2022 BAR REVIEW LABOR LAW

Handout No. 52
LABOR RELATIONS

RIGHT TO SELF-ORGANIZATION

As Article 246 (now 252) of the Labor Code provides, the right to self-organization includes the
right to form, join or assist labor organizations for the purpose of collective bargaining through
representatives of their own choosing and to engage in lawful concerted activities for the same
purpose for their mutual aid and protection.

This is in line with the policy of the State to foster the free and voluntary organization of a strong
and united labor movement as well as to make sure that workers participate in policy and
decision-making processes affecting their rights, duties and welfare. The right to form a union or
association or to self-organization comprehends two notions, to wit: (a) the liberty or freedom,
that is, the absence of restraint which guarantees that the employee may act for himself without
being prevented by law; and (b) the power, by virtue of which an employee may, as he pleases,
join or refrain from joining an association. Samahan ng Manggagawa sa Hanjin Shipyard vs.
Bureau of Labor Relations, et al., G.R. No. 211145, October 14, 2015

The right to form or join a labor organization necessarily includes the right to refuse or refrain
from exercising the said right.

It is self-evident that just as no one should be denied the exercise of a right granted by law, so
also, no one should be compelled to exercise such a conferred right. Also inherent in the right to
self-organization is the right to choose whether to form a union for purposes of collective
bargaining or a workers’ association for purposes of providing mutual aid and protection.

The right to self-organization, however, is subject to certain limitations as provided by law. For
instance, the Labor Code specifically disallows managerial employees from joining, assisting or
forming any labor union. Meanwhile, supervisory employees, while eligible for membership in
labor organizations, are proscribed from joining the collective bargaining unit of the rank-and-
file employees.

Even government employees have the right to self-organization. It is not, however, regarded as
existing or available for purposes of collective bargaining, but simply for the furtherance and
protection of their interests. Samahan ng Manggagawa sa Hanjin Shipyard vs. Bureau of Labor
Relations, et al., G.R. No. 211145, October 14, 2015

Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76

legaledge8@gmail.com
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 1 of 14
 2022 BAR REVIEW LABOR LAW
Handout No. 52
LABOR RELATIONS

Under Article 245 of the Labor Code, managerial employees are not eligible to join, assist or
form any labor organization.

In this case, it is an indisputable fact that Huliganga was a managerial employee of SITA and, as
such, he is not entitled to retirement benefits exclusively granted to the rank-and-file employees
under the CBA. It must be remembered that under Article 245 of the Labor Code, managerial
employees are not eligible to join, assist or form any labor organization.

To be entitled to the benefits under the CBA, the employees must be members of the bargaining
unit, but not necessarily of the labor organization designated as the bargaining agent. Societe
Internationale De Telecommunications Aeronautiques (SITA), et al. vs. Theodore L. Huliganga,
G.R. No. 215504, August 20, 2018

Workers can also form and join a workers’ association as well as labor-management councils
(LMC).

More often than not, the right to self-organization connotes unionism. Workers, however, can
also form and join a workers’ association as well as labor-management councils (LMC). Expressed
in the highest law of the land is the right of all workers to self-organization. Samahan ng
Manggagawa sa Hanjin Shipyard vs. Bureau of Labor Relations, et al., G.R. No. 211145, October
14, 2015

“Union” and “Workers’ Association”, distinguished.

A union refers to any labor organization in the private sector organized for collective bargaining
and for other legitimate purpose, while a workers’ association is an organization of workers
formed for the mutual aid and protection of its members or for any legitimate purpose other
than collective bargaining. Many associations or groups of employees, or even combinations of
only several persons, may qualify as a labor organization yet fall short of constituting a labor
union. While every labor union is a labor organization, not every labor organization is a labor
union. The difference is one of organization, composition and operation. Samahan ng
Manggagawa sa Hanjin Shipyard vs. Bureau of Labor Relations, et al., G.R. No. 211145, October
14, 2015

Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76

legaledge8@gmail.com
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 2 of 14
 2022 BAR REVIEW LABOR LAW
Handout No. 52
LABOR RELATIONS

LEGITIMATE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS

Generally, the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) controls the relationship between the
parties. Any benefit not included in it is not demandable.

