M A G D A LA M U LTIPU R PO SE & LIV ELIH O O D CO O P. v.

K ILU SA N G M A N G G A G A G A W A N G LG S, ET A L.
29 Oct. 2011 G.R. Nos. 191138-39 Velasco, Jr., J.
TOPIC: Illegal Strikes; Effect of Union Non-registration
SUMMARY: KMLMS held a strike-vote one day before its registration was granted. It later staged a strike where
several illegal acts were committed. The company argued that the strike was illegal, and all participating
union members should be declared to have forfeited their employment. SC ruled in favor of the company.
The mandatory notice of strike and the conduct of the strike-vote report were ineffective for having
been filed and conducted before KMLMS acquired legal personality as an LLO.

Kilusang Manggagawa ng LGS, Magdala Multipurpose and Livelihood Coop. (KMLMS) is the union
operating in Magdala Multipurpose & Livelihood Coop. and Sanlor Motors Corp (petitioners).
Mar. 5, 2002 KMLMS filed a notice of strike.
Apr. 8, 2002 - KMLMS conducted a strike-vote, but it only acquired legal personality the following
day (Apr. 9) when its registration as an independent labor organization was granted by the DOLE.
o Apr. 19 KMLMS became officially affiliated as a local chapter of the Pambansang
Kaisahan ng Manggagagwang Pilipino.
May 6 KMLMS staged a strike where several prohibited and illegal acts were committed.
The cooperative and the company filed a Petition to Declare the Strike Illegal before the NLRC, on
the grounds of lack of valid notice of strike, ineffective conduct of a strike-vote, and commission of
prohibited and illegal acts.
o LA Strike was illegal. 41 workers declared to have forfeited their employment status.
o NLRC Modified LA; 7 more workers declared to have forfeited their employment.
o CA Affirmed NLRC in toto.
PETITIONERS ARGUE: An additional 73 union members should be declared to have lost their employment.
CA erred in refusing to award damages and attys fees (strike nearly crippled the business).

W/N the May 6, 2002 strike was illegal YES, no question that the strike was illegal because:
1.

When KMLMS filed the notice of strike on March 5 or 14, it had not yet acquired legal
personality and, thus, could not legally represent the eventual union and its members.
2. When KMLMS conducted the strike-vote on Apr. 8, there was still no union to speak of, since
KMLMS only acquired legal personality as an independent LLO the next day (Apr. 9).
The mandatory notice of strike and the conduct of the strike-vote report were ineffective for
having been filed and conducted before KMLMS acquired legal personality as an LLO, violating Art.
263(c), (d) and (f) of the Labor Code and Rule XXII, Book V of the Omnibus Rules.
o Art. 263 (c): the duly certified or recognized bargaining agent may file a notice of strike []
in absence of a duly certified or recognized bargaining agent, the notice of strike may be
filed by any legitimate labor organization in behalf of its members. (substantially
reproduced in Rule XXII, Sec. 6)
o It is, thus clear that the filing of the notice of strike and the conduct of the strike-vote by
KMLMS did not comply with the aforequoted mandatory requirements of law and its
implementing rules. Consequently, the May 6, 2002 strike is illegal.
Striking members committed prohibited acts as provided under Art. 264 (based on substantial
evidence: Police Blotter Certifications, including a complaint for Grave Coercion + Affidavits from
several workers and one proprietor who were prevented from entering the company premises +
countless photographs which show the striking workers blocking the gates of the company):
1. Interference by obstructing the free ingress to or egress from petitioners' compound
2. Coercion and intimidation

VILLARAMA, BIANCA DANICA S.

PAGE 1 OF 2

LABOR CASE # 226

Proper sanctions: SC cannot agree with the CA's view that there is no substantial proof of the
identity of the other 72 striking union members who committed prohibited and illegal activities.
After poring over the attachments to the pleadings, SC finds that petitioners have substantially
proved the identity of 72 other union members through the substantial evidence plus:
1. Photographs submitted by petitioners graphically depict and show the identities of the union
members who committed and illegal acts.
2. Identities were substantially proved through eyewitnesses who personally knew and
recognized the members.

W/N the damages should be awarded NO.

While petitioners prayed for damages, they failed to substantiate their claims.
They base their claims on the Affidavit of Julito Sioson (owner). The claim for actual damages for
losses of PhP 10,000 daily or PhP 260,000 a month cannot be sustained by a mere affidavit of the
owner without being buttressed by other documentary evidence or unassailable substantiation.
Even if alleged, the amount is merely speculative at most. To be recoverable, actual damages must
not only be capable of proof, but must actually be proved with reasonable degree of certainty.
That petitioners had to litigate on the occasion of the illegal strike does not necessarily mean that
attorney's fees will automatically be granted.
o In labor cases, attorney's fees granted under Art. 111 of the Labor Code apply to unlawful
withholding of wages, which indubitably does not apply to the instant case.
o Art. 2208(2) of the Civil Code does not ipso facto grant the award of damages in the form of
attorney's fees to a winning party, for the exercise of protection of one's right is not
compensable.
o Jurisprudence instructs that for the award of attorney's fees to be granted, there must be
factual, legal and equitable justification.

CA AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in that the following additional 72 union members who
committed prohibited and illegal acts during the May 6, 2002 strike are also declared to have forfeited their
employment:

VILLARAMA, BIANCA DANICA S.

PAGE 2 OF 2

LABOR CASE # 226