. the
workers are able to press their demands for better terms of
employment with more energy and persuasiveness. poising the
threat to strike at their reaction to employer s intransigence. The
strike is indeed a powerful weapon of the working class. But
precisely because of this, it must be handled carefully like a
sensitive explosive, but it blow up in the workers' own hands.
Thus. it must de declared only after the most thoughtful
consultation among them, conducted in the only was allowed
that is, peacefully, and in every case conformably to reasonable
regulation. Any violation of the legal requirements and strictures,
. . . will render the strike illegal. to the detriment of the very
workers it is supposed to protect.
"Every war must be lawfully waged. A labor dispute demands no
less observance of the rules. for the benefit of all concerned."
Applying the law to the case at bar, we rule that strike conducted
by the union on October 12, 1988 is plainly illegal as it was held
within the seven (7) day waiting period provided for by paragraph
(f), Article 263 of the Labor Code. as amended. The haste in
holding the strike prevented the Department of Labor and
Employment from verifying whether it carried the approval of the
majority of the union members. It set to naught an important
policy consideration of our law on strike. Considering this finding,
we need not exhaustively rule on the legality of the work
stoppage conducted by the union and some of their members on
September 9 and 23, 1988. Suffice to state, that the ruling of the
public respondent on the matter is supported by substantial
evidence.
Disposition Reinstating rank-and-file workers who were merely
misled in supporting illegal strikes but not be entitled to
backwages as they should not be compensated for services
skipped during the illegal strike. Dismissed.
6) Improved Offer Balloting and Strikes
A.265
ART. 265. Improved offer balloting. - In an effort
to settle a strike, the Department of Labor and
Employment shall conduct a referendum by secret
ballot on the improved offer of the employer on or
before the 30th day of the strike. When at least a
majority of the union members vote to accept the
improved offer the striking workers shall
LABOR LAW 2 A2010 - 285 - Disini
immediately return to work and the employer shall own directly or collectively the lands they till or, in
thereupon readmit them upon the signing of the the case of other farmworkers, to receive a just
agreement. share of the fruits thereof. To this end, the State
shall encourage and undertake the just
In case of a lockout, the Department of Labor and distribution of all agricultural lands, subject to
Employment shall also conduct a referendum by secret such priorities and reasonable retention limits as
balloting on the reduced offer of the union on or before the Congress may prescribe, taking into account
the 30th day of the lockout. When at least a majority of ecological, developmental, or equity
the board of directors or trustees or the partners considerations, and subject to the payment of just
holding the controlling interest in the case of a compensation. In determining retention limits, the
partnership vote to accept the reduced offer, the State shall respect the right of small landowners.
workers shall immediately return to work and the The State shall further provide incentives for
employer shall thereupon readmit them upon the voluntary land-sharing.
signing of the agreement. (Incorporated by Section 28,
Republic Act No. 6715, March 21, 1989). 2. Nature and Purpose of Picket Line

9.03. PICKETING STA ROSA COCA-COLA PLANT EMPLOYEES

1. Definition- Law Dictionary & Bases
ART. 263. Strikes, picketing and lockouts. - (a) It is the
policy of the State to encourage free trade unionism and
free collective bargaining.
(b) Workers shall have the right to engage in concerted
activities for purposes of collective bargaining or for
their mutual benefit and protection. The right of
legitimate labor organizations to strike and picket and of
employers to lockout, consistent with the national
interest, shall continue to be recognized and respected.
However, no labor union may strike and no employer
may declare a lockout on grounds involving inter-union
and intra-union disputes.
1987 Consti- Art Xiii LABOR
Section 3. The State shall afford full protection to labor,
local and overseas, organized and unorganized,
and promote full employment and equality of
employment opportunities for all.
It shall guarantee the rights of all workers to self-
organization, collective bargaining and negotiations, and
peaceful concerted activities, including the right to
strike in accordance with law. They shall be entitled to
security of tenure, humane conditions of work, and a
living wage. They shall also participate in policy and
decision-making processes affecting their rights and
benefits as may be provided by law.
The State shall promote the principle of shared
responsibility between workers and employers and the
preferential use of voluntary modes in settling disputes,
including conciliation, and shall enforce their mutual
compliance therewith to foster industrial peace.
The State shall regulate the relations between workers
and employers, recognizing the right of labor to its just
share in the fruits of production and the right of
enterprises to reasonable returns to investments, and to
expansion and growth.
UNION (union), ET AL V COCA-COLA
BOTTLERS PHILS INC (company)
312 SCRA 437
CALLEJO, SR; January 24, 2007
NATURE
This is a petition for review on certiorari of the Decision of the CA,
which affirmed the ruling of the NLRC and the Labor Arbiter
FACTS
- The union is the sole and exclusive bargaining representative
of the regular paid workers and the manthly paid non-
ccommission earning employees of the comopany. individual
petitioners are union officers,directors and shop stewards.
- The union and the company entered into a 3 year CBA. upon
the expiration, the union told the company that they wanted to
negotiate the terms. the union insisted that representatives from
Alyansa ng mga Unyon ng Coca Cola be allowed to observe the
CBA meetings. the company refused to allow alyansa to observe
and an impasse ensued. union officers, directors and stewards
filed a notice of strrice with NCMB based on deadlock on CBA
and unfair labor practice arising from the company's refusal to
bargain. the grounds were ammended to unfair labor practice for
the company's refusal to bargain in good faith and interference
with the exercise if their right to self-organization.
- pending the notice to strike, the union decided to participate in
a mass action by alyansa in front of the company's premises.
operations would come to complete stops for insufficiency of
contractual employees who would take over. after the mass
strike (separate and distinct from the mass action), the company
filed to declare strike illegal, to declare the officers of union and
individual respondents to have lost their employment status, to
declare the union, its officers and members guilty of unfair labor
practice to violation of the CBA, and to award them damages.
- the LA found the strike to be illegal such that the participants
lost their employment status. the CA affirmed the decision.
ISSUE/S
1. WON the mass action wit Alyansa is actually a strike
HELD
1. YES
Ratio The factual findings and conclusions of tribunals, as long
as based on substantial evidence, are conclusive on the SC.
2
Reasoning The term strike encompasses not only concerted
work stoppages, but also slowdowns, mass leaves, sit-downs,