However, in light of the peculiar circumstances in this case, the requested wage increase should
be granted. According to petitioners, the “P32.00/day [wage increase] was integrated to the
wage[s] of those who signed the waivers so that they are receiving the wage increase of
P32.00/day up to now.” To prove this allegation, petitioners have attached a joint affidavit dated
January 18, 2017 signed by 26 URC-SONEDCO employees. According to the affiants, they signed
the 2007 and 2008 waivers and are, thus, currently receiving P32.00/day more than petitioners.
SONEDCO Workers Free Labor Union (SWO-FLU)/Renato Yude, et al. vs. Universal Robina
Corporation, Sugar Division-Southern Negros Development Corporation (SONEDCO), G.R. No.
220383, July 5, 2017

No less than the basic law of the land guarantees the rights of workers to collective bargaining
and negotiations as well as to participate in policy and decision-making processes affecting
their rights and benefits.

Section 3, Article XIII of the 1987 Constitution provides: 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.
Hongkong Bank Independent Labor Union (HBILU) vs. Hongkong Shanghai Banking Corporation
Limited, G.R. No. 218390, February 28, 2018

Where the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) is clear and unambiguous, it becomes the
law between the parties and compliance therewith is mandated by the express policy of the
law.

A collective bargaining agreement or CBA is the negotiated contract between a legitimate labor
organization and the employer concerning wages, hours of work and all other terms and
conditions of employment in a bargaining unit. As in all contracts, the parties in a CBA may
establish such stipulations, clauses, terms and conditions as they may deem convenient provided

Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76

legaledge8@gmail.com
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 3 of 14
 2022 BAR REVIEW LABOR LAW
Handout No. 52
LABOR RELATIONS

these are not contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order or public policy. Thus, where
the CBA is clear and unambiguous, it becomes the law between the parties and compliance
therewith is mandated by the express policy of the law. Hongkong Bank Independent Labor
Union (HBILU) vs. Hongkong Shanghai Banking Corporation Limited, G.R. No. 218390, February
28, 2018

It is settled that a “no strike, no lockout” provision in the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA)
“may only be invoked by an employer when the strike is economic in nature or one which is
conducted to force wage or other agreements from the employer that are not mandated to be
granted by law. It is not applicable when the strike is grounded on unfair labor practice.

Indeed, the parties through their CBA, agreed to a “no strike, no lockout” policy and to resolve
their disputes through grievance machinery and voluntary arbitration. Despite these,
respondents were justified in filing a notice of strike in light of the facts of this case. It is settled
that a “no strike, no lockout” provision in the CBA “may only be invoked by an employer when
the strike is economic in nature or one which is conducted to force wage or other agreements
from the employer that are not mandated to be granted by law. It is not applicable when the
strike is grounded on unfair labor practice.” Here, while respondents enumerated four grounds
in their notice of strike, the facts of the case reveal that what primarily impelled them to file said
notice was their perception of bad faith bargaining and violation of the duty to bargain
collectively by GNC — charges which constitute unfair labor practice under Article 248(g) of the
Labor Code. Guagua National Colleges vs. Guagua National Colleges Faculty Labor Union, G.R.
No. 204693, July 13, 2016

The effect of an employer’s or a union’s actions individually is not the test of good faith
bargaining, but the impact of all such occasions or actions, considered as a whole.

