Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 58

LABOR LAW 2 A2010 - 235 - Disini

(The CASE UNDER CIVIL REMEDIES) ISSUES:


NUEVA ECIJA I ELECTRIC COOP, INC., 1. WON the appeal taken by the NEECO I from the NLRC-RAB-
(NEECO I) EMPLOYEES ASSO. V NLRC III DOLE to NLRC Manila was perfected within the reglementary
323 SCRA 86 period
QUISUMBING; January 24, 2000 2. WON NLRC acted without or in excess of jurisdiction when it
resolved to delete en toto moral damages, exemplary damages,
attorney's fees and costs of litigation the factual basis of which
FACTS
were ascertained by the labor arbiter below
-Petitioners Reynaldo Fajardo, Ernesto Marin, Ever Guevarra, Petronilo
3. WON the order to apply and deduct receivable backwages
Baguisa, Victorino Carillo, and Erdie Javate were permanent employees
from received benefits is unrealistic and arbitrary.
of respondent Nueva Ecija I Electric Cooperative (NEECO I). They were
members of petitioner NEECO I Employees Association, a labor
HELD
organization established for the mutual aid and protection of its
1. NO, but there was substantial compliance.
members. Petitioner Rodolfo Jimenez was the president of the
Indisputable is the legal doctrine that the appeal of a decision
association.
involving a monetary award in labor cases may be perfected
-Respondent NEECO I is an electric cooperative under the general
"only upon the posting of a cash or surety bond. (see Art. 223 of
supervision and control of the National Electrification Administration
the Labor Code, as amended by RA 6715). Also, the perfection
(NEA). The management of NEECO I is vested on the Board of
of an appeal within the reglementary period and in the manner
Directors. Respondent Patricio dela Pea was NEECO's general
prescribed by law is jurisdictional, and noncompliance with such
manager on detail from NEA.
legal requirement is fatal and effectively renders the judgment
-The Board of Directors adopted Policy No. 3-33, which set the
final and executory.
guidelines for NEECO I's retirement benefits. All regular employees
-However, in a number of cases, this Court relaxed the rule to
were ordered by NEECO I to accomplish applications for either
resolve controversies on the merits, specifically, when there are
retirement, resignation, or separation from service.
special meritorious circumstances and issues, such as when
-The applications of Baguisa and Guevarra were approved; they were
there was substantial compliance with the rule, so that on
paid the appropriate separation pay. These successive events, followed
balance, SC made technical considerations to give way to equity
by the promotion of certain union officers to supervisory rank, caused
and justice.
apprehension in the labor association. They were considered as
-In this case, the decision of the labor arbiter was issued on
harassment threatening the union members, and circumventing the
Dec21,92. Respondents filed their appeal on Dec28,92 barely
employees' security of tenure. To strengthen and neutralize
seven days from receipt thereof. The bonding company issued
management's arbitrary moves, the union held a "snap election" of
the bond dated Jan4,93 the last day for filing an appeal.
officers.
However, it was forwarded to NLRC only on the following day,
-Petitioner labor association passed a resolution withdrawing the
Jan5,93. Considering these and the holiday season, SC finds it
applications for retirement of all its members, but petitioners Marin,
equitable to ease the rules.
Fajardo and Carillo were compulsorily retired by management. They
-As to the amount of bond, we note that there had been changes
received their separation pay under protest. Javate was terminated from
in the Rules promulgated by the NLRC. Previously the
employment allegedly due to misappropriation of funds and dishonesty.
computation of the cash or surety bond to be posted by an
He was not paid separation or retirement benefits.
employer who wishes to appeal contained in the original rules
-Petitioners and Erdie Javate instituted a complaint for illegal dismissal
was "exclusive of moral and exemplary damages and attorney's
and damages with the NLRC Regional Arbitration Branch in San
fees". It was later deleted sometime in 1991 and 1992, then
Fernando. They alleged they were purposely singled out for retirement
restored on Nov20,93. It may be noted that while NLRC in its
from a listing of employees who were made to submit retirement forms,
Resolution No. 11-01-91 dated Nov7,91 deleted the phrase
even if they were not on top of the list because they were union officers,
"exclusive of moral and exemplary damages as well as
past officers or active members of the association. Further, petitioners
attorney's fees" in the determination of the amount of the bond, it
claimed that their acceptance of the money offered by NEECO I did not
provided a safeguard against the imposition of excessive bonds
constitute estoppel nor waiver, since their acceptances were with
providing "(T)he Commission may, in meritorious cases and
vehement objections and without prejudice to all their rights resulting
upon Motion of the Appellant, reduce the amount of the bond."
from an illegal dismissal. Additionally, Javate averred he was framed up
-The unreasonable and excessive amount of bond would be
and dismissed without due process.
oppressive and unjust and would have the effect of depriving a
-The labor arbiter rendered judgment declaring the employer guilty of
party of his right to appeal. Besides, private respondents stress
illegal dismissal and unfair labor practice act, as charged; ordering
that the petitioners were paid their retirement benefits and that
respondents to reinstate individual complainants to their former positions
the cooperative has sufficient assets from which the other claims
without loss of seniority rights and other privileges, either physically or in
for damages and attorney's fees may be obtained.
the payroll, at the option of the respondents, with payment of full
backwages; and ordering respondents to pay complainants moral and
2. YES. But the award given by the Labor Arbiter, being
exemplary damages, attorneys fees and the costs of litigation.
excessive, is reduced.
-Private respondents appealed to the NLRC and posted a surety bond
-To warrant an award of moral damages, it must be shown that
(P244,891.93). But herein petitioners filed an omnibus motion to dismiss
the dismissal of the employee was attended to by bad faith, or
on the ground of late appeal, claiming that insufficient bond was filed by
constituted an act oppressive to labor, or was done in a manner
NEECO I only on January 5, 1993. The bond excluded the award of
contrary to morals, good customs or public policy. The Labor
moral and exemplary damages, attorneys' fees and costs of litigation.
Arbiter ruled that there was unfair labor practice.
-Respondent NLRC denied the motion and instead gave due course to
-Unfair labor practices violate the constitutional rights of
the appeal, and later modified the decision, by deleting the awards of
workers and employees to self-organization, are inimical to
moral and exemplary damages, attorney's fees and cost of litigation; and
the legitimate interests of both labor and management,
ruling that the amounts of retirement benefits received by the individual
including their right to bargain collectively and otherwise
complainants are to be applied to the backwages that may be due to
deal with each other in an atmosphere of freedom and
them.
mutual respect; and disrupt industrial peace and hinder the
-Meanwhile, petitioners were reinstated by NEECO I pending appeal.
promotion of healthy and stable labor-management
Erdie Javate withdrew his complaint and opted to receive his retirement
relations. As the conscience of the government, it is the
benefits (P42,114.09).
Court's sworn duty to ensure that none trifles with labor
-Both parties filed MFRs, which were both denied, Hence this special
rights.
civil action under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court, by the
petitioners.
LABOR LAW 2 A2010 - 236 - Disini
-For this reason, we find it proper in this case to impose moral and LUZON MARINE DEPT., UNION V ROLDAN
exemplary damages on private respondent. However, the damages (LUZON STEVEDORING CO.)
awarded by the labor arbiter, to our mind, are excessive. In determining
the amount of damages recoverable, the business, social and financial 86 PHIL 507
position of the offended parties and the business and financial position OZAETA; MAY 30, 1950
of the offender are taken into account. It is our view that herein private
respondents had not fully acted in good faith. However, we are NATURE Petition for certiorari to review a resolution of the
cognizant that a cooperative promotes the welfare of its own members. Court of Industrial Relations.
The economic benefits filter to the cooperative members. Either equally
or proportionally, they are distributed among members in correlation with FACTS
the resources of the association utilized. Cooperatives help promote - June 17, 1948: Petitioner Luzon Marine Union (UNION)
economic democracy and support community development. Under these presented to respondent Luzon Stevedoring Co. (LSC) a petition
circumstances, we deem it proper to reduce the award for moral and containing demands, including that it be granted of full
exemplary damages. recognition with the right to collective bargaining, closed-shop
and check-off. The Union initiated the petition in the CIR praying
3. NO. that LSC be directed to comply immediately with the demands.
-Having been illegally dismissed, individual petitioners are entitled to - The Union de Obreros Estivadores de Filipinas (UOEF) a labor
reinstatement from the time they were illegally dismissed, until they were organization divided into units of which Universal Marine Union is
reinstated on March 16, 1993. For that period they are likewise entitled a part, intervened on behalf of the Union because it alleged that
to backwages minus the amount petitioners were forced to receive as the demand of the Union for recognition with the right to
"retirement" pay. A recomputation is therefore proper and in the event collective bargaining, closed-shop, etc. would violate an
that the amount of "retirement" pay received by an individual petitioner agreement entered into between LSC and UOEF, where the
exceeds the amount of his backwages, the excess should be deemed as company recognized UOEF as the labor organization of the
advances of salary which should be refundable until fully repaid by him. workers rendering services to LSC., with full right of collective
Disposition Petition partially granted. bargaining.
- UOEF moved for dismissal for lack of jurisdiction, on the
ground that the Union did not count with more than 30 members
PART 9 employed in the LSC. Judge Bautista issued an order denying
the motion to dismiss. Before the receipt of the order, 65 alleged
CONCERTED ACTIVITIES members of the Union initiated a strike without notice (July 19). It
was only on July 21 that the LSC received the notice of strike.
- July 20, 1948: Union filed with CIR a petition alleging that all its
9.01 BASIS OF RIGHT TO ENGAGE IN members (more than 300) went on strike on July 19 due to the
refusal of LSC to grant their demands, and prayed for the
CONCERTED ACTIVITIES issuance of a restraining order to prevent the respondent from
employing strike breakers.
- August 16, 1948: Judge Bautista issued an order directing the
1. CONSTITUTION- ART XIII, SEC. 3 strikers to return to work, and the LSC to reinstate them in their
previous positions. Acting on a motion for reconsideration, the
court set said order aside on the ground that the strike was
LABOR
unjustified and illegal.
Section 3. The State shall afford full protection to - Judges Roldan and Castillo held that although Sec. 19 of
labor, local and overseas, organized and Commonwealth Act 103 provides that pending award or
unorganized, and promote full employment and decision by the CIR, the employee, tenant or laborer shall
equality of employment opportunities for all. not strike or walk out of his employment when so enjoined
It shall guarantee the rights of all workers to self- by the Court, and although the Court had not enjoined the
petitioner NOT TO STRIKE, it does not necessarily follow
organization, collective bargaining and negotiations, and that the strike was legal and justified xxx Although the Act
peaceful concerted activities, including the right to strike in recognizes the laborers right to strike, it also creates all the
accordance with law. They shall be entitled to security of means by which a resort thereto may be avoided, because
tenure, humane conditions of work, and a living wage. They a strike is a remedy essentially coercive in character and
shall also participate in policy and decision-making processes general in its disturbing effects upon the social order and
the public interests.
affecting their rights and benefits as may be provided by law. - The CIR found out that the reason the members went
The State shall promote the principle of shared on strike was because the opposite party claims or
responsibility between workers and employers and asserts that they had no members inside the company,
the preferential use of voluntary modes in settling and because they were becoming impatient. From The
disputes, including conciliation, and shall enforce court concluded that the purpose of the strike was to
their mutual compliance therewith to foster influence the decision and to compel the Court to decide
industrial peace. promptly. The union insists that the strike was called for
The State shall regulate the relations between a lawful purpose: 1) to show they had more than 30
members; 2) to answer the challenge of Alejo Villanueva
workers and employers, recognizing the right of
that he will dismiss the members from the company.
labor to its just share in the fruits of production
and the right of enterprises to reasonable returns ISSUES
to investments, and to expansion and growth. WON the strike was called for a lawful purpose.

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

STANFORD MARKETING CORP V JULIAN Disposition Petition dismissed


BLT BUS CO V NLRC
212 SCRA 792 2. STATUTORY- 263 (b)
CRUZ; August 21, 1992
STRIKES AND LOCKOUTS
NATURE Special civil action for certiorari
ART. 263. Strikes, picketing and lockouts. - (a)xxx
FACTS (b) Workers shall have the right to engage in
- Tinig at Lakas ng Manggagawa sa BLTB Co. NAFLU, an affiliate of concerted activities for purposes of collective
NAFLU, filed a Notice of Strike against the Batangas Laguna Tayabas bargaining or for their mutual benefit and
Bus Company (BLTB Co.) on the grounds of unfair labor practice and protection. The right of legitimate labor
violation of the CBA.
organizations to strike and picket and of employers
- BLTB Co. asked the Sec. of Labor to assume jurisdiction or to certify it
to the NLRC. The Acting Sec of Labor later certified it to the NLRC. A to lockout, consistent with the national interest,
copy of the certification order was served upon NAFLU. The union shall continue to be recognized and respected.
secretary, however, refused to receive it. However, no labor union may strike and no
- The officers and members of TLM-BLTBCo-NAFLU went on strike. The employer may declare a lockout on grounds
NLRC issued a resolution ordering the employees to stop the strike.
involving inter-union and intra-union disputes.
BLTBCo caused the publication of the resolution and called on all
striking workers to return to work.
- Of the some 1,730 BLTBCo employees who went on strike, only 1,116
reported back for work. Seventeen others were later re-admitted.
Subsequently, about 614 employees, including those who were BLT BUS CO V NLRC
allegedly dismissed for causes other than the strike, filed individual 212 SCRA 792
complaints for illegal dismissal. Their common ground was that they CRUZ; August 21, 1992
were refused admission when they reported back for work.
- The NLRC issued a resolution ordering the reinstatement of the union
NATURE Special civil action for certiorari
members.
FACTS
ISSUE/S - Tinig at Lakas ng Manggagawa sa BLTB Co. NAFLU, an
1. WON the union members who participated in the illegal strike should affiliate of NAFLU, filed a Notice of Strike against the Batangas
be reinstated Laguna Tayabas Bus Company (BLTB Co.) on the grounds of
unfair labor practice and violation of the CBA.
HELD - BLTB Co. asked the Sec. of Labor to assume jurisdiction or to
1. YES. certify it to the NLRC. The Acting Sec of Labor later certified it to
the NLRC. A copy of the certification order was served upon
Reasoning NAFLU. The union secretary, however, refused to receive it.
- First, there was inadequate service of the certification order on the - The officers and members of TL M-BLTBCo-NAFLU
union as of the date the strike was declared and there was no showing went on strike. The NLRC issued a resolution ordering the
that the striking members had been apprised of such order by the employees to stop the strike. BLTBCo caused the publication of
NAFLU. the resolution and called on all striking workers to return to work.
- Second, by virtue of the priniciple of vicarious liability, only the union - Of the some 1,730 BLTBCo employees who went on strike,
officers deserve not to be reinstated. The leaders of the union are the only 1,116 reported back for work. Seventeen others were later
moving force in the declaration of the strike and the Rank-in-file re-admitted. Subsequently, about 614 employees, including
employees merely followed. Likewise, viewed in the light of Article 264, those who were allegedly dismissed for causes other than the
paragraph (e), those who participated in the commission of illegal acts strike, filed individual complaints for illegal dismissal. Their
who stood charged criminally thereof in court must be penalized common ground was that they were refused admission when
- The contention of the petitioner that the private respondents they reported back for work.
abandoned their position is also not acceptable. An employee who - The NLRC issued a resolution ordering the reinstatement of the
forthwith takes steps to protest his lay-off cannot by any logic be said to union members.
have abandoned his work.
-The loss of employment status of striking union members is limited to ISSUE/S
those "who knowingly participates in the commission of illegal acts." 1. WON the union members who participated in the illegal strike
LABOR LAW 2 A2010 - 238 - Disini
should be reinstated -Danilo Martinez. a member of the Board of Directors of the
Union, was gunned down in his house in the presence of his wife
HELD and children. The gunman was later identified as Eledio Samson,
1. YES. an alleged member of security forces of private respondent. After
Reasoning the killing, most of the members of the Union refused to report
- First, there was inadequate service of the certification order on the for work. They returned to work the following day but they did not
union as of the date the strike was declared and there was no showing comply with the "quota system" adopted by the management to
that the striking members had been apprised of such order by the bolster production output. Allegedly, the Union instructed the
NAFLU. workers to reduce their production to thirty percent (30%) Private
- Second, by virtue of the priniciple of vicarious liability, only the union respondents charged the Union with economic sabotage through
officers deserve not to be reinstated. The leaders of the union are the slowdown. Private respondents filed separate charged against
moving force in the declaration of the strike and the Rank-in-file the Union and it member for illegal strike. unfair labor practice
employees merely followed. Likewise, viewed in the light of Article 264, and damages, with prayer for injunction. Petitioners skipped
paragraph (e), those who participated in the commission of illegal acts work to pay their last respect to the slain Danilo Martinez. who
who stood charged criminally thereof in court must be penalized was laid to rest. Again on another date petitioner did not report
- The contention of the petitioner that the private respondents for work. Instead, they proceeded to private respondents' office
abandoned their position is also not acceptable. An employee who at Lanang, carrying placards and posters which called for the
forthwith takes steps to protest his lay-off cannot by any logic be said to removal of the security guards. the ouster of certain
have abandoned his work. management officials, and the approval of their mass leave
-The loss of employment status of striking union members is limited to application. Their mass action did not succeed.
those "who knowingly participates in the commission of illegal acts." -Labor Arbiter decision: Illegal strike and employees have lost
(Article 264, Labor Code) Evidence must be presented to substantiate their employment status and order to desist. NLRC limited the
the commission thereof and not merely an unsubstantiated allegation penalty of dismissal only to the leaders of the illegal strike
- The right to strike is one of the rights recognized and guaranteed by especially the officers of the union who served as its major
the Constitution as an instrument of labor for its protection against player and union members were merely instigated to participate
exploitation by management. By virtue of this right, the workers are able in the illegal strike and should be treated differently from their
to press their demands for better terms of employment with more energy leaders. Petitioners claim that public respondent NLRC gravely
and persuasiveness, poising the threat to strike as their reaction to the abused it discretion.
employer's intransigence. The strike is indeed a powerful weapon of the
working class. But precisely because of this, it must be handled carefully, Issue WON the strike is legal
like a sensitive explosive, lest it blow up in the workers' own hands. Thus, Held
it must be declared only after the most thoughtful consultation among No. The applicable law are Articles 263 and 264 of the Labor
them, conducted in the only way allowed, that is, peacefully, and in Code, as amended by E.O. No. 111, dated December 24. 1986.
every case conformably to reasonable regulation. Any violation of the Paragraphs (c) and (f) of Article 263 of the Labor Code, as
legal requirements and strictures, such as a defiance of a return-to-work amended by E.O. 111, provides.
order in industries affected with public interest, will render the strike "c) In cases of bargaining deadlocks. the duly certified or
illegal, to the detriment of the very workers it is supposed to protect recognized bargaining agent may file a notice of strike or the
employer may file a notice of lockout with the Ministry at
Lapanday Workers Union v. NLRC least 30 days before the intended date thereof. In cases of
248 SCRA 95 unfair labor practice, the notice shall be 15 days and in the
Puno ; Sept. 7, 1995 absence of a duly certified or recognized bargaining agent,
the notice of strike may be filed by any legitimate labor
Facts
organization in behalf of its member. However, in case of
-Lapanday Agricultural and Development Corporation and CADECO dismissal from employment of union officer duly elected in
Agro Development Philippines Inc. (Private respondents) are sister accordance with the union constitution and by-laws, which
companies. Lapanday Workers Union (Union) is the duly certified may constitute union busting where the existence of the
bargaining agent of the rank and file employees of private respondent. union is threatened, the 15-day cooling-off period shall not
The Union is affiliated with the KMU-ANGLO. apply and the union may take action immediately.
-Union has a collective bargaining agreement. A few months before the xxx xxx xxx
expiration of their CBA, private respondent initiated certain management "f) A decision to declare a strike must be approved by a
policies which disrupted the relationship of the parties- 1. Contracting of majority of the total union membership in the bargaining unit
Philippine Eagle Protectors and Security Agency Inc., the Union branded concerned, obtained by secret ballot in meetings or
the security guards posted within the company premises as private referenda called for that purpose. A decision to declare a
respondents' "goons" and "special forces." It also accused the guards of lockout must be approved by a majority of the board of
intimidating and harassing their members. 2. The Union claimed that the director of the corporation or association or of the partner in
module on the Philippines political spectrum lumped the ANGLO a partnership, obtained by secret ballot in a meeting called
(Alliance of Nationalist and Genuine Labor Organization), with other for that purpose. The decision shall be valid for the duration
outlawed labor organization such as the National Democratic Front or
of the dispute based on substantially the same grounds
other leftist groups.
-These issues were discussed during a labor-management meeting, the considered when the strike or lockout vote was taken. The
Union agreed to allow its members to attend the HDIR seminar for the Ministry may, at its own initiative or upon the request of any
rank-and-filers but the Union directed its members not to attend the affected party, supervise the conduct of secret ballot In every
seminars scheduled on said dates. They picketed the premises of the case the union or the employer shall furnish the Ministry the
Philippine Eagle Protectors to show their displeasure on the hiring of the result of the voting at least seven (7) days before the
guards. Union filed a Notice of Strike with the National Conciliation and intended strike or lockout subject to the cooling-off period
Mediation Board (NCMB). NCMB called conciliation conference. The herein provided.
conference yielded the agreements that Union officers, including the
officials of KMU-ANGLO, and the Executive Director of the NMB would Article 264 of the same Code reads:
attend the HDIR seminar and a committee shall convene to establish "Art 264. Prohibited activities. - (a) No labor
guidelines governing the guards. With the apparent settlement of their organization or employer shall declared a strike or
difference, private respondents notified the NCMB that there were no lockout without first having bargained collectively in
more base for the notice of strike. accordance with Title VII of this Book or without first
LABOR LAW 2 A2010 - 239 - Disini
having filed the notice required in the preceding Article or without legal requirements and strictures, . . . will render the strike illegal.
the necessary strike or lockout vote first having been obtained and to the detriment of the very workers it is supposed to protect.
reported to the Ministry. "Every war must be lawfully waged. A labor dispute demands no
xxx xxx xxx less observance of the rules. for the benefit of all concerned."
". . . Any union officer who knowingly participates in an illegal strike and Applying the law to the case at bar, we rule that strike conducted
any worker or union officer who knowingly participates in the by the union on October 12, 1988 is plainly illegal as it was held
commission of illegal acts during a strike may be declared to have lost within the seven (7) day waiting period provided for by paragraph
his employment status: Provided that mere participation of a worker in a (f), Article 263 of the Labor Code. as amended. The haste in
lawful strike shall not constitute sufficient ground for termination of his holding the strike prevented the Department of Labor and
employment, even if a replacement had been hired by the employer Employment from verifying whether it carried the approval of the
during such lawful strike." majority of the union members. It set to naught an important
A strike is "any temporary stoppage of work by the concerted action of policy consideration of our law on strike. Considering this finding,
employees as a result of an industrial or labor dispute." It is the most we need not exhaustively rule on the legality of the work
preeminent of the economic weapons or workers which they unsheathe stoppage conducted by the union and some of their members on
to force management to agree to an equitable sharing of the point September 9 and 23, 1988. Suffice to state, that the ruling of the
product of labor and capital. Undeniably, strikes exert some disquieting public respondent on the matter is supported by substantial
effects not only on the relationship between labor and management but evidence.
also on the general peace and progress of society. Our laws thus
regulate their exercise within reasons by balancing the interests of labor Disposition Reinstating rank-and-file workers who were merely
and management together with the overarching public interest. misled in supporting illegal strikes but not be entitled to
backwages as they should not be compensated for services
Some of the limitations on the exercise of the right of strike are provided skipped during the illegal strike. Dismissed.
for in paragraph (c) and (f) of Article 263 of the labor Code, as amended,
supra. They provide for the procedural steps to be followed before GRAND BOULEVARD HOTEL V GENUINE
staging a strike - filing of notice of strike, taking of strike vote, and LABORERS ORGANIZATION
reporting of the strike vote result to the Department of Labor and
Employment. In National Federation of Sugar Workers (NFSW) vs.
406 SCRA 688
Overseas, et al., we ruled that these steps are mandatory in CALLEJO; July 18, 2003
character. thus:
NATURE
"If only the filing of the strike notice and the strike-vote report would be Petition for review on certiorari
deemed mandatory. but not the waiting periods so specifically and
emphatically prescribed by law, the purposes (hereafter discussed) for FACTS
which the filing of the strike notice and strike-vote report is required - Respondent Genuine Labor Organization of Workers in Hotel,
cannot be achieved . . . Restaurant and Allied Industries Silahis International Hotel
xxx xxx xxx Chapter (Union) and the petitioner Grand Boulevard Hotel (then
"So too, the 7 day strike-vote report is not without a purpose. As pointed Silahis International Hotel, Inc.) executed a CBA covering the
out by the Solicitor General - period from July 10, 1985 up to July 9, 1988.
'. . . The submission of the report gives assurance that a strike vote has - Thereafter, Union filed several notices of strike on account of
been taken and that, if the report concerning it is false, the majority of alleged violations of CBA, illegal dismissal and suspension of
the members can take appropriate remedy before it is too late.' EEs. In these instances, SOLE issued a status quo ante bellum
order certifying the labor dispute to the NLRC for compulsory
The seven (7) day waiting period is intended to give the Department of arbitration pursuant to Article 263(g) of LC. After notice was
Labor and Employment an opportunity to verify whether the projected given by Hotel re its decision to implement retrenchment
strike really carries the imprimatur of the majority of the union members. program, Union informed the DOLE that the union will conduct a
The need for assurance that majority of the union members support the strike vote referendum. The members of the Union voted to
strike cannot be gainsaid. Strike is usually the last weapon of labor to be stage a strike. Union informed the DOLE of the results of the
gainsaid. Strike compel capital to concede to its bargaining demands or strike vote referendum. SOLE issued another status quo ante
to defend itself against unfair labor practices of management. It is a bellum order certifying the case to the NLRC for compulsory
weapon that can either breathe life to or destroy the union and its arbitration and enjoining the parties from engaging in any strike
members in their struggle with management for a more equitable due of or lockout. Then, another notice of strike was filed by Union on
their labors. The decision to wield the weapon of strike must, therefore, account of the illegal dismissal of EEs pusrsuant to Hotels act of
rest on a rational basis, free from emotionalism. unswayed by the retrenching around 171 EEs. Officers of the respondent union
tempers and tantrums of a few hothead, and firmly focused on the and some members staged a picket in the premises of the hotel,
legitimate interest of the union which should not, however, be antithetical obstructing the free ingress and egress thereto. Because of this,
to the public welfare. Thus, our laws require the decision to strike to be they were terminated.
the consensus of the majority for while majority is not infallible, still, it is - Hotel filed a complaint with NLRC for illegal strike against the
the best hedge against haste and error. In addition, a majority vote union, its members and officers. Petitioner Hotel alleged inter
assures the union it will go to war against management with the strength alia that the union members and officers staged a strike on
derived from unity and hence, with better chance to succeed. In November 16, 1990 which lasted until November 29, 1990
Batangas Laguna Tayabas Bus Company vs. NLRC, we held: without complying with the requirements provided under Articles
xxx xxx xxx 263 and 264 of the Labor Code. It further alleged that the officers
"The right to strike is one of the right recognized and guaranteed by the and members of the respondent union blocked the main ingress
Constitution as an instrument of labor for it protection against to and egress from the hotel.
exploitation by management. by virtue of his right. the workers are able - The respondent Union denied the material allegations of the
to press their demands for better terms of employment with more energy complaint and alleged that the petitioner committed ULP prior to
and persuasiveness. poising the threat to strike at their reaction to the filing of the Nov. 16, 1990 notice of strike. Hence, there was
employer s intransigence. The strike is indeed a powerful weapon of the no need for the union to comply with A263 and 264 of LC, as the
working class. But precisely because of this, it must be handled carefully notice
like a sensitive explosive, but it blow up in the workers' own hands. - LA Linsangans Ruling: Unions failure to comply with the
Thus. it must de declared only after the most thoughtful consultation requirements laid down in A263 and 264 of LC, the strike that
among them, conducted in the only was allowed that is, peacefully, and was staged was illegal. Considering the admissions of the
in every case conformably to reasonable regulation. Any violation of the individual respondents that they participated in the said strike,
LABOR LAW 2 A2010 - 240 - Disini
the termination of their employment by the petitioner was legal. LA noted - Even if the union acted in good faith in the belief that the
that if as alleged by the respondent union the petitioner was guilty of company was committing an unfair labor practice, if no notice of
ULP, it should have filed a complaint therefor against the Hotel and/or its strike and a strike vote were conducted, the said strike is illegal.
officials for which the latter could have been meted penal and
administrative sanctions as provided for in A272 of LC. The Union failed. 2. YES
- Appeal by Union to NLRC: that it had complied with the requirements Re: Effect of Illegality
laid down in A263 and 264 of LC because its Nov 16, 1990 notice of Ratio Since a strike that is undertaken, despite the issuance by
strike was a mere reiteration of its Sept 27, 1990 notice of strike, which, the SOLE of an assumption or certification order, becomes a
in turn, complied with all the requirements of the aforementioned prohibited activity and, thus, illegal pursuant to A264 of LC, the
articles, i.e., the cooling-off period, the strike ban, the strike vote and the union officers and members, as a result, are deemed to have lost
strike vote report. their employment status for having knowingly participated in an
- NLRC affirmed LA Decision. Compliance of the requirements laid down illegal act.
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. Disposition Petition is GRANTED. LA Decision REINSTATED.
Resultantly, for failure of the union to comply with the requirements, the
strike staged on November 16 up to November 29, 1990 was illegal.
- 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 3. INTERNATIONAL COVENANT ON
certified cases respecting the alleged illegal suspension and dismissals
effected by Hotel during and prior to the notices of strike filed by Union. ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND
Sol-Gen opined that even if the strike was staged without the proper CULTURAL RIGHTS ART. 8 (d)
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 INTL COVENANT ON ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND
CULTURAL RIGHTS
ISSUES Article 8
1 WON the strike staged by the respondent union on Nov16-29, 1990
is legal 1. The States Parties to the present Covenant
2 WON the dismissals of the officers and some members of the Union undertake to ensure:
as a consequence of the strike on Nov16-29, 1990 are valid. -xxx-
(d) The right to strike, provided that it is exercised
HELD in conformity with the laws of the particular
1. NO
Re: Procedural Requirements country.
- Under A263 (c) and (f) of LC, the requisites for a valid strike are as
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 4. LIMITATIONS
approved by a majority of the total union membership in the bargaining
unit concerned obtained by secret ballot in a meeting called for that PHILIPPINE DIAMOND HOTEL AND RESORT
purpose; (c) notice given to the DOLE of the results of the voting at least INC (MANILA DIAMOND HOTEL v MANILA
7 days before the intended strike. The requisite 7-day period is intended
to give the DOLE an opportunity to verify whether the projected strike DIAMOND HOTEL EMPLOYEES UNION
really carries the approval of the majority of the union members. The 494 SCRA 195
notice of strike and the cooling-off period were intended to provide an CARPIO MORALES; June 30, 2006
opportunity for mediation and conciliation. The requirements are
mandatory and failure of a union to comply therewith renders the strike FACTS
illegal. A strike simultaneously with or immediately after a notice of strike
-Union filed a petition for certification election to be declared the
will render the requisite periods nugatory. exclusive bargaining representative of the Hotels employees.
This petition was dismissed by DOLE for lack of legal
- In this case, union filed its notice of strike with the DOLE on Nov 16, requirements.
1990 and on the same day, staged a picket on the premises of the hotel, -after a few months, Union sent a letter to Hotel informing it of its
in violation of the law. Union cannot argue that since the notice of strike desire to negotiate for a collective bargaining agreement. This
on Nov 16, 1990 were for the same grounds as those contained in their was rejected by the Hotel stating that the Union was not the
notice of strike on September 27, 1990 which complied with the employees bargaining agent as their petition for certification
requirements of the law on the cooling-off period, strike ban, strike vote election was denied.
and strike vote report, the strike staged by them on Nov16, 1990 was -Union filed a Notice of Strike with the NCMB alleging the Hotel
lawful. The matters contained in the notice of strike of Sept 27, 1990 had refusal to bargain and for acts of unfair labor practices. NCMB
already been taken cognizance of by the SOLE when he issued on Oct summoned both parties and held series of dialogues. Union
31, 1990 a status quo ante bellum order enjoining union from intending
however suddenly went on strike
or staging a strike. Despite SOLE order, the union nevertheless staged a -Secretary of DOLE assumed jurisdiction and ordered
strike on Nov16, 1990 simultaneously with its notice of strike, thus compulsory arbitration pursuant to art. 263 (g) of LC. And Union
violating A264(a) LC
members were directed to return to work and for Hotel to accept
them back. Hotel refused to accept the employees return. The
Grounds
order was modified (by a different Secretary) such that
- A strike that is undertaken, despite the issuance by the SOLE of an
reinstatement was to be done only in the payroll.
assumption or certification order, becomes a prohibited activity and, thus,
-Union filed for certiorari alleging grave abuse of discretion. Case
illegal pursuant to A264 of LC: No strike or lockout shall be declared was referred to the CA. CA affirmed that the payroll
after assumption of jurisdiction by the President or the Secretary or after
reinstatement was not a grave abuse of discretion. On appeal, it
certification or submission of the dispute to compulsory or voluntary
modified NLRC decision ordering reinstatement with back wages
arbitration or during the pendency of cases involving the same grounds of union members.
for the strike or lockout.
ISSUE
LABOR LAW 2 A2010 - 241 - Disini
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. AGGREGATES, INC. V NLRC
2) WON the strike conducted by the Union was illegal.
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 Unions 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
- Petitioners 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 Hotels 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 Pealosa. 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 days wage" accrues only for decision in favor of such party: Provided, That no temporary or
a "fair days 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
account of any threat, prohibited or unlawful act, except against
LABOR LAW 2 A2010 - 242 - Disini
the 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
FACTS
follow;
- Tinig at Lakas ng Manggagawa sa BLTB Co. NAFLU, an
affiliate of NAFLU, filed a Notice of Strike against the Batangas
"(3) That as to each item of relief to be granted, greater injury will be
Laguna Tayabas Bus Company (BLTB Co.) on the grounds of
inflicted upon complainant by the denial of relief than will be inflicted
unfair labor practice and violation of the CBA.
upon defendants by the granting of relief;
- BLTB Co. asked the Sec. of Labor to assume jurisdiction or to
certify it to the NLRC. The Acting Sec of Labor later certified it to
"(4) That complainant has no adequate remedy at law; and"(5) That the
the NLRC. A copy of the certification order was served upon
public officers charged with the duty to protect complainants property
NAFLU. The union secretary, however, refused to receive it.
are unable or unwilling to furnish adequate protection.
- The officers and members of TL M-BLTBCo-NAFLU
went on strike. The NLRC issued a resolution ordering the
"Such hearing shall be held after due and personal notice thereof has
employees to stop the strike. BLTBCo caused the publication of
been served, in such manner as the Commission shall direct, to all
the resolution and called on all striking workers to return to work.
known persons against whom relief is sought, and also to the Chief
- Of the some 1,730 BLTBCo employees who went on strike,
Executive and other public officials of the province or city within which
only 1,116 reported back for work. Seventeen others were later
the unlawful have been threatened or committed charged with the duty
re-admitted. Subsequently, about 614 employees, including
to protect complainant's property: . . ."
those who were allegedly dismissed for causes other than the
strike, filed individual complaints for illegal dismissal. Their
- In his Comment, the Solicitor General cited various evidence on record
common ground was that they were refused admission when
showing the failure of public respondents to fulfill the requirements,
they reported back for work.
especially of paragraphs four and five of the above cited law. The
- The NLRC issued a resolution ordering the reinstatement of the
factual circumstances proven by the evidence show that there was no
union members.
concurrence of the five prerequisites mandated by Art. 218(e) of the
Labor Code. Thus there is no justification for the issuance of the
ISSUE/S
questioned Order of preliminary injunction.
1. WON the union members who participated in the illegal strike
- Moreover, the records reveal the continuing misuse of unfair strategies
should be reinstated
to secure ex parte temporary restraining orders against striking
employees. Petitioner union did not receive any copy of private
HELD
respondent's petition for injunction. Its address, as alleged by the private
1. YES.
respondent, turned out to be "erroneous". Consequently, the petitioner
Reasoning
was denied the right to attend the hearing while the private respondent
- First, there was inadequate service of the certification order on
enjoyed a field day presenting its evidence ex parte. On the basis of
the union as of the date the strike was declared and there was
uncontested evidence, the public respondent temporarily enjoined the
no showing that the striking members had been apprised of such
petitioner from committing certain alleged illegal acts. Again, a copy of
order by the NAFLU.
the Order was sent to the wrong address of the petitioner. Knowledge of
- Second, by virtue of the priniciple of vicarious liability, only the
the Order came to the petitioner only when its striking members read it
union officers deserve not to be reinstated. The leaders of the
after it was posted at the struck areas of the private respondent.
union are the moving force in the declaration of the strike and the
- To be sure, the issuance of an ex parte temporary restraining order in
Rank-in-file employees merely followed. Likewise, viewed in the
a labor dispute is not per se prohibited. Its issuance, however, should be
light of Article 264, paragraph (e), those who participated in the
characterized by care and caution for the law requires that it be clearly
commission of illegal acts who stood charged criminally thereof
justified by considerations of extreme necessity, i.e., when the
in court must be penalized
commission of unlawful acts is causing substantial and irreparable injury
- The contention of the petitioner that the private respondents
to company properties and the company is, for the moment, bereft of an
abandoned their position is also not acceptable. An employee
adequate remedy at law. This is as it ought to be, for imprudently issued
who forthwith takes steps to protest his lay-off cannot by any
temporary restraining orders can break the back of employees engaged
logic be said to have abandoned his work.
in a legal strike. Often times, they unduly tilt the balance of a labor
-The loss of employment status of striking union members is
warfare in favor of capital. When that happens, the deleterious effects of
limited to those "who knowingly participates in the commission of
a wrongfully issued, ex parte temporary restraining order on the rights of
illegal acts." (Article 264, Labor Code) Evidence must be
striking employees can no longer be repaired for they defy simple
presented to substantiate the commission thereof and not merely
monetization. Moreover, experience shows that ex parte applications for
an unsubstantiated allegation
restraining orders are often based on fabricated facts and concealed
- The right to strike is one of the rights recognized and
truths. A more becoming sense of fairness, therefore, demands that
guaranteed by the Constitution as an instrument of labor for its
such ex parte applications should be more minutely examined by
protection against exploitation by management. By virtue of this
hearing officers, lest, our constitutional policy of protecting labor
right, the workers are able to press their demands for better
becomes nothing but a synthetic shibboleth. The immediate need to
terms of employment with more energy and persuasiveness,
hear and resolve these ex parte applications do not provide any excuse
poising the threat to strike as their reaction to the employer's
to lower our vigilance in protecting labor against the issuance of
intransigence. The strike is indeed a powerful weapon of the
indiscriminate injunctions. Stated otherwise, it behooves hearing officers
working class. But precisely because of this, it must be handled
receiving evidence in support of ex parte injunctions against employees
carefully, like a sensitive explosive, lest it blow up in the workers'
in strike to take a more active stance in seeing to it that their right to
own hands. Thus, it must be declared only after the most
social justice is in no way violated despite their absence. This equalizing
thoughtful consultation among them, conducted in the only way
stance was not taken in the case at bar by the public respondents.
allowed, that is, peacefully, and in every case conformably to
reasonable regulation. Any violation of the legal requirements
Disposition The petition is granted.
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
212 SCRA 792
LABOR LAW 2 A2010 - 243 - Disini
Disposition Petition dismissed "c) In cases of bargaining deadlocks. the duly certified or
recognized bargaining agent may file a notice of strike or the
employer may file a notice of lockout with the Ministry at least 30
Lapanday Workers Union v. NLRC days before the intended date thereof. In cases of unfair labor
248 SCRA 95 practice, the notice shall be 15 days and in the absence of a duly
Puno ; Sept. 7, 1995 certified or recognized bargaining agent, the notice of strike may
be filed by any legitimate labor organization in behalf of its
Facts member. However, in case of dismissal from employment of
-Lapanday Agricultural and Development Corporation and CADECO union officer duly elected in accordance with the union
Agro Development Philippines Inc. (Private respondents) are sister constitution and by-laws, which may constitute union busting
companies. Lapanday Workers Union (Union) is the duly certified where the existence of the union is threatened, the 15-day
bargaining agent of the rank and file employees of private respondent. cooling-off period shall not apply and the union may take action
The Union is affiliated with the KMU-ANGLO. immediately.
-Union has a collective bargaining agreement. A few months before the xxx xxx xxx
expiration of their CBA, private respondent initiated certain management "f) A decision to declare a strike must be approved by a majority
policies which disrupted the relationship of the parties- 1. Contracting of of the total union membership in the bargaining unit concerned,
Philippine Eagle Protectors and Security Agency Inc., the Union branded obtained by secret ballot in meetings or referenda called for that
the security guards posted within the company premises as private purpose. A decision to declare a lockout must be approved by a
respondents' "goons" and "special forces." It also accused the guards of majority of the board of director of the corporation or association
intimidating and harassing their members. 2. The Union claimed that the or of the partner in a partnership, obtained by secret ballot in a
module on the Philippines political spectrum lumped the ANGLO meeting called for that purpose. The decision shall be valid for
(Alliance of Nationalist and Genuine Labor Organization), with other the duration of the dispute based on substantially the same
outlawed labor organization such as the National Democratic Front or grounds considered when the strike or lockout vote was taken.
other leftist groups. The Ministry may, at its own initiative or upon the request of any
-These issues were discussed during a labor-management meeting, the affected party, supervise the conduct of secret ballot In every
Union agreed to allow its members to attend the HDIR seminar for the case the union or the employer shall furnish the Ministry the
rank-and-filers but the Union directed its members not to attend the result of the voting at least seven (7) days before the intended
seminars scheduled on said dates. They picketed the premises of the strike or lockout subject to the cooling-off period herein provided.
Philippine Eagle Protectors to show their displeasure on the hiring of the
guards. Union filed a Notice of Strike with the National Conciliation and Article 264 of the same Code reads:
Mediation Board (NCMB). NCMB called conciliation conference. The "Art 264. Prohibited activities. - (a) No labor organization or
conference yielded the agreements that Union officers, including the employer shall declared a strike or lockout without first having
officials of KMU-ANGLO, and the Executive Director of the NMB would bargained collectively in accordance with Title VII of this Book or
attend the HDIR seminar and a committee shall convene to establish without first having filed the notice required in the preceding
guidelines governing the guards. With the apparent settlement of their Article or without the necessary strike or lockout vote first having
difference, private respondents notified the NCMB that there were no been obtained and reported to the Ministry.
more base for the notice of strike. xxx xxx xxx
-Danilo Martinez. a member of the Board of Directors of the Union, was ". . . Any union officer who knowingly participates in an illegal
gunned down in his house in the presence of his wife and children. The strike and any worker or union officer who knowingly participates
gunman was later identified as Eledio Samson, an alleged member of in the commission of illegal acts during a strike may be declared
security forces of private respondent. After the killing, most of the to have lost his employment status: Provided that mere
members of the Union refused to report for work. They returned to work participation of a worker in a lawful strike shall not constitute
the following day but they did not comply with the "quota system" sufficient ground for termination of his employment, even if a
adopted by the management to bolster production output. Allegedly, the replacement had been hired by the employer during such lawful
Union instructed the workers to reduce their production to thirty percent strike."
(30%) Private respondents charged the Union with economic sabotage A strike is "any temporary stoppage of work by the concerted
through slowdown. Private respondents filed separate charged against action of employees as a result of an industrial or labor dispute."
the Union and it member for illegal strike. unfair labor practice and It is the most preeminent of the economic weapons or workers
damages, with prayer for injunction. Petitioners skipped work to pay their which they unsheathe to force management to agree to an
last respect to the slain Danilo Martinez. who was laid to rest. Again on equitable sharing of the point product of labor and capital.
another date petitioner did not report for work. Instead, they proceeded Undeniably, strikes exert some disquieting effects not only on the
to private respondents' office at Lanang, carrying placards and posters relationship between labor and management but also on the
which called for the removal of the security guards. the ouster of certain general peace and progress of society. Our laws thus regulate
management officials, and the approval of their mass leave application. their exercise within reasons by balancing the interests of labor
Their mass action did not succeed. and management together with the overarching public interest.
-Labor Arbiter decision: Illegal strike and employees have lost their
employment status and order to desist. NLRC limited the penalty of Some of the limitations on the exercise of the right of strike are
dismissal only to the leaders of the illegal strike especially the officers of provided for in paragraph (c) and (f) of Article 263 of the labor
the union who served as its major player and union members were Code, as amended, supra. They provide for the procedural steps
merely instigated to participate in the illegal strike and should be treated to be followed before staging a strike - filing of notice of strike,
differently from their leaders. Petitioners claim that public respondent taking of strike vote, and reporting of the strike vote result to the
NLRC gravely abused it discretion. Department of Labor and Employment. In National Federation of
Sugar Workers (NFSW) vs. Overseas, et al., we ruled that these
steps are mandatory in character. thus:
Issues
WON the strike is legal "If only the filing of the strike notice and the strike-vote report
would be deemed mandatory. but not the waiting periods so
Held specifically and emphatically prescribed by law, the purposes
No. The applicable law are Articles 263 and 264 of the Labor Code, as (hereaf
amended by E.O. No. 111, dated December 24. 1986. ter
discus ART. 212. Definitions. (o) "Strike" means any
Paragraphs (c) and (f) of Article 263 of the Labor Code, as amended by
E.O. 111, provides. sed) temporary stoppage of work by the concerted
for action of employees as a result of an industrial or
labor dispute.
LABOR LAW 2 A2010 - 244 - Disini
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 respondents 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. Thus. Ratio In order for a strike to be valid, the following requirements
it must de declared only after the most thoughtful consultation among laid down in paragraphs (c) and (f) of Article 263 of the Labor
them, conducted in the only was allowed that is, peacefully, and in every Code must be complied with: (a) a notice of strike must be filed;
case conformably to reasonable regulation. Any violation of the legal (b) a strike-vote must be taken; and
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 ALPAPs 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 reinstated
President of ALPAP on the election held on 18-22 December 1970 by 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 Groups 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
activity which was protected by law. Petitioners cannot, therefore, at Lanang, carrying placards and posters which called for the
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.