AGRARIAN AND NATURAL RESOURCES REFORM 2 Article 212(o) of the Labor Code defines strike as a
Section 4. The State shall, by law, undertake an temporary stoppage of work by the concerted action of
agrarian reform program founded on the right of employees as a result of an industrial or labor dispute.
farmers and regular farmworkers who are landless, to
LABOR LAW 2 A2010 - 286 -
attempts to damage, destroy or sabotage plant equipment and facilities,
and similar activities. Picketing involves merely the marching to and fro
at the premises of the employer, usually accompanied by the display of
placards and other signs making known the facts involved in a labor
dispute. That there was a labor dispute between the parties is not an
issue. Petitioners notified the respondent of their intention to stage a
strike, and not merely to picket.
Disposition Petition is denied for lack of merit. CA decision is affirmed.
INSULAR LIFE EMPLOYEES V INSULAR LIFE
37 SCRA 244
CASTRO; January 30, 1971
NATURE
Appeal, by certiorari to review a decision and a resolution en banc of the
Court of Industrial Relations dated August 17, 1965 and October 20,
1965, respectively, in Case 1698-ULP.
FACTS
- Because of deadlock and stalemate on CBA, the Unions went on a
strike and picketed on the premises of the employer.
- Insular Life, through Olbes, its president, sent to each of the strikers a
letter quoted verbatim as follows:
We recognize it is your privilege both to strike and to conduct
picketing.
However, if any of you would like to come back to work voluntarily,
you may:
1. Advise the nearest police officer or security guard of your intention
to do so.
2. Take your meals within the office.
3. Make a choice whether to go home at the end of the day or to sleep
nights at the office where comfortable cots have been prepared.
4. Enjoy free coffee and occasional movies.
5. Be paid overtime for work performed in excess of eight hours.
6. Be sure arrangements will be made for your families.
The decision to make is yours whether you still believe in the motives of
the strike or in the fairness of the Management.
- Unions continued strike with the exception of a few employees.
- From the date the strike was called until it was called off, some
management men tried to break thru the Unions' picket lines. Garcia,
assistant corporate secretary, and Abella, chief of the personnel records
section, respectively of the Companies, tried to penetrate the picket lines
in front of the Insular Life Building. Garcia, upon approaching the picket
line, tossed aside the placard of a picketer, one Paulino Bugay; a fight
ensued between them, in which both suffered injuries. The Companies
organized three bus-loads of employees, including a photographer, who
with respondent Olbes, succeeded in penetrating the picket lines in front
of the Insular Life Building, thus causing injuries to the picketers and
also to the strike-breakers due to the resistance offered by some
picketers.
- Alleging that some non-strikers were injured and with the use of
photographs as evidence, the Companies then filed criminal charges
against the strikers with the City Fiscal's Office of Manila. During the
pendency of the said cases in the fiscal's office, the Companies likewise
filed a petition for injunction with damages with CFI Manila which, on the
basis of the pendency of the various criminal cases against striking
members of the Unions, issued an order restraining the strikers, until
further orders of the said court, from stopping, impeding, obstructing, etc.
the free and peaceful use of the Companies' gates, entrance and
driveway and the free movement of persons and vehicles to and from,
out and in, of the Companies' building.
- Insular Life, again through Olbes, sent individually to the strikers a
letter quoted hereunder in its entirety:
The first day of the strike was last 21 May 1958.
Our position remains unchanged and the strike has made us even more
convinced of our decision.
Disini
We do not know how long you intend to stay out, but we cannot
hold your positions open for long. We have continued to operate
and will continue to do so with or without you.
If you are still interested in continuing in the employ of the Group
Companies, and if there are no criminal charges pending against
you, we are giving you until 2 June 1958 to report for work at the
home office. If by this date you have not yet reported, we may be
forced to obtain your replacement.
Before, the decisions was yours to make.
So it is now.
- Incidentally, all of the more than 120 criminal charges filed
against the members of the Unions, except 3, were dismissed by
the fiscal's office and by the courts.
- At any rate, because of the issuance of the writ of preliminary
injunction against them as well as the ultimatum of the
Companies giving them until June 2, 1958 to return to their jobs
or else be replaced, the striking employees decided to call off
their strike and to report back to work on June 2, 1958.
- However, before readmitting the strikers, the Companies
required them not only to secure clearances from the City
Fiscal's Office of Manila but also to be screened by a
management committee. The screening committee initially
rejected 83 strikers with pending criminal charges. However, all
non-strikers with pending criminal charges which arose from the
breakthrough incident were readmitted immediately by the
Companies without being required to secure clearances from the
fiscal's office. Subsequently, when practically all the strikers had
secured clearances from the fiscal's office, the Companies
readmitted only some but adamantly refused readmission to 34
officials and members of the Unions who were most active in the
strike, on the ground that they committed "acts inimical to the
interest of the respondents," without however stating the specific
acts allegedly committed. Among those who were refused
readmission is Florencio Ibarra, president of the FGU Insurance
Group Workers & Employees Association-NATU. Some 24 of the
above number were ultimately notified months later that they
were being dismissed retroactively as of June 2, 1958 and given
separation pay checks computed under Rep. Act 1787, while
others (ten in number) up to now have not been readmitted
although there have been no formal dismissal notices given to
them.
ISSUE/S
1. WON an employee may be refused readmission because he
committed acts inimical to the interest of the respondents when,
as Union president, he advised the strikers that they could use
force and violence to have a successful picket and that picketing
was precisely intended to prevent the non-strikers and company
clients and customers from entering the Companies' buildings.
HELD
1. NO
Reasoning Even if this were true, the record discloses that the
picket line had been generally peaceful, and that incidents
happened only when management men made incursions into
and tried to break the picket line. At any rate, with or without the
advice of Ibarra, picketing is inherently explosive. For, as pointed
out by one author, "The picket line is an explosive front, charged
with the emotions and fierce loyalties of the union-management
dispute. It may be marked by colorful name-calling, intimidating
threats or sporadic fights between the pickets and those who
pass the line." (Mathews, Labor Relations and the Law, p. 752).
The picket line being the natural result of the respondents' unfair
labor practice, Ibarra's misconduct is at most a misdemeanor
which is not a bar to reinstatement.
Disposition ACCORDINGLY, the decision of the Court of
Industrial Relations dated August 17, 1965 is reversed and set
aside, and another is entered, ordering the respondents to
reinstate the dismissed members of the petitioning Unions to
their former or comparatively similar positions, with backwages
from June 2, 1958 up to the dates of their actual reinstatements.
LABOR LAW 2 A2010 - 287 -
Costs against the respondents.
SECURITY BANK EMPLOYEES UNION V SECURITY
BANK AND TRUST CO
MORTERA V CIR
PAFLU V CLORIBEL
27 SCRA 465
REYES, JBL; March 28, 1969
NATURE
Petition for certiorari with preliminary injunction to annul
FACTS
- MetroBank located at the ground floor of the Wellington Bldg in 624
Plaza Calderon, Binondo, Manila was picketed by the Philippine
Association of Free Labor Unions (PAFLU). Wellington complained,
however, that the picketers were annoyingly blocking the common
passageway of the building, the only ingress and egress to the second
to the sixth floors. The other occupants demanded protection of their
peaceful enjoyment of and free access to and from, the premises leased
by them. Wellington charged PAFLU of undue interference not only with
its enjoyment of its property and business of leasing and administering
the same but also with the businesses of the neutral tenants.
