Sunteți pe pagina 1din 78

LABOR LAW 2 A2010 235 Disini

(The CASE UNDER CIVIL REMEDIES) ISSUES:


NUEVA ECIJA I ELECTRIC COOP, INC., 1. WON the appeal taken by the NEECO I from the NLRC-RAB-
(NEECO I) EMPLOYEES ASSO. V NLRC III DOLE to NLRC Manila was perfected within the reglementary
323 SCRA 86 period
2. WON NLRC acted without or in excess of jurisdiction when it
QUISUMBING; January 24, 2000 resolved to delete en toto moral damages, exemplary damages,
attorney's fees and costs of litigation the factual basis of which
FACTS
were ascertained by the labor arbiter below
-Petitioners Reynaldo Fajardo, Ernesto Marin, Ever Guevarra, Petronilo
3. WON the order to apply and deduct receivable backwages
Baguisa, Victorino Carillo, and Erdie Javate were permanent employees
from received benefits is unrealistic and arbitrary.
of respondent Nueva Ecija I Electric Cooperative (NEECO I). They were
members of petitioner NEECO I Employees Association, a labor
HELD
organization established for the mutual aid and protection of its
1. NO, but there was substantial compliance.
members. Petitioner Rodolfo Jimenez was the president of the
Indisputable is the legal doctrine that the appeal of a decision
association.
involving a monetary award in labor cases may be perfected
-Respondent NEECO I is an electric cooperative under the general
"only upon the posting of a cash or surety bond.” (see Art. 223 of
supervision and control of the National Electrification Administration
the Labor Code, as amended by RA 6715). Also, the perfection
(NEA). The management of NEECO I is vested on the Board of
of an appeal within the reglementary period and in the manner
Directors. Respondent Patricio dela Peña was NEECO's general
prescribed by law is jurisdictional, and noncompliance with such
manager on detail from NEA.
legal requirement is fatal and effectively renders the judgment
-The Board of Directors adopted Policy No. 3-33, which set the
final and executory.
guidelines for NEECO I's retirement benefits. All regular employees
-However, in a number of cases, this Court relaxed the rule to
were ordered by NEECO I to accomplish applications for either
resolve controversies on the merits, specifically, when there are
retirement, resignation, or separation from service.
special meritorious circumstances and issues, such as when
-The applications of Baguisa and Guevarra were approved; they were
there was substantial compliance with the rule, so that on
paid the appropriate separation pay. These successive events, followed
balance, SC made technical considerations to give way to equity
by the promotion of certain union officers to supervisory rank, caused
and justice.
apprehension in the labor association. They were considered as
-In this case, the decision of the labor arbiter was issued on
harassment threatening the union members, and circumventing the
Dec21,92. Respondents filed their appeal on Dec28,92 barely
employees' security of tenure. To strengthen and neutralize
seven days from receipt thereof. The bonding company issued
management's arbitrary moves, the union held a "snap election" of
the bond dated Jan4,93 the last day for filing an appeal.
officers.
However, it was forwarded to NLRC only on the following day,
-Petitioner labor association passed a resolution withdrawing the
Jan5,93. Considering these and the holiday season, SC finds it
applications for retirement of all its members, but petitioners Marin,
equitable to ease the rules.
Fajardo and Carillo were compulsorily retired by management. They
-As to the amount of bond, we note that there had been changes
received their separation pay under protest. Javate was terminated from
in the Rules promulgated by the NLRC. Previously the
employment allegedly due to misappropriation of funds and dishonesty.
computation of the cash or surety bond to be posted by an
He was not paid separation or retirement benefits.
employer who wishes to appeal contained in the original rules
-Petitioners and Erdie Javate instituted a complaint for illegal dismissal
was "exclusive of moral and exemplary damages and attorney's
and damages with the NLRC Regional Arbitration Branch in San
fees". It was later deleted sometime in 1991 and 1992, then
Fernando. They alleged they were purposely singled out for retirement
restored on Nov20,93. It may be noted that while NLRC in its
from a listing of employees who were made to submit retirement forms,
Resolution No. 11-01-91 dated Nov7,91 deleted the phrase
even if they were not on top of the list because they were union officers,
"exclusive of moral and exemplary damages as well as
past officers or active members of the association. Further, petitioners
attorney's fees" in the determination of the amount of the bond, it
claimed that their acceptance of the money offered by NEECO I did not
provided a safeguard against the imposition of excessive bonds
constitute estoppel nor waiver, since their acceptances were with
providing "(T)he Commission may, in meritorious cases and
vehement objections and without prejudice to all their rights resulting
upon Motion of the Appellant, reduce the amount of the bond."
from an illegal dismissal. Additionally, Javate averred he was framed up
-The unreasonable and excessive amount of bond would be
and dismissed without due process.
oppressive and unjust and would have the effect of depriving a
-The labor arbiter rendered judgment declaring the employer guilty of
party of his right to appeal. Besides, private respondents stress
illegal dismissal and unfair labor practice act, as charged; ordering
that the petitioners were paid their retirement benefits and that
respondents to reinstate individual complainants to their former positions
the cooperative has sufficient assets from which the other claims
without loss of seniority rights and other privileges, either physically or in
for damages and attorney's fees may be obtained.
the payroll, at the option of the respondents, with payment of full
backwages; and ordering respondents to pay complainants moral and
2. YES. But the award given by the Labor Arbiter, being
exemplary damages, attorney’s fees and the costs of litigation.
excessive, is reduced.
-Private respondents appealed to the NLRC and posted a surety bond
-To warrant an award of moral damages, it must be shown that
(P244,891.93). But herein petitioners filed an omnibus motion to dismiss
the dismissal of the employee was attended to by bad faith, or
on the ground of late appeal, claiming that insufficient bond was filed by
constituted an act oppressive to labor, or was done in a manner
NEECO I only on January 5, 1993. The bond excluded the award of
contrary to morals, good customs or public policy. The Labor
moral and exemplary damages, attorneys' fees and costs of litigation.
Arbiter ruled that there was unfair labor practice.
-Respondent NLRC denied the motion and instead gave due course to
-Unfair labor practices violate the constitutional rights of
the appeal, and later modified the decision, by deleting the awards of
workers and employees to self-organization, are inimical to
moral and exemplary damages, attorney's fees and cost of litigation; and
the legitimate interests of both labor and management,
ruling that the amounts of retirement benefits received by the individual
including their right to bargain collectively and otherwise
complainants are to be applied to the backwages that may be due to
deal with each other in an atmosphere of freedom and
them.
mutual respect; and disrupt industrial peace and hinder the
-Meanwhile, petitioners were reinstated by NEECO I pending appeal.
promotion of healthy and stable labor-management
Erdie Javate withdrew his complaint and opted to receive his retirement
relations. As the conscience of the government, it is the
benefits (P42,114.09).
Court's sworn duty to ensure that none trifles with labor
-Both parties filed MFRs, which were both denied, Hence this special
rights.
civil action under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court, by the
petitioners.
LABOR LAW 2 A2010 236 Disini
-For this reason, we find it proper in this case to impose moral and LUZON MARINE DEPT., UNION V ROLDAN
exemplary damages on private respondent. However, the damages
(LUZON STEVEDORING CO.)
awarded by the labor arbiter, to our mind, are excessive. In determining
the amount of damages recoverable, the business, social and financial 86 PHIL 507
position of the offended parties and the business and financial position OZAETA; MAY 30, 1950
of the offender are taken into account. It is our view that herein private
respondents had not fully acted in good faith. However, we are NATURE Petition for certiorari to review a resolution of the
cognizant that a cooperative promotes the welfare of its own members. Court of Industrial Relations.
The economic benefits filter to the cooperative members. Either equally
or proportionally, they are distributed among members in correlation with FACTS
the resources of the association utilized. Cooperatives help promote - June 17, 1948: Petitioner Luzon Marine Union (UNION)
economic democracy and support community development. Under these presented to respondent Luzon Stevedoring Co. (LSC) a petition
circumstances, we deem it proper to reduce the award for moral and containing demands, including that it be granted of full
exemplary damages. recognition “with the right to collective bargaining, closed-shop
and check-off.” The Union initiated the petition in the CIR praying
3. NO. that LSC be directed to comply immediately with the demands.
-Having been illegally dismissed, individual petitioners are entitled to - The Union de Obreros Estivadores de Filipinas (UOEF) a labor
reinstatement from the time they were illegally dismissed, until they were organization divided into units of which Universal Marine Union is
reinstated on March 16, 1993. For that period they are likewise entitled a part, intervened on behalf of the Union because it alleged that
to backwages minus the amount petitioners were forced to receive as the demand of the Union for recognition with the right to
"retirement" pay. A recomputation is therefore proper and in the event collective bargaining, closed-shop, etc. would violate an
that the amount of "retirement" pay received by an individual petitioner agreement entered into between LSC and UOEF, where the
exceeds the amount of his backwages, the excess should be deemed as company recognized UOEF as the labor organization of the
advances of salary which should be refundable until fully repaid by him. workers rendering services to LSC., with full right of collective
Disposition Petition partially granted. bargaining.
- UOEF moved for dismissal for lack of jurisdiction, on the
ground that the Union did not count with more than 30 members
PART 9 employed in the LSC. Judge Bautista issued an order denying
the motion to dismiss. Before the receipt of the order, 65 alleged
CONCERTED ACTIVITIES members of the Union initiated a strike without notice (July 19). It
was only on July 21 that the LSC received the notice of strike.
- July 20, 1948: Union filed with CIR a petition alleging that all its
9.01 BASIS OF RIGHT TO ENGAGE IN members (more than 300) went on strike on July 19 due to the
refusal of LSC to grant their demands, and prayed for the
CONCERTED ACTIVITIES issuance of a restraining order to prevent the respondent from
employing strike breakers.
- August 16, 1948: Judge Bautista issued an order directing the
1. CONSTITUTION- ART XIII, SEC. 3 strikers to return to work, and the LSC to reinstate them in their
previous positions. Acting on a motion for reconsideration, the
court set said order aside on the ground that the strike was
LABOR unjustified and illegal.
Section 3. The State shall afford full protection to - Judges Roldan and Castillo held that although Sec. 19 of
labor, local and overseas, organized and Commonwealth Act 103 provides that “pending award or
unorganized, and promote full employment and decision by the CIR, the employee, tenant or laborer shall
equality of employment opportunities for all. not strike or walk out of his employment when so enjoined
by the Court, and although the Court had not enjoined the
It shall guarantee the rights of all workers to self- petitioner NOT TO STRIKE, it does not necessarily follow
organization, collective bargaining and negotiations, and that the strike was legal and justified xxx Although the Act
peaceful concerted activities, including the right to strike in recognizes the laborers’ right to strike, it also creates all the
accordance with law. They shall be entitled to security of means by which a resort thereto may be avoided, “because
tenure, humane conditions of work, and a living wage. They a strike is a remedy essentially coercive in character and
general in its disturbing effects upon the social order and
shall also participate in policy and decision-making processes the public interests.”
affecting their rights and benefits as may be provided by law. - The CIR found out that the reason the members went
The State shall promote the principle of shared on strike was because the “opposite party claims or
responsibility between workers and employers and asserts that they had no members inside the company,
the preferential use of voluntary modes in settling and because they were becoming impatient.” From The
disputes, including conciliation, and shall enforce court concluded that the purpose of the strike was to
their mutual compliance therewith to foster influence the decision and to compel the Court to decide
industrial peace. promptly. The union insists that the strike was called for
a lawful purpose: 1) to show they had more than 30
The State shall regulate the relations between members; 2) to answer the challenge of Alejo Villanueva
workers and employers, recognizing the right of that he will dismiss the members from the company.
labor to its just share in the fruits of production
and the right of enterprises to reasonable returns ISSUES
to investments, and to expansion and growth. WON the strike was called for a lawful purpose.

HELD
1. NO
Ratio In cases not falling within the prohibition against strikes,
the legality or illegality of a strike depends upon the 1) purpose
LABOR LAW 2 A2010 237 Disini
for which it is maintained, and 2) upon the means employed in carrying it (Article 264, Labor Code) Evidence must be presented to
on. substantiate the commission thereof and not merely an
- The law does not look with favor upon strikes and lockouts because of unsubstantiated allegation
their disturbing and pernicious effects upon the social order and the - The right to strike is one of the rights recognized and guaranteed by
public interests. the Constitution as an instrument of labor for its protection against
Reasoning The reasons presented by the Union do not justify the exploitation by management. By virtue of this right, the workers are
drastic measure of a strike, which necessarily entails pernicious able to press their demands for better terms of employment with more
consequences not only to the company but also to the laborers energy and persuasiveness, poising the threat to strike as their
themselves and public. reaction to the employer's intransigence. The strike is indeed a
- If the purpose of a strike is trivial, unreasonable or unjust, or if violence powerful weapon of the working class. But precisely because of this, it
was committed, the strike, although not prohibited by injunction, may be must be handled carefully, like a sensitive explosive, lest it blow up in
declared by the court illegal, with adverse consequences to the strikers. the workers' own hands. Thus, it must be declared only after the most
- If the laborers resort to a strike to enforce their demands (instead of thoughtful consultation among them, conducted in the only way
exhausting legal processes first) they do so at their own risk, and should allowed, that is, peacefully, and in every case conformably to
the court find the strike was unjustified, the strikers would suffer the reasonable regulation. Any violation of the legal requirements and
adverse consequences. strictures, such as a defiance of a return-to-work order in industries
DISPOSITION The petition appealed from is affirmed. affected with public interest, will render the strike illegal, to the
detriment of the very workers it is supposed to protect

STANFORD MARKETING CORP V JULIAN Disposition Petition dismissed


BLT BUS CO V NLRC
212 SCRA 792 2. STATUTORY- 263 (b)
CRUZ; August 21, 1992
STRIKES AND LOCKOUTS
NATURE Special civil action for certiorari
ART. 263. Strikes, picketing and lockouts. - (a)xxx
FACTS (b) Workers shall have the right to engage in
- Tinig at Lakas ng Manggagawa sa BLTB Co. NAFLU, an affiliate of concerted activities for purposes of collective
NAFLU, filed a Notice of Strike against the Batangas Laguna Tayabas bargaining or for their mutual benefit and
Bus Company (BLTB Co.) on the grounds of unfair labor practice and protection. The right of legitimate labor
violation of the CBA.
organizations to strike and picket and of employers
- BLTB Co. asked the Sec. of Labor to assume jurisdiction or to certify it
to the NLRC. The Acting Sec of Labor later certified it to the NLRC. A to lockout, consistent with the national interest,
copy of the certification order was served upon NAFLU. The union shall continue to be recognized and respected.
secretary, however, refused to receive it. However, no labor union may strike and no
- The officers and members of TLM-BLTBCo-NAFLU went on strike. The employer may declare a lockout on grounds
NLRC issued a resolution ordering the employees to stop the strike. involving inter-union and intra-union disputes.
BLTBCo caused the publication of the resolution and called on all
striking workers to return to work.
- Of the some 1,730 BLTBCo employees who went on strike, only 1,116
reported back for work. Seventeen others were later re-admitted.
Subsequently, about 614 employees, including those who were BLT BUS CO V NLRC
allegedly dismissed for causes other than the strike, filed individual 212 SCRA 792
complaints for illegal dismissal. Their common ground was that they CRUZ; August 21, 1992
were refused admission when they reported back for work.
- The NLRC issued a resolution ordering the reinstatement of the union
NATURE Special civil action for certiorari
members.
FACTS
ISSUE/S - Tinig at Lakas ng Manggagawa sa BLTB Co. NAFLU, an
1. WON the union members who participated in the illegal strike should affiliate of NAFLU, filed a Notice of Strike against the Batangas
be reinstated Laguna Tayabas Bus Company (BLTB Co.) on the grounds of
unfair labor practice and violation of the CBA.
HELD - BLTB Co. asked the Sec. of Labor to assume jurisdiction or to
1. YES. certify it to the NLRC. The Acting Sec of Labor later certified it to
the NLRC. A copy of the certification order was served upon
Reasoning NAFLU. The union secretary, however, refused to receive it.
- First, there was inadequate service of the certification order on the - The officers and members of TL M-BLTBCo-NAFLU
union as of the date the strike was declared and there was no showing went on strike. The NLRC issued a resolution ordering the
that the striking members had been apprised of such order by the employees to stop the strike. BLTBCo caused the publication of
NAFLU. the resolution and called on all striking workers to return to work.
- Second, by virtue of the priniciple of vicarious liability, only the union - Of the some 1,730 BLTBCo employees who went on strike,
officers deserve not to be reinstated. The leaders of the union are the only 1,116 reported back for work. Seventeen others were later
moving force in the declaration of the strike and the Rank-in-file re-admitted. Subsequently, about 614 employees, including
employees merely followed. Likewise, viewed in the light of Article 264, those who were allegedly dismissed for causes other than the
paragraph (e), those who participated in the commission of illegal acts strike, filed individual complaints for illegal dismissal. Their
who stood charged criminally thereof in court must be penalized common ground was that they were refused admission when
- The contention of the petitioner that the private respondents they reported back for work.
abandoned their position is also not acceptable. An employee who - The NLRC issued a resolution ordering the reinstatement of the
forthwith takes steps to protest his lay-off cannot by any logic be said to union members.
have abandoned his work.
-The loss of employment status of striking union members is limited to ISSUE/S
those "who knowingly participates in the commission of illegal acts." 1. WON the union members who participated in the illegal strike
LABOR LAW 2 A2010 238 Disini
should be reinstated difference, private respondents notified the NCMB that there
were no more base for the notice of strike.
HELD -Danilo Martinez. a member of the Board of Directors of the
1. YES. Union, was gunned down in his house in the presence of his wife
Reasoning and children. The gunman was later identified as Eledio Samson,
- First, there was inadequate service of the certification order on the an alleged member of security forces of private respondent. After
union as of the date the strike was declared and there was no showing the killing, most of the members of the Union refused to report
that the striking members had been apprised of such order by the for work. They returned to work the following day but they did not
NAFLU. comply with the "quota system" adopted by the management to
- Second, by virtue of the priniciple of vicarious liability, only the union bolster production output. Allegedly, the Union instructed the
officers deserve not to be reinstated. The leaders of the union are the workers to reduce their production to thirty percent (30%) Private
moving force in the declaration of the strike and the Rank-in-file respondents charged the Union with economic sabotage through
employees merely followed. Likewise, viewed in the light of Article 264, slowdown. Private respondents filed separate charged against
paragraph (e), those who participated in the commission of illegal acts the Union and it member for illegal strike. unfair labor practice
who stood charged criminally thereof in court must be penalized and damages, with prayer for injunction. Petitioners skipped
- The contention of the petitioner that the private respondents work to pay their last respect to the slain Danilo Martinez. who
abandoned their position is also not acceptable. An employee who was laid to rest. Again on another date petitioner did not report
forthwith takes steps to protest his lay-off cannot by any logic be said to for work. Instead, they proceeded to private respondents' office
have abandoned his work. at Lanang, carrying placards and posters which called for the
-The loss of employment status of striking union members is limited to removal of the security guards. the ouster of certain
those "who knowingly participates in the commission of illegal acts." management officials, and the approval of their mass leave
(Article 264, Labor Code) Evidence must be presented to substantiate application. Their mass action did not succeed.
the commission thereof and not merely an unsubstantiated allegation -Labor Arbiter decision: Illegal strike and employees have lost
- The right to strike is one of the rights recognized and guaranteed by their employment status and order to desist. NLRC limited the
the Constitution as an instrument of labor for its protection against penalty of dismissal only to the leaders of the illegal strike
exploitation by management. By virtue of this right, the workers are able especially the officers of the union who served as its major
to press their demands for better terms of employment with more energy player and union members were merely instigated to participate
and persuasiveness, poising the threat to strike as their reaction to the in the illegal strike and should be treated differently from their
employer's intransigence. The strike is indeed a powerful weapon of the leaders. Petitioners claim that public respondent NLRC gravely
working class. But precisely because of this, it must be handled abused it discretion.
carefully, like a sensitive explosive, lest it blow up in the workers' own
hands. Thus, it must be declared only after the most thoughtful Issue WON the strike is legal
consultation among them, conducted in the only way allowed, that is, Held
peacefully, and in every case conformably to reasonable regulation. Any No. The applicable law are Articles 263 and 264 of the Labor
violation of the legal requirements and strictures, such as a defiance of a Code, as amended by E.O. No. 111, dated December 24. 1986.
return-to-work order in industries affected with public interest, will render Paragraphs (c) and (f) of Article 263 of the Labor Code, as
the strike illegal, to the detriment of the very workers it is supposed to amended by E.O. 111, provides.
protect "c) In cases of bargaining deadlocks. the duly certified or
recognized bargaining agent may file a notice of strike or the
Lapanday Workers Union v. NLRC employer may file a notice of lockout with the Ministry at
248 SCRA 95 least 30 days before the intended date thereof. In cases of
Puno ; Sept. 7, 1995 unfair labor practice, the notice shall be 15 days and in the
absence of a duly certified or recognized bargaining agent,
the notice of strike may be filed by any legitimate labor
Facts
-Lapanday Agricultural and Development Corporation and CADECO organization in behalf of its member. However, in case of
Agro Development Philippines Inc. (Private respondents) are sister dismissal from employment of union officer duly elected in
companies. Lapanday Workers Union (Union) is the duly certified accordance with the union constitution and by-laws, which
bargaining agent of the rank and file employees of private respondent. may constitute union busting where the existence of the
The Union is affiliated with the KMU-ANGLO. union is threatened, the 15-day cooling-off period shall not
-Union has a collective bargaining agreement. A few months before the apply and the union may take action immediately.
expiration of their CBA, private respondent initiated certain management xxx xxx xxx
policies which disrupted the relationship of the parties- 1. Contracting of "f) A decision to declare a strike must be approved by a
Philippine Eagle Protectors and Security Agency Inc., the Union branded majority of the total union membership in the bargaining unit
the security guards posted within the company premises as private concerned, obtained by secret ballot in meetings or
respondents' "goons" and "special forces." It also accused the guards of referenda called for that purpose. A decision to declare a
intimidating and harassing their members. 2. The Union claimed that the lockout must be approved by a majority of the board of
module on the Philippines political spectrum lumped the ANGLO director of the corporation or association or of the partner in
(Alliance of Nationalist and Genuine Labor Organization), with other a partnership, obtained by secret ballot in a meeting called
outlawed labor organization such as the National Democratic Front or
for that purpose. The decision shall be valid for the duration
other leftist groups.
-These issues were discussed during a labor-management meeting, the
of the dispute based on substantially the same grounds
Union agreed to allow its members to attend the HDIR seminar for the considered when the strike or lockout vote was taken. The
rank-and-filers but the Union directed its members not to attend the Ministry may, at its own initiative or upon the request of any
seminars scheduled on said dates. They picketed the premises of the affected party, supervise the conduct of secret ballot In every
Philippine Eagle Protectors to show their displeasure on the hiring of the case the union or the employer shall furnish the Ministry the
guards. Union filed a Notice of Strike with the National Conciliation and result of the voting at least seven (7) days before the
Mediation Board (NCMB). NCMB called conciliation conference. The intended strike or lockout subject to the cooling-off period
conference yielded the agreements that Union officers, including the herein provided.
officials of KMU-ANGLO, and the Executive Director of the NMB would
attend the HDIR seminar and a committee shall convene to establish Article 264 of the same Code reads:
guidelines governing the guards. With the apparent settlement of their "Art 264. Prohibited activities. - (a) No labor
organization or employer shall declared a strike or
LABOR LAW 2 A2010 239 Disini
lockout without first having bargained collectively in among them, conducted in the only was allowed that is,
accordance with Title VII of this Book or without first having peacefully, and in every case conformably to reasonable
filed the notice required in the preceding Article or without the regulation. Any violation of the legal requirements and
necessary strike or lockout vote first having been obtained and strictures, . . . will render the strike illegal. to the detriment of the
reported to the Ministry. very workers it is supposed to protect.
xxx xxx xxx "Every war must be lawfully waged. A labor dispute demands no
". . . Any union officer who knowingly participates in an illegal strike and less observance of the rules. for the benefit of all concerned."
any worker or union officer who knowingly participates in the Applying the law to the case at bar, we rule that strike conducted
commission of illegal acts during a strike may be declared to have lost by the union on October 12, 1988 is plainly illegal as it was held
his employment status: Provided that mere participation of a worker in a within the seven (7) day waiting period provided for by paragraph
lawful strike shall not constitute sufficient ground for termination of his (f), Article 263 of the Labor Code. as amended. The haste in
employment, even if a replacement had been hired by the employer holding the strike prevented the Department of Labor and
during such lawful strike." Employment from verifying whether it carried the approval of the
A strike is "any temporary stoppage of work by the concerted action of majority of the union members. It set to naught an important
employees as a result of an industrial or labor dispute." It is the most policy consideration of our law on strike. Considering this finding,
preeminent of the economic weapons or workers which they unsheathe we need not exhaustively rule on the legality of the work
to force management to agree to an equitable sharing of the point stoppage conducted by the union and some of their members on
product of labor and capital. Undeniably, strikes exert some disquieting September 9 and 23, 1988. Suffice to state, that the ruling of the
effects not only on the relationship between labor and management but public respondent on the matter is supported by substantial
also on the general peace and progress of society. Our laws thus evidence.
regulate their exercise within reasons by balancing the interests of labor
and management together with the overarching public interest. Disposition Reinstating rank-and-file workers who were merely
misled in supporting illegal strikes but not be entitled to
Some of the limitations on the exercise of the right of strike are provided backwages as they should not be compensated for services
for in paragraph (c) and (f) of Article 263 of the labor Code, as amended, skipped during the illegal strike. Dismissed.
supra. They provide for the procedural steps to be followed before
staging a strike - filing of notice of strike, taking of strike vote, and GRAND BOULEVARD HOTEL V GENUINE
reporting of the strike vote result to the Department of Labor and LABORERS ORGANIZATION
Employment. In National Federation of Sugar Workers (NFSW) vs. 406 SCRA 688
Overseas, et al., we ruled that these steps are mandatory in
character. thus: CALLEJO; July 18, 2003

"If only the filing of the strike notice and the strike-vote report would be NATURE
deemed mandatory. but not the waiting periods so specifically and Petition for review on certiorari
emphatically prescribed by law, the purposes (hereafter discussed) for
which the filing of the strike notice and strike-vote report is required FACTS
cannot be achieved . . . - Respondent Genuine Labor Organization of Workers in Hotel,
xxx xxx xxx Restaurant and Allied Industries – Silahis International Hotel
"So too, the 7 day strike-vote report is not without a purpose. As pointed Chapter (Union) and the petitioner Grand Boulevard Hotel (then
out by the Solicitor General - Silahis International Hotel, Inc.) executed a CBA covering the
'. . . The submission of the report gives assurance that a strike vote has period from July 10, 1985 up to July 9, 1988.
been taken and that, if the report concerning it is false, the majority of - Thereafter, Union filed several notices of strike on account of
the members can take appropriate remedy before it is too late.' alleged violations of CBA, illegal dismissal and suspension of
EEs. In these instances, SOLE issued a status quo ante bellum
The seven (7) day waiting period is intended to give the Department of order certifying the labor dispute to the NLRC for compulsory
Labor and Employment an opportunity to verify whether the projected arbitration pursuant to Article 263(g) of LC. After notice was
strike really carries the imprimatur of the majority of the union members. given by Hotel re its decision to implement retrenchment
The need for assurance that majority of the union members support the program, Union informed the DOLE that the union will conduct a
strike cannot be gainsaid. Strike is usually the last weapon of labor to be strike vote referendum. The members of the Union voted to
gainsaid. Strike compel capital to concede to its bargaining demands or stage a strike. Union informed the DOLE of the results of the
to defend itself against unfair labor practices of management. It is a strike vote referendum. SOLE issued another status quo ante
weapon that can either breathe life to or destroy the union and its bellum order certifying the case to the NLRC for compulsory
members in their struggle with management for a more equitable due of arbitration and enjoining the parties from engaging in any strike
their labors. The decision to wield the weapon of strike must, therefore, or lockout. Then, another notice of strike was filed by Union on
rest on a rational basis, free from emotionalism. unswayed by the account of the illegal dismissal of EEs pusrsuant to Hotel’s act of
tempers and tantrums of a few hothead, and firmly focused on the retrenching around 171 EEs. Officers of the respondent union
legitimate interest of the union which should not, however, be antithetical and some members staged a picket in the premises of the hotel,
to the public welfare. Thus, our laws require the decision to strike to be obstructing the free ingress and egress thereto. Because of this,
the consensus of the majority for while majority is not infallible, still, it is they were terminated.
the best hedge against haste and error. In addition, a majority vote - Hotel filed a complaint with NLRC for illegal strike against the
assures the union it will go to war against management with the strength union, its members and officers. Petitioner Hotel alleged inter
derived from unity and hence, with better chance to succeed. In alia that the union members and officers staged a strike on
Batangas Laguna Tayabas Bus Company vs. NLRC, we held: November 16, 1990 which lasted until November 29, 1990
xxx xxx xxx without complying with the requirements provided under Articles
"The right to strike is one of the right recognized and guaranteed by the 263 and 264 of the Labor Code. It further alleged that the officers
Constitution as an instrument of labor for it protection against and members of the respondent union blocked the main ingress
exploitation by management. by virtue of his right. the workers are able to and egress from the hotel.
to press their demands for better terms of employment with more energy - The respondent Union denied the material allegations of the
and persuasiveness. poising the threat to strike at their reaction to complaint and alleged that the petitioner committed ULP prior to
employer s intransigence. The strike is indeed a powerful weapon of the the filing of the Nov. 16, 1990 notice of strike. Hence, there was
working class. But precisely because of this, it must be handled carefully no need for the union to comply with A263 and 264 of LC, as the
like a sensitive explosive, but it blow up in the workers' own hands. notice
Thus. it must de declared only after the most thoughtful consultation
LABOR LAW 2 A2010 240 Disini
- LA Linsangan’s Ruling: Union’s failure to comply with the requirements compulsory or voluntary arbitration or during the pendency of
laid down in A263 and 264 of LC, the strike that was staged was illegal. cases involving the same grounds for the strike or lockout.
Considering the admissions of the individual respondents that they - Even if the union acted in good faith in the belief that the
participated in the said strike, the termination of their employment by the company was committing an unfair labor practice, if no notice of
petitioner was legal. LA noted that if as alleged by the respondent union strike and a strike vote were conducted, the said strike is illegal.
the petitioner was guilty of ULP, it should have filed a complaint therefor
against the Hotel and/or its officials for which the latter could have been 2. YES
meted penal and administrative sanctions as provided for in A272 of LC. Re: Effect of Illegality
The Union failed. Ratio Since a strike that is undertaken, despite the issuance by
- Appeal by Union to NLRC: that it had complied with the requirements the SOLE of an assumption or certification order, becomes a
laid down in A263 and 264 of LC because its Nov 16, 1990 notice of prohibited activity and, thus, illegal pursuant to A264 of LC, the
strike was a mere reiteration of its Sept 27, 1990 notice of strike, which, union officers and members, as a result, are deemed to have
in turn, complied with all the requirements of the aforementioned lost their employment status for having knowingly participated in
articles, i.e., the cooling-off period, the strike ban, the strike vote and the an illegal act.
strike vote report.
- NLRC affirmed LA Decision. Compliance of the requirements laid down Disposition Petition is GRANTED. LA Decision REINSTATED.
in A263 and 264 of LC respecting the Sept 27, 1990 notice of strike filed
by the union cannot be carried over to the Nov 16, 1990 notice of strike.
Resultantly, for failure of the union to comply with the requirements, the
strike staged on November 16 up to November 29, 1990 was illegal.
3. INTERNATIONAL COVENANT ON
- CA reversed NLRC and LA: It took into account the observation of the
Sol-Gen that the Hotel retrenched EEs pending the resolution of the ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND CULTURAL
certified cases respecting the alleged illegal suspension and dismissals RIGHTS – ART. 8 (d)
effected by Hotel during and prior to the notices of strike filed by Union.
Sol-Gen opined that even if the strike was staged without the proper
notice and compliance with the cooling-off period, resort thereto was INT’L COVENANT ON ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND
simply triggered by the petitioners' belief in good faith that Hotel was CULTURAL RIGHTS
engaged in ULP. Hence, this petition Article 8
ISSUES
1. The States Parties to the present Covenant
1 WON the strike staged by the respondent union on Nov16-29, 1990 undertake to ensure:
is legal -xxx-
2 WON the dismissals of the officers and some members of the Union (d) The right to strike, provided that it is exercised
as a consequence of the strike on Nov16-29, 1990 are valid. in conformity with the laws of the particular
country.
HELD
1. NO
Re: Procedural Requirements
- Under A263 (c) and (f) of LC, the requisites for a valid strike are as
4. LIMITATIONS
follows: (a) a notice of strike fled with the DOLE 30 days before the
intended date thereof or 15 days in case of ULP; (b) strike vote PHILIPPINE DIAMOND HOTEL AND RESORT
approved by a majority of the total union membership in the bargaining INC (MANILA DIAMOND HOTEL v MANILA
unit concerned obtained by secret ballot in a meeting called for that
purpose; (c) notice given to the DOLE of the results of the voting at least DIAMOND HOTEL EMPLOYEES UNION
7 days before the intended strike. The requisite 7-day period is intended 494 SCRA 195
to give the DOLE an opportunity to verify whether the projected strike CARPIO MORALES; June 30, 2006
really carries the approval of the majority of the union members. The
notice of strike and the cooling-off period were intended to provide an FACTS
opportunity for mediation and conciliation. The requirements are -Union filed a petition for certification election to be declared the
mandatory and failure of a union to comply therewith renders the strike exclusive bargaining representative of the Hotel’s employees.
illegal. A strike simultaneously with or immediately after a notice of strike This petition was dismissed by DOLE for lack of legal
will render the requisite periods nugatory. requirements.
-after a few months, Union sent a letter to Hotel informing it of its
- In this case, union filed its notice of strike with the DOLE on Nov 16, desire to negotiate for a collective bargaining agreement. This
1990 and on the same day, staged a picket on the premises of the hotel, was rejected by the Hotel stating that the Union was not the
in violation of the law. Union cannot argue that since the notice of strike employee’s bargaining agent as their petition for certification
on Nov 16, 1990 were for the same grounds as those contained in their election was denied.
notice of strike on September 27, 1990 which complied with the -Union filed a Notice of Strike with the NCMB alleging the Hotel’
requirements of the law on the cooling-off period, strike ban, strike vote refusal to bargain and for acts of unfair labor practices. NCMB
and strike vote report, the strike staged by them on Nov16, 1990 was summoned both parties and held series of dialogues. Union
lawful. The matters contained in the notice of strike of Sept 27, 1990 had however suddenly went on strike
already been taken cognizance of by the SOLE when he issued on Oct -Secretary of DOLE assumed jurisdiction and ordered
31, 1990 a status quo ante bellum order enjoining union from intending compulsory arbitration pursuant to art. 263 (g) of LC. And Union
or staging a strike. Despite SOLE order, the union nevertheless staged a members were directed to return to work and for Hotel to accept
strike on Nov16, 1990 simultaneously with its notice of strike, thus them back. Hotel refused to accept the employees return. The
violating A264(a) LC order was modified (by a different Secretary) such that
reinstatement was to be done only in the payroll.
Grounds -Union filed for certiorari alleging grave abuse of discretion. Case
- A strike that is undertaken, despite the issuance by the SOLE of an was referred to the CA. CA affirmed that the “payroll
assumption or certification order, becomes a prohibited activity and, reinstatement” was not a grave abuse of discretion. On appeal, it
thus, illegal pursuant to A264 of LC: No strike or lockout shall be modified NLRC decision ordering reinstatement with back wages
declared after assumption of jurisdiction by the President or the of union members.
Secretary or after certification or submission of the dispute to
LABOR LAW 2 A2010 241 Disini
ISSUE
1) WON the Union can bargain only in behalf of its members and not for
BISIG NG MANGGAGAWA SA CONCRETE
all the employees of the Hotel.
2) WON the strike conducted by the Union was illegal. AGGREGATES, INC. V NLRC
3) WON those employees who participated in the strike should be given G.R. No. 105090
back wages PUNO; September 16, 1993
HELD
NATURE Petition for certiorari and mandamus
1) No.
-As provided by art 255 of the LC only the labor organization designated
FACTS
or selected by the majority of the employees in an appropriate collective
- The labor conflict between the parties broke out in the open
bargaining unit is the exclusive representative of the employees in such
when the petitioner union struck on April 6, 1992 protesting
unit for the purpose of collective bargaining.
issues ranging from unfair labor practices and union busting
-The Union’s petition for certificate election was denied by the DOLE.
allegedly committed by the private respondent. The union
The union thus is admittedly not the exclusive representative of the
picketed the premises of the private respondent in Quezon City,
majority of the employees of petitioner, hence, it could not demand from
Rizal, Pampanga and Laguna.
petitioner the right to bargain collectively in their behalf
- On April 8, 1992, private respondent filed with the NLRC a
-Respondent insists, however, that it could validly bargain in behalf of
petition for injunction to stop the strike which it denounced as
"its members," relying on Article 242 of the Labor Code.
illegal.
-the CA ruled that “what [respondent] will be achieving is to divide the
- The petition was set for hearing but the union claimed that it
employees, more particularly, the rank-and-file employees of
was not furnished a copy of the petition. Allegedly, the company
[petitioner] . . . the other workers who are not members are at a serious
misrepresented its address to be at Rm. 205-6 Herald Bldg.,
disadvantage, because if the same shall be allowed, employees who are
Muralla St., Intramuros, Manila.
non-union members will be economically impaired and will not be able to
- On April 13, 1992, the NLRC heard the evidence of the
negotiate their terms and conditions of work, thus defeating the very
company alone. Before the day was over, the respondent NLRC
essence and reason of collective bargaining, which is an effective
issued a temporary restraining order against the union. No copy
safeguard against the evil schemes of employers in terms and
of this Order was furnished the union. The union learned of the
conditions of work”
Order only when it was posted on April 15, 1992 at the premises
- Petitioner’s refusal to bargain then with respondent can not be
of the company..
considered a ULP to justify the staging of the strike.
- On April 24, 1992, the union also filed its own Petition for
TOPICS: Union registration and procedure, factors, majority union
Injunction to enjoin the company "from asking the aid of the
police and the military officer in escorting scabs to enter the
2) yes.
struck establishment." The records show that the case was
-as was mentioned, the first ground mentioned by the Union- the Hotel’s
heard on April 24 and 30, May 4 and 5, 1992 by respondent
refusal to bargain- was not a valid ground to stage the strike.
Labor Arbiter Enrilo Peñalosa. On April 30, 1992, the company
-The second ground – that petitioner prevented or intimidated some
filed a Motion for the Immediate Issuance of Preliminary
workers from joining the union before, during or after the strike – was
Injunction, which the union opposed. On May 5, 1992, however,
correctly discredited by the appellate court.. Since it is the union who
the respondent NLRC issued its disputed Order granting the
alleges that unfair labor practices were committed by the Hotel, the
company's motion for preliminary injunction.
burden of proof is on the union to prove its allegations by substantial
evidence. “the facts and the evidence did not establish events [sic] least
ISSUE WON Order of the NLRC infringes petitioners' right to
a rational basis why the union would [wield] a strike based on alleged
strike and must be struck down
unfair labor practices it did not even bother to substantiate”.
-It is doctrinal that the exercise of the right of private sector employees
HELD YES
to strike is not absolute. Thus Section 3 of Article XIII of the Constitution,
- The records will show that the respondent NLRC failed to
provides:
comply with the letter and spirit of Article 218 (e), (4) and (5) of
SECTION 3. x x x
the Labor Code in issuing its Order of May 5, 1992. Article 218
It shall guarantee the rights of all workers to self-organization, collective
(e) of the Labor Code provides both the procedural and
bargaining and negotiations and peaceful concerted activities, including
substantive requirements which must strictly be complied with
the right to strike in accordance with law…”
before a temporary or permanent injunction can issue in a labor
-Even if the purpose of a strike is valid, the strike may still be held illegal
dispute, viz:
where the means employed are illegal. Thus, the employment of
violence, intimidation, restraint or coercion in carrying out concerted
"ART. 218. Powers of the Commission. -- The Commission
activities which are injurious to the rights to property renders a strike
shall have the power and authority:
illegal. Evidence show s that some of the workers-strikers who joined the
strike indeed committed illegal acts – blocking the free ingress to and
xxx xxx xxx
egress from the Hotel, holding noise barrage, threatening guests, and
the like.
(e) To enjoin or restrain any actual or threatened commission of
TOPICS: right to engage in concerted activities-limitations
any or all prohibited or unlawful acts or to require the
performance of a particular act in any labor dispute which, if not
3) No.
restrained or performed forthwith, may cause grave or
-The general rule is that backwages shall not be awarded in an
irreparable damage to any party or render ineffectual any
economic strike on the principle that "a fair day’s wage" accrues only for
decision in favor of such party: Provided, That no temporary or
a "fair day’s labor. If there is no work performed by the employee there
permanent injunction in any case involving or growing out of a
can be no wage or pay, unless of course, the laborer was able, willing
labor dispute as defined in this Code shall be issued except after
and ready to work but was illegally locked out, dismissed or suspended.
hearing the testimony of witnesses, with opportunity for cross-
"when employees voluntarily go on strike, even if in protest against
examination, in support of the allegations of a complaint made
unfair labor practices," no back wages during the strike is awarded.”
under oath, and testimony in opposition thereto, if offered, and
-The Court ruled that “only those members of the union who did not
only after a finding of fact by the commission, to the effect:
commit illegal acts during the course of the illegal strike should be
reinstated but without back wages”
"(1) That prohibited or unlawful acts have been threatened and
TOPIC: illegal strikes- burden of economic loss
will be committed and will be continued unless restrained but no
injunction or temporary restraining order shall be issued on
LABOR LAW 2 A2010 242 Disini
account of any threat, prohibited or unlawful act, except against the 212 SCRA 792
person or persons, association or organization making the threat or
CRUZ; August 21, 1992
committing the prohibited or unlawful act or actually authorizing or
ratifying the same after actual knowledge thereof;
NATURE Special civil action for certiorari
"(2) That substantial and irreparable injury to complainants property will
follow; FACTS
- Tinig at Lakas ng Manggagawa sa BLTB Co. NAFLU, an
"(3) That as to each item of relief to be granted, greater injury will be affiliate of NAFLU, filed a Notice of Strike against the Batangas
inflicted upon complainant by the denial of relief than will be inflicted Laguna Tayabas Bus Company (BLTB Co.) on the grounds of
upon defendants by the granting of relief; unfair labor practice and violation of the CBA.
- BLTB Co. asked the Sec. of Labor to assume jurisdiction or to
"(4) That complainant has no adequate remedy at law; and"(5) That the certify it to the NLRC. The Acting Sec of Labor later certified it to
public officers charged with the duty to protect complainants property the NLRC. A copy of the certification order was served upon
are unable or unwilling to furnish adequate protection. NAFLU. The union secretary, however, refused to receive it.
- The officers and members of TL M-BLTBCo-NAFLU
"Such hearing shall be held after due and personal notice thereof has went on strike. The NLRC issued a resolution ordering the
been served, in such manner as the Commission shall direct, to all employees to stop the strike. BLTBCo caused the publication of
known persons against whom relief is sought, and also to the Chief the resolution and called on all striking workers to return to work.
Executive and other public officials of the province or city within which - Of the some 1,730 BLTBCo employees who went on strike,
the unlawful have been threatened or committed charged with the duty only 1,116 reported back for work. Seventeen others were later
to protect complainant's property: . . ." re-admitted. Subsequently, about 614 employees, including
those who were allegedly dismissed for causes other than the
- In his Comment, the Solicitor General cited various evidence on record strike, filed individual complaints for illegal dismissal. Their
showing the failure of public respondents to fulfill the requirements, common ground was that they were refused admission when
especially of paragraphs four and five of the above cited law. The they reported back for work.
factual circumstances proven by the evidence show that there was no - The NLRC issued a resolution ordering the reinstatement of the
concurrence of the five prerequisites mandated by Art. 218(e) of the union members.
Labor Code. Thus there is no justification for the issuance of the
questioned Order of preliminary injunction. ISSUE/S
- Moreover, the records reveal the continuing misuse of unfair strategies 1. WON the union members who participated in the illegal strike
to secure ex parte temporary restraining orders against striking should be reinstated
employees. Petitioner union did not receive any copy of private
respondent's petition for injunction. Its address, as alleged by the private HELD
respondent, turned out to be "erroneous". Consequently, the petitioner 1. YES.
was denied the right to attend the hearing while the private respondent Reasoning
enjoyed a field day presenting its evidence ex parte. On the basis of - First, there was inadequate service of the certification order on
uncontested evidence, the public respondent temporarily enjoined the the union as of the date the strike was declared and there was
petitioner from committing certain alleged illegal acts. Again, a copy of no showing that the striking members had been apprised of such
the Order was sent to the wrong address of the petitioner. Knowledge of order by the NAFLU.
the Order came to the petitioner only when its striking members read it - Second, by virtue of the priniciple of vicarious liability, only the
after it was posted at the struck areas of the private respondent. union officers deserve not to be reinstated. The leaders of the
- To be sure, the issuance of an ex parte temporary restraining order in union are the moving force in the declaration of the strike and
a labor dispute is not per se prohibited. Its issuance, however, should be the Rank-in-file employees merely followed. Likewise, viewed in
characterized by care and caution for the law requires that it be clearly the light of Article 264, paragraph (e), those who participated in
justified by considerations of extreme necessity, i.e., when the the commission of illegal acts who stood charged criminally
commission of unlawful acts is causing substantial and irreparable injury thereof in court must be penalized
to company properties and the company is, for the moment, bereft of an - The contention of the petitioner that the private respondents
adequate remedy at law. This is as it ought to be, for imprudently issued abandoned their position is also not acceptable. An employee
temporary restraining orders can break the back of employees engaged who forthwith takes steps to protest his lay-off cannot by any
in a legal strike. Often times, they unduly tilt the balance of a labor logic be said to have abandoned his work.
warfare in favor of capital. When that happens, the deleterious effects of -The loss of employment status of striking union members is
a wrongfully issued, ex parte temporary restraining order on the rights of limited to those "who knowingly participates in the commission of
striking employees can no longer be repaired for they defy simple illegal acts." (Article 264, Labor Code) Evidence must be
monetization. Moreover, experience shows that ex parte applications for presented to substantiate the commission thereof and not merely
restraining orders are often based on fabricated facts and concealed an unsubstantiated allegation
truths. A more becoming sense of fairness, therefore, demands that - The right to strike is one of the rights recognized and
such ex parte applications should be more minutely examined by guaranteed by the Constitution as an instrument of labor for its
hearing officers, lest, our constitutional policy of protecting labor protection against exploitation by management. By virtue of this
becomes nothing but a synthetic shibboleth. The immediate need to right, the workers are able to press their demands for better
hear and resolve these ex parte applications do not provide any excuse terms of employment with more energy and persuasiveness,
to lower our vigilance in protecting labor against the issuance of poising the threat to strike as their reaction to the employer's
indiscriminate injunctions. Stated otherwise, it behooves hearing officers intransigence. The strike is indeed a powerful weapon of the
receiving evidence in support of ex parte injunctions against employees working class. But precisely because of this, it must be handled
in strike to take a more active stance in seeing to it that their right to carefully, like a sensitive explosive, lest it blow up in the workers'
social justice is in no way violated despite their absence. This equalizing own hands. Thus, it must be declared only after the most
stance was not taken in the case at bar by the public respondents. thoughtful consultation among them, conducted in the only way
allowed, that is, peacefully, and in every case conformably to
Disposition The petition is granted. reasonable regulation. Any violation of the legal requirements
and strictures, such as a defiance of a return-to-work order in
industries affected with public interest, will render the strike
illegal, to the detriment of the very workers it is supposed to
BLT BUS CO V NLRC protect
LABOR LAW 2 A2010 243 Disini
"c) In cases of bargaining deadlocks. the duly certified or
Disposition Petition dismissed recognized bargaining agent may file a notice of strike or the
employer may file a notice of lockout with the Ministry at least 30
days before the intended date thereof. In cases of unfair labor
Lapanday Workers Union v. NLRC practice, the notice shall be 15 days and in the absence of a duly
248 SCRA 95 certified or recognized bargaining agent, the notice of strike may
Puno ; Sept. 7, 1995 be filed by any legitimate labor organization in behalf of its
member. However, in case of dismissal from employment of
Facts union officer duly elected in accordance with the union
-Lapanday Agricultural and Development Corporation and CADECO constitution and by-laws, which may constitute union busting
Agro Development Philippines Inc. (Private respondents) are sister where the existence of the union is threatened, the 15-day
companies. Lapanday Workers Union (Union) is the duly certified cooling-off period shall not apply and the union may take action
bargaining agent of the rank and file employees of private respondent. immediately.
The Union is affiliated with the KMU-ANGLO. xxx xxx xxx
-Union has a collective bargaining agreement. A few months before the "f) A decision to declare a strike must be approved by a majority
expiration of their CBA, private respondent initiated certain management of the total union membership in the bargaining unit concerned,
policies which disrupted the relationship of the parties- 1. Contracting of obtained by secret ballot in meetings or referenda called for that
Philippine Eagle Protectors and Security Agency Inc., the Union branded purpose. A decision to declare a lockout must be approved by a
the security guards posted within the company premises as private majority of the board of director of the corporation or association
respondents' "goons" and "special forces." It also accused the guards of or of the partner in a partnership, obtained by secret ballot in a
intimidating and harassing their members. 2. The Union claimed that the meeting called for that purpose. The decision shall be valid for
module on the Philippines political spectrum lumped the ANGLO the duration of the dispute based on substantially the same
(Alliance of Nationalist and Genuine Labor Organization), with other grounds considered when the strike or lockout vote was taken.
outlawed labor organization such as the National Democratic Front or The Ministry may, at its own initiative or upon the request of any
other leftist groups. affected party, supervise the conduct of secret ballot In every
-These issues were discussed during a labor-management meeting, the case the union or the employer shall furnish the Ministry the
Union agreed to allow its members to attend the HDIR seminar for the result of the voting at least seven (7) days before the intended
rank-and-filers but the Union directed its members not to attend the strike or lockout subject to the cooling-off period herein provided.
seminars scheduled on said dates. They picketed the premises of the
Philippine Eagle Protectors to show their displeasure on the hiring of the Article 264 of the same Code reads:
guards. Union filed a Notice of Strike with the National Conciliation and "Art 264. Prohibited activities. - (a) No labor organization or
Mediation Board (NCMB). NCMB called conciliation conference. The employer shall declared a strike or lockout without first having
conference yielded the agreements that Union officers, including the bargained collectively in accordance with Title VII of this Book or
officials of KMU-ANGLO, and the Executive Director of the NMB would without first having filed the notice required in the preceding
attend the HDIR seminar and a committee shall convene to establish Article or without the necessary strike or lockout vote first having
guidelines governing the guards. With the apparent settlement of their been obtained and reported to the Ministry.
difference, private respondents notified the NCMB that there were no xxx xxx xxx
more base for the notice of strike. ". . . Any union officer who knowingly participates in an illegal
-Danilo Martinez. a member of the Board of Directors of the Union, was strike and any worker or union officer who knowingly participates
gunned down in his house in the presence of his wife and children. The in the commission of illegal acts during a strike may be declared
gunman was later identified as Eledio Samson, an alleged member of to have lost his employment status: Provided that mere
security forces of private respondent. After the killing, most of the participation of a worker in a lawful strike shall not constitute
members of the Union refused to report for work. They returned to work sufficient ground for termination of his employment, even if a
the following day but they did not comply with the "quota system" replacement had been hired by the employer during such lawful
adopted by the management to bolster production output. Allegedly, the strike."
Union instructed the workers to reduce their production to thirty percent A strike is "any temporary stoppage of work by the concerted
(30%) Private respondents charged the Union with economic sabotage action of employees as a result of an industrial or labor dispute."
through slowdown. Private respondents filed separate charged against It is the most preeminent of the economic weapons or workers
the Union and it member for illegal strike. unfair labor practice and which they unsheathe to force management to agree to an
damages, with prayer for injunction. Petitioners skipped work to pay their equitable sharing of the point product of labor and capital.
last respect to the slain Danilo Martinez. who was laid to rest. Again on Undeniably, strikes exert some disquieting effects not only on
another date petitioner did not report for work. Instead, they proceeded the relationship between labor and management but also on the
to private respondents' office at Lanang, carrying placards and posters general peace and progress of society. Our laws thus regulate
which called for the removal of the security guards. the ouster of certain their exercise within reasons by balancing the interests of labor
management officials, and the approval of their mass leave application. and management together with the overarching public interest.
Their mass action did not succeed.
-Labor Arbiter decision: Illegal strike and employees have lost their Some of the limitations on the exercise of the right of strike are
employment status and order to desist. NLRC limited the penalty of provided for in paragraph (c) and (f) of Article 263 of the labor
dismissal only to the leaders of the illegal strike especially the officers of Code, as amended, supra. They provide for the procedural steps
the union who served as its major player and union members were to be followed before staging a strike - filing of notice of strike,
merely instigated to participate in the illegal strike and should be treated taking of strike vote, and reporting of the strike vote result to the
differently from their leaders. Petitioners claim that public respondent Department of Labor and Employment. In National Federation of
NLRC gravely abused it discretion. Sugar Workers (NFSW) vs. Overseas, et al., we ruled that these
steps are mandatory in character. thus:

Issues "If only the filing of the strike notice and the strike-vote report
WON the strike is legal would be deemed mandatory. but not the waiting periods so
specifically and emphatically prescribed by law, the purposes
Held
No. The applicable law are Articles 263 and 264 of the Labor Code, as ART. 212. Definitions. (o) "Strike" means any
amended by E.O. No. 111, dated December 24. 1986.
temporary stoppage of work by the concerted
Paragraphs (c) and (f) of Article 263 of the Labor Code, as amended by
E.O. 111, provides. action of employees as a result of an industrial or
labor dispute.
LABOR LAW 2 A2010 244 Disini
(hereafter discussed) for which the filing of the strike notice and strike-
vote report is required cannot be achieved . . .
xxx xxx xxx
BUKLURAN NG MANGGAGAWA SA
"So too, the 7 day strike-vote report is not without a purpose. As pointed
out by the Solicitor General -
CLOTHMAN KNITTING CORPORATION –
'. . . The submission of the report gives assurance that a strike vote has SOLIDARITY OF UNIONS IN THE PHILIPPINES
been taken and that, if the report concerning it is false, the majority of FOR EMPOWERMENT AND REFORMS (BMC-
the members can take appropriate remedy before it is too late.' SUPER) vs. CA (CLOTHMAN KNITTING
The seven (7) day waiting period is intended to give the Department of
CORPORATION)
Labor and Employment an opportunity to verify whether the projected 448 SCRA 642
strike really carries the imprimatur of the majority of the union members. CALLEJO, SR.; Jan 17, 2005
The need for assurance that majority of the union members support the
strike cannot be gainsaid. Strike is usually the last weapon of labor to be
gainsaid. Strike compel capital to concede to its bargaining demands or NATURE
to defend itself against unfair labor practices of management. It is a
Petition for review
weapon that can either breathe life to or destroy the union and its
members in their struggle with management for a more equitable due of
their labors. The decision to wield the weapon of strike must, therefore, FACTS
rest on a rational basis, free from emotionalism. unswayed by the - Clothman Knitting Corporation (CKC), a domestic corporation
tempers and tantrums of a few hothead, and firmly focused on the engaged in knitting/textiles, issued a Memorandum informing its
legitimate interest of the union which should not, however, be antithetical employees at the Dyeing and Finishing Division that a temporary
to the public welfare. Thus, our laws require the decision to strike to be shutdown of the operations therein would be effected for one
the consensus of the majority for while majority is not infallible, still, it is week due to change in the schedule brought about by the
the best hedge against haste and error. In addition, a majority vote decrease in the orders from the customers.
assures the union it will go to war against management with the strength - Petitioner Tomaroy, with sixteen (16) members of the petitioner
derived from unity and hence, with better chance to succeed. In union, staged a picket in front of the respondent’s compound,
Batangas Laguna Tayabas Bus Company vs. NLRC, we held: carrying placards with slogans.
xxx xxx xxx - CKC filed a petition to declare the strike illegal for failure to
comply with the procedural requirements for staging a strike.
"The right to strike is one of the right recognized and guaranteed by the The petition was granted and the employees who participated
Constitution as an instrument of labor for it protection against lost their employment status with CKC.
exploitation by management. by virtue of his right. the workers are able
to press their demands for better terms of employment with more energy ISSUE WON the stage is illegal for failure of the petitioners to
and persuasiveness. poising the threat to strike at their reaction to comply with the procedural requirements
employer s intransigence. The strike is indeed a powerful weapon of the
working class. But precisely because of this, it must be handled carefully HELD YES
like a sensitive explosive, but it blow up in the workers' own hands. Ratio In order for a strike to be valid, the following requirements
Thus. it must de declared only after the most thoughtful consultation laid down in paragraphs (c) and (f) of Article 263 of the Labor
among them, conducted in the only was allowed that is, peacefully, and Code must be complied with: (a) a notice of strike must be filed;
in every case conformably to reasonable regulation. Any violation of the (b) a strike-vote must be taken; and
legal requirements and strictures, . . . will render the strike illegal. to the (c) the results of the strike-vote must be reported to the DOLE.
detriment of the very workers it is supposed to protect. It bears stressing that these requirements are mandatory,
meaning, non-compliance therewith makes the strike illegal. The
"Every war must be lawfully waged. A labor dispute demands no less evident intention of the law in requiring the strike notice and
observance of the rules. for the benefit of all concerned." strike-vote report is to reasonably regulate the right to strike,
Applying the law to the case at bar, we rule that strike conducted by the which is essential to the attainment of legitimate policy objectives
union on October 12, 1988 is plainly illegal as it was held within the embodied in the law.
seven (7) day waiting period provided for by paragraph (f), Article 263 of Reasoning
the Labor Code. as amended. The haste in holding the strike prevented a. The strikers/picketers did not conduct a strike vote and no
the Department of Labor and Employment from verifying whether it cooling-off period was observed;
carried the approval of the majority of the union members. It set to b. The strikers/picketers did not file a notice of strike;
naught an important policy consideration of our law on strike. c. The reasons for the strike/picket involve a non-strikeable
Considering this finding, we need not exhaustively rule on the legality of issue;
the work stoppage conducted by the union and some of their members d. It was not based on a valid factual ground, either based on
on September 9 and 23, 1988. Suffice to state, that the ruling of the Collective Bargaining Deadlock and/or Unfair Labor Practice;
public respondent on the matter is supported by substantial evidence. e. There was no strike-vote report submitted to the DOLE at
least seven (7) days before the intended date of the strike;
Disposition f. The 7-day visiting period after submission of the strike vote
Reinstating rank-and-file workers who were merely misled in supporting report was not fully observed.
illegal strikes but not be entitled to backwages as they should not be
compensated for services skipped during the illegal strike. Dismissed. DISPOSITION Petition DENIED.
AIRLINE PILOTS ASSOCIATION v CIR
76 SCRA 274
CASTRO, April 15, 1977

FACTS:
On 2 January 1971, Gomez, who claimed to be the President of
the Air Line Pilots Association of the Philippines (ALPAP) filed a
9.02 STRIKE ACTIVITY petition with the Court of Industrial Relations (CIR) praying for
1. DEFINITION- 212 (O) certification as sole and exclusive bargaining representative of
LABOR LAW 2 A2010 245 Disini
“all pilots under employment of Philippine Airlines and are on active ALPAP. On October 3, 1970, Philippine Air Lines Employees
flights or operational assignments.” ALPAP led by Gaston, who also Association [PALEA] and ALPAP staged a strike against PAL to
claimed to be its President, opposed said petition on the ground that the demand pay increases, better working conditions on the Manila-
CIR had no jurisdiction over the subject matter thereof. However, prior to Karachi and Rome-Amsterdam flights, and a better retirement
the filing of the said certification petitition, an ALPAP meeting was held plan.
on 30 October 1970 where 221 out of 270 members adapted a section - The President of the Philippines certified the strike to the CIR.
which amended ALPAP’s constitution and by-laws, it provided that any Said court issued an order dated October 7, 1970 directing the
member who shall be forced to retire or to resign or otherwise officers and members of PALEA and ALPAP to call off the strike,
terminated for union activities may either continue his membership, or lift the picket lines in all places of operation of PAL, and return to
resign from the association. During this time, PAL and ALPAP where work not later than Friday, October 9, 1970. PAL management,
locked in a labor dispute as certified to the CIR. A return-to-work order on the other hand, was ordered to admit the striking employees
was then issued by the CIR to all participants of the strike while PAL "back to work under the same terms and conditions of
was ordered not to dismiss or terminate any employee. On 12 employment existing before the strikes" and "not to suspend,
December 1970, despite of a no-work-stoppage order of the CIR, a dismiss or lay-off any employee as a result" of said strikes. The
majority of ALPAP members filed resignation / retirement letters. PAL CIR further stated that failure to comply with its order would
accepted the said letters with the “caveat” that the pilots will not be constitute contempt of court and "the employee failing or refusing
entitled to any of the benefits / privileges since their acts constituted to return to work by October 9, 1970, without justifiable cause,
violation of the order of the CIR. Thereafter, Gaston was elected as shall immediately be replaced by PAL, and may not be
President of ALPAP on the election held on 18-22 December 1970 by reinstated without prior Court order and on justifiable grounds".
181 votes. Meanwhile, 45 pilots who did not resign / retire from PAL - The strikers moved for a reconsideration of the order but after it
elected Gomez as President on 23 December 1970. The CIR granted was denied by the court, they returned to work on October 22,
the certification petition filed by Gomez and thus, he was declared as 1970. Five days later or on October 27, 1970, PAL dismissed
President of ALPAP and entitled ALPAP to all the rights and privileges of strike leader Captain Gaston.
a legitimate labor organization. Among the grounds cited by the CIR that - On October 30, 1970, the board of directors of ALPAP adopted
justified said decision were (1) the PAL pilots belonging to the Gaston a resolution condemning PAL's alleged "continued acts of
Group retired / resigned en masse from PAL and accompanied this with harassment and other unfair labor practices" against the ALPAP
actual acts of not reporting, (2) that the pilots associtated with the such as the attempted lockout of ten members, the actual
Gaston group tried to relieve their deposits from the ALPAP Credit Union lockout of three other members, the forced retirement of Captain
on the ground that they had resigned /retired from PAL. However Regino Masias [Macias] and the dismissal of ALPAP leader
Gaston and some of the pilots who retired sought reinstatement saying Captain Gaston. The board resolved to undertake the grounding
that their retirement was a form of a strike. And that they were made to of all PAL planes and the filing of applications for "protest
believe that it was a legitimate action thus they should be reinstated. retirement" of members who had completed five years of
continuous service, and "protest resignation" for those who had
ISSUE: WON Gaston Group’s action of retiring was a legitimate rendered less than five years of service in the company.
concerted activity. - Upon learning that many members of the ALPAP had signed
their respective "protest retirement/resignation" papers, and that
HELD:NO ALPAP would submit them en masse to PAL at a time to
-Parenthetically, contrary to ALPAP (Gaston)'s argument that the pilots' coincide with the then forthcoming Papal visit, PAL filed with the
retirement' resignation was a legitimate concerted activity , citing Section CIR an ex-parte urgent motion to enjoin ALPAP officers and
2(1) of the Industrial Peace Act which defines "strike" as "any temporary members from retiring or resigning en masse from PAL.
stoppage of work by the concerted action of employees as a result of an - Acting on said motion, the Court of Industrial Relations issued
industrial dispute," it is worthwhile to observe that as the law defines it, a an order on November 26, 1970 which states:
strike means only a "temporary stoppage of work." What the mentioned WHEREFORE, pending hearing of the subject motion, the
pilots did, however, cannot be considered, in the opinion of this Court, petitioner, its members and officers, and respondents and its
as mere "temporary stoppage of work." What they contemplated was officers are hereby ordered to maintain status quo; the
evidently a permanent cut-off of employment relationship with their members and officers of said petitioner ALPAP, and ALPAP
erstwhile employer, the Philippine Air Lines. In any event, the dispute itself, are ordered not to strike or in any way cause any
below having been certified as existing in an industry indispensable to stoppage in the operation and service of PAL, under pain of
the national interest, the said pilots' rank disregard for the compulsory
dismissal and forfeiture of rights and privileges accruing to
orders of the industrial court and their daring and calculating venture to
their respective employments should they disregard this
disengage themselves from that court's jurisdiction, for the obvious
purpose of satisfying their narrow economic demands to the prejudice of Order; and PAL is also ordered not to lockout any of such
the public interest, are evident badges of bad faith. members and officers of ALPAP under pain of contempt and
cancellation of its franchise.
- Notwithstanding this order, some of the officers and majority of
the members of ALPAP submitted their respective retirement or
ENRIQUE V ZAMORA resignation letters to PAL on December 12, 1970. The pilots
146 SCRA 393 tendered their retirement or resignation individually.
- Among the pilots whose "protest resignation/retirement" was
FERNAN; December 29, 1986 accepted by PAL were petitioners Enriquez and Ecarma.
However, on January 12, 1971, Ecarma returned to PAL after
NATURE
having been away for thirty days. Enriquez, who had, not
In this petition for certiorari and mandamus, pilots Rafael Enriquez reported to work for thirty-six days, followed suit on January 18,
and Virgilio Ecarma seek the restoration of their seniority rights and 1971.
other privileges which the Philippine Air Lines [PAL] declared as - Before their re-admission, PAL required them to accept two
forfeited by the pilots who joined the mass retirement/resignation of conditions, namely: that they sign conformity to PAL's letter of
the members of the Air Lines Pilot Association of the Philippines acceptance of their retirement and/or resignation and that they
[ALPAP] to protest the dismissal of their president, Captain Felix submit an application for employment as new employees without
Gaston. protest or reservation
- On March 17, 1971, PAL issued a new seniority list for pilots.
FACTS Enriquez's and Ecarmas new seniority dates were listed as
- Enriquez and Ecarma were employed by PAL on October 2, 1961 and January 18, 1971 and January 12, 1971, respectively. Thus,
March 3, 1966, respectively. Consequently, they became members of
LABOR LAW 2 A2010 246 Disini
Enriquez and Ecarma respectively lost their almost 10yeai and 5-year Philippine Eagle Protectors and Security Agency Inc., the Union
seniority, and started from zero seniority. branded the security guards posted within the company
- Aggrieved by this action of PAL, Enriquez and Ecarma, together with premises as private respondents' "goons" and "special forces." It
twenty-three other pilots, filed before the CIR a petition to restore their also accused the guards of intimidating and harassing their
seniority and other privileges. members. 2. The Union claimed that the module on the
- PAL opposed the petition. It alleged that the mass Philippines political spectrum lumped the ANGLO (Alliance of
retirement/resignation of the pilots constituted contempt of court and that Nationalist and Genuine Labor Organization), with other
the returning pilots, who had filed applications for employment as new outlawed labor organization such as the National Democratic
pilots, "were accepted on probationary basis for a period of six months". Front or other leftist groups.
PAL added that as the pilots' retirement or resignation violated the -These issues were discussed during a labor-management
November 26, 1970 order of the CIR, said pilots lost whatever privileges meeting, the Union agreed to allow its members to attend the
or benefits they had acquired as employees of PAL HDIR seminar for the rank-and-filers but the Union directed its
- During the pendency of the petition, the CIR was abolished, and the members not to attend the seminars scheduled on said dates.
case was turned over to the NLRC for adjudication. On March 31, 1975, They picketed the premises of the Philippine Eagle Protectors to
Acting Labor Arbiter Lim issued an order denying the petition for show their displeasure on the hiring of the guards. Union filed a
restoration of seniority and other privileges. Said order stated that the Notice of Strike with the National Conciliation and Mediation
seniority ranking on March 17, 1971 should be respected to avoid Board (NCMB). NCMB called conciliation conference. The
injustice and demoralization in the ranks of the pilots and to forestall the conference yielded the agreements that Union officers, including
disruption of the smooth operation of PAL. To eliminate sources of the officials of KMU-ANGLO, and the Executive Director of the
irritants between PAL and its employees and "by way of mitigating the NMB would attend the HDIR seminar and a committee shall
penalty" on the returning pilots, they were allowed to receive "fifty convene to establish guidelines governing the guards. With the
percent [50%] or one-half of the retirement benefits which they would apparent settlement of their difference, private respondents
have received under the PAL-ALPAP Retirement Plan, were it not for notified the NCMB that there were no more base for the notice of
the fact that their retirement/resignation was in violation of a court order". strike.
-Danilo Martinez. a member of the Board of Directors of the
ISSUE/S Union, was gunned down in his house in the presence of his wife
1. WON the “mass strike” was a concerted action protected by law. and children. The gunman was later identified as Eledio Samson,
HELD an alleged member of security forces of private respondent. After
1. NO the killing, most of the members of the Union refused to report
Ratio Strike means only a 'temporary stoppage of work'. for work. They returned to work the following day but they did not
Reasoning What the mentioned pilots did, however, cannot be comply with the "quota system" adopted by the management to
considered as mere 'temporary stoppage of work'. What they bolster production output. Allegedly, the Union instructed the
contemplated was evidently a permanent cut-off of employment workers to reduce their production to thirty percent (30%) Private
relationship with their erstwhile employer, the Philippine Air Lines. respondents charged the Union with economic sabotage through
The pilots' mass action was not a strike because employees who go slowdown. Private respondents filed separate charged against
on strike do not quit their employment. Ordinarily, the relationship of the Union and it member for illegal strike. unfair labor practice
employer and employee continues until one or the other of the and damages, with prayer for injunction. Petitioners skipped
parties acts to sever the relationship or they mutually act to work to pay their last respect to the slain Danilo Martinez. who
accomplish that purpose. As they did not assume the status of was laid to rest. Again on another date petitioner did not report
strikers, their "protest retirement/resignation" was not a concerted for work. Instead, they proceeded to private respondents' office
at Lanang, carrying placards and posters which called for the
activity which was protected by law. Petitioners cannot, therefore,
removal of the security guards. the ouster of certain
validly claim that PAL committed an unfair labor practice because,
management officials, and the approval of their mass leave
having voluntarily terminated their employment relationship with application. Their mass action did not succeed.
PAL, they were not dismissed. -Labor Arbiter decision: Illegal strike and employees have lost
Disposition WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari and mandamus is their employment status and order to desist. NLRC limited the
hereby dismissed. The public respondents' orders and decision are penalty of dismissal only to the leaders of the illegal strike
hereby affirmed subject to the modification that petitioners are granted especially the officers of the union who served as its major
full retirement and separation benefits with legal interest from their player and union members were merely instigated to participate
accrual until petitioners are fully paid. No costs. in the illegal strike and should be treated differently from their
leaders. Petitioners claim that public respondent NLRC gravely
abused it discretion.

PHIL. BLOOMING MILLS INC. V PBM EMPLOYEES Issues


ORGANIZATION WON the strike is legal
(mini bernardo)
Held
No. The applicable law are Articles 263 and 264 of the Labor
Code, as amended by E.O. No. 111, dated December 24. 1986.
Lapanday Workers Union v. NLRC Paragraphs (c) and (f) of Article 263 of the Labor Code, as
248 SCRA 95 amended by E.O. 111, provides.
"c) In cases of bargaining deadlocks. the duly certified or
Puno ; Sept. 7, 1995 recognized bargaining agent may file a notice of strike or the
employer may file a notice of lockout with the Ministry at least 30
Facts days before the intended date thereof. In cases of unfair labor
-Lapanday Agricultural and Development Corporation and CADECO practice, the notice shall be 15 days and in the absence of a duly
Agro Development Philippines Inc. (Private respondents) are sister certified or recognized bargaining agent, the notice of strike may
companies. Lapanday Workers Union (Union) is the duly certified be filed by any legitimate labor organization in behalf of its
bargaining agent of the rank and file employees of private respondent. member. However, in case of dismissal from employment of
The Union is affiliated with the KMU-ANGLO. union officer duly elected in accordance with the union
-Union has a collective bargaining agreement. A few months before the constitution and by-laws, which may constitute union busting
expiration of their CBA, private respondent initiated certain management where the existence of the union is threatened, the 15-day
policies which disrupted the relationship of the parties- 1. Contracting of
LABOR LAW 2 A2010 247 Disini
cooling-off period shall not apply and the union may take action rest on a rational basis, free from emotionalism. unswayed by
immediately. the tempers and tantrums of a few hothead, and firmly focused
xxx xxx xxx on the legitimate interest of the union which should not, however,
"f) A decision to declare a strike must be approved by a majority of the be antithetical to the public welfare. Thus, our laws require the
total union membership in the bargaining unit concerned, obtained by decision to strike to be the consensus of the majority for while
secret ballot in meetings or referenda called for that purpose. A decision majority is not infallible, still, it is the best hedge against haste
to declare a lockout must be approved by a majority of the board of and error. In addition, a majority vote assures the union it will go
director of the corporation or association or of the partner in a to war against management with the strength derived from unity
partnership, obtained by secret ballot in a meeting called for that and hence, with better chance to succeed. In Batangas Laguna
purpose. The decision shall be valid for the duration of the dispute Tayabas Bus Company vs. NLRC, we held:
based on substantially the same grounds considered when the strike or xxx xxx xxx
lockout vote was taken. The Ministry may, at its own initiative or upon "The right to strike is one of the right recognized and guaranteed
the request of any affected party, supervise the conduct of secret ballot by the Constitution as an instrument of labor for it protection
In every case the union or the employer shall furnish the Ministry the against exploitation by management. by virtue of his right. the
result of the voting at least seven (7) days before the intended strike or workers are able to press their demands for better terms of
lockout subject to the cooling-off period herein provided. employment with more energy and persuasiveness. poising the
threat to strike at their reaction to employer s intransigence. The
Article 264 of the same Code reads: strike is indeed a powerful weapon of the working class. But
"Art 264. Prohibited activities. - (a) No labor organization or employer precisely because of this, it must be handled carefully like a
shall declared a strike or lockout without first having bargained sensitive explosive, but it blow up in the workers' own hands.
collectively in accordance with Title VII of this Book or without first Thus. it must de declared only after the most thoughtful
having filed the notice required in the preceding Article or without the consultation among them, conducted in the only was allowed
necessary strike or lockout vote first having been obtained and reported that is, peacefully, and in every case conformably to reasonable
to the Ministry. regulation. Any violation of the legal requirements and
xxx xxx xxx strictures, . . . will render the strike illegal. to the detriment of the
". . . Any union officer who knowingly participates in an illegal strike and very workers it is supposed to protect.
any worker or union officer who knowingly participates in the "Every war must be lawfully waged. A labor dispute demands no
commission of illegal acts during a strike may be declared to have lost less observance of the rules. for the benefit of all concerned."
his employment status: Provided that mere participation of a worker in a Applying the law to the case at bar, we rule that strike conducted
lawful strike shall not constitute sufficient ground for termination of his by the union on October 12, 1988 is plainly illegal as it was held
employment, even if a replacement had been hired by the employer within the seven (7) day waiting period provided for by paragraph
during such lawful strike." (f), Article 263 of the Labor Code. as amended. The haste in
A strike is "any temporary stoppage of work by the concerted action of holding the strike prevented the Department of Labor and
employees as a result of an industrial or labor dispute." It is the most Employment from verifying whether it carried the approval of the
preeminent of the economic weapons or workers which they unsheathe majority of the union members. It set to naught an important
to force management to agree to an equitable sharing of the point policy consideration of our law on strike. Considering this finding,
product of labor and capital. Undeniably, strikes exert some disquieting we need not exhaustively rule on the legality of the work
effects not only on the relationship between labor and management but stoppage conducted by the union and some of their members on
also on the general peace and progress of society. Our laws thus September 9 and 23, 1988. Suffice to state, that the ruling of the
regulate their exercise within reasons by balancing the interests of labor public respondent on the matter is supported by substantial
and management together with the overarching public interest. evidence.

Some of the limitations on the exercise of the right of strike are provided Disposition
for in paragraph (c) and (f) of Article 263 of the labor Code, as amended, Reinstating rank-and-file workers who were merely misled in
supra. They provide for the procedural steps to be followed before supporting illegal strikes but not be entitled to backwages as
staging a strike - filing of notice of strike, taking of strike vote, and they should not be compensated for services skipped during the
reporting of the strike vote result to the Department of Labor and illegal strike. Dismissed.
Employment. In National Federation of Sugar Workers (NFSW) vs.
Overseas, et al., we ruled that these steps are mandatory in character.
thus:
SAMAHAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA v.
"If only the filing of the strike notice and the strike-vote report would be
SULPICIO LINES, INC.
deemed mandatory. but not the waiting periods so specifically and
emphatically prescribed by law, the purposes (hereafter discussed) for 426 SCRA 319
which the filing of the strike notice and strike-vote report is required (SARAH CABRERA)
cannot be achieved . . .
xxx xxx xxx
"So too, the 7 day strike-vote report is not without a purpose. As pointed
out by the Solicitor General - 2. NATURE AND PURPOSE
'. . . The submission of the report gives assurance that a strike vote has
been taken and that, if the report concerning it is false, the majority of
the members can take appropriate remedy before it is too late.'
PHIL CAN CO. V CIR (Liberal Labor Union)
87 Phil 9
The seven (7) day waiting period is intended to give the Department of MONTEMAYOR; July 13, 1950
Labor and Employment an opportunity to verify whether the projected
strike really carries the imprimatur of the majority of the union members. NATURE Petition for certiorari
The need for assurance that majority of the union members support the
strike cannot be gainsaid. Strike is usually the last weapon of labor to be FACTS
gainsaid. Strike compel capital to concede to its bargaining demands or - Philippine Can Company is engaged in the manufacture of tin
to defend itself against unfair labor practices of management. It is a cans for packing biscuits, candies, etc., and for making pails for
weapon that can either breathe life to or destroy the union and its carrying water and basins for washing purposes. On March 14,
members in their struggle with management for a more equitable due of 1949, laborers belonging to Liberal Labor Union working in Phil
their labors. The decision to wield the weapon of strike must, therefore, Can’s factory staged a strike and established a picket line
LABOR LAW 2 A2010 248 Disini
around the company's compound. Strikers and picketers prevented the laborers were improperly discharged, the employer company
other laborers from continuing to work in the factory so that the company can be ordered to pay their back wages.
officials were compelled to appeal to the police to restore order and - What the CIR should have done as suggested by Presiding
protect the loyal workers and officials. The company posted notices at Judge Roldan (one of the 2 dissenters in the CIR), was to give
the gate of the company compound notifying the strikers that those who priority to this case so that it could be decided in the shortest
did not return to work in the afternoon will be considered dismissed; in time possible.
fact those who did not return to work were declared dismissed and
dropped from the payroll. Disposition Petition is DISMISSED.
- Liberal Labor Union filed a petition with the CIR alleging that Phil Can
had reduced the wages of seven laborers, and that after the negotiations
had failed, the strike was declared. The Union asked the CIR to order
Phil Can to restore the former rate of wages and to refund all deductions
3. EFFECT ON WORK RELATIONSHIP-
made in their salaries. Phil Can alleged that the strike declared by the 212 (g)
union was illegal, the same having been declared without due and
proper notice to the management, no verbal nor written demands having
been presented beforehand for its study, consideration and/or actuation. ART. 212. Definitions. (o) "Strike" means any
- The CIR issued an order directing the laborers to immediately return to temporary stoppage of work by the concerted
work and Phil Can to admit them under the same conditions which
prevailed before the conflict arose. The reason in support of the order action of employees as a result of an industrial or
was to maintain the parties in status quo before the strike, and because labor dispute.
the conflict could not be promptly decided. Two Judges dissented.