PHIL. BLOOMING MILLS INC. V PBM EMPLOYEES Issues


ORGANIZATION WON the strike is legal
(mini bernardo)
Held
No. The applicable law are Articles 263 and 264 of the Labor
Code, as amended by E.O. No. 111, dated December 24. 1986.
Lapanday Workers Union v. NLRC Paragraphs (c) and (f) of Article 263 of the Labor Code, as
248 SCRA 95 amended by E.O. 111, provides.
"c) In cases of bargaining deadlocks. the duly certified or
Puno ; Sept. 7, 1995 recognized bargaining agent may file a notice of strike or the
employer may file a notice of lockout with the Ministry at least 30
Facts days before the intended date thereof. In cases of unfair labor
-Lapanday Agricultural and Development Corporation and CADECO practice, the notice shall be 15 days and in the absence of a duly
Agro Development Philippines Inc. (Private respondents) are sister certified or recognized bargaining agent, the notice of strike may
companies. Lapanday Workers Union (Union) is the duly certified be filed by any legitimate labor organization in behalf of its
bargaining agent of the rank and file employees of private respondent. member. However, in case of dismissal from employment of
The Union is affiliated with the KMU-ANGLO. union officer duly elected in accordance with the union
-Union has a collective bargaining agreement. A few months before the constitution and by-laws, which may constitute union busting
expiration of their CBA, private respondent initiated certain management where the existence of the union is threatened, the 15-day
policies which disrupted the relationship of the parties- 1. Contracting of
LABOR LAW 2 A2010 - 247 - Disini
cooling-off period shall not apply and the union may take action rest on a rational basis, free from emotionalism. unswayed by
immediately. the tempers and tantrums of a few hothead, and firmly focused
xxx xxx xxx on the legitimate interest of the union which should not, however,
"f) A decision to declare a strike must be approved by a majority of the be antithetical to the public welfare. Thus, our laws require the
total union membership in the bargaining unit concerned, obtained by decision to strike to be the consensus of the majority for while
secret ballot in meetings or referenda called for that purpose. A decision majority is not infallible, still, it is the best hedge against haste
to declare a lockout must be approved by a majority of the board of and error. In addition, a majority vote assures the union it will go
director of the corporation or association or of the partner in a to war against management with the strength derived from unity
partnership, obtained by secret ballot in a meeting called for that and hence, with better chance to succeed. In Batangas Laguna
purpose. The decision shall be valid for the duration of the dispute Tayabas Bus Company vs. NLRC, we held:
based on substantially the same grounds considered when the strike or xxx xxx xxx
lockout vote was taken. The Ministry may, at its own initiative or upon "The right to strike is one of the right recognized and guaranteed
the request of any affected party, supervise the conduct of secret ballot by the Constitution as an instrument of labor for it protection
In every case the union or the employer shall furnish the Ministry the against exploitation by management. by virtue of his right. the
result of the voting at least seven (7) days before the intended strike or workers are able to press their demands for better terms of
lockout subject to the cooling-off period herein provided. employment with more energy and persuasiveness. poising the
threat to strike at their reaction to employer s intransigence. The
Article 264 of the same Code reads: strike is indeed a powerful weapon of the working class. But
"Art 264. Prohibited activities. - (a) No labor organization or employer precisely because of this, it must be handled carefully like a
shall declared a strike or lockout without first having bargained sensitive explosive, but it blow up in the workers' own hands.
collectively in accordance with Title VII of this Book or without first Thus. it must de declared only after the most thoughtful
having filed the notice required in the preceding Article or without the consultation among them, conducted in the only was allowed
necessary strike or lockout vote first having been obtained and reported that is, peacefully, and in every case conformably to reasonable
to the Ministry. regulation. Any violation of the legal requirements and strictures,
xxx xxx xxx . . . will render the strike illegal. to the detriment of the very
". . . Any union officer who knowingly participates in an illegal strike and workers it is supposed to protect.
any worker or union officer who knowingly participates in the "Every war must be lawfully waged. A labor dispute demands no
commission of illegal acts during a strike may be declared to have lost less observance of the rules. for the benefit of all concerned."
his employment status: Provided that mere participation of a worker in a Applying the law to the case at bar, we rule that strike conducted
lawful strike shall not constitute sufficient ground for termination of his by the union on October 12, 1988 is plainly illegal as it was held
employment, even if a replacement had been hired by the employer within the seven (7) day waiting period provided for by paragraph
during such lawful strike." (f), Article 263 of the Labor Code. as amended. The haste in
A strike is "any temporary stoppage of work by the concerted action of holding the strike prevented the Department of Labor and
employees as a result of an industrial or labor dispute." It is the most Employment from verifying whether it carried the approval of the
preeminent of the economic weapons or workers which they unsheathe majority of the union members. It set to naught an important
to force management to agree to an equitable sharing of the point policy consideration of our law on strike. Considering this finding,
product of labor and capital. Undeniably, strikes exert some disquieting we need not exhaustively rule on the legality of the work
effects not only on the relationship between labor and management but stoppage conducted by the union and some of their members on
also on the general peace and progress of society. Our laws thus September 9 and 23, 1988. Suffice to state, that the ruling of the
regulate their exercise within reasons by balancing the interests of labor public respondent on the matter is supported by substantial
and management together with the overarching public interest. evidence.

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 they
staging a strike - filing of notice of strike, taking of strike vote, and 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, Cans 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 3. EFFECT ON WORK
Phil Can to restore the former rate of wages and to refund all deductions
made in their salaries. Phil Can alleged that the strike declared by the RELATIONSHIP- 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.

ISSUE ELIZALDE ROPE COMPANY V SOCIAL


WON the CIR erred in ordering Phil Can to admit the laborers back to SECURITY COMMISSION
work despite the issue of the strikes illegality being raised 4 SCRA 512
HELD
PADILLA; February 28, 1962
YES.
Ratio [NATURE & PURPOSE OF A STRIKE] A strike is a coercive NATURE
measure resorted to by laborers to enforce their demands. The idea Appeal from Resolution No. 41 adopted by the respondent
behind a strike is that a company engaged in a profitable business Commission
cannot afford to have its production or activities interrupted, much less,
paralyzed. Any interruption or stoppage of production spells loses, even FACTS
disaster. The capital invested in machinery, factory and other properties - The laborers of the Elizalde Rope Factory went on strike.
connected with the business would be unproductive during a strike or During the period of time the strike lasted, the factory did not pay
the stoppage of the business. On the other hand, the overhead to the Social Security Commission any premium for Tupas, a
expenses consisting of salaries of its official, including real taxes and laborer and one of the strikers. After the strike, the factory
license fees continue. Knowing this, the strikers by going on strike seek resumed to pay the premium until Tupas death.
to interrupt and paralyze the business and production of the company. - Social Security sent bill No. 138 representing the unpaid
The employer company is on the defensive. It almost invariably wants premium for Tupas. Factory claims that it should be for the
the strike stopped and the strikers back to work so as to resume and account of Tupas since he was considered unemployed by the
continue production. Because of this threat or danger of loss to the company at the time of the strike.
company, it not frequently gives in to the demands of the strikers, just so - Social Security declared that the strike was not unlawful and
it can maintain the continuity of its production. Or, if the strikers refuse to reiterated the companys obligation to pay premiums. Factory
return to work, the employer company seeks permission from the court requested for reconsideration, which was denied thru Resolution
to employ other laborers to take their places. In such cases, pending No. 41.
determination of the conflict, especially where public interests so require
or when the court cannot promptly decide the case, the strikers are ISSUE
ordered back to work. WON social security premium corresponding to a period when a
Reasoning The facts in the present case are far different. Public covered worker is on strike should be paid by the employer
interests are hardly affected or involved in the present strike. The
business of Phil Can is not such that the public is keenly interested in its HELD
continuance. Many similar companies have sprung up since 1947, YES
resulting in intense and even ruinous competition, thus explaining the Ratio Although during a strike the worker renders no work or
downward trend in the business and its desire to lay off laborers. After service and receives no compensation, yet his relationship
the strike was staged the company did not employ other laborers to take as an employee with his employer is not severed or
the places of the strikers. It claims that it no longer needs the services of dissolved. Strike is the workers' means of expressing their
the strikers. It becomes consequently apparent that the need for grievances to employers and enforcing compliance with their
ordering the strikers back to work in ordinary cases does not obtain or demands made upon them. And when laborers go on strike,
exist in the present case. The resolution says that no damage will be it cannot be said that they intend to cut off or terminate their
caused to the company by the return of the strikers because the laborers relationship with their employer. On the contrary, a strike
will be rendering service to their employer. But this is hardly correct may improve the employer-employee relationship bringing
because due to the loss in business of the company, it does not need
about better working conditions and more efficient services
the services of others to take their places. So, if they return to work
before the case is definitely decided, they would practically be loafing in
Reasoning
the factory, not exactly for lack of interest or desire to work but because - Sec 18 of RA 1161 as amended by RA 1792 provides that:
there is no work to be done or performed. According to the company, the Beginning as of the last day of the calendar month
re-employment of the strikers would mean an outlay of about P1,400 a immediately preceding the month when an employee's
week, or P5,600 a month in wages, which the company cannot afford. It compulsory coverage age takes effect and every month
would be a considerable loss to the company. But as the strikers, they thereafter during his employment, there shall be deducted
would suffer no damage by not being readmitted pending decision of the and withheld from the monthly compensation of such
case. Should it be found after due hearing that the strike was legal and covered employee a contribution equal to two and a half per
centum of his monthly compensation.
LABOR LAW 2 A2010 - 249 - Disini
and Sec 19 thereof provides that: - Eventually, after a conference where Marsmans VPs proposal
Beginning as of the last day of the month immediately preceding the (that they stop the strike and go back to work, and that when
month when an employee's compulsory coverage takes effect and they were already working the Company would discuss with
every month thereafter during his employment, his employer shall them their demands) was accepted, the strikers returned to work.
pay, with respect to such covered employee in his employ, a However, complainants herein were refused admittance and
monthly contribution equal to three and a half per centum of the were informed by Company officials that they would not be
monthly compensation of said covered employee... reinstated unless they ceased to be active Union members and
that in any case the Company already had enough men for its
- The above legal provisions do not require that the employer's 3-
business operations.
1/2% and employee's 2-1/2% contributions be based on the latters -As a result the strike and the picketing were resumed, because
monthly compensation actually earned or received by the employee of which employees who had been admitted to work had to stay
covered by the Social Security System. They only provide that after inside the Company premises, where the Company furnished
an employee is compulsorily covered by the System he and his them food and quarters. Nevertheless some of those employed
employer will contribute to pay the premium every month during his could go in and out after office hours to visit their families.
employment. - During the strike, some of the picketers and some non-strikers
Disposition Resolution appealed from is AFFIRMED were arrested within the strike zone for having committed
unlawful acts, and were duly charged therewith.
4. TYPES, CHANGES AND CONVERSION - A petition for writ of injunction filed by the Company against
MARCELA on the ground that the strike and picket were being
1. TYPES maintained illegally, was denied by the CFI Manila, which
1) ULP 263 (c) pointed out that proper criminal complaints should have been
2) BARGAINING DEADLOCK- ECONOMIC 263 (c) filed against the individual strikers in the corresponding courts.
- Because of the Company's consistent refusal to reinstate the
69 complainants even after repeated requests, the
Art. 263 Confederation of Labor Associations of the Philippines (CLAP),
Strikes, picketing and lockouts. to which the Union had affiliated after seceding from the FFW
(c) In case of bargaining deadlocks, the duly certified initiated the present charge for unfair labor practice.
or recognized bargaining agent may file a notice of - Initially the strike staged by the Union was meant to compel
the Company to grant it certain economic benefits set forth in its
strike or the employer may file a notice of lockout
proposal for collective bargaining. The strike was an economic
with the Ministry at least 30 day before the intended one,1 and the striking employees would have a tight to be
date thereof. reinstated if, in the interim, the employer had not hired other
In cases of unfair labor practice, the period of permanent workers to replace them. For it is recognized that
notice shall be 15 days and in the absence of a duly during the pendency of an economic strike an employer may
take steps to continue and protect his business by supplying
certified or recognized bargaining agent, the notice of
places left vacant by the strikers, and is not bound to discharge
strike may be filed by any legitimate labor those hired for that purpose upon election of the strikers to
organization in behalf of its members. resume their employment. But the strike changed its character
However, in case of dismissal from employment of from the time the Company refused to reinstate complainants
union officers duly elected in accordance with the because of their union activities after it had offered to admit all
union constitution and by-laws, which may constitute the strikers and in fact did readmit the others. It was then
converted into an unfair labor practice strike.
union busting, where the existence of the union is - J. Bautista, after hearing, found Marsman guilty of the charge
threatened, the 15-day cooling-off period shall not and ordered it to reinstate 60 of the aforementioned 69
apply and the union may take action immediately. complainants to their former positions or to similar ones with the
same rate of pay, without back wages.
- On the MR, the Court en banc affirmed the decision.
- Both the Union and Marsman appealed. The former claims that
CONSOLIDATED LABOR ASSOCIATION OF THE the 60 reinstated employees should be granted backpay while
PHILS v. MARSMAN and CO., INC. [CIR] the latter questions the CIR's finding of ULP.
&
Issue: WON Marsman committed ULP
MARSMAN and Co., INC. v. CONSOLIDATED LABOR HELD: YES.
ASSOCIATION OF THE PHILIPPINES [BAUTISTA, Reasoning:
MARTINEZ, VILLANUEVA, &TABIGNE] - Marsman alleges that it was economic reasons, i.e., its policy of
11 SCRA 589 retrenchment, not labor discrimination, which prevented it from
rehiring complainants. This is disproved, however, by the fact
MAKALINTAL; July 31, 1964 that it not only readmitted the other strikers, but also hired new
FACTS: employees and even increased the salaries of its personnel by
- MARCELA-FFW submitted to the Company a set of proposals for almost 50%. SC is convinced that it was not business exigency
collective bargaining, which the Company answered. but a desire to discourage union activities which prompted the
- In spite of negotiations held between the Company and the Union, they Company to deny readmittance to complainants. This is an
failed to reach In agreement; so the Union, failed a notice of strike with indubitable case of unfair labor practice.
the DOLE. - The Union began the strike because it believed in good faith
- Mediation by the Conciliation Service of that Department proved that settlement of their demands was at an impasse and that
fruitless. further negotiations would only come to naught. It stopped the
- the Union declared a strike and at the same time placed a "round-the- strike upon the belief they could go back to work. Then it
clock" picket line around the Company's premises in Intramuros, Manila. renewed the strike (or it started a new strike) as a protest against
The tense situation in the strike zone prompted the Manila Police the discrimination practiced by the Company. Both are valid
Department to send policemen thereto to preserve peace. grounds for going on a strike.
- Meanwhile the Labor Department's Conciliation Service continued to - The Company further argues that since the methods used by
mediate between the representatives of the Union and of the Company. the strikers were illegal, it had the right to refuse them
readmission. Of the 69 complainants, nine, namely Alejandro
LABOR LAW 2 A2010 - 250 - Disini
Mojar, Manuel Mazo, Esteban Borja, Cecilio Walo, Eugenio Valenzuela,
Elias Matic, Marcos Buccat, Malisimo Vargas and Ricardo Antonio, were On the other hand, even after the court has made a finding of
charged with and convicted of various crimes like coercion, malicious unfair labor practice, it still has the discretion to determine
mischief, physical injuries, breach of the peace, light threats, and whether or not to grant back pay.
damage to property, all committed during the period from September 4,
1954 to October 12, 1954. Admittedly, the Company could not have Such discretion was not abused when it denied back
condoned these acts which were committed after it had offered to wages to complainants, considering the climate of violence
reinstate the strikers. Nevertheless, as the lower court reasoned out, it which attended the strike and picket
does not appear that the aforementioned individual acts were authorized that the complainants conducted.
or even impliedly sanctioned by the Union. Hence, the other strikers who While the complainants ordered reinstated did not
were innocent of and did not participate in the illegal acts should not be actively take part in the acts of violence, their minatory attitude
punished by being deprived of their right of reinstatement. It is only towards the Company may be gathered from the fact that from
those who had been found guilty who should be penalized by the loss of the very first day of the strike policemen had to patrol the strike
3
the right. zone in order to preserve peace.
- On the other hand, even after the court has made a finding of unfair
labor practice, it still has the discretion to determine whether or not to
grant back pay. Such discretion was not abused when it denied back 3. NON-CONVERSION
wages to complainants, considering the climate of violence which
attended the strike and picket that the complainants conducted. While RIZAL CEMENT WORKERS UNION (FFW) ET AL
the complainants ordered reinstated did not actively take part in the acts
of violence, their minatory attitude towards the Company may be V COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS
gathered from the fact that from the very first day of the strike policemen (MADRIGAL & COMPANY, INC., CANDIDO DE
had to patrol the strike zone in order to preserve peace. LEON and JOHNNY DE LEON)
6 SCRA 841
DISPOSITIVE: Judgment appealed from is affirmed.
BARRERA; APRIL 30, 1964
1
An economic strike is defined as one which is to force wage or
other concessions from the employer which he is not required by NATURE Petition for review on certiorari
law to grant. FACTS