The duty to bargain collectively is defined under Article 252 of the Labor Code to, viz.: Article 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 agreements 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 agreement. It has been held that the crucial question whether or not a party has met
his statutory duty to bargain in good faith typically turns on the facts of the individual case. There
is no per se test of good faith in bargaining. Good faith or bad faith is an inference to be drawn

Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76

legaledge8@gmail.com
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 4 of 14
 2022 BAR REVIEW LABOR LAW
Handout No. 52
LABOR RELATIONS

from the facts. The effect of an employer’s or a union’s actions individually is not the test of good
faith bargaining, but the impact of all such occasions or actions, considered as a whole. Guagua
National Colleges vs. Guagua National Colleges Faculty Labor Union, G.R. No. 204693, July 13,
2016

BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE

The basic test for determining the appropriate bargaining unit is the application of a standard
whereby a unit is deemed appropriate if it affects a grouping of employees who have
substantial, mutual interests in wages, hours, working conditions, and other subjects of
collective bargaining.

In this case, petitioner argues that there is no showing that the rank-and-file employees of the
three companies would constitute an appropriate bargaining unit on account of the latter’s
different geographical locations. This contention lacks merit. The basic test for determining the
appropriate bargaining unit is the application of a standard whereby a unit is deemed appropriate
if it affects a grouping of employees who have substantial, mutual interests in wages, hours,
working conditions, and other subjects of collective bargaining. [The Court] has ruled that
geographical location can be completely disregarded if the communal or mutual interests of the
employees are not sacrificed. Erson Ang Lee vs. Samahang Manggagawa ng Super Lamination
(SMSLS-NAFLU-KMU), G.R. No. 193816, November 21, 2016

COLLECTIVE BARGAINING

A collective bargaining agreement (CBA) is “a contract executed upon the request of either the
employer or the exclusive bargaining representative of the employees incorporating the
agreement reached after negotiations 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.”

A collective bargaining agreement being a contract, its provisions “constitute the law between
the parties” and must be complied with in good faith. Philippine Electric Corporation (PHILEC)
vs. Court of Appeals, 744 SCRA 361, G.R. No. 168612 December 10, 2014

Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76

legaledge8@gmail.com
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 5 of 14
 2022 BAR REVIEW LABOR LAW
Handout No. 52
LABOR RELATIONS

In Associated Labor Unions v. Trajano, 172 SCRA 49 (1989), the Supreme Court (SC) explicitly
held that the winning union had the option to either continue the existing collective bargaining
agreement (CBA) or negotiate a new one.

The new CBA negotiated by petitioners whether or not submitted to the MOLE in accordance
with Article 231 of the Labor Code cannot be deemed permanent, precluding commencement of
negotiations by another union with management, considering that it was entered into at a time
when the petition for certification election had already been filed by respondent union. . . .
Meantime, this interim agreement must be recognized and given effect on a temporary basis so
as not to deprive the workers of the favorable terms of the agreement. . . . If, as a result of the
certification election, respondent union or a union other than petitioner union which executed
the interim agreement is certified as the exclusive bargaining representative of the rank and file
employees of respondent company, then, such union may adopt the interim collective bargaining
agreement or negotiate with management for a new collective bargaining agreement[.]
SONEDCO Workers Free Labor Union (SWO-FLU) vs. Universal Robina Corporation, Sugar
Division-Southern Negros Development Corporation (SONEDCO), 805 SCRA 415, G.R. No.
220383 October 5, 2016

Generally, the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) controls the relationship between the
parties. Any benefit not included in it is not demandable.

However, in light of the peculiar circumstances in this case, the requested wage increase should
be granted. According to petitioners, the “P32.00/day [wage increase] was integrated to the
wage[s] of those who signed the waivers so that they are receiving the wage increase of
P32.00/day up to now.” To prove this allegation, petitioners have attached a joint affidavit dated
January 18, 2017 signed by 26 URC-SONEDCO employees. According to the affiants, they signed
the 2007 and 2008 waivers and are, thus, currently receiving P32.00/day more than petitioners.
SONEDCO Workers Free Labor Union (SWOFLU) vs.Universal Robina Corporation, Sugar
Division-Southern egros Development Corporation, 830 SCRA 249, G.R. No. 220383 July 5, 2017

UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES

Unfair labor practice refers to acts that violate the workers’ right to organize.

