TITLE DOCTRINE
UNIVERSITY OF SAN Art. 263 of LC, “such
AGUSTIN assumption or
EMPLOYEES UNION certification of the SOLE
VS. CA 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 phrase
"immediately return to
work" indicates an
almost instantaneous or
automatic compliance
for a striker to return to
work once an AJO has
been duly served.
PHILIPPINE DIAMOND Even if the purpose of a
HOTEL AND RESORT, strike is valid, the strike
INC. (MANILA may still be held illegal
DIAMOND HOTEL) V. where the means
MANILA DIAMOND employed are illegal.
HOTEL EMPLOYEES Thus, the employment
UNION of violence, intimidation,
restraint or coercion in
carrying out concerted
activities which are
injurious to the rights to
property renders a strike
illegal. And so is
picketing or the
obstruction to the free
use of property or the
comfortable enjoyment
of life or property, when
accompanied by
intimidation, threats,
violence, and coercion
as to constitute
nuisance
ISSUE RULING
Whether the strike YES.
conducted by the
petitioner Union was Refer to Article 263.
illegal.
The phrase
"immediately return to
work" indicates an
almost instantaneous or
automatic compliance
for a striker to return to
work once an AJO has
been duly served.
Therefore, the act of the
striking employees is
violative of the foregoing
provision.
WON the strike is YES.
illegal.
The Court notes that
respondent violated
Article 264 which
proscribes the staging
of a strike on the ground
of ULP during the
pendency of cases
involving the same
grounds for the strike.
Further, the
photographs taken
during the strike, as well
as the Ocular Inspection
Report of the NLRC
representative, show
that the strikers, with the
use of ropes and footed
placards, blockaded the
driveway to the
Hotels points of
 entrance and exit,
making it burdensome
for guests and
prospective guests to
enter the Hotel, thus
violating Article 264 (e)
of the Labor Code.

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. And so is
picketing or the
obstruction to the free
use of property or the
comfortable enjoyment
of life or property, when
accompanied by
intimidation, threats,
violence, and coercion
as to constitute
nuisance.
Sukhothai Cuisine and Once jurisdiction over WON the strike staged YES.
Restaurant vs. Court the labor dispute has by the private
of Appeals been properly acquired respondents illegal. The alleged dismissals
by competent authority, of Lucente and
that jurisdiction should respondent Lanorias,
not be interfered with by both union members,
the application of the which allegedly
coercive processes of a triggered the wildcat
strike. strike, are not sufficient
grounds to justify the
Strikes staged in radical recourse on the
violation of agreements part of the private
providing for arbitration respondents. The
are illegal, since these questions that surround
agreements must be their dismissal, as
strictly adhered to and private respondents so
respected if their ends affirm, are connected to
are to be achieved. In the alleged breach of
case of alleged union the "guarantee" by the
busting, the three petitioner not to dismiss
remaining requirements its employees during the
—notice, strike vote, pendency of the
and seven-day report arbitration case, the
period — cannot be very
dispensed with. questions which they
 also link to the other
incidents of unfair labor
practices allegedly
committed by the
petitioner — these
matters should have
been raised and
resolved in the voluntary
arbitration proceedings
that were
commenced precisely to
address them.

For failing to exhaust all

steps in the arbitration
proceedings by virtue of
the Submission
Agreement, in view of
the proscription under
Article 264 of the Labor
Code and the prevailing
state policy as well as
its underlying rationale,
this Court declares that
the strike staged by the
private respondents is
illegal.
BILFLEX PHIL. INC. Any union officer who Whether or not the YES.
LABOR UNION et al. knowingly participates in staged strike is illegal
Vs FILFLEX an illegal strike and any and a ground for the lost A union officer may be
INDUSTRIAL AND worker or union who of employment status of declared to have lost his
MANUFACTURING knowinglycparticipates the union officers. employment status if he
CORPORATION AND in the commission of knowingly participates in
BILFLEX (PHILS.), INC. illegal acts during a an illegal strike and in
strike may be declared this case, the strike is
to have lost his declared illegal by the
employment status. court because the
means employed by the
union are illegal.

