Gilbert H. Pilar Labor Relations class of Usec. Josephus B.

Jimenez

Leyte Geothermal Power Progressive Employees Union (Union), petitioner vs. Philippine National Oil Company-Energy Development Corporation (PNOCEDC), respondent G.R. No. 170351, March 30, 2011 FACTS: Respondent is a government-owned and controlled corporation engaged in exploration, distribution, utilization, generation and distribution of energy resources like geothermal energy. Petitioner is a legitimate labor organization duly registered with the DOLE, Tacloban City. One of the respondents projects is the Leyte Geothermal Power located in Leyte. Respondent hired and employed hundreds of employees on a contractual basis only good up to the completion of the said project. Majority of these employees became members of the Union-petitioner. Petitioner demanded from responded recognition of the CBA but went unheeded by the latter. When the project was about to be completed in 1998, respondent served the members a Notice of Employment Termination. On December 28, 1988, petitioner then filed a Notice of Strike and on the same day, it declared and staged a strike. The Secretary of Labor intervened and issued an Order directing the members to return to their Respondent work but members did not heed such order. then filed a Complaint for Strike Illegality. NLRC rendered a

decision in favor of respondent which was affirmed by the CA. Hence, this appeal. ISSUES: 1) Is petitioner-Unions officers and members are project employees of respondent? 2) Is petitioner-Unions officers and members engaged in an illegal strike?

Gilbert H. Pilar Labor Relations class of Usec. Josephus B. Jimenez LAW: The provisions of Article 280 and 263 of the Labor Code of the Philippines applied in this case. Article 280 defines what is a regular or a casual employee and Article 263 speaks of strikes, picketing and lockouts. RULING: On the first issue, the Court held that petitioner-Unions officers and members are project employees as defined under Article 280 of the Labor Code. Under Article 280, project employees are those employees whose employment has been fixed for a specific project or undertaking which has been determined at the time of the engagement of the employee. In the case at bar, petitioners officers and members were specifically hired as project employees for respondent where their employment is coterminous with the project completion. The termination of their employment did not constitute an illegal dismissal. On the second issue, petitioner-Union failed to comply with the requirements set by law prior to holding a strike under Article 263 of the Labor Code. The factual findings of the NLRD showed that Union indeed illegally struck against the respondent where it struck before it could file the required notice of strike. OPINION: In my opinion, the dismissal of the petition filed by petitioner-Union was proper. The facts of the case showed that the members and officers were project employees as defined under Article 280 of the Labor Code. The termination of their employment did not constitute illegal dismissal since Union members knew of the nature of their employment when they voluntarily signed the contract. As to the illegality of the strike, petitioners were indeed engaged in illegal strike. The Secretary ordered them to resume work but they did not heed the order of the Secretary. Such resistance constitute an illegal strike for they failed to comply with a lawful order. Article 263 of the Labor Code states that the Secretary has the authority to resolve issues on labor disputes. The denial of his order constitutes violation of the law.