- Judge Cloribel of the CFI of Manila issued an injunction against PAFLU.
PAFLU filed the present petition in the SC, alleging that Judge Cloribel
acted without jurisdiction and with grave abuse of discretion in issuing
the order, in violation of the Industrial Peace Act. Nowhere in the
complaint was there an allegation of the unavoidable, substantial, and
irreparable injury to Wellington's property as would justify the issuance
of the TRO without notice. And neither was there a bond sufficient to
recompense those enjoined for any loss, expense, or damage caused
by the improvident or erroneous issuance of the order. The SC granted
the TRO.
- PAFLU filed a supplemental petition for certiorari in the SC protesting
the issuance in a different case (filed by co-lessee Emmanuel Galang)
but by the same judge, of another injunction couched in exactly the
same words.
ISSUE
WON the two cases involve, or grow out of, a labor dispute
HELD
NO.
Reasoning There exists no labor dispute between PAFLU and either
Wellington or Galang. The strike and the picket are directed against
METROBANK, an entirely different and separate entity without
connection whatsoever with WeIlington and Galang other than the
incidental fact that they are the bank's landlord and co-lessee,
respectively. Their relationship is so remote that we fail to discern any
indicium of said complainants' interests in the labor dispute between the
union and METROBANK as to make the two cases below fall within the
purview of RA 975 which provides that a labor dispute exists "regardless
of whether the disputants stand in the proximate relation of employer
and employee". The applicable law, therefore, is Rule 58 of the Rules of
Court on injunction.
- [NATURE & PURPOSE OF PICKET LINE] The right to picket as a
means of communicating the facts of a labor dispute is a phase of the
freedom of speech guaranteed by the constitution. If peacefully carried
out, it cannot be curtailed even in the absence of employer-employee
relationship. The right is, however, not absolute. While peaceful
picketing is entitled to protection as an exercise of free speech, courts
are not without power to confine or localize the sphere of communication
or the demonstration to the parties to the labor dispute, including those
with related interest, and to insulate establishments or persons with no
industrial connection or having interest totally foreign to the context of
the dispute. Thus the right may be regulated at the instance of third
parties or "innocent bystanders" if it appears that the inevitable result of
its exercise is to create an impression that a labor dispute with which
they have no connection or interest exists between them and the
picketing union or constitute an invasion of their rights.
Disini
- The SC however annulled both injunctions for failure of both
Wellington and Galang to file the necessary bonds before
issuance of the two preliminary injunctions as required in Rule 58
Sec 4.
Disposition Certiorari is GRANTED without prejudice to the right
of Wellington and Galang to secure other ones after filing the
necessary bonds.
MORTERA v CIR
(Sarah cAbrera)
PAFLU V CLORIBEL
27 SCRA 465
REYES, JBL; March 28, 1969
NATURE
Petition for certiorari with preliminary injunction to annul
FACTS
- MetroBank located at the ground floor of the Wellington Bldg in
624 Plaza Calderon, Binondo, Manila was picketed by the
Philippine Association of Free Labor Unions (PAFLU). Wellington
complained, however, that the picketers were annoyingly
blocking the common passageway of the building, the only
ingress and egress to the second to the sixth floors. The other
occupants demanded protection of their peaceful enjoyment of
and free access to and from, the premises leased by them.
Wellington charged PAFLU of undue interference not only with
its enjoyment of its property and business of leasing and
administering the same but also with the businesses of the
neutral tenants.
- Judge Cloribel of the CFI of Manila issued an injunction against
PAFLU. PAFLU filed the present petition in the SC, alleging that
Judge Cloribel acted without jurisdiction and with grave abuse of
discretion in issuing the order, in violation of the Industrial Peace
Act. Nowhere in the complaint was there an allegation of the
unavoidable, substantial, and irreparable injury to Wellington's
property as would justify the issuance of the TRO without notice.
And neither was there a bond sufficient to recompense those
enjoined for any loss, expense, or damage caused by the
improvident or erroneous issuance of the order. The SC granted
the TRO.
- PAFLU filed a supplemental petition for certiorari in the SC
protesting the issuance in a different case (filed by co-lessee
Emmanuel Galang) but by the same judge, of another injunction
couched in exactly the same words.
ISSUE
WON the two cases involve, or grow out of, a labor dispute
HELD
NO.
Reasoning There exists no labor dispute between PAFLU and
either Wellington or Galang. The strike and the picket are
directed against METROBANK, an entirely different and
separate entity without connection whatsoever with WeIlington
and Galang other than the incidental fact that they are the bank's
landlord and co-lessee, respectively. Their relationship is so
remote that we fail to discern any indicium of said complainants'
interests in the labor dispute between the union and
METROBANK as to make the two cases below fall within the
purview of RA 975 which provides that a labor dispute exists
"regardless of whether the disputants stand in the proximate
relation of employer and employee". The applicable law,
therefore, is Rule 58 of the Rules of Court on injunction.
- [NATURE & PURPOSE OF PICKET LINE] The right to picket
as a means of communicating the facts of a labor dispute is a
phase of the freedom of speech guaranteed by the constitution.
If peacefully carried out, it cannot be curtailed even in the
LABOR LAW 2 A2010 - 288 - Disini
absence of employer-employee relationship. The right is, however, not
absolute. While peaceful picketing is entitled to protection as an exercise DE LEON, LVN PICTURES, SAMPAGUITA
of free speech, courts are not without power to confine or localize the
sphere of communication or the demonstration to the parties to the labor PICTURES, LEBRAN PICTURES, PREMIER
dispute, including those with related interest, and to insulate PICTURES V. NATIONAL LABOR UNION,
establishments or persons with no industrial connection or having LERUM, HERNANDEZ, BARTOLOME, CABRERA,
interest totally foreign to the context of the dispute. Thus the right may RAMOS, ET AL.
be regulated at the instance of third parties or "innocent bystanders" if it
appears that the inevitable result of its exercise is to create an 100 PHIL 789
impression that a labor dispute with which they have no connection or PADILLA; Jan 30, 1957
interest exists between them and the picketing union or constitute an
invasion of their rights. NATURE
- The SC however annulled both injunctions for failure of both Wellington Appeal from judgment of CFI
and Galang to file the necessary bonds before issuance of the two
preliminary injunctions as required in Rule 58 Sec 4. FACTS
Disposition Certiorari is GRANTED without prejudice to the right of - Plaintiffs sought to recover damages and injunctive relief.
Wellington and Galang to secure other ones after filing the necessary - Defendants have been picketing Dalisay Theater, owned by De
bonds. Leon, operated by co-plaintiffs.
- Purpose is to secure reinstatement to jobs when theater was
run by Filipino Theatrical Enterprises, then a lessee of parcel of
De Leons land.
3. Picketing and Libel Laws - Placards:
- Do not patronize the Dalisay Theater
- Dalisay Theater is unfair to labor.
RPC. - Have mercy on the picketeers.
Art. 353. Definition of libel. A libel is public - Sympathize with us.
and malicious imputation of a crime, or of a - Due to picketing, box office totaled P1,250 when a premier of
vice or defect, real or imaginary, or any act, film such as Dimas could have earned P2,500 gross receipt.
omission, condition, status, or circumstance
ISSUE
tending to cause the dishonor, discredit, or WON strike is illegal
contempt of a natural or juridical person, or to
blacken the memory of one who is dead. HELD
NO
- Walking back and forth, displaying placards, do not disturb
public peace.
- There was no existence of a relationship of employers and
PHIL. COMMERCIAL & INDUSTRIAL BANK V employees between plaintiffs and defendants, although purpose
of picket is to reinstate defendants. PICKETING PEACEFULLY
PHILNABANK EMPLOYEES ASSOC. CARRIED OUT IS NOT ILLEGAL EVEN IN THE ABSENCE OF
105 SCRA 314 EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP FOR PEACEFUL
FERNANDO; July 2, 1981 PICKETING IS PART OF THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH.