There should be no dispute that all the prohibited acts constituting unfair labor practice in
essence relate to the workers’ right to self-organization. Thus, an employer may only be held
liable for unfair labor practice if it can be shown that his acts affect in whatever manner the right

Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76

legaledge8@gmail.com
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 6 of 14
 2022 BAR REVIEW LABOR LAW
Handout No. 52
LABOR RELATIONS

of his employees to self-organize. To prove the existence of unfair labor practice, substantial
evidence has to be presented. San Fernando Coca-Cola Rank-and-File Union (SACORU) vs. Coca-
Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc., G.R. No. 200499, October 4, 2017

The term unfair labor practice refers to that gamut of offenses defined in the Labor Code which,
at their core, violates the constitutional right of workers and employees to self-organization.

The primary concept of unfair labor practices is stated in Article 247 of the Labor Code, which
states: Article 247. Concept of unfair labor practice and procedure for prosecution thereof.–
Unfair labor practices violate the constitutional right of workers and employees to self-
organization, are inimical to the legitimate interests of both labor and management, including
their right to bargain collectively and otherwise deal with each other in an atmosphere of
freedom and mutual respect, disrupt industrial peace and hinder the promotion of healthy and
stable labor-management relations.

In essence, [unfair labor practice] relates to the commission of acts that transgress the workers’
right to organize. All the prohibited acts constituting unfair labor practice in essence relate to the
workers’ right to self-organization. Allan Mendoza vs. Officers of Manila Water Employees
Union (MWEU), et al., G.R. No. 201595, January 25, 2016

It is illegal to continue denying the petitioners the wage increase that was granted to
employees who signed the waivers. To rule otherwise will perpetuate the discrimination
against petitioners. All the consequences of the unfair labor practice must be addressed.

In this case, the wage increase was integrated in the salary of those who signed the waivers.
When the affiants waived their rights, respondent rewarded them with a P32.00/day wage
increase that continues to this day. The respondent company granted this benefit to its
employees to induce them to waive their collective bargaining rights. This Court has declared this
an unfair labor practice. SONEDCO Workers Free Labor Union (SWO-FLU)/Renato Yude, et al. vs.
Universal Robina Corporation, Sugar Division-Southern Negros Development Corporation
(SONEDCO), G.R. No. 220383, July 5, 2017

Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76

legaledge8@gmail.com
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 7 of 14
 2022 BAR REVIEW LABOR LAW
Handout No. 52
LABOR RELATIONS

It is an unfair labor practice for a labor organization to “cause or attempt to cause an employer
to discriminate against an employee, including discrimination against an employee with
respect to whom membership in such organization has been denied or to terminate an
employee on any ground other than the usual terms and conditions under which membership
or continuation of membership is made available to other members.”

It is given the right under the Labor Code, “to prescribe its own rules with respect to the
acquisition or retention of membership.” But it may not insist on expelling respondent from
PORFA and assist in his dismissal from UPI without just cause, since it is an unfair labor practice
for a labor organization to “cause or attempt to cause an employer to discriminate against an
employee, including discrimination against an employee with respect to whom membership in
such organization has been denied or to terminate an employee on any ground other than the
usual terms and conditions under which membership or continuation of membership is made
available to other members.” United Polyresins, Inc., et al. vs. Marcelino Pinuela, G.R. No.
209555, July 31, 2017

Violation of the duty to bargain collectively is an unfair labor practice under Article 258(g) of
the Labor Code.

An instance of this practice is the refusal to bargain collectively as held in General Milling Corp.
v. CA, 422 SCRA 514 (2004). In that case, the employer anchored its refusal to bargain with and
recognize the union on several letters received by the former regarding the withdrawal of the
workers’ membership from the union. [The Court] rejected the defense, saying that the
employer had devised a flimsy excuse by attacking the existence of the union and the status of
the union’s membership to prevent any negotiation. It bears stressing that Ren Transport had a
duty to bargain collectively with SMART. Under Article 263 in relation to Article 267 of the Labor
Code, it is during the freedom period — or the last 60 days before the expiration of the CBA —
when another union may challenge the majority status of the bargaining agent through the filing
of a petition for a certification election. If there is no such petition filed during the freedom
period, then the employer “shall continue to recognize the majority status of the incumbent
bargaining agent where no petition for certification election is filed.” Ren Transport Corp. and/or
Reynaldo Pazcoguin III vs. National Labor Relations Commission (2nd Division), et al., G.R. Nos.
188020 & 188252, June 27, 2016

Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76

legaledge8@gmail.com
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 8 of 14
 2022 BAR REVIEW LABOR LAW
Handout No. 52
LABOR RELATIONS

Interference with the employees’ right to self-organization is considered an unfair labor

practice under Article 258(a) of the Labor Code.

In this case, the labor arbiter found that the failure to remit the union dues to SMART and the
voluntary recognition of RTEA were clear indications of interference with the employees’ right to
self-organization. It must be stressed that this finding was affirmed by the NLRC and the CA; as
such, it is binding on the Court, especially when [we] consider that it is not tainted with any
blatant error. As aptly pointed out by the labor arbiter, these acts were ill-timed in view of the
existence of a labor controversy over membership in the union. Ren Transport Corp. and/or
Reynaldo Pazcoguin III vs. National Labor Relations Commission (2nd Division), et al., G.R. Nos.
188020 & 188252, June 27, 2016

PEACEFUL CONCERTED ACTIVITIES

The right to strike as a means for the attainment of social justice is never meant to oppress or
destroy the employers.

The right to strike is a constitutional and legal right of all workers because the strike, which seeks
to advance their right to improve the terms and conditions of their employment, is recognized as

an effective weapon of labor in their struggle for a decent existence. However, the right to strike
as a means for the attainment of social justice is never meant to oppress or destroy the
employers. Thus, the law prescribes limits on the exercise of the right to strike. The Hongkong &
Shanghai Banking Corporation Employees Union, et al. vs. National Labor Relations
Commission, et al., G.R. No. 156635, January 11, 2016

Requisites of a Valid Strike

The procedural requirements for a valid strike are the following, to wit:

1) a notice of strike filed with the DOLE at least 30 days before the intended date thereof,
or 15 days in case of ULP;
2) a strike vote approved by the majority of the total union membership in the bargaining
unit concerned, obtained by secret ballot in a meeting called for that purpose; and
3) a notice of the results of the voting at least seven days before the intended strike given
to the DOLE.

Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76

legaledge8@gmail.com
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 9 of 14
 2022 BAR REVIEW LABOR LAW
Handout No. 52
LABOR RELATIONS

These requirements are mandatory, such that noncompliance therewith by the union will render
the strike illegal. The Hongkong & Shanghai Banking Corporation Employees Union, et al. vs.
National Labor Relations Commission, et al., G.R. No. 156635, January 11, 2016

Procedurally, for a strike to be valid, it must comply with Article 278 of the Labor Code.

A strike is the most powerful weapon of workers in their struggle with management in the course
of setting their terms and conditions of employment. As such, it either breathes life to or destroys
the union and its members. Procedurally, for a strike to be valid, it must comply with Article 278
of the Labor Code, which requires that: (a) a notice of strike be filed with the NCMB 30 days
before the intended date thereof, or 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. These requirements are
mandatory, and the union’s failure to comply renders the strike illegal. Ergonomic Systems
Philippines, Inc. vs. Emerito C. Enaje, et al, G.R. No. 195163, December 13, 2017

The responsibility of the union officers, as main players in an illegal strike, is greater than that
of the members as the union officers have the duty to guide their members to respect the law.