ISSUE ELIZALDE ROPE COMPANY V SOCIAL


WON the CIR erred in ordering Phil Can to admit the laborers back to SECURITY COMMISSION
work despite the issue of the strike’s illegality being raised 4 SCRA 512
HELD
PADILLA; February 28, 1962
YES.
Ratio [NATURE & PURPOSE OF A STRIKE] A strike is a coercive NATURE
measure resorted to by laborers to enforce their demands. The idea Appeal from Resolution No. 41 adopted by the respondent
behind a strike is that a company engaged in a profitable business Commission
cannot afford to have its production or activities interrupted, much less,
paralyzed. Any interruption or stoppage of production spells loses, even FACTS
disaster. The capital invested in machinery, factory and other properties - The laborers of the Elizalde Rope Factory went on strike.
connected with the business would be unproductive during a strike or During the period of time the strike lasted, the factory did not pay
the stoppage of the business. On the other hand, the overhead to the Social Security Commission any premium for Tupas, a
expenses consisting of salaries of its official, including real taxes and laborer and one of the strikers. After the strike, the factory
license fees continue. Knowing this, the strikers by going on strike seek resumed to pay the premium until Tupas’ death.
to interrupt and paralyze the business and production of the company. - Social Security sent bill No. 138 representing the unpaid
The employer company is on the defensive. It almost invariably wants premium for Tupas. Factory claims that it should be for the
the strike stopped and the strikers back to work so as to resume and account of Tupas since he was considered unemployed by the
continue production. Because of this threat or danger of loss to the company at the time of the strike.
company, it not frequently gives in to the demands of the strikers, just so - Social Security declared that the strike was not unlawful and
it can maintain the continuity of its production. Or, if the strikers refuse to reiterated the company’s obligation to pay premiums. Factory
return to work, the employer company seeks permission from the court requested for reconsideration, which was denied thru Resolution
to employ other laborers to take their places. In such cases, pending No. 41.
determination of the conflict, especially where public interests so require
or when the court cannot promptly decide the case, the strikers are ISSUE
ordered back to work. WON social security premium corresponding to a period when a
Reasoning The facts in the present case are far different. Public covered worker is on strike should be paid by the employer
interests are hardly affected or involved in the present strike. The
business of Phil Can is not such that the public is keenly interested in its HELD
continuance. Many similar companies have sprung up since 1947, YES
resulting in intense and even ruinous competition, thus explaining the Ratio Although during a strike the worker renders no work or
downward trend in the business and its desire to lay off laborers. After service and receives no compensation, yet his relationship
the strike was staged the company did not employ other laborers to take as an employee with his employer is not severed or
the places of the strikers. It claims that it no longer needs the services of dissolved. Strike is the workers' means of expressing their
the strikers. It becomes consequently apparent that the need for grievances to employers and enforcing compliance with their
ordering the strikers back to work in ordinary cases does not obtain or demands made upon them. And when laborers go on strike,
exist in the present case. The resolution says that no damage will be it cannot be said that they intend to cut off or terminate their
caused to the company by the return of the strikers because the laborers relationship with their employer. On the contrary, a strike
will be rendering service to their employer. But this is hardly correct may improve the employer-employee relationship bringing
because due to the loss in business of the company, it does not need
about better working conditions and more efficient services
the services of others to take their places. So, if they return to work
Reasoning
before the case is definitely decided, they would practically be loafing in
the factory, not exactly for lack of interest or desire to work but because - Sec 18 of RA 1161 as amended by RA 1792 provides that:
there is no work to be done or performed. According to the company, the Beginning as of the last day of the calendar month
re-employment of the strikers would mean an outlay of about P1,400 a immediately preceding the month when an employee's
week, or P5,600 a month in wages, which the company cannot afford. It compulsory coverage age takes effect and every month
would be a considerable loss to the company. But as the strikers, they thereafter during his employment, there shall be deducted
would suffer no damage by not being readmitted pending decision of the and withheld from the monthly compensation of such
case. Should it be found after due hearing that the strike was legal and covered employee a contribution equal to two and a half per
centum of his monthly compensation.
LABOR LAW 2 A2010 249 Disini
and Sec 19 thereof provides that: - Eventually, after a conference where Marsman’s VP’s proposal
Beginning as of the last day of the month immediately preceding the (that they stop the strike and go back to work, and that when
month when an employee's compulsory coverage takes effect and they were already working the Company would discuss with
every month thereafter during his employment, his employer shall them their demands) was accepted, the strikers returned to
pay, with respect to such covered employee in his employ, a work. However, complainants herein were refused admittance
monthly contribution equal to three and a half per centum of the and were informed by Company officials that they would not be
reinstated unless they ceased to be active Union members and
monthly compensation of said covered employee...
that in any case the Company already had enough men for its
- The above legal provisions do not require that the employer's 3-
business operations.
1/2% and employee's 2-1/2% contributions be based on the latters -As a result the strike and the picketing were resumed, because
monthly compensation actually earned or received by the employee of which employees who had been admitted to work had to stay
covered by the Social Security System. They only provide that after inside the Company premises, where the Company furnished
an employee is compulsorily covered by the System he and his them food and quarters. Nevertheless some of those employed
employer will contribute to pay the premium every month during his could go in and out after office hours to visit their families.
employment. - During the strike, some of the picketers and some non-strikers
Disposition Resolution appealed from is AFFIRMED were arrested within the strike zone for having committed
unlawful acts, and were duly charged therewith.
4. TYPES, CHANGES AND CONVERSION - A petition for writ of injunction filed by the Company against
MARCELA on the ground that the strike and picket were being
1. TYPES maintained illegally, was denied by the CFI Manila, which
1) ULP 263 (c) pointed out that proper criminal complaints should have been
2) BARGAINING DEADLOCK- ECONOMIC 263 (c) filed against the individual strikers in the corresponding courts.
- Because of the Company's consistent refusal to reinstate the
69 complainants even after repeated requests, the
Art. 263 Confederation of Labor Associations of the Philippines (CLAP),
Strikes, picketing and lockouts. to which the Union had affiliated after seceding from the FFW
(c) In case of bargaining deadlocks, the duly certified initiated the present charge for unfair labor practice.
or recognized bargaining agent may file a notice of - Initially the strike staged by the Union was meant to compel
the Company to grant it certain economic benefits set forth in its
strike or the employer may file a notice of lockout proposal for collective bargaining. The strike was an economic
with the Ministry at least 30 day before the intended one,1 and the striking employees would have a tight to be
date thereof. reinstated if, in the interim, the employer had not hired other
In cases of unfair labor practice, the period of notice permanent workers to replace them. For it is recognized that
shall be 15 days and in the absence of a duly certified during the pendency of an economic strike an employer may
take steps to continue and protect his business by supplying
or recognized bargaining agent, the notice of strike
places left vacant by the strikers, and is not bound to discharge
may be filed by any legitimate labor organization in those hired for that purpose upon election of the strikers to
behalf of its members. resume their employment. But the strike changed its character
 However, in case of dismissal from employment of from the time the Company refused to reinstate complainants
union officers duly elected in accordance with the because of their union activities after it had offered to admit all
union constitution and by-laws, which may constitute the strikers and in fact did readmit the others. It was then
converted into an unfair labor practice strike.
union busting, where the existence of the union is - J. Bautista, after hearing, found Marsman guilty of the charge
threatened, the 15-day cooling-off period shall not and ordered it to reinstate 60 of the aforementioned 69
apply and the union may take action immediately. complainants to their former positions or to similar ones with the
same rate of pay, without back wages.
- On the MR, the Court en banc affirmed the decision.
- Both the Union and Marsman appealed. The former claims that
CONSOLIDATED LABOR ASSOCIATION OF THE the 60 reinstated employees should be granted backpay while
PHILS v. MARSMAN and CO., INC. [CIR] the latter questions the CIR's finding of ULP.
& Issue: WON Marsman committed ULP
MARSMAN and Co., INC. v. CONSOLIDATED LABOR HELD: YES.
ASSOCIATION OF THE PHILIPPINES [BAUTISTA, Reasoning:
MARTINEZ, VILLANUEVA, &TABIGNE] - Marsman alleges that it was economic reasons, i.e., its policy of
retrenchment, not labor discrimination, which prevented it from
11 SCRA 589 rehiring complainants. This is disproved, however, by the fact
MAKALINTAL; July 31, 1964 that it not only readmitted the other strikers, but also hired new
FACTS: employees and even increased the salaries of its personnel by
- MARCELA-FFW submitted to the Company a set of proposals for almost 50%. SC is convinced that it was not business exigency
collective bargaining, which the Company answered. but a desire to discourage union activities which prompted the
- In spite of negotiations held between the Company and the Union, they Company to deny readmittance to complainants. This is an
failed to reach In agreement; so the Union, failed a notice of strike with indubitable case of unfair labor practice.
the DOLE. - The Union began the strike because it believed in good faith
- Mediation by the Conciliation Service of that Department proved that settlement of their demands was at an impasse and that
fruitless. further negotiations would only come to naught. It stopped the
- the Union declared a strike and at the same time placed a "round-the- strike upon the belief they could go back to work. Then it
clock" picket line around the Company's premises in Intramuros, Manila. renewed the strike (or it started a new strike) as a protest against
The tense situation in the strike zone prompted the Manila Police the discrimination practiced by the Company. Both are valid
Department to send policemen thereto to preserve peace. grounds for going on a strike.
- Meanwhile the Labor Department's Conciliation Service continued to - The Company further argues that since the methods used by
mediate between the representatives of the Union and of the Company. the strikers were illegal, it had the right to refuse them
readmission. Of the 69 complainants, nine, namely Alejandro
LABOR LAW 2 A2010 250 Disini
Mojar, Manuel Mazo, Esteban Borja, Cecilio Walo, Eugenio Valenzuela,
Elias Matic, Marcos Buccat, Malisimo Vargas and Ricardo Antonio, were On the other hand, even after the court has made a finding of
charged with and convicted of various crimes like coercion, malicious unfair labor practice, it still has the discretion to determine
mischief, physical injuries, breach of the peace, light threats, and whether or not to grant back pay.
damage to property, all committed during the period from September 4,
1954 to October 12, 1954. Admittedly, the Company could not have  Such discretion was not abused when it denied
condoned these acts which were committed after it had offered to back wages to complainants, considering the climate of violence
reinstate the strikers. Nevertheless, as the lower court reasoned out, it which attended the strike and picket
does not appear that the aforementioned individual acts were authorized that the complainants conducted.
or even impliedly sanctioned by the Union. Hence, the other strikers who  While the complainants ordered reinstated did not
were innocent of and did not participate in the illegal acts should not be actively take part in the acts of violence, their minatory attitude
punished by being deprived of their right of reinstatement. It is only towards the Company may be gathered from the fact that from
those who had been found guilty who should be penalized by the loss of the very first day of the strike policemen had to patrol the strike
the right.3 zone in order to preserve peace.
- On the other hand, even after the court has made a finding of unfair
labor practice, it still has the discretion to determine whether or not to
grant back pay. Such discretion was not abused when it denied back 3. NON-CONVERSION
wages to complainants, considering the climate of violence which
attended the strike and picket that the complainants conducted. While RIZAL CEMENT WORKERS UNION (FFW) ET AL
the complainants ordered reinstated did not actively take part in the acts
of violence, their minatory attitude towards the Company may be V COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS
gathered from the fact that from the very first day of the strike policemen (MADRIGAL & COMPANY, INC., CANDIDO DE
had to patrol the strike zone in order to preserve peace. LEON and JOHNNY DE LEON)
6 SCRA 841
DISPOSITIVE: Judgment appealed from is affirmed.
BARRERA; APRIL 30, 1964
1
An economic strike is defined as one which is to force wage or
other concessions from the employer which he is not required by NATURE Petition for review on certiorari
law to grant. FACTS

The Rizal Cement Workers Union, affiliated with the Federation


of Free Workers, heretofore referred to as the Union, is a
2. CHANGE IN TYPE legitimate labor organization. The twenty-one complainant
workers are members of the Union and work at the Bodega
Consolidated Labor Assoc. of the Phil. V. Tanque, Paco, Manila.
Rizal Cement Co., Inc. is a corporation likewise organized under
Marsman and Co. (supra) the laws of the Philippines and is engaged principally in the
manufacture of cement. It operates a plant in Binangonan, Rizal,
Initially the strike staged by the Union was meant to compel the where it manufactures cement. The bags of cement are then
Company to grant it certain economic benefits set forth in its proposal for sent in barges to the Bodega Tanque at Paco, where they are
collective bargaining. The strike was an economic one, and the striking unloaded by workers therein and sent either directly to
employees would have a right to be reinstated if, in the interim, the customers on trucks and pick-ups or stored in the warehouse for
employer had not hired other permanent workers to replace them. For it future deliveries.
is recognized that during the pendency of an economic strike an
employer may take steps to continue and protect his business by On May 27, 1956, the Union staged a strike at the plant of Rizal
supplying places left vacant by the strikers, and is not bound to Cement Co., Inc. in Binangonan, Rizal. In the early morning of
discharge those hired for that purpose upon election of the strikers to the following day, that is, on May 28, 1956, Candido de Leon
resume their employment. warehouseman-encargado at the Bodega Tanque, received a
telephone call from one Johnny de Leon, manager of the
But the strike changed its character from the time the Company refused respondent Rizal Cement Co., Inc., with the information that the
to reinstate complainants because of their union activities after it had Union staged a strike against the company on the previous day,
offered to admit all the strikers and in fact did readmit the others. It was May 27, 1956, in Binangonan, Rizal De Leon further informed
then converted into an unfair labor practice strike. him that he should take precautionary measures in protecting the
properties of the company stored at the Bodega Tanque
The Union began the strike because it believed in good faith that because of the strikers caused damage to the factory in
settlement of their demands was at an impasse and that further Binangonan and sabotage might occur. For this reason, he was
negotiations would only come to naught. It stopped the strike upon the advised by the manager to request the members of the Union to
belief they could go back to work. stay meanwhile outside the premises of the Bodega Tanque.
What he did in the morning of May 28, 1956 was to station
 Then it renewed the strike (or it started a new strike) as a himself at the gate of the compound. When the workers arrived
protest against the discrimination practiced by the for work at 7:00 a.m., he did not allow the 21 complaining
Company. workers who are members of the Union to enter the gate and
 Both are valid grounds for going on a strike. allowed only those who are not members of said Union. Upon
In an economic strike, the strikers are not entitled to backpay, since the refusal of Candido de Leon to allow the complaining workers to
employer should get the equivalent day's work for what he pays his work on that day, the Union, through Ramon L. Kabigting, Vice-
employees. During the time that the strike was an economic one, President of the FFW, sent a letter addressed to the Manager,
complainants had no right to back pay. Bodega Tanque, Rizal Cement Co., Inc
 The Industrial Court could not have made a finding of unfair
labor practice with respect to such time, as none had so far been On May 30, 1956, the complaining workers formed a picket line
committed. in front of the Madrigal Building on the Escolta, Manila, where
the Offices of the respondent companies are located. The picket
 This being an unfair labor practice case, it cannot, lasted up to April, 1957.
therefore, order reinstatement much less back pay for that period.
LABOR LAW 2 A2010 251 Disini
After the complaining workers were not allowed to work on May 28, 30, 1956, complainants actually joined the picket line formed in
1956, the respondent Rizal Cement Co., Inc. hired substitutes in order front of the Company's office at Escolta, Manila.
that the work in the Bodega Tanque, which consists mainly in unloading
and loading cement, may not be paralyzed. Dispositive Decision affirmed
With the foregoing facts, the Court of Industrial Relations resolved in the
negative the issue presented therein, i.e., whether the Company's denial
to the 21 complaining workers, of entrance to the compound and work 5. GROUNDS
constitutes a lockout, for the reason that the said act was resorted to
forestall any possible sabotage in the warehouse. It was pointed out that
although the strike was declared in and confined the factory in
1) Allowable grounds
Binangonan Rizal, the activities in the Tanque warehouse in Paco
Manila, where the complainants work, complement those at the plant.
Art. 263
Also, in the letter of the Union dated September 24, 1954, addressed to
the management, and as found by the lower court, the Union made it Strikes, picketing and lockouts.
clear that the set of demands (presented to the Company and denial of (c) In case of bargaining deadlocks, the duly
which led to the declaration of the strike in question) covers all certified or recognized bargaining agent may file
employees of the Rizal Cement Co., Inc. "including those workers at the a notice of strike or the employer may file a
Bodega Tanque" (p. 31, decision of Dec. 14, 1961), and that in the
notice of lockout with the Ministry at least 30 day
notice of strike filed by the Union (Exhs. 125-Rizal and 125-A-Rizal), it
was specifically declared that the establishment covered by the objected before the intended date thereof.
strike covers the "factory, quarry and warehouse," the last place  In cases of unfair labor practice, the period of
obviously referring to Bodega Tanque. Thus the court held that, under notice shall be 15 days and in the absence of a
the circumstances, the court was resorted to as a defensive weapon or duly certified or recognized bargaining agent, the
dictated by economic necessity and, consequently, did not constitute an notice of strike may be filed by any legitimate
unfair labor practice. And, as in the decision rendered in the main case
(No. 14-IPA) the strikers were ordered reinstated to their former labor organization in behalf of its members.
positions without back wages, which decision became final and  However, in case of dismissal from
executory on May 27, 1961, the court directed the Company in this case employment of union officers duly elected in
to reinstate the 21 complainants with back wages only from May 28, accordance with the union constitution and by-
1961. This decision was affirmed by the court en banc by resolution of laws, which may constitute union busting, where
January 27, 1962. Hence, the filing of the instant petition.
the existence of the union is threatened, the 15-
ISSUE day cooling-off period shall not apply and the
WON the Company's refusal to admit the 21 complainants to work in the union may take action immediately.
warehouse, simply because they belong to the same Union that staged
the strike in the factory, constituted a violation of Section (a) (4) of the
Industrial Peace Act (Rep. Act 875)

HELD
2) Prohibited Strikes
NO. Republic Act 875, on unfair labor practices provides:
SEC. 4. Unfair Labor Practices �
ART. 263. Strikes, picketing and lockouts. - xxx
(a) It shall be unfair labor practice for an employer:
(b) Workers shall have the right to engage in concerted
xxx xxx xxx
activities for purposes of collective bargaining or for their mutual
(4) To discriminate in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term
benefit and protection. The right of legitimate labor organizations
or condition of employment to encourage or discourage membership in
to strike and picket and of employers to lockout, consistent with
any labor organization: Provided, That nothing in this Act or any other
the national interest, shall continue to be recognized and
Act or statute of the Republic of the Philippines shall preclude an
respected. However, no labor union may strike and no employer
employer from making agreement with a labor organization to require as
may declare a lockout on grounds involving inter-union and intra-
condition of employment membership therein, if such labor organization
union disputes.
is the representative of the employees as provided in section twelve.
-xxx-
xxx xxx xxx
(g) When, in his opinion, there exists a labor dispute causing or
It is not herein controverted that the complainants were locked out or
likely to cause a strike or lockout in an industry indispensable to
denied work by the respondent Company. Under Republic Act 875,
the national interest, the Secretary of Labor and Employment
however, for the discrimination by reason of union membership to be
may assume jurisdiction over the dispute and decide it or certify
considered an unfair labor practice, the same must have been
the same to the Commission for compulsory arbitration. Such
committed to courage or discourage such membership in the union. This
assumption or certification shall have the effect of automatically
cannot be said of the act of the Company complained of. As clearly
enjoining the intended or impending strike or lockout as specified
established by the evidence, its refusal to all complainants to work and
in the assumption or certification order. If one has already taken
requirement that the latter stay out of the premises in the meantime
place at the time of assumption or certification, all striking or
(perhaps while the strike was still going on at the factory) was borne out
locked out employees shall immediately return-to-work and the
of the Company's justified apprehension and fear that sabotage might
employer shall immediately resume operations and readmit all
be committed in the warehouse where the products machinery and
workers under the same terms and conditions prevailing before
spare parts were stored, as has been the case in Binangonan. It has
the strike or lockout. The Secretary of Labor and Employment or
never been shown that the act of the Company was intended to induce
the Commission may seek the assistance of law enforcement
the complain ants to renounce their union-membership or as a deterrent
agencies to ensure compliance with this provision as well as with
for non-members to affiliate therewith, nor as a retaliatory measure for
such orders as he may issue to enforce the same.
activities in the union or in furtherance of the cause of the union. As the
strikers were declared entitled to wages only from the finality of the
decision in the main case (No. 14-IPA) or from May 28, 1961, the award
of back wages to herein complainants, also from said date, is justified
and reasonable. It may even be stated in support thereof that on May
LABOR LAW 2 A2010 252 Disini

ILAW at BUKLOD ng MANGGAGAWA v NLRC


198 SCRA 586
NARVASA; June 27, 1991
(263 (g) cont’d)
FACTS
In line with the national concern for and the highest respect accorded to -The controversy at bar had its origin in the "wage distortions"
the right of patients to life and health, strikes and lockouts in hospitals, affecting the employees of respondent San Miguel Corporation
clinics and similar medical institutions shall, to every extent possible, be allegedly caused by Republic Act No. 6727, otherwise known as
avoided, and all serious efforts, not only by labor and management but the Wage Rationalization Act.
government as well, be exhausted to substantially minimize, if not -Upon the effectivity of the Act on June 5, 1989, the union known
prevent, their adverse effects on such life and health, through the as "Ilaw at Buklod Ng Manggagawa (IBM)" — said to represent
exercise, however legitimate, by labor of its right to strike and by 4,500 employees of San Miguel Corporation, more or less,
management to lockout. In labor disputes adversely affecting the "working at the various plants, offices, and warehouses located
continued operation of such hospitals, clinics or medical institutions, it at the National Capital Region" - presented to the company a
shall be the duty of the striking union or locking-out employer to provide "demand" for correction of the "significant distortion in . . . (the
and maintain an effective skeletal workforce of medical and other health workers') wages."
personnel, whose movement and services shall be unhampered and -Union claims that demand was ignored
unrestricted, as are necessary to insure the proper and adequate - The Union's position (set out in the petition subsequently filed
protection of the life and health of its patients, most especially in this Court, infra) was that the workers' refusal "to work
emergency cases, for the duration of the strike or lockout. In such beyond eight (8) hours everyday as a legitimate means of
cases, therefore, the Secretary of Labor and Employment may compelling SMC to correct "the distortion in their wages
immediately assume, within twenty four (24) hours from knowledge of brought about by the implementation of the said laws (R.A.
the occurrence of such a strike or lockout, jurisdiction over the same or 6640 and R.A. 6727) to newly-hired employees." There
certify it to the Commission for compulsory arbitration. For this purpose, ensued thereby a change in the work schedule which had been
the contending parties are strictly enjoined to comply with such orders, observed by daily-paid workers at the Polo Plant for the past five
prohibitions and/or injunctions as are issued by the Secretary of Labor (5) years, i.e., "ten (10) hours for the first shift and ten (10) to
and Employment or the Commission, under pain of immediate fourteen (14) hours for the second shift, from Mondays to
disciplinary action, including dismissal or loss of employment status or Fridays . . .; (and on) Saturdays, . . . eight (8) hours for both
payment by the locking-out employer of backwages, damages and shifts" — a work schedule which, SMC says, the workers had
other affirmative relief, even criminal prosecution against either or both "welcomed, and encouraged" because the automatic overtime
of them. built into the schedule "gave them a steady source of extra-
income," and pursuant to which it (SMC) "planned its production
The foregoing notwithstanding, the President of the Philippines shall not targets and budgets.
be precluded from determining the industries that, in his opinion, are -This abandonment of the long-standing schedule of work and
indispensable to the national interest, and from intervening at any time the reversion to the eight-hour shift apparently caused
and assuming jurisdiction over any such labor dispute in order to settle substantial losses to SMC.
or terminate the same. -SMC filed with the Arbitration Branch of the National Labor
Relations Commission a complaint against the Union and its
members "to declare the strike or slowdown illegal" and to
terminate the employment of the union officers and shop
ART. 264. Prohibited activities. - (a) No labor organization or employer stewards.
shall declare a strike or lockout without first having bargained -it is SMC's submittal that the coordinated reduction by the
collectively in accordance with Title VII of this Book or without first Union's members of the work time theretofore willingly and
having filed the notice required in the preceding Article or without the consistently observed by them, thereby causing financial losses
necessary strike or lockout vote first having been obtained and reported to the employer in order to compel it to yield to the demand for
to the Ministry. correction of "wage distortions," is an illegal and "unprotected"
activity. It is, SMC argues, contrary to the law and to the
No strike or lockout shall be declared after assumption of jurisdiction by collective bargaining agreement between it and the Union.
the President or the Minister or after certification or submission of the
dispute to compulsory or voluntary arbitration or during the pendency of ISSUE
cases involving the same grounds for the strike or lockout. WON the strike is illegal

Any worker whose employment has been terminated as a consequence HELD


of any unlawful lockout shall be entitled to reinstatement with full YES. Among the rights guaranteed to employees by the Labor
backwages. Any union officer who knowingly participates in an illegal Code is that of engaging in concerted activities in order to attain
strike and any worker or union officer who knowingly participates in the their legitimate objectives. Article 263 of the Labor Code, as
commission of illegal acts during a strike may be declared to have lost amended, declares that in line with "the policy of the State to
his employment status: Provided, That mere participation of a worker in encourage free trade unionism and free collective
a lawful strike shall not constitute sufficient ground for termination of his bargaining, . . . (w)orkers shall have the right to engage in
employment, even if a replacement had been hired by the employer concerted activities for purposes of collective bargaining or for
during such lawful strike. their mutual benefit and protection." A similar right to engage in
concerted activities for mutual benefit and protection is tacitly
ART. 265. Improved offer balloting. - In an effort to settle a strike, the and traditionally recognized in respect of employers.
Department of Labor and Employment shall conduct a referendum by The more common of these concerted activities as far as
secret ballot on the improved offer of the employer on or before the employees are concerned are: strikes — the temporary
30th day of the strike. When at least a majority of the union members stoppage of work as a result of an industrial or labor dispute;
vote to accept the improved offer the striking workers shall immediately picketing — the marching to and fro at the employer's premises,
return to work and the employer shall thereupon readmit them upon the usually accompanied by the display of placards and other signs
signing of the agreement. making known the facts involved in a labor dispute; and boycotts
— the concerted refusal to patronize an employer's goods or
In case of a lockout, the Department of Labor and Employment shall services and to persuade others to a like refusal. On the other
also conduct a referendum by secret balloting on the reduced offer of
the union on or before the 30th day of the lockout. When at least a
majority of the board of directors or trustees or the partners holding the
controlling interest in the case of a partnership vote to accept the
reduced offer, the workers shall immediately return to work and the
employer shall thereupon readmit them upon the signing of the
agreement.
LABOR LAW 2 A2010 253 Disini
hand, the counterpart activity that management may licitly undertake is lasted until November 29, 1990 without complying with the
the lockout — the temporary refusal to furnish work on account of a requirements provided under Articles 263 and 264 of the Labor
labor dispute. In this connection, the same Article 263 provides that the Code. It further alleged that the officers and members of the
"right of legitimate labor organizations to strike and picket and of respondent union blocked the main ingress to and egress from
employer to lockout, consistent with the national interest, shall continue the hotel.
to be recognized and respected." The legality of these activities is - The respondent Union denied the material allegations of the
usually dependent on the legality of the purposes sought to be complaint and alleged that the petitioner committed ULP prior to
attained and the means employed therefor (ON TEST OF the filing of the Nov. 16, 1990 notice of strike. Hence, there was
LEGALITY). no need for the union to comply with A263 and 264 of LC, as the
It goes without saying that these joint or coordinated activities may be notice
forbidden or restricted by law or contract. In the particular instance of - LA Linsangan’s Ruling: Union’s failure to comply with the
"distortions of the wage structure within an establishment" requirements laid down in A263 and 264 of LC, the strike that
resulting from "the application of any prescribed wage increase by was staged was illegal. Considering the admissions of the
virtue of a law or wage order," Section 3 of Republic Act No. 6727 individual respondents that they participated in the said strike,
prescribes a specific, detailed and comprehensive procedure for the termination of their employment by the petitioner was legal.
the correction thereof, thereby implicitly excluding strikes or LA noted that if as alleged by the respondent union the petitioner
lockouts or other concerted activities as modes of settlement of was guilty of ULP, it should have filed a complaint therefor
the issue. The legislative intent that solution of the problem of against the Hotel and/or its officials for which the latter could
wage distortions shall be sought by voluntary negotiation or have been meted penal and administrative sanctions as
arbitration, and not by strikes, lockouts, or other concerted provided for in A272 of LC. The Union failed.
activities of the employees or management, is made clear in the - Appeal by Union to NLRC: that it had complied with the
rules implementing RA 6727 issued by the Secretary of Labor and requirements laid down in A263 and 264 of LC because its Nov
Employment pursuant to the authority granted by Section 13 of the 16, 1990 notice of strike was a mere reiteration of its Sept 27,
Act. Section 16, Chapter I of these implementing rules, after 1990 notice of strike, which, in turn, complied with all the
reiterating the policy that wage distortions be first settled requirements of the aforementioned articles, i.e., the cooling-off
voluntarily by the parties and eventually by compulsory arbitration, period, the strike ban, the strike vote and the strike vote report.
declares that, "Any issue involving wage distortion shall not be a - NLRC affirmed LA Decision. Compliance of the requirements
ground for a strike/lockout." laid down in A263 and 264 of LC respecting the Sept 27, 1990
-Moreover, the collective bargaining agreement between the SMC and notice of strike filed by the union cannot be carried over to the
the Union, relevant provisions of which are quoted by the former without Nov 16, 1990 notice of strike. Resultantly, for failure of the union
the latter s demurring to the accuracy of the quotation, also prescribes to comply with the requirements, the strike staged on November
a similar eschewal of strikes or other similar or related concerted 16 up to November 29, 1990 was illegal.
activities as a mode of resolving disputes or controversies, generally, - CA reversed NLRC and LA: It took into account the observation
said agreement clearly stating that settlement of "all disputes, of the Sol-Gen that the Hotel retrenched EEs pending the
disagreements or controversies of any kind" should be achieved by the resolution of the certified cases respecting the alleged illegal
stipulated grievance procedure and ultimately by arbitration. suspension and dismissals effected by Hotel during and prior to
the notices of strike filed by Union. Sol-Gen opined that even if
Disposition PETITION DENIED the strike was staged without the proper notice and compliance
with the cooling-off period, resort thereto was simply triggered by
the petitioners' belief in good faith that Hotel was engaged in
GRAND BOULEVARD HOTEL V GENUINE LABORERS ULP. Hence, this petition
ORGANIZATION
406 SCRA 688 ISSUES
CALLEJO; July 18, 2003 1 WON the strike staged by the respondent union on Nov16-29,
1990 is legal
NATURE 2 WON the dismissals of the officers and some members of the
Petition for review on certiorari Union as a consequence of the strike on Nov16-29, 1990 are
valid.
FACTS
- Respondent Genuine Labor Organization of Workers in Hotel, HELD
Restaurant and Allied Industries – Silahis International Hotel Chapter 1. NO
(Union) and the petitioner Grand Boulevard Hotel (then Silahis Re: Procedural Requirements
International Hotel, Inc.) executed a CBA covering the period from July - Under A263 (c) and (f) of LC, the requisites for a valid strike are
10, 1985 up to July 9, 1988. as follows: (a) a notice of strike fled with the DOLE 30 days
- Thereafter, Union filed several notices of strike on account of alleged before the intended date thereof or 15 days in case of ULP; (b)
violations of CBA, illegal dismissal and suspension of EEs. In these strike vote approved by a majority of the total union membership
instances, SOLE issued a status quo ante bellum order certifying the in the bargaining unit concerned obtained by secret ballot in a
labor dispute to the NLRC for compulsory arbitration pursuant to Article meeting called for that purpose; (c) notice given to the DOLE of
263(g) of LC. After notice was given by Hotel re its decision to the results of the voting at least 7 days before the intended
implement retrenchment program, Union informed the DOLE that the strike. The requisite 7-day period is intended to give the DOLE
union will conduct a strike vote referendum. The members of the Union an opportunity to verify whether the projected strike really carries
voted to stage a strike. Union informed the DOLE of the results of the the approval of the majority of the union members. The notice of
strike vote referendum. SOLE issued another status quo ante bellum strike and the cooling-off period were intended to provide an
order certifying the case to the NLRC for compulsory arbitration and opportunity for mediation and conciliation. The requirements are
enjoining the parties from engaging in any strike or lockout. Then, mandatory and failure of a union to comply therewith renders the
another notice of strike was filed by Union on account of the illegal strike illegal. A strike simultaneously with or immediately after a
dismissal of EEs pusrsuant to Hotel’s act of retrenching around 171 notice of strike will render the requisite periods nugatory.
EEs. Officers of the respondent union and some members staged a
picket in the premises of the hotel, obstructing the free ingress and - In this case, union filed its notice of strike with the DOLE on
egress thereto. Because of this, they were terminated. Nov 16, 1990 and on the same day, staged a picket on the
- Hotel filed a complaint with NLRC for illegal strike against the union, its premises of the hotel, in violation of the law. Union cannot argue
members and officers. Petitioner Hotel alleged inter alia that the union that since the notice of strike on Nov 16, 1990 were for the same
members and officers staged a strike on November 16, 1990 which grounds as those contained in their notice of strike on
LABOR LAW 2 A2010 254 Disini
September 27, 1990 which complied with the requirements of the law on - The authority of the BLR in assuming jurisdiction over a
the cooling-off period, strike ban, strike vote and strike vote report, the certification election, or any inter-union or intra-union conflicts, is
strike staged by them on Nov16, 1990 was lawful. The matters found in Article 226 of the Labor Code of the Philippines, which
contained in the notice of strike of Sept 27, 1990 had already been taken reads:
cognizance of by the SOLE when he issued on Oct 31, 1990 a status ART. 226. BUREAU OF LABOR RELATIONS.
quo ante bellum order enjoining union from intending or staging a strike. – The Bureau of Labor Relations and the Labor
Despite SOLE order, the union nevertheless staged a strike on Nov16, Relations Division in the regional offices of the
1990 simultaneously with its notice of strike, thus violating A264(a) LC Department of Labor shall have original and
exclusive authority to act, at their own initiative or
Grounds upon request of either or both parties, on all inter-
- A strike that is undertaken, despite the issuance by the SOLE of an union and intra-union conflicts, and all disputes,
assumption or certification order, becomes a prohibited activity and, grievances or problems arising from or affecting
thus, illegal pursuant to A264 of LC: No strike or lockout shall be labor-management relations in all workplaces
declared after assumption of jurisdiction by the President or the whether agricultural or nonagricultural, except those
Secretary or after certification or submission of the dispute to arising from the implementation or interpretation of
compulsory or voluntary arbitration or during the pendency of cases collective bargaining agreements which shall be the
involving the same grounds for the strike or lockout. subject of grievance procedure and/or voluntary
- Even if the union acted in good faith in the belief that the company was arbitration.
committing an unfair labor practice, if no notice of strike and a strike vote The Bureau shall have fifteen (15) working
were conducted, the said strike is illegal. days to act on labor cases before it, subject to
extension by agreement of the parties.
2. YES
Re: Effect of Illegality - It is quite clear from this provision that BLR has the original and
Ratio Since a strike that is undertaken, despite the issuance by the exclusive jurisdiction on all inter-union and intra-union conflicts.
SOLE of an assumption or certification order, becomes a prohibited An intra-union conflict would refer to a conflict within or inside a
activity and, thus, illegal pursuant to A264 of LC, the union officers and labor union, and an inter-union controversy or dispute, one
members, as a result, are deemed to have lost their employment status occurring or carried on between or among unions. The subject of
for having knowingly participated in an illegal act. the case at bar, which is the election of the officers and
members of the board of KMKK-MWSS, is, clearly, an intra-
Disposition Petition is GRANTED. LA Decision REINSTATED. union conflict, being within or inside a labor union. It is well within
the powers of the BLR to act upon.
- Executive Order No. 180 (1987), particularly Section 16
BAUTISTA v. CA (CRUZ) thereof, is completely lucid as to the settlement of disputes
involving government employees:
452 SCRA 406 SEC. 16. The Civil Service and labor laws
CHICO-NAZARIO; February 28, 2005 and procedures, whenever applicable, shall be
NATURE followed in the resolution of complaints, grievances
Petition for review on certiorari and cases involving government employees.
- Since Article 226 of the Labor Code has declared that the BLR
FACTS shall have original and exclusive authority to act on all inter-
- A petition for election of officers of Kaisahan at Kapatiran ng mga union and intra-union conflicts, then there should be no more
Manggagawa at Kawani sa Metropolitan Waterworks and doubt as to its jurisdiction.
Sewerage System (KKMK-MWSS) was filed by Bonifacio De
Guzman, former auditor of KKMK-MWSS. The Director of the BLR Disposition PETITION DENIED
granted the position and directed the KKMK-MWSS to
immediately conduct an election of the following union officers: 1.
President, 2. 1st Vice President, 3. 2nd Vice President, 4. Executive 3) No Strike Clause
Secretary, 5. Assistant Executive Secretary, 6. Treasurer, 7.
Assistant Treasurer, 8. Auditor, 9. Assistant Auditor, 10. Public
Relations Officer, 11. Twenty Three (23) Directors, 12. Four
PANAY ELECTRIC CO. INC V NLRC
Sergeants at Arms, and 13. Business Manager, after the usual (PANAY ELECTRIC CO. EMPLOYEES AND
pre-election conferences. She also decreed that the Labor WORKERS ASSOCIATION
Organizations Division, this Bureau, shall supervise the conduct of 248 SCRA 668
said election.
- The President of KKMK-MWSS, Genaro Bautista, appealed the
VITUG; October 4, 1995
decision to the Office of the SOLE. The USec granted the petition NATURE
for the reason that the controversy is an intra union conflict Petiton for certiorari
involving an employee’s organization in the public sector created
and registered pursuant to Executive Order No. 180. FACTS
Consequently, this office (referring to the Secretary of Labor and -On 30 October 1990, petitioner Panay Electric
Employment) has no other recourse but to dismiss the appeal for Company, Inc., posted a notice announcing the need for
lack of jurisdiction. a "Report Clerk" who could assume the responsibility of
- (marami pang procedural stuff pero in the end the CA ruled that gathering accounting and computer data at its power
the BLR has jurisdiction.) plant
-When nobody applied for the position, the
ISSUE EDP/Personnel Manager recommended Enrique Huyan
WON the BLR has jurisdiction to call for and conduct the election of who was at the time an Administrative Personnel
officers of an employee’s association in the public sector. Assistant at the head office. Huyan was then also a Vice
President of respondent union. The recommendation was
HELD approved by the company's President and General
YES. Manager.
- The BLR has the jurisdiction to call for and supervise the conduct of -Enrique Huyan informed petitioner that he was not
certification elections in the public sector. interested in accepting the new position.
LABOR LAW 2 A2010 255 Disini
-The EDP/Personnel Manager required Huyan to explain within PURISIMA; February 28, 2000
48 hours why no disciplinary action should be taken against
him for gross insubordination and for failure to follow the NATURE
General Manager's approved directive. Petition for Certiorari to annul the NLRC decision
-Eventually, on 03 December 1990, Huyan was given a "notice
of dismissal" FACTS
-An administrative investigation was conducted; thereafter, - Malayang Samahan ng mga Manggagawa sa M.
Huyan was ordered dismissed effective 10 December 1990. Greenfield, Inc. (MSMG) (“Local Union”) is an affiliate of
-On 22 January 1991, the respondent union went on strike. United Lumber and General Workers of the Philippines
-Forthwith, the company filed a petition to declare the strike (ULGWP) (“Federation”).
illegal as it was a serious breach of the "no strike, no lock out - The CBA between MSMG and M. Greenfield, Inc. states
clause," of the Collective Bargaining Agreement ("CBA") that it is entered into by the corporation and “MSMG /
-The NLRC found the strike conducted by the Union from ULGWP.”
January 22 to 25, 1991 to be illegal as the same was staged in - The CBA includes a Union Security Clause requiring all
violation of the no strike, no lock-out clause in the Collective employees who are covered by the CBA and presently
Bargaining Agreement existing between the parties and also members of the UNION to remain members of the UNION
because the same disregarded the grievance procedure for the duration of the CBA as a condition precedent to
continued employment.
ISSUE - Local union imposed a P50 fine on non-attending union
WON the strike committed by the respondent union was illegal members which became the subject of bitter
disagreement between the Federation and the local
HELD union. MSMG then declared general autonomy from the
Yes ULGWP. In retaliation, the national federation asked
-The State guarantees the right of all workers to self- respondent company to stop the remittance of the local
organization, collective bargaining and negotiations, as well as union's share in the education funds. It also
peaceful concerted activities, including the right to strike, in “disauthorized” incumbent union officers from
accordance with law. representing the employees.
-The right to strike, however, is not absolute. It has heretofore - Petitioner union officers were expelled by the
been held that a "no strike, no lock-out" provision in the federation for allegedly committing acts of disloyalty
Collective Bargaining Agreement ("CBA") is a valid stipulation and/or inimical to the interest of ULGWP and in violation
although the clause may be invoked by an employer only when of its Constitution and By-laws. The federation advised
the strike is economic in nature or one which is conducted to respondent company of the expulsion of the 30 union
force wage or other concessions from the employer that are not officers and demanded their separation from
mandated to be granted by the law itself. employment pursuant to the Union Security Clause in
-It would be inapplicable to prevent a strike which is grounded their CBA.
on unfair labor practice. - Upon demand of the federation, the company
-In this situation, it is not essential that the unfair labor practice terminated the petitioners without conducting a
act has, in fact, been committed; it suffices that the striking separate and independent investigation. The expelled
workers are shown to have acted honestly on an impression union officers assigned in the first shift were physically
that the company has committed such unfair labor practice and or bodily brought out of the company premises by the
the surrounding circumstances could warrant such a belief in company's security guards. Those assigned to the
good faith. second shift were not allowed to report for work. This
-In the instant case, the NLRC found Enrique Huyan and provoked some of the members of the local union to
Prescilla Napiar, the "principal leaders" of the strike, not to demonstrate their protest for the dismissal of the said
have acted in good faith. The NLRC said: It is bad enough that union officers. Some union members left their work posts
the Union struck despite the prohibition in the CBA. What is and walked out of the company premises.
worse is that its principal leaders, Napiar and Huyan, cannot - Labor Arbiter ruled that the dismissed union officers
honestly claim that they were in good faith in their belief that were validly and legally terminated because the
the Company was committing unfair labor practice. The
absence of good faith or the honest belief that the Company is
ART. 263. Strikes, picketing and lockouts. - xxx
committing Unfair Labor Practice, therefore, is what inclines us
to rule that the strike conducted by the Union from January 22
to 25, 1991 is illegal for being in violation of the "no strike, no (b) Workers shall have the right to engage in concerted
lock-out" proviso and the failure to bring the union's grievances activities for purposes of collective bargaining or for their
under the grievance procedure in the CBA. It must be borne in mutual benefit and protection. The right of legitimate
mind that prior to the dismissal of Huyan, there was sufficient labor organizations to strike and picket and of employers
time to have the matter of Huyan's transfer subjected to the to lockout, consistent with the national interest, shall
grievance procedure. That the Union considered the procedure continue to be recognized and respected. However, no
an exercise in futility is not reason enough to disregard the labor union may strike and no employer may declare a
same given the circumstances in this case. Whatever wrong
lockout on grounds involving inter-union and intra-union
the Union felt the Company committed cannot be remedied by
another wrong on the part of the Union. disputes.

