Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 2

Bisaya Land Transportation Co.

, vs CIR Nov 26,

PHILMAROA presented its demands on Sept. 26, 1953.
On October 24th of the same year, notice of intention
to strike was filed against Bisaya Land. The case was
certified by the Pres to CIR and pending resolution of
the dispute, Nadanza and Ouano abandoned the ships
owned by Bisaya Land. Thereafter, the radio operators
were readmitted upon their request to come back.

On the other hand, Bisaya Land alleged in the CIR that

the strike was unlawful for failure to directly serve the
company with a notice notice of the strike and that
there was no longer any cause of action against it
because of the reinstatement of the radio operators.
CIR rendered a decision which prompted Bisaya Land
to file an appeal by certiorari to SC.

CIRs decision
1. Illegality of the strike was waived by Bisaya Land
when it accepted the striking radio operators
2. The defense is good as against reinstatement and
backpay of the operators but not as to the prosecution
of the demands of the union

1. WON Union has cause of action against Bisaya Land
2. WON Union has power to bargain collectively
3. WON Union has power to bargain collectively for
Nadanza and Ouano
4. WON the strike/abandoning of posts was illegal
5. WON certification of the case to CIR by the Pres was
null and void

SC ruling
1. Yes. The return of the radio operators did not imply
the waiver of the original demands. They only desisted
from the strike, an act which is personal to the
strikers, and cannot be interpreted as waiver of the
unions original demands.
2. Yes. As expressly recognized under the Industrial
Peace Act
3. Yes. There is no law prohibiting employees from
affiliating with a craft union. In this case, PHILMAROA
represents Nadanza and Ouano as radio operators and
not as mere employees of Bisaya Land
4. No. Bisaya Land waived such illegality by voluntarily
agreeing to reinstate the operators
5. No. Even after a strike has been declared, the Pres
may certify the case for arbitration and conciliation
where public interest so demands

Central Vegetable Oil Manufacturing Co, Inc. vs

Phil Oil Industry Workers Union

In July 17, 1948, the Company and the Union entered
into an agreement that if a new machinery has not
been installed upon the reopening of the factory in all
its depts, the Company shall admit all the former
laborers of Apr 3, 1948; and if the new machinery has

been installed, the Company and a duly authorized

Union rep will determine who among the workers will
be admitted, providing further that any disagreement
will be submitted to CIR for arbitration. They also
agreed that during the negotiation and pendency of
matter before the CIR, the laborers shall work and
continue working to the end that the reopening of the
factory shall not be delayed. Moreover, the Company
and a duly authorized rep of the Union shall also fix
the wages of the laborers at scales similar to those of
the Phil Refining Company.

The personnel reorganization was conceived as a

necessary result of the installation of the new
machineries of the Company. Accordingly, 24 laborers
were allowed to work one day per week while
machineries were being installed in the new oil mill.
They were also allowed to work full time for a certain
period until a notice was posted by the Company,
through its plant superintendent, that due to the
readjustment of the new machineries, the oil mill
would stop operation at 7am Sunday(Aug 7,1949) and
that all shifts, mechanics, and assistants should report
for work at 8am Monday(Aug 8,1949). The 3
mechanics and 3 assistants reported for work on the
latter date while the 24 laborers did not.

In addition, on Aug 8,1949, the Union asked the

company to allow the 24 laborers in question to work
for more than one day, or min of 2 days per week. The
Company turned this down, refused to consider the
Unions 14-pt petition, and insisted that the Union
should appoint its rep for the fixing of wages as
required by their agreement.

Company then filed in the CIR a case against the

Union praying that the laborers affiliated with the
Union be discharged on the ground that they declared
an illegal strike. CIR rendered a decision in favor of
the Company, authorizing the dismissal of the 24
laborers who failed to report for work and to replace
them with new laborers.

Union filed a MR, CIR then ordered the reinstatement

of the laborers and payment of their wages from the
day work is resumed. Thus, the Company filed a
petition for review on certiorari.

Issue: WON the strike declared on Aug 8, 1949

( assuming there was such) was legitimate

SC Ruling
Yes. The strike was undoubtedly prompted by the
refusal of the company to discuss the 14-pt petition of
the Union. The plea of the laborers for better
conditions and for more working days cannot be said
to be trivial, unreasonable, or unjust. The demands
that gave rise to the strike may not properly be
granted under the circumstances, but the fact should
not make said demands and the consequent strike

The Union violated their agreement by refusing to

name a rep for the fixing of scales of salaries and
wages but the Company first violated the agreement
by employing extra laborers. The contention that these
extra laborers were hires not to replace regular
laborers but merely to do add jobs is not plausible.