The Rizal Cement Workers Union, affiliated with the Federation


of Free Workers, heretofore referred to as the Union, is a
2. CHANGE IN TYPE legitimate labor organization. The twenty-one complainant
workers are members of the Union and work at the Bodega
Consolidated Labor Assoc. of the Phil. V. Tanque, Paco, Manila.
Rizal Cement Co., Inc. is a corporation likewise organized under
Marsman and Co. (supra) the laws of the Philippines and is engaged principally in the
manufacture of cement. It operates a plant in Binangonan, Rizal,
Initially the strike staged by the Union was meant to compel the where it manufactures cement. The bags of cement are then
Company to grant it certain economic benefits set forth in its proposal for sent in barges to the Bodega Tanque at Paco, where they are
collective bargaining. The strike was an economic one, and the striking unloaded by workers therein and sent either directly to
employees would have a right to be reinstated if, in the interim, the customers on trucks and pick-ups or stored in the warehouse for
employer had not hired other permanent workers to replace them. For it future deliveries.
is recognized that during the pendency of an economic strike an
employer may take steps to continue and protect his business by On May 27, 1956, the Union staged a strike at the plant of Rizal
supplying places left vacant by the strikers, and is not bound to Cement Co., Inc. in Binangonan, Rizal. In the early morning of
discharge those hired for that purpose upon election of the strikers to the following day, that is, on May 28, 1956, Candido de Leon
resume their employment. warehouseman-encargado at the Bodega Tanque, received a
telephone call from one Johnny de Leon, manager of the
But the strike changed its character from the time the Company refused respondent Rizal Cement Co., Inc., with the information that the
to reinstate complainants because of their union activities after it had Union staged a strike against the company on the previous day,
offered to admit all the strikers and in fact did readmit the others. It was May 27, 1956, in Binangonan, Rizal De Leon further informed
then converted into an unfair labor practice strike. him that he should take precautionary measures in protecting the
properties of the company stored at the Bodega Tanque
The Union began the strike because it believed in good faith that because of the strikers caused damage to the factory in
settlement of their demands was at an impasse and that further Binangonan and sabotage might occur. For this reason, he was
negotiations would only come to naught. It stopped the strike upon the advised by the manager to request the members of the Union to
belief they could go back to work. stay meanwhile outside the premises of the Bodega Tanque.
What he did in the morning of May 28, 1956 was to station
Then it renewed the strike (or it started a new strike) as a himself at the gate of the compound. When the workers arrived
protest against the discrimination practiced by the for work at 7:00 a.m., he did not allow the 21 complaining
Company. workers who are members of the Union to enter the gate and
Both are valid grounds for going on a strike. allowed only those who are not members of said Union. Upon
In an economic strike, the strikers are not entitled to backpay, since the refusal of Candido de Leon to allow the complaining workers to
employer should get the equivalent day's work for what he pays his work on that day, the Union, through Ramon L. Kabigting, Vice-
employees. During the time that the strike was an economic one, President of the FFW, sent a letter addressed to the Manager,
complainants had no right to back pay. Bodega Tanque, Rizal Cement Co., Inc
The Industrial Court could not have made a finding of unfair
labor practice with respect to such time, as none had so far been On May 30, 1956, the complaining workers formed a picket line
committed. in front of the Madrigal Building on the Escolta, Manila, where
the Offices of the respondent companies are located. The picket
This being an unfair labor practice case, it cannot, therefore, lasted up to April, 1957.
order reinstatement much less back pay for that period.
LABOR LAW 2 A2010 - 251 - Disini
After the complaining workers were not allowed to work on May 28, 1956, complainants actually joined the picket line formed in front
1956, the respondent Rizal Cement Co., Inc. hired substitutes in order of the Company's office at Escolta, Manila.
that the work in the Bodega Tanque, which consists mainly in unloading
and loading cement, may not be paralyzed. Dispositive Decision affirmed
With the foregoing facts, the Court of Industrial Relations resolved in the
negative the issue presented therein, i.e., whether the Company's denial
to the 21 complaining workers, of entrance to the compound and work 5. GROUNDS
constitutes a lockout, for the reason that the said act was resorted to
forestall any possible sabotage in the warehouse. It was pointed out that
although the strike was declared in and confined the factory in
1) Allowable grounds
Binangonan Rizal, the activities in the Tanque warehouse in Paco
Manila, where the complainants work, complement those at the plant.
Art. 263
Also, in the letter of the Union dated September 24, 1954, addressed to
the management, and as found by the lower court, the Union made it Strikes, picketing and lockouts.
clear that the set of demands (presented to the Company and denial of (c) In case of bargaining deadlocks, the duly
which led to the declaration of the strike in question) covers all certified or recognized bargaining agent may file
employees of the Rizal Cement Co., Inc. "including those workers at the a notice of strike or the employer may file a
Bodega Tanque" (p. 31, decision of Dec. 14, 1961), and that in the
notice of lockout with the Ministry at least 30 day
notice of strike filed by the Union (Exhs. 125-Rizal and 125-A-Rizal), it
was specifically declared that the establishment covered by the objected before the intended date thereof.
strike covers the "factory, quarry and warehouse," the last place In cases of unfair labor practice, the period of
obviously referring to Bodega Tanque. Thus the court held that, under notice shall be 15 days and in the absence of a
the circumstances, the court was resorted to as a defensive weapon or duly certified or recognized bargaining agent, the
dictated by economic necessity and, consequently, did not constitute an notice of strike may be filed by any legitimate
unfair labor practice. And, as in the decision rendered in the main case
(No. 14-IPA) the strikers were ordered reinstated to their former labor organization in behalf of its members.
positions without back wages, which decision became final and However, in case of dismissal from employment
executory on May 27, 1961, the court directed the Company in this case of union officers duly elected in accordance with
to reinstate the 21 complainants with back wages only from May 28, the union constitution and by-laws, which may
1961. This decision was affirmed by the court en banc by resolution of constitute union busting, where the existence of
January 27, 1962. Hence, the filing of the instant petition.
the union is threatened, the 15-day cooling-off
ISSUE period shall not apply and the union may take
WON the Company's refusal to admit the 21 complainants to work in the action immediately.
warehouse, simply because they belong to the same Union that staged
the strike in the factory, constituted a violation of Section (a) (4) of the
Industrial Peace Act (Rep. Act 875)

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 30,
LABOR LAW 2 A2010 - 252 - Disini

ILAW at BUKLOD ng MANGGAGAWA v NLRC


198 SCRA 586
NARVASA; June 27, 1991
(263 (g) contd)
FACTS
In line with the national concern for and the highest respect accorded to -The controversy at bar had its origin in the "wage distortions"
the right of patients to life and health, strikes and lockouts in hospitals, affecting the employees of respondent San Miguel Corporation
clinics and similar medical institutions shall, to every extent possible, be allegedly caused by Republic Act No. 6727, otherwise known as
avoided, and all serious efforts, not only by labor and management but the Wage Rationalization Act.
government as well, be exhausted to substantially minimize, if not -Upon the effectivity of the Act on June 5, 1989, the union known
prevent, their adverse effects on such life and health, through the as "Ilaw at Buklod Ng Manggagawa (IBM)" said to represent
exercise, however legitimate, by labor of its right to strike and by 4,500 employees of San Miguel Corporation, more or less,
management to lockout. In labor disputes adversely affecting the "working at the various plants, offices, and warehouses located
continued operation of such hospitals, clinics or medical institutions, it at the National Capital Region" - presented to the company a
"demand" for correction of the "significant distortion in . . . (the
shall be the duty of the striking union or locking-out employer to provide
and maintain an effective skeletal workforce of medical and other health workers') wages."
personnel, whose movement and services shall be unhampered and -Union claims that demand was ignored
- The Union's position (set out in the petition subsequently filed
unrestricted, as are necessary to insure the proper and adequate
protection of the life and health of its patients, most especially in this Court, infra) was that the workers' refusal "to work
emergency cases, for the duration of the strike or lockout. In such beyond eight (8) hours everyday as a legitimate means of
compelling SMC to correct "the distortion in their wages
cases, therefore, the Secretary of Labor and Employment may
immediately assume, within twenty four (24) hours from knowledge of brought about by the implementation of the said laws (R.A.
the occurrence of such a strike or lockout, jurisdiction over the same or 6640 and R.A. 6727) to newly-hired employees." There
ensued thereby a change in the work schedule which had been
certify it to the Commission for compulsory arbitration. For this purpose,
the contending parties are strictly enjoined to comply with such orders, observed by daily-paid workers at the Polo Plant for the past five
prohibitions and/or injunctions as are issued by the Secretary of Labor (5) years, i.e., "ten (10) hours for the first shift and ten (10) to
fourteen (14) hours for the second shift, from Mondays to
and Employment or the Commission, under pain of immediate
disciplinary action, including dismissal or loss of employment status or Fridays . . .; (and on) Saturdays, . . . eight (8) hours for both
payment by the locking-out employer of backwages, damages and shifts" a work schedule which, SMC says, the workers had
other affirmative relief, even criminal prosecution against either or both "welcomed, and encouraged" because the automatic overtime
of them. built into the schedule "gave them a steady source of extra-
income," and pursuant to which it (SMC) "planned its production
The foregoing notwithstanding, the President of the Philippines shall not targets and budgets.
be precluded from determining the industries that, in his opinion, are -This abandonment of the long-standing schedule of work and
indispensable to the national interest, and from intervening at any time the reversion to the eight-hour shift apparently caused
and assuming jurisdiction over any such labor dispute in order to settle substantial losses to SMC.
or terminate the same. -SMC filed with the Arbitration Branch of the National Labor
Relations Commission a complaint against the Union and its
members "to declare the strike or slowdown illegal" and to
terminate the employment of the union officers and shop
ART. 264. Prohibited activities. - (a) No labor organization or employer stewards.
shall declare a strike or lockout without first having bargained -it is SMC's submittal that the coordinated reduction by the
collectively in accordance with Title VII of this Book or without first Union's members of the work time theretofore willingly and
having filed the notice required in the preceding Article or without the consistently observed by them, thereby causing financial losses
necessary strike or lockout vote first having been obtained and reported to the employer in order to compel it to yield to the demand for
to the Ministry. correction of "wage distortions," is an illegal and "unprotected"
activity. It is, SMC argues, contrary to the law and to the
No strike or lockout shall be declared after assumption of jurisdiction by collective bargaining agreement between it and the Union.
the President or the Minister or after certification or submission of the
dispute to compulsory or voluntary arbitration or during the pendency of ISSUE
cases involving the same grounds for the strike or lockout. WON the strike is illegal

Any worker whose employment has been terminated as a consequence HELD


of any unlawful lockout shall be entitled to reinstatement with full YES. Among the rights guaranteed to employees by the Labor
backwages. Any union officer who knowingly participates in an illegal Code is that of engaging in concerted activities in order to attain
strike and any worker or union officer who knowingly participates in the their legitimate objectives. Article 263 of the Labor Code, as
commission of illegal acts during a strike may be declared to have lost amended, declares that in line with "the policy of the State to
his employment status: Provided, That mere participation of a worker in encourage free trade unionism and free collective bargaining, . . .
a lawful strike shall not constitute sufficient ground for termination of his (w)orkers shall have the right to engage in concerted activities
employment, even if a replacement had been hired by the employer for purposes of collective bargaining or for their mutual benefit
during such lawful strike. and protection." A similar right to engage in concerted activities
for mutual benefit and protection is tacitly and traditionally
ART. 265. Improved offer balloting. - In an effort to settle a strike, the recognized in respect of employers.
Department of Labor and Employment shall conduct a referendum by The more common of these concerted activities as far as
secret ballot on the improved offer of the employer on or before the employees are concerned are: strikes the temporary stoppage
30th day of the strike. When at least a majority of the union members of work as a result of an industrial or labor dispute; picketing
vote to accept the improved offer the striking workers shall immediately the marching to and fro at the employer's premises, usually
return to work and the employer shall thereupon readmit them upon the accompanied by the display of placards and other signs making
signing of the agreement. known the facts involved in a labor dispute; and boycotts the
concerted refusal to patronize an employer's goods or services
In case of a lockout, the Department of Labor and Employment shall and to persuade others to a like refusal. On the other hand, the
also conduct a referendum by secret balloting on the reduced offer of
the union on or before the 30th day of the lockout. When at least a
majority of the board of directors or trustees or the partners holding the
controlling interest in the case of a partnership vote to accept the
reduced offer, the workers shall immediately return to work and the
employer shall thereupon readmit them upon the signing of the
agreement.
LABOR LAW 2 A2010 - 253 - Disini
counterpart activity that management may licitly undertake is the lockout provided under Articles 263 and 264 of the Labor Code. It further
the temporary refusal to furnish work on account of a labor dispute. In alleged that the officers and members of the respondent union
this connection, the same Article 263 provides that the "right of blocked the main ingress to and egress from the hotel.
legitimate labor organizations to strike and picket and of employer to - The respondent Union denied the material allegations of the
lockout, consistent with the national interest, shall continue to be complaint and alleged that the petitioner committed ULP prior to
recognized and respected." The legality of these activities is usually the filing of the Nov. 16, 1990 notice of strike. Hence, there was
dependent on the legality of the purposes sought to be attained no need for the union to comply with A263 and 264 of LC, as the
and the means employed therefor (ON TEST OF LEGALITY). notice
It goes without saying that these joint or coordinated activities may be - LA Linsangans Ruling: Unions failure to comply with the
forbidden or restricted by law or contract. In the particular instance of requirements laid down in A263 and 264 of LC, the strike that
"distortions of the wage structure within an establishment" was staged was illegal. Considering the admissions of the
resulting from "the application of any prescribed wage increase by individual respondents that they participated in the said strike,
virtue of a law or wage order," Section 3 of Republic Act No. 6727 the termination of their employment by the petitioner was legal.
prescribes a specific, detailed and comprehensive procedure for LA noted that if as alleged by the respondent union the petitioner
the correction thereof, thereby implicitly excluding strikes or was guilty of ULP, it should have filed a complaint therefor
lockouts or other concerted activities as modes of settlement of the against the Hotel and/or its officials for which the latter could
issue. The legislative intent that solution of the problem of wage have been meted penal and administrative sanctions as provided
distortions shall be sought by voluntary negotiation or arbitration, for in A272 of LC. The Union failed.
and not by strikes, lockouts, or other concerted activities of the - Appeal by Union to NLRC: that it had complied with the
employees or management, is made clear in the rules requirements laid down in A263 and 264 of LC because its Nov
implementing RA 6727 issued by the Secretary of Labor and 16, 1990 notice of strike was a mere reiteration of its Sept 27,
Employment pursuant to the authority granted by Section 13 of the 1990 notice of strike, which, in turn, complied with all the
Act. Section 16, Chapter I of these implementing rules, after requirements of the aforementioned articles, i.e., the cooling-off
reiterating the policy that wage distortions be first settled period, the strike ban, the strike vote and the strike vote report.
voluntarily by the parties and eventually by compulsory arbitration, - NLRC affirmed LA Decision. Compliance of the requirements
declares that, "Any issue involving wage distortion shall not be a laid down in A263 and 264 of LC respecting the Sept 27, 1990
ground for a strike/lockout." notice of strike filed by the union cannot be carried over to the
-Moreover, the collective bargaining agreement between the SMC and Nov 16, 1990 notice of strike. Resultantly, for failure of the union
the Union, relevant provisions of which are quoted by the former without to comply with the requirements, the strike staged on November
the latter s demurring to the accuracy of the quotation, also prescribes 16 up to November 29, 1990 was illegal.
a similar eschewal of strikes or other similar or related concerted - CA reversed NLRC and LA: It took into account the observation
activities as a mode of resolving disputes or controversies, generally, of the Sol-Gen that the Hotel retrenched EEs pending the
said agreement clearly stating that settlement of "all disputes, resolution of the certified cases respecting the alleged illegal
disagreements or controversies of any kind" should be achieved by the suspension and dismissals effected by Hotel during and prior to
stipulated grievance procedure and ultimately by arbitration. the notices of strike filed by Union. Sol-Gen opined that even if
the strike was staged without the proper notice and compliance
Disposition PETITION DENIED 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
GRAND BOULEVARD HOTEL V GENUINE LABORERS
ORGANIZATION ISSUES
406 SCRA 688 1 WON the strike staged by the respondent union on Nov16-29,
CALLEJO; July 18, 2003 1990 is legal
2 WON the dismissals of the officers and some members of the
NATURE Union as a consequence of the strike on Nov16-29, 1990 are
Petition for review on certiorari valid.

FACTS HELD
- Respondent Genuine Labor Organization of Workers in Hotel, 1. NO
Restaurant and Allied Industries Silahis International Hotel Chapter Re: Procedural Requirements
(Union) and the petitioner Grand Boulevard Hotel (then Silahis - Under A263 (c) and (f) of LC, the requisites for a valid strike are
International Hotel, Inc.) executed a CBA covering the period from July as follows: (a) a notice of strike fled with the DOLE 30 days
10, 1985 up to July 9, 1988. before the intended date thereof or 15 days in case of ULP; (b)
- Thereafter, Union filed several notices of strike on account of alleged strike vote approved by a majority of the total union membership
violations of CBA, illegal dismissal and suspension of EEs. In these in the bargaining unit concerned obtained by secret ballot in a
instances, SOLE issued a status quo ante bellum order certifying the meeting called for that purpose; (c) notice given to the DOLE of
labor dispute to the NLRC for compulsory arbitration pursuant to Article the results of the voting at least 7 days before the intended
263(g) of LC. After notice was given by Hotel re its decision to strike. The requisite 7-day period is intended to give the DOLE
implement retrenchment program, Union informed the DOLE that the an opportunity to verify whether the projected strike really carries
union will conduct a strike vote referendum. The members of the Union the approval of the majority of the union members. The notice of
voted to stage a strike. Union informed the DOLE of the results of the strike and the cooling-off period were intended to provide an
strike vote referendum. SOLE issued another status quo ante bellum opportunity for mediation and conciliation. The requirements are
mandatory and failure of a union to comply therewith renders the
order certifying the case to the NLRC for compulsory arbitration and
enjoining the parties from engaging in any strike or lockout. Then, strike illegal. A strike simultaneously with or immediately after a
another notice of strike was filed by Union on account of the illegal notice of strike will render the requisite periods nugatory.
dismissal of EEs pusrsuant to Hotels act of retrenching around 171
EEs. Officers of the respondent union and some members staged a - In this case, union filed its notice of strike with the DOLE on
picket in the premises of the hotel, obstructing the free ingress and Nov 16, 1990 and on the same day, staged a picket on the
egress thereto. Because of this, they were terminated. premises of the hotel, in violation of the law. Union cannot argue
- Hotel filed a complaint with NLRC for illegal strike against the union, its that since the notice of strike on Nov 16, 1990 were for the same
members and officers. Petitioner Hotel alleged inter alia that the union grounds as those contained in their notice of strike on
members and officers staged a strike on November 16, 1990 which September 27, 1990 which complied with the requirements of the
lasted until November 29, 1990 without complying with the requirements law on the cooling-off period, strike ban, strike vote and strike
LABOR LAW 2 A2010 - 254 - Disini
vote report, the strike staged by them on Nov16, 1990 was lawful. The - The authority of the BLR in assuming jurisdiction over a
matters contained in the notice of strike of Sept 27, 1990 had already certification election, or any inter-union or intra-union conflicts, is
been taken cognizance of by the SOLE when he issued on Oct 31, 1990 found in Article 226 of the Labor Code of the Philippines, which
a status quo ante bellum order enjoining union from intending or staging reads:
a strike. Despite SOLE order, the union nevertheless staged a strike on ART. 226. BUREAU OF LABOR RELATIONS.
Nov16, 1990 simultaneously with its notice of strike, thus violating The Bureau of Labor Relations and the Labor
A264(a) LC Relations Division in the regional offices of the
Department of Labor shall have original and
Grounds exclusive authority to act, at their own initiative or
- A strike that is undertaken, despite the issuance by the SOLE of an upon request of either or both parties, on all inter-
assumption or certification order, becomes a prohibited activity and, thus, union and intra-union conflicts, and all disputes,
illegal pursuant to A264 of LC: No strike or lockout shall be declared grievances or problems arising from or affecting
after assumption of jurisdiction by the President or the Secretary or after labor-management relations in all workplaces
certification or submission of the dispute to compulsory or voluntary whether agricultural or nonagricultural, except those
arbitration or during the pendency of cases involving the same grounds arising from the implementation or interpretation of
for the strike or lockout. collective bargaining agreements which shall be the
- Even if the union acted in good faith in the belief that the company was subject of grievance procedure and/or voluntary
committing an unfair labor practice, if no notice of strike and a strike vote arbitration.
were conducted, the said strike is illegal. The Bureau shall have fifteen (15) working
days to act on labor cases before it, subject to
2. YES extension by agreement of the parties.
Re: Effect of Illegality
Ratio Since a strike that is undertaken, despite the issuance by the - It is quite clear from this provision that BLR has the original and
SOLE of an assumption or certification order, becomes a prohibited exclusive jurisdiction on all inter-union and intra-union
activity and, thus, illegal pursuant to A264 of LC, the union officers and conflicts. An intra-union conflict would refer to a conflict within or
members, as a result, are deemed to have lost their employment status inside a labor union, and an inter-union controversy or dispute,
for having knowingly participated in an illegal act. one occurring or carried on between or among unions. The
subject of the case at bar, which is the election of the officers
Disposition Petition is GRANTED. LA Decision REINSTATED. and members of the board of KMKK-MWSS, is, clearly, an intra-
union conflict, being within or inside a labor union. It is well within
the powers of the BLR to act upon.
BAUTISTA v. CA (CRUZ) - Executive Order No. 180 (1987), particularly Section 16 thereof,
452 SCRA 406 is completely lucid as to the settlement of disputes involving
government employees:
CHICO-NAZARIO; February 28, 2005 SEC. 16. The Civil Service and labor laws
NATURE and procedures, whenever applicable, shall be
Petition for review on certiorari followed in the resolution of complaints, grievances
and cases involving government employees.
FACTS - Since Article 226 of the Labor Code has declared that the BLR
- A petition for election of officers of Kaisahan at Kapatiran ng mga shall have original and exclusive authority to act on all inter-
Manggagawa at Kawani sa Metropolitan Waterworks and union and intra-union conflicts, then there should be no more
Sewerage System (KKMK-MWSS) was filed by Bonifacio De doubt as to its jurisdiction.
Guzman, former auditor of KKMK-MWSS. The Director of the BLR
granted the position and directed the KKMK-MWSS to Disposition PETITION DENIED
immediately conduct an election of the following union officers: 1.
President, 2. 1st Vice President, 3. 2nd Vice President, 4. Executive
Secretary, 5. Assistant Executive Secretary, 6. Treasurer, 7. 3) No Strike Clause
Assistant Treasurer, 8. Auditor, 9. Assistant Auditor, 10. Public
Relations Officer, 11. Twenty Three (23) Directors, 12. Four
PANAY ELECTRIC CO. INC V NLRC (PANAY ELECTRIC CO.
Sergeants at Arms, and 13. Business Manager, after the usual
pre-election conferences. She also decreed that the Labor EMPLOYEES AND WORKERS ASSOCIATION
Organizations Division, this Bureau, shall supervise the conduct of 248 SCRA 668
said election. VITUG; October 4, 1995
- The President of KKMK-MWSS, Genaro Bautista, appealed the NATURE
decision to the Office of the SOLE. The USec granted the petition Petiton for certiorari
for the reason that the controversy is an intra union conflict
involving an employees organization in the public sector created FACTS
and registered pursuant to Executive Order No. 180. -On 30 October 1990, petitioner Panay Electric Company, Inc., posted a notice
Consequently, this office (referring to the Secretary of Labor and announcing the need for a "Report Clerk" who could assume the responsibility
Employment) has no other recourse but to dismiss the appeal for of gathering accounting and computer data at its power plant
lack of jurisdiction. -When nobody applied for the position, the EDP/Personnel Manager
- (marami pang procedural stuff pero in the end the CA ruled that recommended Enrique Huyan who was at the time an Administrative
the BLR has jurisdiction.) Personnel Assistant at the head office. Huyan was then also a Vice President
of respondent union. The recommendation was approved by the company's
ISSUE President and General Manager.
WON the BLR has jurisdiction to call for and conduct the election of -Enrique Huyan informed petitioner that he was not interested in accepting the
officers of an employees association in the public sector. new position.
-The EDP/Personnel Manager required Huyan to explain within 48 hours why
HELD no disciplinary action should be taken against him for gross insubordination
YES. and for failure to follow the General Manager's approved directive.
- The BLR has the jurisdiction to call for and supervise the conduct of -Eventually, on 03 December 1990, Huyan was given a "notice of dismissal"
certification elections in the public sector. -An administrative investigation was conducted; thereafter, Huyan was ordered
dismissed effective 10 December 1990.
LABOR LAW 2 A2010 - 255 - Disini
-On 22 January 1991, the respondent union went on strike. and By-laws. The federation advised respondent company of the expulsion of
-Forthwith, the company filed a petition to declare the strike illegal as it was a serious the 30 union officers and demanded their separation from employment
breach of the "no strike, no lock out clause," of the Collective Bargaining Agreement pursuant to the Union Security Clause in their CBA.
("CBA") - Upon demand of the federation, the company terminated the petitioners
-The NLRC found the strike conducted by the Union from January 22 to 25, 1991 to be without conducting a separate and independent investigation. The expelled
illegal as the same was staged in violation of the no strike, no lock-out clause in the union officers assigned in the first shift were physically or bodily brought out of
Collective Bargaining Agreement existing between the parties and also because the the company premises by the company's security guards. Those assigned to
same disregarded the grievance procedure the second shift were not allowed to report for work. This provoked some of the
members of the local union to demonstrate their protest for the dismissal of the
ISSUE said union officers. Some union members left their work posts and walked out
WON the strike committed by the respondent union was illegal of the company premises.
- Labor Arbiter ruled that the dismissed union officers were validly and legally
HELD terminated because the dismissal was effected in compliance with the union
Yes security clause of the CBA which is the law between the parties. This was
-The State guarantees the right of all workers to self-organization, collective bargaining affirmed by the NLRC on appeal.
and negotiations, as well as peaceful concerted activities, including the right to strike, in > On the ISSUE of STRIKE:
accordance with law. - Labor Arbiter held that the strike was illegal for the following reasons: (1) it
-The right to strike, however, is not absolute. It has heretofore been held that a "no strike, was based on an intra-union dispute which cannot properly be the subject of a
no lock-out" provision in the Collective Bargaining Agreement ("CBA") is a valid strike, the right to strike being limited to cases of bargaining deadlocks and
stipulation although the clause may be invoked by an employer only when the strike is unfair labor practice (2) it was made in violation of the "no strike, no lock-out"
economic in nature or one which is conducted to force wage or other concessions from clause in the CBA, and (3) it was attended with violence, force and intimidation
the employer that are not mandated to be granted by the law itself. upon the persons of the company officials, other employees reporting for work
-It would be inapplicable to prevent a strike which is grounded on unfair labor practice. and third persons having legitimate business with the company, resulting to
-In this situation, it is not essential that the unfair labor practice act has, in fact, been serious physical injuries to several employees and damage to company
committed; it suffices that the striking workers are shown to have acted honestly on an property.
impression that the company has committed such unfair labor practice and the
surrounding circumstances could warrant such a belief in good faith. ISSUE/S
-In the instant case, the NLRC found Enrique Huyan and Prescilla Napiar, the "principal * WON the union officers were validly terminated
leaders" of the strike, not to have acted in good faith. The NLRC said: It is bad enough 1. WON the strike was illegal for being grounded on a non-strikeable issue
that the Union struck despite the prohibition in the CBA. What is worse is that its (intra-union conflict between the federation and the local union)
principal leaders, Napiar and Huyan, cannot honestly claim that they were in good faith 2. WON the no strike, no lock-out clause in the CBA was violated
in their belief that the Company was committing unfair labor practice. The absence of 3. WON the strike was attended with violence force and intimidation
good faith or the honest belief that the Company is committing Unfair Labor Practice,
therefore, is what inclines us to rule that the strike conducted by the Union from January HELD
22 to 25, 1991 is illegal for being in violation of the "no strike, no lock-out" proviso and * NO
the failure to bring the union's grievances under the grievance procedure in the CBA. It Reasoning Although this Court has ruled that union security clauses embodied
must be borne in mind that prior to the dismissal of Huyan, there was sufficient time to in the collective bargaining agreement may be validly enforced and that
have the matter of Huyan's transfer subjected to the grievance procedure. That the dismissals pursuant thereto may likewise
Union considered the procedure an exercise in futility is not reason enough to disregard
the same given the circumstances in this case. Whatever wrong the Union felt the
Company committed cannot be remedied by another wrong on the part of the Union.
6. STRIKING PARTY- 263 (b) (c)
Disposition
Decision is affirmed (as regards the illegality of the stirke)
ART. 263. Strikes, picketing and lockouts. - xxx