Disposition (c) In case of bargaining deadlocks, the duly certified or


Decision is affirmed (as regards the illegality of the stirke) recognized bargaining agent may file a notice of strike or
the employer may file a notice of lockout with the
Ministry at least 30 day before the intended date thereof.
In cases of unfair labor practice, the period of notice
MALAYANG SAMAHAN NG MANGGAGAWA SA shall be 15 days and in the absence of a duly certified or
M. GREENFIELD V RAMOS, NLRC, M. recognized bargaining agent, the notice of strike may be
GREENFIELD filed by any legitimate labor organization in behalf of its
326 SCRA 248 members. However, in case of dismissal from
employment of union officers duly elected in accordance
with the union constitution and by-laws, which may
constitute union busting, where the existence of the
union is threatened, the 15-day cooling-off period shall
not apply and the union may take action immediately.
LABOR LAW 2 A2010 256 Disini
dismissal was effected in compliance with the union security union will conduct a strike vote referendum. The members of the
clause of the CBA which is the law between the parties. This Union voted to stage a strike. Union informed the DOLE of the
was affirmed by the NLRC on appeal. results of the strike vote referendum. SOLE issued another
> On the ISSUE of STRIKE: status quo ante bellum order certifying the case to the NLRC for
- Labor Arbiter held that the strike was illegal for the following compulsory arbitration and enjoining the parties from engaging in
reasons: (1) it was based on an intra-union dispute which any strike or lockout. Then, another notice of strike was filed by
cannot properly be the subject of a strike, the right to strike Union on account of the illegal dismissal of EEs pusrsuant to
being limited to cases of bargaining deadlocks and unfair labor Hotel’s act of retrenching around 171 EEs. Officers of the
practice (2) it was made in violation of the "no strike, no lock- respondent union and some members staged a picket in the
out" clause in the CBA, and (3) it was attended with violence, premises of the hotel, obstructing the free ingress and egress
force and intimidation upon the persons of the company thereto. Because of this, they were terminated.
officials, other employees reporting for work and third persons - Hotel filed a complaint with NLRC for illegal strike against the
having legitimate business with the company, resulting to union, its members and officers. Petitioner Hotel alleged inter
serious physical injuries to several employees and damage to alia that the union members and officers staged a strike on
company property. November 16, 1990 which lasted until November 29, 1990
without complying with the requirements provided under Articles
ISSUE/S 263 and 264 of the Labor Code. It further alleged that the officers
* WON the union officers were validly terminated and members of the respondent union blocked the main ingress
1. WON the strike was illegal for being grounded on a non- to and egress from the hotel.
strikeable issue (intra-union conflict between the federation - The respondent Union denied the material allegations of the
and the local union) complaint and alleged that the petitioner committed ULP prior to
2. WON the no strike, no lock-out clause in the CBA was the filing of the Nov. 16, 1990 notice of strike. Hence, there was
violated no need for the union to comply with A263 and 264 of LC, as the
3. WON the strike was attended with violence force and notice
intimidation - LA Linsangan’s Ruling: Union’s failure to comply with the
requirements laid down in A263 and 264 of LC, the strike that
HELD was staged was illegal. Considering the admissions of the
* NO individual respondents that they participated in the said strike,
Reasoning Although this Court has ruled that union security the termination of their employment by the petitioner was legal.
clauses embodied in the collective bargaining agreement may LA noted that if as alleged by the respondent union the petitioner
be validly enforced and that dismissals pursuant thereto may was guilty of ULP, it should have filed a complaint therefor
ART. 263.
against Strikes,
the Hotel picketing
and/or and lockouts.
its officials for which –the xxx-
latter could
likewise
have been meted penal and administrative sanctions as
(c) In case
provided for inofA272bargaining
of LC. The deadlocks,
Union failed. the duly certified
-orAppeal by Union
recognized to NLRC:agent
bargaining that itmayhad file
complied
a noticewithofthe
6. STRIKING PARTY- 263 (b) (c) requirements
strike or thelaid down in may
employer A263file
anda 264 of LC
notice of because its Nov
lockout with
16, 1990 notice of strike was a mere reiteration of its Sept 27,
the Ministry at least 30 day before the intended date
1990 notice of strike, which, in turn, complied with all the
7. PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS thereof. In cases
requirements of the of unfair labor articles,
aforementioned practice,i.e.,
thethe period of
cooling-off
1) Effort Bargain notice the
period, shall beban,
strike 15 days andvote
the strike in the absence
and the of areport.
strike vote duly
-certified or recognized
NLRC affirmed LA Decision. bargaining
Compliance agent, the requirements
of the notice of
strike
laid downmay in be
A263 filed
andby264 anyoflegitimate
LC respectinglabortheorganization
Sept 27, 1990
2) Filing of Notice Intention in behalf
notice of filed
of strike its bymembers. However,
the union cannot in case
be carried over toofthe
Nov 16, 1990from
dismissal noticeemployment
of strike. Resultantly,
of union for failure
officersof theduly
union
to complyin
elected with the requirements,
accordance with thethe union
strike staged on November
constitution and
16 up to November 29, 1990 was illegal.
3) Observance Cooling- Off Period by-laws, which may constitute union busting, where
- CA reversed NLRC and LA: It took into account the observation
thetheexistence
of Sol-Gen of thatthetheunion
Hotelisretrenched
threatened, EEsthepending
15-daythe
ART. 263. Strikes, picketing and lockouts. – xxx- cooling-off
resolution of period shall cases
the certified not apply and the
respecting the union
allegedmay illegal
4) Vote, Conduct of; and Period of take action
suspension and immediately. (As amended
dismissals effected by Executive
by Hotel during and prior to
Validity
(c) In case of bargaining deadlocks, the duly certified or Order
the No. of
notices 111,
strikeDecember 24, 1986).
filed by Union. Sol-Gen opined that even if
recognized bargaining agent may file a notice of strike or the the strike was staged without the proper notice and compliance
ART.
employer263.mayStrikes,
file picketing
a noticeHOTELand
of lockouts.
lockout with–thexxx-Ministry at least with the cooling-off period, resort thereto was simply triggered by
GRAND BOULEVARD V GENUINE LABORERS the
(f)
30 Adaydecision
beforeto the
declare a strike
intended must
date
ORGANIZATION
be approved
thereof. In cases by aofmajority
unfair of the
labor (d) petitioners'
The notice beliefmust in good
be faith that Hotel was
in accordance engaged
with such in
total union the
membership in the bargaining ULP. Hence, this petition
practice, period of notice shall unit
be concerned,
15 days and obtained
in theby implementing rules and regulations as the Minister of
secret ballot in meetings 406 SCRA 688
or referenda called for that purpose. A
absence of a duly certified or recognized bargaining agent, the Labor and Employment may promulgate.
ISSUES
decision to declare CALLEJO;
a lockout mustJuly 18, 2003
be approved by a majority of the
notice
board ofofdirectors
strike may of thebecorporation
filed by any legitimate
or association labor organization
or of the partners in 1 WON the strike staged by the respondent union on Nov16-29,
in partnership, obtained by secret ballot in a meeting called forfrom
behalf
aNATURE of its members. However, in case of dismissal that (e) During
1990 is legal the cooling-off period, it shall be the duty of
employment
purpose. The
Petition for of union
decision
review officers
shall
on certiorari duly for
be valid elected in accordance
the duration with
of the dispute 2theWON Ministry to exert
the dismissals allofficers
of the effortsandatsome
mediation
membersand
of the
the union
based constitution
on substantially theand
sameby-laws,
groundswhich may when
considered constitute union
the strike or conciliation
Union to effect a voluntary
as a consequence settlement.
of the strike Should
on Nov16-29, theare
1990
busting,
lockout
FACTS vote where
was the existence
taken. of the
The Ministry union
may, is own
at its threatened,
initiative the 15-
or upon valid.
dispute remain unsettled until the lapse of the requisite
the
day request of any
cooling-off
- Respondent affected
period
Genuine party,
shall
Labor supervise
notOrganization
apply and the the
conduct
of unionof may
Workers the
in secret
take
Hotel, number of days from the mandatory filing of the notice,
balloting.
Restaurant In and
every case,
Allied the union
Industries – or theExecutive
Silahis employer
InternationalshallHotel
furnish the HELD
action immediately. (As amended by Order No.Chapter
111, the labor union may strike or the employer may
Ministry
(Union) theandresults ofpetitioner
the votingGrand
at least Boulevard
seven days Hotelbefore (then
the intended 1. NO
December 24,the1986). Silahis declare
Re: a lockout.
Procedural Requirements
strike or lockout,
International subject
Hotel, Inc.) toexecuted
the cooling-off
a CBAperiodcoveringherein
the provided
period from July
10, 1985 up to July 9, 1988. - Under A263 (c) and (f) of LC, the requisites for a valid strike are
(e) During the
- Thereafter,
cooling-off
Union filed
period,
several- (a)
notices
it ofshall
strike
be the dutyofof
on account
the
alleged asART. 264.
follows: (a) Prohibited activities.
a notice of strike - the
fled with (a) DOLE
No 30 labordays
ART. 264. Prohibited activities. No labor organization or employer
Ministry
violations toofexert
CBA, allillegal
efforts at mediation and conciliation toIneffect organization
before or employer
the intended date thereofshall
or 15declare a strike
days in case of ULP; or(b)
shall declare a strike ordismissal
lockout and suspension
without of EEs.
first having these
bargained
a voluntary strike votewithout
approvedfirst
by ahaving
majoritybargained
of the total union membership
instances,
collectively in settlement.
SOLE issued a with
accordance Should
status quo
Title the dispute
VIIante
of bellum
this remain
Bookorder unsettled
or certifying
without the
first lockout collectively in
until the inaccordance
the bargaining withunit concerned
Title obtained
VII of this Bookbyorsecret ballot
without in a
first
having filedlapse
labor dispute the theofNLRC
to notice the requisite
for
required compulsory number of
arbitration
in the preceding days
pursuant
Article from the
to Article
or without the
mandatory filingAfter meeting
having called for notice
that purpose; (c) in
notice given to theArticle
DOLE of
263(g) of strike
necessary LC. orof the notice,
notice
lockout votewas the
first labor
given
having by union
beenHotel may strike
re its
obtained or theto
decision
and reported filed the required the preceding
implement retrenchment the results of the voting at least 7 days before the intended
employer
to may
the Ministry. declare aprogram,
lockout.Union informed the DOLE that the or without the necessary strike or lockout vote first
having been obtained and reported to the Ministry.
No strike or lockout shall be declared after assumption of jurisdiction by
the President or the Minister or after certification or submission of the No strike or lockout shall be declared after assumption
dispute to compulsory or voluntary arbitration or during the pendency of
of jurisdiction by the President or the Minister or after
cases involving the same grounds for the strike or lockout.
certification or submission of the dispute to
LABOR LAW 2 A2010 257 Disini
strike. The requisite 7-day period is intended to give the DOLE an conversion of notice of strike into preventive mediation and
opportunity to verify whether the projected strike really carries the grounds raised were only intra-union conflict – nonstrikeable
approval of the majority of the union members. The notice of strike and (who between the 2 groups shall represent the workers for
the cooling-off period were intended to provide an opportunity for collective bargaining purposes, union leadership).
mediation and conciliation. The requirements are mandatory and failure -IBM President group filed 2nd notice of strike against SMC,
of a union to comply therewith renders the strike illegal. A strike NCMB found the additional grounds to be mere amplifications of
simultaneously with or immediately after a notice of strike will render the issues alleged in the 1st notice of strike. Ordered consolidation of
requisite periods nugatory. the 2nd notice of strike with 1st notice of strike. Group informed
SMC of its plan to hold a strike.
- In this case, union filed its notice of strike with the DOLE on Nov 16, -VP group notified the NCMB that their strike vote favored the
1990 and on the same day, staged a picket on the premises of the hotel, holding of a strike. NCMB issued a letter reminding the group of
in violation of the law. Union cannot argue that since the notice of strike the PAL v Drilon. IBM went on strike. Strike paralyzed the
on Nov 16, 1990 were for the same grounds as those contained in their operations of SMC, which caused millions of loses.
notice of strike on September 27, 1990 which complied with the -SMC filed with NLRC a Petition for Injunction with Prayer for the
requirements of the law on the cooling-off period, strike ban, strike vote Issuance of TRO, Free Ingress and Egress Order and
and strike vote report, the strike staged by them on Nov16, 1990 was Deputization Order, which was issued by NLRC, without
lawful. The matters contained in the notice of strike of Sept 27, 1990 had prejudice to the union’s right to peaceful picketing and
already been taken cognizance of by the SOLE when he issued on Oct continuous hearings on the injunction case. SMC also entered
31, 1990 a status quo ante bellum order enjoining union from intending into a Memorandum of Agreement with Union, calling for lifting of
or staging a strike. Despite SOLE order, the union nevertheless staged a picket lines and resumption of work in exchange of “good faith
strike on Nov16, 1990 simultaneously with its notice of strike, thus talks” between the management and the labor management
violating A264(a) LC committees. The MOA also stated that cases filed in relation to
their dispute will continue and will not be affected in any manner
Grounds whatsoever by the agreement. Work was then resumed.
- A strike that is undertaken, despite the issuance by the SOLE of an -NLRC reconsidered the issuance of TRO, and sought to dismiss
assumption or certification order, becomes a prohibited activity and, the injunction case. SMC opposed, submitted copies of flyers
thus, illegal pursuant to A264 of LC: No strike or lockout shall be wherein IBM expressed their threat to revive the strike. NLRC
declared after assumption of jurisdiction by the President or the issued decision denying the petition for injunction for lack of
Secretary or after certification or submission of the dispute to factual basis, there being no circumstance to constitute an actual
compulsory or voluntary arbitration or during the pendency of cases or threatened commission of unlawful acts. MFR denied
involving the same grounds for the strike or lockout.
- Even if the union acted in good faith in the belief that the company was ISSUES
committing an unfair labor practice, if no notice of strike and a strike vote WON the strike held by IBM was illegal (therefore, NLRC
were conducted, the said strike is illegal. committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the petition for
injunction filed by SMC)
2. YES
Re: Effect of Illegality HELD
Ratio Since a strike that is undertaken, despite the issuance by the YES
SOLE of an assumption or certification order, becomes a prohibited a. Procedural aspect of the strike
activity and, thus, illegal pursuant to A264 of LC, the union officers and -For a strike to be valid, it must be pursued within legal bounds.
members, as a result, are deemed to have lost their employment status One of the procedural requisites that A263 of the LC and its IRR
for having knowingly participated in an illegal act. prescribe is the filing of a valid notice of strike with the NCMB.
Imposed for the purpose of encouraging the voluntary settlement
Disposition Petition is GRANTED. LA Decision REINSTATED. of disputes, this requirement has been held to be mandatory, the
lack of which shall render a strike illegal.
SAN MIGUEL CORP v. NLRC, IBM -In accordance with the Implementing Rules of the Labor Code,
the conversion of the notice of strike to preventive mediation has
403 SCRA 418 the effect of dismissing the notices of strike filed by respondent.
AZCUNA, June 10, 2003 A case in point is PAL v. Drilon, where we declared a strike
illegal for lack of a valid notice of strike, in view of the NCMB’s
NATURE Petition for certiorari and prohibition conversion of the notice therein into a preventive mediation
case. During the pendency of preventive mediation proceedings
FACTS no strike could be legally declared.
-SMC and Ilaw at Buklod ng Manggagawa (IBM) executed a CBA -therefore, since the notice of strike filed by the union was
wherein they agreed to submit all disputes to grievance and arbitration converted into preventive mediation proceedings, the union had
proceedings, aside from no-strike, no-lockout agreement. lost the notices of strike required under A263. However, the
-IBM, through its VP and subsequently through its president (which was union defiantly proceeded with the strike while mediation was
opposed by the VP), filed with NCMB a notice of strike against SMC for ongoing. Such disregard of the mediation proceedings was a
allegedly committing: (1) illegal dismissal of union members, (2) illegal blatant violation of theImplementing Rules, which explicitly oblige
transfer, (3) violation of CBA, (4) contracting out of jobs being performed the parties to bargain collectively in good faith and prohibit them
by union members, (5) labor-only contracting, (6) harassment of union from impeding or disrupting the proceedings.
officers and members, (7) non-recognition of duly-elected union officers,
and (8) other acts of unfair labor practice. SMC filed a Motion for b. on ruling of NLRC that there was lack of factual basis (no
Severance of Notices of Strike with Motion to Dismiss on the grounds circumstance to constitute an actual or threatened
that the notices raised non-strikeable issues and that they affected 4 commission of unlawful acts)
corporations. -at the time the injunction was being sought, there existed a
-NCMB: issues are non-strikeable, as only SMC was impleaded when 4 threat to revive the unlawful strike as evidenced by the flyers
different companies were involved. Notices of strike converted into then being circulated by the IBM, which were not denied by the
preventive mediation. respondent union. Moreover, a declaration of strike without first
-while separate preventive mediation conferences were ongoing, the having filed the required notice is a prohibited activity (A264(a)),
Union through its VP filed a notice of holding a strike vote. SMC which may be prevented through an injunction in accordance
opposed, invoking PAL v. Drilon (no strike could be legally declared with A254.
during the pendency of preventive mediation). NCMB reiterated
LABOR LAW 2 A2010 258 Disini
c. on IBM’s failure to observe the CBA provisions on grievance and board of directors of the corporation or association or of the
arbitration partners in a partnership, obtained by secret ballot in a meeting
- Strikes held in violation of the terms contained in a collective called for the purpose. The decision shall be valid for the
bargaining agreement are illegal especially when they provide for duration of the dispute based on substantially the same grounds
conclusive arbitration clauses. These agreements must be strictly considered when the strike or lockout vote was taken. The
adhered to and respected if their ends have to be achieved. Department may, at its own initiative or upon the request of any
-“We cannot sanction the respondent-union’s brazen disregard of legal affected party, supervise the conduct of the secret balloting. In
requirements imposed purposely to carry out the state policy of every case, the union or the employer shall furnish the
promoting voluntary modes of settling disputes. The state’s commitment Department the results of the voting at least seven days before
to enforce mutual compliance therewith to foster industrial peace is the intended strike or lock-out, subject to the cooling-off period
affirmed by no less than our Constitution. Trade unionism and strikes herein provided.
are legitimate weapons of labor granted by our statutes. But misuse of Under the aforequoted provisions, the requisites for a valid
these instruments can be the subject of judicial intervention to forestall strike are as follows: (a) a notice of strike filed with the
grave injury to a business enterprise.” DOLE thirty days before the intended date thereof or fifteen
days in case of unfair labor practice; (b) strike vote
Disposition. WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby GRANTED. approved by a majority of the total union membership in the
The decision and resolution of the NLRC in Injunction Case No. 00468- bargaining unit concerned obtained by secret ballot in a
94 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Petitioner and private respondent meeting called for that purpose; (c) notice given to the
are hereby directed to submit the issues raised in the dismissed notices DOLE of the results of the voting at least seven days before
of strike to grievance procedure and proceed with arbitration the intended strike. These requirements are mandatory and
proceedings as prescribed in their CBA, if necessary. No failure of a union to comply therewith renders the strike
pronouncement as to costs. SO ORDERED. illegal.

Pursuant to Article 264 of the Labor Code, any union officer who
PIÑERO v NLRC knowingly participates in an illegal strike and any worker or union
437 SCRA 112 officer who knowingly participates in the commission of illegal
YNARES-SANTIAGO; August 20, 2004 acts during a strike may be declared to have lost his employment
status.
FACTS In the case at bar, DUCACOFSA-NAFTEU failed to prove that it
- Dumaguete Cathedral College, Inc.,(DCCI) is the employer of the obtained the required strike-vote among its members and that
faculty and staff members comprising the labor union DUCACOFSA- the results thereof were submitted to the DOLE. The strike was
NAFTEU. In 1986, the union and DCCI entered into a CBA effective for therefore correctly declared illegal, for non-compliance with the
3 years. Upon the expiration of their CBA in 1989, the parties failed to procedural requirements of Article 263 of the Labor Code.
conclude another CBA which led the union to file a notice of strike with
the DOLE on the ground of refusal to bargain.
- The union conducted a strike in the premises of DCCI without
Samahang Manggagawa v. Sulpicio Lines, Inc.
submitting to the DOLE the required results of the strike vote obtained
from the members of the union. Consequently,DCCI filed with theDOLE 426 SCRA 319
a complaint to declare the strike illegal and to dismiss the officers of the (Sarah Cabrera)
union.
- The LA declared the strike illegal and declared the union officers to
have lost their employment status effective on the date of this decision.
The union officers appealed to the NLRC. CAPITOL MEDICAL CENTER VS NLRC (CMC
- Meanwhile, said officers returned to work by virtue of an MOA entered EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION)
into by the union and DCI allowing them to resume service without
prejudice to the outcome of the instant case then pending appeal with 320 SCRA 478
the NLRC. CALLEJO; April 26, 2005
- The NLRC affirmed the decision of the LA. The NLRC ratiocinated
that the strike was illegal because of the union’s failure to comply with FACTS
strike vote requirements. -Whether respondent Capitol Medical Center Employees
ISSUES Association (The Union) was the exclusive bargaining agent of
WON the strike staged by DUCACOFSA- NAFTEU was illegal the rank-and-file EEs of petitioner had been the bone of
HELD contention between the 2 parties. Another union, CMC-ACE
YES demanded a certification election which was granted by the Med-
There is no doubt that the strike staged by DUCACOFSA-NAFTEU is Arbiter which was later appealed to SOLE and granted by Usec
illegal for non-compliance with the strike-vote requirements. The Laguesma. SOLE denied the MFR filed by ACE which the Court
relevant provisions of Article 263 of the Labor Code read: affirmed.
Article 263. x x x
(c) x x x the duly certified or recognized bargaining agent may file a -Petitioner rejected a meeting proposed by the Union to
notice of strike or the employer may file a notice of lockout with the negotiate a CBA, and later filed a Petition for the Cancellation of
Department at least 30 days before the intended date thereof. In cases the Union’s Certificate Registration with DOLE on the grounds
of unfair labor practice, the period of notice shall be 15 days and in the that the Union failed for several years to submit its Annual
absence of a duly certified or recognized bargaining agent, the notice of financial statements and engaged in an illegal strike. The Union
strike may be filed by any legitimate labor organization in behalf of its filed a notice of strike with the NCMB due to petitioner’s refusal
members. However, in case of dismissal from employment of union to bargain but failed to later furnish the NCMB with a copy of the
officers duly elected in accordance with the union constitution and by- notice of the meeting where the strike was conducted. The Union
laws, which may constitute union busting where the existence of the submitted to the NCMB the minutes of the alleged strike vote,
union is threatened, the 15-day cooling-off period shall not apply and the supposedly held in a parking lot in front of CMC.
union may take action immediately.
(f) A decision to declare a strike must be approved by a majority of -The Union filed an ex parte motion with DOLE to assume
the total union membership in the bargaining unit concerned, obtained jurisdiction and impose sanctions against the hospital
by secret ballot in meetings or referenda called for that purpose. A director/corporate officers for refusal to bargain. SOLE assumed
decision to declare a lockout must be approved by a majority of the jurisdiction over the labor dispute, and issued a return to work
LABOR LAW 2 A2010 259 Disini
order to which the EE’s complied. Meanwhile, DOLE denied the petition - Petitioner Tomaroy, with sixteen (16) members of the petitioner
for cancellation of the Unions certificate registration. union, staged a picket in front of the respondent’s compound,
carrying placards with slogans.
-The Labor Arbiter then declared the strike illegal, ruling that no strike - CKC filed a petition to declare the strike illegal for failure to
vote had actually taken place as evidenced by witnesses presented by comply with the procedural requirements for staging a strike.
CMC (the overseer of the purported parking lot and sworn statements The petition was granted and the employees who participated
from 17 union members) and no mandatory notice was furnished to lost their employment status with CKC.
NCMB at least 24 hours prior to the strike vote. He also held that instead
of staging a strike, the Union should have filed a motion for a writ of ISSUE
execution of the resolution of Usec Laguesma in accordance with Art. WON the stage is illegal for failure of the petitioners to comply
263. The NLRC reversed said decision upon appeal and denied the with the procedural requirements
petition to declare the strike illegal. Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari
with the CA which was dismissed hence this petition for review on HELD
certiorari under Rule 45. YES
Ratio In order for a strike to be valid, the following requirements
ISSUE/s laid down in paragraphs (c) and (f) of Article 263 of the Labor
WON the CA erred in upholding NLRC’s finding that the Union Code must be complied with: (a) a notice of strike must be filed;
complied with the legal requirements for staging a strike (b) a strike-vote must be taken; and
(c) the results of the strike-vote must be reported to the DOLE.
HELD It bears stressing that these requirements are mandatory,
meaning, non-compliance therewith makes the strike illegal. The
YES. Sec. 10, Rule XXII of the Omnibus Rules of the NLRC requires evident intention of the law in requiring the strike notice and
that a majority vote by secret ballot be obtained before declaring a strike-vote report is to reasonably regulate the right to strike,
strike. Article 263 further provides that a union intending to strike is which is essential to the attainment of legitimate policy objectives
mandated to notify the NCMB of the meeting (date, place and time) for embodied in the law.
the conduct of strike vote, at least 24 hours prior to such meeting. Reasoning
NCMB is to call the parties to a conference to assist them in an amicable a. The strikers/picketers did not conduct a strike vote and no
settlement and in the event of its failure, voluntary arbitration is cooling-off period was observed;
encouraged. If the parties refuse, the union may hold a strike vote to b. The strikers/picketers did not file a notice of strike;
ensure the decision to strike rests on the majority of the union members. c. The reasons for the strike/picket involve a non-strikeable
issue;
-Such requirement is designed to inform the NCMB of the intent to d. It was not based on a valid factual ground, either based on
strike, and to give it ample time to decide WON there is a need to Collective Bargaining Deadlock and/or Unfair Labor Practice;
supervise the strike vote to prevent violence/irregularities. Failure to e. There was no strike-vote report submitted to the DOLE at
comply with such requirement renders the subsequent strike staged least seven (7) days before the intended date of the strike;
illegal; in the instant case, the Union failed to comply with said f. The 7-day visiting period after submission of the strike vote
requirement. report was not fully observed.

-The NLRC held that although the parking lot overseer attested to not DISPOSITION Petition DENIED.
having witnessed any such strike vote, it did not mean no strike vote
occurred at all. It also furthered that the 17 sworn statements seemed
coerced as they were pro forma. This Court however, held that the
respondents failed to prove the existence of a parking lot other than the
parking lot across CMC which the overseer, in an affidavit, stated that no
voting or election was conducted on the date of the alleged strike vote.
Also, the respondents failed to adduce substantial evidence that the
affiants, the 17 union members who executed separate affidavits that no
secret balloting took place, were coerced into executing the same. The
fact that some portions of the affidavit are similarly worded is no proof
that petitioner forced said members into executing said affidavits.

Disposition The petition is granted

BUKLURAN NG MANGGAGAWA SA CLOTHMAN 8. TEST OF LEGALITY


KNITTING CORPORATION – SOLIDARITY OF UNIONS
IN THE PHILIPPINES FOR EMPOWERMENT AND 1) Purpose and Means Test
REFORMS (BMC-SUPER) vs. CA (CLOTHMAN
KNITTING CORPORATION) LUZON MARINE DEPT., UNION V ROLDAN
448 SCRA 642 (LUZON STEVEDORING CO.)
CALLEJO, SR.; Jan 17, 2005 86 PHIL 507
OZAETA; MAY 30, 1950
NATURE Petition for review NATURE
Petition for certiorari to review a resolution of the Court of
FACTS Industrial Relations.
- Clothman Knitting Corporation (CKC), a domestic corporation
engaged in knitting/textiles, issued a Memorandum informing its FACTS
employees at the Dyeing and Finishing Division that a temporary - June 17, 1948: Petitioner Luzon Marine Union (UNION)
shutdown of the operations therein would be effected for one week due presented to respondent Luzon Stevedoring Co. (LSC) a petition
to change in the schedule brought about by the decrease in the orders containing demands, including that it be granted of full
from the customers.
LABOR LAW 2 A2010 260 Disini
recognition “with the right to collective bargaining, closed-shop and (Giulia Pineda)
check-off.” The Union initiated the petition in the CIR praying that LSC
be directed to comply immediately with the demands.
- The Union de Obreros Estivadores de Filipinas (UOEF) a labor PHILIPPINE MARINE OFFICERS GUILD V CIA.
organization divided into units of which Universal Marine Union is a part, MARITIMA
intervened on behalf of the Union because it alleged that the demand of (Ajang Pineda)
the Union for recognition with the right to collective bargaining, closed-
shop, etc. would violate an agreement entered into between LSC and Acts of violence in this jurisdiction, when committed in carrying
UOEF, where the company recognized UOEF as the labor organization on a strike are not to be overlooked in determining its legality or
of the workers rendering services to LSC., with full right of collective illegality.
bargaining.  To overlook these acts of violence would encourage
- UOEF moved for dismissal for lack of jurisdiction, on the ground that abuses and terrorism and subvert the purpose of the law which
the Union did not count with more than 30 members employed in the provides for arbitration and peaceful settlement of disputes.
LSC. Judge Bautista issued an order denying the motion to dismiss.
Before the receipt of the order, 65 alleged members of the Union  If a strike is unjustified as when it is declared for
initiated a strike without notice (July 19). It was only on July 21 that the trivial, unjust or unreasonable purpose, the employer may not be
LSC received the notice of strike. compelled to reinstate the strikers to their employment. More so,
- July 20, 1948: Union filed with CIR a petition alleging that all its when the strike is carried on illegally.
members (more than 300) went on strike on July 19 due to the refusal of
LSC to grant their demands, and prayed for the issuance of a restraining
order to prevent the respondent from employing strike breakers.
- August 16, 1948: Judge Bautista issued an order directing the strikers UNION OF FILIPRO EMPLOYEES v. NESTLE
to return to work, and the LSC to reinstate them in their previous 192 SCRA 396
positions. Acting on a motion for reconsideration, the court set said order
aside on the ground that the strike was unjustified and illegal. MEDIALDEA; December 19, 1990
- Judges Roldan and Castillo held that although Sec. 19 of
Commonwealth Act 103 provides that “pending award or decision by NATURE
the CIR, the employee, tenant or laborer shall not strike or walk out This petition assails the decision of the NLRC, dated November
of his employment when so enjoined by the Court, and although 2, 1988 on the consolidated appeals of petitioners
the Court had not enjoined the petitioner NOT TO STRIKE, it does
not necessarily follow that the strike was legal and justified xxx FACTS
Although the Act recognizes the laborers’ right to strike, it also - UFE filed a notice of strike with the Bureau of Labor Relations
creates all the means by which a resort thereto may be avoided, against Filipro (now Nestle Philippines).
“because a strike is a remedy essentially coercive in character and - UFE filed a complaint for Unfair Labor Practice (ULP) against
general in its disturbing effects upon the social order and the Nestle and its officials for violation of the Labor Code (Art. 94) on
public interests.” Holiday Pay, non-implementation of the CBA provisions (Labor
- The CIR found out that the reason the members went on strike was Management Corporation scheme), Financial Assistance and
because the “opposite party claims or asserts that they had no members other unfair labor practice.
inside the company, and because they were becoming impatient.” From - Acting on Nestle's petition seeking assumption of jurisdiction
The court concluded that the purpose of the strike was to influence the over the labor dispute or its certification to the NLRC for
decision and to compel the Court to decide promptly. The union insists compulsory arbitration, then Minister of Labor and Employment
that the strike was called for a lawful purpose: 1) to show they had more Blas F. Ople assumed jurisdiction over the dispute and issued
than 30 members; 2) to answer the challenge of Alejo Villanueva that he the following order enjoining any strike, lockout, or any other
will dismiss the members from the company. form of concerted action such as slowdowns, sitdowns, noise
barrages during office hours, which tend to disrupt company
ISSUES operations.
1. WON the strike was called for a lawful purpose. - UFE filed a petition for certiorari with prayer for issuance of
temporary restraining order, with this Court assailing the
HELD assumption of jurisdiction by the Minister. Notwithstanding the
2. NO automatic injunction against any concerted activity, and an
Ratio In cases not falling within the prohibition against strikes, the absence of a restraining order, the union members, at the
legality or illegality of a strike depends upon the 1) purpose for which it is instigation of its leaders, and in clear defiance of Minister Ople's
maintained, and 2) upon the means employed in carrying it on. Order of December 11, 1986, staged a strike and continued to
- The law does not look with favor upon strikes and lockouts because of man picket lines at the Makati Administrative Office and all of
their disturbing and pernicious effects upon the social order and the Nestle's factories and warehouses at Alabang, Muntinlupa,
public interests. Cabuyao, Laguna, and Cagayan de Oro City. Likewise, the
Reasoning The reasons presented by the Union do not justify the union officers and members distributed leaflets to employees
drastic measure of a strike, which necessarily entails pernicious and passersby advocating a boycott of company products.
consequences not only to the company but also to the laborers - Nestle filed a petition to declare the strike illegal premised on
themselves and public. violation of the CBA provisions on "no strike/no lockout" clause
- If the purpose of a strike is trivial, unreasonable or unjust, or if violence and the grievance machinery provisions on settlement of
was committed, the strike, although not prohibited by injunction, may be disputes.
declared by the court illegal, with adverse consequences to the strikers. - Despite receipt of the second order dated January 30, 1986,
- If the laborers resort to a strike to enforce their demands (instead of and knowledge of a notice caused to be published by Nestle in
exhausting legal processes first) they do so at their own risk, and should the Bulletin on February 1, 1986, advising all workers to report to
the court find the strike was unjustified, the strikers would suffer the work not later than February 3, 1986, the officers and members
adverse consequences. of UFE continued with the strike.
- Minister B. Ople denied their motion for reconsideration of the
DISPOSITION The petition appealed from is affirmed. return-to-work order.
- UFE defied the Minister and continued with their strike. Nestle
filed criminal charges against those involved.
CALTEX PHIL. INC. V PHIL. LABOR ORGANIZATIONS, ISSUE
CALTEX CHAPTER
LABOR LAW 2 A2010 261 Disini
WON the strike is legal. - Among those affected were members of the labor union who
claimed that the change was done merely to harass them. In the
HELD ensuing discussions, the manager and the union members
NO. UFE completely misses the underlying principle embodied in Art. apparently had heated words and the union members hurled
264(g) on the settlement of labor disputes and this is, that assumption unprintable insults. Some employees refused to stay at their
and certification orders are executory in character and are to be strictly designated places. The company then asked the recalcitrants to
complied with by the parties even during the pendency of any petition explain within 48 hours why no disciplinary action should be
questioning their validity. This extraordinary authority given to the taken against them. Due to the continuing hostility by the union
Secretary of Labor is aimed at arriving at a peaceful and speedy solution members they were place under preventive suspension and
to labor disputes, without jeopardizing national interests. finally dismissed.
- Regardless therefore of their motives, or the validity of their claims, the - Illegal dismissal complaints were filed. These were amended to
striking workers must cease and/or desist from any and all acts that tend include a charge of unfair labor practice. The members alleged
to, or undermine this authority of the Secretary of Labor, once an that the seating arrangement was changed to pressure or
assumption and/or certification order is issued. They cannot, for intimidate labor union members. While the action was pending,
instance, ignore return-to-work orders, citing unfair labor practices on the union filed a notice of strike. Before a conciliation conference
the part of the company, to justify their actions. can be held, the union struck and picketed the company
- The return to work order does not so much confer a right as it imposes premises thus preventing officials and other employees from
a duty; and while as a right it may be waived, it must be discharged as a doing their usual duties.
duty even against the worker's will. Returning to work in this situation is - Company filed a petition to declare the strike illegal since there
not a matter of option or voluntariness but of obligation. The worker must was no strike vote and the required cooling off period was not
return to his job together with his co-workers so the operations of the followed. The Arbiter found the strike illegal. The finding was
company can be resumed and it can continue serving the public and modified by the NLRC and ruled that the strike while illegal
promoting its interest." should not result in the termination of the employees involved
- An assumption and/or certification order of the Secretary of Labor since the members truly believed that the company was
automatically results in a return-to-work of all striking workers, whether committing unfair labor practice in terminating the other
or not a corresponding order has been issued by the Secretary of Labor. employees. It ruled that the employees be reinstated but without
Thus, the striking workers erred when they continued with their strike backwages.
alleging absence of a return-to-work order. Article 264(g) is clear. - Hence this appeal to the SC.
- Once an assumption/certification order is issued, strikes are enjoined,
or if one has already taken place, all strikers shall immediately return to ISSUE/S
work. WON strikers who have found to have staged an illegal strike
- A strike that is undertaken despite the issuance by the Secretary of may be reinstated to work
Labor of an assumption or certification order becomes a prohibited
activity and thus illegal, pursuant to the second paragraph of Art. 264 of HELD
the Labor Code as amended. The Union officers and members, as a No. There is no question that the strike itself was prompted by
result, are deemed to have lost their employment status for having no actual, existing unfair labor practice committed by the
knowingly participated in an illegal act. petitioner. In effecting a change in the seating arrangement in
- Thus, the NLRC correctly upheld the illegality of the strikes and the the office of the underwriting department, the petitioner merely
corresponding dismissal of the individual complainants because of their exercised a reasonable prerogative employees could not validly
"brazen disregard of successive lawful orders of then Labor Ministers question, much less assail as an act of unfair labor practice. The
Blas F. Ople, Augusto Sanchez and Labor Secretary Franklin Drilon Court is indeed at a loss how rearranging furniture, as it were,
dated December 11, 1985, January 30, 1986 and February 4, 1986, can justify a four-month-long strike. As to the private
respectively, and the cavalier treatment of the provisions of the Labor respondent's charges of harassment, the Commission found
Code and the return-to-work orders of the Minister (now Secretary) of none, and as a general rule, we are bound by its findings of fact.
Labor and Employment, or Articles 264 and 265 (now renumbered Arts. Amid this background, the Court must grant the petition. In
263 and 264). staging the strike in question, a strike that was illegal in more
- No strike or lockout shall be declared after assumption of jurisdiction by ways than one, the reinstated union officers were clearly in bad
the President or the Minister or after certification or submission of the faith, and to reinstate them without, indeed, loss of seniority
dispute to compulsory or voluntary arbitration or during the pendency o f rights, is to reward them for an act public policy does not
cases involving the same grounds for the strike or lockout. sanction.
Disposition ACCORDINGLY, the petition is DISMISSED, and the - As a general rule, the sympathy of the Court is on the side of
decision of public respondent NLRC, dated November 2, 1988, and its the laboring classes, not only because the Constitution imposes
Resolution, dated March 7, 1989, are both AFFIRMED in their entirety. sympathy but because of the one-sided relation between labor
No costs. and capital. The Court must take care, however, that in the
contest between labor and capital, the results achieved are fair
and in conformity with the rules. We will not accomplish that
objective here by approving the act of the National Labor
RELIANCE SURETY AND INSURANCE CO. INC. V Relations Commission which we hold to constitute a grave abuse
NLRC of discretion.
193 SCRA 365
Sarmiento, J; 1991 Disposition Petition is granted.

