J.
Puno
September
7,
1995
G.R.
Nos.
95494-‐97
Doctrine
A
strike
is
"any
temporary
stoppage
of
work
by
the
concerted
action
of
employees
as
a
result
of
an
industrial
or
labor
dispute." It
is
the
most
preeminent
of
the
economic
weapons
of
workers
which
they
unsheathe
to
force
management
to
agree
to
an
equitable
sharing
of
the
joint
product
of
labor
and
capital.
Undeniably,
strikes
exert
some
disquieting
effects
not
only
on
the
relationship
between
labor
and
management
but
also
on
the
general
peace
and
progress
of
society.
Our
laws
thus
regulate
their
exercise
within
reasons
by
balancing
the
interests
of
labor
and
management
together
with
the
overarching
public
interest.
Some
of
the
limitations
on
the
exercise
of
the
right
of
strike
are
provided
for
in
paragraphs
(c)
and
(f)
of
Article
263
of
the
Labor
Code,
as
amended
Summary
Petitioner
union
struck
against
private
respondents
because
of
many
problems,
especially
the
killing
of
one
of
the
union
members
by
a
security
guard
hired
by
respondents.
The
tribunals
and
the
Court
held
that
the
strike
was
illegal
because
it
failed
to
comply
with
the
requirements
of
law.
Facts
• Petitioner
union
has
a
CBA
with
private
respondents
(sister
companies),
spanning
the
period
from
December
5,
1985
until
November
30,
1988.
A
few
months
before
the
CBA
expired,
private
respondents
initiated
certain
management
policies
that
disrupted
the
relationship
of
the
parties:
o First,
private
respondents
contracted
Philippine
Eagle
Protectors
and
Security
Agency,
Inc,
to
provide
security
services
for
their
business
premises.
Petitioner
union
branded
the
security
guards
as
“goons”
and
“special
forces”
and
accused
the
guards
of
intimidating
its
members.
o Second,
petitioner
union
contends
that
private
respondents
seminars
on
Human
Development
and
Industrial
Relations
(HDIR)
tagged
ANGLO
(the
organization
the
union
was
affiliated
with)
as
leftist.
• During
a
labor-‐management
meeting,
the
union
agreed
to
allow
its
members
to
attend
the
HDIR
seminar
for
RNF
employees,
but
later,
it
retracted
this
decision.
Before
this,
the
Union
picketed
the
premises
of
the
Phil.
Eagle
Protectors
to
show
their
displeasure
in
the
hiring
of
the
guards.
• The
Union
filed
a
Notice
of
Strike
with
the
NCMB,
accusing
the
company
of
ULP
consisting
of
coercion
of
employees,
intimidation
of
union
members,
and
union
busting.
The
NCMB
called
a
conciliation
conference
which
yielded
the
agreement
that
the
Union
officers
will
attend
the
HDIR
seminar
and
a
committee
shall
convene
to
establish
guidelines
governing
the
guards.
With
the
apparent
settlement
of
the
differences,
private
respondents
notified
the
NCMB
that
there
were
no
more
bases
for
the
notice
of
strike.
• However,
in
September
8,
1988,
Danilo
Martinez,
a
member
of
the
Board
of
Directors
of
the
Union,
was
gunned
down
in
his
house
in
the
presence
of
his
wife
and
children.
The
gunman
was
later
identified
to
be
Eledio
Samson,
an
alleged
member
of
the
new
security
forces
of
private
respondents.
• As
a
result,
most
of
the
union
members
refused
to
report
for
work,
and
those
who
did
refused
to
comply
with
the
“quota
system”
adopted
by
the
management
to
bolster
production
output.
Allegedly,
the
union
instructed
the
workers
to
reduce
their
production
to
30%,
so
the
union
was
charged
with
economic
sabotage
through
slowdown.
• Private
respondents
filed
charges
against
the
union
for
illegal
strike,
ULP
and
damages,
with
prayer
for
injunction.
After
many
futile
attempts
to
have
the
parties
reconcile,
Digong
Duterte,
then
Mayor,
intervened.
The
dialogues,
however,
still
proved
to
be
fruitless.
• A
strike
vote
was
conducted
among
the
union
members
which
garnered
overwhelming
support,
so
it
struck
two
days
later.
(IMPT)
• LA:
The
Union
staged
an
illegal
strike.
NLRC
upheld
the
LA
decision.
o It
should
be
noted
that
before
the
promulgation
of
the
decision,
the
Union
filed
a
complaint
for
ULP
and
illegal
suspension
against
LADECO,
which
was
granted
on
the
union’s
behalf.
Specifically,
the
decision
considered
the
refusal
of
the
workers
to
report
for
work
justified
because
of
Danilo
Martinez’s
killing.
Private
respondents
appealed
this
decision
claiming
that
this
was
an
error
considering
the
legality
of
the
strike
was
already
passed
upon
by
the
Regional
Arbitration
Branch.The
Ratio/Issues
I. W/N
the
strike
was
legal.
• [See
Doctrine]
Article
263(f)
of
the
Labor
Code
says
that
in
every
case,
when
there
is
a
decision
to
declare
a
strike,
the
union
or
the
employer
shall
furnish
the
Ministry
the
results
of
the
voting
at
least
7
days
before
the
intended
strike
or
lockout
subject
to
the
cooling-‐off
period
herein
provided.
• The
strike
conducted
by
the
union
was
plainly
illegal
because
it
was
held
within
the
7
days
waiting
period.
The
haste
in
holding
the
strike
prevented
the
DOLE
from
verifying
whether
it
carried
the
approval
of
the
majority
of
the
union
members.
• The
decision
of
limiting
the
penalty
only
to
the
leaders
of
the
union
is
uphold.
They
cannot
claim
good
faith
to
exculpate
themselves
because
they
admitted
knowledge
of
the
law
of
strike,
including
its
procedure.
They
cannot
violate
the
law
which
was
cast
to
promote
their
interest.
Held
Petition
dismissed.
Prepared
by:
JR
(Labor
|
Daway)