(b) Workers shall have the right to engage in concerted


MALAYANG SAMAHAN NG MANGGAGAWA SA M. GREENFIELD activities for purposes of collective bargaining or for their
V RAMOS, NLRC, M. GREENFIELD mutual benefit and protection. The right of legitimate
326 SCRA 248 labor organizations to strike and picket and of employers
PURISIMA; February 28, 2000 to lockout, consistent with the national interest, shall
continue to be recognized and respected. However, no
NATURE labor union may strike and no employer may declare a
Petition for Certiorari to annul the NLRC decision lockout on grounds involving inter-union and intra-union
disputes.
FACTS
- Malayang Samahan ng mga Manggagawa sa M. Greenfield, Inc. (MSMG) (Local (c) In case of bargaining deadlocks, the duly certified or
Union) is an affiliate of United Lumber and General Workers of the Philippines
(ULGWP) (Federation).
recognized bargaining agent may file a notice of strike or
- The CBA between MSMG and M. Greenfield, Inc. states that it is entered into by the the employer may file a notice of lockout with the Ministry
corporation and MSMG / ULGWP. at least 30 day before the intended date thereof. In
- The CBA includes a Union Security Clause requiring all employees who are covered by cases of unfair labor practice, the period of notice shall
the CBA and presently members of the UNION to remain members of the UNION for the be 15 days and in the absence of a duly certified or
duration of the CBA as a condition precedent to continued employment. recognized bargaining agent, the notice of strike may be
- Local union imposed a P50 fine on non-attending union members which became the filed by any legitimate labor organization in behalf of its
subject of bitter disagreement between the Federation and the local union. MSMG then members. However, in case of dismissal from
declared general autonomy from the ULGWP. In retaliation, the national federation
asked respondent company to stop the remittance of the local union's share in the employment of union officers duly elected in accordance
education funds. It also disauthorized incumbent union officers from representing the with the union constitution and by-laws, which may
employees. constitute union busting, where the existence of the
- Petitioner union officers were expelled by the federation for allegedly committing acts union is threatened, the 15-day cooling-off period shall
of disloyalty and/or inimical to the interest of ULGWP and in violation of its Constitution not apply and the union may take action immediately.
LABOR LAW 2 A2010 - 256 - Disini
7. PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS
1) Effort Bargain 2) Filing of Notice Intention

ART. 264. Prohibited activities. - (a) No labor organization or ART. 263. Strikes, picketing and lockouts. xxx-
employer shall declare a strike or lockout without first having
bargained collectively in accordance with Title VII of this Book or (c) In case of bargaining deadlocks, the duly certified
without first having filed the notice required in the preceding Article
or recognized bargaining agent may file a notice of
or without the necessary strike or lockout vote first having been
obtained and reported to the Ministry. strike or the employer may file a notice of lockout with
the Ministry at least 30 day before the intended date
No strike or lockout shall be declared after assumption of jurisdiction thereof. In cases of unfair labor practice, the period of
by the President or the Minister or after certification or submission of notice shall be 15 days and in the absence of a duly
the dispute to compulsory or voluntary arbitration or during the certified or recognized bargaining agent, the notice of
pendency of cases involving the same grounds for the strike or strike may be filed by any legitimate labor organization
lockout. in behalf of its members. However, in case of
dismissal from employment of union officers duly
Any worker whose employment has been terminated as a
consequence of any unlawful lockout shall be entitled to elected in accordance with the union constitution and
reinstatement with full backwages. Any union officer who knowingly by-laws, which may constitute union busting, where
participates in an illegal strike and any worker or union officer who the existence of the union is threatened, the 15-day
knowingly participates in the commission of illegal acts during a cooling-off period shall not apply and the union may
strike may be declared to have lost his employment status: take action immediately. (As amended by Executive
Provided, That mere participation of a worker in a lawful strike shall Order No. 111, December 24, 1986).
not constitute sufficient ground for termination of his employment,
even if a replacement had been hired by the employer during such
lawful strike.
(d) The notice must be in accordance with such
ART. 250. Procedure in collective bargaining. - The following implementing rules and regulations as the Minister of
procedures shall be observed in collective bargaining: Labor and Employment may promulgate.
(a) When a party desires to negotiate an agreement, it shall serve a
written notice upon the other party with a statement of its proposals. (e) During the cooling-off period, it shall be the duty of
The other party shall make a reply thereto not later than ten (10) the Ministry to exert all efforts at mediation and
calendar days from receipt of such notice; conciliation to effect a voluntary settlement. Should the
dispute remain unsettled until the lapse of the requisite
(b) Should differences arise on the basis of such notice and reply,
either party may request for a conference which shall begin not later number of days from the mandatory filing of the notice,
than ten (10) calendar days from the date of request. the labor union may strike or the employer may
declare a lockout.

(c) If the dispute is not settled, the Board shall intervene upon ART. 264. Prohibited activities. - (a) No labor
request of either or both parties or at its own initiative and organization or employer shall declare a strike or
immediately call the parties to conciliation meetings. The Board shall lockout without first having bargained collectively in
have the power to issue subpoenas requiring the attendance of the
parties to such meetings. It shall be the duty of the parties to
accordance with Title VII of this Book or without first
participate fully and promptly in the conciliation meetings the Board having filed the notice required in the preceding Article
may call; or without the necessary strike or lockout vote first
having been obtained and reported to the Ministry.
(d) During the conciliation proceedings in the Board, the parties are
prohibited from doing any act which may disrupt or impede the early No strike or lockout shall be declared after assumption
settlement of the disputes; and of jurisdiction by the President or the Minister or after
certification or submission of the dispute to
(e) The Board shall exert all efforts to settle disputes amicably and
encourage the parties to submit their case to a voluntary arbitrator.
compulsory or voluntary arbitration or during the
(As amended by Section 20, Republic Act No. 6715, March 21, pendency of cases involving the same grounds for the
1989). strike or lockout.

ART. 251. Duty to bargain collectively in the absence of collective Any worker whose employment has been terminated
bargaining agreements. - In the absence of an agreement or other as a consequence of any unlawful lockout shall be
voluntary arrangement providing for a more expeditious manner of entitled to reinstatement with full backwages. Any
collective bargaining, it shall be the duty of employer and the union officer who knowingly participates in an illegal
representatives of the employees to bargain collectively in
accordance with the provisions of this Code.
strike and any worker or union officer who knowingly
participates in the commission of illegal acts during a
ART. 252. Meaning of duty to bargain collectively. - The duty to strike may be declared to have lost his employment
bargain collectively means the performance of a mutual obligation to status: Provided, That mere participation of a worker in
meet and convene promptly and expeditiously in good faith for the a lawful strike shall not constitute sufficient ground for
purpose of negotiating an agreement with respect to wages, hours termination of his employment, even if a replacement
of work and all other terms and conditions of employment including had been hired by the employer during such lawful
proposals for adjusting any grievances or questions arising under strike.
such agreement and executing a contract incorporating such
agreements if requested by either party but such duty does not
compel any party to agree to a proposal or to make any concession.
LABOR LAW 2 A2010 - 257 - Disini
GRAND BOULEVARD HOTEL V GENUINE
3) Observance Cooling- Off Period LABORERS ORGANIZATION
406 SCRA 688
ART. 263. Strikes, picketing and lockouts. xxx-
CALLEJO; July 18, 2003
(c) In case of bargaining deadlocks, the duly certified or NATURE
recognized bargaining agent may file a notice of strike or the Petition for review on certiorari
employer may file a notice of lockout with the Ministry at least
30 day before the intended date thereof. In cases of unfair labor FACTS
practice, the period of notice shall be 15 days and in the - Respondent Genuine Labor Organization of Workers in Hotel,
absence of a duly certified or recognized bargaining agent, the Restaurant and Allied Industries Silahis International Hotel
notice of strike may be filed by any legitimate labor organization Chapter (Union) and the petitioner Grand Boulevard Hotel (then
Silahis International Hotel, Inc.) executed a CBA covering the
in behalf of its members. However, in case of dismissal from period from July 10, 1985 up to July 9, 1988.
employment of union officers duly elected in accordance with - Thereafter, Union filed several notices of strike on account of
the union constitution and by-laws, which may constitute union alleged violations of CBA, illegal dismissal and suspension of
busting, where the existence of the union is threatened, the 15- EEs. In these instances, SOLE issued a status quo ante bellum
day cooling-off period shall not apply and the union may take order certifying the labor dispute to the NLRC for compulsory
action immediately. (As amended by Executive Order No. 111, arbitration pursuant to Article 263(g) of LC. After notice was
December 24, 1986). given by Hotel re its decision to implement retrenchment
program, Union informed the DOLE that the union will conduct
a strike vote referendum. The members of the Union voted to
(e) During the cooling-off period, it shall be the duty of the stage a strike. Union informed the DOLE of the results of the
Ministry to exert all efforts at mediation and conciliation to effect strike vote referendum. SOLE issued another status quo ante
a voluntary settlement. Should the dispute remain unsettled bellum order certifying the case to the NLRC for compulsory
until the lapse of the requisite number of days from the arbitration and enjoining the parties from engaging in any strike
mandatory filing of the notice, the labor union may strike or the or lockout. Then, another notice of strike was filed by Union on
employer may declare a lockout. account of the illegal dismissal of EEs pusrsuant to Hotels act
of retrenching around 171 EEs. Officers of the respondent
union and some members staged a picket in the premises of
the hotel, obstructing the free ingress and egress thereto.
4) Vote, Conduct of; and Period of Validity Because of this, they were terminated.
- Hotel filed a complaint with NLRC for illegal strike against the
union, its members and officers. Petitioner Hotel alleged inter
alia that the union members and officers staged a strike on
ART. 263. Strikes, picketing and lockouts. xxx- November 16, 1990 which lasted until November 29, 1990
(f) A decision to declare a strike must be approved by a majority of the without complying with the requirements provided under
total union membership in the bargaining unit concerned, obtained by Articles 263 and 264 of the Labor Code. It further alleged that
secret ballot in meetings or referenda called for that purpose. A the officers and members of the respondent union blocked the
decision to declare a lockout must be approved by a majority of the main ingress to and egress from the hotel.
board of directors of the corporation or association or of the partners in - The respondent Union denied the material allegations of the
a partnership, obtained by secret ballot in a meeting called for that complaint and alleged that the petitioner committed ULP prior to
purpose. The decision shall be valid for the duration of the dispute the filing of the Nov. 16, 1990 notice of strike. Hence, there was
based on substantially the same grounds considered when the strike or no need for the union to comply with A263 and 264 of LC, as
lockout vote was taken. The Ministry may, at its own initiative or upon the notice
the request of any affected party, supervise the conduct of the secret - LA Linsangans Ruling: Unions failure to comply with the
balloting. In every case, the union or the employer shall furnish the requirements laid down in A263 and 264 of LC, the strike that
Ministry the results of the voting at least seven days before the intended was staged was illegal. Considering the admissions of the
strike or lockout, subject to the cooling-off period herein provided individual respondents that they participated in the said strike,
the termination of their employment by the petitioner was legal.
ART. 264. Prohibited activities. - (a) No labor organization or employer LA noted that if as alleged by the respondent union the
shall declare a strike or lockout without first having bargained petitioner was guilty of ULP, it should have filed a complaint
collectively in accordance with Title VII of this Book or without first therefor against the Hotel and/or its officials for which the latter
having filed the notice required in the preceding Article or without the could have been meted penal and administrative sanctions as
necessary strike or lockout vote first having been obtained and reported provided for in A272 of LC. The Union failed.
to the Ministry. - Appeal by Union to NLRC: that it had complied with the
requirements laid down in A263 and 264 of LC because its Nov
No strike or lockout shall be declared after assumption of jurisdiction by 16, 1990 notice of strike was a mere reiteration of its Sept 27,
the President or the Minister or after certification or submission of the 1990 notice of strike, which, in turn, complied with all the
dispute to compulsory or voluntary arbitration or during the pendency of requirements of the aforementioned articles, i.e., the cooling-off
cases involving the same grounds for the strike or lockout. period, the strike ban, the strike vote and the strike vote report.
- NLRC affirmed LA Decision. Compliance of the requirements
Any worker whose employment has been terminated as a consequence laid down in A263 and 264 of LC respecting the Sept 27, 1990
of any unlawful lockout shall be entitled to reinstatement with full notice of strike filed by the union cannot be carried over to the
backwages. Any union officer who knowingly participates in an illegal Nov 16, 1990 notice of strike. Resultantly, for failure of the
strike and any worker or union officer who knowingly participates in the union to comply with the requirements, the strike staged on
commission of illegal acts during a strike may be declared to have lost November 16 up to November 29, 1990 was illegal.
his employment status: Provided, That mere participation of a worker in - CA reversed NLRC and LA: It took into account the
a lawful strike shall not constitute sufficient ground for termination of his observation of the Sol-Gen that the Hotel retrenched EEs
employment, even if a replacement had been hired by the employer pending the resolution of the certified cases respecting the
during such lawful strike. alleged illegal suspension and dismissals effected by Hotel
during and prior to the notices of strike filed by Union. Sol-Gen
LABOR LAW 2 A2010 - 258 - Disini
opined that even if the strike was staged without the proper notice and -SMC and Ilaw at Buklod ng Manggagawa (IBM) executed a
compliance with the cooling-off period, resort thereto was simply CBA wherein they agreed to submit all disputes to grievance and
triggered by the petitioners' belief in good faith that Hotel was engaged arbitration proceedings, aside from no-strike, no-lockout
in ULP. Hence, this petition agreement.
-IBM, through its VP and subsequently through its president
ISSUES (which was opposed by the VP), filed with NCMB a notice of
1 WON the strike staged by the respondent union on Nov16-29, 1990 strike against SMC for allegedly committing: (1) illegal dismissal
is legal of union members, (2) illegal transfer, (3) violation of CBA, (4)
2 WON the dismissals of the officers and some members of the Union contracting out of jobs being performed by union members, (5)
as a consequence of the strike on Nov16-29, 1990 are valid. labor-only contracting, (6) harassment of union officers and
members, (7) non-recognition of duly-elected union officers, and
HELD (8) other acts of unfair labor practice. SMC filed a Motion for
1. NO Severance of Notices of Strike with Motion to Dismiss on the
Re: Procedural Requirements grounds that the notices raised non-strikeable issues and that
- Under A263 (c) and (f) of LC, the requisites for a valid strike are as they affected 4 corporations.
follows: (a) a notice of strike fled with the DOLE 30 days before the -NCMB: issues are non-strikeable, as only SMC was impleaded
intended date thereof or 15 days in case of ULP; (b) strike vote when 4 different companies were involved. Notices of strike
approved by a majority of the total union membership in the bargaining converted into preventive mediation.
unit concerned obtained by secret ballot in a meeting called for that -while separate preventive mediation conferences were ongoing,
purpose; (c) notice given to the DOLE of the results of the voting at least the Union through its VP filed a notice of holding a strike vote.
7 days before the intended strike. The requisite 7-day period is intended SMC opposed, invoking PAL v. Drilon (no strike could be legally
to give the DOLE an opportunity to verify whether the projected strike declared during the pendency of preventive mediation). NCMB
really carries the approval of the majority of the union members. The reiterated conversion of notice of strike into preventive mediation
notice of strike and the cooling-off period were intended to provide an and grounds raised were only intra-union conflict nonstrikeable
opportunity for mediation and conciliation. The requirements are (who between the 2 groups shall represent the workers for
mandatory and failure of a union to comply therewith renders the strike collective bargaining purposes, union leadership).
illegal. A strike simultaneously with or immediately after a notice of strike -IBM President group filed 2 nd notice of strike against SMC,
will render the requisite periods nugatory. NCMB found the additional grounds to be mere amplifications of
issues alleged in the 1st notice of strike. Ordered consolidation of
- In this case, union filed its notice of strike with the DOLE on Nov 16, the 2 nd notice of strike with 1st notice of strike. Group informed
1990 and on the same day, staged a picket on the premises of the hotel, SMC of its plan to hold a strike.
in violation of the law. Union cannot argue that since the notice of strike -VP group notified the NCMB that their strike vote favored the
on Nov 16, 1990 were for the same grounds as those contained in their holding of a strike. NCMB issued a letter reminding the group of
notice of strike on September 27, 1990 which complied with the the PAL v Drilon. IBM went on strike. Strike paralyzed the
requirements of the law on the cooling-off period, strike ban, strike vote operations of SMC, which caused millions of loses.
and strike vote report, the strike staged by them on Nov16, 1990 was -SMC filed with NLRC a Petition for Injunction with Prayer for the
lawful. The matters contained in the notice of strike of Sept 27, 1990 had Issuance of TRO, Free Ingress and Egress Order and
already been taken cognizance of by the SOLE when he issued on Oct Deputization Order, which was issued by NLRC, without
31, 1990 a status quo ante bellum order enjoining union from intending prejudice to the unions right to peaceful picketing and
or staging a strike. Despite SOLE order, the union nevertheless staged a continuous hearings on the injunction case. SMC also entered
strike on Nov16, 1990 simultaneously with its notice of strike, thus into a Memorandum of Agreement with Union, calling for lifting of
violating A264(a) LC picket lines and resumption of work in exchange of good faith
talks between the management and the labor management
Grounds committees. The MOA also stated that cases filed in relation to
- A strike that is undertaken, despite the issuance by the SOLE of an their dispute will continue and will not be affected in any manner
assumption or certification order, becomes a prohibited activity and, thus, whatsoever by the agreement. Work was then resumed.
illegal pursuant to A264 of LC: No strike or lockout shall be declared -NLRC reconsidered the issuance of TRO, and sought to dismiss
after assumption of jurisdiction by the President or the Secretary or after the injunction case. SMC opposed, submitted copies of flyers
certification or submission of the dispute to compulsory or voluntary wherein IBM expressed their threat to revive the strike. NLRC
arbitration or during the pendency of cases involving the same grounds issued decision denying the petition for injunction for lack of
for the strike or lockout. factual basis, there being no circumstance to constitute an actual
- Even if the union acted in good faith in the belief that the company was or threatened commission of unlawful acts. MFR denied
committing an unfair labor practice, if no notice of strike and a strike vote
were conducted, the said strike is illegal. ISSUES
WON the strike held by IBM was illegal (therefore, NLRC
2. YES committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the petition for
Re: Effect of Illegality injunction filed by SMC)
Ratio Since a strike that is undertaken, despite the issuance by the
SOLE of an assumption or certification order, becomes a prohibited HELD
activity and, thus, illegal pursuant to A264 of LC, the union officers and YES
members, as a result, are deemed to have lost their employment status a. Procedural aspect of the strike
for having knowingly participated in an illegal act. -For a strike to be valid, it must be pursued within legal bounds.
One of the procedural requisites that A263 of the LC and its IRR
Disposition Petition is GRANTED. LA Decision REINSTATED. prescribe is the filing of a valid notice of strike with the NCMB.
Imposed for the purpose of encouraging the voluntary settlement
SAN MIGUEL CORP v. NLRC, IBM of disputes, this requirement has been held to be mandatory, the
403 SCRA 418 lack of which shall render a strike illegal.
-In accordance with the Implementing Rules of the Labor Code,
AZCUNA, June 10, 2003 the conversion of the notice of strike to preventive mediation has
the effect of dismissing the notices of strike filed by respondent.
NATURE Petition for certiorari and prohibition A case in point is PAL v. Drilon, where we declared a strike
illegal for lack of a valid notice of strike, in view of the NCMBs
FACTS conversion of the notice therein into a preventive mediation case.
LABOR LAW 2 A2010 - 259 - Disini
During the pendency of preventive mediation proceedings no strike YES
could be legally declared. There is no doubt that the strike staged by DUCACOFSA-
-therefore, since the notice of strike filed by the union was converted into NAFTEU is illegal for non-compliance with the strike-vote
preventive mediation proceedings, the union had lost the notices of requirements. The relevant provisions of Article 263 of the Labor
strike required under A263. However, the union defiantly proceeded with Code read:
the strike while mediation was ongoing. Such disregard of the mediation Article 263. x x x
proceedings was a blatant violation of theImplementing Rules, which (c) x x x the duly certified or recognized bargaining agent
explicitly oblige the parties to bargain collectively in good faith and may file a notice of strike or the employer may file a notice of
prohibit them from impeding or disrupting the proceedings. lockout with the Department at least 30 days before the intended
date thereof. In cases of unfair labor practice, the period of
b. on ruling of NLRC that there was lack of factual basis (no notice shall be 15 days and in the absence of a duly certified or
circumstance to constitute an actual or threatened commission of recognized bargaining agent, the notice of strike may be filed by
unlawful acts) any legitimate labor organization in behalf of its members.
-at the time the injunction was being sought, there existed a threat to However, in case of dismissal from employment of union officers
revive the unlawful strike as evidenced by the flyers then being duly elected in accordance with the union constitution and by-
circulated by the IBM, which were not denied by the respondent union. laws, which may constitute union busting where the existence of
Moreover, a declaration of strike without first having filed the required the union is threatened, the 15-day cooling-off period shall not
notice is a prohibited activity (A264(a)), which may be prevented through apply and the union may take action immediately.
an injunction in accordance with A254. (f) A decision to declare a strike must be approved by a
majority of the total union membership in the bargaining unit
c. on IBMs failure to observe the CBA provisions on grievance and concerned, obtained by secret ballot in meetings or referenda
arbitration called for that purpose. A decision to declare a lockout must be
- Strikes held in violation of the terms contained in a collective approved by a majority of the board of directors of the
bargaining agreement are illegal especially when they provide for corporation or association or of the partners in a partnership,
conclusive arbitration clauses. These agreements must be strictly obtained by secret ballot in a meeting called for the purpose.
adhered to and respected if their ends have to be achieved. The decision shall be valid for the duration of the dispute based
-We cannot sanction the respondent-unions brazen disregard of legal on substantially the same grounds considered when the strike or
requirements imposed purposely to carry out the state policy of lockout vote was taken. The Department may, at its own
promoting voluntary modes of settling disputes. The states commitment initiative or upon the request of any affected party, supervise the
to enforce mutual compliance therewith to foster industrial peace is conduct of the secret balloting. In every case, the union or the
affirmed by no less than our Constitution. Trade unionism and strikes employer shall furnish the Department the results of the voting at
are legitimate weapons of labor granted by our statutes. But misuse of least seven days before the intended strike or lock-out, subject to
these instruments can be the subject of judicial intervention to forestall the cooling-off period herein provided.
grave injury to a business enterprise. Under the aforequoted provisions, the requisites for a valid
strike are as follows: (a) a notice of strike filed with the
Disposition. WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby GRANTED. DOLE thirty days before the intended date thereof or fifteen
The decision and resolution of the NLRC in Injunction Case No. 00468- days in case of unfair labor practice; (b) strike vote
94 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Petitioner and private respondent approved by a majority of the total union membership in the
are hereby directed to submit the issues raised in the dismissed notices bargaining unit concerned obtained by secret ballot in a
of strike to grievance procedure and proceed with arbitration meeting called for that purpose; (c) notice given to the
proceedings as prescribed in their CBA, if necessary. No DOLE of the results of the voting at least seven days before
pronouncement as to costs. SO ORDERED. the intended strike. These requirements are mandatory and
failure of a union to comply therewith renders the strike
illegal.
PIERO v NLRC
437 SCRA 112 Pursuant to Article 264 of the Labor Code, any union officer who
YNARES-SANTIAGO; August 20, 2004 knowingly participates in an illegal strike and any worker or union
officer who knowingly participates in the commission of illegal
FACTS acts during a strike may be declared to have lost his employment
- Dumaguete Cathedral College, Inc.,(DCCI) is the employer of the status.
faculty and staff members comprising the labor union DUCACOFSA- In the case at bar, DUCACOFSA-NAFTEU failed to prove that it
NAFTEU. In 1986, the union and DCCI entered into a CBA effective for obtained the required strike-vote among its members and that
3 years. Upon the expiration of their CBA in 1989, the parties failed to the results thereof were submitted to the DOLE. The strike was
conclude another CBA which led the union to file a notice of strike with therefore correctly declared illegal, for non-compliance with the
the DOLE on the ground of refusal to bargain. procedural requirements of Article 263 of the Labor Code.
- The union conducted a strike in the premises of DCCI without
submitting to the DOLE the required results of the strike vote obtained
from the members of the union. Consequently,DCCI filed with theDOLE
Samahang Manggagawa v. Sulpicio Lines, Inc.
a complaint to declare the strike illegal and to dismiss the officers of the
union. 426 SCRA 319
- The LA declared the strike illegal and declared the union officers to (Sarah Cabrera)
have lost their employment status effective on the date of this decision.
The union officers appealed to the NLRC.
- Meanwhile, said officers returned to work by virtue of an MOA entered
into by the union and DCI allowing them to resume service without CAPITOL MEDICAL CENTER VS NLRC (CMC
prejudice to the outcome of the instant case then pending appeal with EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION)
the NLRC.
- The NLRC affirmed the decision of the LA. The NLRC ratiocinated 320 SCRA 478
that the strike was illegal because of the unions failure to comply with CALLEJO; April 26, 2005
strike vote requirements.
ISSUES FACTS
WON the strike staged by DUCACOFSA- NAFTEU was illegal -Whether respondent Capitol Medical Center Employees
HELD Association (The Union) was the exclusive bargaining agent of
LABOR LAW 2 A2010 - 260 - Disini
the rank-and-file EEs of petitioner had been the bone of contention BUKLURAN NG MANGGAGAWA SA
between the 2 parties. Another union, CMC-ACE demanded a CLOTHMAN KNITTING CORPORATION
certification election which was granted by the Med-Arbiter which was
later appealed to SOLE and granted by Usec Laguesma. SOLE denied SOLIDARITY OF UNIONS IN THE PHILIPPINES
the MFR filed by ACE which the Court affirmed. FOR EMPOWERMENT AND REFORMS (BMC-
SUPER) vs. CA (CLOTHMAN KNITTING
-Petitioner rejected a meeting proposed by the Union to negotiate a CBA, CORPORATION)
and later filed a Petition for the Cancellation of the Unions Certificate
Registration with DOLE on the grounds that the Union failed for several 448 SCRA 642
years to submit its Annual financial statements and engaged in an illegal CALLEJO, SR.; Jan 17, 2005
strike. The Union filed a notice of strike with the NCMB due to
petitioners refusal to bargain but failed to later furnish the NCMB with a
copy of the notice of the meeting where the strike was conducted. The
NATURE Petition for review
Union submitted to the NCMB the minutes of the alleged strike vote,
supposedly held in a parking lot in front of CMC.
FACTS
- Clothman Knitting Corporation (CKC), a domestic corporation
-The Union filed an ex parte motion with DOLE to assume jurisdiction
engaged in knitting/textiles, issued a Memorandum informing its
and impose sanctions against the hospital director/corporate officers for
employees at the Dyeing and Finishing Division that a temporary
refusal to bargain. SOLE assumed jurisdiction over the labor dispute,
shutdown of the operations therein would be effected for one
and issued a return to work order to which the EEs complied.
week due to change in the schedule brought about by the
Meanwhile, DOLE denied the petition for cancellation of the Unions
decrease in the orders from the customers.
certificate registration.
- Petitioner Tomaroy, with sixteen (16) members of the petitioner
union, staged a picket in front of the respondents compound,
-The Labor Arbiter then declared the strike illegal, ruling that no strike
carrying placards with slogans.
vote had actually taken place as evidenced by witnesses presented by
- CKC filed a petition to declare the strike illegal for failure to
CMC (the overseer of the purported parking lot and sworn statements
comply with the procedural requirements for staging a strike.
from 17 union members) and no mandatory notice was furnished to
The petition was granted and the employees who participated
NCMB at least 24 hours prior to the strike vote. He also held that instead
lost their employment status with CKC.
of staging a strike, the Union should have filed a motion for a writ of
execution of the resolution of Usec Laguesma in accordance with Art.
ISSUE
263. The NLRC reversed said decision upon appeal and denied the
WON the stage is illegal for failure of the petitioners to comply
petition to declare the strike illegal. Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari
with the procedural requirements
with the CA which was dismissed hence this petition for review on
certiorari under Rule 45.
HELD
YES
ISSUE/s
Ratio In order for a strike to be valid, the following requirements
WON the CA erred in upholding NLRCs finding that the Union
laid down in paragraphs (c) and (f) of Article 263 of the Labor
complied with the legal requirements for staging a strike
Code must be complied with: (a) a notice of strike must be filed;
(b) a strike-vote must be taken; and
HELD
(c) the results of the strike-vote must be reported to the DOLE.
It bears stressing that these requirements are mandatory,
YES. Sec. 10, Rule XXII of the Omnibus Rules of the NLRC requires
meaning, non-compliance therewith makes the strike illegal. The
that a majority vote by secret ballot be obtained before declaring a strike.
evident intention of the law in requiring the strike notice and
Article 263 further provides that a union intending to strike is mandated
strike-vote report is to reasonably regulate the right to strike,
to notify the NCMB of the meeting (date, place and time) for the conduct
which is essential to the attainment of legitimate policy objectives
of strike vote, at least 24 hours prior to such meeting. NCMB is to call
embodied in the law.
the parties to a conference to assist them in an amicable settlement and
Reasoning
in the event of its failure, voluntary arbitration is encouraged. If the
a. The strikers/picketers did not conduct a strike vote and no
parties refuse, the union may hold a strike vote to ensure the decision to
cooling-off period was observed;
strike rests on the majority of the union members.
b. The strikers/picketers did not file a notice of strike;
c. The reasons for the strike/picket involve a non-strikeable issue;
-Such requirement is designed to inform the NCMB of the intent to strike,
d. It was not based on a valid factual ground, either based on
and to give it ample time to decide WON there is a need to supervise the
Collective Bargaining Deadlock and/or Unfair Labor Practice;
strike vote to prevent violence/irregularities. Failure to comply with such
e. There was no strike-vote report submitted to the DOLE at
requirement renders the subsequent strike staged illegal; in the instant
least seven (7) days before the intended date of the strike;
case, the Union failed to comply with said requirement.
f. The 7-day visiting period after submission of the strike vote
report was not fully observed.
-The NLRC held that although the parking lot overseer attested to not
having witnessed any such strike vote, it did not mean no strike vote
DISPOSITION Petition DENIED.
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.