NATURE ILAW at BUKLOD ng MANGGAGAWA v NLRC


Petition for Ceriorari to review NLRC decision 198 SCRA 586
FACTS NARVASA; June 27, 1991
- It appears that to avoid unnecessary loss of productive working time
due to personal and non-work-related conversations, personal telephone
calls and non-work-connected visits by personnel to other departments, FACTS
the respondent Reliance Surety Insurance Co., Inc. (company for short) -The controversy at bar had its origin in the "wage distortions"
on 21 November 1986, thru the manager (Mr.Celso Eleazar) of its affecting the employees of respondent San Miguel Corporation
underwriting department, effected a change in the seating arrangement allegedly caused by Republic Act No. 6727, otherwise known as
of its personnel in said department. the Wage Rationalization Act.
LABOR LAW 2 A2010 262 Disini
-Upon the effectivity of the Act on June 5, 1989, the union known as negotiation or arbitration, and not by strikes, lockouts, or other
"Ilaw at Buklod Ng Manggagawa (IBM)" — said to represent 4,500 concerted activities of the employees or management, is made
employees of San Miguel Corporation, more or less, "working at the clear in the rules implementing RA 6727 issued by the Secretary
various plants, offices, and warehouses located at the National Capital of Labor and Employment pursuant to the authority granted by
Region" - presented to the company a "demand" for correction of the Section 13 of the Act. Section 16, Chapter I of these
"significant distortion in . . . (the workers') wages." implementing rules, after reiterating the policy that wage
-Union claims that demand was ignored distortions be first settled voluntarily by the parties and
- The Union's position (set out in the petition subsequently filed in this eventually by compulsory arbitration, declares that, "Any issue
Court, infra) was that the workers' refusal "to work beyond eight (8) involving wage distortion shall not be a ground for a
hours everyday as a legitimate means of compelling SMC to correct "the strike/lockout."
distortion in their wages brought about by the implementation of the said -Moreover, the collective bargaining agreement between the
laws (R.A. 6640 and R.A. 6727) to newly-hired employees." There SMC and the Union, relevant provisions of which are quoted by
ensued thereby a change in the work schedule which had been the former without the latter s demurring to the accuracy of the
observed by daily-paid workers at the Polo Plant for the past five (5) quotation, also prescribes a similar eschewal of strikes or other
years, i.e., "ten (10) hours for the first shift and ten (10) to fourteen (14) similar or related concerted activities as a mode of resolving
hours for the second shift, from Mondays to Fridays . . .; (and on) disputes or controversies, generally, said agreement clearly
Saturdays, . . . eight (8) hours for both shifts" — a work schedule which, stating that settlement of "all disputes, disagreements or
SMC says, the workers had "welcomed, and encouraged" because the controversies of any kind" should be achieved by the stipulated
automatic overtime built into the schedule "gave them a steady source of grievance procedure and ultimately by arbitration.
extra-income," and pursuant to which it (SMC) "planned its production
targets and budgets. Disposition PETITION DENIED
-This abandonment of the long-standing schedule of work and the
reversion to the eight-hour shift apparently caused substantial losses to
SMC.
ASSOCIATION OF INDEPENDENT UNIONS IN
-SMC filed with the Arbitration Branch of the National Labor Relations
Commission a complaint against the Union and its members "to declare THE PHILIPPINES V NLRC (CENAPRO
the strike or slowdown illegal" and to terminate the employment of the CHEMICAL CORP, GO SING CHAN)
union officers and shop stewards. 305 SCRA 219
-it is SMC's submittal that the coordinated reduction by the Union's
PURISIMA; March 25, 1999
members of the work time theretofore willingly and consistently
observed by them, thereby causing financial losses to the employer in
NATURE
order to compel it to yield to the demand for correction of "wage
Petition for review on Certiorari seeking to reinstate the Labor
distortions," is an illegal and "unprotected" activity. It is, SMC argues,
Arbiter decision ordering the reinstatement and payment of
contrary to the law and to the collective bargaining agreement between it
backwages of the four petitioners which was affirmed in toto by
and the Union.
NLRC but later modified, by deleting the award of backwages,
ordering payment of separation pay in lieu of reinstatement, and
ISSUE
declaring the loss of employment status of petitioner Densing
WON the strike is illegal
FACTS
HELD
- Joel Densing, Henedino Mirafuentes, Christopher Patentes,
YES. Among the rights guaranteed to employees by the Labor Code is
and Andres Tejana, the petitioners, were casual employees of
that of engaging in concerted activities in order to attain their legitimate
CENAPRO Chemicals Corporation. The collective bargaining
objectives. Article 263 of the Labor Code, as amended, declares that in
representative of all rank and file employees was CENAPRO
line with "the policy of the State to encourage free trade unionism and
Employees Association (CCEA). Their CBA excluded casual
free collective bargaining, . . . (w)orkers shall have the right to engage in
employees from membership in the incumbent union. The casual
concerted activities for purposes of collective bargaining or for their
employees who rendered at least one to six years of service
mutual benefit and protection." A similar right to engage in concerted
sought regularization of their employment. When their demand
activities for mutual benefit and protection is tacitly and traditionally
was denied, they formed themselves into an organization and
recognized in respect of employers.
affiliated with the Association of Independent unions in the
The more common of these concerted activities as far as employees are
Philippines (AIUP). AIUP filed a petition for certification election,
concerned are: strikes — the temporary stoppage of work as a result of
which petition was opposed by the company. The CCEA
an industrial or labor dispute; picketing — the marching to and fro at the
anchored its opposition on the contract bar rule.
employer's premises, usually accompanied by the display of placards
- May 4, and July 3, 1990 > union filed a notice of strike, minutes
and other signs making known the facts involved in a labor dispute; and
of strike vote, and the needed documentation, with DOLE. The
boycotts — the concerted refusal to patronize an employer's goods or
notice of strike cited as grounds the acts of the company
services and to persuade others to a like refusal. On the other hand, the
constituting unfair labor practice, more specifically coercion of
counterpart activity that management may licitly undertake is the lockout
employees and systematic union busting.
— the temporary refusal to furnish work on account of a labor dispute. In
- July 23, 1992 > union proceeded to stage a strike in which they
this connection, the same Article 263 provides that the "right of
perpetrated illegal acts.
legitimate labor organizations to strike and picket and of employer to
1) strikers padlocked the gate of the company
lockout, consistent with the national interest, shall continue to be
2) areas fronting the gate of the company were barricaded and
recognized and respected." The legality of these activities is usually
blocked by union strikers
dependent on the legality of the purposes sought to be attained and the
3) strikers prevented and coerced other non-striking employees
means employed therefor (ON TEST OF LEGALITY).
from reporting for work
It goes without saying that these joint or coordinated activities may be
- the company filed a petition for injunction with NLRC, which
forbidden or restricted by law or contract. In the particular instance of
granted a TRO enjoining the strikers from doing further acts of
"distortions of the wage structure within an establishment" resulting from
violence, coercion, or intimidation and from blocking free ingress
"the application of any prescribed wage increase by virtue of a law or
and egress to the company premises.
wage order," Section 3 of Republic Act No. 6727 prescribes a specific,
- July 24, 1990 > petitioners filed a complaint for unfair labor
detailed and comprehensive procedure for the correction thereof,
practice and illegal lockout against the company
thereby implicitly excluding strikes or lockouts or other concerted
- July 25, 1990 > the company filed a complaint for illegal strike.
activities as modes of settlement of the issue. The legislative intent that
- September 10, 1993 > Labor Arbiter declared as illegal the
solution of the problem of wage distortions shall be sought by voluntary
strike and dismissed the charge of illegal lockout and unfair labor
LABOR LAW 2 A2010 263 Disini
practice, Five union officers were declared to have lost their bargaining unit. It is undisputed that at the time the petition for
employment status, fifteen union members were not reinstated because certification election was filed by AIUP, the petitioner union, there
they executed quit claims in favor of the company, and six workers, was an existing CBA between the company and CCEA, the
Bantulan, Regner, Densing Mirafuentes, Patentes, and Tejana, were incumbent bargaining representative of all rank and file
ordered to be reinstated. employees. The petition should have not been entertained
- October 8, 1993 > Labor Arbiter issued an Order excluding Bantulan because of the contract bar rule. When a collective bargaining
and Regner from the list of those to be reinstated and to be paid has been duly registered in accordance with A231 LC, a petition
backwages. The remaining four workers, Densing, Mirafuentes, for certification election or motion for intervention may be
Patentes, and Tejana, are the petitioners here. entertained only within sixty (60) days prior to the expiry date of
- October 5, 1993 > the company appealed insofar as it ordered the the agreement. [Sec 3, par. 2, Rule XI, Book V, of the Rules and
reinstatement of some of the strikers. Regulations implementing the Labor Code, as amended by D.O.
- October 7, 1993 > petitioners also appealed the same decision of the No. 09, which took effect on 21 Jun 1997] Outside the said
Labor Arbiter. period, as in the present case, the petition for certification
- October 15, 1993 > Pending resolution of the appeals, AUIP filed with election or motion for intervention cannot be allowed.
Labor Arbiter a Motion for Execution of the Decision directing - the strike staged by the petitioner union was illegal for the
reinstatement of some of its members. Motion was granted reasons, that:
- December 7, 1993 > the company presented a Manifestation/Motion 1) The strikers committed illegal acts in the course of the strike.
praying that instead of reinstatement, it be allowed to pay separation pay They formed human barricades to block the road, prevented the
to petitioners. passage of the company’s truck, padlocked the company’s gate,
- December 16, 1993 > petitioners presented a motion for payroll and prevented co-workers from entering the company premises.
reinstatement, which was opposed by the company, alleging mainly that 2) violated the TRO enjoining the union and/or its members from
the circumstances of the case have strained the relationship, rendering obstructing the company premises, and ordering the removal of
their reinstatement unwise and inappropriate. all the barricades.
- March 23, 1994 > such opposition was overruled by the Labor Arbiter. - Even if the strike is valid because its objective or purpose is
Labor Arbiter issued a second writ of execution directing actual, if not lawful, the strike may still be declared invalid where the means
payroll reinstatement of the strikers. employed are illegal. For instance, the strike was considered
- April 6, 1994 > the company appealed the second order for the illegal as the "strikers formed a human cordon along the side of
reinstatement of the strikers, placing reliance on the same grounds the Sta. Ana wharf and blocked all the ways and approaches to
- August 15, 1994 > NLRC affirmed in toto the Labor Arbiter’s decision, the launches and vessels of Petitioners". [United Seamen’s
dismissed both appeals and reiterated the Labor Arbiter’s Order for the Union of the Philippines vs. Davao Shipowners Association]
reinstatement of the petitioners. The company moved for 2. NO
reconsideration of that portion of the NLRC’s decision ordering the Reasoning
reinstatement of the strikers. NLRC modified its Decision by ordering the - the company committed no illegal lockout. Lockout means
payment of separation pay in lieu of the reinstatement of the petitioners, temporary refusal of the employer to furnish work as a result of
deleting the award of backwages, and declaring the loss of employment an industrial or labor dispute. [A212 (p) LC]
status of Densing. - it was the appellant-workers who voluntarily stopped working
- Petitioners claim: NLRC acted with grave abuse of discretion because of their strike. In fact, the workers admitted that non-
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction striking workers who wanted to return to work were allowed to do
so. Their being without work could not therefore be attributed to
ISSUES the employer’s refusal to give them work but rather, to the
1. WON there is an illegal strike voluntary withdrawal of their services in order to compel the
2. WON the company committed an illegal lockout company to recognize their union.
3. WON the dismissal of the union officers is valid 3. YES
4. WON NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in declaring Ratio Union officers are duty bound to guide their members to
Densing’s loss of employement status in connection with his respect the law. If instead of doing so, the officers urge the
participation in the illegal strike members to violate the law and defy the duly constituted
5. WON Mirafuentes’ et al reinstatement and payment of salaries is authorities, their dismissal from the service is a just penalty or
valid sanction for their unlawful acts. The officers’ responsibility is
greater than that of the members. [Continental Cement Labor
HELD Union vs. Continental Cement Corporation]
1. YES Reasoning
Ratio A strike is a legitimate weapon in the universal struggle for - the dismissal of the officers of the striking union was justified
existence. [Alcantara, Philippine Labor and Social Legislation, 1994] It is and valid. Their dismissal as a consequence of the illegality of
considered as the most effective weapon in protecting the rights of the the strike staged by them finds support in A264 (a) LC: " x x Any
employees to improve the terms and conditions of their employment. union officer who knowingly participates in an illegal strike and
[Bisig ng Mangagawa sa Concrete Aggregates, Inc. vs. NLRC] But to be any x x union officer who knowingly participates in the
valid, a strike must be pursued within legal bounds. The right to strike as commission of illegal acts during a strike may be declared to
a means for the attainment of social justice is never meant to oppress or have lost his employment status. x x"
destroy the employer. The law provides limits for its exercise. Among 4. YES
such limits are the prohibited activities under A264 LC, particularly Ratio A264 (a) LC: "x x any worker x x who knowingly
paragraph (e), which states that no person engaged in picketing shall: participates in the commission of illegal acts during a strike may
a) commit any act of violence, coercion, or intimidation or be declared to have lost his employment status. x x" It can be
b) obstruct the free ingress to or egress from the employer’s premises gleaned unerringly from the provision that an ordinary striking
for lawful purposes or employee cannot be terminated for mere participation in an
c) obstruct public thoroughfares. illegal strike. There must be proof that he committed illegal acts
Reasoning during the strike [Gold City Integrated Port Service Inc. vs.
- the strike staged by petitioners was in the nature of a union- NLRC] and the striker who participated in the commission of
recognition-strike. A union-recognition-strike, as its legal designation illegal act must be identified. But proof beyond reasonable doubt
implies, is calculated to compel the employer to recognize one’s union is not required. Substantial evidence available may suffice.
and not other contending group, as the employees’ bargaining Ang Tibay vs. CIR: Not only must there be some evidence to
representative to work out a collective bargaining agreement despite the support a finding or conclusion, but the evidence must be
striking union’s doubtful majority status to merit voluntary recognition "substantial". Substantial evidence is more than a mere scintilla.
and lack of formal certification as the exclusive representative in the
LABOR LAW 2 A2010 264 Disini
It means such relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as Order, which was issued by NLRC, without prejudice to the
sufficient to support a conclusion. union’s right to peaceful picketing and continuous hearings on
Reasoning the injunction case. SMC also entered into a Memorandum of
- It is worthy to point out the sole basis of NLRC for declaring the loss of Agreement with Union, calling for lifting of picket lines and
employment status of petitioner Densing was a testimony of a witness resumption of work in exchange of “good faith talks” between the
who pointed to 5 members of AIUP in connection with the illegal act. management and the labor management committees. The MOA
And the photograph which supposedly portrayed the illegal acts done by also stated that cases filed in relation to their dispute will
the petitioners was not shown and presented to the petitioners for it to continue and will not be affected in any manner whatsoever by
be discerned properly. The court is not convinced that the quantum of the agreement. Work was then resumed.
proof on record hurdled the substantiality of evidence test to support a -NLRC reconsidered the issuance of TRO, and sought to dismiss
decision, a basic requirement in administrative adjudication. The the injunction case. SMC opposed, submitted copies of flyers
identification of the alleged pictures of the strikers, if properly made, wherein IBM expressed their threat to revive the strike. NLRC
could have been categorized as substantial evidence, which a issued decision denying the petition for injunction for lack of
reasonable mind may accept as adequate to support a conclusion that factual basis, there being no circumstance to constitute an actual
Densing participated in blocking the gate of the company. or threatened commission of unlawful acts. MFR denied
5. YES
Ratio For the severest administrative penalty of dismissal to attach, the ISSUES
erring strikers must be duly identified. Simply referring to them as WON the strike held by IBM was illegal (therefore, NLRC
"strikers", "AIU strikers" " complainants in this case" is not enough to committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the petition for
justify their dismissal. Article 223 LC: "x x x In any event, the decision of injunction filed by SMC)
the labor arbiter reinstating a dismissed employee shall be immediately
executory, even pending appeal. The employee shall either be admitted HELD
back to work under the same terms and conditions prevailing prior to his YES
dismissal or separation or, at the option of the employer, merely a. Procedural aspect of the strike
reinstated in the payroll. The posting of bond shall not stay the execution -For a strike to be valid, it must be pursued within legal bounds.
of the reinstatement provided therein. x x x" One of the procedural requisites that A263 of the LC and its IRR
Disposition Petition is GRANTED that Densing, Mirafuentes, Patentes, prescribe is the filing of a valid notice of strike with the NCMB.
and Tejana be paid full backwages computed from October 15, 1993 Imposed for the purpose of encouraging the voluntary settlement
until full payment of their separation pay. The payment of separation pay of disputes, this requirement has been held to be mandatory, the
in lieu of reinstatement, is hereby authorized lack of which shall render a strike illegal.
-In accordance with the Implementing Rules of the Labor Code,
SAN MIGUEL CORP v. NLRC, IBM the conversion of the notice of strike to preventive mediation has
the effect of dismissing the notices of strike filed by respondent.
SCRA A case in point is PAL v. Drilon, where we declared a strike
AZCUNA, June 10, 2003 illegal for lack of a valid notice of strike, in view of the NCMB’s
conversion of the notice therein into a preventive mediation
NATURE Petition for certiorari and prohibition case. During the pendency of preventive mediation proceedings
no strike could be legally declared.
FACTS -therefore, since the notice of strike filed by the union was
-SMC and Ilaw at Buklod ng Manggagawa (IBM) executed a CBA converted into preventive mediation proceedings, the union had
wherein they agreed to submit all disputes to grievance and arbitration lost the notices of strike required under A263. However, the
proceedings, aside from no-strike, no-lockout agreement. union defiantly proceeded with the strike while mediation was
-IBM, through its VP and subsequently through its president (which was ongoing. Such disregard of the mediation proceedings was a
opposed by the VP), filed with NCMB a notice of strike against SMC for blatant violation of theImplementing Rules, which explicitly oblige
allegedly committing: (1) illegal dismissal of union members, (2) illegal the parties to bargain collectively in good faith and prohibit them
transfer, (3) violation of CBA, (4) contracting out of jobs being performed from impeding or disrupting the proceedings.
by union members, (5) labor-only contracting, (6) harassment of union
officers and members, (7) non-recognition of duly-elected union officers, b. on ruling of NLRC that there was lack of factual basis (no
and (8) other acts of unfair labor practice. SMC filed a Motion for circumstance to constitute an actual or threatened commission
Severance of Notices of Strike with Motion to Dismiss on the grounds of unlawful acts)
that the notices raised non-strikeable issues and that they affected 4 -at the time the injunction was being sought, there existed a
corporations. threat to revive the unlawful strike as evidenced by the flyers
-NCMB: issues are non-strikeable, as only SMC was impleaded when 4 then being circulated by the IBM, which were not denied by the
different companies were involved. Notices of strike converted into respondent union. Moreover, a declaration of strike without first
preventive mediation. having filed the required notice is a prohibited activity (A264(a)),
-while separate preventive mediation conferences were ongoing, the which may be prevented through an injunction in accordance
Union through its VP filed a notice of holding a strike vote. SMC with A254.
opposed, invoking PAL v. Drilon (no strike could be legally declared
during the pendency of preventive mediation). NCMB reiterated c. on IBM’s failure to observe the CBA provisions on grievance
conversion of notice of strike into preventive mediation and grounds and arbitration
raised were only intra-union conflict – nonstrikeable (who between the 2 - Strikes held in violation of the terms contained in a collective
groups shall represent the workers for collective bargaining purposes, bargaining agreement are illegal especially when they provide
union leadership). for conclusive arbitration clauses. These agreements must be
-IBM President group filed 2nd notice of strike against SMC, NCMB found strictly adhered to and respected if their ends have to be
the additional grounds to be mere amplifications of issues alleged in the achieved.
1st notice of strike. Ordered consolidation of the 2nd notice of strike with -“We cannot sanction the respondent-union’s brazen disregard
1st notice of strike. Group informed SMC of its plan to hold a strike. of legal requirements imposed purposely to carry out the state
-VP group notified the NCMB that their strike vote favored the holding of policy of promoting voluntary modes of settling disputes. The
a strike. NCMB issued a letter reminding the group of the PAL v Drilon. state’s commitment to enforce mutual compliance therewith to
IBM went on strike. Strike paralyzed the operations of SMC, which foster industrial peace is affirmed by no less than our
caused millions of loses. Constitution. Trade unionism and strikes are legitimate weapons
-SMC filed with NLRC a Petition for Injunction with Prayer for the of labor granted by our statutes. But misuse of these instruments
Issuance of TRO, Free Ingress and Egress Order and Deputization
LABOR LAW 2 A2010 265 Disini
can be the subject of judicial intervention to forestall grave injury to a 2. WON the no strike, no lock-out clause in the CBA was violated
business enterprise.” 3. WON the strike was attended with violence force and
intimidation
Disposition. WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby GRANTED.
The decision and resolution of the NLRC in Injunction Case No. 00468- HELD
94 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Petitioner and private respondent * NO
are hereby directed to submit the issues raised in the dismissed notices Reasoning Although this Court has ruled that union security
of strike to grievance procedure and proceed with arbitration clauses embodied in the collective bargaining agreement may be
proceedings as prescribed in their CBA, if necessary. No validly enforced and that dismissals pursuant thereto may
pronouncement as to costs. SO ORDERED. likewise be valid, this does not erode the fundamental
requirement of due process. The reason behind the enforcement
of union security clauses which is the sanctity and inviolability of
contracts cannot override one's right to due process.
MALAYANG SAMAHAN NG MANGGAGAWA SA M. 1. NO
Reasoning When respondent company dismissed the union
GREENFIELD V RAMOS, NLRC, M. GREENFIELD officers, the issue was transformed into a termination dispute
326 SCRA 248 and brought respondent company into the picture. Petitioners
PURISIMA; February 28, 2000 believed in good faith that in dismissing them upon request by
the federation, respondent company was guilty of unfair labor
NATURE practice in that it violated the petitioner's right to self-
Petition for Certiorari to annul the NLRC decision organization. The strike was staged to protest respondent
company's act of dismissing the union officers. Even if the
FACTS allegations of unfair labor practice are subsequently found out to
- Malayang Samahan ng mga Manggagawa sa M. Greenfield, Inc. be untrue, the presumption of legality of the strike prevails.
(MSMG) (“Local Union”) is an affiliate of United Lumber and General 2. NO
Workers of the Philippines (ULGWP) (“Federation”). Reasoning A no strike, no lock out provision can only be
- The CBA between MSMG and M. Greenfield, Inc. states that it is invoked when the strike is economic in nature, i.e. to force wage
entered into by the corporation and “MSMG / ULGWP.” or other concessions from the employer which he is not required
- The CBA includes a Union Security Clause requiring all employees by law to grant. Such a provision cannot be used to assail the
who are covered by the CBA and presently members of the UNION to legality of a strike which is grounded on unfair labor practice, as
remain members of the UNION for the duration of the CBA as a was the honest belief of herein petitioners. Again, whether or not
condition precedent to continued employment. there was indeed unfair labor practice does not affect the strike.
- Local union imposed a P50 fine on non-attending union members 3. NO
which became the subject of bitter disagreement between the Reasoning The Labor Arbiter and the Commission found that
Federation and the local union. MSMG then declared general autonomy "the parties are agreed that there were violent incidents resulting
from the ULGWP. In retaliation, the national federation asked to injuries to both sides, the union and management." The
respondent company to stop the remittance of the local union's share in evidence on record show that the violence cannot be attributed
the education funds. It also “disauthorized” incumbent union officers to the striking employees alone for the company itself employed
from representing the employees. hired men to pacify the strikers. With violence committed on both
- Petitioner union officers were expelled by the federation for allegedly sides, the management and the employees, such violence
committing acts of disloyalty and/or inimical to the interest of ULGWP cannot be a ground for declaring the strike as illegal.
and in violation of its Constitution and By-laws. The federation advised Dispositive Petition is GRANTED; the NLRC decision is
respondent company of the expulsion of the 30 union officers and REVERSED and SET ASIDE; respondent company is ordered to
demanded their separation from employment pursuant to the Union immediately reinstate the petitioners to their respective
Security Clause in their CBA. positions.1
- Upon demand of the federation, the company terminated the
petitioners without conducting a separate and independent investigation.
The expelled union officers assigned in the first shift were physically or 2) Guidelines and Balancing of
bodily brought out of the company premises by the company's security
guards. Those assigned to the second shift were not allowed to report
Interest
for work. This provoked some of the members of the local union to
demonstrate their protest for the dismissal of the said union officers. SHELL OIL WORKER’S UNION V SHELL CO
Some union members left their work posts and walked out of the 00 SCRA 000
company premises.
- Labor Arbiter ruled that the dismissed union officers were validly and 1
Should reinstatement be not feasible, respondent
legally terminated because the dismissal was effected in compliance
with the union security clause of the CBA which is the law between the company shall pay separation pay of one month salary
parties. This was affirmed by the NLRC on appeal. for every year of service. Since petitioners were
> On the ISSUE of STRIKE: terminated without the requisite written notice at least
- Labor Arbiter held that the strike was illegal for the following reasons: 30 days prior to their termination, following the recent
(1) it was based on an intra-union dispute which cannot properly be the ruling in the case of Ruben Serrano vs. National Labor
subject of a strike, the right to strike being limited to cases of bargaining Relations Commission and Isetann Department Store,
deadlocks and unfair labor practice (2) it was made in violation of the "no the respondent company is hereby ordered to pay full
strike, no lock-out" clause in the CBA, and (3) it was attended with backwages to petitioner-employees while the Federation
violence, force and intimidation upon the persons of the company is also ordered to pay full backwages to petitioner-union
officials, other employees reporting for work and third persons having officers who were dismissed upon its instigation. Since
legitimate business with the company, resulting to serious physical the dismissal of petitioners was without cause,
injuries to several employees and damage to company property. backwages shall be computed from the time the herein
petitioner employees and union officers were dismissed
ISSUE/S until their actual reinstatement. Should reinstatement be
* WON the union officers were validly terminated not feasible, their backwages shall be computed from
1. WON the strike was illegal for being grounded on a non-strikeable the time petitioners were terminated until the finality of this
issue (intra-union conflict between the federation and the local union) decision. Vitug and Panganiban reiterate their stand in Serrano v
NLRC.
LABOR LAW 2 A2010 266 Disini
FERNANDO; May 31, 1971 individual members who committed violent acts affirmed)

NATURE
Petition for review order of ca ALMIRA V B.F. GOODRICH, PHILS
58 SCRA 120
FACTS
- Shell Company decided to dissolve its security guard section from its FERNANDO; July 25, 1974
Pandacan Installation, notwithstanding the tenure of the said section
being embraced in and assured by an existing collective bargaining Facts
contract Due to the refusal of the management to consider petitioners'
- this resulted in a strike by the union (for unfair labor practice). During union as the exclusive bargaining representative, petitioners
the strike, violent acts were committed by some of the members of the staged a strike and picketed the company's premises. In the
union course of the mass picketing, illegal and unlawful acts were
- the CA declared the strike illegal, saying that there was no unfair labor committed by the petitioners. Respondent CIR declared
practice for the dissolution was a a valid exercise of management petitioners to have committed an illegal strike and dismissed the
prerogative and ordered the dismissal of the officers who participated in petitioners.
the strike)
Held
ISSUE
1. WON the strike was illegal REASON FOR PENALTY LESS PUNITIVE THAN DISMISSAL.-
Where a penalty less punitive would suffice, whatever missteps
HELD may be committed by labor ought not to be visited with a
1. NO consequence so severe. it is not only because of the law's
concern for the workingman.
Ratio The dissolution of the security guard section was in violation of the
CBA, thus amounting to unfair labor practice. What was stipulated in an There is, in addition, his family to consider, Unemployment
existing CBA certainly precluded Shell Company from carrying out what brings untold hardships and sorrows on those dependent on the
otherwise would have been within prerogative if to do so would be wage-earner. The misery and pain attendant on the loss of jobs
violative thereof. then could be avoided if there be acceptance of the view that
under all the circumstances of this case, petitioners should not
Reasoning there was specific inclusion of the category of the security be deprived of their means of livelihood. Nor is this to condone
guards in the CBA. Specific mention is made of the CBA covering rank what had been done by them, For all this while, since private
and file personnel regularly employed by the Company, including the respondent considered them separated from the service, they
work area covered by the Pandacan Installation. There was likewise had not been paid. From the strictly juridical standpoint, it cannot
specific reference to such positions in the wage schedule as well as in be too strongly stressed, to follow Davis in his masterly work,
the appendix of regular remuneration, premium pay and night Discretionary Justice, that where a decision may be made to rest
compensation. Nonetheless, Shell Company was bent on doing away an informed judgment rather than rigid rules, all the equities of
with the security guard section, to be replaced by an outside security the case must be accorded their due weight. Finally, labor law
agency. determinations to quote from Bultmann, should be not only
- Essentially, the freedom to manage the business remains with secundum rationem but also secundum caritatem.
management. It still has plenty of elbow room for making its wishes
prevail. In much the same way that labor unions may be expected to SECURITY OF TENURE FORTIFIES PROTECTION TO
resist to the utmost what they consider to be an unwelcome intrusion LABOR.-The conclusion that the dismissal of petitioners in view
into their exclusive domain, they cannot justly object to management of their unlawful acts during the strike is uncalled for is fortified
equally being jealous of its prerogatives. Non-compliance With the CBA by the stress on the security of tenure that is a notable feature of
constitutes ULP the present Constitution as pointed out in a decision rendered
- the ULP strike called by the Union did have the impress of validity. only last month in Philippine Air Lines, Inc. vs. Philippine Air
- the legality of the strike follows as a corollary to the finding of fact, Lines Employees Association, L-24626, June 28, 1974.
made in the decision appealed from - which is supported by substantial
evidence to the effect that the strike had been triggered by the ATTENDANT RESPONSIBILITY ON THE WORKING FORCE
Company's failure to abide by the terms and conditions of its CBA AND MANAGEMENT.-The basic doctrine underlying the
- The assumption is that labor can be trusted to determine for itself when provisions of the Constitution so solicitous of labor as well as the
the right to strike may be availed of in order to attain a successful fruition applicable statutory norms is that both the working force and
in their disputes with management. It is true that there is a requirement management are necessary components of the economy. The
in the Act that before the employees may do so, they must file with the rights of labor have been expanded. Concern is evident for its
Conciliation Service of the Department of Labor a notice of their welfare. The advantages thus conferred, however, call for
intention to strike. Such a requisite however does not have to be attendant responsibilities. The ways of the law are not to be
complied with in case of ULP strike, which certainly is entitled to greater ignored. Those who seek comfort from the shelter that it affords
judicial protection if the Industrial Peace Act is to be rendered should be the last to engage in activities which negates the very
meaningful. concept of a legal order as antithetical to force and coercion.
- Care is to be taken, however, especially where an unfair labor practice What is equally important is that in the steps to be taken by it in
is involved, to avoid stamping it with illegality just because it is tainted by the pursuit of what it believes to be its rights, the advice of those
violent acts. To avoid rendering illusory the recognition of the right to conversant with the requirements of legal norms should be
strike, responsibility in such a case should be individual and not sought and should not be ignored. It is even more important that
collective. A different conclusion would be called for, of course, if the reason and not violence should be its milieu.
existence of force while the strike lasts is pervasive and widespread,
consistently and deliberately resorted to as a matter of policy. It could be 3) Defenses- Good Faith – ULP
reasonably concluded then that even if justified as to ends, it becomes
illegal because of the means employed.
- on balancing of interests: the violent acts made by some union INTERWOOD EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, vs.
members does not render the strike illegal. The right of the management INTERNATIONAL HARDWOOD & VENEER
to prevent strike cannot override the right of the workers against ULP COMPANY OF THE PHILIPPINES (INTERWOOD)
Disposition Petition is granted. Order is modified (order against
LABOR LAW 2 A2010 267 Disini
99 P 82 to be declared in protest of his fancied notion that he was
dismissed by the management on account of union activities.
PADILLA; May 18 , 1956

FACTS If the determination whether a strike is legal or illegal were to


depend upon the reason or motive, no matter how groundless or
Mr. Enrique Marcelo, president of the Interwood Employees Association, false it may be, the striking members of a labor union had in
was originally employed by the petitioner since July 26, 1949, as shop mind or believed in good faith at the time they staged the strike,
helper with a daily compensation of P3. Desiring to move to a better there would then be no need for the court to pass upon that
position in the company, he tendered a letter of resignation from his question, because what the strikers had in mind or believed in
current position to make himself available for another position. However, good faith at the time they struck can hardly be refuted, rebutted
he later found out that the new position was not available. He then tried or disproved. If the Court of Industrial Relations were bound to
to go back to his original position but was refused by management on believe and so find what the striking members of a labor union
the ground that the old position had been abolished. The union declared allege or claim to be the reason or motive for their staging a
a strike on his behalf. strike, because as claimed by the petitioner the right of the
members of a labor union to strike for mutual aid or protection,
ISSUE as recognized in section 3, Republic Act No. 875, is an absolute
right, then there would no longer be any necessity for holding or
1. Whether or not Mr. Marcelo was illegally terminated conducting a hearing, where both parties to the controversy may
2. Whether or not the striking union members should be dismissed for present their proofs and upon which the Court is to determine
fighting for the cause of Mr. Marcelo. which of the claims or contentions is true, correct and lawful, as
disclosed by the evidence before it. Parenthetically, Republic Act
HELD No. 875 took effect on 17 June 1953. THE STRIKE HELD
ILLEGAL WAS STAGED BY THE MEMBERS OF THE
1. NO PETITIONER ON 9 MARCH 1953. THE ACT CANNOT BE
INVOKED AND APPLIED TO STRIKE STAGED BEFORE THE
Mr. Marcelo also claims that his letter of resignation was misinterpreted ACT TOOK EFFECT. 1 NEVERTHELESS, SUCH RIGHT TO
by the management. From the contents of Exhibit "A" there could be no STRIKE FOR MUTUAL AID OR PROTECTION IS NOT
other meaning from the sentence "I am resigning from my present post ABSOLUTE. IT COMES INTO BEING AND IS SAFEGUARDED
as Supervisor effective March 7, 1953," except that as used in ordinary BY LAW IF AND WHEN THE ACT OR ACTS INTENDED TO
parlance, he is quitting or giving up his present position effective March RENDER MUTUAL AID OR PROTECTION TO AFFILIATES OF
7, 1953. The letter of resignation being clear and concise, it should be A LABOR UNION ARISE FROM A LAWFUL GROUND,
taken in its face value. Marcelo in his letter of resignation also gave his REASON OR MOTIVE. IF THE MOTIVE BE LAWFUL, ANY ACT
reason why he is resigning from his present position and signified his THAT WOULD TEND TO GIVE SUCH MUTUAL AID OR
desire or intention to work in the powerhouse. PROTECTION SHOULD AND MUST BE PROTECTED AND
UPHELD. BUT IF THE MOTIVE THAT HAD IMPELLED,
Here, Marcelo wanted to assign himself to the powerhouse. The PROMPTED, MOVED OR LED MEMBERS OF A LABOR
question of transfer and assignment of employees or laborers from one UNION OR ORGANIZATION TO STAGE A STRIKE, EVEN IF
section or department to another is purely an act of the management THEY HAD ACTED IN GOOD FAITH IN STAGING IT, BE
which Mr. Marcelo cannot impose upon the company, otherwise, if he UNLAWFUL ILLEGITIMATE, UNJUST, UNREASONABLE OR
will be allowed to do so, it would undoubtedly encroach upon the TRIVIAL, AND THE COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS,
managerial functions of the management. THE AGENCY ENTRUSTED BY THE GOVERNMENT TO
DETERMINE IT, FINDS IT SO, THEN THE STRIKE MAY BE
Resignation is not synonymous with separation or dismissal. In his letter DECLARED ILLEGAL.
of resignation he stated or expressed the wish to be returned to his
former position as shift engineer in the powerhouse which he, at that
time, did not hold, because the job held by him and the one to which he REYES, J.B.L., J., with whom PARAS, C.J., BAUTISTA and
wanted to be transferred or returned were two different positions. CONCEPCION, JJ., concur, concurring and dissenting:
Marcelo's pretension which amounted to an imposition upon the
respondent cannot and should not be countenanced and sustained. • I fully concur with the majority in its view that Enrique
There was no vacancy in the powerhouse to which he could be Marcelo's conduct was unjustifiable and that he was properly
transferred. dismissed; but regret not being able to assent to the dismissal
of the other strikers, for this extreme penalty seems to me
excessive under the circumstances of record. Where
2. YES. unemployment is rife, as at present, dismissal may mean risk
of starvation for the laborers and their families.
Even granting, just for the sake of argument, that there was really a
misinterpretation of the letter of resignation (Exhibit "A"), and because of • It is practically conceded, and there is no showing otherwise,
this, the management refused to readmit Mr. Marcelo, notwithstanding that the labor union declared the strike in the honest belief that
the request made to that effect, is this a sufficient cause for the Marcelo had been dismissed because of union activities, and
members to declare a strike? As lengthily discussed above, Mr. Marcelo no unlawful means were employed. Such action can not be
was not dismissed for union activities. If he was separated from the regarded as trivial, illegal or unreasonable: defense of its
service of the company, it was because of his voluntary resignation members goes to the very root of a union's reason for
which was duly accepted by the management. If the management existence. I concede that the strike was injudicious and hasty,
refuses to reemploy him, it is merely acting in the exercise of its since no serious attempt was made to ascertain the side of
prerogative. management. But it seems to me that reinstatement without
backpay would have been a sufficient stern sanction for such
Mr. Marcelo without resorting to some pacific means and processes inconsiderate action and a reminder against its repetition in the
prevailed upon the members of the Association to declare a strike simply future.
because he was harboring the belief that he was illegally dismissed. A
strike as a weapon of labor must be used judiciously. It should be used • Nor is the guilt of the union in acting without due inquiry upon
in redress of just and lawful grievances and not to be used whimsically the biased report of its president (Marcelo) too serious or
or capriciously even by the President of the union who caused the strike unprecedented an offense. Our experience is that precipitate
LABOR LAW 2 A2010 268 Disini
action upon one-sided reports is not confined to labor unions. The 1. WON KMM-PDEC and its officers are guilty of illegal strike.
truth is that if in labor-capital conflicts labor is often too quick to 2. WON the termination of KMM-PDEC union officers, who led
conclude that every move of management is an attempt to grind it the illegal strike, was legal and for just cause.
back to slavery, so are capital and management much too 3. WON PNOC is entitled to the award of damages.
predisposed to view every petition of labor as unjustified demand and
harassing insolence. Save rare and honorable exceptions, both sides HELD
appear to suffer from emotional infantilism. 1. NO.
Ratio A strike does not automatically carry the stigma of illegality
• In the present case it does not appear that management endeavored even if no unfair labor practice were committed by the employer.
to present the true facts to the union. Had it done so, the strike would It suffices if such a belief in good faith is entertained by labor as
have probably been averted, for a laborer does not take lightly to the the inducing factor for staging a strike. Indeed, the presumption
suspension of the earnings upon which he and his family depend for of legality prevails even if the allegation of unfair labor practice is
their living. subsequently found to be untrue, provided that the union and its
members believed in good faith in the truth of such averment.
PNOC DOCKYARD AND ENGINEERING Reasoning In resolving that the strike was legal, the labor
tribunal took note of the following facts: (1) the notice of strike
CORPORATION v. NLRC (BATAAN REFINERS UNION was filed only after the union members lost hope for the redress
OF THE PHILIPPINES et al) of their grievance arising from their exclusion from the P2,500
G.R. No. 118223 salary increase; (2) the union members honesty believed that
PANGANIBAN; June 26, 1998 they were discriminated against, since the company practice in
the past was to grant salary increases to all employees
regardless of whether they were MPTs or NMPTs; (3) such
NATURE
discriminatory grant appeared to be an unfair labor practice
Petition for review under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court
intended to discourage union membership, since MPTs were
non-union members; and (4) the labor unions complied with the
FACTS
legal requirements before going on strike, such as the members'
- private respondent (KMM-PDEC), among unions namely: BRUP,
strike vote by secret ballot, the submission of the results thereof
PEDEA, PCC-ELU and PSTCEA, filed with the DOLE a notice of strike
to the National Conciliation and Meditation Board, the filing of a
against Phil. National Oil Company (PNOC) and Monico Jacob as
notice to strike and the observance of the 15-day cooling-off
President/Chairman, on the ground of discrimination constituting ULP.
period. Respondent Commission opined that the unions had a
The dispute arose from the grant by petitioner and PNOC of the amount
reason to regard the salary discrimination, believed to
of P2,500.00 increase in monthly salaries to Managerial, Professionals
discourage membership in the labor organization, as an unfair
and Technical Employees (MPT) but not to Non-Managerial,
labor practice.
Professional and Technical Employees (NMPT).
- The NLRC noted further that the strike was peaceful and
- Acting Secretary Nieves Confesor certified the dispute subject of the
orderly, unmarred by any form of violence or untoward incident.
notice of strike to the NLRC for compulsory arbitration.
2. NO.
- the day when respondent union was poised to strike, its officers and
Ratio Having ruled that the strike staged by respondent unions
members decided to report for work but petitioner thru its Operations
was legal, the subsequent dismissals of their officers due to their
Manager, Nemesio Guillermo, padlocked the gate and refused entry to
staging of said strike cannot be countenanced.
the employees. Some officers and members of respondent union were
- The NLRC correctly observed that, although petitioner averred
able to enter the premises of petitioner and punch-in their timecards;
that the dismissals of individual respondent were due to
however, they were immediately escorted back outside
infractions of company rules and regulations, the alleged
- Confesor issued a return to work order directing all striking workers to
infractions actually arose from their participation in the strike.
return to work within 24 hours form receipt of the Order and for the
This is crystal clear from the charges leveled against the union
Company to accept them under the same terms and conditions
officers, such as "active participation in the illegal work
prevailing prior to the work stoppage.
stoppage." "disruption of company operations resulting [in]
- respondent union thru its President, Felimon Paglinawan filed before
losses." "violation of the 'NO STRIKE' clause of the existing
the NLRC a complaint against petitioner for Illegal Lock-out
CBA," among others, cited in their similarly worded notices of
- all members of the private respondent union reported and were
investigation that eventually led to their dismissals.
accepted back to work
- The issues relating to the strike and lockout were already
- Subsequently, petitioner filed before the DOLE a petition to declare the
submitted before the NLRC through the corresponding
strike illegal with a motion to cite the striking workers in contempt for
complaints filed by petitioner itself and private respondents. By
defying the DOLE Orders.
filing a formal complaint for illegal strike, it behooved petitioner to
- the President, Secretary, Auditor and Treasurer of the respondent
desist from undertaking its own investigation on the same
union, after due notice and investigation, were dismissed by petitioner
matter, concluding upon the illegality of the union activity and
from their employment on the ground, among others of their participation
dismissing outright the union officers involved.
in the work stoppage on December 18 to 21, 1991
- the dismissed union officers filed before the NLRC a complaint for
illegal dismissal. The cases were consolidated and in the herein
challenged Decision, public respondent ordered the reinstatement of the
dismissed officers of private respondent union. The same Decision
further ruled that, where reinstatement was no longer feasible "on
account of the sale of any of respondent companies," separation pay
shall be awarded, equivalent to "1 month's pay for every year of service,
a fraction of at least 6 months considered as 1 whole year, in addition to
the award of backwages."
- The parties filed their respective motions for reconsideration. In its
December 9, 1994 Decision, the NLRC modified its earlier disposition
and ordered PNOC to pay its separated employees severance benefit
equivalent to "two months for every year of service" in accordance with
the company's established business practice. The separate motions of
PNOC and its subsidiaries were all denied.

ISSUES
LABOR LAW 2 A2010 269 Disini
- Moreover, the MOA, other than enjoining the striking workers to return
(cont’d A264)
to work, likewise ordered the management to accept them under the
same terms and conditions prevailing prior to the work stoppage. In Any worker whose employment has been terminated as
glaring defiance, petitioner arbitrarily undertook to change the work a consequence of any unlawful lockout shall be entitled
schedule of some employee on the very day they resumed work, aside to reinstatement with full backwages. Any union officer
from deducting in full the wages and holiday pays of the striking who knowingly participates in an illegal strike and any
employees pertaining to the strike period, even before the LMC could worker or union officer who knowingly participates in the
convene. commission of illegal acts during a strike may be
3. NO.
The actual and exemplary damages sought by petitioner have no basis
declared to have lost his employment status: Provided,
in law, much less in equity and fair play. From the foregoing discussion, That mere participation of a worker in a lawful strike shall
the strike was staged by respondent unions in the honest belief that not constitute sufficient ground for termination of his
petitioner, among the other PNOC subsidiaries involved, was guilty of employment, even if a replacement had been hired by
unfair labor practice due to the discrimination in the grant of salary the employer during such lawful strike.
increase believed to discourage union membership, and to its refusal to ART. 265. Improved offer balloting. - In an effort to settle
bargain collectively on the matter. There was good faith on the part of a strike, the Department of Labor and Employment shall
the striking unions. Thus, they cannot be penalized by imposing upon conduct a referendum by secret ballot on the improved
them payment of damages.
offer of the employer on or before the 30th day of the
Disposition WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DISMISSED. The strike. When at least a majority of the union members
assailed Decisions are AFFIRMED. vote to accept the improved offer the striking workers
shall immediately return to work and the employer shall
thereupon readmit them upon the signing of the
agreement.
9. ILLEGAL STRIKES
1) Basis – Illegality In case of a lockout, the Department of Labor and
Employment shall also conduct a referendum by secret
balloting on the reduced offer of the union on or before
ART. 263. Strikes, picketing and lockouts. – xxx-
the 30th day of the lockout. When at least a majority of
the board of directors or trustees or the partners holding
(b) Workers shall have the right to engage in concerted activities
the controlling interest in the case of a partnership vote
for purposes of collective bargaining or for their mutual benefit
to accept the reduced offer, the workers shall
and protection. The right of legitimate labor organizations to
immediately return to work and the employer shall
strike and picket and of employers to lockout, consistent with the
thereupon readmit them upon the signing of the
national interest, shall continue to be recognized and respected.
agreement.
However, no labor union may strike and no employer may
declare a lockout on grounds involving inter-union and intra-
union disputes.

