[216] Club Filipino, Inc. v. Bautista, et al. the union filed a notice of strike.
the union filed a notice of strike. The law does not exact compliance with the
592 SCRA 471 | July 13, 2009 | Corona
Petitioners: CLUB FILIPINO, INC. and ATTY. ROBERTO F. DE LEON
Respondents: BENJAMIN BAUTISTA, RONIE SUALOG, JOEL CALIDA, JOHNNY
ARINTO and ROBERTO DE GUZMAN
Topic: Effort to Bargain
SUMMARY
As the CBA was about to expire on March 21, 2000, the Union made several
demands for negotiation and submitted its formal CBA negotiations but no negotiation
took place. The Union filed a notice of strike on April 6, 2001 after several requests to
start negotiations proved futile. It was only on April 22, 2001, or after two weeks,
when the company formally responded to the union by submitting the first part of its
counterproposal. The second proposal was only submitted on May 11, 2001 the
second part of its counterproposal. This was almost a year after the expiration of the
CBA sought to be renewed. The union conducted a strike due to bargaining deadlock
and the company sought to have the strike declared illegal because the notice of
strike was filed by the union without attaching the counterproposal of the
company.made the ensuing strike of respondents illegal because the notice of strike
of the union was defective. The LA and NLRC declared the strike illegal but the SC
ruled that the strike is not legal because the requirement to attach the
counterproposal is only in so far as practicable, but in this case it was not practicable
since the company was so late in responding with its counterproposal.
PROVISIONS APPLICABLE
Rule XXII, Section 4 of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code states:
“In cases of bargaining deadlocks, the notice shall, as far as practicable, further state
the unresolved issues in the bargaining negotiations and be accompanied by the
written proposals of the union, the counterproposals of the employer and the proof of
a request for conference to settle differences. In cases of unfair labor practices, the
notice shall, as far as practicable, state the acts complained of, and efforts taken to
resolve the dispute amicably. Any notice which does not conform with the
requirements of this and the foregoing section shall be deemed as not having been
filed and the party concerned shall be so informed by the regional branch of the
Board.”
DOCTRINE
The Implementing Rules use the words “as far as practicable.”
 In this case, attaching the counterproposal of the company to the notice of
strike of the union was not practicable. It was absurd to expect the union to
produce the company’s counterproposal which it did not have.
 One cannot give what one does not have. Indeed, compliance with the
requirement was impossible because no counterproposal existed at the time
impossible. Nemo tenetur ad impossibile (no one is bound to perform
impossibility).
FACTS
Parties
 Club Filipino - non stock non profit corporation
 Atty. de Leon - President of Club Filipino
 Club Filipino Employees Association - Union
 4 Respondents - Former officers and members of Club Filipino Employees
Association
Facts proper
 The union and the company had a collective bargaining agreement (CBA)
which expired on May 31, 2000 .Prior to expiration of CBA between Union
and Company, Union made several demands for negotiation but the
company replied that it could not muster a quorum, thus no CBA
negotiations could be held.
 Sometime in 2000, the union submitted its formal CBA proposal to the
company’s negotiating panel and repeatedly asked for the start of
negotiations. No negotiations, however, took place for various reasons
proffered by the company, among them the illness of the chairman of
the management panel.
 In order to compel the company to negotiate, respondents (as officers of
the union), filed a request for preventive mediation with NCMB.
o Their strategy failed to bring the management to the negotiating
table.
o The union and management only met on April 5, 2001, but the
meeting concluded with a declaration by both parties of a deadlock
in their negotiations.
 On April 6, 2001, the union filed a notice of strike with the NCMB on the
grounds of bargaining deadlock and failure to bargain.
 On April 22, 2001, the company formally responded to the demands of
the union when it submitted the first part of its economic counterproposal;
the second part was submitted on May 11, 2001.
 On May 4, 2001, the union conducted a strike vote under the supervision
of DOLE.
 In response to the company’s counterproposal, the union sent the
company its improved proposal, but the company refused to improve
on its offer.
 o This prompted the union to stage a strike on the ground of a
CBA bargaining deadlock.
 On May 31, 2001, Company filed before NLRC a petition to declare the
strike illegal.
o Prayed that all union officers who participated in the illegal strike be
considered separated from the service.