FACTS
- Philippine Commercial and Industrial Bank filed an action for libel
against the Philippine National Bank Employees Association as a result
of placards and signboards along the PNB building, containing the CRUZ V CINEMA STAGE
following: "PCIB BAD ACCOUNTS TRANSFERRED TO PNB-NIDC?"
- Lower court dismissed the complaint (edel cruz)

ISSUE
WON the said placards were libelous

HELD
NO.
- There was a labor controversy resulting in a strike, fortunately lasting
only for one day. The labor union made use of its constitutional right to
picket. Peaceful picketing is part of the freedom of speech guarantee of
the Constitution.
- Labor disputes give rise to strong emotional response. It is a fact of
industrial life, both in the Philippines as in the United States, that in the
continuing confrontation between labor and management, it is far from
likely that the language employed would be both courteous and polite.
- In no uncertain terms, it made clear that the judiciary, in deciding suits
for libel, must ascertain whether or not the alleged offending words may
be embraced by the guarantees of free speech and free press.
Disposition Appealed decision is affirmed.
4. Employer- Employee Relationship
5. Curtailment
FREE TELEPHONE WORKERS UNION V PHILIPPINE LONG
DISTANCE TELEPHONE COMPANY and COURT OF
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS
113 SCRA 662
MAKASIAR; April 27, 1982
FACTS
On November 1, 1964, petitioner declared a strike against
respondent company to break an impasse over negotiations on a
20-point economic demand, among which was a demand for
wage increase covering a period of three years - 1964 to 1967.
On November 3, 1964, the President of the Philippines, upon
authority of Section 10 of Republic Act No. 875 [Industrial Peace
Act], certified the labor dispute as one clearly affecting an
industry indispensable to the national interest, to the Court of
Industrial Relations, hereinafter referred to as respondent CIR.
LABOR LAW 2 A2010 - 289 -
On November 9, 1964, the respondent CIR, after hearing, issued a
partial decision. From the above November 9, 1964 partial decision,
petitioner interposed an appeal with the Supreme Court mainly on the
sufficiency of the amount granted as increase. The Supreme Court
affirmed, on July 31, 1970, the November 9, 1964 decision of the
respondent CIR and held that the sixteen centavo [P0.16] increase per
hour per employee effective for a period of one [1] year from November
9, 1964, was supported by substantial evidence.
Meanwhile, or on April 21, 1965, Republic Act No. 4180 was enacted,
raising the minimum wage to P6.00 a day. Accordingly, respondent
company increased the wages of its workers who were receiving below
P6. 00 a day, in addition to the PO.16 per hour previously awarded by
the respondent CIR in its partial decision of November 9, 1964. On April
27, 1965, petitioner asked for wage re-adjustment negotiations with the
respondent company, claiming that when the respondent company
automatically raised the minimum wages of its employees receiving less
than P6.00 a day in compliance with R. A. 4180, a proportionate
increase with respect to those employees already receiving P6.00 a day
at the effectivity of R. A. 4180 should be subject of negotiations.
Respondent company countered that it could not negotiate with
petitioner on the matter because such wage re-adjustment would, in
effect, be a wage increase which was connected with the wage increase
demand of petitioner in the pending case certified on November 3, 1964
by the President of the Philippines.
Consequently, petitioner presented on May 6, 1965 to respondent
company a demand for an automatic P0.25 per hour wage increase for
all rank-and-file employees receiving above P0.75 per hour on account
of the implementation of the new statutory minimum wage of P6.00 a
day. On May 17,1965, when Case No. 51-IPA, was still pending
decision, petitioner again filed a notice of strike with the Department of
Labor for refusal of respondent company to negotiate on its demand for
wage adjustment under Republic Act No. 4180, which allegedly
constitutes unfair labor practice.
On June 2, 1965, respondent company, sensing that petitioner would
really go on strike, filed with respondent CIR a petition for the issuance
of writ of preliminary injunction as an incident of pending Case No. 51-
IPA. Respondent company prayed therein of the respondent CIR to
enjoin petitioner from striking as petitioner and respondent company had
previously agreed on March 3, 1965 to submit all further disputes to the
respondent CIR and that a strike under the situation would violate
respondent CIR's November 9, 1964 order.
On June 3, 1965, petitioner filed a motion to dismiss the aforesaid
petition of June 2, 1965 on the ground that respondent CIR has no
jurisdiction to consider it. On July 6, 1965, the respondent CIR acting in
Case No. 51-IPA [2] confirmed the action of the Hearing Examiner
therein and issued a temporary restraining order enjoining petitioner
from declaring a strike or any specie thereof during the pendency of the
issue of jurisdiction.
On July 7, 1965, petitioner filed with the respondent CIR a motion for
reconsideration of the aforesaid order, alleging substantially the same
grounds contained in its June 3, 1965 motion to dismiss. On the same
day, petitioner declared a strike. According to petitioner, the strike was
precipitated by the [1] summary dismissal of two of its members without
a prior investigation at which it should be represented; and [2]
respondent company's continued refusal to negotiate on its demand for
wage re-adjustment. On July 8, 1965, respondent company filed with the
respondent C I R an urgent motion to declare the July 7, 1965 strike of
petitioner illegal, the same being violative of the no-strike order of July 6,
1965 and the court's partial decision of November 9, 1964, and praying
that the strikers be ordered to return to work or else forfeit their jobs.
Respondent company further prayed therein that petitioner and its
officers and agents and/or sympathizers be directed to lift and remove
the pickets posted in the different premises of the company and that the
strike of the petitioner be declared illegal and the officers of the
petitioner be held in contempt of court and, therefore, to have lost their
status as employees effective July 7. 1965, the date of the strike. On