Disposition The petition is granted


LABOR LAW 2 A2010 - 261 - Disini
8. TEST OF LEGALITY - The law does not look with favor upon strikes and lockouts
because of their disturbing and pernicious effects upon the social
order and the public interests.
1) Purpose and Means Test Reasoning The reasons presented by the Union do not justify
the drastic measure of a strike, which necessarily entails
pernicious consequences not only to the company but also to the
LUZON MARINE DEPT., UNION V ROLDAN (LUZON laborers themselves and public.
STEVEDORING CO.) - If the purpose of a strike is trivial, unreasonable or unjust, or if
86 PHIL 507 violence was committed, the strike, although not prohibited by
OZAETA; MAY 30, 1950 injunction, may be declared by the court illegal, with adverse
consequences to the strikers.
- If the laborers resort to a strike to enforce their demands
NATURE (instead of exhausting legal processes first) they do so at their
Petition for certiorari to review a resolution of the Court of Industrial own risk, and should the court find the strike was unjustified, the
Relations. strikers would suffer the adverse consequences.
FACTS DISPOSITION The petition appealed from is affirmed.
- June 17, 1948: Petitioner Luzon Marine Union (UNION) presented to
respondent Luzon Stevedoring Co. (LSC) a petition containing demands,
including that it be granted of full recognition with the right to collective
bargaining, closed-shop and check-off. The Union initiated the petition
CALTEX PHIL. INC. V PHIL. LABOR
in the CIR praying that LSC be directed to comply immediately with the ORGANIZATIONS, CALTEX CHAPTER
demands. (Giulia Pineda)
- The Union de Obreros Estivadores de Filipinas (UOEF) a labor
organization divided into units of which Universal Marine Union is a part,
intervened on behalf of the Union because it alleged that the demand of
PHILIPPINE MARINE OFFICERS GUILD V CIA.
the Union for recognition with the right to collective bargaining, closed- MARITIMA
shop, etc. would violate an agreement entered into between LSC and (Ajang Pineda)
UOEF, where the company recognized UOEF as the labor organization
of the workers rendering services to LSC., with full right of collective Acts of violence in this jurisdiction, when committed in carrying
bargaining. on a strike are not to be overlooked in determining its legality or
- UOEF moved for dismissal for lack of jurisdiction, on the ground that illegality.
the Union did not count with more than 30 members employed in the To overlook these acts of violence would encourage
LSC. Judge Bautista issued an order denying the motion to dismiss. abuses and terrorism and subvert the purpose of the law which
Before the receipt of the order, 65 alleged members of the Union provides for arbitration and peaceful settlement of disputes.
initiated a strike without notice (July 19). It was only on July 21 that the
LSC received the notice of strike. If a strike is unjustified as when it is declared for
- July 20, 1948: Union filed with CIR a petition alleging that all its trivial, unjust or unreasonable purpose, the employer may not be
members (more than 300) went on strike on July 19 due to the refusal of compelled to reinstate the strikers to their employment. More so,
LSC to grant their demands, and prayed for the issuance of a restraining when the strike is carried on illegally.
order to prevent the respondent from employing strike breakers.
- August 16, 1948: Judge Bautista issued an order directing the strikers
to return to work, and the LSC to reinstate them in their previous
positions. Acting on a motion for reconsideration, the court set said order UNION OF FILIPRO EMPLOYEES v. NESTLE
aside on the ground that the strike was unjustified and illegal. 192 SCRA 396
- Judges Roldan and Castillo held that although Sec. 19 of MEDIALDEA; December 19, 1990
Commonwealth Act 103 provides that pending award or decision by
the CIR, the employee, tenant or laborer shall not strike or walk out NATURE
of his employment when so enjoined by the Court, and although This petition assails the decision of the NLRC, dated November
the Court had not enjoined the petitioner NOT TO STRIKE, it does 2, 1988 on the consolidated appeals of petitioners
not necessarily follow that the strike was legal and justified xxx
Although the Act recognizes the laborers right to strike, it also FACTS
creates all the means by which a resort thereto may be avoided, - UFE filed a notice of strike with the Bureau of Labor Relations
because a strike is a remedy essentially coercive in character and against Filipro (now Nestle Philippines).
general in its disturbing effects upon the social order and the - UFE filed a complaint for Unfair Labor Practice (ULP) against
public interests. Nestle and its officials for violation of the Labor Code (Art. 94) on
- The CIR found out that the reason the members went on strike was Holiday Pay, non-implementation of the CBA provisions (Labor
because the opposite party claims or asserts that they had no members Management Corporation scheme), Financial Assistance and
inside the company, and because they were becoming impatient. From other unfair labor practice.
The court concluded that the purpose of the strike was to influence the - Acting on Nestle's petition seeking assumption of jurisdiction
decision and to compel the Court to decide promptly. The union insists over the labor dispute or its certification to the NLRC for
that the strike was called for a lawful purpose: 1) to show they had more compulsory arbitration, then Minister of Labor and Employment
than 30 members; 2) to answer the challenge of Alejo Villanueva that he Blas F. Ople assumed jurisdiction over the dispute and issued
will dismiss the members from the company. the following order enjoining any strike, lockout, or any other
form of concerted action such as slowdowns, sitdowns, noise
ISSUES barrages during office hours, which tend to disrupt company
1. WON the strike was called for a lawful purpose. operations.
- UFE filed a petition for certiorari with prayer for issuance of
HELD temporary restraining order, with this Court assailing the
2. NO assumption of jurisdiction by the Minister. Notwithstanding the
Ratio In cases not falling within the prohibition against strikes, the automatic injunction against any concerted activity, and an
legality or illegality of a strike depends upon the 1) purpose for which it is absence of a restraining order, the union members, at the
maintained, and 2) upon the means employed in carrying it on. instigation of its leaders, and in clear defiance of Minister Ople's
LABOR LAW 2 A2010 - 262 - Disini
Order of December 11, 1986, staged a strike and continued to man Resolution, dated March 7, 1989, are both AFFIRMED in their
picket lines at the Makati Administrative Office and all of Nestle's entirety. No costs.
factories and warehouses at Alabang, Muntinlupa, Cabuyao, Laguna,
and Cagayan de Oro City. Likewise, the union officers and members
distributed leaflets to employees and passersby advocating a boycott of RELIANCE SURETY AND INSURANCE CO. INC.
company products.
- Nestle filed a petition to declare the strike illegal premised on violation V NLRC
of the CBA provisions on "no strike/no lockout" clause and the grievance 193 SCRA 365
machinery provisions on settlement of disputes. Sarmiento, J; 1991
- Despite receipt of the second order dated January 30, 1986, and
knowledge of a notice caused to be published by Nestle in the Bulletin NATURE
on February 1, 1986, advising all workers to report to work not later than Petition for Ceriorari to review NLRC decision
February 3, 1986, the officers and members of UFE continued with the FACTS
strike. - It appears that to avoid unnecessary loss of productive working
- Minister B. Ople denied their motion for reconsideration of the return- time due to personal and non-work-related conversations,
to-work order. personal telephone calls and non-work-connected visits by
- UFE defied the Minister and continued with their strike. Nestle filed personnel to other departments, the respondent Reliance Surety
criminal charges against those involved. Insurance Co., Inc. (company for short) on 21 November 1986,
thru the manager (Mr.Celso Eleazar) of its underwriting
ISSUE department, effected a change in the seating arrangement of its
WON the strike is legal. personnel in said department.
- Among those affected were members of the labor union who
HELD claimed that the change was done merely to harass them. In the
NO. UFE completely misses the underlying principle embodied in Art. ensuing discussions, the manager and the union members
264(g) on the settlement of labor disputes and this is, that assumption apparently had heated words and the union members hurled
and certification orders are executory in character and are to be strictly unprintable insults. Some employees refused to stay at their
complied with by the parties even during the pendency of any petition designated places. The company then asked the recalcitrants to
questioning their validity. This extraordinary authority given to the explain within 48 hours why no disciplinary action should be
Secretary of Labor is aimed at arriving at a peaceful and speedy solution taken against them. Due to the continuing hostility by the union
to labor disputes, without jeopardizing national interests. members they were place under preventive suspension and
- Regardless therefore of their motives, or the validity of their claims, the finally dismissed.
striking workers must cease and/or desist from any and all acts that tend - Illegal dismissal complaints were filed. These were amended to
to, or undermine this authority of the Secretary of Labor, once an include a charge of unfair labor practice. The members alleged
assumption and/or certification order is issued. They cannot, for instance, that the seating arrangement was changed to pressure or
ignore return-to-work orders, citing unfair labor practices on the part of intimidate labor union members. While the action was pending,
the company, to justify their actions. the union filed a notice of strike. Before a conciliation conference
- The return to work order does not so much confer a right as it imposes can be held, the union struck and picketed the company
a duty; and while as a right it may be waived, it must be discharged as a premises thus preventing officials and other employees from
duty even against the worker's will. Returning to work in this situation is doing their usual duties.
not a matter of option or voluntariness but of obligation. The worker must - Company filed a petition to declare the strike illegal since there
return to his job together with his co-workers so the operations of the was no strike vote and the required cooling off period was not
company can be resumed and it can continue serving the public and followed. The Arbiter found the strike illegal. The finding was
promoting its interest." modified by the NLRC and ruled that the strike while illegal
- An assumption and/or certification order of the Secretary of Labor should not result in the termination of the employees involved
automatically results in a return-to-work of all striking workers, whether since the members truly believed that the company was
or not a corresponding order has been issued by the Secretary of Labor. committing unfair labor practice in terminating the other
Thus, the striking workers erred when they continued with their strike employees. It ruled that the employees be reinstated but without
alleging absence of a return-to-work order. Article 264(g) is clear. backwages.
- Once an assumption/certification order is issued, strikes are enjoined, - Hence this appeal to the SC.
or if one has already taken place, all strikers shall immediately return to
work. ISSUE/S
- A strike that is undertaken despite the issuance by the Secretary of WON strikers who have found to have staged an illegal strike
Labor of an assumption or certification order becomes a prohibited may be reinstated to work
activity and thus illegal, pursuant to the second paragraph of Art. 264 of
the Labor Code as amended. The Union officers and members, as a HELD
result, are deemed to have lost their employment status for having No. There is no question that the strike itself was prompted by no
knowingly participated in an illegal act. actual, existing unfair labor practice committed by the petitioner.
- Thus, the NLRC correctly upheld the illegality of the strikes and the In effecting a change in the seating arrangement in the office of
corresponding dismissal of the individual complainants because of their the underwriting department, the petitioner merely exercised a
"brazen disregard of successive lawful orders of then Labor Ministers reasonable prerogative employees could not validly question,
Blas F. Ople, Augusto Sanchez and Labor Secretary Franklin Drilon much less assail as an act of unfair labor practice. The Court is
dated December 11, 1985, January 30, 1986 and February 4, 1986, indeed at a loss how rearranging furniture, as it were, can justify
respectively, and the cavalier treatment of the provisions of the Labor a four-month-long strike. As to the private respondent's charges
Code and the return-to-work orders of the Minister (now Secretary) of of harassment, the Commission found none, and as a general
Labor and Employment, or Articles 264 and 265 (now renumbered Arts. rule, we are bound by its findings of fact. Amid this background,
263 and 264). the Court must grant the petition. In staging the strike in
- No strike or lockout shall be declared after assumption of jurisdiction by question, a strike that was illegal in more ways than one, the
the President or the Minister or after certification or submission of the reinstated union officers were clearly in bad faith, and to
dispute to compulsory or voluntary arbitration or during the pendency o f reinstate them without, indeed, loss of seniority rights, is to
cases involving the same grounds for the strike or lockout. reward them for an act public policy does not sanction.
Disposition ACCORDINGLY, the petition is DISMISSED, and the - As a general rule, the sympathy of the Court is on the side of
decision of public respondent NLRC, dated November 2, 1988, and its the laboring classes, not only because the Constitution imposes
sympathy but because of the one-sided relation between labor
LABOR LAW 2 A2010 - 263 - Disini
and capital. The Court must take care, however, that in the contest services and to persuade others to a like refusal. On the other
between labor and capital, the results achieved are fair and in conformity hand, the counterpart activity that management may licitly
with the rules. We will not accomplish that objective here by approving undertake is the lockout the temporary refusal to furnish work
the act of the National Labor Relations Commission which we hold to on account of a labor dispute. In this connection, the same
constitute a grave abuse of discretion. Article 263 provides that the "right of legitimate labor
organizations to strike and picket and of employer to lockout,
Disposition Petition is granted. consistent with the national interest, shall continue to be
recognized and respected." The legality of these activities is
ILAW at BUKLOD ng MANGGAGAWA v NLRC usually dependent on the legality of the purposes sought to be
198 SCRA 586 attained and the means employed therefor (ON TEST OF
LEGALITY).
NARVASA; June 27, 1991 It goes without saying that these joint or coordinated activities
may be forbidden or restricted by law or contract. In the
FACTS particular instance of "distortions of the wage structure within an
-The controversy at bar had its origin in the "wage distortions" affecting establishment" resulting from "the application of any prescribed
the employees of respondent San Miguel Corporation allegedly caused wage increase by virtue of a law or wage order," Section 3 of
by Republic Act No. 6727, otherwise known as the Wage Rationalization Republic Act No. 6727 prescribes a specific, detailed and
Act. comprehensive procedure for the correction thereof, thereby
-Upon the effectivity of the Act on June 5, 1989, the union known as implicitly excluding strikes or lockouts or other concerted
"Ilaw at Buklod Ng Manggagawa (IBM)" said to represent 4,500 activities as modes of settlement of the issue. The legislative
employees of San Miguel Corporation, more or less, "working at the intent that solution of the problem of wage distortions shall be
various plants, offices, and warehouses located at the National Capital sought by voluntary negotiation or arbitration, and not by strikes,
Region" - presented to the company a "demand" for correction of the lockouts, or other concerted activities of the employees or
"significant distortion in . . . (the workers') wages." management, is made clear in the rules implementing RA 6727
-Union claims that demand was ignored issued by the Secretary of Labor and Employment pursuant to
- The Union's position (set out in the petition subsequently filed in this the authority granted by Section 13 of the Act. Section 16,
Court, infra) was that the workers' refusal "to work beyond eight (8) Chapter I of these implementing rules, after reiterating the policy
hours everyday as a legitimate means of compelling SMC to correct "the that wage distortions be first settled voluntarily by the parties and
distortion in their wages brought about by the implementation of the said eventually by compulsory arbitration, declares that, "Any issue
laws (R.A. 6640 and R.A. 6727) to newly-hired employees." There involving wage distortion shall not be a ground for a
ensued thereby a change in the work schedule which had been strike/lockout."
observed by daily-paid workers at the Polo Plant for the past five (5) -Moreover, the collective bargaining agreement between the
years, i.e., "ten (10) hours for the first shift and ten (10) to fourteen (14) SMC and the Union, relevant provisions of which are quoted by
hours for the second shift, from Mondays to Fridays . . .; (and on) the former without the latter s demurring to the accuracy of the
Saturdays, . . . eight (8) hours for both shifts" a work schedule which, quotation, also prescribes a similar eschewal of strikes or other
SMC says, the workers had "welcomed, and encouraged" because the similar or related concerted activities as a mode of resolving
automatic overtime built into the schedule "gave them a steady source of disputes or controversies, generally, said agreement clearly
extra-income," and pursuant to which it (SMC) "planned its production stating that settlement of "all disputes, disagreements or
targets and budgets. controversies of any kind" should be achieved by the stipulated
-This abandonment of the long-standing schedule of work and the grievance procedure and ultimately by arbitration.
reversion to the eight-hour shift apparently caused substantial losses to
SMC. Disposition PETITION DENIED
-SMC filed with the Arbitration Branch of the National Labor Relations
Commission a complaint against the Union and its members "to declare
the strike or slowdown illegal" and to terminate the employment of the ASSOCIATION OF INDEPENDENT UNIONS IN
union officers and shop stewards.
-it is SMC's submittal that the coordinated reduction by the Union's THE PHILIPPINES V NLRC (CENAPRO
members of the work time theretofore willingly and consistently CHEMICAL CORP, GO SING CHAN)
observed by them, thereby causing financial losses to the employer in 305 SCRA 219
order to compel it to yield to the demand for correction of "wage PURISIMA; March 25, 1999
distortions," is an illegal and "unprotected" activity. It is, SMC argues,
contrary to the law and to the collective bargaining agreement between it
NATURE
and the Union.
Petition for review on Certiorari seeking to reinstate the Labor
Arbiter decision ordering the reinstatement and payment of
ISSUE
backwages of the four petitioners which was affirmed in toto by
WON the strike is illegal
NLRC but later modified, by deleting the award of backwages,
ordering payment of separation pay in lieu of reinstatement, and
HELD
declaring the loss of employment status of petitioner Densing
YES. Among the rights guaranteed to employees by the Labor Code is
that of engaging in concerted activities in order to attain their legitimate
FACTS
objectives. Article 263 of the Labor Code, as amended, declares that in
- Joel Densing, Henedino Mirafuentes, Christopher Patentes,
line with "the policy of the State to encourage free trade unionism and
and Andres Tejana, the petitioners, were casual employees of
free collective bargaining, . . . (w)orkers shall have the right to engage in
CENAPRO Chemicals Corporation. The collective bargaining
concerted activities for purposes of collective bargaining or for their
representative of all rank and file employees was CENAPRO
mutual benefit and protection." A similar right to engage in concerted
Employees Association (CCEA). Their CBA excluded casual
activities for mutual benefit and protection is tacitly and traditionally
employees from membership in the incumbent union. The casual
recognized in respect of employers.
employees who rendered at least one to six years of service
The more common of these concerted activities as far as employees are
sought regularization of their employment. When their demand
concerned are: strikes the temporary stoppage of work as a result of
was denied, they formed themselves into an organization and
an industrial or labor dispute; picketing the marching to and fro at the
affiliated with the Association of Independent unions in the
employer's premises, usually accompanied by the display of placards
Philippines (AIUP). AIUP filed a petition for certification election,
and other signs making known the facts involved in a labor dispute; and
which petition was opposed by the company. The CCEA
boycotts the concerted refusal to patronize an employer's goods or
anchored its opposition on the contract bar rule.
LABOR LAW 2 A2010 - 264 - Disini
- May 4, and July 3, 1990 > union filed a notice of strike, minutes of considered as the most effective weapon in protecting the rights
strike vote, and the needed documentation, with DOLE. The notice of of the employees to improve the terms and conditions of their
strike cited as grounds the acts of the company constituting unfair labor employment. [Bisig ng Mangagawa sa Concrete Aggregates, Inc.
practice, more specifically coercion of employees and systematic union vs. NLRC] But to be valid, a strike must be pursued within legal
busting. bounds. The right to strike as a means for the attainment of
- July 23, 1992 > union proceeded to stage a strike in which they social justice is never meant to oppress or destroy the employer.
perpetrated illegal acts. The law provides limits for its exercise. Among such limits are
1) strikers padlocked the gate of the company the prohibited activities under A264 LC, particularly paragraph
2) areas fronting the gate of the company were barricaded and blocked (e), which states that no person engaged in picketing shall:
by union strikers a) commit any act of violence, coercion, or intimidation or
3) strikers prevented and coerced other non-striking employees from b) obstruct the free ingress to or egress from the employers
reporting for work premises for lawful purposes or
- the company filed a petition for injunction with NLRC, which granted a c) obstruct public thoroughfares.
TRO enjoining the strikers from doing further acts of violence, coercion, Reasoning
or intimidation and from blocking free ingress and egress to the - the strike staged by petitioners was in the nature of a union-
company premises. recognition-strike. A union-recognition-strike, as its legal
- July 24, 1990 > petitioners filed a complaint for unfair labor practice designation implies, is calculated to compel the employer to
and illegal lockout against the company recognize ones union and not other contending group, as the
- July 25, 1990 > the company filed a complaint for illegal strike. employees bargaining representative to work out a collective
- September 10, 1993 > Labor Arbiter declared as illegal the strike and bargaining agreement despite the striking unions doubtful
dismissed the charge of illegal lockout and unfair labor practice, Five majority status to merit voluntary recognition and lack of formal
union officers were declared to have lost their employment status, fifteen certification as the exclusive representative in the bargaining
union members were not reinstated because they executed quit claims unit. It is undisputed that at the time the petition for certification
in favor of the company, and six workers, Bantulan, Regner, Densing election was filed by AIUP, the petitioner union, there was an
Mirafuentes, Patentes, and Tejana, were ordered to be reinstated. existing CBA between the company and CCEA, the incumbent
- October 8, 1993 > Labor Arbiter issued an Order excluding Bantulan bargaining representative of all rank and file employees. The
and Regner from the list of those to be reinstated and to be paid petition should have not been entertained because of the
backwages. The remaining four workers, Densing, Mirafuentes, contract bar rule. When a collective bargaining has been duly
Patentes, and Tejana, are the petitioners here. registered in accordance with A231 LC, a petition for certification
- October 5, 1993 > the company appealed insofar as it ordered the election or motion for intervention may be entertained only within
reinstatement of some of the strikers. sixty (60) days prior to the expiry date of the agreement. [Sec 3,
- October 7, 1993 > petitioners also appealed the same decision of the par. 2, Rule XI, Book V, of the Rules and Regulations
Labor Arbiter. implementing the Labor Code, as amended by D.O. No. 09,
- October 15, 1993 > Pending resolution of the appeals, AUIP filed with which took effect on 21 Jun 1997] Outside the said period, as in
Labor Arbiter a Motion for Execution of the Decision directing the present case, the petition for certification election or motion
reinstatement of some of its members. Motion was granted for intervention cannot be allowed.
- December 7, 1993 > the company presented a Manifestation/Motion - the strike staged by the petitioner union was illegal for the
praying that instead of reinstatement, it be allowed to pay separation pay reasons, that:
to petitioners. 1) The strikers committed illegal acts in the course of the strike.
- December 16, 1993 > petitioners presented a motion for payroll They formed human barricades to block the road, prevented the
reinstatement, which was opposed by the company, alleging mainly that passage of the companys truck, padlocked the companys gate,
the circumstances of the case have strained the relationship, rendering and prevented co-workers from entering the company premises.
their reinstatement unwise and inappropriate. 2) violated the TRO enjoining the union and/or its members from
- March 23, 1994 > such opposition was overruled by the Labor Arbiter. obstructing the company premises, and ordering the removal of
Labor Arbiter issued a second writ of execution directing actual, if not all the barricades.
payroll reinstatement of the strikers. - Even if the strike is valid because its objective or purpose is
- April 6, 1994 > the company appealed the second order for the lawful, the strike may still be declared invalid where the means
reinstatement of the strikers, placing reliance on the same grounds employed are illegal. For instance, the strike was considered
- August 15, 1994 > NLRC affirmed in toto the Labor Arbiters decision, illegal as the "strikers formed a human cordon along the side of
dismissed both appeals and reiterated the Labor Arbiters Order for the the Sta. Ana wharf and blocked all the ways and approaches to
reinstatement of the petitioners. The company moved for the launches and vessels of Petitioners". [United Seamens
reconsideration of that portion of the NLRCs decision ordering the Union of the Philippines vs. Davao Shipowners Association]
reinstatement of the strikers. NLRC modified its Decision by ordering the 2. NO
payment of separation pay in lieu of the reinstatement of the petitioners, Reasoning
deleting the award of backwages, and declaring the loss of employment - the company committed no illegal lockout. Lockout means
status of Densing. temporary refusal of the employer to furnish work as a result of
- Petitioners claim: NLRC acted with grave abuse of discretion an industrial or labor dispute. [A212 (p) LC]
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction - it was the appellant-workers who voluntarily stopped working
because of their strike. In fact, the workers admitted that non-
ISSUES striking workers who wanted to return to work were allowed to do
1. WON there is an illegal strike so. Their being without work could not therefore be attributed to
2. WON the company committed an illegal lockout the employers refusal to give them work but rather, to the
3. WON the dismissal of the union officers is valid voluntary withdrawal of their services in order to compel the
4. WON NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in declaring company to recognize their union.
Densings loss of employement status in connection with his 3. YES
participation in the illegal strike Ratio Union officers are duty bound to guide their members to
5. WON Mirafuentes et al reinstatement and payment of salaries is respect the law. If instead of doing so, the officers urge the
valid members to violate the law and defy the duly constituted
authorities, their dismissal from the service is a just penalty or
HELD sanction for their unlawful acts. The officers responsibility is
1. YES greater than that of the members. [Continental Cement Labor
Ratio A strike is a legitimate weapon in the universal struggle for Union vs. Continental Cement Corporation]
existence. [Alcantara, Philippine Labor and Social Legislation, 1994] It is Reasoning
LABOR LAW 2 A2010 - 265 - Disini
- the dismissal of the officers of the striking union was justified and valid. -NCMB: issues are non-strikeable, as only SMC was impleaded
Their dismissal as a consequence of the illegality of the strike staged by when 4 different companies were involved. Notices of strike
them finds support in A264 (a) LC: " x x Any union officer who knowingly converted into preventive mediation.
participates in an illegal strike and any x x union officer who knowingly -while separate preventive mediation conferences were ongoing,
participates in the commission of illegal acts during a strike may be the Union through its VP filed a notice of holding a strike vote.
declared to have lost his employment status. x x" SMC opposed, invoking PAL v. Drilon (no strike could be legally
4. YES declared during the pendency of preventive mediation). NCMB
Ratio A264 (a) LC: "x x any worker x x who knowingly participates in the reiterated conversion of notice of strike into preventive mediation
commission of illegal acts during a strike may be declared to have lost and grounds raised were only intra-union conflict nonstrikeable
his employment status. x x" It can be gleaned unerringly from the (who between the 2 groups shall represent the workers for
provision that an ordinary striking employee cannot be terminated for collective bargaining purposes, union leadership).
nd
mere participation in an illegal strike. There must be proof that he -IBM President group filed 2 notice of strike against SMC,
committed illegal acts during the strike [Gold City Integrated Port Service NCMB found the additional grounds to be mere amplifications of
st
Inc. vs. NLRC] and the striker who participated in the commission of issues alleged in the 1 notice of strike. Ordered consolidation of
illegal act must be identified. But proof beyond reasonable doubt is not the 2 notice of strike with 1st notice of strike. Group informed
nd