(c) In case of bargaining deadlocks, the duly certified or SUKHOTHAI CUISINE v CA (NLRC, PLAC)
recognized bargaining agent may file a notice of strike or the 495 SCRA 336
employer may file a notice of lockout with the Ministry at least 30 AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ; JULY 17, 2006
day before the intended date thereof. In cases of unfair labor
practice, the period of notice shall be 15 days and in the NATURE
absence of a duly certified or recognized bargaining agent, the Appeal by certiorari
notice of strike may be filed by any legitimate labor organization
FACTS
in behalf of its members. However, in case of dismissal from
- On December 3, 1998, employees of Sukhothai Cuisine and
employment of union officers duly elected in accordance with the Restaurant (duly organized as a union, affiliated with private
union constitution and by-laws, which may constitute union respondent Philippine Labor Alliance Council [PLAC], and
busting, where the existence of the union is threatened, the 15- designated as PLAC local 460 Sukhothai chapter) filed a Notice
day cooling-off period shall not apply and the union may take of Strike with the National Conciliation and Mediation Board
action immediately. (NCMB) on the ground of unfair labor practice (ULP) and
particularly, acts of harassment, fault-finding, and union busting
ART. 264. Prohibited activities. - (a) No labor organization or through coercion and interference with union affairs.
- In a subsequent conciliation conference, representatives of the
employer shall declare a strike or lockout without first having
petitioner agreed and guaranteed that there will be no
bargained collectively in accordance with Title VII of this Book or termination of the services of private respondents during the
without first having filed the notice required in the preceding pendency of the case, with the reservation of the management
Article or without the necessary strike or lockout vote first having prerogative to issue memos to erring employees for the
been obtained and reported to the Ministry. infraction, or violation of company policies.
- In a Submission Agreement, the issue of unfair labor practice
No strike or lockout shall be declared after assumption of was later submitted for voluntary arbitration, during the pendency
jurisdiction by the President or the Minister or after certification of which, the petitioner, through its president, Ernesto Garcia,
dismissed Eugene Lucente, a union member, due to an alleged
or submission of the dispute to compulsory or voluntary
petty quarrel with a co-employee. In view of this termination,
arbitration or during the pendency of cases involving the same private respondent Union filed with the NLRC a complaint for
grounds for the strike or lockout. illegal dismissal. Another employee, private respondent Jose
Lanorias, likewise a union member, was relieved from his post
and terminated from employment. Shortly thereafter,
LABOR LAW 2 A2010 270 Disini
respondents staged a “wildcat strike” which was later transformed into coercion, or intimidation or b) obstruct the free ingress to or
an “actual strike.” egress from the employer's premises for lawful purposes, or (c)
- On June 29, 1999, the petitioner filed a complaint for illegal strike with obstruct public thoroughfares.
the NLRC against private respondents, and for a declaration that
respondents who participated in the commission of illegal acts have lost 2. YES. The strike had been attended by the widespread
their employment status. The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of petitioner commission of prohibited acts.
and held that the Notice of Strike and the Strike Vote referred to a prior Reasoning Under Art.264(a) of the LC: “Any union officer who
dispute submitted for voluntary arbitration and cannot apply to the strike knowingly participates in an illegal strike and any worker or union
staged about six months later; that, instead of resorting to a strike, officer who knowingly participates in the commission of illegal
private respondents should have availed of the proper legal remedies acts during a strike may be declared to have lost his employment
such as the filing of complaints for illegal suspension or illegal dismissal status: Provided, that mere participation of a worker in a lawful
with the NLRC; and that even if private respondents complied with all strike shall not constitute sufficient ground for termination of his
the requisites of a valid strike, the strike is still illegal due to the employment, even if a replacement had been hired by the
commission of prohibited acts, including the obstruction of free ingress employer during such lawful strike.”
and egress of the premises, intimidation, and threat inflicted upon non- - The evidence in the record clearly and extensively shows that
striking employees. the individual respondents engaged in illegal acts during the
- Private respondents appealed to the NLRC which decided in their favor strike, such as the intimidation and harassment of a considerable
and held that the petitioner is guilty of union busting; of violating the number of customers to turn them away and discourage them
Submission Agreement that no termination shall be effected during the from patronizing the business of the petitioner; waving their arms
voluntary arbitration proceedings; that the Notice of Strike and Strike and shouting at the passersby, “Huwag kayong pumasok sa
Vote are applicable to the strike of June 24, 25, and 26, 1999 since the Sukhothai!” and “Nilagyan na namin ng lason ang pagkain
same issues of ULP were involved and that ULPs are continuing d’yan!” as well as numerous other statements made to discredit
offenses. the reputation of the establishment; preventing the entry of
- After the NLRC denied the MFR, petitioner appealed to the CA, which customers; angry and unruly behavior calculated to cause
later denied the petition and affirmed the NLRC hence this case. commotion which affected neighboring establishments within the
mall; openly cursing and shouting at the president in front of
ISSUES customers and using loud and abusive language, such as
1. WON the strike was illegal “Putang ina niyong lahat!”, toward the rest of the management
2. WON private respondents are deemed to have lost their employment as well as their co-workers who refused to go on strike;
status by participating in the commission of illegal acts during the strike. physically preventing non-strikers from entering the premises, as
3. WON the requisites for a valid strike may be dispensed with in case of well as deliberately blocking their movements inside the
union-busting. restaurant, at times by sharply bumping into them or through
indecent physical contact; openly threatening non-strikers with
HELD bodily harm, such as “Pag hindi sila pumayag, upakan mo!”; and
1. YES. The strike was illegal. shouting at the security guard “Granada!” which caused panic
Ratio Art.264 of the LC provides: “No strike or lockout shall be declared among the customers and prompted security to report a possible
after assumption of jurisdiction by the Pres. or the Secretary or after death threat to management and the security agency.
certification or submission of the dispute to compulsory or voluntary
arbitration or during the pendency of cases involving the same grounds 3. NO.
for the strike or lockout.” Reasoning In case of alleged union busting, it is only the 15-day
- Strikes staged in violation of agreements providing for arbitration are cooling-off period that may be dispensed with, the three
illegal, since these agreements must be strictly adhered to and remaining requirements – notice, strike vote, and seven-day
respected if their ends are to be achieved, for it is among the chief report period – cannot be dispensed with.
policies of the State to promote and emphasize the primacy of free
collective bargaining and negotiations, including voluntary arbitration, Disposition Petition GRANTED. Decisions of the CA and the
mediation, and conciliation, as modes of settling labor, or industrial NLRC are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Decision of the LA
disputes. REINSTATED. The strike held ILLEGAL and Union officers who
Reasoning Once jurisdiction over the labor dispute has been properly participated in the illegal strike and in the commission of illegal
acquired by competent authority, that jurisdiction should not be acts, as well as the union members who participated in the
interfered with by the application of the coercive processes of a strike. commission of illegal acts during the strike, are declared to have
- The alleged dismissals of Lucente and respondent Lanorias, both lost their employment status.
union members, which allegedly triggered the wildcat strike, are not
sufficient grounds to justify the radical recourse on the part of the private
respondents. These matters should have been raised and resolved in
the voluntary arbitration proceedings that were commenced precisely to
address them. ALLIED BANKING CORP v NLRC (ALLIED
- Private respondents should have first availed of the appropriate BANKING EMPLOYEES UNION-NUBE et al)
remedies under the Labor Code, such as the institution of cases of 258 SCRA 724
illegal dismissal or, by agreement of the parties, the submission of the
cases to the grievance machinery of the CBA, if one is available, so that
HERMOSISIMA; July 12, 1996
they may be subjected to separate voluntary arbitration proceedings, or
Facts
simply seek to terminate the pending voluntary arbitration case and
- The dispute between petitioner and Union started when their
complete the mandatory procedure for a lawful strike. Private
CBA which was to expire on June 30, 1984 came up for renewal.
respondents should have availed themselves of any of these alternative
They failed to reach an amicable settlement particularly on the
remedies instead of resorting to a drastic and unlawful measure,
wage increase issue. The Union filed a notice of strike with the
specifically, the holding a wildcat strike. And because of the fact that the
Bureau of Labor Relations.
Union was fully aware that the arbitration proceedings were pending,
- On Dec 16, 1984, then Minister of Labor and Employment, Blas
good faith cannot be invoked as a defense.
Ople assumed jurisdiction over the dispute pursuant to Article
- Moreover, even if the strike were to be declared valid because its
263 (g) LC. The orders enjoined the Union from declaring a
objective or purpose is lawful, the strike may still be declared invalid
strike and the management from effecting a lock out. The orders
where the means employed are illegal. Among such limits are the
notwithstanding, Union filed on Dec 20, 1984, a report on the
prohibited activities under Art. 264(e) of the LC, which states that no
results of the strike vote that it earlier conducted. On Jan 3,
person engaged in picketing shall: a) commit any act of violence,
1985, Union staged a strike upon the Union president's
LABOR LAW 2 A2010 271 Disini
contention that the Labor Minister's assumption order was a mere scrap When, in his opinion, there exists a labor dispute causing or
of paper. likely to cause a strike or lockout in an industry indispensable to
- On Jan 4, 1985, petitioner filed with MOLE a Manifestation and Urgent the national interest, the Secretary of Labor and Employment
Motion praying for a return-to-work order. On Jan 6, 1985, Minister Ople may assume jurisdiction over the dispute and decide it or certify
granted the motion and issued a return-to-work order which included a the same to the Commission for compulsory arbitration. Such
P1,000.00 grant per employee chargeable to future CBA benefits. assumption or certification shall have the effect of automatically
- Minister Ople directed the parties to continue negotiations until Jan 31, enjoining the intended or impending strike or lockout as specified
1985; otherwise, if no compromise agreement is reached, he will in the assumption or certification order. If one has already taken
personally resolve the bargaining deadlock. place at the time of assumption or certification, all striking or
- The parties failed to break the deadlock; Minister Ople directed them to locked out employees shall immediately return to work and the
incorporate in their collective agreement the awards granted in his order. employer shall immediately resume operations and readmit all
- On Feb 11, 1985, "certain members of the Union resumed the strike workers under the same terms and conditions prevailing before
and, on the following days, acts of violence were committed . . . resulting the strike or lockout. The Secretary of Labor and Employment or
in the filing of criminal charges against some of the strikers." the Commission may seek the assistance of law enforcement
- Petitioner, through notices published in the Bulletin Today, the Times agencies to ensure compliance with this provision as well as with
Journal, and the Daily Express, directed the striking employees to return such orders as he may issue to enforce the same . . . (as
to work not later than 1:00 p.m. of Feb 13, 1985. amended by Sec. 27, R.A. 6715; emphasis supplied.)
- respondents failed to report for work on the stated deadline, and 2) Article 264 (a)
explained that the resumption of their picketing activities was brought No strike or lockout shall be declared after assumption of
about by their belief that Minister Ople's decision was not based on jurisdiction by the President or the Minister or after certification or
justice, equity and reason. Petitioner issued notices of their termination. submission of the dispute to compulsory or voluntary arbitration
- Meeting the Union demands halfway, Minister Ople issued a or during the pendency of cases involving the same grounds for
Resolution modifying his Jan 31, 1985 Order, and so the union lifted its the strike or lockout.
picket lines and notified petitioner that the striking employees were Any worker whose employment has been terminated as a
returning back to work. Petitioner refused to accept them back on the consequent of an unlawful lockout shall be entitled to
ground that the strikers have already been dismissed for abandonment reinstatement with full back wages. Any union officer who
of work when they failed to obey the assumption order. knowingly participates in an illegal strike and any worker or union
- In order to quell further dispute, Minister Ople issued an Order which officer who knowingly participates in the commission of illegal
directed the bank to reinstate provisionally all striking workers except (a) acts during a strike may be declared to have lost his employment
those who have already accepted their separation pay; (b) officers of the status: Provided, That mere participation of a worker in a lawful
union; and (c) those with pending criminal charges. strike shall not constitute sufficient ground for termination of his
- Union then filed with SC a petition for certiorari, with a prayer for the employment, even if a replacement had been hired by the
issuance of a preliminary mandatory injunction, asking that the Order of employer during such lawful strike.
Minister Ople be modified to likewise direct the reinstatement of all union - Union of Filipro Employees v. Nestle Philippines, Inc.: xxx the
officers, employees with pending criminal cases and employees who underlying principle embodied in Art. 263 (g) on the settlement of
have received their separation pay with full back wages, emergency cost labor disputes… is that assumption and certification orders are
of living allowance (ECOLA) and employee benefits counted from March executory in character and are to be strictly complied with by the
8, 1985 until actually reinstated. SC remanded the petition to MOLE, parties even during the pendency of any petition questioning
with the instruction to resolve all pending factual and legal issues their validity. This extraordinary authority given to the Secretary
relative to the petition. of Labor is aimed at arriving at a peaceful and speedy solution to
- Minister Augusto Sanchez, successor of Minister Ople, modified the labor disputes, without jeopardizing national interests.
last Order of the latter by ordering the reinstatement of all striking Regardless therefore of their motives, or the validity of their
employees, except those who have already accepted their separation claims, the striking workers must cease and/or desist from any
pay. The bank filed a petition with the SC to nullify the aforesaid Order. and all acts that tend to, or undermine this authority of the
- SC issued resolution: 1) granting "a Temporary Restraining Order" Secretary of Labor, once an assumption and/or certification
enjoining enforcement of the order of the Minister of Labor and order is issued. They cannot, for instance, ignore return-to-work
Employment only insofar as it directs the payment of back wages, orders, citing unfair labor practices on the part of the company,
allowances, and other benefits due to private respondents effective to justify their actions. . . .xxx xxx xxx
March 11, 1985 until their actual reinstatement; 2) ordering petitioner to - The return-to-work order is issued pending the determination of
advance the equivalent of two (2) months salary to each of the private the legality or illegality of the strike. It is not correct to say that it
respondents entitled to reinstatement under the MOLE order, said may be enforced only if the strike is legal and may be
amount to be repaid to the petitioner or charged to accumulated back disregarded if the strike is illegal, for the purpose precisely is to
wages depending on the final outcome of the case. maintain the status quo while the determination is being made.
Issue: Otherwise, the workers who contend that their strike is legal can
WON the striking union members terminated for abandonment of work refuse to return to their work and cause a standstill on the
after failing to obey the return-to-work order of the Secretary of Labor company operations while retaining the positions they refuse to
and Employment should be reinstated with back wages. discharge or allow the management to fill. Worse, they will also
claim payment for work not done, on the ground that they are still
Held: legally employed although actually engaged in the activities
NO. The respondents were validly dismissed considering their defiance inimical to their employer's interest.
of the return-to-work order issued by the Secretary of Labor. As a - Sarmiento v. Tuico, and Asian Transmission Corporation v.
consequence of such defiance, they are considered severed from their National Labor Relations Commission: It is also important to
employment. An award of back wages is incompatible with the findings emphasize that the return-to-work order not so much confers a
of the NLRC upholding the dismissal of respondents. right as it imposes a duty; and while as a right it may be waived,
- Mere participation of union members in an illegal strike should not it must be discharged as a duty even against the worker's will.
automatically result in their termination from employment. However, a Returning to work in this situation is not a matter of option or
perusal of the records shows that respondents were terminated from voluntariness but of obligation. The worker must return to his job
employment by reason of their defiance to the return-to-work order of together with his co-workers so the operations of the company
the Secretary of Labor. can be resumed and it can continue serving the public and
- The provisions of law which govern the effects of defying a return-to- promoting its interest. That is the real reason such return can be
work order are: compelled. So imperative is the order in fact that it is not even
1) Article 263 (g) of the Labor Code considered violative of the right against involuntary servitude...
xxx xxx xxx The worker can of course give up his work, thus severing his ties
LABOR LAW 2 A2010 272 Disini
with the company, if he does not want to obey the order; but the order - The requirements of procedural due process had been
must be obeyed if he wants to retain his work even if his inclination is to complied with. Petitioners and private respondents were allowed
strike. to present their witnesses and evidence. Private respondents
presented their witnesses, while petitioners did not, opting
Disposition NLRC Decision is AFFIRMED with respect to the finding instead to file a Memorandum, challenging the admissibility of
that private respondents were validly dismissed. As to the issue of private respondents' pieces of evidence. So long as a party is
reinstatement and computation of back wages, the same, being given an opportunity to be heard and to submit his evidence, the
inconsistent with the finding of valid dismissal, is ANNULLED and SET requirements of procedural due process are complied with.
ASIDE. - Aside from not submitting the result of the strike-vote to the
NCMB, petitioners also committed acts of violence, threats,
coercion and intimidation during the strike.
- It bears stressing that factual findings of labor officials are
INTERPHIL LABORATORIES EMPLOYEES UNION V conclusive and binding on the Supreme Court when supported
by substantial evidence. After going over the records on hand,
INTERPHIL LABORATORIES the Court discerns no ground for disturbing the above-quoted
(boots tirol) findings of the Labor Arbiter as the same are basically supported
by substantial evidence and his conclusion accords with law.

Disposition Decision set aside


SAMAHAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA MOLDEX
PRODUCTS V NLRC (MADRIAGA, MOLDEX AND UY)
324 SCRA 242
PHILIPPINE DIAMOND HOTEL AND RESORT
PURISIMA; February 1, 2000
INC (MANILA DIAMOND HOTEL V MANILA
NATURE DIAMOND HOTEL EMPLOYEES UNION
Petition for certiorari 494 SCRA 195
CARPIO MORALES; June 30, 2006
FACTS
- In the earlier part of 1993, petitioners and private respondents
negotiated for the renewal of their Collective Bargaining Agreement. Due FACTS
to some economic differences, the negotiations ended in a deadlock. -Union filed a petition for certification election to be declared the
- April 2, 1993 - Petitioners filed a notice of strike with the National exclusive bargaining representative of the Hotel’s employees.
Conciliation and Mediation Board. The series of conferences proved This petition was dismissed by DOLE for lack of legal
unavailing. requirements.
- April 24, 1993 - Union conducted a strike vote among its members, and -after a few months, Union sent a letter to Hotel informing it of its
the results of the voting were thereafter conveyed to the Alliance of desire to negotiate for a collective bargaining agreement. This
Nationalist and Genuine Labor Organization for submission to the NCMB, was rejected by the Hotel stating that the Union was not the
but for some unknown reason, the same was not made. employee’s bargaining agent as their petition for certification
- May 5, 1993 - Petitioners went on strike without the report of the strike election was denied.
vote submitted to the NCMB. -Union filed a Notice of Strike with the NCMB alleging the Hotel’
- June 17, 1993 - Moldex filed a petition to declare the strike illegal and to refusal to bargain and for acts of unfair labor practices. NCMB
authorize the dismissal of the officers involved. The petition alleged that summoned both parties and held series of dialogues. Union
the petitioners barricaded the three gates of the company and committed however suddenly went on strike
acts of violence, threats and coercion. -Secretary of DOLE assumed jurisdiction and ordered
- An amicable settlement failed so trial on the merits began. Moldex compulsory arbitration pursuant to art. 263 (g) of LC. And Union
presented witnesses whereas the union only presented its memorandum. members were directed to return to work and for Hotel to accept
They alleged that the pieces of evidence presented by Moldex were them back. Hotel refused to accept the employees return. The
hearsay. order was modified (by a different Secretary) such that
- March 7, 1994 – The Labor Arbiter came out with an order which reinstatement was to be done only in the payroll.
declared the strike illegal and ordered the dismissal of employees -Union filed for certiorari alleging grave abuse of discretion. Case
responsible for the strike. was referred to the CA. CA affirmed that the “payroll
- An appeal before the NLRC was made and the NLRC ordered a remand reinstatement” was not a grave abuse of discretion. On appeal, it
of the case for the reason that “both parties were not able, for reasons modified NLRC decision ordering reinstatement with back wages
and/or causes known only to them, to submit crucial evidence in support of union members.
of their respective contentions.”
ISSUE
ISSUE -xxx-
WON the order of the NLRC was correct 3) WON those employees who participated in the strike should
be given back wages
HELD NO
HELD
Reasoning -xxx-
- Reception of evidence would be a futile exercise considering that the 3) No.
facts are already clear and complete, and would not alter the outcome of -The general rule is that backwages shall not be awarded in an
the case. economic strike on the principle that "a fair day’s wage" accrues
- It has been shown that the results of the strike-vote were never only for a "fair day’s labor. If there is no work performed by the
forwarded to the NCMB, as admitted by petitioners themselves and as employee there can be no wage or pay, unless of course, the
attested to by a Certification of Non-Submission of Strike Vote issued by laborer was able, willing and ready to work but was illegally
the NCMB. There is thus no need for additional evidence on the matter, locked out, dismissed or suspended. "when employees
as it would not change the fact that the results of the strike-vote were not voluntarily go on strike, even if in protest against unfair labor
submitted to the NCMB. Without the submission of the results of the practices," no back wages during the strike is awarded.”
strike-vote, the strike was illegal, pursuant to Article 264 of the Labor
Code.
LABOR LAW 2 A2010 273 Disini
-The Court ruled that “only those members of the union who did not 1. WON the CA acted within the bounds of the law when it
commit illegal acts during the course of the illegal strike should be spared the striking workers or union members from the penalty
reinstated but without back wages” of dismissal.
TOPIC: illegal strikes- burden of economic loss 2. WON the award of salary increases made by SOLE in the
disposition of economic aspects of the CBA which was based on
revelations sourced from the confidential position given to the
2) Effect of Illegality NCMB Administrator is proper.

HELD
ART. 264. Prohibited activities. - (a) No labor organization 1. YES.
or employer shall declare a strike or lockout without first - The Union engaged in work slowdown which under the
having bargained collectively in accordance with Title VII of circumstances in which they were undertaken constitutes illegal
strike. The Company is therefore right in dismissing the subject
this Book or without first having filed the notice required in
Union officers in accordance with Article 264 (a) of the Labor
the preceding Article or without the necessary strike or Code, for participating in illegal strike in defiance of the
lockout vote first having been obtained and reported to the assumption of jurisdiction order by the Labor Secretary.
Ministry. - While the employer is authorized to declare a union officer who
participated in an illegal strike as having lost his employment,
No strike or lockout shall be declared after assumption of his/its option is not as wide with respect to union members or
jurisdiction by the President or the Minister or after workers for the law itself draws a line and makes a distinction
certification or submission of the dispute to compulsory or between union officers and members/ordinary workers. An
ordinary striking worker or union member cannot, as a rule, be
voluntary arbitration or during the pendency of cases
terminated for mere participation in an illegal strike; there must
involving the same grounds for the strike or lockout. be proof that he committed illegal acts during the strike.
- The law invests the Secretary of Labor and Employment the
Any worker whose employment has been terminated as a prerogative of tempering the consequence of the defiance to the
consequence of any unlawful lockout shall be entitled to assumption order. The Secretary may thus merely suspend
reinstatement with full backwages. Any union officer who rather than dismiss the employee involved.
knowingly participates in an illegal strike and any worker or - Chief, Justice Artemio V. Panganiban in Solvic Industrial
union officer who knowingly participates in the commission Corporation vs. NLRC: “Except for the most serious causes
affecting the business of the employer, our labor laws frown
of illegal acts during a strike may be declared to have lost
upon dismissal. Where a penalty less punitive would suffice, an
his employment status: Provided, That mere participation employee should not be sanctioned with a consequence so
of a worker in a lawful strike shall not constitute sufficient severe.”
ground for termination of his employment, even if a - This disposition takes stock of the following circumstances
replacement had been hired by the employer during such justifying a less drastic penalty for ordinary striking workers: a)
lawful strike. the employees who engaged in slowdown actually reported for
work and continued to occupy their respective posts, or, in fine,
did not abandon their jobs; b) they were only following orders of
their leaders; and c) no evidence has been presented to prove
NISSAN MOTORS PHILIPPINES, INC. V SOLE their participation in the commission of illegal activities during the
(BANAL-NMPI-OLALIA-KMU) strike.
- Not to be overlooked is a factor which the CA, regarded as
491 SCRA 605 justifying the leniency assumed by the public respondent
GARCIA; June 21, 2006 Secretary towards the members of the Union. It is the fact that
Nissan Motor appeared to have also exacerbated, the emerging
FACTS volatile atmosphere among which is the en masse termination of
- The labor dispute was triggered by a collective bargaining deadlock most of the Union members.
between Nissan Motor and the Union resulting in the filing of four notices - Any worker who participates in a strike or otherwise engages in
of strike with the NCMB. any prohibited act in defiance of the assumption order may be
- DOLE issued an Order consolidating the 4th notice of strike with the meted the penalty of loss of employment status. However, the
first three (3) notices and reiterating the injunction contained in the law itself authorizes the graduation of penalties, Article 264 of
assumption of jurisdiction the Labor Code making, as it were, a distinction between union
- The Company filed a Motion to Deputize PNP Laguna to Secure, officers and its members or any other workers, the main differing
Maintain and Preserve Free Ingress and Egress of NMPI, alleging that line contextually being that the latter do not necessarily lose their
despite the injunctions against any slowdown and strike, the Union went job by mere participation in an illegal strike absent proof that
on actual strike, picketed and blocked the company offices, and plant they committed illegal acts.
premises; unlawfully blocked and obstructed all entrances and exits - Association of Independent Union in the Philippines vs. NLRC:
points. the responsibility of union officers, as main players in an illegal
- The Secretary of Labor issued an Order deputizing the [PNP] strike, is greater than that of the members and, therefore, limiting
- DOLE issued the assailed Decision which affirmed the suspension of the penalty of dismissal only for the former for participation in an
the 140 employees which is the subject of the first notice of strike and illegal strike is in order.
sustained the dismissal of the Union officers but recalled the dismissal of
the Union members and reinstated to their former positions without back
wages. It also directed BANAL-NMPI-OLALIA-KMU and Nissan Motor
Philippines, Inc. to conclude a Collective Bargaining Agreement 2. NO.
- The Company and the Union each sought partial reconsideration, but - The disposition made by the public respondent Secretary
their corresponding motions were denied relating to the economic aspects of the CBA, such as, but not
- Therefrom, both the Company and the Union went to the CA limited, transportation allowance, 14th month pay, seniority pay,
- The CA, denied the parties’ separate petitions and affirmed the separation pay and the effectivity of the new CBA, appears to be
respondent’s resolution proper.
- However, there is a need to modify some of the awards among
ISSUES which is the annual salary increases. In this regard, the Court
LABOR LAW 2 A2010 274 Disini
cannot sanction the award made by the public respondent Secretary hearing that may thereafter be scheduled and to submit its
based ostensibly on the revelation of NCMB Administrator Olalia that position paper as may be required. It however dismissed the
was sourced from the confidential position given him by the Company. union’s charges of ULP against the Company. It further issued a
The reason for this is simple. Article 233 of the Labor Code prohibits the return-to-work order and directed the parties to cease and desist
use in evidence of confidential information given during conciliation from committing any acts that may aggravate the situation.
proceedings. NCMB Administrator Olalia clearly breached this provision - Philcom filed MFR and Motion to Certify Labor Dispute to the
of law. Moreover, as correctly pointed out by the Company, this NLRC for Compulsory Arbitration. PEU also filed MFR insofar as
confidential information given to Administrator Olalia was made prior to the Order dismissed the ULP charges against Philcom and
the Union’s slowdown and defiance of the Assumption Order of August included the illegal strike issue in the labor dispute. The
22, 2001 causing it additional losses. Secretary denied both MFRs.
-PEU filed with CA a petition for certiorari and prohibition under
Disposition Decision and Resolution of the CA AFFIRMED , with Rule 65. CA denied the petition and affirmed the orders of the
modifications DOLE Sec. Hence, this petition.

ISSUES
1. WON CA erred when it affirmed the order/resolution of the
PHILCOM EMPLOYEES UNION V PHILIPPINE DOLE Sec including the issue of illegal strike notwithstanding the
GLOBAL COMMUNICATIONS absence of any petition to declare the strike illegal.
494 SCRA 214 2. WON CA erred when it affirmed the order/resolution of the
CARPIO; July 17, 2006 Secretary of Labor dismissing the Union’s charges of unfair labor
practices.
3. WON CA erred when it failed to issue such order
NATURE
mandating/directing the issuance of a writ of execution directing
Petition for review to annul the CA Decision which affirmed the orders of
the Company to unconditionally accept back to work the Union
the Secretary of Labor and Employment in OS-AJ-0022-97.
officers and members under the same terms and conditions prior
to the strike and as well as to pay their salaries/backwages and
FACTS
the monetary equivalent of their other benefits.
-Upon the expiration of the CBA between petitioner Philcom union (PEU)
and respondent employer (Philcom, Inc.), the parties started
HELD
negotiations for its renewal. While negotiations were ongoing, PEU filed
1. NO. The Secretary properly took cognizance of the issue on
with the National Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB) NCR, a
the legality of the strike. Since the very reason of the Secretary’s
Notice of Strike, due to perceived unfair labor practice committed by the
assumption of jurisdiction was PEU’s declaration of the strike,
company. In view of the filing of said Notice of Strike, the company
any issue regarding the strike is not merely incidental to, but is
suspended negotiations on the CBA. This moved the union to file
essentially involved in, the labor dispute itself.
another Notice of Strike on the ground of bargaining deadlock.
-The powers granted to the Secretary under Article 263(g) of the
-At a conciliation conference held at the NCMB-NCR office, the parties
Labor Code have been characterized as an exercise of the
agreed to consolidate the two Notices of Strike filed by the union and to
police power of the State, with the aim of promoting public good.
maintain the status quo during the pendency of the proceedings.
When the Secretary exercises these powers, he is granted
However, while the union and the company officers and representatives
"great breadth of discretion" in order to find a solution to a labor
were meeting, the remaining union officers and members staged a strike
dispute. The most obvious of these powers is the automatic
at the company premises, barricading the entrances and egresses
enjoining of an impending strike or lockout or its lifting if one has
thereof and setting up a stationary picket at the main entrance of the
already taken place. In this case, the Secretary assumed
building. The following day, the company immediately filed a petition for
jurisdiction over the dispute because it falls in an industry
the Secretary of Labor and Employment to assume jurisdiction over the
indispensable to the national interest: the telecommunications
labor dispute in accordance with Article 263(g) of the Labor Code.
industry.
-Then Acting Labor Sec Cresenciano Trajano issued an Order assuming
-The authority of the Secretary to assume jurisdiction over a
jurisdiction over the dispute, enjoining any strike or lockout, whether
labor dispute causing or likely to cause a strike or lockout in an
threatened or actual, directing the parties to cease and desist from
industry indispensable to national interest includes and extends
committing any act that may exacerbate the situation, directing the
to all questions and controversies arising from such labor
striking workers to return to work within 24hours from receipt of the
dispute. The power is plenary and discretionary in nature to
Secretary’s Order and for management to resume normal operations, as
enable him to effectively and efficiently dispose of the dispute.
well as accept the workers back under the same terms and conditions
Besides, it was upon Philcom’s petition that the Secretary
prior to the strike. The parties were likewise required to submit their
immediately assumed jurisdiction over the labor dispute.
respective position papers and evidence within 10days from receipt of
Moreover, a careful study of all the facts alleged, issues raised,
said order. A few days later, a second order was issued reiterating the
and arguments presented in the position paper leads us to hold
previous directive to all striking employees to return to work immediately.
that the portions PEU seek to expunge are necessary in the
-The union filed MFR assailing, among others, the authority of then
resolution of the present case.
Acting Secretary Trajano to assume jurisdiction over the labor dispute.
Said motion was denied and as directed, the parties submitted their
2. NO.
respective position papers. In its position paper, the union raised the
-Unfair labor practice refers to acts that violate the workers’ right
issue of the alleged ULP of the company. The company, on the other
to organize. The prohibited acts are related to the workers’ right
hand, raised in its position paper the sole issue of the illegality of the
to self-organization and to the observance of a CBA. Without
strike staged by the union.
that element, the acts, no matter how unfair, are not unfair labor
-On the premise that the Labor Secretary cannot rule on the issue of the
practices. The only exception is Article 248(f), which in any case
strike since there was no petition to declare the same illegal, petitioner
is not one of the acts specified in PEU’s charge of unfair labor
union filed a Manifestation/ Motion to Strike Out Portions of &
practice.
Attachments in Philcom’s Position Paper for being irrelevant, immaterial
-A review of the acts complained of as ULP of Philcom convinces
and impertinent to the issues assumed for resolution. In opposition, the
us that they do not fall under any of the prohibited acts defined
company argued that it was precisely due to the strike suddenly staged
and enumerated in Article 248 of the Labor Code. The issues of
by the union that the dispute was assumed by the Labor Secretary.
misimplementation or non-implementation of employee benefits,
Hence, the case would necessarily include the issue of the legality of the
non-payment of overtime and other monetary claims, inadequate
strike.
transportation allowance, water, and other facilities, are all a
-The Secretary issued the first assailed order. Said order directed the
matter of implementation or interpretation of the economic
issuance of summons to Philcom Corporation to appear before any
LABOR LAW 2 A2010 275 Disini
provisions of the CBA between Philcom and PEU subject to the unreasonably. The law cannot interpose its hand to protect them
grievance procedure. All the charges were adequately rebutted by the from the consequences of their illegal acts.
employer. -A strike declared on the basis of grievances which have not
-The Court has always respected a company’s exercise of its been submitted to the grievance committee as stipulated in the
prerogative to devise means to improve its operations. Management is CBA of the parties is premature and illegal. Having held the
free to regulate, according to its own discretion and judgment, all strike illegal and having found that PEU’s officers and
aspects of employment, including hiring, work assignments, supervision members have committed illegal acts during the strike, we
and transfer of employees, working methods, time, place and manner of hold that no writ of execution should issue for the return to
work. This is so because the law on ULP is not intended to deprive work of PEU officers who participated in the illegal strike,
employers of their fundamental right to prescribe and enforce such rules and PEU members who committed illegal acts or who defied
as they honestly believe to be necessary to the proper, productive and the return-to-work orders that the Secretary issued. The
profitable operation of their business. issue of who participated in the illegal strike, committed illegal
-Even assuming arguendo that Philcom had violated some provisions in acts, or defied the return-to-work orders is a question of fact that
the CBA, there was no showing that the same was a flagrant or must be resolved in the appropriate proceedings before the
malicious refusal to comply with its economic provisions. The law Secretary of Labor.
mandates that such violations should not be treated as unfair labor Disposition Petition dismissed. CA decision affirmed with the
practices. modification that the DOLE Sec is directed to determine who
among the PEU officers participated in the illegal strike, and who
3. NO. among the union members committed illegal acts or defied the
-SC ruled on the legality of the strike if only to put an end to this return-to-work orders.
protracted labor dispute. The facts necessary to resolve the legality of
the strike are not in dispute. The strike and the strike activities that PEU GRAND BOULEVARD HOTEL V GENUINE
had undertaken were patently illegal for the following reasons:
LABORERS ORGANIZATION
 1. Philcom is engaged in a vital industry protected by PD 823,
as amended by PD 849, from strikes and lockouts. It is 406 SCRA 688
therefore clear that the striking employees violated the no- CALLEJO; July 18, 2003
strike policy of the State in regard to vital industries.
 2. The Secretary had already assumed jurisdiction over the NATURE
dispute. Despite the issuance of the return-to-work orders, the Petition for review on certiorari
striking employees failed to return to work and continued with
their strike. FACTS
-A return-to-work order imposes a duty that must be discharged more - Respondent Genuine Labor Organization of Workers in Hotel,
than it confers a right that may be waived. While the workers may Restaurant and Allied Industries – Silahis International Hotel
choose not to obey, they do so at the risk of severing their relationship Chapter (Union) and the petitioner Grand Boulevard Hotel (then
with their employer. see Art.264 of the Labor Code. Silahis International Hotel, Inc.) executed a CBA covering the
-A strike undertaken despite the Secretary’s issuance of an period from July 10, 1985 up to July 9, 1988.
assumption or certification order becomes a prohibited activity, - Thereafter, Union filed several notices of strike on account of
and thus, illegal, under Article 264(a) of the Labor Code. The union alleged violations of CBA, illegal dismissal and suspension of
officers who knowingly participate in the illegal strike are deemed EEs. In these instances, SOLE issued a status quo ante bellum
to have lost their employment status. The union members, order certifying the labor dispute to the NLRC for compulsory
including union officers, who commit specific illegal acts or who arbitration pursuant to Article 263(g) of LC. After notice was
knowingly defy a return-to-work order are also deemed to have lost given by Hotel re its decision to implement retrenchment
their employment status. Otherwise, the workers will simply refuse program, Union informed the DOLE that the union will conduct a
to return to their work and cause a standstill in the company strike vote referendum. The members of the Union voted to
operations while retaining the positions they refuse to discharge stage a strike. Union informed the DOLE of the results of the
and preventing management to fill up their positions. strike vote referendum. SOLE issued another status quo ante
 3. PEU staged the strike using unlawful means and methods. bellum order certifying the case to the NLRC for compulsory
-e.g., human barricades at all entrances to and egresses from the arbitration and enjoining the parties from engaging in any strike
company premises; use of coercive methods to prevent company or lockout. Then, another notice of strike was filed by Union on
officials and other personnel from leaving the company premises; account of the illegal dismissal of EEs pusrsuant to Hotel’s act of
prohibiting other tenants at the Philcom building from entering and retrenching around 171 EEs. Officers of the respondent union
leaving the premises. see Art. 264(e) of the Labor Code. and some members staged a picket in the premises of the hotel,
-The sanction provided in Article 264(a) is so severe that any obstructing the free ingress and egress thereto. Because of this,
worker or union officer who knowingly participates in the they were terminated.
commission of illegal acts during a strike may be declared to have - Hotel filed a complaint with NLRC for illegal strike against the
lost his employment status. By insisting on staging the prohibited union, its members and officers. Petitioner Hotel alleged inter
strike and defiantly picketing Philcom’s premises to prevent the alia that the union members and officers staged a strike on
resumption of company operations, the striking employees have November 16, 1990 which lasted until November 29, 1990
forfeited their right to be readmitted. without complying with the requirements provided under Articles
263 and 264 of the Labor Code. It further alleged that the officers
 4. PEU declared the strike during the pendency of preventive and members of the respondent union blocked the main ingress
mediation proceedings at the NCMB. to and egress from the hotel.
-see Art264(a), LC. Section 6, Book V, Rule XXII of the IRR: “During the - The respondent Union denied the material allegations of the
proceedings, the parties shall not do any act which may disrupt or complaint and alleged that the petitioner committed ULP prior to
impede the early settlement of dispute. They are obliged, as part of their the filing of the Nov. 16, 1990 notice of strike. Hence, there was
duty, to bargain collectively in good faith, to participate fully and promptly no need for the union to comply with A263 and 264 of LC, as the
in the conciliation meetings called by the regional branch of the Board.” notice
 5. PEU staged the strike in utter disregard of the grievance - LA Linsangan’s Ruling: Union’s failure to comply with the
procedure established in the CBA. requirements laid down in A263 and 264 of LC, the strike that
-PEU should have immediately resorted to the grievance machinery was staged was illegal. Considering the admissions of the
provided for in the CBA. In disregarding this procedure, the union individual respondents that they participated in the said strike,
leaders who knowingly participated in the strike have acted the termination of their employment by the petitioner was legal.
LA noted that if as alleged by the respondent union the petitioner
LABOR LAW 2 A2010 276 Disini
was guilty of ULP, it should have filed a complaint therefor against the
Hotel and/or its officials for which the latter could have been meted 2. YES
penal and administrative sanctions as provided for in A272 of LC. The Re: Effect of Illegality
Union failed. Ratio Since a strike that is undertaken, despite the issuance by
- Appeal by Union to NLRC: that it had complied with the requirements the SOLE of an assumption or certification order, becomes a
laid down in A263 and 264 of LC because its Nov 16, 1990 notice of prohibited activity and, thus, illegal pursuant to A264 of LC, the
strike was a mere reiteration of its Sept 27, 1990 notice of strike, which, union officers and members, as a result, are deemed to have
in turn, complied with all the requirements of the aforementioned lost their employment status for having knowingly participated in
articles, i.e., the cooling-off period, the strike ban, the strike vote and the an illegal act.
strike vote report.
- NLRC affirmed LA Decision. Compliance of the requirements laid down Disposition Petition is GRANTED. LA Decision REINSTATED.
in A263 and 264 of LC respecting the Sept 27, 1990 notice of strike filed
by the union cannot be carried over to the Nov 16, 1990 notice of strike.
Resultantly, for failure of the union to comply with the requirements, the
strike staged on November 16 up to November 29, 1990 was illegal.
SAN JUAN DE DIOS UNION ALLIANCE OF
- CA reversed NLRC and LA: It took into account the observation of the
Sol-Gen that the Hotel retrenched EEs pending the resolution of the FILIPINO WORKERS V SAN JUAN DE DIOS
certified cases respecting the alleged illegal suspension and dismissals EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATION, INC.
effected by Hotel during and prior to the notices of strike filed by Union. 430 SCRA 193
Sol-Gen opined that even if the strike was staged without the proper
CALLEJO, SR.; May 28, 2004
notice and compliance with the cooling-off period, resort thereto was
simply triggered by the petitioners' belief in good faith that Hotel was
engaged in ULP. Hence, this petition NATURE
Petition for review on certiorari of decision and resolution of CA.
ISSUES
1 WON the strike staged by the respondent union on Nov16-29, 1990 FACTS
is legal - San Juan De Dios Educational Foundation Inc. (Foundation) is
2 WON the dismissals of the officers and some members of the Union a domestic foundation operating as a college and hospital. San
as a consequence of the strike on Nov16-29, 1990 are valid. Juan De Dios Educational Foundation Employees Union-Alliance
of Filipino Workers (Union) is the sole and exclusive bargaining
HELD representative of the rank-and-file employees.
1. NO - Rodolfo Calucin, Jr. had been employed at the Foundation as a
Re: Procedural Requirements medical clerk for almost 12 years. The Foundation informed him
- Under A263 (c) and (f) of LC, the requisites for a valid strike are as that his incurred absences affected his efficiency, and was asked
follows: (a) a notice of strike fled with the DOLE 30 days before the to explain why he should not be terminated for gross and
intended date thereof or 15 days in case of ULP; (b) strike vote habitual neglect of his duties.
approved by a majority of the total union membership in the bargaining - July 27, 1994: the Foundation wrote Calucin, Jr. terminating
unit concerned obtained by secret ballot in a meeting called for that him for gross and habitual neglect of duties. Calucin Jr. filed a
purpose; (c) notice given to the DOLE of the results of the voting at least complaint for illegal dismissal before the NLRC. Calucin, Jr. was
7 days before the intended strike. The requisite 7-day period is intended a union officer, and officers and employees who were also
to give the DOLE an opportunity to verify whether the projected strike members of the Union staged a strike.
really carries the approval of the majority of the union members. The - August 26, 1994: DOLE Sec. Confesor directed the striking
notice of strike and the cooling-off period were intended to provide an employees to go to work, and directing the Foundation to accept
opportunity for mediation and conciliation. The requirements are all employees under the previous terms of employment. The
mandatory and failure of a union to comply therewith renders the strike order was served on the officers and members of the Union,
illegal. A strike simultaneously with or immediately after a notice of strike nevertheless, the strike continued.
will render the requisite periods nugatory. - The Foundation filed a petition before the NCMB to declare the
strike illegal on ground that the Union committed prohibited acts
- In this case, union filed its notice of strike with the DOLE on Nov 16, during the strike staged on August 26 to 31 1994.
1990 and on the same day, staged a picket on the premises of the hotel, - Since the Union did not heed the Return to Work Order
in violation of the law. Union cannot argue that since the notice of strike (RTWO), Confesor issued another one. The Foundation and the
on Nov 16, 1990 were for the same grounds as those contained in their Union entered into an agreement on August 30, 1994 regarding
notice of strike on September 27, 1990 which complied with the the Calucin issue, and that the Foundation would waive any legal
requirements of the law on the cooling-off period, strike ban, strike vote action relating to the illegal strike and the illegal acts committed
and strike vote report, the strike staged by them on Nov16, 1990 was by the officers and members of the Union.
lawful. The matters contained in the notice of strike of Sept 27, 1990 had - In a complaint filed by the Union against the Union before the
already been taken cognizance of by the SOLE when he issued on Oct NLRC, it alleged that the Foundation was guilty of illegal
31, 1990 a status quo ante bellum order enjoining union from intending dismissal of Union officers, discrimination, union-busting, and
or staging a strike. Despite SOLE order, the union nevertheless staged a that the strike was legal and conducted in a peaceful and orderly
strike on Nov16, 1990 simultaneously with its notice of strike, thus manner. The NLRC held that the strike was illegal, that the
violating A264(a) LC officers of the Union lost their employment status. At the
inception the strike was legal; when the RTWO was issued and
Grounds the officers and members refused to return to work, that was
- A strike that is undertaken, despite the issuance by the SOLE of an when they lost their employment status.
assumption or certification order, becomes a prohibited activity and, - In an appeal before the CA, the court held there was a valid
thus, illegal pursuant to A264 of LC: No strike or lockout shall be service of the RTWO, and that the refusal to return to work
declared after assumption of jurisdiction by the President or the rendered the strike illegal.
Secretary or after certification or submission of the dispute to
compulsory or voluntary arbitration or during the pendency of cases ISSUES
involving the same grounds for the strike or lockout. 1. WON the petitioners were validly served with the RTWO.
- Even if the union acted in good faith in the belief that the company was 2. WON the strike staged by the officers and members was
committing an unfair labor practice, if no notice of strike and a strike vote legal.
were conducted, the said strike is illegal.
LABOR LAW 2 A2010 277 Disini
HELD the Hotel stating that the Union was not the employee’s
1. NO bargaining agent as their petition for certification election was
Reasoning The return of Sheriff Alfredo C. Antonio shows that copies of denied.
the Order were served on the striking employees and the petitioners. “A -Union filed a Notice of Strike with the NCMB alleging the Hotel’
copy of the Order was served to the Union president at 7:55pm of refusal to bargain and for acts of unfair labor practices. NCMB
August 26, 1994…but the striking employees refused to acknowledge summoned both parties and held series of dialogues. Union
receipt of the copies… ” however suddenly went on strike
-Secretary of DOLE assumed jurisdiction and ordered
2. NO compulsory arbitration pursuant to art. 263 (g) of LC. And Union
Reasoning members were directed to return to work and for Hotel to accept
Art. 264. (a) them back. Hotel refused to accept the employees return. The
No strike or lockout shall be declared after assumption of jurisdiction order was modified (by a different Secretary) such that
by the President or Secretary or after certification or submission of reinstatement was to be done only in the payroll.
the dispute to compulsory or voluntary arbitration or during the -Union filed for certiorari alleging grave abuse of discretion. Case
pendency of cases involving the same grounds for the strike or was referred to the CA. CA affirmed that the “payroll
lockout. reinstatement” was not a grave abuse of discretion. On appeal, it
- Despite the receipt of an order from then Secretary to return to their modified NLRC decision ordering reinstatement with back wages
respective jobs, the Union officers refused to do so and defied the same. of union members.
Consequently, the strike staged by the Union is a prohibited activity
under Art. 264 of the Labor Code. The dismissal of its officers is in ISSUE
order. 1) WON the Union can bargain only in behalf of its members and
not for all the employees of the Hotel.
DISPOSITION 2) WON the strike conducted by the Union was illegal.
The petition is denied. 3) WON those employees who participated in the strike should
be given back wages