Disini
July 9, 1965, petitioner moved to dismiss the aforesaid
respondent company's urgent motion.
On July 16, 1965, after due hearing, the trial judge of respondent
CIR issued an order denying petitioner's June 3, 1965 motion to
dismiss respondent company's June 2, 1965 petition for the
issuance of writ of preliminary injunction.
On July 17, 1965, petitioner, without first returning to work as
above directed, filed with the respondent CIR its motion for
reconsideration of the aforesaid July 16, 1965 order. With the
above motion for reconsideration still unacted upon by the
respondent CIR, petitioner on July 19, 1965 filed with this Court
its urgent petition for certiorari and prohibitory and mandatory
injunction docketed as G. R. No. L-24755, questioning the power
and jurisdiction of respondent CIR. On July 20, 1965, this Court
dismissed the aforesaid petition for "being premature and for
lack of merit"
On July 31, 1965 respondent CIR denied petitioner's July 17,
1965 motion for reconsideration of the July 6 and 16, 1965
orders of the trial judge Paredes. Hence, this recourse of
petitioner, questioning the validity of the aforesaid July 6 and 16,
1965 orders of the CIR and the July 31, 1965 en banc resolution
of respondent CIR. The order of July 6, 1965 enjoined petitioner
union from declaring a strike or any specie thereof during the
pendency of the issue raised in its motion to dismiss. On the
other hand, the order of July 16, 1965:
[a] directed petitioner union, its officers, agents and/or
assigns and sympathizers:
(1) to call-off the strike declared on July 7, 1965; and
(2) to lift the picket lines established in and around the
premises of respondent company's various offices and
installations.
[b] enjoined the persons manning the picket lines in these
places from impeding and interfering with the
implementation of said order as well as from interfering in
any manner with the operations of respondent;
[c] directed the striking employees to return to work within
three [3] days from receipt of a copy of the order by
petitioner; and
[d] authorized respondent company to replace any and an
of such striking employees, who fail to return to work within
the said period of three [3] days, provided that employees
who shall have been replaced may be reinstated by the
Court after due hearing and after establishing good and
valid grounds for their failure to return to work as directed in
the order.
ISSUE
WON respondent CIR's order of July 16, 1965 violates the
constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech because it called
for the lifting of peaceful picket lines.
HELD
NO. Indeed, it is now well-settled that peaceful picketing cannot
be restrained because the same is part of the freedom of speech
(PCIB v. PNBEA 105 SCRA 314, 318 [1981]; Associated Labor
Union vs. Gomez, 96 SCRA 551 [1980]; Mortera v. CIR, 79 Phil.
345 [1947]; PAFLU vs. Barot, 99 Phil. 1008 [1956]; De Leon vs.
NLU 100 Phil. 789 [1957]). But petitioner fails to realize that the
questioned July 16, 1965 order of the Court of Industrial
Relations did not refer to peaceful picketing. For the order partly
reads, thus:
Pursuant to the Partial Decision in relation to Section 19 of C. A.
103, as amended, the petitioner union, its officers, agents and/or
assigns and sympathizers are hereby directed to call off the
strike declared on July 7, 1965, and to lift the picket lines
established in and around the premises of respondent
company's various offices and installations in Manila, Quezon
LABOR LAW 2 A2010 - 290 -
City, Pasay City, Caloocan City, Dagupan City, Baguio City, San Pablo
City, Iloilo City, Bacolod City, Cebu City, Zamboanga City, Makati, Rizal,
Mandaluyong, Rizal, San Juan, Rizal, San Fernando, Pampanga,
Mabalacat, Pampanga, Lucena, Quezon and Baler, Quezon. The
persons manning the picket lines in these places are hereby enjoined
from impeding and interfering with the implementation of this Order as
well as from interfering in any manner with the operations of respondent..
In Mortera, supra, where the therein questioned order partly declared
that "picketing under any guise and form is hereby prohibited," this Court
ruled that the "order of the Court of Industrial Relations prohibiting
picketing must be understood to refer only to illegal picketing, that is,
picketing through the use of illegal means. Peaceful picketing cannot be
prohibited. It is part of the freedom of speech guaranteed by the
Constitution. Therefore, the order of the Court of Industrial Relations
must be understood to refer only to illegal picketing, that is, picketing
through the use of illegal means" [p. 351]. In this case, the questioned
order should also be taken as limited to the lifting of the picket lines
which constituted illegal picketing especially so because it expressly
stated that the petitioner union and its officers, agents or sympathizers
"are hereby directed to call-off the strike declared on July 7, 1965, and to
lift the picket lines established in and around the premises of respondent
company's various offices and installations. The persons manning the
picket lines in these places are hereby enjoined from impeding and
interfering with implementation of this Order as well as from interfering in
any manner with the operations of respondent."
Dispositive Resolution affirmed
NAGKAHIUSANG (accdng to lex) MANGGAGAWA SA
CUISON HOTEL V LIBRON
124 SCRA 448
FERNANDO; August 31, 1983.
NATURE
-Certiorari proceeding
FACTS
-the Labor Arbiter came out with this decision: "[Wherefore, premises
considered], the strike staged on April 15, 1983 should be, as it is
hereby, declared illegal, and, therefore, the respondent union and its
members are permanently enjoined from staging such illegal strike;
ordering and declaring, pursuant to Article 265, par. (a) of the Labor
Code, as amended, all the union officers led by Carlito Eleazar,
Marciano Macaraya and Cesar Yap to have lost their employment status
for participating in an illegal strike and committing unlawful acts during
the strike; and ordering the respondent union to pay the petitioner the
amount of Pesos Three Hundred Thirty Nine Thousand (P339,000.00),
representing losses in income suffered during the illegal strike in the
concept of actual damage." The clarificatory order continues: "The
consequences resulting from the declaration of a strike as illegal, which
