CLUB FILIPINO, INC. and ATTY. ROBERTO F.

DE LEON, Petitioners,
vs.
BENJAMIN BAUTISTA, RONIE SUALOG, JOEL CALIDA, JOHNNY ARINTO AND ROBERTO DE
GUZMAN, Respondents.

DOCTRINE:

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.

Note that 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.

SUMMARY:
The union made several demands with Petitioner Club Filipino for the CBA negotiations to no
avail. Respondent Bautista et al (union officers) filed a notice of strike with the NCMB on the
grounds of bargaining deadlock and failure to bargain. The union conducted a strike vote under
the supervision of DOLE. Later on, the union to stage a strike on the ground of a CBA bargaining
deadlock. Respondent Club Filipino filed before the NLRC a petition to declare the strike illegal
and that all union officers who participated in the illegal strike be considered separated from
the service. The labor arbiter declared the strike "procedurally [infirm] and therefore illegal."
which were later affirmed by the NLRC: union failed to attach its written CBA proposal and the
company’s counter-proposal to the notice of strike and to provide proof of a request for a
conference to settle the dispute. As a consequence, all the officers of the union were deemed
terminated from service. The SC ruled in this case that the strike is not illegal and that the
dismissal of the union officers was not valid. In the instant case, the union cannot be faulted for
its omission. The union could not have attached the counter-proposal of the company in the
notice of strike it submitted to the NCMB as there was no such counter-proposal. The SC held
that mere finding of the illegality of the strike should not be automatically followed by the
wholesale dismissal of the strikers from employment. It should be ‘Any union officer who
knowingly participates in an illegal strike’. 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 which is not present in this case.

Facts:
 ● Petitioner Club Filipino, Inc. (the company) is a non-stock, non profit corporation duly
formed, organized and existing under Philippine laws.
● Respondents Bautista et al were former officers and members of the Club Filipino
Employees Association (the union).
● The union and the company had a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) which expired.
Prior to the expiration of the CBA and within the freedom period, the union made
several demands for negotiation but the company replied that it could not muster a
quorum, thus no CBA negotiations could be held.
● 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.
● Respondent Bautista et al (union officers) filed a request for preventive mediation with
the National Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB). Their strategy, however, failed
to bring the management to the negotiating table.
○ The union and management only met once but the meeting concluded with a
declaration by both parties of a deadlock in their negotiations.
● The union filed a notice of strike with the NCMB on the grounds of bargaining deadlock
and failure to bargain.
● The company formally responded to the demands of the union when it submitted its
economic counter-proposal
● Meanwhile, the union conducted a strike vote under the supervision of DOLE
● In response to the company’s counter-proposal, the union sent the company its
improved proposal, but the company refused to improve on its offer.
● This prompted the union to stage a strike on the ground of a CBA bargaining deadlock.
● The company filed before the NLRC a petition to declare the strike illegal and that all
union officers who participated in the illegal strike be considered separated from the
service.
● The labor arbiter declared the strike "procedurally [infirm] and therefore illegal." which
were later affirmed by the NLRC:
○ union failed to attach its written CBA proposal and the company’s counter-
proposal to the notice of strike and
○ to provide proof of a request for a conference to settle the dispute.
○ As a consequence, all the officers of the union were deemed terminated from
service.
● Thus, the CA set aside the rulings of the NLRC and the labor arbiter

Issue:
Whether the strike is illegal
Ruling:
NO

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. Thus, even assuming
arguendo that the strike was illegal, their automatic dismissal had no basis.

WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED.

Legal Basis:

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 counter-proposals 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.

Application:

RE: The Strike is not ILLEGAL

In the instant case, the union cannot be faulted for its omission. The union could not have
attached the counter-proposal of the company in the notice of strike it submitted to the NCMB
as there was no such counter-proposal.

The Implementing Rules use the words "as far as practicable." In this case, attaching the
counter-proposal 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 counter-proposal which it did not have.
One cannot give what one does not have.

Indeed, compliance with the requirement was impossible because no counter-proposal existed
at the time the union filed a notice of strike. The law does not exact compliance with the
impossible.

RE: The union officers are illegally dismissed

Another error committed by the labor arbiter was his declaration that respondents, as union
officers, automatically severed their employment with the company due to the alleged illegal
strike. In the first place, there was no illegal strike. Moreover, 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.

Note that 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 22 and statutory23 mandate to protect the
rights of employees to self-organization.