required. Substantial evidence available may suffice. SMC of its plan to hold a strike.
Ang Tibay vs. CIR: Not only must there be some evidence to support a -VP group notified the NCMB that their strike vote favored the
finding or conclusion, but the evidence must be "substantial". Substantial holding of a strike. NCMB issued a letter reminding the group of
evidence is more than a mere scintilla. It means such relevant evidence the PAL v Drilon. IBM went on strike. Strike paralyzed the
that a reasonable mind might accept as sufficient to support a operations of SMC, which caused millions of loses.
conclusion. -SMC filed with NLRC a Petition for Injunction with Prayer for the
Reasoning Issuance of TRO, Free Ingress and Egress Order and
- It is worthy to point out the sole basis of NLRC for declaring the loss of Deputization Order, which was issued by NLRC, without
employment status of petitioner Densing was a testimony of a witness prejudice to the unions right to peaceful picketing and
who pointed to 5 members of AIUP in connection with the illegal act. continuous hearings on the injunction case. SMC also entered
And the photograph which supposedly portrayed the illegal acts done by into a Memorandum of Agreement with Union, calling for lifting of
the petitioners was not shown and presented to the petitioners for it to picket lines and resumption of work in exchange of good faith
be discerned properly. The court is not convinced that the quantum of talks between the management and the labor management
proof on record hurdled the substantiality of evidence test to support a committees. The MOA also stated that cases filed in relation to
decision, a basic requirement in administrative adjudication. The their dispute will continue and will not be affected in any manner
identification of the alleged pictures of the strikers, if properly made, whatsoever by the agreement. Work was then resumed.
could have been categorized as substantial evidence, which a -NLRC reconsidered the issuance of TRO, and sought to dismiss
reasonable mind may accept as adequate to support a conclusion that the injunction case. SMC opposed, submitted copies of flyers
Densing participated in blocking the gate of the company. wherein IBM expressed their threat to revive the strike. NLRC
5. YES issued decision denying the petition for injunction for lack of
Ratio For the severest administrative penalty of dismissal to attach, the factual basis, there being no circumstance to constitute an actual
erring strikers must be duly identified. Simply referring to them as or threatened commission of unlawful acts. MFR denied
"strikers", "AIU strikers" " complainants in this case" is not enough to
justify their dismissal. Article 223 LC: "x x x In any event, the decision of ISSUES
the labor arbiter reinstating a dismissed employee shall be immediately WON the strike held by IBM was illegal (therefore, NLRC
executory, even pending appeal. The employee shall either be admitted committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the petition for
back to work under the same terms and conditions prevailing prior to his injunction filed by SMC)
dismissal or separation or, at the option of the employer, merely
reinstated in the payroll. The posting of bond shall not stay the execution HELD
of the reinstatement provided therein. x x x" YES
Disposition Petition is GRANTED that Densing, Mirafuentes, Patentes, a. Procedural aspect of the strike
and Tejana be paid full backwages computed from October 15, 1993 -For a strike to be valid, it must be pursued within legal bounds.
until full payment of their separation pay. The payment of separation pay One of the procedural requisites that A263 of the LC and its IRR
in lieu of reinstatement, is hereby authorized prescribe is the filing of a valid notice of strike with the NCMB.
Imposed for the purpose of encouraging the voluntary settlement
SAN MIGUEL CORP v. NLRC, IBM of disputes, this requirement has been held to be mandatory, the
SCRA lack of which shall render a strike illegal.
-In accordance with the Implementing Rules of the Labor Code,
AZCUNA, June 10, 2003 the conversion of the notice of strike to preventive mediation has
the effect of dismissing the notices of strike filed by respondent.
NATURE Petition for certiorari and prohibition A case in point is PAL v. Drilon, where we declared a strike
illegal for lack of a valid notice of strike, in view of the NCMBs
FACTS conversion of the notice therein into a preventive mediation case.
-SMC and Ilaw at Buklod ng Manggagawa (IBM) executed a CBA During the pendency of preventive mediation proceedings no
wherein they agreed to submit all disputes to grievance and arbitration strike could be legally declared.
proceedings, aside from no-strike, no-lockout agreement. -therefore, since the notice of strike filed by the union was
-IBM, through its VP and subsequently through its president (which was converted into preventive mediation proceedings, the union had
opposed by the VP), filed with NCMB a notice of strike against SMC for lost the notices of strike required under A263. However, the
allegedly committing: (1) illegal dismissal of union members, (2) illegal union defiantly proceeded with the strike while mediation was
transfer, (3) violation of CBA, (4) contracting out of jobs being performed ongoing. Such disregard of the mediation proceedings was a
by union members, (5) labor-only contracting, (6) harassment of union blatant violation of theImplementing Rules, which explicitly oblige
officers and members, (7) non-recognition of duly-elected union officers, the parties to bargain collectively in good faith and prohibit them
and (8) other acts of unfair labor practice. SMC filed a Motion for from impeding or disrupting the proceedings.
Severance of Notices of Strike with Motion to Dismiss on the grounds
that the notices raised non-strikeable issues and that they affected 4 b. on ruling of NLRC that there was lack of factual basis (no
corporations. circumstance to constitute an actual or threatened commission of
unlawful acts)
LABOR LAW 2 A2010 - 266 - Disini
-at the time the injunction was being sought, there existed a threat to - Labor Arbiter ruled that the dismissed union officers were
revive the unlawful strike as evidenced by the flyers then being validly and legally terminated because the dismissal was
circulated by the IBM, which were not denied by the respondent union. effected in compliance with the union security clause of the CBA
Moreover, a declaration of strike without first having filed the required which is the law between the parties. This was affirmed by the
notice is a prohibited activity (A264(a)), which may be prevented through NLRC on appeal.
an injunction in accordance with A254. > On the ISSUE of STRIKE:
- Labor Arbiter held that the strike was illegal for the following
c. on IBMs failure to observe the CBA provisions on grievance and reasons: (1) it was based on an intra-union dispute which cannot
arbitration properly be the subject of a strike, the right to strike being limited
- Strikes held in violation of the terms contained in a collective to cases of bargaining deadlocks and unfair labor practice (2) it
bargaining agreement are illegal especially when they provide for was made in violation of the "no strike, no lock-out" clause in the
conclusive arbitration clauses. These agreements must be strictly CBA, and (3) it was attended with violence, force and
adhered to and respected if their ends have to be achieved. intimidation upon the persons of the company officials, other
-We cannot sanction the respondent-unions brazen disregard of legal employees reporting for work and third persons having legitimate
requirements imposed purposely to carry out the state policy of business with the company, resulting to serious physical injuries
promoting voluntary modes of settling disputes. The states commitment to several employees and damage to company property.
to enforce mutual compliance therewith to foster industrial peace is
affirmed by no less than our Constitution. Trade unionism and strikes ISSUE/S
are legitimate weapons of labor granted by our statutes. But misuse of * WON the union officers were validly terminated
these instruments can be the subject of judicial intervention to forestall 1. WON the strike was illegal for being grounded on a non-
grave injury to a business enterprise. strikeable issue (intra-union conflict between the federation and
the local union)
Disposition. WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby GRANTED. 2. WON the no strike, no lock-out clause in the CBA was violated
The decision and resolution of the NLRC in Injunction Case No. 00468- 3. WON the strike was attended with violence force and
94 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Petitioner and private respondent intimidation
are hereby directed to submit the issues raised in the dismissed notices
of strike to grievance procedure and proceed with arbitration HELD
proceedings as prescribed in their CBA, if necessary. No * NO
pronouncement as to costs. SO ORDERED. Reasoning Although this Court has ruled that union security
clauses embodied in the collective bargaining agreement may be
validly enforced and that dismissals pursuant thereto may
likewise be valid, this does not erode the fundamental
MALAYANG SAMAHAN NG MANGGAGAWA SA M. requirement of due process. The reason behind the enforcement
GREENFIELD V RAMOS, NLRC, M. GREENFIELD of union security clauses which is the sanctity and inviolability of
contracts cannot override one's right to due process.
326 SCRA 248 1. NO
PURISIMA; February 28, 2000 Reasoning When respondent company dismissed the union
officers, the issue was transformed into a termination dispute
NATURE and brought respondent company into the picture. Petitioners
Petition for Certiorari to annul the NLRC decision believed in good faith that in dismissing them upon request by
the federation, respondent company was guilty of unfair labor
FACTS practice in that it violated the petitioner's right to self-
- Malayang Samahan ng mga Manggagawa sa M. Greenfield, Inc. organization. The strike was staged to protest respondent
(MSMG) (Local Union) is an affiliate of United Lumber and General company's act of dismissing the union officers. Even if the
Workers of the Philippines (ULGWP) (Federation). allegations of unfair labor practice are subsequently found out to
- The CBA between MSMG and M. Greenfield, Inc. states that it is be untrue, the presumption of legality of the strike prevails.
entered into by the corporation and MSMG / ULGWP. 2. NO
- The CBA includes a Union Security Clause requiring all employees Reasoning A no strike, no lock out provision can only be
who are covered by the CBA and presently members of the UNION to invoked when the strike is economic in nature, i.e. to force wage
remain members of the UNION for the duration of the CBA as a or other concessions from the employer which he is not required
condition precedent to continued employment. by law to grant. Such a provision cannot be used to assail the
- Local union imposed a P50 fine on non-attending union members legality of a strike which is grounded on unfair labor practice, as
which became the subject of bitter disagreement between the was the honest belief of herein petitioners. Again, whether or not
Federation and the local union. MSMG then declared general autonomy there was indeed unfair labor practice does not affect the strike.
from the ULGWP. In retaliation, the national federation asked 3. NO
respondent company to stop the remittance of the local union's share in Reasoning The Labor Arbiter and the Commission found that
the education funds. It also disauthorized incumbent union officers "the parties are agreed that there were violent incidents resulting
from representing the employees. to injuries to both sides, the union and management." The
- Petitioner union officers were expelled by the federation for allegedly evidence on record show that the violence cannot be attributed
committing acts of disloyalty and/or inimical to the interest of ULGWP to the striking employees alone for the company itself employed
and in violation of its Constitution and By-laws. The federation advised hired men to pacify the strikers. With violence committed on both
respondent company of the expulsion of the 30 union officers and sides, the management and the employees, such violence
demanded their separation from employment pursuant to the Union cannot be a ground for declaring the strike as illegal.
Security Clause in their CBA. Dispositive Petition is GRANTED; the NLRC decision is
- Upon demand of the federation, the company terminated the REVERSED and SET ASIDE; respondent company is ordered to
petitioners without conducting a separate and independent investigation. immediately reinstate the petitioners to their respective
The expelled union officers assigned in the first shift were physically or positions.1
bodily brought out of the company premises by the company's security
guards. Those assigned to the second shift were not allowed to report 1
for work. This provoked some of the members of the local union to Should reinstatement be not feasible, respondent company shall pay
demonstrate their protest for the dismissal of the said union officers. separation pay of one month salary for every year of service. Since petitioners
Some union members left their work posts and walked out of the were terminated without the requisite written notice at least 30 days prior to
company premises. their termination, following the recent ruling in the case of Ruben Serrano vs.
National Labor Relations Commission and Isetann Department Store, the
LABOR LAW 2 A2010 - 267 - Disini
complied with in case of ULP strike, which certainly is entitled to
greater judicial protection if the Industrial Peace Act is to be
2) Guidelines and Balancing of Interest rendered meaningful.
- Care is to be taken, however, especially where an unfair labor
practice is involved, to avoid stamping it with illegality just
SHELL OIL WORKERS UNION V SHELL CO because it is tainted by violent acts. To avoid rendering illusory
00 SCRA 000 the recognition of the right to strike, responsibility in such a case
FERNANDO; May 31, 1971 should be individual and not collective. A different conclusion
would be called for, of course, if the existence of force while the
NATURE strike lasts is pervasive and widespread, consistently and
Petition for review order of ca deliberately resorted to as a matter of policy. It could be
reasonably concluded then that even if justified as to ends, it
FACTS becomes illegal because of the means employed.
- Shell Company decided to dissolve its security guard section from its - on balancing of interests: the violent acts made by some union
Pandacan Installation, notwithstanding the tenure of the said section members does not render the strike illegal. The right of the
being embraced in and assured by an existing collective bargaining management to prevent strike cannot override the right of the
contract workers against ULP
- this resulted in a strike by the union (for unfair labor practice). During Disposition Petition is granted. Order is modified (order against
the strike, violent acts were committed by some of the members of the individual members who committed violent acts affirmed)
union
- the CA declared the strike illegal, saying that there was no unfair labor
practice for the dissolution was a a valid exercise of management ALMIRA V B.F. GOODRICH, PHILS
prerogative and ordered the dismissal of the officers who participated in 58 SCRA 120
the strike)
FERNANDO; July 25, 1974
ISSUE
1. WON the strike was illegal Facts
Due to the refusal of the management to consider petitioners'
HELD union as the exclusive bargaining representative, petitioners
1. NO staged a strike and picketed the company's premises. In the
course of the mass picketing, illegal and unlawful acts were
Ratio The dissolution of the security guard section was in violation of the committed by the petitioners. Respondent CIR declared
CBA, thus amounting to unfair labor practice. What was stipulated in an petitioners to have committed an illegal strike and dismissed the
existing CBA certainly precluded Shell Company from carrying out what petitioners.
otherwise would have been within prerogative if to do so would be
violative thereof. Held

Reasoning there was specific inclusion of the category of the security REASON FOR PENALTY LESS PUNITIVE THAN DISMISSAL.-
guards in the CBA. Specific mention is made of the CBA covering rank Where a penalty less punitive would suffice, whatever missteps
and file personnel regularly employed by the Company, including the may be committed by labor ought not to be visited with a
work area covered by the Pandacan Installation. There was likewise consequence so severe. it is not only because of the law's
specific reference to such positions in the wage schedule as well as in concern for the workingman.
the appendix of regular remuneration, premium pay and night
compensation. Nonetheless, Shell Company was bent on doing away There is, in addition, his family to consider, Unemployment
with the security guard section, to be replaced by an outside security brings untold hardships and sorrows on those dependent on the
agency. wage-earner. The misery and pain attendant on the loss of jobs
- Essentially, the freedom to manage the business remains with then could be avoided if there be acceptance of the view that
management. It still has plenty of elbow room for making its wishes under all the circumstances of this case, petitioners should not
prevail. In much the same way that labor unions may be expected to be deprived of their means of livelihood. Nor is this to condone
resist to the utmost what they consider to be an unwelcome intrusion what had been done by them, For all this while, since private
into their exclusive domain, they cannot justly object to management respondent considered them separated from the service, they
equally being jealous of its prerogatives. Non-compliance With the CBA had not been paid. From the strictly juridical standpoint, it cannot
constitutes ULP be too strongly stressed, to follow Davis in his masterly work,
- the ULP strike called by the Union did have the impress of validity. Discretionary Justice, that where a decision may be made to rest
- the legality of the strike follows as a corollary to the finding of fact, an informed judgment rather than rigid rules, all the equities of
made in the decision appealed from - which is supported by substantial the case must be accorded their due weight. Finally, labor law
evidence to the effect that the strike had been triggered by the determinations to quote from Bultmann, should be not only
Company's failure to abide by the terms and conditions of its CBA secundum rationem but also secundum caritatem.
- The assumption is that labor can be trusted to determine for itself when
the right to strike may be availed of in order to attain a successful fruition SECURITY OF TENURE FORTIFIES PROTECTION TO
in their disputes with management. It is true that there is a requirement LABOR.-The conclusion that the dismissal of petitioners in view
in the Act that before the employees may do so, they must file with the of their unlawful acts during the strike is uncalled for is fortified
Conciliation Service of the Department of Labor a notice of their by the stress on the security of tenure that is a notable feature of
intention to strike. Such a requisite however does not have to be the present Constitution as pointed out in a decision rendered
only last month in Philippine Air Lines, Inc. vs. Philippine Air
Lines Employees Association, L-24626, June 28, 1974.

respondent company is hereby ordered to pay full backwages to petitioner-employees ATTENDANT RESPONSIBILITY ON THE WORKING FORCE
while the Federation is also ordered to pay full backwages to petitioner-union officers AND MANAGEMENT.-The basic doctrine underlying the
who were dismissed upon its instigation. Since the dismissal of petitioners was without provisions of the Constitution so solicitous of labor as well as the
cause, backwages shall be computed from the time the herein petitioner employees and applicable statutory norms is that both the working force and
union officers were dismissed until their actual reinstatement. Should reinstatement be management are necessary components of the economy. The
not feasible, their backwages shall be computed from the time petitioners were terminated rights of labor have been expanded. Concern is evident for its
until the finality of this decision. Vitug and Panganiban reiterate their stand in Serrano v NLRC.
LABOR LAW 2 A2010 - 268 - Disini
welfare. The advantages thus conferred, however, call for attendant Even granting, just for the sake of argument, that there was
responsibilities. The ways of the law are not to be ignored. Those who really a misinterpretation of the letter of resignation (Exhibit "A"),
seek comfort from the shelter that it affords should be the last to engage and because of this, the management refused to readmit Mr.
in activities which negates the very concept of a legal order as Marcelo, notwithstanding the request made to that effect, is this
antithetical to force and coercion. What is equally important is that in the a sufficient cause for the members to declare a strike? As
steps to be taken by it in the pursuit of what it believes to be its rights, lengthily discussed above, Mr. Marcelo was not dismissed for
the advice of those conversant with the requirements of legal norms union activities. If he was separated from the service of the
should be sought and should not be ignored. It is even more important company, it was because of his voluntary resignation which was
that reason and not violence should be its milieu. duly accepted by the management. If the management refuses
to reemploy him, it is merely acting in the exercise of its
prerogative.
3) Defenses- Good Faith ULP
Mr. Marcelo without resorting to some pacific means and
INTERWOOD EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, vs. processes prevailed upon the members of the Association to
INTERNATIONAL HARDWOOD & VENEER COMPANY declare a strike simply because he was harboring the belief that
he was illegally dismissed. A strike as a weapon of labor must be
OF THE PHILIPPINES (INTERWOOD) used judiciously. It should be used in redress of just and lawful
99 P 82 grievances and not to be used whimsically or capriciously even
PADILLA; May 18 , 1956 by the President of the union who caused the strike to be
declared in protest of his fancied notion that he was dismissed
FACTS by the management on account of union activities.

Mr. Enrique Marcelo, president of the Interwood Employees Association,


was originally employed by the petitioner since July 26, 1949, as shop If the determination whether a strike is legal or illegal were to
helper with a daily compensation of P3. Desiring to move to a better depend upon the reason or motive, no matter how groundless or
position in the company, he tendered a letter of resignation from his false it may be, the striking members of a labor union had in
current position to make himself available for another position. However, mind or believed in good faith at the time they staged the strike,
he later found out that the new position was not available. He then tried there would then be no need for the court to pass upon that
to go back to his original position but was refused by management on question, because what the strikers had in mind or believed in
the ground that the old position had been abolished. The union declared good faith at the time they struck can hardly be refuted, rebutted
a strike on his behalf. or disproved. If the Court of Industrial Relations were bound to
believe and so find what the striking members of a labor union
ISSUE allege or claim to be the reason or motive for their staging a
strike, because as claimed by the petitioner the right of the
1. Whether or not Mr. Marcelo was illegally terminated members of a labor union to strike for mutual aid or protection,
2. Whether or not the striking union members should be dismissed for as recognized in section 3, Republic Act No. 875, is an absolute
fighting for the cause of Mr. Marcelo. right, then there would no longer be any necessity for holding or
conducting a hearing, where both parties to the controversy may
HELD present their proofs and upon which the Court is to determine
which of the claims or contentions is true, correct and lawful, as
1. NO disclosed by the evidence before it. Parenthetically, Republic Act
No. 875 took effect on 17 June 1953. THE STRIKE HELD
Mr. Marcelo also claims that his letter of resignation was misinterpreted ILLEGAL WAS STAGED BY THE MEMBERS OF THE
by the management. From the contents of Exhibit "A" there could be no PETITIONER ON 9 MARCH 1953. THE ACT CANNOT BE
other meaning from the sentence "I am resigning from my present post INVOKED AND APPLIED TO STRIKE STAGED BEFORE THE
as Supervisor effective March 7, 1953," except that as used in ordinary ACT TOOK EFFECT. 1 NEVERTHELESS, SUCH RIGHT TO
parlance, he is quitting or giving up his present position effective March STRIKE FOR MUTUAL AID OR PROTECTION IS NOT
7, 1953. The letter of resignation being clear and concise, it should be ABSOLUTE. IT COMES INTO BEING AND IS SAFEGUARDED
taken in its face value. Marcelo in his letter of resignation also gave his BY LAW IF AND WHEN THE ACT OR ACTS INTENDED TO
reason why he is resigning from his present position and signified his RENDER MUTUAL AID OR PROTECTION TO AFFILIATES OF
desire or intention to work in the powerhouse. A LABOR UNION ARISE FROM A LAWFUL GROUND,
REASON OR MOTIVE. IF THE MOTIVE BE LAWFUL, ANY ACT
Here, Marcelo wanted to assign himself to the powerhouse. The THAT WOULD TEND TO GIVE SUCH MUTUAL AID OR
question of transfer and assignment of employees or laborers from one PROTECTION SHOULD AND MUST BE PROTECTED AND
section or department to another is purely an act of the management UPHELD. BUT IF THE MOTIVE THAT HAD IMPELLED,
which Mr. Marcelo cannot impose upon the company, otherwise, if he PROMPTED, MOVED OR LED MEMBERS OF A LABOR
will be allowed to do so, it would undoubtedly encroach upon the UNION OR ORGANIZATION TO STAGE A STRIKE, EVEN IF
managerial functions of the management. THEY HAD ACTED IN GOOD FAITH IN STAGING IT, BE
UNLAWFUL ILLEGITIMATE, UNJUST, UNREASONABLE OR
Resignation is not synonymous with separation or dismissal. In his letter TRIVIAL, AND THE COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS,
of resignation he stated or expressed the wish to be returned to his THE AGENCY ENTRUSTED BY THE GOVERNMENT TO
former position as shift engineer in the powerhouse which he, at that DETERMINE IT, FINDS IT SO, THEN THE STRIKE MAY BE
time, did not hold, because the job held by him and the one to which he DECLARED ILLEGAL.
wanted to be transferred or returned were two different positions.
Marcelo's pretension which amounted to an imposition upon the
respondent cannot and should not be countenanced and sustained. REYES, J.B.L., J., with whom PARAS, C.J., BAUTISTA and
There was no vacancy in the powerhouse to which he could be CONCEPCION, JJ., concur, concurring and dissenting:
transferred.
I fully concur with the majority in its view that Enrique
Marcelo's conduct was unjustifiable and that he was properly
2. YES. dismissed; but regret not being able to assent to the dismissal
of the other strikers, for this extreme penalty seems to me
excessive under the circumstances of record. Where
LABOR LAW 2 A2010 - 269 - Disini
unemployment is rife, as at present, dismissal may mean risk of - the dismissed union officers filed before the NLRC a complaint
starvation for the laborers and their families. for illegal dismissal. The cases were consolidated and in the
herein challenged Decision, public respondent ordered the
It is practically conceded, and there is no showing otherwise, that the reinstatement of the dismissed officers of private respondent
labor union declared the strike in the honest belief that Marcelo had union. The same Decision further ruled that, where reinstatement
been dismissed because of union activities, and no unlawful means was no longer feasible "on account of the sale of any of
were employed. Such action can not be regarded as trivial, illegal or respondent companies," separation pay shall be awarded,
unreasonable: defense of its members goes to the very root of a equivalent to "1 month's pay for every year of service, a fraction
union's reason for existence. I concede that the strike was injudicious of at least 6 months considered as 1 whole year, in addition to
and hasty, since no serious attempt was made to ascertain the side of the award of backwages."
management. But it seems to me that reinstatement without backpay - The parties filed their respective motions for reconsideration. In
would have been a sufficient stern sanction for such inconsiderate its December 9, 1994 Decision, the NLRC modified its earlier
action and a reminder against its repetition in the future. disposition and ordered PNOC to pay its separated employees
severance benefit equivalent to "two months for every year of
Nor is the guilt of the union in acting without due inquiry upon the service" in accordance with the company's established business
biased report of its president (Marcelo) too serious or unprecedented practice. The separate motions of PNOC and its subsidiaries
an offense. Our experience is that precipitate action upon one-sided were all denied.
reports is not confined to labor unions. The truth is that if in labor-
capital conflicts labor is often too quick to conclude that every move of ISSUES
management is an attempt to grind it back to slavery, so are capital 1. WON KMM-PDEC and its officers are guilty of illegal strike.
and management much too predisposed to view every petition of labor 2. WON the termination of KMM-PDEC union officers, who led
as unjustified demand and harassing insolence. Save rare and the illegal strike, was legal and for just cause.
honorable exceptions, both sides appear to suffer from emotional 3. WON PNOC is entitled to the award of damages.
infantilism.
HELD
In the present case it does not appear that management endeavored 1. NO.
to present the true facts to the union. Had it done so, the strike would Ratio A strike does not automatically carry the stigma of illegality
have probably been averted, for a laborer does not take lightly to the even if no unfair labor practice were committed by the employer.
suspension of the earnings upon which he and his family depend for It suffices if such a belief in good faith is entertained by labor as
their living. the inducing factor for staging a strike. Indeed, the presumption
of legality prevails even if the allegation of unfair labor practice is
subsequently found to be untrue, provided that the union and its
PNOC DOCKYARD AND ENGINEERING members believed in good faith in the truth of such averment.
CORPORATION v. NLRC (BATAAN REFINERS UNION Reasoning In resolving that the strike was legal, the labor
OF THE PHILIPPINES et al) tribunal took note of the following facts: (1) the notice of strike
G.R. No. 118223 was filed only after the union members lost hope for the redress
of their grievance arising from their exclusion from the P2,500
PANGANIBAN; June 26, 1998 salary increase; (2) the union members honesty believed that
they were discriminated against, since the company practice in
NATURE
the past was to grant salary increases to all employees
Petition for review under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court
regardless of whether they were MPTs or NMPTs; (3) such
discriminatory grant appeared to be an unfair labor practice
FACTS
intended to discourage union membership, since MPTs were
- private respondent (KMM-PDEC), among unions namely: BRUP,
non-union members; and (4) the labor unions complied with the
PEDEA, PCC-ELU and PSTCEA, filed with the DOLE a notice of strike
legal requirements before going on strike, such as the members'
against Phil. National Oil Company (PNOC) and Monico Jacob as
strike vote by secret ballot, the submission of the results thereof
President/Chairman, on the ground of discrimination constituting ULP.
to the National Conciliation and Meditation Board, the filing of a
The dispute arose from the grant by petitioner and PNOC of the amount
notice to strike and the observance of the 15-day cooling-off
of P2,500.00 increase in monthly salaries to Managerial, Professionals
period. Respondent Commission opined that the unions had a
and Technical Employees (MPT) but not to Non-Managerial,
reason to regard the salary discrimination, believed to
Professional and Technical Employees (NMPT).
discourage membership in the labor organization, as an unfair
- Acting Secretary Nieves Confesor certified the dispute subject of the
labor practice.
notice of strike to the NLRC for compulsory arbitration.
- The NLRC noted further that the strike was peaceful and
- the day when respondent union was poised to strike, its officers and
orderly, unmarred by any form of violence or untoward incident.
members decided to report for work but petitioner thru its Operations
2. NO.
Manager, Nemesio Guillermo, padlocked the gate and refused entry to
Ratio Having ruled that the strike staged by respondent unions
the employees. Some officers and members of respondent union were
was legal, the subsequent dismissals of their officers due to their
able to enter the premises of petitioner and punch-in their timecards;
staging of said strike cannot be countenanced.
however, they were immediately escorted back outside
- The NLRC correctly observed that, although petitioner averred
- Confesor issued a return to work order directing all striking workers to
that the dismissals of individual respondent were due to
return to work within 24 hours form receipt of the Order and for the infractions of company rules and regulations, the alleged
Company to accept them under the same terms and conditions infractions actually arose from their participation in the strike.
prevailing prior to the work stoppage. This is crystal clear from the charges leveled against the union
- respondent union thru its President, Felimon Paglinawan filed before officers, such as "active participation in the illegal work
the NLRC a complaint against petitioner for Illegal Lock-out stoppage." "disruption of company operations resulting [in]
- all members of the private respondent union reported and were losses." "violation of the 'NO STRIKE' clause of the existing
accepted back to work CBA," among others, cited in their similarly worded notices of
- Subsequently, petitioner filed before the DOLE a petition to declare the investigation that eventually led to their dismissals.
strike illegal with a motion to cite the striking workers in contempt for - The issues relating to the strike and lockout were already
defying the DOLE Orders. submitted before the NLRC through the corresponding
- the President, Secretary, Auditor and Treasurer of the respondent complaints filed by petitioner itself and private respondents. By
union, after due notice and investigation, were dismissed by petitioner filing a formal complaint for illegal strike, it behooved petitioner to
from their employment on the ground, among others of their participation desist from undertaking its own investigation on the same matter,
in the work stoppage on December 18 to 21, 1991
LABOR LAW 2 A2010 - 270 - Disini
concluding upon the illegality of the union activity and dismissing outright
the union officers involved.
- Moreover, the MOA, other than enjoining the striking workers to return
(contd 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


recognized bargaining agent may file a notice of strike or the SUKHOTHAI CUISINE v CA (NLRC, PLAC)
employer may file a notice of lockout with the Ministry at least 30 495 SCRA 336
day before the intended date thereof. In cases of unfair labor AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ; JULY 17, 2006
practice, the period of notice shall be 15 days and in the
absence of a duly certified or recognized bargaining agent, the NATURE
notice of strike may be filed by any legitimate labor organization Appeal by certiorari
in behalf of its members. However, in case of dismissal from
FACTS
employment of union officers duly elected in accordance with the - On December 3, 1998, employees of Sukhothai Cuisine and
union constitution and by-laws, which may constitute union Restaurant (duly organized as a union, affiliated with private
busting, where the existence of the union is threatened, the 15- respondent Philippine Labor Alliance Council [PLAC], and
day cooling-off period shall not apply and the union may take designated as PLAC local 460 Sukhothai chapter) filed a Notice
action immediately. of Strike with the National Conciliation and Mediation Board
(NCMB) on the ground of unfair labor practice (ULP) and
ART. 264. Prohibited activities. - (a) No labor organization or particularly, acts of harassment, fault-finding, and union busting
employer shall declare a strike or lockout without first having through coercion and interference with union affairs.
- In a subsequent conciliation conference, representatives of the
bargained collectively in accordance with Title VII of this Book or petitioner agreed and guaranteed that there will be no
without first having filed the notice required in the preceding termination of the services of private respondents during the
Article or without the necessary strike or lockout vote first having pendency of the case, with the reservation of the management
been obtained and reported to the Ministry. prerogative to issue memos to erring employees for the infraction,
or violation of company policies.
No strike or lockout shall be declared after assumption of - In a Submission Agreement, the issue of unfair labor practice
jurisdiction by the President or the Minister or after certification was later submitted for voluntary arbitration, during the pendency
of which, the petitioner, through its president, Ernesto Garcia,
or submission of the dispute to compulsory or voluntary
dismissed Eugene Lucente, a union member, due to an alleged
arbitration or during the pendency of cases involving the same petty quarrel with a co-employee. In view of this termination,
grounds for the strike or lockout. private respondent Union filed with the NLRC a complaint for
illegal dismissal. Another employee, private respondent Jose
LABOR LAW 2 A2010 - 271 - Disini
Lanorias, likewise a union member, was relieved from his post and person engaged in picketing shall: a) commit any act of violence,
terminated from employment. Shortly thereafter, respondents staged a coercion, or intimidation or b) obstruct the free ingress to or
wildcat strike which was later transformed into 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 dyan! 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 as
2. WON private respondents are deemed to have lost their employment well as their co-workers who refused to go on strike; physically
status by participating in the commission of illegal acts during the strike. preventing non-strikers from entering the premises, as well as
3. WON the requisites for a valid strike may be dispensed with in case of deliberately blocking their movements inside the restaurant, at
union-busting. times by sharply bumping into them or through indecent physical
contact; openly threatening non-strikers with bodily harm, such
HELD as Pag hindi sila pumayag, upakan mo!; and shouting at the
1. YES. The strike was illegal. security guard Granada! which caused panic among the
Ratio Art.264 of the LC provides: No strike or lockout shall be declared customers and prompted security to report a possible death
after assumption of jurisdiction by the Pres. or the Secretary or after 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 HERMOSISIMA; July 12, 1996
cases to the grievance machinery of the CBA, if one is available, so that
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,
LABOR LAW 2 A2010 - 272 - Disini
1985, Union staged a strike upon the Union president's contention that When, in his opinion, there exists a labor dispute causing or
the Labor Minister's assumption order was a mere scrap 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 order
enjoining enforcement of the order of the Minister of Labor and 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 - 273 - 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
INTERPHIL LABORATORIES by substantial evidence. After going over the records on hand,
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.

