Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
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
"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.
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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”
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.
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.
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