1

Republic of the Philippines

Department of Labor and Employment
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION
NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION
Regional Arbitration Branch No. IV
Calamba City

LECTERN CHOSEN, INC.

(LECHON),
Complainant Corporation,
NLRC-NCR CASE NO. RAB-IV-2-00821-C
For: ILLEGAL STRIKE
-versus-

PINAGKAISANG KILUSAN NG
INNOVENT WORKERS (PINAKSIW),
HERMINIGILDO DIMAGMALIW in his
capacity as Union President,
Respondent.
x---------------------------------------------x

RESPONDENT’S POSITION PAPER

COMES NOW, the Respondent by counsel and by way of a

POSITION PAPER, to this Honourable Office most respectfully avers:

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

WHILE THE STRIKE IS THE MOST PREEMINENT ECONOMIC

WEAPON OF WORKERS TO FORCE MANAGEMENT TO AGREE
TO AN EQUITABLE SHARING OF THE JOINT PRODUCT OF
LABOR AND CAPITAL, IT EXERTS SOME DISQUIETING
EFFECTS NOT ONLY ON THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
LABOR AND MANAGEMENT, BUT ALSO ON THE GENERAL
PEACE AND PROGRESS OF SOCIETY AND ECONOMIC WELL-
BEING OF THE STATE. IF SUCH WEAPON HAS TO BE USED AT
ALL, IT MUST BE USED SPARINGLY AND WITHIN THE BOUNDS
OF LAW IN THE INTEREST OF INDUSTRIAL PEACE AND
PUBLIC WELFARE1.

1
 Vide Pilipino Telephone Corp., v. PILTEA, et, al., G.R. No. 160058, June 22, 2007, 525 SCRA 361.

1
 2

The instant case emanated from a SINGLE ENTRY NOTICE

APPROACH filed by the Complainant with the Department Of Labor and
Employment in Trece Martires City, Cavite on April 15, 2019. After failure of
the mandatory conciliation at said office, the case was forwarded to this
Honorable Office for mediation. However, mediation was likewise
ineffective. Hence this POSITION PAPER.

THE PARTIES

RESPONDENT, PINAGKAISANG KILUSAN NG INNOVENT

WORKERS (PINAKSIW for brevity) is a duly recognized and registered
union of the Respondent Corporation, and represented by its Union
President Herminigildo Dimagmaliw, who may be served with notices,
summons and other processes of this Honorable Office at his state;

COMPLAINANT, LECTERN CHOSEN, INC. (LECHON for brevity) is

a duly organized and existing corporation under the law and represented by
its President Selena Milagros Siniga with postal and principal address at
Governor’s Drive, Brgy. Langkaan, City of Dasmarinas, Cavite, where
notices and other processes of this Honourable Office may be served.

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS

1. On February 18, 2019, complainant started to singling out union

officers for dismissal after several attempts to renew their Collective
Bargaining Agreement (CBA)2;

2. Thereafter, due to the threat of respondent’s right to organize, the

union resolved to strike after observing all the legal requisites provided by
the Labor Code;

3. The respondent union had followed the required filing of the notice of
strike, the observance of cooling-off period, the taking of a strike vote and
the observance of the seven (7)- day strike vote report period;

2
See the attached Collective Bargaining Agreement; marked as Annex “A”

2
 3

4. Last June 2019, while the Respondent union were on the picket line,
violence was erupted between the strikers and the security personnel hired
by the complainant. This prompted for the complainant to file this instant
case for illegal strike;

5. During the course of investigation, a Police Report 3 of the incident

had been issued which narrated the violence that erupted at the picket line
of striking respondent union workers, enumerated as follows:

That a bottle was thrown in the middle during a tense stand-off

between the strikers-union and the security personnel of the complainant.
Where there was an absence of a witness that could testify to where the
thrown battle came from;