is final and immediately executory, carries with it sanctions on the
immediate incidents thereto such as picketing, obstruction of ingress
and egress, the banners and streamers being hung in the premises and
makeshifts built within the immediate vicinity of the establishment struck.
Once the strikers are permanently enjoined from staging the illegal strike,
the picketing staged should also be simultaneously lifted, the obstruction
of ingress and egress removed and the makeshifts taken out. In other
words, the injunction of the illegal strike and the incidents thereto is self-
executing and it behooves upon the party concerned to seek, if
necessary, the assistance of the law enforcers to enforce the same." Its
last paragraph reads: "The other matters in the aforequoted dispositive
portion of our decision, that of termination of the employment status of
union officers and the award of damages, are also final and executory,
unless appealed to the Commission within the reglementary period."
-the labor union filed petition before the Supreme Court
ISSUE
Disini
WON wholesale condemnation of peaceful picketing is bereft of
support in law
HELD
-YES. Wholesale condemnation of peaceful picketing is
likewise clearly bereft of support in law. As pointed out in a
very recent decision decided this year, Phil. Assn. of Free Labor
Unions (PAFLU) v. CFI of Rizal: "It need not be stressed that
peaceful picketing is embraced in freedom of expression. As
emphatically declared in Philippine Commercial & Industrial Bank
v. Philnabank Employees' Association: 'From the time of Mortera
v. Court of Industrial Relations, a 1947 decision this Court has
been committed to the view that peaceful picketing is part of the
freedom of speech guarantee of the Constitution.' Reference
was made in such opinion to Associated Labor Union v. Gomez.
In that case, the Court characterized the orders complained of as
being 'fatally defective, suffering as it did from the infirmity that
peaceful picketing was enjoined.' It is in that sense that
Presidential Decree No. 849 was a step in the right direction for
the status of picketing was again accorded due recognition."
In the answer, reference was made to the alleged commission of
acts of violence against non-striking employees and even
against the eighty-year old "sickly and paralytic President" of
respondent. It is to be understood, of course, that the peaceful
picketing authorized cannot certainly countenance acts of
illegality. The interim Batasang Pambansa has spoken on the
subject thus: "(e) No person engaged in picketing shall commit
any act of violence, coercion or intimidation or obstruct the free
ingress to or egress from the employer's premises for lawful
purposes, or obstruct public thoroughfares."
Disposition In view of the settlement of the labor dispute
between the parties, and the workers are back to work-
Dismissed for being moot and academic
6. Restrictions, Innocent Third Party Rule
and Liabilities
LIWAYWAY PUBLISHING v. PERMANENT
CONCRETE WORKERS UNION
108 SCRA 161
GUERRERO; October 23, 1981
NATURE
-This is an appeal from the decision of the Court of First Instance
FACTS
-While a labor dispute between defendant-appellant union and
Permanent Concrete Products, Inc. was pending before the
Court of Industrial Relations, the Court of First Instance of Manila
issued in an action for damages filed by the plaintiff-appellee
Liwayway Publications, Inc. a writ of preliminary injunction
against appellant union which picketed and prevented entrance
to the gate leading to the bodega of appellee and threatened its
officers and employees despite the fact that the appellee is not in
anyway related to the striking union but a mere sublessee of said
bodega in the compound of Permanent Concrete Products, Inc.
against whom the strike was staged. Appellant union filed a
motion to dismiss and motion to dissolve the writ on the ground
that only the Court of Industrial Relations and not the Court of
First Instance has exclusive jurisdiction over the labor dispute;
that the appellee has no cause of action against the striking
union but against the lessor; and that plaintiff-appellee is not the
real party in interest but Permanent Concrete Products, Inc. The
lower court denied the motion for lack of labor dispute between
the plaintiff and defendant of which the Court of Industrial
Relations may take cognizance and rendered a decision
declaring the writ permanent and ordering the payment of
damages, attorney's fees and costs.
LABOR LAW 2 A2010 - 291 -
ISSUE
WON this case involves or has arisen out of a labor dispute. If it does,
then with certainty, Section 9 of Republic Act 875, the "Industrial Peace
Act," would apply. If it does not, then the Rules of Court will govern the
issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction because it will not partake
the nature of a labor injunction which the lower court has no jurisdiction
to issue.
HELD
NO. The business of the appellee is exclusively the publication of the
magazines Bannawag, Bisaya, Hiligaynon and Liwayway weekly
magazines which has absolutely no relation or connection whatsoever
with the cause of the strike of the union against their company, much
less with the terms, conditions or demands of the strikers. The appellee
is a third party or an "innocent by-stander" whose right has been
invaded and, therefore, entitled to protection by the regular courts.
-The right to picket as a means of communicating the facts of a labor
dispute is a phase of the freedom of speech guaranteed by the
constitution. If peacefully carried out, it cannot be curtailed even in the
absence of employer-employee relationship.The right is, however, not
an absolute one. While peaceful picketing is entitled to protection as an
exercise of free speech, we believe that courts are not without power to
confine or localize the sphere of communication or the demonstration to
the parties to the labor dispute, including those with related interest, and
to insulate establishments or persons with no industrial connection or
having interest totally foreign to the context of the dispute. Thus, the
right may be regulated at the instance of third parties or `innocent
bystanders' if it appears that the inevitable result of its exercise is to
create an impression that a labor dispute with which they have no