Here, the unions

blocked the egress and
ingress of the company
premises thus, a
violation of Article 264
(e) of the Labor Code
which would affect the
strike as illegal even if
assuming arguendo that
the unions had complied
with legal formalities
and thus, the
termination of the
employees was valid.
SANTA ROSA COCA- Strike as a temporary WON the strike was YES.
COLA PLANT stoppage of work by the illegal.
EMPLOYEES concerted action of For a strike to be valid,
UNION vs COCA- employees as a result of the following procedural
COLA BOTTLERS an industrial or labor requisites provided by
PHILS., INC., dispute and it Art. 263 of the Labor
encompasses not only Code must be
concerted work observed: (a) a notice of
stoppages, but also strike filed with the
slowdowns, mass DOLE 30 days before
leaves, sit-downs, the intended date
attempts to damage, thereof, or 15 days in
destroy or sabotage case of unfair labor
plant equipment and practice; (b) strike vote
facilities, and similar approved by a majority
activities. While, of the total union
Picketing involves membership in the
merely the marching to bargaining unit
and fro at the premises concerned obtained by
of the employer, usually secret ballot in a
accompanied by meeting called for that
the display of placards purpose, (c) notice
and other signs making given to the DOLE of
known the facts the results of the voting
involved in a labor at least seven days
dispute. before the intended
strike. These
requirements are
mandatory and the
failure of a union to
comply therewith
renders the strike illegal.
It is clear in this case
that petitioners totally
ignored
the statutory
requirements and
embarked on their
illegal strike.
Manila Hotel The Court has Whether or not the NO.
Employees consistently ruled in a pending resolution of
Association (MHEA) long line of cases the MR filed against the MHEA members seek
vs. Manila Hotel Corp. spanning several certification by the their reinstatement after
decades that once the SOLE of the case to the participating in an illegal
SOLE assumes NLRC deprives the strike, that is, a strike
jurisdiction over a labor NLRC of jurisdiction that
dispute, such from filing a return-to- was conducted after
jurisdiction should not work order receiving an Order of
be interfered with by the assumption by the
application of the SOLE certifying the
coercive processes of a dispute to the NLRC for
strike or lockout. compulsory arbitration.
Defiance of the Worse still, the strikers
assumption order or a failed to comply with the
return-to work order by return-to-work Order,
a striking employee, issued by the NLRC,
whether a union officer despite receipt thereof.
or a member, is an The law explicitly
 illegal act and,
therefore, a valid ground
for loss of employment
status.
G&S TRANSPORT Mere participation in an
CORPORATION v. illegal strike is not a
INFANTE sufficient ground for
termination of the services
of the union members.
There must be proof that
he committed illegal acts
during the strike and the
striker who participated in
the commission of illegal
act must be identified.
Proof beyond reasonable
doubt is not required.
Substantial evidence
available under the
attendant circumstances,
which may justify the
imposition of the penalty of
dismissal, may suffice.
prohibits such acts.
A return-to-work order is
immediately executory
notwithstanding the
filing of a motion for
reconsideration. It must
be strictly complied with
even during the
pendency of any petition
questioning its validity.
Returning to work in this
situation is not a matter
of option or
voluntariness but of
obligation.
WON participation of NO.
respondents in an illegal
strike is a sufficient In the case at bar, this
ground for termination Court is not convinced
of services of union that the affidavits of
members. petitioners witnesses
constitute substantial
evidence to establish
that illegal acts were
committed by
respondents. Nowhere
in their affidavits did
these witnesses cite the
particular illegal acts
committed by each
individual respondent
during the strike.
Notably, no questions
during the hearing were
asked relative to the
supposed illegal acts.
It can now therefore be
concluded that the acts
of respondents do not
merit their dismissal
from employment
because it has not been
substantially proven that
they committed any
illegal act while
participating in the
illegal strike.