February 17, 1993

counter-complaint before the NLRC. Workers charged

the Corporation with ULP for subcontracting work that
was normally done by its regular workers thereby
causing the reduction of the latter's workdays; illegal
suspension of Abulencia without any investigation;
discrimination for hiring casual workers in violation of
the CBA, and illegal dispersal of the picket lines by
CAPCOM agents.

(Corporation) is engaged in steel fabrication and other
related business activities. In February 1987, the
Master Iron Labor Union (Union) and Corporation
entered into a CBA for a 3-yr period. Both parties
agreed to include a no-strike and no-lockout, stoppage
or shutdown of work clause and a provision on service
allowances of the employees. However, after the
signing of the CBA, the Corporation subcontracted
outside workers to do the usual jobs done by its
regular workers including those done outside of the
company plant. Then, the management scheduled the
regular workers to work on a rotation basis allegedly
to prevent financial losses. This prompted the Union to
request implementation of the grievance procedure
which had also been agreed upon in the CBA, but the
Corporation ignored the request.
Consequently, on April 8, 1987, the Union filed a
notice of strike DOLE and upon the latters
intervention, the parties reached an agreement
whereby the Corporation acceded to give back the
usual work to its regular employees who are members
of the Union.
Notwithstanding said agreement, the Corporation
continued the practice of hiring outside workers. When
the MILU president, Wilfredo Abulencia, insisted in
doing his regular work of cutting steel bars which was
being done by casual workers, a supervisor
reprimanded him, charged him with insubordination
and suspended him for 3 days. Upon the request of
the Union, DOLE called for conciliation conferences.
The Corporation, however, insisted that the hiring of
casual workers was a management prerogative
thereby ignoring subsequent scheduled conciliation
Hence, on July 9, 1987, Union filed a notice of strike
on the following grounds: (a) violation of CBA; (b)
discrimination; (c) unreasonable suspension of union
officials; and (d) unreasonable refusal to entertain
grievance and 15 days later, on July 24, the Union
staged the strike, maintaining picket lines on the road
leading to the Corporation's plant entrance and
On July 28, 1987, CAPCOM soldiers came and arrested
the picketer who were then brought to Camp Karingal
and were later jailed in Caloocan City with charges for
illegal possession of firearms and deadly weapons.
However, those charges were dismissed for failure of
the arresting CAPCOM soldiers to appear at the
investigation. The dispersal of the picketlines by the
CAPCOM also resulted in the temporary lifting of the
On August 4, 1987, a petition to declare the strike
illegal was filed by the Corporation filed with the
NLRC-NCR arbitration branch. On September 7, 1987,
the Union re-staged the strike with the assistance of
the Alyansa ng Manggagawa sa Valenzuela (AMVA).
Consequently, the Corporation filed a petition for
injunction before the NLRC which issued an order
directing the workers to remove the barricades and
other obstructions which prevented ingress to and
egress from the company premises. The workers
obliged and on October 22, 1987, the Union offered to
return to work.
On October 30, 1987, Union filed a position paper with

Labor Arbiters Decision

On March 16, 1988, Labor Arbiter declared illegal and
unlawful the strike staged by the Union. The decision
included an order to cancel the Unions registered
permit and terminate the employment status of
employees who actively participated in the illegal
strike, including the forfeiture of whatever benefits are
due them under the law.

NLRCs decision
On appeal to the NLRC, the 2nd Division affirmed the
declaration of illegality of the strike and the
termination of employment of certain employees and
the rest of the dispositive portion of the labor arbiter's
Union filed a MR which was denied by NLRC for lack of

1. WON the acts of the Corporation constituted ULP
2. WON the strike was illegal

SC Ruling
** Corporations practice of hiring subcontractors to
dodge the paying of service allowance was a blatant
violation of CBA and a ULP on the part of employer.
The petitioners are asking for the implementation of
the benefit, as agreed in the CBA. Further, the
demands being covered by CBA are definitely within
the power of Corporation to grant. Thus, the strike
was not an economic one.
** Corporations refusal to heed Unions request to
undergo the grievance procedure clearly demonstrated
its lack of intent to abide by the terms of CBA.
** There is illegal break up of picketlines as the
bringing in of CAPCOM soldiers without any reported
outbreak of violence is considered as a prohibited
activity under Art 264 of LC.
2. The strike was staged only after the Corporation
had failed to abide by the agreement forged between
the parties. Thus, the strike was a legal one even
though it may have been called to offset what the
strikers believed in good faith to be ULP on the part of
the employer. Such presumption of legality prevails
even if the allegations of unfair labor practices are
subsequently found out to be untrue. The strike being
legal, the NLRC gravely abused its discretion in
terminating the employment of the individual
petitioners, who, by operation of law, are entitled to
reinstatement with three years backwages and without
loss of seniority rights and other privileges.
Corporation was ordered to desist from subcontracting
work usually performed by its regular workers.