FIRST CITY INTERLINK TRANSPORTATION

CO., INC., vs. THE HONORABLE SECRETARY

MA. NIEVES ROLDAN-CONFESOR
G.R. No. 106316; May 5, 1997
FACTS:

Fil Transit Employees Union filed a notice of strike with

the Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR) because of alleged
unfair labor practice of petitioner company. Despite
several conciliation conferences, the parties failed to
reach an agreement, the union went on strike, as a
reason several workers were dismissed.
The union filed another notice of strike alleging ULP,
massive dismissal of union officers and members,
coercion of employees and violation of workers' rights to
self-organization. Conciliation conferences were held
but the union again went on strike. The then Minister
of Labor and Employment (MOLE) ordered the striking
workers to return to work. Only 66 employees were
accepted, conditioned on the submission of certain
requirements.
The Secretary of Labor ruled for the legality of the strike
and awarded backwages and separation pay to the
strikers. Petitioner, however, alleged that no strike vote
was obtained, the result thereof was not reported to the
MOLE, the strikers engaged in violent, illegal and
criminal acts, and it complied with the return to work
order.
ISSUE:

Whether the strike was illegal.

HELD:

Yes. It was not shown in the pleadings that a strike vote was
obtained before the declaration of strike. The statement in the
same order of the Labor Secretary that a notice of strike had
been filed because several conciliation conferences failed
due to management's consistent refusal to appear is contrary
to evidence because management was duly represented
during the conciliation proceedings prior to the strike.
Even assuming that a strike vote had been taken, the
strike called by the Union was illegal because of
nonobservance by the Union of the mandatory seven-
day strike ban counted from the date the strike vote
should have been reported to the Department of Labor
and Employment up to the time the Union staged the
strike on June 17, 1986.
The union was in bad faith when it conducted the strike
because instead of attending the conciliation meetings with
petitioner, it went on strike. The strike was attended by
pervasive and widespread violence such as the hijacking of
Fil-Transit buses, barricading of the terminal in Alabang,
puncturing of tires, cutting of electric wirings, water hoses and
fan belts, use of Molotov bombs, and theft of expensive
equipment such as fuel injections. The commission of these
illegal acts was neither isolated nor accidental but deliberately
employed to intimidate and harass the employer and the
public.
However, only the union officers and strikers who
engaged in violent, illegal and criminal acts against the
employer are deemed to have lost their employment
status in accordance with Art. 264 of the Labor Code.