Disposition Decision set aside


SAMAHAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA MOLDEX
PRODUCTS V NLRC (MADRIAGA, MOLDEX AND UY)
324 SCRA 242
PURISIMA; February 1, 2000 PHILIPPINE DIAMOND HOTEL AND RESORT
INC (MANILA DIAMOND HOTEL V MANILA
NATURE DIAMOND HOTEL EMPLOYEES UNION
Petition for certiorari 494 SCRA 195
FACTS
CARPIO MORALES; June 30, 2006
- In the earlier part of 1993, petitioners and private respondents
negotiated for the renewal of their Collective Bargaining Agreement. Due FACTS
to some economic differences, the negotiations ended in a deadlock. -Union filed a petition for certification election to be declared the
- April 2, 1993 - Petitioners filed a notice of strike with the National exclusive bargaining representative of the Hotels employees.
Conciliation and Mediation Board. The series of conferences proved This petition was dismissed by DOLE for lack of legal
unavailing. requirements.
- April 24, 1993 - Union conducted a strike vote among its members, and -after a few months, Union sent a letter to Hotel informing it of its
the results of the voting were thereafter conveyed to the Alliance of desire to negotiate for a collective bargaining agreement. This
Nationalist and Genuine Labor Organization for submission to the NCMB, was rejected by the Hotel stating that the Union was not the
but for some unknown reason, the same was not made. employees bargaining agent as their petition for certification
- May 5, 1993 - Petitioners went on strike without the report of the strike election was denied.
vote submitted to the NCMB. -Union filed a Notice of Strike with the NCMB alleging the Hotel
- June 17, 1993 - Moldex filed a petition to declare the strike illegal and to refusal to bargain and for acts of unfair labor practices. NCMB
authorize the dismissal of the officers involved. The petition alleged that summoned both parties and held series of dialogues. Union
the petitioners barricaded the three gates of the company and committed however suddenly went on strike
acts of violence, threats and coercion. -Secretary of DOLE assumed jurisdiction and ordered
- An amicable settlement failed so trial on the merits began. Moldex compulsory arbitration pursuant to art. 263 (g) of LC. And Union
presented witnesses whereas the union only presented its memorandum. members were directed to return to work and for Hotel to accept
They alleged that the pieces of evidence presented by Moldex were them back. Hotel refused to accept the employees return. The
hearsay. order was modified (by a different Secretary) such that
- March 7, 1994 The Labor Arbiter came out with an order which reinstatement was to be done only in the payroll.
declared the strike illegal and ordered the dismissal of employees -Union filed for certiorari alleging grave abuse of discretion. Case
responsible for the strike. was referred to the CA. CA affirmed that the payroll
- An appeal before the NLRC was made and the NLRC ordered a remand reinstatement was not a grave abuse of discretion. On appeal, it
of the case for the reason that both parties were not able, for reasons modified NLRC decision ordering reinstatement with back wages
and/or causes known only to them, to submit crucial evidence in support of union members.
of their respective contentions.
ISSUE
ISSUE -xxx-
WON the order of the NLRC was correct 3) WON those employees who participated in the strike should
be given back wages
HELD NO
HELD
Reasoning -xxx-
- Reception of evidence would be a futile exercise considering that the 3) No.
facts are already clear and complete, and would not alter the outcome of -The general rule is that backwages shall not be awarded in an
the case. economic strike on the principle that "a fair days wage" accrues
- It has been shown that the results of the strike-vote were never only for a "fair days labor. If there is no work performed by the
forwarded to the NCMB, as admitted by petitioners themselves and as employee there can be no wage or pay, unless of course, the
attested to by a Certification of Non-Submission of Strike Vote issued by laborer was able, willing and ready to work but was illegally
the NCMB. There is thus no need for additional evidence on the matter, locked out, dismissed or suspended. "when employees
as it would not change the fact that the results of the strike-vote were not voluntarily go on strike, even if in protest against unfair labor
submitted to the NCMB. Without the submission of the results of the practices," no back wages during the strike is awarded.
strike-vote, the strike was illegal, pursuant to Article 264 of the Labor
Code.
LABOR LAW 2 A2010 - 274 - Disini
-The Court ruled that only those members of the union who did not 1. WON the CA acted within the bounds of the law when it
commit illegal acts during the course of the illegal strike should be spared the striking workers or union members from the penalty
reinstated but without back wages of dismissal.
TOPIC: illegal strikes- burden of economic loss 2. WON the award of salary increases made by SOLE in the
disposition of economic aspects of the CBA which was based on
revelations sourced from the confidential position given to the
2) Effect of Illegality NCMB Administrator is proper.

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 they
on actual strike, picketed and blocked the company offices, and plant 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
respondents 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 - 275 - 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. unions 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 Unions 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 Unions 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 Secretarys
Notice of Strike, due to perceived unfair labor practice committed by the
assumption of jurisdiction was PEUs 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 dispute.
striking workers to return to work within 24hours from receipt of the
The power is plenary and discretionary in nature to enable him to
Secretarys Order and for management to resume normal operations, as
effectively and efficiently dispose of the dispute. Besides, it was
well as accept the workers back under the same terms and conditions
upon Philcoms petition that the Secretary immediately assumed
prior to the strike. The parties were likewise required to submit their
jurisdiction over the labor dispute. Moreover, a careful study of
respective position papers and evidence within 10days from receipt of
all the facts alleged, issues raised, and arguments presented in
said order. A few days later, a second order was issued reiterating the
the position paper leads us to hold that the portions PEU seek to
previous directive to all striking employees to return to work immediately.
expunge are necessary in the resolution of the present case.
-The union filed MFR assailing, among others, the authority of then
Acting Secretary Trajano to assume jurisdiction over the labor dispute.
2. NO.
Said motion was denied and as directed, the parties submitted their
-Unfair labor practice refers to acts that violate the workers right
respective position papers. In its position paper, the union raised the
to organize. The prohibited acts are related to the workers right
issue of the alleged ULP of the company. The company, on the other
to self-organization and to the observance of a CBA. Without that
hand, raised in its position paper the sole issue of the illegality of the
element, the acts, no matter how unfair, are not unfair labor
strike staged by the union.
practices. The only exception is Article 248(f), which in any case
-On the premise that the Labor Secretary cannot rule on the issue of the
is not one of the acts specified in PEUs charge of unfair labor
strike since there was no petition to declare the same illegal, petitioner
practice.
union filed a Manifestation/ Motion to Strike Out Portions of &
-A review of the acts complained of as ULP of Philcom convinces
Attachments in Philcoms Position Paper for being irrelevant, immaterial
us that they do not fall under any of the prohibited acts defined
and impertinent to the issues assumed for resolution. In opposition, the
and enumerated in Article 248 of the Labor Code. The issues of
company argued that it was precisely due to the strike suddenly staged
misimplementation or non-implementation of employee benefits,
by the union that the dispute was assumed by the Labor Secretary.
non-payment of overtime and other monetary claims, inadequate
Hence, the case would necessarily include the issue of the legality of the
transportation allowance, water, and other facilities, are all a
strike.
matter of implementation or interpretation of the economic
-The Secretary issued the first assailed order. Said order directed the
provisions of the CBA between Philcom and PEU subject to the
issuance of summons to Philcom Corporation to appear before any
LABOR LAW 2 A2010 - 276 - Disini
grievance procedure. All the charges were adequately rebutted by the parties is premature and illegal. Having held the strike illegal
employer. and having found that PEUs officers and members have
-The Court has always respected a companys exercise of its committed illegal acts during the strike, we hold that no writ
prerogative to devise means to improve its operations. Management is of execution should issue for the return to work of PEU
free to regulate, according to its own discretion and judgment, all officers who participated in the illegal strike, and PEU
aspects of employment, including hiring, work assignments, supervision members who committed illegal acts or who defied the
and transfer of employees, working methods, time, place and manner of return-to-work orders that the Secretary issued. The issue of
work. This is so because the law on ULP is not intended to deprive who participated in the illegal strike, committed illegal acts, or
employers of their fundamental right to prescribe and enforce such rules defied the return-to-work orders is a question of fact that must be
as they honestly believe to be necessary to the proper, productive and resolved in the appropriate proceedings before the Secretary of
profitable operation of their business. Labor.
-Even assuming arguendo that Philcom had violated some provisions in Disposition Petition dismissed. CA decision affirmed with the
the CBA, there was no showing that the same was a flagrant or modification that the DOLE Sec is directed to determine who
malicious refusal to comply with its economic provisions. The law among the PEU officers participated in the illegal strike, and who
mandates that such violations should not be treated as unfair labor among the union members committed illegal acts or defied the
practices. return-to-work orders.

3. NO. GRAND BOULEVARD HOTEL V GENUINE


-SC ruled on the legality of the strike if only to put an end to this
protracted labor dispute. The facts necessary to resolve the legality of
LABORERS ORGANIZATION
the strike are not in dispute. The strike and the strike activities that PEU 406 SCRA 688
had undertaken were patently illegal for the following reasons: CALLEJO; July 18, 2003
1. Philcom is engaged in a vital industry protected by PD 823, as
amended by PD 849, from strikes and lockouts. It is therefore clear that NATURE
the striking employees violated the no-strike policy of the State in regard Petition for review on certiorari
to vital industries.
2. The Secretary had already assumed jurisdiction over the dispute. FACTS
Despite the issuance of the return-to-work orders, the striking - Respondent Genuine Labor Organization of Workers in Hotel,
employees failed to return to work and continued with their strike. Restaurant and Allied Industries Silahis International Hotel
-A return-to-work order imposes a duty that must be discharged more Chapter (Union) and the petitioner Grand Boulevard Hotel (then
than it confers a right that may be waived. While the workers may Silahis International Hotel, Inc.) executed a CBA covering the
choose not to obey, they do so at the risk of severing their relationship period from July 10, 1985 up to July 9, 1988.
with their employer. see Art.264 of the Labor Code. - Thereafter, Union filed several notices of strike on account of
-A strike undertaken despite the Secretarys issuance of an alleged violations of CBA, illegal dismissal and suspension of
assumption or certification order becomes a prohibited activity, EEs. In these instances, SOLE issued a status quo ante bellum
and thus, illegal, under Article 264(a) of the Labor Code. The union order certifying the labor dispute to the NLRC for compulsory
officers who knowingly participate in the illegal strike are deemed arbitration pursuant to Article 263(g) of LC. After notice was
to have lost their employment status. The union members, given by Hotel re its decision to implement retrenchment
including union officers, who commit specific illegal acts or who program, Union informed the DOLE that the union will conduct a
knowingly defy a return-to-work order are also deemed to have lost strike vote referendum. The members of the Union voted to
their employment status. Otherwise, the workers will simply refuse stage a strike. Union informed the DOLE of the results of the
to return to their work and cause a standstill in the company strike vote referendum. SOLE issued another status quo ante
operations while retaining the positions they refuse to discharge bellum order certifying the case to the NLRC for compulsory
and preventing management to fill up their positions. arbitration and enjoining the parties from engaging in any strike
3. PEU staged the strike using unlawful means and methods. or lockout. Then, another notice of strike was filed by Union on
-e.g., human barricades at all entrances to and egresses from the account of the illegal dismissal of EEs pusrsuant to Hotels act of
company premises; use of coercive methods to prevent company retrenching around 171 EEs. Officers of the respondent union
officials and other personnel from leaving the company premises; and some members staged a picket in the premises of the hotel,
prohibiting other tenants at the Philcom building from entering and obstructing the free ingress and egress thereto. Because of this,
leaving the premises. see Art. 264(e) of the Labor Code. they were terminated.
-The sanction provided in Article 264(a) is so severe that any - Hotel filed a complaint with NLRC for illegal strike against the
worker or union officer who knowingly participates in the union, its members and officers. Petitioner Hotel alleged inter
commission of illegal acts during a strike may be declared to have alia that the union members and officers staged a strike on
lost his employment status. By insisting on staging the prohibited November 16, 1990 which lasted until November 29, 1990
strike and defiantly picketing Philcoms premises to prevent the without complying with the requirements provided under Articles
resumption of company operations, the striking employees have 263 and 264 of the Labor Code. It further alleged that the officers
forfeited their right to be readmitted. and members of the respondent union blocked the main ingress
4. PEU declared the strike during the pendency of preventive to and egress from the hotel.
mediation proceedings at the NCMB. - The respondent Union denied the material allegations of the
-see Art264(a), LC. Section 6, Book V, Rule XXII of the IRR: During the complaint and alleged that the petitioner committed ULP prior to
proceedings, the parties shall not do any act which may disrupt or the filing of the Nov. 16, 1990 notice of strike. Hence, there was
impede the early settlement of dispute. They are obliged, as part of their no need for the union to comply with A263 and 264 of LC, as the
duty, to bargain collectively in good faith, to participate fully and promptly notice
in the conciliation meetings called by the regional branch of the Board. - LA Linsangans Ruling: Unions failure to comply with the
5. PEU staged the strike in utter disregard of the grievance procedure requirements laid down in A263 and 264 of LC, the strike that
established in the CBA. was staged was illegal. Considering the admissions of the
-PEU should have immediately resorted to the grievance machinery individual respondents that they participated in the said strike,
provided for in the CBA. In disregarding this procedure, the union the termination of their employment by the petitioner was legal.
leaders who knowingly participated in the strike have acted LA noted that if as alleged by the respondent union the petitioner
unreasonably. The law cannot interpose its hand to protect them from was guilty of ULP, it should have filed a complaint therefor
the consequences of their illegal acts. against the Hotel and/or its officials for which the latter could
-A strike declared on the basis of grievances which have not been have been meted penal and administrative sanctions as provided
submitted to the grievance committee as stipulated in the CBA of the for in A272 of LC. The Union failed.
LABOR LAW 2 A2010 - 277 - Disini
- Appeal by Union to NLRC: that it had complied with the requirements Ratio Since a strike that is undertaken, despite the issuance by
laid down in A263 and 264 of LC because its Nov 16, 1990 notice of the SOLE of an assumption or certification order, becomes a
strike was a mere reiteration of its Sept 27, 1990 notice of strike, which, prohibited activity and, thus, illegal pursuant to A264 of LC, the
in turn, complied with all the requirements of the aforementioned union officers and members, as a result, are deemed to have lost
articles, i.e., the cooling-off period, the strike ban, the strike vote and the their employment status for having knowingly participated in an
strike vote report. illegal act.
- NLRC affirmed LA Decision. Compliance of the requirements laid down
in A263 and 264 of LC respecting the Sept 27, 1990 notice of strike filed Disposition Petition is GRANTED. LA Decision REINSTATED.
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.
- CA reversed NLRC and LA: It took into account the observation of the SAN JUAN DE DIOS UNION ALLIANCE OF
Sol-Gen that the Hotel retrenched EEs pending the resolution of the
certified cases respecting the alleged illegal suspension and dismissals FILIPINO WORKERS V SAN JUAN DE DIOS
effected by Hotel during and prior to the notices of strike filed by Union. EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATION, INC.
Sol-Gen opined that even if the strike was staged without the proper 430 SCRA 193
notice and compliance with the cooling-off period, resort thereto was
CALLEJO, SR.; May 28, 2004
simply triggered by the petitioners' belief in good faith that Hotel was
engaged in ULP. Hence, this petition
NATURE
ISSUES Petition for review on certiorari of decision and resolution of CA.
1 WON the strike staged by the respondent union on Nov16-29, 1990
is legal FACTS
2 WON the dismissals of the officers and some members of the Union - San Juan De Dios Educational Foundation Inc. (Foundation) is
as a consequence of the strike on Nov16-29, 1990 are valid. a domestic foundation operating as a college and hospital. San
Juan De Dios Educational Foundation Employees Union-Alliance
HELD of Filipino Workers (Union) is the sole and exclusive bargaining
1. NO representative of the rank-and-file employees.
Re: Procedural Requirements - Rodolfo Calucin, Jr. had been employed at the Foundation as a
- Under A263 (c) and (f) of LC, the requisites for a valid strike are as medical clerk for almost 12 years. The Foundation informed him
follows: (a) a notice of strike fled with the DOLE 30 days before the that his incurred absences affected his efficiency, and was asked
intended date thereof or 15 days in case of ULP; (b) strike vote to explain why he should not be terminated for gross and
approved by a majority of the total union membership in the bargaining habitual neglect of his duties.
unit concerned obtained by secret ballot in a meeting called for that - July 27, 1994: the Foundation wrote Calucin, Jr. terminating
purpose; (c) notice given to the DOLE of the results of the voting at least him for gross and habitual neglect of duties. Calucin Jr. filed a
7 days before the intended strike. The requisite 7-day period is intended complaint for illegal dismissal before the NLRC. Calucin, Jr. was
to give the DOLE an opportunity to verify whether the projected strike a union officer, and officers and employees who were also
really carries the approval of the majority of the union members. The members of the Union staged a strike.
notice of strike and the cooling-off period were intended to provide an - August 26, 1994: DOLE Sec. Confesor directed the striking
opportunity for mediation and conciliation. The requirements are employees to go to work, and directing the Foundation to accept
mandatory and failure of a union to comply therewith renders the strike all employees under the previous terms of employment. The
illegal. A strike simultaneously with or immediately after a notice of strike order was served on the officers and members of the Union,
will render the requisite periods nugatory. nevertheless, the strike continued.
- The Foundation filed a petition before the NCMB to declare the
- In this case, union filed its notice of strike with the DOLE on Nov 16, strike illegal on ground that the Union committed prohibited acts
1990 and on the same day, staged a picket on the premises of the hotel, during the strike staged on August 26 to 31 1994.
in violation of the law. Union cannot argue that since the notice of strike - Since the Union did not heed the Return to Work Order
on Nov 16, 1990 were for the same grounds as those contained in their (RTWO), Confesor issued another one. The Foundation and the
notice of strike on September 27, 1990 which complied with the Union entered into an agreement on August 30, 1994 regarding
requirements of the law on the cooling-off period, strike ban, strike vote the Calucin issue, and that the Foundation would waive any legal
and strike vote report, the strike staged by them on Nov16, 1990 was action relating to the illegal strike and the illegal acts committed
lawful. The matters contained in the notice of strike of Sept 27, 1990 had by the officers and members of the Union.
already been taken cognizance of by the SOLE when he issued on Oct - In a complaint filed by the Union against the Union before the
31, 1990 a status quo ante bellum order enjoining union from intending NLRC, it alleged that the Foundation was guilty of illegal
or staging a strike. Despite SOLE order, the union nevertheless staged a dismissal of Union officers, discrimination, union-busting, and
strike on Nov16, 1990 simultaneously with its notice of strike, thus that the strike was legal and conducted in a peaceful and orderly
violating A264(a) LC manner. The NLRC held that the strike was illegal, that the
officers of the Union lost their employment status. At the
Grounds inception the strike was legal; when the RTWO was issued and
- A strike that is undertaken, despite the issuance by the SOLE of an the officers and members refused to return to work, that was
assumption or certification order, becomes a prohibited activity and, thus, when they lost their employment status.
illegal pursuant to A264 of LC: No strike or lockout shall be declared - In an appeal before the CA, the court held there was a valid
after assumption of jurisdiction by the President or the Secretary or after service of the RTWO, and that the refusal to return to work
certification or submission of the dispute to compulsory or voluntary rendered the strike illegal.
arbitration or during the pendency of cases involving the same grounds
for the strike or lockout. ISSUES
- Even if the union acted in good faith in the belief that the company was 1. WON the petitioners were validly served with the RTWO.
committing an unfair labor practice, if no notice of strike and a strike vote 2. WON the strike staged by the officers and members was
were conducted, the said strike is illegal. legal.

2. YES HELD
Re: Effect of Illegality 1. NO
LABOR LAW 2 A2010 - 278 - Disini
Reasoning The return of Sheriff Alfredo C. Antonio shows that copies of -Union filed a Notice of Strike with the NCMB alleging the Hotel
the Order were served on the striking employees and the petitioners. A refusal to bargain and for acts of unfair labor practices. NCMB
copy of the Order was served to the Union president at 7:55pm of summoned both parties and held series of dialogues. Union
August 26, 1994but the striking employees refused to acknowledge however suddenly went on strike
receipt of the copies -Secretary of DOLE assumed jurisdiction and ordered
compulsory arbitration pursuant to art. 263 (g) of LC. And Union
2. NO members were directed to return to work and for Hotel to accept
Reasoning them back. Hotel refused to accept the employees return. The
Art. 264. (a) order was modified (by a different Secretary) such that
No strike or lockout shall be declared after assumption of jurisdiction reinstatement was to be done only in the payroll.
by the President or Secretary or after certification or submission of -Union filed for certiorari alleging grave abuse of discretion. Case
the dispute to compulsory or voluntary arbitration or during the was referred to the CA. CA affirmed that the payroll
pendency of cases involving the same grounds for the strike or reinstatement was not a grave abuse of discretion. On appeal, it
lockout. modified NLRC decision ordering reinstatement with back wages
- Despite the receipt of an order from then Secretary to return to their of union members.
respective jobs, the Union officers refused to do so and defied the same.
Consequently, the strike staged by the Union is a prohibited activity ISSUE
under Art. 264 of the Labor Code. The dismissal of its officers is in 1) WON the Union can bargain only in behalf of its members and
order. not for all the employees of the Hotel.
2) WON the strike conducted by the Union was illegal.
DISPOSITION 3) WON those employees who participated in the strike should
The petition is denied. be given back wages

HELD
1) No.
STAMFORD MARKETING CORP V JULIAN -As provided by art 255 of the LC only the labor organization
(jonas azura) designated or selected by the majority of the employees in an
appropriate collective bargaining unit is the exclusive
Article 264 of the Labor Code, in providing for the consequences of an representative of the employees in such unit for the purpose of
illegal strike, makes a distinction between union officers and members collective bargaining.
who participated thereon. Thus, knowingly participating in an illegal -The Unions petition for certificate election was denied by the
strike is a valid ground DOLE. The union thus is admittedly not the exclusive
for termination from employment of a union officer. The law, however, representative of the majority of the employees of petitioner,
treats differently mere union members. Mere participation in an illegal hence, it could not demand from petitioner the right to bargain
strike is not a sufficient ground for termination of the services of the collectively in their behalf
union members. The Labor -Respondent insists, however, that it could validly bargain in
Code protects an ordinary, rank-and-file union member who participated behalf of "its members," relying on Article 242 of the Labor Code.
in such a strike from losing his job, provided that he did not commit an -the CA ruled that what [respondent] will be achieving is to
illegal act during the strike. Thus, absent any clear, substantial and divide the employees, more particularly, the rank-and-file
convincing proof of illegal acts committed during an illegal strike, an employees of [petitioner] . . . the other workers who are not
ordinary striking worker or employee may not be terminated from work. members are at a serious disadvantage, because if the same
With respect to union officers, however, there is no dispute they could shall be allowed, employees who are non-union members will be
be dismissed for participating in an illegal strike. Union officers are duty- economically impaired and will not be able to negotiate their
bound to guide their members to respect the law. Nonetheless, as in terms and conditions of work, thus defeating the very essence
other termination cases, union officers must be given the required and reason of collective bargaining, which is an effective
notices for terminating an employment, i.e., notice of hearing to enable safeguard against the evil schemes of employers in terms and
them to present their side, and notice of termination, should their conditions of work
explanation prove unsatisfactory. Nothing in Article 264 of the Labor - Petitioners refusal to bargain then with respondent can not be
Code authorizes an immediate dismissal of a union officer for considered a ULP to justify the staging of the strike.
participating in an illegal strike. TOPICS: Union registration and procedure, factors, majority
The act of dismissal is not intended to happen ipso facto but rather as union
an option that can be exercised by the employer and after compliance
with the notice requirements for terminating an employee. In this case, 2) yes.
petitioners did not give the required -as was mentioned, the first ground mentioned by the Union- the
notices to the union officers. Hotels refusal to bargain- was not a valid ground to stage the
strike.
-The second ground that petitioner prevented or intimidated
some workers from joining the union before, during or after the
PHILIPPINE DIAMOND HOTEL AND RESORT INC strike was correctly discredited by the appellate court.. Since it
(MANILA DIAMOND HOTEL V MANILA DIAMOND 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
prove its allegations by substantial evidence. the facts and the
494 SCRA 195 evidence did not establish events [sic] least a rational basis why
CARPIO MORALES; June 30, 2006 the union would [wield] a strike based on alleged unfair labor
practices it did not even bother to substantiate.
FACTS -It is doctrinal that the exercise of the right of private sector
-Union filed a petition for certification election to be declared the employees to strike is not absolute. Thus Section 3 of Article XIII
exclusive bargaining representative of the Hotels employees. This of the Constitution, provides:
petition was dismissed by DOLE for lack of legal requirements. SECTION 3. x x x
-after a few months, Union sent a letter to Hotel informing it of its desire It shall guarantee the rights of all workers to self-organization,
to negotiate for a collective bargaining agreement. This was rejected by collective bargaining and negotiations and peaceful concerted
the Hotel stating that the Union was not the employees bargaining activities, including the right to strike in accordance with
agent as their petition for certification election was denied. law
LABOR LAW 2 A2010 - 279 - Disini
-Even if the purpose of a strike is valid, the strike may still be held illegal
where the means employed are illegal. Thus, the employment of 3) Employment of Strike Breakers
violence, intimidation, restraint or coercion in carrying out concerted
activities which are injurious to the rights to property renders a strike
illegal. Evidence show s that some of the workers-strikers who joined ART. 264. Prohibited activities. xxx-
the strike indeed committed illegal acts blocking the free ingress to (c) No employer shall use or employ any strike-
and egress from the Hotel, holding noise barrage, threatening guests, breaker, nor shall any person be employed as a
and the like. strike-breaker.
TOPICS: right to engage in concerted activities-limitations

3) No. ART. 212. Definitions. xxx-


-The general rule is that backwages shall not be awarded in an (r) "Strike-breaker" means any person who obstructs,
economic strike on the principle that "a fair days wage" accrues only for impedes, or interferes with by force, violence,
a "fair days labor. If there is no work performed by the employee there coercion, threats, or intimidation any peaceful
can be no wage or pay, unless of course, the laborer was able, willing picketing affecting wages, hours or conditions of work
and ready to work but was illegally locked out, dismissed or suspended. or in the exercise of the right of self-organization or
"when employees voluntarily go on strike, even if in protest against collective bargaining.
unfair labor practices," no back wages during the strike is awarded.
-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
reinstated but without back wages

4) Run-Away Shop
ARELLANO V CA
502 SCRA 219 Complex Electronics Employees Assoc. v.
CARPIO-MORALES; September 19, 2006 NLRC
310 SCRA 403
NATURE
Petition for certiorari Kapunan ; 1999 July 19