 Labor Arbiter: Illegal strike
o Because it was procedurally infirm - union failed to attach its
written CBA proposal and the company’s counterproposal to the
notice of strike and to provide proof of a request for a conference to
settle the dispute.
o Thus, the notice to strike was deemed not to have been filed and
the strike illegal.
o Effect: All the officers of the union were deemed terminated from
service.
 But entitled to separation pay equivalent to that granted to
employees affected by the retrenchment program which
the company had earlier launched.
 NRLC: Affirmed LA - illegal strike.
o It did not see fit to pass upon the issues raised by respondents
because, by the time they appealed, they had either resigned from
the company or were no longer part of the union because of the
election of new set of officers.
 CA: Set aside LA and NLRC.
o LA and NLRC took a selective view of the attendant facts of the
case and in “negating thereby the effects of the notice of strike the
union filed.”
 NLRC’s reasoning was flawed because “a worker ordered
dismissed under a tribunal’s decision has every right to
question his or her dismissal.”
 LA’s ruling was wrong because it was based on flimsy
technicality that conveniently booted out the union officers
from the company.
o CA set aside the rulings of the NLRC and the labor arbiter as far as
respondents Sualog, Calida, De Guzman and Arinto were
concerned and ordered petitioners to pay them full backwages and
benefits from the time of their dismissal up to the finality of its
decision, plus separation pay computed at one month salary per
year of service from the time they were hired up to the finality of its
decision.
o On the other hand, the CA dismissed the petition as far as
Laureano Fegalquin, Bautista and Precentacion were concerned.
 Petitioners then sought redress from this Court by filing a petition for review
on certiorari.
ISSUES, HELD, RATIO
1) Whether or not the strike was illegal - Strike was legal. The requirement to attach
counterproposal is only as far as practicable and in this case, it was not practicable
Petitioner Club Filipino and LA’s argument: The notice of strike was filed by the
union without attaching the counterproposal of the company.made the ensuing strike
of respondents illegal because the notice of strike of the union was defective.
Supreme Court:
● It is undisputed that the notice of strike was filed by the union without
attaching the counterproposal of the company.
● The contention is untenable under Rule XXII, Section 4 of the Omnibus
Rules Implementing the Labor Code (See provisions applicable).
● AS APPLIED IN THIS CASE:
○ The union cannot be faulted for its omission. The union could not have
attached the counterproposal of the company in the notice of strike it
submitted to the NCMB as there was no such counterproposal.
■ The union filed a notice of strike on April 6, 2001 after several
requests to start negotiations proved futile. It was only on
April 22, 2001, or after two weeks, when the company
formally responded to the union by submitting the first part
of its counterproposal.
■ Worse, it took the company another three weeks to
complete it by submitting on May 11, 2001 the second part of
its counterproposal. This was almost a year after the expiration
of the CBA sought to be renewed.
○ The Implementing Rules use the words “as far as practicable.”
■ In this case, attaching the counterproposal of the company to
the notice of strike of the union was not practicable.
■ It was absurd to expect the union to produce the
company’s counterproposal which it did not have. One
cannot give what one does not have.
● Indeed, compliance with the requirement was
impossible because no counterproposal existed at the
time the union filed a notice of strike. The law does not
exact compliance with the impossible. Nemo tenetur ad
impossibile.
2) Whether LA’s declaration that respondents, as union officers, automatically
severed their employment with the company due to the alleged illegal strike is proper
- NO
 ● In the first place, there was no illegal strike.
● It is hornbook doctrine that a mere finding of the illegality of the strike
should not be automatically followed by the wholesale dismissal of the
strikers from employment. The law is clear:
○ “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.”
● The verb “participates” is preceded by the adverb “knowingly.”
○ This reflects the intent of the legislature to require “knowledge”
as a condition sine qua non before a union officer can be
dismissed from employment for participating in an illegal strike.
○ The provision is worded in such a way as to make it very difficult for
employers to circumvent the law by arbitrarily dismissing
employees in the guise of exercising management prerogative.
○ This is but one aspect of the State’s constitutional and statutory
mandate to protect the rights of employees to self organization
● Even assuming arguendo that the strike was illegal, their automatic
dismissal had no basis.
○ Nowhere in the ruling of the labor arbiter can we find any
discussion of how respondents, as union officers, knowingly
participated in the alleged illegal strike.

RULING
Petition DENIED. Strike legal.