[176].

Sukhothai Cuisine and Restaurant v CA

GR 150437 | Jul 17, 2006 | Austria-Martinez, J.
KPN | Other forms of strike
Case Summary: Majority of Sukhotai’s employees organized and affiliated with PLAC, and was designated as Sukhotai
Restaurant Chapter (union). Union filed a notice of strike with the NCMB on the ground of ULP, specifically acts of
harassment, faultfinding, and union busting through coercion and interference with union affairs. In a conciliation conference,
Sukhotai promised not to terminate any employees. A strike vote was then conducted by the NCMB. Later there was a
submission agreement, submitting the ULP case for voluntary arbitration. However, pending this, Sukhotai dismissed some
union member employees. This led to the union staging a “wildcat strike.” 6 months after the first strike vote, a second notice
of strike was re-field by the union, converting it to a “sit-down strike” and later an “actual strike.” Sukhotai filed a complaint for
illegal strike and for the termination of the members who committed illegal acts during the strike. LA ruled the strike illegal, as
the strike vote for the first dispute did not apply to the latter strike. NLRC and CA reversed the LA, holding that Sukhotai was
guilty of union busting, thus justifying the immediate second strike. The SC held that the strike was illegal, and affirmed LA’s
ruling of the validity of the dismissal of the members and officers who committed illegal acts during the strike.
Doctrine: Well-settled is the rule that 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,
particularly par. (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 employer's premises for lawful purposes, or c) obstruct public thoroughfares.
Petitioner: Sukhothai Cusine and Restaurant
Respondent: CA, NLRC, Philippine Labor Alliance Council Local 460 Sukhothai Restaurant Chapter

Facts:
● In Mar. 1998, the majority of the employees of the petitioner organized themselves into a union PLAC Local
460 Sukhothai Restaurant Chapter, which affiliated with the Phil. Labor Alliance Council.
● On Dec. 3, 1998, private respondent Union filed a Notice of Strike with the NCMB on the ground of unfair
labor practice, and particularly, acts of harassment, fault-finding, and union busting through coercion and
interference with union affairs. In a conciliation conference, the 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. A Strike Vote was conducted and supervised by NCMB
personnel, and the results of the vote were submitted to the NCMB on Dec. 21, 1998.
● On Jan 21, 1999, the petitioner and the Union entered into a Submission Agreement, agreeing to submit the
issue of unfair labor practice – the subject matter of the foregoing Notice of Strike and the Strike Vote – for
voluntary arbitration with a view to prevent the strike.
● On March 24, 1999, during the pendency of the voluntary arbitration proceedings, the petitioner 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.
● On June 24, 1999, private respondent Jose Lanorias, a union member, was relieved from his post, and his
employment as cook, terminated. Subsequently, respondent Billy Bacus, the union VP, protested Lanorias's
dismissal with petitioner’s president. Shortly thereafter, respondents staged a "wildcat strike."
● On June 25, 1999, a Notice of Strike was re-filed by the private respondents and the protest was converted
into a "sit-down strike." On the next day, the same was transformed into an "actual strike."
● On June 29, 1999, the petitioner filed a complaint for illegal strike with the NLRC against private
respondents, seeking to declare the strike illegal, and to declare respondents, who participated in the
commission of illegal acts, to have lost their employment status. Having arrived at no amicable settlement,
the Labor Arbiter rendered a Decision declaring that the respondents have staged an illegal strike, and the
employment of union officers and all individual respondents are deemed validly terminated. Finally, all
individual respondents were ordered to immediately remove their picket lines and all physical obstructions
that impede ingress and egress to petitioner's premises.

WON strike staged by union is illegal – YES

 - At the time the strike was staged in June 1999, voluntary arbitration between the parties was ongoing by
virtue of the Submission Agreement. The issue to be resolved under those proceedings pertained to the very
same issues stated in the Notice of Strike of Dec. 3, 1998: the commission of unfair labor practices, such as
acts of harassment, fault-finding, and union busting through coercion and interference with union affairs.
- ART. 264 of the Labor Code provides: 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.
- This Court has held that 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. The rationale
of the prohibition under ART. 264 is that 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. Indeed 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. For failing to exhaust all steps in the arbitration
proceedings by virtue of the Submission Agreement, in view of the proscription under ART. 264 and the
prevailing state policy as well as its underlying rationale, thE Court declares that the strike staged by the
private respondents is illegal.
- What is more, the strike had been attended by the widespread commission of prohibited acts. Well-settled is
the rule that 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, particularly par. (e), which states that no person engaged in picketing shall:
o a) commit any act of violence, coercion, or intimidation or
o b) obstruct the free ingress to or egress from the employer's premises for lawful purposes, or
o c) obstruct public thoroughfares.
- The following acts have been held to be prohibited activities: where the strikers shouted slanderous and
scurrilous words against the owners of the vessels; where the strikers used unnecessary and obscene
language or epithets to prevent other laborers to go to work, and circulated libelous statements against the
employer which show actual malice; where the protestors used abusive and threatening language towards
the patrons of a place of business or against co-employees, going beyond the mere attempt to persuade
customers to withdraw their patronage; where the strikers formed a human cordon and blocked all the ways
and approaches to the launches and vessels of the vicinity of the workplace and perpetrated acts of violence
and coercion to prevent work from being performed; and where the strikers shook their fists and threatened
non-striking employees with bodily harm if they persisted to proceed to the workplace. Permissible activities
of the picketing workers do not include obstruction of access of customers.

WON private respondents are deemed to have lost their employment status by participating in the commission of
illegal acts during the strike – YES
- 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 d'yan!" as well as 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; openly cursing and shouting at the president in front of customers and using
loud and abusive language 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, openly threatening non-strikers
with bodily harm, 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.
- In the determination of the liabilities of the individual respondents, the applicable provision is ART. 264(a):
 - Art. 264. Prohibited Activities – (a) x x x 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. X X X
- In Samahang Manggagawa sa Sulpicio Lines, Inc.-NAFLU v. Sulpicio Lines, Inc. this Court explained that
the effects of such illegal strikes, outlined in ART. 264, make a distinction between workers and union
officers who participate therein: an ordinary striking worker cannot be terminated for mere participation in an
illegal strike. There must be proof that he or she committed illegal acts during a strike. A union officer, on the
other hand, may be terminated from work when he knowingly participates in an illegal strike, and like other
workers, when he commits an illegal act during a strike. In all cases, the striker must be identified. But 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.

Ruling: Petition granted. The Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals together with the Decision dated
November 29, 2000 of the National Labor Relations Commission are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Decision of
the Labor Arbiter dated October 12, 1999 is REINSTATED. The Court Fnds the strike illegal and, as a consequence
thereto, the union oBcers who participated in the illegal strike and in the commission of illegal acts, namely,
Emmanuel Cayno, Billy Bacus, Analiza Cablay, Jose Neil Arcilla, Roel Esancha, and Claudio Panaligan, as well as
the union members who participated in the commission of illegal acts during the strike, namely, Rey Arsenal, Alex
Martinez, Hermie Raz, Jose Lanorias, Lito Arce, Cesar Sangreo, Rolando Fabregas, Jimmy Balan, Joven Lualhati,
Antonio Enebrad, Edgar Eugenio, Albert Agbuya, Arnel Salvador, Ricky Del Prado, Bernie Del Mundo, Roberto Eco,
Joven Talidong, Leny Lucente, Rigoberto Tubaon, Merly Naz, Lino Salubre, Rolando Pugong, and John Bathan, all
private respondents, are hereby declared to have lost their employment status.