HELD
STAMFORD MARKETING CORP V JULIAN 1) No.
(jonas azura) -As provided by art 255 of the LC only the labor organization
designated or selected by the majority of the employees in an
Article 264 of the Labor Code, in providing for the consequences of an appropriate collective bargaining unit is the exclusive
illegal strike, makes a distinction between union officers and members representative of the employees in such unit for the purpose of
who participated thereon. Thus, knowingly participating in an illegal collective bargaining.
strike is a valid ground -The Union’s petition for certificate election was denied by the
for termination from employment of a union officer. The law, however, DOLE. The union thus is admittedly not the exclusive
treats differently mere union members. Mere participation in an illegal representative of the majority of the employees of petitioner,
strike is not a sufficient ground for termination of the services of the hence, it could not demand from petitioner the right to bargain
union members. The Labor collectively in their behalf
Code protects an ordinary, rank-and-file union member who participated -Respondent insists, however, that it could validly bargain in
in such a strike from losing his job, provided that he did not commit an behalf of "its members," relying on Article 242 of the Labor Code.
illegal act during the strike. Thus, absent any clear, substantial and -the CA ruled that “what [respondent] will be achieving is to
convincing proof of illegal acts committed during an illegal strike, an divide the employees, more particularly, the rank-and-file
ordinary striking worker or employee may not be terminated from work. employees of [petitioner] . . . the other workers who are not
With respect to union officers, however, there is no dispute they could members are at a serious disadvantage, because if the same
be dismissed for participating in an illegal strike. Union officers are duty- shall be allowed, employees who are non-union members will be
bound to guide their members to respect the law. Nonetheless, as in economically impaired and will not be able to negotiate their
other termination cases, union officers must be given the required terms and conditions of work, thus defeating the very essence
notices for terminating an employment, i.e., notice of hearing to enable and reason of collective bargaining, which is an effective
them to present their side, and notice of termination, should their safeguard against the evil schemes of employers in terms and
explanation prove unsatisfactory. Nothing in Article 264 of the Labor conditions of work”
Code authorizes an immediate dismissal of a union officer for - Petitioner’s refusal to bargain then with respondent can not be
participating in an illegal strike. considered a ULP to justify the staging of the strike.
The act of dismissal is not intended to happen ipso facto but rather as TOPICS: Union registration and procedure, factors, majority
an option that can be exercised by the employer and after compliance union
with the notice requirements for terminating an employee. In this case,
petitioners did not give the required 2) yes.
notices to the union officers. -as was mentioned, the first ground mentioned by the Union- the
Hotel’s refusal to bargain- was not a valid ground to stage the
strike.
-The second ground – that petitioner prevented or intimidated
PHILIPPINE DIAMOND HOTEL AND RESORT INC some workers from joining the union before, during or after the
(MANILA DIAMOND HOTEL V MANILA DIAMOND strike – was correctly discredited by the appellate court.. Since it
is the union who alleges that unfair labor practices were
HOTEL EMPLOYEES UNION committed by the Hotel, the burden of proof is on the union to
494 SCRA 195 prove its allegations by substantial evidence. “the facts and the
CARPIO MORALES; June 30, 2006 evidence did not establish events [sic] least a rational basis why
the union would [wield] a strike based on alleged unfair labor
FACTS practices it did not even bother to substantiate”.
-Union filed a petition for certification election to be declared the -It is doctrinal that the exercise of the right of private sector
exclusive bargaining representative of the Hotel’s employees. This employees to strike is not absolute. Thus Section 3 of Article XIII
petition was dismissed by DOLE for lack of legal requirements. of the Constitution, provides:
-after a few months, Union sent a letter to Hotel informing it of its desire SECTION 3. x x x
to negotiate for a collective bargaining agreement. This was rejected by
LABOR LAW 2 A2010 278 Disini
It shall guarantee the rights of all workers to self-organization, collective Reasoning
bargaining and negotiations and peaceful concerted activities, including - Under the immediately quoted provision, an ordinary striking
the right to strike in accordance with law…” worker may not be declared to have lost his employment status
-Even if the purpose of a strike is valid, the strike may still be held illegal by mere participation in an illegal strike. There must be proof
where the means employed are illegal. Thus, the employment of that he knowingly participated in the commission of illegal acts
violence, intimidation, restraint or coercion in carrying out concerted during the strike. While the University adduced photographs
activities
which are ART. 264. Prohibited activities. –xxx-
injurious to the (c) No employer shall use or employ any strike-breaker, nor shall any person be employed as a strike-breaker.
rights to
property ART. 212. Definitions. –xxx-
renders a
strike illegal.
(r) "Strike-breaker" means any person who obstructs, impedes, or interferes with by force, violence, coercion, threats, or
Evidence intimidation any peaceful picketing affecting wages, hours or conditions of work or in the exercise of the right of self-
show s that organization or collective bargaining.
some of the
workers-
strikers who
joined the
strike indeed
committed
illegal acts –
blocking the free ingress to and egress from the Hotel, holding noise showing strikers picketing outside the university premises, it
barrage, threatening guests, and the like. failed to identify who they were. It thus failed to meet the
TOPICS: right to engage in concerted activities-limitations “substantiality of evidence test” applicable in dismissal cases.
-Petitioner-union members must thus be reinstated to their
3) No. former position, without backwages. If reinstatement is no
-The general rule is that backwages shall not be awarded in an longer possible, they should receive separation pay of One (1)
economic strike on the principle that "a fair day’s wage" accrues only for Month for every year of service in accordance with existing
a "fair day’s labor. If there is no work performed by the employee there jurisprudence.
can be no wage or pay, unless of course, the laborer was able, willing - With respect to the union officers, as already discussed, their
and ready to work but was illegally locked out, dismissed or suspended. mere participation in the illegal strike warrants their dismissal.
"when employees voluntarily go on strike, even if in protest against
unfair labor practices," no back wages during the strike is awarded.” Disposition Decision affirmed
-The Court ruled that “only those members of the union who did not
commit illegal acts during the course of the illegal strike should be 3) Employment of Strike Breakers
reinstated but without back wages”

ARELLANO V CA 4) Run-Away Shop


502 SCRA 219
CARPIO-MORALES; September 19, 2006 Complex Electronics Employees Assoc. v.
NATURE
NLRC
Petition for certiorari 310 SCRA 403
Kapunan ; 1999 July 19
FACTS
- University Employees and Workers Union (the Union), the Facts
exclusive bargaining representative of about 380 rank-and-file -Complex Electronics Corporation (Complex) was engaged in the
employees of Arellano University, Inc. (the University), filed with manufacture of electronic products, a subcontractor of electronic
the National Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB) a Notice of products where its customers gave their job orders, sent their
Strike charging the University with Unfair Labor Practice (ULP) own materials and consigned their equipment to it. The
- The DOLE secretary certified the notice of strike to the NLRC. customers were foreign-based companies with different product
- The Union filed another notice of strike charging other unfair lines and specifications requiring the employment of workers with
labor practices against the University. specific skills for each product line. Thus, there was the AMS
- A strike was staged by the union on August 5, 1998. The DOLE Line for the Adaptive Micro System, Inc., the Heril Line for Heril
secretary directed the strikers to return to work the following day. Co., Ltd., the Lite-On Line for the Lite-On Philippines Electronics
The Union lifted its strike on August 7. Co., etc. The rank and file workers of Complex were organized
- The University filed a petition to direct the strike illegal. The into a union known as the Complex Electronics Employees
NLRC ruled that the strike was illegal and that the workers who Association (Union).
joined such strike have lost their employment. -Complex received a facsimile message from Lite-On Philippines
ISSUE/S Electronics Co., requiring it to lower its price by 10%.
1. WON the employees who participated in the illegal strike should be -Complex informed its Lite-On personnel that such request of
dismissed lowering their selling price by 10% was not feasible as they were
HELD already incurring losses at the present prices of their products.
Union officers - YES Under such circumstances, Complex regretfully informed the
Union members - NO. employees that it was left with no alternative but to close down
Ratio the operations of the Lite-On Line but promised that it won’t be
- A264: Any union officer who knowingly participates in an illegal strike after 1 month, if possible it would be prolonged and they would
and any worker or union officer who knowingly participates in the all receive retrenchment pay, half a month for every year of
commission of illegal acts during a strike may be declared to have lost service in accordance with Article 283 of the Labor Code of
his employment status Philippines.
LABOR LAW 2 A2010 279 Disini
-The Union, on the other hand, pushed for a retrenchment pay PHIL DIAMOND HOTEL AND RESORT INC V
equivalent to one (1) month salary for every year of service, which
MANILA DIAMOND HOTEL EMPLOYEES UNION
Complex refused.
-Complex filed a notice of closure of the Lite-On Line with the CROMWELL COMMERCIAL EMPLOYEES AND
Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) and the retrenchment of LABORERS UNION (PTUC) V CIR
the ninety-seven (97) affected employees. 12 SCRA 124
- Union filed a notice of strike with the National Conciliation and
REGALA; September 30, 1964
Mediation Board (NCMB). A total closure of company operation was
effected at Complex.
-Labor Arbiter: reinstate the 531 employees to their former position with NATURE
all the rights, privileges and benefits appertaining thereto, and to pay Appeal from CIR Decision
said complainants-employees the aggregate backwages amounting
P26,949,891.80 as of April 6, 1993 and to such further backwages until FACTS
their actual reinstatement. - Cromwell Commercial Co. and the Cromwell Commercial
-The Union anchors its position on the fact that Lawrence Qua is both Employees and Laborers Union (PTUC) signed a CBA
the president of Complex and Ionics and that both companies have the - Changes in the working conditions in the company and the
same set of Board of Directors. It claims that business has not ceased latter's failure to carry out its part of the CBA became a source of
at Complex but was merely transferred to Ionics, a runaway shop. To complaint among the EEs. 3 days after, the company dismissed
prove that Ionics was just a runaway shop, petitioner asserts that out of Gaddi and Andrada, leaders of the shipping department-
the 80,000 shares comprising the increased capital stock of Ionics, it employees. So the union protested the dismissal. It gave the
was Complex that owns majority of said shares with P1,200,000.00 as company 48 hrs within which to act on its grievance and
its capital subscription and P448,000.00 as its paid up investment, reinstate the dismissed employees.
compared to P800,000.00 subscription and P324,560.00 paid-up owing - From then on the relation between the company and the union
to the other stockholders, combined. Thus, according to the Union, steadily deteriorated. The company took back the keys from the
there is a clear ground to pierce the veil of corporate fiction. warehouseman and ordered the salesmen to put their trucks in
-The Union further posits that there was an illegal lockout/illegal the garage. Then finally, the union struck and picketed the
dismissal considering that as of March 11, 1992, the company had a premises of the company.
gross sales of P61,967,559 from a capitalization of P1,500,000.00. It - The company in turn gave the strikers a period within which to
even ranked number thirty among the top fifty corporations in return to work otherwise they would be considered dismissed for
Muntinlupa. Complex, therefore, cannot claim that it was losing in its cause. It warned them that the strike was illegal for being against
business which necessitated its closure. the no strike clause of the collective bargaining agreement.
- In a conference called by DOLE, the strikers offered to return to
Issue work provided the company observed the provisions of the
WON Ionics was a runaway shop bargaining contract. But the company insisted that the strikers
could be taken back only under the terms of its March 1 order.
Held As already stated, this order reverted salesmen to salary and
No. A “runaway shop” is defined as an industrial plant moved by its commission basis, abolished their helper's allowance and
owners from one location to another to escape union labor regulations or stopped the payment of per diem and other allowances to prov’l
state laws, but the term is also used to describe a plant removed to a salesmen.
new location in order to discriminate against employees at the old plant - In addition, the company set as price for continued conciliation
because of their union activities. It is one wherein the employer moves conference the remittance by the salesmen of their collections
its business to another location or it temporarily closes its business for and the return of delivery trucks and stocks on hand. The union
anti-union purposes. A “runaway shop” in this sense, is a relocation replied that the strikers had not lost their employee status and
motivated by anti-union animus rather than for business reasons. In this that at any rate they were bonded. It suffered though to deposit
case, however, Ionics was not set up merely for the purpose of with the Conciliation Service of the Department of Labor the
transferring the business of Complex. At the time the labor dispute things demanded by the company, but the company was
arose at Complex, Ionics was already existing as an independent unyielding in its demand. Anyway, nothing came out of the
company. As earlier mentioned, it has been in existence since July 5, conference. The employees gradually gave up the strike and the
1984. It cannot, therefore, be said that the temporary closure in salesmen later settled their accounts and returned the property
Complex and its subsequent transfer of business to Ionics was for anti- of the company.
union purposes. The Union failed to show that the primary reason for - Case was filed in the CIR, charging the company with unfair
the closure of the establishment was due to the union activities of the labor practice. After trial, the court rendered judgment in favor of
employees. employees. The union moved for a reconsideration of the
The mere fact that one or more corporations are owned or controlled by decision, contending that the trial judge erred (1) in awarding
the same or single stockholder is not a sufficient ground for disregarding only half back wages to Gaddi and the five salesmen, (2) in
separate corporate personalities. awarding no back wages to the rest of the strikers and (3) in
Ionics may be engaged in the same business as that of Complex, but denying reinstatement to Andrada and Dario and to those who
this fact alone is not enough reason to pierce the veil of corporate fiction might have found substantially equivalent employment
of the corporation. Well-settled is the rule that a corporation has a elsewhere. The court in banc affirmed the decision. Hence this
personality separate and distinct from that of its officers and appeal.
stockholders. This fiction of corporate entity can only be disregarded in
certain cases such as when it is used to defeat public convenience, ISSUE
justify wrong, protect fraud, or defend crime. To disregard said separate WON CIR erred in its order of reinstatement of and payment of
juridical personality of a corporation, the wrongdoing must be clearly and back wages to the dismissed employees
convincingly established.
HELD
Disposition NO
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the assailed decision of the NLRC As to reinstatement
is AFFIRMED. - At the outset, two types of employees involved in this case
must be distinguished, namely, those who were discriminatorily
dismissed for union activities (Gaddi and Andrada and 5
5)Burden of Economic Loss salesmen) and those who voluntarily went on strike, following the
failure of the company-union conference to settle their dispute.
LABOR LAW 2 A2010 280 Disini
- Both types of EEs are entitled to reinstatement. Striking EEs are MARSMAN and Co., INC. v. CONSOLIDATED
entitled to reinstatement WON the strike was the consequence of the
LABOR ASSOCIATION OF THE PHILIPPINES
ER's unfair labor practice, unless, where the strike was not due to any
unfair labor practice, the employer has hired others to take the place of [BAUTISTA, MARTINEZ, VILLANUEVA,
the strikers and has promised them continued employment. Exception: &TABIGNE]
Those who, although discriminatorily discharged, must nonetheless be 11 SCRA 589
denied reinstatement because of (1) unlawful conduct or (2) because of
MAKALINTAL; July 31, 1964
violence.
FACTS:
- It is not for SC to judge the effect of misconduct by EEs. It is primarily
- MARCELA-FFW submitted to the Company a set of proposals
for the CIR to determine. In the absence of proof of abuse of discretion
for collective bargaining, which the Company answered.
on the part of CIR, SC will not interfere.
- In spite of negotiations held between the Company and the
- The same thing may be said of the denial of reinstatement to those
Union, they failed to reach In agreement; so the Union, failed a
who might have found substantial employment elsewhere. The mere fact
notice of strike with the DOLE.
that strikers or dismissed employees have found such employment
- Mediation by the Conciliation Service of that Department
elsewhere is not necessarily a bar to their reinstatement.
proved fruitless.
As to payment of back wages
- the Union declared a strike and at the same time placed a
- The decision assailed directs the company "to reinstate all the strikers,
"round-the-clock" picket line around the Company's premises in
without backwages, in view of the circumstances, as explained on the
Intramuros, Manila. The tense situation in the strike zone
subject of the strike, unless they have found substantial employment
prompted the Manila Police Department to send policemen
elsewhere during the pendency of this case." The union says this order
thereto to preserve peace.
is erroneous. Union says it is unfair to deny backwages to the strikers
- Meanwhile the Labor Department's Conciliation Service
after finding that the strike declared by them was legal because it was
continued to mediate between the representatives of the Union
provoked by unfair labor practices of the company.
and of the Company.
- The denial of backpay may be justified, although on a different ground.
- Eventually, after a conference where Marsman’s VP’s proposal
For this purpose, SC adverts to the distinction earlier made between
(that they stop the strike and go back to work, and that when
discriminatorily dismissed employees and those who struck, albeit in
they were already working the Company would discuss with
protest against the company's unfair labor practice. Discriminatorily
them their demands) was accepted, the strikers returned to
dismissed employees received backpay from the date of the act of
work. However, complainants herein were refused admittance
discrimination, that is, from the day of their discharge. On this score, the
and were informed by Company officials that they would not be
award of backpay to Gaddi, Andrada and the salesmen may be justified.
reinstated unless they ceased to be active Union members and
The salesmen, as already stated, were practically locked out when they
that in any case the Company already had enough men for its
were ordered to put their trucks in the garage; they did not voluntarily
business operations.
strike. Hence, the award of backwages.
-As a result the strike and the picketing were resumed, because
- In contrast, the rest of the employees struck as a voluntary act of
of which employees who had been admitted to work had to stay
protest against what they considered unfair labor practices of the
inside the Company premises, where the Company furnished
company. The stoppage of their work was not the direct consequence of
them food and quarters. Nevertheless some of those employed
the company's unfair labor practice. Hence their economic loss should
could go in and out after office hours to visit their families.
not be shifted to the employer. When employees voluntarily go on strike,
- During the strike, some of the picketers and some non-strikers
even if in protest against unfair labor practices, it has been our policy not
were arrested within the strike zone for having committed
to award them backpay during the strike.
unlawful acts, and were duly charged therewith.
- However, where, as in this case, an employer refuses to reinstate
- A petition for writ of injunction filed by the Company against
strikers except upon their acceptance of the new conditions that
MARCELA on the ground that the strike and picket were being
discriminate against them because of their union membership or
maintained illegally, was denied by the CFI Manila, which
activities, the strikers who refuse to accept the conditions and are
pointed out that proper criminal complaints should have been
consequently refused reinstatement are entitled to be made whole for
filed against the individual strikers in the corresponding courts.
any losses of pay they may have suffered by reason of the respondent's
- Because of the Company's consistent refusal to reinstate the
discriminatory acts."
69 complainants even after repeated requests, the
- While it is true that the strikers in this case offered to return to work,
Confederation of Labor Associations of the Philippines (CLAP),
their offer was conditional. Their offer was predicated on the company's
to which the Union had affiliated after seceding from the FFW
observance of the provisions of the CBA, the very bone of contention
initiated the present charge for unfair labor practice.
between the parties by reason of which the union walked out.
- Initially the strike staged by the Union was meant to compel the
Disposition CIR decision AFFIRMED, without pronouncement as to
Company to grant it certain economic benefits set forth in its
costs.
proposal for collective bargaining. The strike was an economic
one,1 and the striking employees would have a tight to be
REYES, J.B.L., J., dissenting:
reinstated if, in the interim, the employer had not hired other
- I cannot agree to the denial of backpay to the reinstated laborers.
permanent workers to replace them. For it is recognized that
There is no dispute that the ER was the first to infringe the CBA by
during the pendency of an economic strike an employer may
refusing to implement its provisions, and by insisting on it as a condition
take steps to continue and protect his business by supplying
for taking back the strikers. Industrial Peace Act cannot be said to be
places left vacant by the strikers, and is not bound to discharge
promoted by placing the economic loss on the strikers, denying them
those hired for that purpose upon election of the strikers to
backpay. While the laborers technically violated the no-strike clause, the
resume their employment. But the strike changed its character
facts as found reveal that the ER goaded the laborers into striking, by
from the time the Company refused to reinstate complainants
repeatedly violating the CBA and by preventing the organization of the
because of their union activities after it had offered to admit all
grievance committee through the ER's refusal to name its
the strikers and in fact did readmit the others. It was then
representatives therein.
converted into an unfair labor practice strike.
- J. Bautista, after hearing, found Marsman guilty of the charge
and ordered it to reinstate 60 of the aforementioned 69
complainants to their former positions or to similar ones with the
CONSOLIDATED LABOR ASSOCIATION OF THE same rate of pay, without back wages.
PHILS v. MARSMAN and CO., INC. [CIR] - On the MR, the Court en banc affirmed the decision.
& - Both the Union and Marsman appealed. The former claims that
the 60 reinstated employees should be granted backpay while
the latter questions the CIR's finding of ULP.
LABOR LAW 2 A2010 281 Disini
were prevented by the picketers from entering the work
Issue: WON Marsman committed ULP premises; that under the circumstances, they were entitled to
HELD: YES. their salaries corresponding to the duration of the strike, which
Reasoning: could be deducted from the accrued leave credits of their
- Marsman alleges that it was economic reasons, i.e., its policy of members. The SSS had no objection to the intervention sought
retrenchment, not labor discrimination, which prevented it from rehiring but opposed the demand for the payment of salaries pertaining
complainants. This is disproved, however, by the fact that it not only to the entire period of the strike.
readmitted the other strikers, but also hired new employees and even - Respondent Court, through Judge Joaquin M. Salvador, issued
increased the salaries of its personnel by almost 50%. SC is convinced the Order of 3 March 1970, ordering the payment of salaries of
that it was not business exigency but a desire to discourage union the members of respondent Union during the strike period, but
activities which prompted the Company to deny readmittance to not to be chargeable to accrued leave credits. The reasons given
complainants. This is an indubitable case of unfair labor practice. were that this Court had already declared the strike premature,
- The Union began the strike because it believed in good faith that and that the members of respondent Union had not participated
settlement of their demands was at an impasse and that further in the strike and had actually manifested their desire to work but
negotiations would only come to naught. It stopped the strike upon the could not cross the heavy picket lines during the height of the
belief they could go back to work. Then it renewed the strike (or it strike.
started a new strike) as a protest against the discrimination practiced by - The SSS moved to reconsider the Order arguing that since
the Company. Both are valid grounds for going on a strike. respondent Union members actually rendered no service at all
- The Company further argues that since the methods used by the during the strike, they were not entitled to the payment of
strikers were illegal, it had the right to refuse them readmission. Of the salaries. Respondent Court, en banc, denied reconsideration.
69 complainants, nine, namely Alejandro Mojar, Manuel Mazo, Esteban
Borja, Cecilio Walo, Eugenio Valenzuela, Elias Matic, Marcos Buccat, ISSUE
Malisimo Vargas and Ricardo Antonio, were charged with and convicted WON CIR has the authority to issue the Order
of various crimes like coercion, malicious mischief, physical injuries,
breach of the peace, light threats, and damage to property, all HELD
committed during the period from September 4, 1954 to October 12, NO
1954. Admittedly, the Company could not have condoned these acts - "The age-old rule governing the relation between labor and
which were committed after it had offered to reinstate the strikers. capital or management and employee is that of a `fair day's
Nevertheless, as the lower court reasoned out, it does not appear that wage for a fair day's labor.' If there is no work performed by the
the aforementioned individual acts were authorized or even impliedly employee there can be no wage or pay, unless of course the
sanctioned by the Union. Hence, the other strikers who were innocent of laborer was able, willing and ready to work but was illegally
and did not participate in the illegal acts should not be punished by locked out, dismissed or suspended. It is hardly fair or just for an
being deprived of their right of reinstatement. It is only those who had employee or laborer to fight or litigate against his employer on
been found guilty who should be penalized by the loss of the right.3 the employer's time."
- On the other hand, even after the court has made a finding of unfair - In this case, the failure to work on the part of the members of
labor practice, it still has the discretion to determine whether or not to respondent Union was due to circumstances not attributable to
grant back pay. Such discretion was not abused when it denied back themselves. But neither should the burden of the economic loss
wages to complainants, considering the climate of violence which suffered by them be shifted to their employer, the SSS, which
attended the strike and picket that the complainants conducted. While was equally faultless, considering that the situation was not a
the complainants ordered reinstated did not actively take part in the acts direct consequence of the employer's lockout or unfair labor
of violence, their minatory attitude towards the Company may be practice. Under the circumstances, it is but fair that each party
gathered from the fact that from the very first day of the strike policemen must bear his own loss.
had to patrol the strike zone in order to preserve peace. - "Considering, therefore, that the parties had no hand or
participation in the situation they were in, and that the stoppage
DISPOSITIVE: Judgment appealed from is affirmed. of the work was not the direct consequence of the company's
lockout or unfair labor practice, `the economic loss should not be
1
An economic strike is defined as one which is to force wage or shifted to the employer.' Justice and equity demand that each
other concessions from the employer which he is not required by must have to bear its own loss, thus placing the parties in equal
law to grant. footing where none should profit from the other there being no
fault of either."

Disposition The assailed order is set aside.


SSS V SSS SUPERVISORS UNION
117 SCRA 746
MELENCIO-HERRERA; October 23, 1982
NATURE PHILIPPINES INTER-FASHION INC. V NLRC
Petition for certiorari G.R. No. L-59847
TEEHANKEE : October 18, 1982
FACTS
- The instant case is an offshoot of Case No. 46-IPA (49) certified to the FACTS:
CIR by the President of the Philippines for compulsory arbitration of - Sometime on 12 December 1979, the workers in the
labor dispute between the SSS and the PAFLU concerning the COMPANY grouped themselves and organized a labor union
interpretation of certain provisions of their Collective Bargaining known as the Philippine Inter-Fashion Workers Union and
Agreement. The PAFLU had staged a strike in defiance of the CIR Order thereafter directly affiliated the same with the NAFLU.
of August 29, 1968 "enjoining the parties, for the sake of industrial peace - Believing that it has a majority of the more or less 600
. . . to maintain the status quo - the Union not to declare any strike and employees, it filed on 26 December 1979 a petition for direct
the Management not to dismiss nor suspend any of its employees nor to certification as the exclusive bargaining agent of the
declare any lockout." On 3 September 1968, in that same case, the SSS employees which, as of the date of submission for resolution
filed an Urgent Petition to declare the strike illegal. of this case, remained unresolved.
- On 26 September 1968, respondent Union filed a Motion for - Sometime in January 1980, the COMPANY conceived and
Intervention in the said case averring, inter alia that it had not decided to retrench its employees and selected about 40
participated in the strike; that its members wanted to report for work but
LABOR LAW 2 A2010 282 Disini
employees to be dismissed effective 20 February 1980 allegedly - With such restoration of the status quo ante it necessarily
because of lack of work
follows, as likewise submitted by the Solicitor General, that the
- Sometime on 8, 9 and 11 February 1980, Asterio Guanzon, Personnel
petition must be granted insofar as it seeks the setting aside
Assistant of the COMPANY, called about 20 of the affected
of the award of three months' backwages to the 114
employees and informed them of the intended retrenchment and
employees ordered reinstated on the basis of the general rule
offered them to voluntarily resign and be paid retrenchment benefit.
that strikers are not entitled to backwages
Since said employees refused, Guanzon asked them "to acknowledge
receipt of the clearance application and the termination letter but
DISPOSITIVE:
except for two (2) workers, they refused even to acknowledge receipt
Decision of NLRC affirmed
of the forms.
- The following day, 12 February 1980, about 200 employees boarded
two buses and went to the Ministry of Labor and talked with then
Deputy Minister who advised them to return to their work. These Lapanday Workers Union v. NLRC
employees actually returned in the afternoon but stayed outside the 248 SCRA 95
compound. Puno ; Sept. 7, 1995
- On 14 February 1980, the employees returned to the Ministry of Labor
and on the same day obtained a Return to Work Order
Facts
- The following day, 15 February 1980, the employees returned to the
-Lapanday Agricultural and Development Corporation and
company with the aforesaid Order and were allowed to enter the
CADECO Agro Development Philippines Inc. (Private
compound but they merely stayed in the canteen because they were
respondents) are sister companies. Lapanday Workers Union
not given work on the pretext that machines were undergoing repairs
(Union) is the duly certified bargaining agent of the rank and file
and servicing and because the sewing lines were reorganized and
employees of private respondent. The Union is affiliated with the
workers were reassigned to new lines
KMU-ANGLO.
- On February 1980, more than 200 employees returned and reported
-Union has a collective bargaining agreement. A few months
for work but again they were only made to stay at the canteen inside
before the expiration of their CBA, private respondent initiated
the compound and were not allowed to work but they were
certain management policies which disrupted the relationship of
nevertheless paid their wages from 12 February 1980 to 20 February
the parties- 1. Contracting of Philippine Eagle Protectors and
1980
Security Agency Inc., the Union branded the security guards
- On the same date, 20 February 1980, the COMPANY filed with this
posted within the company premises as private respondents'
Ministry "applications for clearance to terminate the workers who
"goons" and "special forces." It also accused the guards of
participated in the alleged walkout for serious misconduct, effective
intimidating and harassing their members. 2. The Union claimed
March 1, 1980 placing the affected employees under preventive
that the module on the Philippines political spectrum lumped the
suspension in the meantime."
ANGLO (Alliance of Nationalist and Genuine Labor
- Subsequently, the COMPANY hired "additional workers to be able to
Organization), with other outlawed labor organization such as
complete twelve (12) production lines and to be able to deliver
the National Democratic Front or other leftist groups.
according to my production schedule."
-These issues were discussed during a labor-management
- On 20 October 1980, one hundred fifty (150) employees who were not
meeting, the Union agreed to allow its members to attend the
re- admitted before were allowed to return to work and in so doing
HDIR seminar for the rank-and-filers but the Union directed its
withdrew their case or complaint against the COMPANY, thereby
members not to attend the seminars scheduled on said dates.
leaving 114 employees still subject of its clearance application.
They picketed the premises of the Philippine Eagle Protectors to
- The Solicitor General has stated in his comment that "from these facts
show their displeasure on the hiring of the guards. Union filed a
are derived the following conclusions which are likewise undisputed:
Notice of Strike with the National Conciliation and Mediation
that petitioner engaged in an illegal lockout while the NAFLU engaged
Board (NCMB). NCMB called conciliation conference. The
in an illegal strike; that the unconditional offer of the 150 striking
conference yielded the agreements that Union officers, including
employees to return to work and to withdraw their complaint of illegal
the officials of KMU-ANGLO, and the Executive Director of the
lockout against petitioner constitutes condonation of the illegal lock-
NMB would attend the HDIR seminar and a committee shall
out; and that the unqualified acceptance of the offer of the 150 striking
convene to establish guidelines governing the guards. With the
employees by petitioner likewise constitutes condonation of the illegal
apparent settlement of their difference, private respondents
strike insofar as the reinstated employees are concerned."
notified the NCMB that there were no more base for the notice of
strike.
ISSUES:
-Danilo Martinez. a member of the Board of Directors of the
1. WON petitioner must be deemed to have waived its right to pursue
Union, was gunned down in his house in the presence of his wife
the case of illegal strike
and children. The gunman was later identified as Eledio Samson,
2. WON the said 114 employees are entitled to reinstatement with three
an alleged member of security forces of private respondent. After
months' backwages
the killing, most of the members of the Union refused to report
for work. They returned to work the following day but they did not
HELD:
comply with the "quota system" adopted by the management to
1.
bolster production output. Allegedly, the Union instructed the
Reasoning
workers to reduce their production to thirty percent (30%) Private
- The Court approves the stand taken by the Solicitor General that respondents charged the Union with economic sabotage through
there was no clear and unequivocal waiver on the part of petitioner slowdown. Private respondents filed separate charged against
and on the contrary the record shows that it tenaciously pursued its the Union and it member for illegal strike. unfair labor practice
application for their dismissal, but nevertheless in view of the and damages, with prayer for injunction. Petitioners skipped
undisputed findings of illegal strike on the part of the 114 employees work to pay their last respect to the slain Danilo Martinez. who
and illegal lockout on petitioner's part, both parties are in pari delicto was laid to rest. Again on another date petitioner did not report
and such situation warrants the restoration of the status quo ante and for work. Instead, they proceeded to private respondents' office
bringing the parties back to the respective positions before the illegal at Lanang, carrying placards and posters which called for the
strike and illegal lockout through the reinstatement of the said 114 removal of the security guards. the ouster of certain
employees management officials, and the approval of their mass leave
application. Their mass action did not succeed.
2. -Labor Arbiter decision: Illegal strike and employees have lost
Reasoning their employment status and order to desist. NLRC limited the
penalty of dismissal only to the leaders of the illegal strike
LABOR LAW 2 A2010 283 Disini
especially the officers of the union who served as its major player and Overseas, et al., we ruled that these steps are mandatory in
union members were merely instigated to participate in the illegal strike character. thus:
and should be treated differently from their leaders. Petitioners claim
that public respondent NLRC gravely abused it discretion. "If only the filing of the strike notice and the strike-vote report
would be deemed mandatory. but not the waiting periods so
Issue WON the strike is legal specifically and emphatically prescribed by law, the purposes
Held (hereafter discussed) for which the filing of the strike notice and
No. The applicable law are Articles 263 and 264 of the Labor Code, as strike-vote report is required cannot be achieved . . .
amended by E.O. No. 111, dated December 24. 1986. xxx xxx xxx
Paragraphs (c) and (f) of Article 263 of the Labor Code, as amended by "So too, the 7 day strike-vote report is not without a purpose. As
E.O. 111, provides. pointed out by the Solicitor General -
"c) In cases of bargaining deadlocks. the duly certified or '. . . The submission of the report gives assurance that a strike
recognized bargaining agent may file a notice of strike or the vote has been taken and that, if the report concerning it is false,
employer may file a notice of lockout with the Ministry at least 30 the majority of the members can take appropriate remedy before
days before the intended date thereof. In cases of unfair labor it is too late.'
practice, the notice shall be 15 days and in the absence of a duly
The seven (7) day waiting period is intended to give the
certified or recognized bargaining agent, the notice of strike may be
Department of Labor and Employment an opportunity to verify
filed by any legitimate labor organization in behalf of its member.
whether the projected strike really carries the imprimatur of the
However, in case of dismissal from employment of union officer duly majority of the union members. The need for assurance that
elected in accordance with the union constitution and by-laws, which majority of the union members support the strike cannot be
may constitute union busting where the existence of the union is gainsaid. Strike is usually the last weapon of labor to be
threatened, the 15-day cooling-off period shall not apply and the gainsaid. Strike compel capital to concede to its bargaining
union may take action immediately. demands or to defend itself against unfair labor practices of
xxx xxx xxx management. It is a weapon that can either breathe life to or
"f) A decision to declare a strike must be approved by a majority of destroy the union and its members in their struggle with
the total union membership in the bargaining unit concerned, management for a more equitable due of their labors. The
obtained by secret ballot in meetings or referenda called for that decision to wield the weapon of strike must, therefore, rest on a
purpose. A decision to declare a lockout must be approved by a rational basis, free from emotionalism. unswayed by the tempers
majority of the board of director of the corporation or association or and tantrums of a few hothead, and firmly focused on the
of the partner in a partnership, obtained by secret ballot in a meeting legitimate interest of the union which should not, however, be
called for that purpose. The decision shall be valid for the duration antithetical to the public welfare. Thus, our laws require the
of the dispute based on substantially the same grounds considered decision to strike to be the consensus of the majority for while
majority is not infallible, still, it is the best hedge against haste
when the strike or lockout vote was taken. The Ministry may, at its
and error. In addition, a majority vote assures the union it will go
own initiative or upon the request of any affected party, supervise to war against management with the strength derived from unity
the conduct of secret ballot In every case the union or the employer and hence, with better chance to succeed. In Batangas Laguna
shall furnish the Ministry the result of the voting at least seven (7) Tayabas Bus Company vs. NLRC, we held:
days before the intended strike or lockout subject to the cooling-off xxx xxx xxx
period herein provided. "The right to strike is one of the right recognized and guaranteed
by the Constitution as an instrument of labor for it protection
Article 264 of the same Code reads: against exploitation by management. by virtue of his right. the
"Art 264. Prohibited activities. - (a) No labor organization or workers are able to press their demands for better terms of
employer shall declared a strike or lockout without first having employment with more energy and persuasiveness. poising the
bargained collectively in accordance with Title VII of this Book threat to strike at their reaction to employer s intransigence. The
or without first having filed the notice required in the preceding strike is indeed a powerful weapon of the working class. But
Article or without the necessary strike or lockout vote first having precisely because of this, it must be handled carefully like a
been obtained and reported to the Ministry. sensitive explosive, but it blow up in the workers' own hands.
xxx xxx xxx Thus. it must de declared only after the most thoughtful
". . . Any union officer who knowingly participates in an illegal strike and consultation among them, conducted in the only was allowed
any worker or union officer who knowingly participates in the that is, peacefully, and in every case conformably to reasonable
commission of illegal acts during a strike may be declared to have lost regulation. Any violation of the legal requirements and
his employment status: Provided that mere participation of a worker in a strictures, . . . will render the strike illegal. to the detriment of the
lawful strike shall not constitute sufficient ground for termination of his very workers it is supposed to protect.
employment, even if a replacement had been hired by the employer "Every war must be lawfully waged. A labor dispute demands no
during such lawful strike." less observance of the rules. for the benefit of all concerned."
A strike is "any temporary stoppage of work by the concerted action of Applying the law to the case at bar, we rule that strike conducted
employees as a result of an industrial or labor dispute." It is the most by the union on October 12, 1988 is plainly illegal as it was held
preeminent of the economic weapons or workers which they unsheathe within the seven (7) day waiting period provided for by paragraph
to force management to agree to an equitable sharing of the point (f), Article 263 of the Labor Code. as amended. The haste in
product of labor and capital. Undeniably, strikes exert some disquieting holding the strike prevented the Department of Labor and
effects not only on the relationship between labor and management but Employment from verifying whether it carried the approval of the
also on the general peace and progress of society. Our laws thus majority of the union members. It set to naught an important
regulate their exercise within reasons by balancing the interests of labor policy consideration of our law on strike. Considering this finding,
and management together with the overarching public interest. we need not exhaustively rule on the legality of the work
stoppage conducted by the union and some of their members on
Some of the limitations on the exercise of the right of strike are provided September 9 and 23, 1988. Suffice to state, that the ruling of the
for in paragraph (c) and (f) of Article 263 of the labor Code, as amended, public respondent on the matter is supported by substantial
supra. They provide for the procedural steps to be followed before evidence.
staging a strike - filing of notice of strike, taking of strike vote, and
reporting of the strike vote result to the Department of Labor and Disposition Reinstating rank-and-file workers who were merely
Employment. In National Federation of Sugar Workers (NFSW) vs. misled in supporting illegal strikes but not be entitled to
LABOR LAW 2 A2010 284 Disini
backwages as they should not be compensated for services skipped including conciliation, and shall enforce their
during the illegal strike. Dismissed. mutual compliance therewith to foster industrial
peace.
The State shall regulate the relations between
6) Improved Offer Balloting and Strikes – A.265 workers and employers, recognizing the right of
labor to its just share in the fruits of production
ART. 265. Improved offer balloting. - In an effort to and the right of enterprises to reasonable returns
settle a strike, the Department of Labor and to investments, and to expansion and growth.
Employment shall conduct a referendum by secret ballot
on the improved offer of the employer on or before the AGRARIAN AND NATURAL RESOURCES REFORM
30th day of the strike. When at least a majority of the Section 4. The State shall, by law, undertake an
union members vote to accept the improved offer the agrarian reform program founded on the right of
striking workers shall immediately return to work and farmers and regular farmworkers who are
the employer shall thereupon readmit them upon the landless, to own directly or collectively the lands
signing of the agreement. they till or, in the case of other farmworkers, to
receive a just share of the fruits thereof. To this
In case of a lockout, the Department of Labor and end, the State shall encourage and undertake the
Employment shall also conduct a referendum by secret just distribution of all agricultural lands, subject to
balloting on the reduced offer of the union on or before such priorities and reasonable retention limits as
the 30th day of the lockout. When at least a majority of the Congress may prescribe, taking into account
the board of directors or trustees or the partners ecological, developmental, or equity
holding the controlling interest in the case of a considerations, and subject to the payment of just
partnership vote to accept the reduced offer, the compensation. In determining retention limits, the
workers shall immediately return to work and the State shall respect the right of small landowners.
employer shall thereupon readmit them upon the The State shall further provide incentives for
signing of the agreement. (Incorporated by Section 28, voluntary land-sharing.
Republic Act No. 6715, March 21, 1989).
2. Nature and Purpose of Picket Line
9.03. PICKETING
1. Definition- Law Dictionary & Bases STA ROSA COCA-COLA PLANT EMPLOYEES
UNION (union), ET AL V COCA-COLA
ART. 263. Strikes, picketing and lockouts. - (a) It is the BOTTLERS PHILS INC (company)
policy of the State to encourage free trade unionism and 312 SCRA 437
free collective bargaining. CALLEJO, SR; January 24, 2007