It cannot be overemphasized that strike, as the most preeminent economic weapon of the
workers to force management to agree to an equitable sharing of the joint product of labor and
capital, exert 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. This weapon is so critical that the law imposes the supreme penalty of dismissal on
union officers who irresponsibly participate in an illegal strike and union members who commit
unlawful acts during a strike. The grave penalty of dismissal imposed on the guilty parties is a
natural consequence, considering the interest of public welfare. Errol Ramirez, et al. vs. Polyson
Industies, Inc. and Wilson S. Yu, G.R. No. 207898, October 19, 2016

Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76

legaledge8@gmail.com
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 10 of 14
 2022 BAR REVIEW LABOR LAW
Handout No. 52
LABOR RELATIONS

Article 264(e) of the Labor Code expressly enjoined the striking workers engaged in picketing
from committing any act of violence, coercion or intimidation, or from obstructing the free
ingress into or egress from the employer’s premises for lawful purposes, or from obstructing
public thoroughfares.

The petitioners could not justify their illegal strike by invoking the constitutional right of labor to
concerted actions. Although the Constitution recognized and promoted their right to strike, they
should still exercise the right within the bounds of law. Those bounds had been well--defined and
well-known. Specifically, Article 264(e) of the Labor Code expressly enjoined the striking workers
engaged in picketing from committing any act of violence, coercion or intimidation, or from
obstructing the free ingress into or egress from the employer’s premises for lawful purposes, or
from obstructing public thoroughfares.

The employment of prohibited means in carrying out concerted actions injurious to the right to
property of others could only render their strike illegal. Moreover, their strike was rendered
unlawful because their picketing which constituted an obstruction to the free use of the
employer’s property or the comfortable enjoyment of life or property, when accompanied by
intimidation, threats, violence, and coercion as to constitute nuisance, should be regulated. In
fine, the strike, even if justified as to its ends, could become illegal because of the means
employed, especially when the means came within the prohibitions under Article 264(e) of the
Labor Code. The Hongkong & Shanghai Banking Corporation Employees Union, et al. vs.
National Labor Relations Commission, et al., G.R. No. 156635, January 11, 2016

Jurisprudence defines a slowdown as a “strike on the installment plan”; as a willful reduction

in the rate of work by concerted action of workers for the purpose of restricting the output of
the employer, in relation to a labor dispute; as an activity by which workers, without a complete
stoppage of work, retard production or their performance of duties and functions to compel
management to grant their demands.

In this case, the Court agrees with both the NLRC and the CA that petitioners are guilty of
instigating their co-employees to commit slowdown, an inherently and essentially illegal activity
even in the absence of a no-strike clause in a collective bargaining contract, or statute or rule.
The Court also agrees that such a slowdown is generally condemned as inherently illicit and
unjustifiable, because while the employees “continue to work and remain at their positions and
accept the wages paid to them,” they at the same time “select what part of their allotted tasks
they care to perform of their own volition or refuse openly or secretly, to the employer’s damage,
to do other work”; in other words, they “work on their own terms.” Errol Ramirez, et al. vs.
Polyson Industies, Inc. and Wilson S. Yu, G.R. No. 207898, October 19, 2016

Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76

legaledge8@gmail.com
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 11 of 14
 2022 BAR REVIEW LABOR LAW
Handout No. 52
LABOR RELATIONS

It is not necessary that any fixed number of employees should quit their work in order to
constitute the stoppage a strike, and the number of persons necessary depends in each case on
the peculiar facts in the case and no definite rule can be laid down.

The Court is not persuaded by petitioners’ contention that they are not guilty of “illegal concerted
activity” as they claim that this term contemplates a “careful planning of a considerable number
of participants to insure that the desired result is attained.” Nothing in the law requires that a
slowdown be carefully planned and that it be participated in by a large number of workers. The
essence of this kind of strike is that the workers do not quit their work but simply reduce the rate
of work in order to restrict the output or delay the production of the employer.

It has been held that while a cessation of work by the concerted action of a large number of
employees may more easily accomplish the object of the work stoppage than if it is by one
person, there is, in fact no fundamental difference in the principle involved as far as the number
of persons involved is concerned, and thus, if the act is the same, and the purpose to be
accomplished is the same, there is a strike, whether one or more than one have ceased to work.
Errol Ramirez, et al. vs. Polyson Industies, Inc. and Wilson S. Yu, G.R. No. 207898, October 19,
2016

Article 263(g) of the Labor Code, provides the conditions for, and the effects of, the Department
of Labor and Employment (DOLE) Secretary’s assumption of jurisdiction over a dispute.