By reason of the thrown bottle, the tension between both sides was
further unsettled causing them to accused one another. Both sides were
shouting insults and curses, and mocking at each other turned into a
complete disturbance. This resulted into bodily harm and infliction of slight
injuries to ten (10) security personnel of the complainant and fifteen (15)
striking workers;

6. On October 29, 2019, the complainant filed before the Regional

Office No. IV-A, Single Entry Approach (SENA), in Trece Martires City,
Cavite, a case that the Respondent Union was engaged on an illegal strike.
Mandatory conciliation conference were conducted at the SENA office at
Trece Martires City, Cavite but no amicable settlement was attained;

7. Thereafter, a complaint before the NLRC Regional Arbitration Branch

IV in Calamba City was filed by complainant claiming that the strike
instituted by the respondent was illegal. At the Office of Honorable Labor
Arbiter Edwin L. Hinila, both parties appeared on March 8, 2020. Thus,
there being no settlement reached, both parties were ordered 4 to file their
Verified Position Paper.

3
See the attached Police Report, marked as Annex “B”
4
See the Labor Arbiter’s Order marked as Annex “C”

3
 4

ISSUE

The lone issue presented in this case is whether or not the strike
should be deemed illegal.

ARGUMENTS AND DISCUSSION

The strike instituted by the ULP

strikers was legal

In this instant case, the respondent union diligently complied with all
the procedural requirements of a legal strike. The law provides the
procedural requirement of a valid strike, where it must comply with Article
2785 of the Labor Code, which requires that: (a) a notice of strike be filed
with the NCMB, 15 days in case of unfair labor practice; (b) a strike vote be
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;
and (c) a notice be given to the NCMB of the results of the voting at least
seven days before the intended strike. However, this case was an example
of unfair labor practice in the form of union busting, thus, cooling-off period
may not be observed and the respondent union may strike immediately.
These requirements are mandatory, and the union's failure to comply
renders the strike illegal6.

Likewise, right to strike is guaranteed under the Philippine

Constitution and the Labor Code. It is not only in the ILO convention but
also in the labor laws of the countries around the world. It cannot be
separated from the right to organize. The reason why workers are
organized and unionized is to collectively defend their right and through a
strike they are asserting that right. Without it, organizing is ineffective.

5
See Article 278 of the Labor Code of the Philippines
6
Pinero v. National Labor Relations Commission, 480 Phil. 534, 542 (2004)

4
 5

In the case of Lopez Sugar Corporation vs. Federation of Free

Workers, et. al,7 the court ruled that although a CBA has expired, it
continues to have legal effects as between the parties until a new CBA has
been entered into. It is the duty of both parties to the CBA to keep
the status quo, and to continue in full force and effect the terms and
conditions of the existing agreement during the 60-day period and/or until a
new agreement is reached by the parties. Here, the respondent union
resorted to their right to strike after the complainant had initiated to singling
out the union officers as an effect of their refusal to renew their CBA. The
complainant clearly ensued bad faith on its acts that would tantamount into
an unfair labor practice in the form of union busting.

The Labor Code states that there was union busting 8 when the
existence of the union is threatened by the employer’s act of dismissing the
former’s officers who have been duly-elected in accordance with its
constitution and by-laws. Likewise, there was an unfair labor practice 9 if the
workers’ right to organize and the proper observance of a CBA were
violated.

The use of violence by both

parties was not a ground to
declare the strike as illegal

The law provides that a strike would be declared as 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.

7
189 SCRA 179
8
See Article 259 (c)of the Labor Code of the Philippines
9
See Article 259 of the Labor Code which enumerates the unfair labor practices by employers; while Article 260
enumerates the unfair labor practices by labor organization.

5
 6

In the present case, both parties portrayed violent incidents resulting

to injuries to sides, the union and management of the corporation. The
evidence on record show that the violence cannot be attributed to the
striking employees alone for the company itself employed hired security
personnel to pacify the strikers. With violence committed on both sides,
such violence cannot be a ground for declaring the strike was illegal.

Thus, the violence imputed by the ULP strikers was not a

preconceived plan, but merely incidental.