connection or interest exists between them and the picketing union or
constitute an invasion of their rights. In one case decided by this Court,
we upheld a trial court's injunction prohibiting the union from blocking theHELD
entrance to a feed mill located within the compound of a flour mill with
which the union had a dispute. Although sustained on a different ground,
no connection was found other than their being situated in the same
premises. It is to be noted that in the instances cited, peaceful picketing innocent bystander rule as follows: The right to picket as a
has not been totally banned but merely regulated. And in one American
case, a picket by a labor union in front of a motion picture theater with
which the union had a labor dispute was enjoined by the court from
being extended in front of the main entrance of the building housing the
theater wherein other stores operated by third persons were located.
-On appeal, the Supreme Court in upholding the jurisdiction of the lower
court to issue the writ of preliminary injunction, ruled that: (a) there is no
connection between the appellee, the appellant union and the
Permanent Concrete Products, Inc. and the fact, that the latter and
appellee are situated in the same premises, can hardly be
considered as interwoven with the labor dispute pending with the
Court of Industrial Relations; and (b) the acts of the striking union
are mere acts of trespass for which the lessee shall have a direct
action against the trespasser.
Disposition Decision appealed from, affirmed in toto.
MSF TIRE AND RUBBER, INC. V CA (PHILTREAD
TIRE WORKERS UNION)
311 SCRA 784
MENDOZA; August 5, 1999
NATURE
Petiton for review on certiorari of a decision of the CA
FACTS
-A labor dispute arose between Philtread Tire and Rubber Corporation
(Philtread) and private respondent, Philtread Tire Workers Union (Union)
-Union filed a notice of strike in the National Conciliation and Mediation
Board charging Philtread with unfair labor practices for allegedly
engaging in union-busting for violation of the provisions of the collective
bargaining agreement.
-Thereafter, they picketed and assembled outside the gate of Philtreads
plant.
-Philtread, on the other hand, filed a notice of lockout.
Disini
-The Secretary of Labor assumed jurisdiction over the labor
dispute and certified it for compulsory arbitration.
-During the pendency of the labor dispute, Philtread entered into
a Memorandum of Agreement with Siam Tyre Public Company
Limited (Siam Tyre) whereby its plant and equipment would be
sold to a new company, herein petitioner, 80% of which would be
owned by Siam Tyre and 20% by Philtread, while the land on
which the plant was located would be sold to another company,
60% of which would be owned by Philtread and 40% by Siam
Tyre.
-Petitioner then asked respondent Union to desist from picketing
outside its plant.
-As the respondent Union refused petitioners request, petitioner
filed a complaint for injunction with damages before the Regional
Trial Court of Makati.
-Respondent Union moved to dismiss the complaint alleging lack
of jurisdiction on the part of the trial court.
-The trial court denied petitioners application for injunction and
dismissed the complaint.
-However, on petitioners motion, the trial court reconsidered its
order and granted an injunction.
-The respondent Union filed a petition for certiorari and
prohibition before the CA.
-CA ruled in favor of respondent Union, hence, petitioner filed
this petition asserting that its status as an innocent bystander
entitled it to a writ of injunction.
ISSUE
WON petitioner has shown a clear legal right to the issuance of a
writ of injunction under the innocent bystander rule
No.
-In Philippine Association of Free Labor Unions (PAFLU) v.
Cloribel, this Court, through Justice J.B.L. Reyes, stated the
means of communicating the facts of a labor dispute is a phase
of the freedom of speech guaranteed by the constitution. If
peacefully carried out, it can not be curtailed even in the absence
of employer-employee relationship.
-The right is, however, not an absolute one. While peaceful
picketing is entitled to protection as an exercise of free
speech, we believe the courts are not without power to
confine or localize the sphere of communication or the
demonstration to the parties to the labor dispute, including
those with related interest, and to insulate establishments
or persons with no industrial connection or having interest
totally foreign to the context of the dispute.
-Thus the right may be regulated at the instance of third
parties or innocent bystanders if it appears that the
inevitable result of its exercise is to create an impression
that a labor dispute with which they have no connection or
interest exists between them and the picketing union or
constitute an invasion of their rights.
-Thus, an innocent bystander, who seeks to enjoin a labor
strike, must satisfy the court that aside from the grounds
specified in Rule 58 of the Rules of Court, it is entirely different
from, without any connection whatsoever to, either party to the
dispute and, therefore, its interests are totally foreign to the
context thereof.
-In the case at bar, petitioner cannot be said not to have such
connection to the dispute.
-As correctly observed by the appellate court: we find that the
negotiation, contract of sale, and the post transaction between
Philtread, as vendor, and Siam Tyre, as vendee, reveals a legal
relation between them which, in the interest of petitioner, we
cannot ignore. To be sure, the transaction between Philtread
and Siam Tyre, was not a simple sale whereby Philtread ceased
to have any proprietary rights over its sold assets. On the
contrary, Philtread remains as 20% owner of private respondent
and 60% owner of Sucat Land Corporation which was likewise
incorporated in accordance with the terms of the Memorandum
of Agreement with Siam Tyre, and which now owns the land
LABOR LAW 2 A2010 - 292 - Disini
were subject plant is located. This, together with the fact that private
respondent uses the same plant or factory; similar or substantially the
same working conditions; same machinery, tools, and equipment; and
manufacture the same products as Philtread, lead us to safely conclude
that private respondents personality is so closely linked to Philtread as
to bar its entitlement to an injunctive writ.