The powers given to the DOLE Secretary under Article 263(g) is an exercise of police power with
the aim of promoting public good. In fact, the scope of the powers is limited to an industry
indispensable to the national interest as determined by the DOLE Secretary. Industries that are
indispensable to the national interest are those essential industries such as the generation or
distribution of energy, or those undertaken by banks, hospitals, and export-oriented industries.
And following Article 263(g), the effects of the assumption of jurisdiction are the following: (a)
the enjoining of an impending strike or lockout or its lifting, and (b) an order for the workers to
return to work immediately and for the employer to readmit all workers under the same terms
and conditions prevailing before the strike or lockout, or the return-to-work order. San Fernando
Coca-Cola Rank-and-File Union (SACORU) vs. Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc., G.R. No.
200499, October 4, 2017

Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76

legaledge8@gmail.com
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 12 of 14
 2022 BAR REVIEW LABOR LAW
Handout No. 52
LABOR RELATIONS

It is settled that the authority of the Secretary of Labor and Employment (SOLE) to assume
jurisdiction over a labor dispute causing or likely to cause a strike or lockout in an industry
indispensable to national interest includes and extends to all questions and controversies
arising therefrom.

It has also been opined that when the very reason for the SOLE’s assumption of jurisdiction is the
declaration of strike, any issue regarding the strike is not merely incidental to but is essentially
involved in the labor dispute itself. It bears emphasis, even at the risk of being repetitious, that it
is beyond question that the issue on damages is a controversy which arose from the labor dispute
between the parties herein. Consequently, when the SOLE assumed jurisdiction over the labor
dispute, the claim for damages was deemed included therein. Thus, the issue on damages was
also deemed resolved when the SOLE decided the main controversy in its 1 June 1999 resolution
declaring the illegality of the strike and the loss of employment status of the striking officers of
ALPAP, as well as when the case was finally settled by [this] Court in its 10 April 2002 Resolution
in G.R. No. 152306. This is true even if the respective resolutions of the SOLE, CA, and [this] Court
were silent with respect to the damages. Philippine Airlines, Inc. vs. Airline Pilots Association of
the Philippines, et al., G.R. No. 200088, February 26, 2018

A return-to-work order is issued by the Secretary of Labor and Employment when he or she
assumes jurisdiction over a labor dispute in an industry that is considered indispensable to the
national interest.

Article 278(g) of the Labor Code provides that the assumption and certification of the Secretary
of Labor and Employment shall automatically enjoin the intended or impending strike. When a
strike has already taken place at the time the Secretary of Labor and Employment assumes
jurisdiction over the labor dispute, all striking employees shall immediately return to work.
Moreover, the employer shall immediately resume operations, and readmit all workers under
the same terms and conditions prevailing before the strike. Manggagawa ng Komunikasyon sa
Pilipinas vs. Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company, Inc., G.R. Nos. 190389 & 190390,
April 19, 2017

Return-to-work and reinstatement orders are both immediately executory; however, a return-
to-work order is interlocutory in nature, and is merely meant to maintain status quo while the
main issue is being threshed out in the proper forum.

In contrast, an order of reinstatement is a judgment on the merits handed down by the Labor
Arbiter pursuant to the original and exclusive jurisdiction provided for under Article 224(a) of the

Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76

legaledge8@gmail.com
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 13 of 14
 2022 BAR REVIEW LABOR LAW
Handout No. 52
LABOR RELATIONS

Labor Code. Clearly, Garcia v. Philippine Airlines, Inc., 576 SCRA 479 (2009), is not applicable in
the case at bar, and there is no basis to reinstate the employees who were terminated as a result
of redundancy. Manggagawa ng Komunikasyon sa Pilipinas vs. Philippine Long Distance
Telephone Company, Inc., G.R. Nos. 190389 & 190390, April 19, 2017

Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76

legaledge8@gmail.com
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 14 of 14