Maria Cristina Fertilizer Plant

Employees Association v
Hon. Teodulo Tandayag
G.R. No. L-29217
May 11, 1978
FACTS:
• Maria Cristina Fertilizer Corporation is a company engaged in the manufacture
of fertilizer and chemicals in Iligan City.
• A CBA with the Maria Cristina Fertilizer Plant Employees Association was
entered.
• Union submitted a draft of a new CBA. Company countered that the existing
CBA be renewed for a five-year period.
• The union, in the belief that the company did not want to negotiate a new
CBA sent a notice of strike to the company.
• After fruitless negotiations, the company proposed that all regular employees
would be given an increase of twenty pesos and that those whose monthly
salary was below P130 would be paid P150 a month.
• The company president sent a radiogram appealing to the union
members to take into account the problems of the company. On the
next day, the union reminded the management of its 4 demands,
namely:
1. For the refusal of the Management to grant the reasonable Union
demands.
2. For violation of the Minimum Wage Law by the management.
3. For the anti-unionism attitude of the management.
4. For various unfair labor practices.
• With no reply from the company, the union declared a strike to which
the company’s operations were paralyzed.
• Company filed with the CFI against the union and its officers a
complaint for damages with a petition for preliminary injunction
alleging that the strike and picketing were illegal.
• CFI issued an injunction. Union opposed the issuance of an injunction.
• Strike was terminated when parties entered into a CBA. The picketing
was also lifted.
ISSUE:
• Whether or not the strike is legal.
HELD:
• No. The union has not raised clear-cut pure legal issues. The SC can only review decisions on questions of law.
• Findings of the CIR:
• (a) at no instance did the company refuse to negotiate with the union on the terms of a new collective
bargaining agreement, that the company did not coerce the employees to resign from the union on the
promise of increased compensation and, therefore, it did not interfere in the right of the employees to self-
organization;
• (b) that the company did not perpetrate acts of discrimination against the members of the union;
• (c) that the strike was staged because of the company's refusal to grant the union's four demands regarding
the inclusion of foremen and casuals in the union, the increase of the basic monthly pay to P180 and the
increase to P240 a month of the salaries of employees already receiving P180 a month, free medical and
dental treatment for the employees and their families, and gratuity pay;
• (c) union struck in order to attain those demands and not because of the alleged refusal to the company to
enter into a new collective bargaining agreement;
• (d) company had a pending suggestion for mediation by the Department of Labor when the strike was
declared
• The strike was not peacefully conducted and that the picketing was
characterized by coercion and intimidation. Only peaceful picketing is
allowed, it should have a lawful purpose and should be executed
through lawful means.
•  Since the strike was found by the CIR to be illegal, the union officers
and members, who took part in the strike, authorized the unlawful
acts, committed by them, or ratified them, had lost their status as
employees.
• The Writ of Injunction is set aside and the Writ of Preliminary
Injunction is made permanent.
Dissenting Opinion of J. Fernando:
• Not every form of violence suffices to affix the seal of illegality on s
strike or to cause the loss of employment by the guilty party. Only
such strikers who were proven to have committed “specific serious
acts of violence” could be penalized with loss of employment.
• There was a failure to meet the more exacting standard to justify the
dismissal of strikers, even on the assumption that the strike could be
declared illegal.