Disposition
Petition is denied.

7. Prohibited Activities Peaceful Picketing

ART. 264. Prohibited activities. xxx-

(b) No person shall obstruct, impede, or interfere with,
by force, violence, coercion, threats or intimidation, any
peaceful picketing by employees during any labor
controversy or in the exercise of the right to self-
organization or collective bargaining, or shall aid or abet
such obstruction or interference.

9.04 ROLE OF PEACE OFFICERS

DURING STRIKES AND PICKETING
1. Escorting

ART. 264. Prohibited activities. xxx-

(d) No public official or employee, including
officers and personnel of the New Armed
Forces of the Philippines or the Integrated
National Police, or armed person, shall bring
in, introduce or escort in any manner, any
individual who seeks to replace strikers in
entering or leaving the premises of a strike
area, or work in place of the strikers. The
police force shall keep out of the picket lines
unless actual violence or other criminal acts
occur therein: Provided, That nothing herein
shall be interpreted to prevent any public
officer from taking any measure necessary to
maintain peace and order, protect life and
property, and/or enforce the law and legal
order.

2. Arrest and Detention of Law Violators

ART. 266. Requirement for arrest and

detention. - Except on grounds of national
security and public peace or in case of
commission of a crime, no union members or
union organizers may be arrested or detained
for union activities without previous
consultations with the Secretary of Labor.