(b) Workers shall have the right to engage in concerted NATURE


activities for purposes of collective bargaining or for This is a petition for review on certiorari of the Decision of the
CA, which affirmed the ruling of the NLRC and the Labor Arbiter
their mutual benefit and protection. The right of
legitimate labor organizations to strike and picket and of FACTS
employers to lockout, consistent with the national - The union is the sole and exclusive bargaining representative
interest, shall continue to be recognized and respected. of the regular paid workers and the manthly paid non-
However, no labor union may strike and no employer ccommission earning employees of the comopany. individual
petitioners are union officers,directors and shop stewards.
may declare a lockout on grounds involving inter-union - The union and the company entered into a 3 year CBA. upon
and intra-union disputes. the expiration, the union told the company that they wanted to
negotiate the terms. the union insisted that representatives from
1987 Consti- Art Xiii LABOR Alyansa ng mga Unyon ng Coca Cola be allowed to observe the
Section 3. The State shall afford full protection to labor, CBA meetings. the company refused to allow alyansa to observe
and an impasse ensued. union officers, directors and stewards
local and overseas, organized and unorganized, and filed a notice of strrice with NCMB based on deadlock on CBA
promote full employment and equality of employment and unfair labor practice arising from the company's refusal to
opportunities for all. bargain. the grounds were ammended to unfair labor practice for
It shall guarantee the rights of all workers to self- the company's refusal to bargain in good faith and interference
organization, collective bargaining and negotiations, and with the exercise if their right to self-organization.
- pending the notice to strike, the union decided to participate in
peaceful concerted activities, including the right to
a mass action by alyansa in front of the company's premises.
strike in accordance with law. They shall be entitled to operations would come to complete stops for insufficiency of
security of tenure, humane conditions of work, and a contractual employees who would take over. after the mass
living wage. They shall also participate in policy and strike (separate and distinct from the mass action), the company
decision-making processes affecting their rights and filed to declare strike illegal, to declare the officers of union and
benefits as may be provided by law. individual respondents to have lost their employment status, to
declare the union, its officers and members guilty of unfair labor
The State shall promote the principle of shared practice to violation of the CBA, and to award them damages.
responsibility between workers and employers and the - the LA found the strike to be illegal such that the participants
preferential use of voluntary modes in settling disputes, lost their employment status. the CA affirmed the decision.
LABOR LAW 2 A2010 285 Disini
basis of the pendency of the various criminal cases against
ISSUE/S striking members of the Unions, issued an order restraining the
1. WON the mass action wit Alyansa is actually a strike strikers, until further orders of the said court, from stopping,
impeding, obstructing, etc. the free and peaceful use of the
HELD Companies' gates, entrance and driveway and the free
1. YES movement of persons and vehicles to and from, out and in, of
Ratio The factual findings and conclusions of tribunals, as long as the Companies' building.
based on substantial evidence, are conclusive on the SC.
Reasoning The term strike2 encompasses not only concerted work - Insular Life, again through Olbes, sent individually to the
stoppages, but also slowdowns, mass leaves, sit-downs, attempts to strikers a letter quoted hereunder in its entirety:
damage, destroy or sabotage plant equipment and facilities, and similar The first day of the strike was last 21 May 1958.
activities. Picketing involves merely the marching to and fro at the Our position remains unchanged and the strike has made us
premises of the employer, usually accompanied by the display of even more convinced of our decision.
placards and other signs making known the facts involved in a labor We do not know how long you intend to stay out, but we cannot
dispute. That there was a labor dispute between the parties is not an hold your positions open for long. We have continued to operate
issue. Petitioners notified the respondent of their intention to stage a and will continue to do so with or without you.
strike, and not merely to picket. If you are still interested in continuing in the employ of the Group
Companies, and if there are no criminal charges pending against
Disposition Petition is denied for lack of merit. CA decision is affirmed. you, we are giving you until 2 June 1958 to report for work at the
home office. If by this date you have not yet reported, we may be
forced to obtain your replacement.
INSULAR LIFE EMPLOYEES V INSULAR LIFE Before, the decisions was yours to make.
37 SCRA 244 So it is now.
CASTRO; January 30, 1971 - Incidentally, all of the more than 120 criminal charges filed
against the members of the Unions, except 3, were dismissed by
NATURE the fiscal's office and by the courts.
Appeal, by certiorari to review a decision and a resolution en banc of the - At any rate, because of the issuance of the writ of preliminary
Court of Industrial Relations dated August 17, 1965 and October 20, injunction against them as well as the ultimatum of the
1965, respectively, in Case 1698-ULP. Companies giving them until June 2, 1958 to return to their jobs
or else be replaced, the striking employees decided to call off
FACTS their strike and to report back to work on June 2, 1958.
- Because of deadlock and stalemate on CBA, the Unions went on a - However, before readmitting the strikers, the Companies
strike and picketed on the premises of the employer. required them not only to secure clearances from the City
- Insular Life, through Olbes, its president, sent to each of the strikers a Fiscal's Office of Manila but also to be screened by a
letter quoted verbatim as follows: management committee. The screening committee initially
We recognize it is your privilege both to strike and to conduct rejected 83 strikers with pending criminal charges. However, all
picketing. non-strikers with pending criminal charges which arose from the
However, if any of you would like to come back to work voluntarily, breakthrough incident were readmitted immediately by the
you may: Companies without being required to secure clearances from the
1. Advise the nearest police officer or security guard of your intention fiscal's office. Subsequently, when practically all the strikers had
to do so. secured clearances from the fiscal's office, the Companies
2. Take your meals within the office. readmitted only some but adamantly refused readmission to 34
3. Make a choice whether to go home at the end of the day or to sleep officials and members of the Unions who were most active in the
nights at the office where comfortable cots have been prepared. strike, on the ground that they committed "acts inimical to the
4. Enjoy free coffee and occasional movies. interest of the respondents," without however stating the specific
5. Be paid overtime for work performed in excess of eight hours. acts allegedly committed. Among those who were refused
6. Be sure arrangements will be made for your families. readmission is Florencio Ibarra, president of the FGU Insurance
The decision to make is yours whether you still believe in the motives of Group Workers & Employees Association-NATU. Some 24 of the
the strike or in the fairness of the Management. above number were ultimately notified months later that they
were being dismissed retroactively as of June 2, 1958 and given
- Unions continued strike with the exception of a few employees. separation pay checks computed under Rep. Act 1787, while
- From the date the strike was called until it was called off, some others (ten in number) up to now have not been readmitted
management men tried to break thru the Unions' picket lines. Garcia, although there have been no formal dismissal notices given to
assistant corporate secretary, and Abella, chief of the personnel records them.
section, respectively of the Companies, tried to penetrate the picket lines
in front of the Insular Life Building. Garcia, upon approaching the picket ISSUE/S
line, tossed aside the placard of a picketer, one Paulino Bugay; a fight 1. WON an employee may be refused readmission because he
ensued between them, in which both suffered injuries. The Companies committed acts inimical to the interest of the respondents when,
organized three bus-loads of employees, including a photographer, who as Union president, he advised the strikers that they could use
with respondent Olbes, succeeded in penetrating the picket lines in front force and violence to have a successful picket and that picketing
of the Insular Life Building, thus causing injuries to the picketers and was precisely intended to prevent the non-strikers and company
also to the strike-breakers due to the resistance offered by some clients and customers from entering the Companies' buildings.
picketers.
- Alleging that some non-strikers were injured and with the use of HELD
photographs as evidence, the Companies then filed criminal charges 1. NO
against the strikers with the City Fiscal's Office of Manila. During the Reasoning Even if this were true, the record discloses that the
pendency of the said cases in the fiscal's office, the Companies likewise picket line had been generally peaceful, and that incidents
filed a petition for injunction with damages with CFI Manila which, on the happened only when management men made incursions into
and tried to break the picket line. At any rate, with or without the
2 advice of Ibarra, picketing is inherently explosive. For, as pointed
Article 212(o) of the Labor Code defines strike as a temporary out by one author, "The picket line is an explosive front, charged
stoppage of work by the concerted action of employees as a result of an with the emotions and fierce loyalties of the union-management
industrial or labor dispute.
LABOR LAW 2 A2010 286 Disini
dispute. It may be marked by colorful name-calling, intimidating threats out, it cannot be curtailed even in the absence of employer-
or sporadic fights between the pickets and those who pass the line." employee relationship. The right is, however, not absolute. While
(Mathews, Labor Relations and the Law, p. 752). The picket line being peaceful picketing is entitled to protection as an exercise of free
the natural result of the respondents' unfair labor practice, Ibarra's speech, courts are not without power to confine or localize the
misconduct is at most a misdemeanor which is not a bar to sphere of communication or the demonstration to the parties to
reinstatement. the labor dispute, including those with related interest, and to
insulate establishments or persons with no industrial connection
Disposition ACCORDINGLY, the decision of the Court of Industrial or having interest totally foreign to the context of the dispute.
Relations dated August 17, 1965 is reversed and set aside, and another Thus the right may be regulated at the instance of third parties or
is entered, ordering the respondents to reinstate the dismissed members "innocent bystanders" if it appears that the inevitable result of its
of the petitioning Unions to their former or comparatively similar exercise is to create an impression that a labor dispute with
positions, with backwages from June 2, 1958 up to the dates of their which they have no connection or interest exists between them
actual reinstatements. Costs against the respondents. and the picketing union or constitute an invasion of their rights.
- The SC however annulled both injunctions for failure of both
Wellington and Galang to file the necessary bonds before
issuance of the two preliminary injunctions as required in Rule 58
SECURITY BANK EMPLOYEES UNION V SECURITY Sec 4.
BANK AND TRUST CO Disposition Certiorari is GRANTED without prejudice to the right
MORTERA V CIR of Wellington and Galang to secure other ones after filing the
necessary bonds.
PAFLU V CLORIBEL
27 SCRA 465
REYES, JBL; March 28, 1969
MORTERA v CIR
NATURE (Sarah cAbrera)
Petition for certiorari with preliminary injunction to annul

FACTS
- MetroBank located at the ground floor of the Wellington Bldg in 624 PAFLU V CLORIBEL
Plaza Calderon, Binondo, Manila was picketed by the Philippine 27 SCRA 465
Association of Free Labor Unions (PAFLU). Wellington complained, REYES, JBL; March 28, 1969
however, that the picketers were annoyingly blocking the common
passageway of the building, the only ingress and egress to the second NATURE
to the sixth floors. The other occupants demanded protection of their Petition for certiorari with preliminary injunction to annul
peaceful enjoyment of and free access to and from, the premises leased
by them. Wellington charged PAFLU of undue interference not only with FACTS
its enjoyment of its property and business of leasing and administering - MetroBank located at the ground floor of the Wellington Bldg in
the same but also with the businesses of the neutral tenants. 624 Plaza Calderon, Binondo, Manila was picketed by the
- Judge Cloribel of the CFI of Manila issued an injunction against Philippine Association of Free Labor Unions (PAFLU). Wellington
PAFLU. PAFLU filed the present petition in the SC, alleging that Judge complained, however, that the picketers were annoyingly
Cloribel acted without jurisdiction and with grave abuse of discretion in blocking the common passageway of the building, the only
issuing the order, in violation of the Industrial Peace Act. Nowhere in the ingress and egress to the second to the sixth floors. The other
complaint was there an allegation of the unavoidable, substantial, and occupants demanded protection of their peaceful enjoyment of
irreparable injury to Wellington's property as would justify the issuance and free access to and from, the premises leased by them.
of the TRO without notice. And neither was there a bond sufficient to Wellington charged PAFLU of undue interference not only with
recompense those enjoined for any loss, expense, or damage caused its enjoyment of its property and business of leasing and
by the improvident or erroneous issuance of the order. The SC granted administering the same but also with the businesses of the
the TRO. neutral tenants.
- PAFLU filed a supplemental petition for certiorari in the SC protesting - Judge Cloribel of the CFI of Manila issued an injunction against
the issuance in a different case (filed by co-lessee Emmanuel Galang) PAFLU. PAFLU filed the present petition in the SC, alleging that
but by the same judge, of another injunction couched in exactly the Judge Cloribel acted without jurisdiction and with grave abuse of
same words. discretion in issuing the order, in violation of the Industrial Peace
Act. Nowhere in the complaint was there an allegation of the
ISSUE unavoidable, substantial, and irreparable injury to Wellington's
WON the two cases involve, or grow out of, a labor dispute property as would justify the issuance of the TRO without notice.
And neither was there a bond sufficient to recompense those
HELD enjoined for any loss, expense, or damage caused by the
NO. improvident or erroneous issuance of the order. The SC granted
Reasoning There exists no labor dispute between PAFLU and either the TRO.
Wellington or Galang. The strike and the picket are directed against - PAFLU filed a supplemental petition for certiorari in the SC
METROBANK, an entirely different and separate entity without protesting the issuance in a different case (filed by co-lessee
connection whatsoever with WeIlington and Galang other than the Emmanuel Galang) but by the same judge, of another injunction
incidental fact that they are the bank's landlord and co-lessee, couched in exactly the same words.
respectively. Their relationship is so remote that we fail to discern any
indicium of said complainants' interests in the labor dispute between the ISSUE
union and METROBANK as to make the two cases below fall within the WON the two cases involve, or grow out of, a labor dispute
purview of RA 975 which provides that a labor dispute exists "regardless
of whether the disputants stand in the proximate relation of employer HELD
and employee". The applicable law, therefore, is Rule 58 of the Rules of NO.
Court on injunction. Reasoning There exists no labor dispute between PAFLU and
- [NATURE & PURPOSE OF PICKET LINE] The right to picket as a either Wellington or Galang. The strike and the picket are
means of communicating the facts of a labor dispute is a phase of the directed against METROBANK, an entirely different and
freedom of speech guaranteed by the constitution. If peacefully carried separate entity without connection whatsoever with WeIlington
LABOR LAW 2 A2010 287 Disini
and Galang other than the incidental fact that they are the bank's
landlord and co-lessee, respectively. Their relationship is so remote that Disposition Appealed decision is affirmed.
we fail to discern any indicium of said complainants' interests in the labor
dispute between the union and METROBANK as to make the two cases
below fall within the purview of RA 975 which provides that a labor
4. Employer- Employee Relationship
dispute exists "regardless of whether the disputants stand in the
proximate relation of employer and employee". The applicable law,
therefore, is Rule 58 of the Rules of Court on injunction.
- [NATURE & PURPOSE OF PICKET LINE] The right to picket as a DE LEON, LVN PICTURES, SAMPAGUITA
means of communicating the facts of a labor dispute is a phase of the
freedom of speech guaranteed by the constitution. If peacefully carried
PICTURES, LEBRAN PICTURES, PREMIER
out, it cannot be curtailed even in the absence of employer-employee PICTURES V. NATIONAL LABOR UNION,
relationship. The right is, however, not absolute. While peaceful LERUM, HERNANDEZ, BARTOLOME,
picketing is entitled to protection as an exercise of free speech, courts CABRERA, RAMOS, ET AL.
are not without power to confine or localize the sphere of communication
or the demonstration to the parties to the labor dispute, including those
100 PHIL 789
with related interest, and to insulate establishments or persons with no PADILLA; Jan 30, 1957
industrial connection or having interest totally foreign to the context of
the dispute. Thus the right may be regulated at the instance of third NATURE
parties or "innocent bystanders" if it appears that the inevitable result of Appeal from judgment of CFI
its exercise is to create an impression that a labor dispute with which
they have no connection or interest exists between them and the FACTS
picketing union or constitute an invasion of their rights. - Plaintiffs sought to recover damages and injunctive relief.
- The SC however annulled both injunctions for failure of both Wellington - Defendants have been picketing Dalisay Theater, owned by De
and Galang to file the necessary bonds before issuance of the two Leon, operated by co-plaintiffs.
preliminary injunctions as required in Rule 58 Sec 4. - Purpose is to secure reinstatement to jobs when theater was
Disposition Certiorari is GRANTED without prejudice to the right of run by Filipino Theatrical Enterprises, then a lessee of parcel of
Wellington and Galang to secure other ones after filing the necessary De Leon’s land.
bonds. - Placards:
- Do not patronize the Dalisay Theater
- Dalisay Theater is unfair to labor.
- Have mercy on the picketeers.
3. Picketing and Libel Laws - Sympathize with us.
- Due to picketing, box office totaled P1,250 when a premier of

RPC.
Art. 353. Definition of libel. — A libel is public and malicious imputation of a crime, or of a vice or defect, real
or imaginary, or any act, omission, condition, status, or circumstance tending to cause the dishonor,
discredit, or contempt of a natural or juridical person, or to blacken the memory of one who is dead.

film such as “Dimas” could have earned P2,500 gross receipt.

ISSUE
PHIL. COMMERCIAL & INDUSTRIAL BANK V WON strike is illegal
PHILNABANK EMPLOYEES ASSOC.
105 SCRA 314 HELD
FERNANDO; July 2, 1981 NO
- Walking back and forth, displaying placards, do not disturb
public peace.
FACTS - There was no existence of a relationship of employers and
- Philippine Commercial and Industrial Bank filed an action for libel employees between plaintiffs and defendants, although purpose
against the Philippine National Bank Employees’ Association as a result of picket is to reinstate defendants. PICKETING PEACEFULLY
of placards and signboards along the PNB building, containing the CARRIED OUT IS NOT ILLEGAL EVEN IN THE ABSENCE OF
following: "PCIB BAD ACCOUNTS TRANSFERRED TO PNB-NIDC?" EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP FOR PEACEFUL
- Lower court dismissed the complaint PICKETING IS PART OF THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH.
ISSUE
WON the said placards were libelous

HELD
NO. CRUZ V CINEMA STAGE
- There was a labor controversy resulting in a strike, fortunately lasting (edel cruz)
only for one day. The labor union made use of its constitutional right to
picket. Peaceful picketing is part of the freedom of speech guarantee of
the Constitution.
- Labor disputes give rise to strong emotional response. It is a fact of
industrial life, both in the Philippines as in the United States, that in the 5. Curtailment
continuing confrontation between labor and management, it is far from
likely that the language employed would be both courteous and polite.
- In no uncertain terms, it made clear that the judiciary, in deciding suits FREE TELEPHONE WORKERS UNION V PHILIPPINE LONG
for libel, must ascertain whether or not the alleged offending words may DISTANCE TELEPHONE COMPANY and COURT OF
be embraced by the guarantees of free speech and free press. INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS
113 SCRA 662
LABOR LAW 2 A2010 288 Disini
MAKASIAR; April 27, 1982 1965 and the court's partial decision of November 9, 1964, and
praying that the strikers be ordered to return to work or else
FACTS forfeit their jobs. Respondent company further prayed therein
On November 1, 1964, petitioner declared a strike against respondent that petitioner and its officers and agents and/or sympathizers be
company to break an impasse over negotiations on a 20-point economic directed to lift and remove the pickets posted in the different
demand, among which was a demand for wage increase covering a premises of the company and that the strike of the petitioner be
period of three years - 1964 to 1967. On November 3, 1964, the declared illegal and the officers of the petitioner be held in
President of the Philippines, upon authority of Section 10 of Republic Act contempt of court and, therefore, to have lost their status as
No. 875 [Industrial Peace Act], certified the labor dispute as one clearly employees effective July 7. 1965, the date of the strike. On July
affecting an industry indispensable to the national interest, to the Court 9, 1965, petitioner moved to dismiss the aforesaid respondent
of Industrial Relations, hereinafter referred to as respondent CIR. company's urgent motion.

On November 9, 1964, the respondent CIR, after hearing, issued a On July 16, 1965, after due hearing, the trial judge of respondent
partial decision. From the above November 9, 1964 partial decision, CIR issued an order denying petitioner's June 3, 1965 motion to
petitioner interposed an appeal with the Supreme Court mainly on the dismiss respondent company's June 2, 1965 petition for the
sufficiency of the amount granted as increase. The Supreme Court issuance of writ of preliminary injunction.
affirmed, on July 31, 1970, the November 9, 1964 decision of the
respondent CIR and held that the sixteen centavo [P0.16] increase per On July 17, 1965, petitioner, without first returning to work as
hour per employee effective for a period of one [1] year from November above directed, filed with the respondent CIR its motion for
9, 1964, was supported by substantial evidence. reconsideration of the aforesaid July 16, 1965 order. With the
above motion for reconsideration still unacted upon by the
Meanwhile, or on April 21, 1965, Republic Act No. 4180 was enacted, respondent CIR, petitioner on July 19, 1965 filed with this Court
raising the minimum wage to P6.00 a day. Accordingly, respondent its urgent petition for certiorari and prohibitory and mandatory
company increased the wages of its workers who were receiving below injunction docketed as G. R. No. L-24755, questioning the power
P6. 00 a day, in addition to the PO.16 per hour previously awarded by and jurisdiction of respondent CIR. On July 20, 1965, this Court
the respondent CIR in its partial decision of November 9, 1964. On April dismissed the aforesaid petition for "being premature and for
27, 1965, petitioner asked for wage re-adjustment negotiations with the lack of merit"
respondent company, claiming that when the respondent company
automatically raised the minimum wages of its employees receiving less On July 31, 1965 respondent CIR denied petitioner's July 17,
than P6.00 a day in compliance with R. A. 4180, a proportionate 1965 motion for reconsideration of the July 6 and 16, 1965
increase with respect to those employees already receiving P6.00 a day orders of the trial judge Paredes. Hence, this recourse of
at the effectivity of R. A. 4180 should be subject of negotiations. petitioner, questioning the validity of the aforesaid July 6 and 16,
Respondent company countered that it could not negotiate with 1965 orders of the CIR and the July 31, 1965 en banc resolution
petitioner on the matter because such wage re-adjustment would, in of respondent CIR. The order of July 6, 1965 enjoined petitioner
effect, be a wage increase which was connected with the wage increase union from declaring a strike or any specie thereof during the
demand of petitioner in the pending case certified on November 3, 1964 pendency of the issue raised in its motion to dismiss. On the
by the President of the Philippines. other hand, the order of July 16, 1965:
Consequently, petitioner presented on May 6, 1965 to respondent [a] directed petitioner union, its officers, agents and/or
company a demand for an automatic P0.25 per hour wage increase for assigns and sympathizers:
all rank-and-file employees receiving above P0.75 per hour on account (1) to call-off the strike declared on July 7, 1965; and
of the implementation of the new statutory minimum wage of P6.00 a (2) to lift the picket lines established in and around the
day. On May 17,1965, when Case No. 51-IPA, was still pending premises of respondent company's various offices and
decision, petitioner again filed a notice of strike with the Department of installations.
Labor for refusal of respondent company to negotiate on its demand for [b] enjoined the persons manning the picket lines in these
wage adjustment under Republic Act No. 4180, which allegedly places from impeding and interfering with the
constitutes unfair labor practice. implementation of said order as well as from interfering in
On June 2, 1965, respondent company, sensing that petitioner would any manner with the operations of respondent;
really go on strike, filed with respondent CIR a petition for the issuance [c] directed the striking employees to return to work within
of writ of preliminary injunction as an incident of pending Case No. 51- three [3] days from receipt of a copy of the order by
IPA. Respondent company prayed therein of the respondent CIR to petitioner; and
enjoin petitioner from striking as petitioner and respondent company had [d] authorized respondent company to replace any and an
previously agreed on March 3, 1965 to submit all further disputes to the of such striking employees, who fail to return to work within
respondent CIR and that a strike under the situation would violate the said period of three [3] days, provided that employees
respondent CIR's November 9, 1964 order. who shall have been replaced may be reinstated by the
Court after due hearing and after establishing good and
On June 3, 1965, petitioner filed a motion to dismiss the aforesaid valid grounds for their failure to return to work as directed in
petition of June 2, 1965 on the ground that respondent CIR has no the order.
jurisdiction to consider it. On July 6, 1965, the respondent CIR acting in
Case No. 51-IPA [2] confirmed the action of the Hearing Examiner ISSUE
therein and issued a temporary restraining order enjoining petitioner WON respondent CIR's order of July 16, 1965 violates the
from declaring a strike or any specie thereof during the pendency of the constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech because it called
issue of jurisdiction. for the lifting of peaceful picket lines.
HELD
On July 7, 1965, petitioner filed with the respondent CIR a motion for NO. Indeed, it is now well-settled that peaceful picketing cannot
reconsideration of the aforesaid order, alleging substantially the same be restrained because the same is part of the freedom of speech
grounds contained in its June 3, 1965 motion to dismiss. On the same (PCIB v. PNBEA 105 SCRA 314, 318 [1981]; Associated Labor
day, petitioner declared a strike. According to petitioner, the strike was Union vs. Gomez, 96 SCRA 551 [1980]; Mortera v. CIR, 79 Phil.
precipitated by the [1] summary dismissal of two of its members without 345 [1947]; PAFLU vs. Barot, 99 Phil. 1008 [1956]; De Leon vs.
a prior investigation at which it should be represented; and [2] NLU 100 Phil. 789 [1957]). But petitioner fails to realize that the
respondent company's continued refusal to negotiate on its demand for questioned July 16, 1965 order of the Court of Industrial
wage re-adjustment. On July 8, 1965, respondent company filed with the Relations did not refer to peaceful picketing. For the order partly
respondent C I R an urgent motion to declare the July 7, 1965 strike of reads, thus:
petitioner illegal, the same being violative of the no-strike order of July 6,
LABOR LAW 2 A2010 289 Disini
Pursuant to the Partial Decision in relation to Section 19 of C. A. 103, as -the labor union filed petition before the Supreme Court
amended, the petitioner union, its officers, agents and/or assigns and
sympathizers are hereby directed to call off the strike declared on July 7, ISSUE
1965, and to lift the picket lines established in and around the premises WON wholesale condemnation of peaceful picketing is bereft of
of respondent company's various offices and installations in Manila, support in law
Quezon City, Pasay City, Caloocan City, Dagupan City, Baguio City,
San Pablo City, Iloilo City, Bacolod City, Cebu City, Zamboanga City, HELD
Makati, Rizal, Mandaluyong, Rizal, San Juan, Rizal, San Fernando, -YES. Wholesale condemnation of peaceful picketing is
Pampanga, Mabalacat, Pampanga, Lucena, Quezon and Baler, likewise clearly bereft of support in law. As pointed out in a
Quezon. The persons manning the picket lines in these places are very recent decision decided this year, Phil. Assn. of Free Labor
hereby enjoined from impeding and interfering with the implementation Unions (PAFLU) v. CFI of Rizal: "It need not be stressed that
of this Order as well as from interfering in any manner with the peaceful picketing is embraced in freedom of expression. As
operations of respondent.. emphatically declared in Philippine Commercial & Industrial Bank
v. Philnabank Employees' Association: 'From the time of Mortera
In Mortera, supra, where the therein questioned order partly declared v. Court of Industrial Relations, a 1947 decision this Court has
that "picketing under any guise and form is hereby prohibited," this Court been committed to the view that peaceful picketing is part of the
ruled that the "order of the Court of Industrial Relations prohibiting freedom of speech guarantee of the Constitution.' Reference
picketing must be understood to refer only to illegal picketing, that is, was made in such opinion to Associated Labor Union v. Gomez.
picketing through the use of illegal means. Peaceful picketing cannot be In that case, the Court characterized the orders complained of as
prohibited. It is part of the freedom of speech guaranteed by the being 'fatally defective, suffering as it did from the infirmity that
Constitution. Therefore, the order of the Court of Industrial Relations peaceful picketing was enjoined.' It is in that sense that
must be understood to refer only to illegal picketing, that is, picketing Presidential Decree No. 849 was a step in the right direction for
through the use of illegal means" [p. 351]. In this case, the questioned the status of picketing was again accorded due recognition."
order should also be taken as limited to the lifting of the picket lines In the answer, reference was made to the alleged commission of
which constituted illegal picketing especially so because it expressly acts of violence against non-striking employees and even
stated that the petitioner union and its officers, agents or sympathizers against the eighty-year old "sickly and paralytic President" of
"are hereby directed to call-off the strike declared on July 7, 1965, and to respondent. It is to be understood, of course, that the peaceful
lift the picket lines established in and around the premises of respondent picketing authorized cannot certainly countenance acts of
company's various offices and installations. The persons manning the illegality. The interim Batasang Pambansa has spoken on the
picket lines in these places are hereby enjoined from impeding and subject thus: "(e) No person engaged in picketing shall commit
interfering with implementation of this Order as well as from interfering in any act of violence, coercion or intimidation or obstruct the free
any manner with the operations of respondent." ingress to or egress from the employer's premises for lawful
purposes, or obstruct public thoroughfares."
Dispositive Resolution affirmed
Disposition In view of the settlement of the labor dispute
between the parties, and the workers are back to work-
NAGKAHIUSANG (accdng to lex) MANGGAGAWA SA Dismissed for being moot and academic
CUISON HOTEL V LIBRON
124 SCRA 448
FERNANDO; August 31, 1983. 6. Restrictions, Innocent Third Party Rule and
Liabilities
NATURE
-Certiorari proceeding
LIWAYWAY PUBLISHING v. PERMANENT
FACTS CONCRETE WORKERS UNION
-the Labor Arbiter came out with this decision: "[Wherefore, premises 108 SCRA 161
considered], the strike staged on April 15, 1983 should be, as it is GUERRERO; October 23, 1981
hereby, declared illegal, and, therefore, the respondent union and its
members are permanently enjoined from staging such illegal strike;
NATURE
ordering and declaring, pursuant to Article 265, par. (a) of the Labor
-This is an appeal from the decision of the Court of First Instance
Code, as amended, all the union officers led by Carlito Eleazar,
Marciano Macaraya and Cesar Yap to have lost their employment status
FACTS
for participating in an illegal strike and committing unlawful acts during
-While a labor dispute between defendant-appellant union and
the strike; and ordering the respondent union to pay the petitioner the
Permanent Concrete Products, Inc. was pending before the
amount of Pesos Three Hundred Thirty Nine Thousand (P339,000.00),
Court of Industrial Relations, the Court of First Instance of Manila
representing losses in income suffered during the illegal strike in the
issued in an action for damages filed by the plaintiff-appellee
concept of actual damage." The clarificatory order continues: "The
Liwayway Publications, Inc. a writ of preliminary injunction
consequences resulting from the declaration of a strike as illegal, which
against appellant union which picketed and prevented entrance
is final and immediately executory, carries with it sanctions on the
to the gate leading to the bodega of appellee and threatened its
immediate incidents thereto such as picketing, obstruction of ingress
officers and employees despite the fact that the appellee is not in
and egress, the banners and streamers being hung in the premises and
anyway related to the striking union but a mere sublessee of said
makeshifts built within the immediate vicinity of the establishment struck.
bodega in the compound of Permanent Concrete Products, Inc.
Once the strikers are permanently enjoined from staging the illegal
against whom the strike was staged. Appellant union filed a
strike, the picketing staged should also be simultaneously lifted, the
motion to dismiss and motion to dissolve the writ on the ground
obstruction of ingress and egress removed and the makeshifts taken
that only the Court of Industrial Relations and not the Court of
out. In other words, the injunction of the illegal strike and the incidents
First Instance has exclusive jurisdiction over the labor dispute;
thereto is self-executing and it behooves upon the party concerned to
that the appellee has no cause of action against the striking
seek, if necessary, the assistance of the law enforcers to enforce the
union but against the lessor; and that plaintiff-appellee is not the
same." Its last paragraph reads: "The other matters in the aforequoted
real party in interest but Permanent Concrete Products, Inc. The
dispositive portion of our decision, that of termination of the employment
lower court denied the motion for lack of labor dispute between
status of union officers and the award of damages, are also final and
the plaintiff and defendant of which the Court of Industrial
executory, unless appealed to the Commission within the reglementary
Relations may take cognizance and rendered a decision
period."
LABOR LAW 2 A2010 290 Disini
declaring the writ permanent and ordering the payment of damages, engaging in union-busting for violation of the provisions of the
attorney's fees and costs. collective bargaining agreement.
-Thereafter, they picketed and assembled outside the gate of
ISSUE Philtread’s plant.
WON this case involves or has arisen out of a labor dispute. If it does, -Philtread, on the other hand, filed a notice of lockout.
then with certainty, Section 9 of Republic Act 875, the "Industrial Peace -The Secretary of Labor assumed jurisdiction over the labor
Act," would apply. If it does not, then the Rules of Court will govern the dispute and certified it for compulsory arbitration.
issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction because it will not partake -During the pendency of the labor dispute, Philtread entered into
the nature of a labor injunction which the lower court has no jurisdiction a Memorandum of Agreement with Siam Tyre Public Company
to issue. Limited (Siam Tyre) whereby its plant and equipment would be
sold to a new company, herein petitioner, 80% of which would be
HELD owned by Siam Tyre and 20% by Philtread, while the land on
NO. The business of the appellee is exclusively the publication of the which the plant was located would be sold to another company,
magazines Bannawag, Bisaya, Hiligaynon and Liwayway weekly 60% of which would be owned by Philtread and 40% by Siam
magazines which has absolutely no relation or connection whatsoever Tyre.
with the cause of the strike of the union against their company, much -Petitioner then asked respondent Union to desist from picketing
less with the terms, conditions or demands of the strikers. The appellee outside its plant.
is a third party or an "innocent by-stander" whose right has been -As the respondent Union refused petitioner’s request, petitioner
invaded and, therefore, entitled to protection by the regular courts. filed a complaint for injunction with damages before the Regional
-The right to picket as a means of communicating the facts of a labor Trial Court of Makati.
dispute is a phase of the freedom of speech guaranteed by the -Respondent Union moved to dismiss the complaint alleging lack
constitution. If peacefully carried out, it cannot be curtailed even in the of jurisdiction on the part of the trial court.
absence of employer-employee relationship.The right is, however, not -The trial court denied petitioner’s application for injunction and
an absolute one. While peaceful picketing is entitled to protection as an dismissed the complaint.
exercise of free speech, we believe that courts are not without power to -However, on petitioner’s motion, the trial court reconsidered its
confine or localize the sphere of communication or the demonstration to order and granted an injunction.
the parties to the labor dispute, including those with related interest, and -The respondent Union filed a petition for certiorari and
to insulate establishments or persons with no industrial connection or prohibition before the CA.
having interest totally foreign to the context of the dispute. Thus, the -CA ruled in favor of respondent Union, hence, petitioner filed
right may be regulated at the instance of third parties or `innocent this petition asserting that its status as an “innocent bystander”
bystanders' if it appears that the inevitable result of its exercise is to entitled it to a writ of injunction.
create an impression that a labor dispute with which they have no
connection or interest exists between them and the picketing union or ISSUE
constitute an invasion of their rights. In one case decided by this Court, WON petitioner has shown a clear legal right to the issuance of a
we upheld a trial court's injunction prohibiting the union from blocking the writ of injunction under the “innocent bystander” rule
entrance to a feed mill located within the compound of a flour mill with
which the union had a dispute. Although sustained on a different ground, HELD
no connection was found other than their being situated in the same No.
premises. It is to be noted that in the instances cited, peaceful picketing -In Philippine Association of Free Labor Unions (PAFLU) v.
has not been totally banned but merely regulated. And in one American Cloribel, this Court, through Justice J.B.L. Reyes, stated the
case, a picket by a labor union in front of a motion picture theater with “innocent bystander” rule as follows: The right to picket as a
which the union had a labor dispute was enjoined by the court from means of communicating the facts of a labor dispute is a phase
being extended in front of the main entrance of the building housing the of the freedom of speech guaranteed by the constitution. If
theater wherein other stores operated by third persons were located. peacefully carried out, it can not be curtailed even in the
-On appeal, the Supreme Court in upholding the jurisdiction of the lower absence of employer-employee relationship.
court to issue the writ of preliminary injunction, ruled that: (a) there is no -The right is, however, not an absolute one. While peaceful
connection between the appellee, the appellant union and the picketing is entitled to protection as an exercise of free
Permanent Concrete Products, Inc. and the fact, that the latter and speech, we believe the courts are not without power to
appellee are situated in the same premises, can hardly be confine or localize the sphere of communication or the
considered as interwoven with the labor dispute pending with the demonstration to the parties to the labor dispute, including
Court of Industrial Relations; and (b) the acts of the striking union those with related interest, and to insulate establishments
are mere acts of trespass for which the lessee shall have a direct or persons with no industrial connection or having interest
action against the trespasser. totally foreign to the context of the dispute.
-Thus the right may be regulated at the instance of third
Disposition Decision appealed from, affirmed in toto. parties or “innocent bystanders” if it appears that the
inevitable result of its exercise is to create an impression
that a labor dispute with which they have no connection or
interest exists between them and the picketing union or
MSF TIRE AND RUBBER, INC. V CA (PHILTREAD constitute an invasion of their rights.
TIRE WORKERS’ UNION) -Thus, an “innocent bystander,” who seeks to enjoin a labor
311 SCRA 784 strike, must satisfy the court that aside from the grounds
MENDOZA; August 5, 1999 specified in Rule 58 of the Rules of Court, it is entirely different
from, without any connection whatsoever to, either party to the
dispute and, therefore, its interests are totally foreign to the
NATURE
context thereof.
Petiton for review on certiorari of a decision of the CA
-In the case at bar, petitioner cannot be said not to have such
connection to the dispute.
FACTS
-As correctly observed by the appellate court: we find that the
-A labor dispute arose between Philtread Tire and Rubber Corporation
“negotiation, contract of sale, and the post transaction” between
(Philtread) and private respondent, Philtread Tire Workers’ Union
Philtread, as vendor, and Siam Tyre, as vendee, reveals a legal
(Union)
relation between them which, in the interest of petitioner, we
-Union filed a notice of strike in the National Conciliation and Mediation
cannot ignore. To be sure, the transaction between Philtread
Board charging Philtread with unfair labor practices for allegedly
and Siam Tyre, was not a simple sale whereby Philtread ceased
LABOR LAW 2 A2010 291 Disini
to have any proprietary rights over its sold assets. On the contrary,
Philtread remains as 20% owner of private respondent and 60% owner
of Sucat Land Corporation which was likewise incorporated in
accordance with the terms of the Memorandum of Agreement with Siam
Tyre, and which now owns the land were subject plant is located. This,
together with the fact that private respondent uses the same plant or
factory; similar or substantially the same working conditions; same
machinery, tools, and equipment; and manufacture the same products
as Philtread, lead us to safely conclude that private respondent’s
personality is so closely linked to Philtread as to bar its entitlement to an
injunctive writ.

Disposition
Petition is denied.

7. Prohibited Activities – Peaceful Picketing

ART. 264. Prohibited activities. –xxx-


(b) No person shall obstruct, impede, or interfere with,
by force, violence, coercion, threats or intimidation, any
peaceful picketing by employees during any labor
controversy or in the exercise of the right to self-
organization or collective bargaining, or shall aid or abet
such obstruction or interference.

9.04 ROLE OF PEACE OFFICERS DURING


STRIKES AND PICKETING
1. Escorting

ART. 264. Prohibited activities. –xxx-


(d) No public official or employee, including officers and personnel of the New Armed Forces of the
Philippines or the Integrated National Police, or armed person, shall bring in, introduce or escort
in any manner, any individual who seeks to replace strikers in entering or leaving the premises of
a strike area, or work in place of the strikers. The police force shall keep out of the picket lines
unless actual violence or other criminal acts occur therein: Provided, That nothing herein shall be
interpreted to prevent any public officer from taking any measure necessary to maintain peace
and order, protect life and property, and/or enforce the law and legal order.

2. Arrest and Detention of Law Violators

ART. 266. Requirement for arrest and detention. - Except on grounds of national security and public peace or
in case of commission of a crime, no union members or union organizers may be arrested or detained for
union activities without previous consultations with the Secretary of Labor.
LABOR LAW 2 A2010 292 Disini
LABOR LAW 2 A2010 293 Disini
LABOR LAW 2 A2010 294 Disini
LABOR LAW 2 A2010 295 Disini
LABOR LAW 2 A2010 296 Disini
LABOR LAW 2 A2010 297 Disini
LABOR LAW 2 A2010 298 Disini
LABOR LAW 2 A2010 299 Disini
LABOR LAW 2 A2010 300 Disini
LABOR LAW 2 A2010 301 Disini
LABOR LAW 2 A2010 302 Disini
LABOR LAW 2 A2010 303 Disini
LABOR LAW 2 A2010 304 Disini
LABOR LAW 2 A2010 305 Disini
LABOR LAW 2 A2010 306 Disini
LABOR LAW 2 A2010 307 Disini
LABOR LAW 2 A2010 308 Disini
LABOR LAW 2 A2010 309 Disini
LABOR LAW 2 A2010 310 Disini
LABOR LAW 2 A2010 311 Disini
LABOR LAW 2 A2010 312 Disini

S-ar putea să vă placă și