FACTS Facts
- University Employees and Workers Union (the Union), the -Complex Electronics Corporation (Complex) was engaged in the
exclusive bargaining representative of about 380 rank-and-file manufacture of electronic products, a subcontractor of electronic
employees of Arellano University, Inc. (the University), filed with products where its customers gave their job orders, sent their
the National Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB) a Notice of own materials and consigned their equipment to it. The
Strike charging the University with Unfair Labor Practice (ULP) customers were foreign-based companies with different product
- The DOLE secretary certified the notice of strike to the NLRC. lines and specifications requiring the employment of workers with
- The Union filed another notice of strike charging other unfair specific skills for each product line. Thus, there was the AMS
labor practices against the University. Line for the Adaptive Micro System, Inc., the Heril Line for Heril
- A strike was staged by the union on August 5, 1998. The DOLE Co., Ltd., the Lite-On Line for the Lite-On Philippines Electronics
secretary directed the strikers to return to work the following day. Co., etc. The rank and file workers of Complex were organized
The Union lifted its strike on August 7. into a union known as the Complex Electronics Employees
- The University filed a petition to direct the strike illegal. The Association (Union).
NLRC ruled that the strike was illegal and that the workers who -Complex received a facsimile message from Lite-On Philippines
joined such strike have lost their employment. Electronics Co., requiring it to lower its price by 10%.
ISSUE/S -Complex informed its Lite-On personnel that such request of
1. WON the employees who participated in the illegal strike should be lowering their selling price by 10% was not feasible as they were
dismissed already incurring losses at the present prices of their products.
HELD Under such circumstances, Complex regretfully informed the
Union officers - YES employees that it was left with no alternative but to close down
Union members - NO. the operations of the Lite-On Line but promised that it wont be
Ratio after 1 month, if possible it would be prolonged and they would
- A264: Any union officer who knowingly participates in an illegal strike all receive retrenchment pay, half a month for every year of
and any worker or union officer who knowingly participates in the service in accordance with Article 283 of the Labor Code of
commission of illegal acts during a strike may be declared to have lost Philippines.
his employment status -The Union, on the other hand, pushed for a retrenchment pay
Reasoning equivalent to one (1) month salary for every year of service,
- Under the immediately quoted provision, an ordinary striking worker which Complex refused.
may not be declared to have lost his employment status by mere -Complex filed a notice of closure of the Lite-On Line with the
participation in an illegal strike. There must be proof that he knowingly Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) and the
participated in the commission of illegal acts during the strike. While the retrenchment of the ninety-seven (97) affected employees.
University adduced photographs showing strikers picketing outside the - Union filed a notice of strike with the National Conciliation and
university premises, it failed to identify who they were. It thus failed to Mediation Board (NCMB). A total closure of company operation
meet the substantiality of evidence test applicable in dismissal cases. was effected at Complex.
-Petitioner-union members must thus be reinstated to their former -Labor Arbiter: reinstate the 531 employees to their former
position, without backwages. If reinstatement is no longer possible, they position with all the rights, privileges and benefits appertaining
should receive separation pay of One (1) Month for every year of service thereto, and to pay said complainants-employees the aggregate
in accordance with existing jurisprudence. backwages amounting P26,949,891.80 as of April 6, 1993 and to
- With respect to the union officers, as already discussed, their mere such further backwages until their actual reinstatement.
participation in the illegal strike warrants their dismissal. -The Union anchors its position on the fact that Lawrence Qua is
both the president of Complex and Ionics and that both
Disposition Decision affirmed companies have the same set of Board of Directors. It claims
LABOR LAW 2 A2010 - 280 - Disini
that business has not ceased at Complex but was merely transferred to - Changes in the working conditions in the company and the
Ionics, a runaway shop. To prove that Ionics was just a runaway shop, latter's failure to carry out its part of the CBA became a source of
petitioner asserts that out of the 80,000 shares comprising the increased complaint among the EEs. 3 days after, the company dismissed
capital stock of Ionics, it was Complex that owns majority of said shares Gaddi and Andrada, leaders of the shipping department-
with P1,200,000.00 as its capital subscription and P448,000.00 as its employees. So the union protested the dismissal. It gave the
paid up investment, compared to P800,000.00 subscription and company 48 hrs within which to act on its grievance and
P324,560.00 paid-up owing to the other stockholders, combined. Thus, reinstate the dismissed employees.
according to the Union, there is a clear ground to pierce the veil of - From then on the relation between the company and the union
corporate fiction. steadily deteriorated. The company took back the keys from the
-The Union further posits that there was an illegal lockout/illegal warehouseman and ordered the salesmen to put their trucks in
dismissal considering that as of March 11, 1992, the company had a the garage. Then finally, the union struck and picketed the
gross sales of P61,967,559 from a capitalization of P1,500,000.00. It premises of the company.
even ranked number thirty among the top fifty corporations in Muntinlupa. - The company in turn gave the strikers a period within which to
Complex, therefore, cannot claim that it was losing in its business which return to work otherwise they would be considered dismissed for
necessitated its closure. cause. It warned them that the strike was illegal for being against
the no strike clause of the collective bargaining agreement.
Issue - In a conference called by DOLE, the strikers offered to return to
WON Ionics was a runaway shop work provided the company observed the provisions of the
bargaining contract. But the company insisted that the strikers
Held could be taken back only under the terms of its March 1 order.
No. A runaway shop is defined as an industrial plant moved by its As already stated, this order reverted salesmen to salary and
owners from one location to another to escape union labor regulations or commission basis, abolished their helper's allowance and
state laws, but the term is also used to describe a plant removed to a stopped the payment of per diem and other allowances to provl
new location in order to discriminate against employees at the old plant salesmen.
because of their union activities. It is one wherein the employer moves - In addition, the company set as price for continued conciliation
its business to another location or it temporarily closes its business for conference the remittance by the salesmen of their collections
anti-union purposes. A runaway shop in this sense, is a relocation and the return of delivery trucks and stocks on hand. The union
motivated by anti-union animus rather than for business reasons. In this replied that the strikers had not lost their employee status and
case, however, Ionics was not set up merely for the purpose of that at any rate they were bonded. It suffered though to deposit
transferring the business of Complex. At the time the labor dispute with the Conciliation Service of the Department of Labor the
arose at Complex, Ionics was already existing as an independent things demanded by the company, but the company was
company. As earlier mentioned, it has been in existence since July 5, unyielding in its demand. Anyway, nothing came out of the
1984. It cannot, therefore, be said that the temporary closure in conference. The employees gradually gave up the strike and the
Complex and its subsequent transfer of business to Ionics was for anti- salesmen later settled their accounts and returned the property
union purposes. The Union failed to show that the primary reason for of the company.
the closure of the establishment was due to the union activities of the - Case was filed in the CIR, charging the company with unfair
employees. labor practice. After trial, the court rendered judgment in favor of
The mere fact that one or more corporations are owned or controlled by employees. The union moved for a reconsideration of the
the same or single stockholder is not a sufficient ground for disregarding decision, contending that the trial judge erred (1) in awarding
separate corporate personalities. only half back wages to Gaddi and the five salesmen, (2) in
Ionics may be engaged in the same business as that of Complex, but awarding no back wages to the rest of the strikers and (3) in
this fact alone is not enough reason to pierce the veil of corporate fiction denying reinstatement to Andrada and Dario and to those who
of the corporation. Well-settled is the rule that a corporation has a might have found substantially equivalent employment
personality separate and distinct from that of its officers and elsewhere. The court in banc affirmed the decision. Hence this
stockholders. This fiction of corporate entity can only be disregarded in appeal.
certain cases such as when it is used to defeat public convenience,
justify wrong, protect fraud, or defend crime. To disregard said separate ISSUE
juridical personality of a corporation, the wrongdoing must be clearly and WON CIR erred in its order of reinstatement of and payment of
convincingly established. back wages to the dismissed employees

Disposition HELD
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the assailed decision of the NLRC NO
is AFFIRMED. As to reinstatement
- At the outset, two types of employees involved in this case
must be distinguished, namely, those who were discriminatorily
5)Burden of Economic Loss dismissed for union activities (Gaddi and Andrada and 5
salesmen) and those who voluntarily went on strike, following the
failure of the company-union conference to settle their dispute.
PHIL DIAMOND HOTEL AND RESORT INC V MANILA - Both types of EEs are entitled to reinstatement. Striking EEs
DIAMOND HOTEL EMPLOYEES UNION are entitled to reinstatement WON the strike was the
CROMWELL COMMERCIAL EMPLOYEES AND consequence of the ER's unfair labor practice, unless, where the
LABORERS UNION (PTUC) V CIR strike was not due to any unfair labor practice, the employer has
hired others to take the place of the strikers and has promised
12 SCRA 124 them continued employment. Exception: Those who, although
REGALA; September 30, 1964 discriminatorily discharged, must nonetheless be denied
reinstatement because of (1) unlawful conduct or (2) because of
NATURE violence.
Appeal from CIR Decision - It is not for SC to judge the effect of misconduct by EEs. It is
primarily for the CIR to determine. In the absence of proof of
FACTS abuse of discretion on the part of CIR, SC will not interfere.
- Cromwell Commercial Co. and the Cromwell Commercial Employees - The same thing may be said of the denial of reinstatement to
and Laborers Union (PTUC) signed a CBA those who might have found substantial employment elsewhere.
The mere fact that strikers or dismissed employees have found
LABOR LAW 2 A2010 - 281 - Disini
such employment elsewhere is not necessarily a bar to their - the Union declared a strike and at the same time placed a
reinstatement. "round-the-clock" picket line around the Company's premises in
As to payment of back wages Intramuros, Manila. The tense situation in the strike zone
- The decision assailed directs the company "to reinstate all the strikers, prompted the Manila Police Department to send policemen
without backwages, in view of the circumstances, as explained on the thereto to preserve peace.
subject of the strike, unless they have found substantial employment - Meanwhile the Labor Department's Conciliation Service
elsewhere during the pendency of this case." The union says this order continued to mediate between the representatives of the Union
is erroneous. Union says it is unfair to deny backwages to the strikers and of the Company.
after finding that the strike declared by them was legal because it was - Eventually, after a conference where Marsmans VPs proposal
provoked by unfair labor practices of the company. (that they stop the strike and go back to work, and that when
- The denial of backpay may be justified, although on a different ground. they were already working the Company would discuss with
For this purpose, SC adverts to the distinction earlier made between them their demands) was accepted, the strikers returned to work.
discriminatorily dismissed employees and those who struck, albeit in However, complainants herein were refused admittance and
protest against the company's unfair labor practice. Discriminatorily were informed by Company officials that they would not be
dismissed employees received backpay from the date of the act of reinstated unless they ceased to be active Union members and
discrimination, that is, from the day of their discharge. On this score, the that in any case the Company already had enough men for its
award of backpay to Gaddi, Andrada and the salesmen may be justified. business operations.
The salesmen, as already stated, were practically locked out when they -As a result the strike and the picketing were resumed, because
were ordered to put their trucks in the garage; they did not voluntarily of which employees who had been admitted to work had to stay
strike. Hence, the award of backwages. inside the Company premises, where the Company furnished
- In contrast, the rest of the employees struck as a voluntary act of them food and quarters. Nevertheless some of those employed
protest against what they considered unfair labor practices of the could go in and out after office hours to visit their families.
company. The stoppage of their work was not the direct consequence of - During the strike, some of the picketers and some non-strikers
the company's unfair labor practice. Hence their economic loss should were arrested within the strike zone for having committed
not be shifted to the employer. When employees voluntarily go on strike, unlawful acts, and were duly charged therewith.
even if in protest against unfair labor practices, it has been our policy not - A petition for writ of injunction filed by the Company against
to award them backpay during the strike. MARCELA on the ground that the strike and picket were being
- However, where, as in this case, an employer refuses to reinstate maintained illegally, was denied by the CFI Manila, which
strikers except upon their acceptance of the new conditions that pointed out that proper criminal complaints should have been
discriminate against them because of their union membership or filed against the individual strikers in the corresponding courts.
activities, the strikers who refuse to accept the conditions and are - Because of the Company's consistent refusal to reinstate the
consequently refused reinstatement are entitled to be made whole for 69 complainants even after repeated requests, the
any losses of pay they may have suffered by reason of the respondent's Confederation of Labor Associations of the Philippines (CLAP),
discriminatory acts." to which the Union had affiliated after seceding from the FFW
- While it is true that the strikers in this case offered to return to work, initiated the present charge for unfair labor practice.
their offer was conditional. Their offer was predicated on the company's - Initially the strike staged by the Union was meant to compel the
observance of the provisions of the CBA, the very bone of contention Company to grant it certain economic benefits set forth in its
between the parties by reason of which the union walked out. proposal for collective bargaining. The strike was an economic
1
Disposition CIR decision AFFIRMED, without pronouncement as to one, and the striking employees would have a tight to be
costs. reinstated if, in the interim, the employer had not hired other
permanent workers to replace them. For it is recognized that
REYES, J.B.L., J., dissenting: during the pendency of an economic strike an employer may
- I cannot agree to the denial of backpay to the reinstated laborers. take steps to continue and protect his business by supplying
There is no dispute that the ER was the first to infringe the CBA by places left vacant by the strikers, and is not bound to discharge
refusing to implement its provisions, and by insisting on it as a condition those hired for that purpose upon election of the strikers to
for taking back the strikers. Industrial Peace Act cannot be said to be resume their employment. But the strike changed its character
promoted by placing the economic loss on the strikers, denying them from the time the Company refused to reinstate complainants
backpay. While the laborers technically violated the no-strike clause, the because of their union activities after it had offered to admit all
facts as found reveal that the ER goaded the laborers into striking, by the strikers and in fact did readmit the others. It was then
repeatedly violating the CBA and by preventing the organization of the converted into an unfair labor practice strike.
grievance committee through the ER's refusal to name its - J. Bautista, after hearing, found Marsman guilty of the charge
representatives therein. and ordered it to reinstate 60 of the aforementioned 69
complainants to their former positions or to similar ones with the
same rate of pay, without back wages.
- On the MR, the Court en banc affirmed the decision.
CONSOLIDATED LABOR ASSOCIATION OF THE - Both the Union and Marsman appealed. The former claims that
PHILS v. MARSMAN and CO., INC. [CIR] the 60 reinstated employees should be granted backpay while
the latter questions the CIR's finding of ULP.
&
MARSMAN and Co., INC. v. CONSOLIDATED LABOR Issue: WON Marsman committed ULP
ASSOCIATION OF THE PHILIPPINES [BAUTISTA, HELD: YES.
Reasoning:
MARTINEZ, VILLANUEVA, &TABIGNE] - Marsman alleges that it was economic reasons, i.e., its policy of
11 SCRA 589 retrenchment, not labor discrimination, which prevented it from
MAKALINTAL; July 31, 1964 rehiring complainants. This is disproved, however, by the fact
FACTS: that it not only readmitted the other strikers, but also hired new
- MARCELA-FFW submitted to the Company a set of proposals for employees and even increased the salaries of its personnel by
collective bargaining, which the Company answered. almost 50%. SC is convinced that it was not business exigency
- In spite of negotiations held between the Company and the Union, they but a desire to discourage union activities which prompted the
failed to reach In agreement; so the Union, failed a notice of strike with Company to deny readmittance to complainants. This is an
the DOLE. indubitable case of unfair labor practice.
- Mediation by the Conciliation Service of that Department proved - The Union began the strike because it believed in good faith
fruitless. that settlement of their demands was at an impasse and that
LABOR LAW 2 A2010 - 282 - Disini
further negotiations would only come to naught. It stopped the strike - The SSS moved to reconsider the Order arguing that since
upon the belief they could go back to work. Then it renewed the strike respondent Union members actually rendered no service at all
(or it started a new strike) as a protest against the discrimination during the strike, they were not entitled to the payment of
practiced by the Company. Both are valid grounds for going on a strike. salaries. Respondent Court, en banc, denied reconsideration.
- The Company further argues that since the methods used by the
strikers were illegal, it had the right to refuse them readmission. Of the ISSUE
69 complainants, nine, namely Alejandro Mojar, Manuel Mazo, Esteban WON CIR has the authority to issue the Order
Borja, Cecilio Walo, Eugenio Valenzuela, Elias Matic, Marcos Buccat,
Malisimo Vargas and Ricardo Antonio, were charged with and convicted HELD
of various crimes like coercion, malicious mischief, physical injuries, NO
breach of the peace, light threats, and damage to property, all - "The age-old rule governing the relation between labor and
committed during the period from September 4, 1954 to October 12, capital or management and employee is that of a `fair day's
1954. Admittedly, the Company could not have condoned these acts wage for a fair day's labor.' If there is no work performed by the
which were committed after it had offered to reinstate the strikers. employee there can be no wage or pay, unless of course the
Nevertheless, as the lower court reasoned out, it does not appear that laborer was able, willing and ready to work but was illegally
the aforementioned individual acts were authorized or even impliedly locked out, dismissed or suspended. It is hardly fair or just for an
sanctioned by the Union. Hence, the other strikers who were innocent of employee or laborer to fight or litigate against his employer on
and did not participate in the illegal acts should not be punished by the employer's time."
being deprived of their right of reinstatement. It is only those who had - In this case, the failure to work on the part of the members of
been found guilty who should be penalized by the loss of the right.3 respondent Union was due to circumstances not attributable to
- On the other hand, even after the court has made a finding of unfair themselves. But neither should the burden of the economic loss
labor practice, it still has the discretion to determine whether or not to suffered by them be shifted to their employer, the SSS, which
grant back pay. Such discretion was not abused when it denied back was equally faultless, considering that the situation was not a
wages to complainants, considering the climate of violence which direct consequence of the employer's lockout or unfair labor
attended the strike and picket that the complainants conducted. While practice. Under the circumstances, it is but fair that each party
the complainants ordered reinstated did not actively take part in the acts must bear his own loss.
of violence, their minatory attitude towards the Company may be - "Considering, therefore, that the parties had no hand or
gathered from the fact that from the very first day of the strike policemen participation in the situation they were in, and that the stoppage
had to patrol the strike zone in order to preserve peace. of the work was not the direct consequence of the company's
lockout or unfair labor practice, `the economic loss should not be
DISPOSITIVE: Judgment appealed from is affirmed. shifted to the employer.' Justice and equity demand that each
must have to bear its own loss, thus placing the parties in equal
1
An economic strike is defined as one which is to force wage or footing where none should profit from the other there being no
other concessions from the employer which he is not required by fault of either."
law to grant.
Disposition The assailed order is set aside.

SSS V SSS SUPERVISORS UNION


117 SCRA 746
MELENCIO-HERRERA; October 23, 1982 PHILIPPINES INTER-FASHION INC. V NLRC
G.R. No. L-59847
NATURE TEEHANKEE : October 18, 1982
Petition for certiorari
FACTS:
FACTS - Sometime on 12 December 1979, the workers in the
- The instant case is an offshoot of Case No. 46-IPA (49) certified to the COMPANY grouped themselves and organized a labor union
CIR by the President of the Philippines for compulsory arbitration of known as the Philippine Inter-Fashion Workers Union and
labor dispute between the SSS and the PAFLU concerning the thereafter directly affiliated the same with the NAFLU.
interpretation of certain provisions of their Collective Bargaining - Believing that it has a majority of the more or less 600
Agreement. The PAFLU had staged a strike in defiance of the CIR Order employees, it filed on 26 December 1979 a petition for direct
of August 29, 1968 "enjoining the parties, for the sake of industrial certification as the exclusive bargaining agent of the
peace . . . to maintain the status quo - the Union not to declare any employees which, as of the date of submission for resolution
strike and the Management not to dismiss nor suspend any of its of this case, remained unresolved.
employees nor to declare any lockout." On 3 September 1968, in that - Sometime in January 1980, the COMPANY conceived and
same case, the SSS filed an Urgent Petition to declare the strike illegal. decided to retrench its employees and selected about 40
- On 26 September 1968, respondent Union filed a Motion for employees to be dismissed effective 20 February 1980
Intervention in the said case averring, inter alia that it had not allegedly because of lack of work
participated in the strike; that its members wanted to report for work but - Sometime on 8, 9 and 11 February 1980, Asterio Guanzon,
were prevented by the picketers from entering the work premises; that Personnel Assistant of the COMPANY, called about 20 of the
under the circumstances, they were entitled to their salaries affected employees and informed them of the intended
corresponding to the duration of the strike, which could be deducted retrenchment and offered them to voluntarily resign and be
from the accrued leave credits of their members. The SSS had no paid retrenchment benefit. Since said employees refused,
objection to the intervention sought but opposed the demand for the Guanzon asked them "to acknowledge receipt of the
payment of salaries pertaining to the entire period of the strike. clearance application and the termination letter but except for
- Respondent Court, through Judge Joaquin M. Salvador, issued the two (2) workers, they refused even to acknowledge receipt of
Order of 3 March 1970, ordering the payment of salaries of the members the forms.
of respondent Union during the strike period, but not to be chargeable to - The following day, 12 February 1980, about 200 employees
accrued leave credits. The reasons given were that this Court had boarded two buses and went to the Ministry of Labor and
already declared the strike premature, and that the members of talked with then Deputy Minister who advised them to return to
respondent Union had not participated in the strike and had actually their work. These employees actually returned in the
manifested their desire to work but could not cross the heavy picket lines afternoon but stayed outside the compound.
during the height of the strike.
LABOR LAW 2 A2010 - 283 - Disini
- On 14 February 1980, the employees returned to the Ministry of Labor -Lapanday Agricultural and Development Corporation and
and on the same day obtained a Return to Work Order CADECO Agro Development Philippines Inc. (Private
- The following day, 15 February 1980, the employees returned to the respondents) are sister companies. Lapanday Workers Union
company with the aforesaid Order and were allowed to enter the (Union) is the duly certified bargaining agent of the rank and file
compound but they merely stayed in the canteen because they were employees of private respondent. The Union is affiliated with the
not given work on the pretext that machines were undergoing repairs KMU-ANGLO.
and servicing and because the sewing lines were reorganized and -Union has a collective bargaining agreement. A few months
workers were reassigned to new lines before the expiration of their CBA, private respondent initiated
- On February 1980, more than 200 employees returned and reported certain management policies which disrupted the relationship of
for work but again they were only made to stay at the canteen inside the parties- 1. Contracting of Philippine Eagle Protectors and
the compound and were not allowed to work but they were Security Agency Inc., the Union branded the security guards
nevertheless paid their wages from 12 February 1980 to 20 February posted within the company premises as private respondents'
1980 "goons" and "special forces." It also accused the guards of
- On the same date, 20 February 1980, the COMPANY filed with this intimidating and harassing their members. 2. The Union claimed
Ministry "applications for clearance to terminate the workers who that the module on the Philippines political spectrum lumped the
participated in the alleged walkout for serious misconduct, effective ANGLO (Alliance of Nationalist and Genuine Labor
March 1, 1980 placing the affected employees under preventive Organization), with other outlawed labor organization such as the
suspension in the meantime." National Democratic Front or other leftist groups.
- Subsequently, the COMPANY hired "additional workers to be able to -These issues were discussed during a labor-management
complete twelve (12) production lines and to be able to deliver meeting, the Union agreed to allow its members to attend the
according to my production schedule." HDIR seminar for the rank-and-filers but the Union directed its
- On 20 October 1980, one hundred fifty (150) employees who were not members not to attend the seminars scheduled on said dates.
re- admitted before were allowed to return to work and in so doing They picketed the premises of the Philippine Eagle Protectors to
withdrew their case or complaint against the COMPANY, thereby show their displeasure on the hiring of the guards. Union filed a
leaving 114 employees still subject of its clearance application. Notice of Strike with the National Conciliation and Mediation
- The Solicitor General has stated in his comment that "from these facts Board (NCMB). NCMB called conciliation conference. The
are derived the following conclusions which are likewise undisputed: conference yielded the agreements that Union officers, including
that petitioner engaged in an illegal lockout while the NAFLU engaged the officials of KMU-ANGLO, and the Executive Director of the
in an illegal strike; that the unconditional offer of the 150 striking NMB would attend the HDIR seminar and a committee shall
employees to return to work and to withdraw their complaint of illegal convene to establish guidelines governing the guards. With the
lockout against petitioner constitutes condonation of the illegal lock- apparent settlement of their difference, private respondents
out; and that the unqualified acceptance of the offer of the 150 striking notified the NCMB that there were no more base for the notice of
employees by petitioner likewise constitutes condonation of the illegal strike.
strike insofar as the reinstated employees are concerned." -Danilo Martinez. a member of the Board of Directors of the
Union, was gunned down in his house in the presence of his wife
ISSUES: and children. The gunman was later identified as Eledio Samson,
1. WON petitioner must be deemed to have waived its right to pursue an alleged member of security forces of private respondent. After
the case of illegal strike the killing, most of the members of the Union refused to report
2. WON the said 114 employees are entitled to reinstatement with three for work. They returned to work the following day but they did not
months' backwages comply with the "quota system" adopted by the management to
bolster production output. Allegedly, the Union instructed the
HELD: workers to reduce their production to thirty percent (30%) Private
1. respondents charged the Union with economic sabotage through
Reasoning slowdown. Private respondents filed separate charged against
- The Court approves the stand taken by the Solicitor General that the Union and it member for illegal strike. unfair labor practice
there was no clear and unequivocal waiver on the part of petitioner and damages, with prayer for injunction. Petitioners skipped
and on the contrary the record shows that it tenaciously pursued its work to pay their last respect to the slain Danilo Martinez. who
application for their dismissal, but nevertheless in view of the was laid to rest. Again on another date petitioner did not report
undisputed findings of illegal strike on the part of the 114 employees for work. Instead, they proceeded to private respondents' office
and illegal lockout on petitioner's part, both parties are in pari delicto at Lanang, carrying placards and posters which called for the
and such situation warrants the restoration of the status quo ante and removal of the security guards. the ouster of certain
bringing the parties back to the respective positions before the illegal management officials, and the approval of their mass leave
strike and illegal lockout through the reinstatement of the said 114 application. Their mass action did not succeed.
employees -Labor Arbiter decision: Illegal strike and employees have lost
their employment status and order to desist. NLRC limited the
2. penalty of dismissal only to the leaders of the illegal strike
Reasoning especially the officers of the union who served as its major
- With such restoration of the status quo ante it necessarily follows, as player and union members were merely instigated to participate
likewise submitted by the Solicitor General, that the petition must be in the illegal strike and should be treated differently from their
granted insofar as it seeks the setting aside of the award of three leaders. Petitioners claim that public respondent NLRC gravely
months' backwages to the 114 employees ordered reinstated on the abused it discretion.
basis of the general rule that strikers are not entitled to backwages
Issue WON the strike is legal
DISPOSITIVE: Held
Decision of NLRC affirmed No. The applicable law are Articles 263 and 264 of the Labor
Code, as amended by E.O. No. 111, dated December 24. 1986.
Paragraphs (c) and (f) of Article 263 of the Labor Code, as
Lapanday Workers Union v. NLRC amended by E.O. 111, provides.
248 SCRA 95 "c) In cases of bargaining deadlocks. the duly certified or
recognized bargaining agent may file a notice of strike or the
Puno ; Sept. 7, 1995 employer may file a notice of lockout with the Ministry at
least 30 days before the intended date thereof. In cases of
Facts unfair labor practice, the notice shall be 15 days and in the
LABOR LAW 2 A2010 - 284 - Disini
absence of a duly certified or recognized bargaining agent, the The seven (7) day waiting period is intended to give the
notice of strike may be filed by any legitimate labor organization in Department of Labor and Employment an opportunity to verify
behalf of its member. However, in case of dismissal from whether the projected strike really carries the imprimatur of the
employment of union officer duly elected in accordance with the majority of the union members. The need for assurance that
union constitution and by-laws, which may constitute union busting majority of the union members support the strike cannot be
where the existence of the union is threatened, the 15-day cooling- gainsaid. Strike is usually the last weapon of labor to be
off period shall not apply and the union may take action gainsaid. Strike compel capital to concede to its bargaining
demands or to defend itself against unfair labor practices of
immediately.
management. It is a weapon that can either breathe life to or
xxx xxx xxx destroy the union and its members in their struggle with
"f) A decision to declare a strike must be approved by a majority of management for a more equitable due of their labors. The
the total union membership in the bargaining unit concerned, decision to wield the weapon of strike must, therefore, rest on a
obtained by secret ballot in meetings or referenda called for that rational basis, free from emotionalism. unswayed by the tempers
purpose. A decision to declare a lockout must be approved by a and tantrums of a few hothead, and firmly focused on the
majority of the board of director of the corporation or association or legitimate interest of the union which should not, however, be
of the partner in a partnership, obtained by secret ballot in a meeting antithetical to the public welfare. Thus, our laws require the
called for that purpose. The decision shall be valid for the duration decision to strike to be the consensus of the majority for while
of the dispute based on substantially the same grounds considered majority is not infallible, still, it is the best hedge against haste
when the strike or lockout vote was taken. The Ministry may, at its and error. In addition, a majority vote assures the union it will go
own initiative or upon the request of any affected party, supervise to war against management with the strength derived from unity
the conduct of secret ballot In every case the union or the employer and hence, with better chance to succeed. In Batangas Laguna
shall furnish the Ministry the result of the voting at least seven (7) Tayabas Bus Company vs. NLRC, we held:
days before the intended strike or lockout subject to the cooling-off xxx xxx xxx
period herein provided. "The right to strike is one of the right recognized and guaranteed
by the Constitution as an instrument of labor for it protection
against exploitation by management. by virtue of his right. the
Article 264 of the same Code reads:
workers are able to press their demands for better terms of
"Art 264. Prohibited activities. - (a) No labor organization or employment with more energy and persuasiveness. poising the
employer shall declared a strike or lockout without first having threat to strike at their reaction to employer s intransigence. The
bargained collectively in accordance with Title VII of this Book strike is indeed a powerful weapon of the working class. But
or without first having filed the notice required in the preceding precisely because of this, it must be handled carefully like a
Article or without the necessary strike or lockout vote first having sensitive explosive, but it blow up in the workers' own hands.
been obtained and reported to the Ministry. Thus. it must de declared only after the most thoughtful
xxx xxx xxx consultation among them, conducted in the only was allowed
". . . Any union officer who knowingly participates in an illegal strike and that is, peacefully, and in every case conformably to reasonable
any worker or union officer who knowingly participates in the regulation. Any violation of the legal requirements and strictures,
commission of illegal acts during a strike may be declared to have lost . . . will render the strike illegal. to the detriment of the very
his employment status: Provided that mere participation of a worker in a workers it is supposed to protect.
lawful strike shall not constitute sufficient ground for termination of his "Every war must be lawfully waged. A labor dispute demands no
employment, even if a replacement had been hired by the employer less observance of the rules. for the benefit of all concerned."
during such lawful strike." Applying the law to the case at bar, we rule that strike conducted
A strike is "any temporary stoppage of work by the concerted action of by the union on October 12, 1988 is plainly illegal as it was held
employees as a result of an industrial or labor dispute." It is the most within the seven (7) day waiting period provided for by paragraph
preeminent of the economic weapons or workers which they unsheathe (f), Article 263 of the Labor Code. as amended. The haste in
to force management to agree to an equitable sharing of the point holding the strike prevented the Department of Labor and
product of labor and capital. Undeniably, strikes exert some disquieting Employment from verifying whether it carried the approval of the
effects not only on the relationship between labor and management but majority of the union members. It set to naught an important
also on the general peace and progress of society. Our laws thus policy consideration of our law on strike. Considering this finding,
regulate their exercise within reasons by balancing the interests of labor we need not exhaustively rule on the legality of the work
and management together with the overarching public interest. stoppage conducted by the union and some of their members on
September 9 and 23, 1988. Suffice to state, that the ruling of the
Some of the limitations on the exercise of the right of strike are provided public respondent on the matter is supported by substantial
for in paragraph (c) and (f) of Article 263 of the labor Code, as amended, evidence.
supra. They provide for the procedural steps to be followed before
staging a strike - filing of notice of strike, taking of strike vote, and Disposition Reinstating rank-and-file workers who were merely
reporting of the strike vote result to the Department of Labor and misled in supporting illegal strikes but not be entitled to
Employment. In National Federation of Sugar Workers (NFSW) vs. backwages as they should not be compensated for services
Overseas, et al., we ruled that these steps are mandatory in skipped during the illegal strike. Dismissed.
character. thus:

"If only the filing of the strike notice and the strike-vote report would be
deemed mandatory. but not the waiting periods so specifically and 6) Improved Offer Balloting and Strikes
emphatically prescribed by law, the purposes (hereafter discussed) for A.265
which the filing of the strike notice and strike-vote report is required
cannot be achieved . . . ART. 265. Improved offer balloting. - In an effort
xxx xxx xxx
"So too, the 7 day strike-vote report is not without a purpose. As pointed to settle a strike, the Department of Labor and
out by the Solicitor General - Employment shall conduct a referendum by secret
'. . . The submission of the report gives assurance that a strike vote has ballot on the improved offer of the employer on or
been taken and that, if the report concerning it is false, the majority of before the 30th day of the strike. When at least a
the members can take appropriate remedy before it is too late.' majority of the union members vote to accept the
improved offer the striking workers shall
LABOR LAW 2 A2010 - 285 - Disini
immediately return to work and the employer shall own directly or collectively the lands they till or, in
thereupon readmit them upon the signing of the the case of other farmworkers, to receive a just
agreement. share of the fruits thereof. To this end, the State
shall encourage and undertake the just
In case of a lockout, the Department of Labor and distribution of all agricultural lands, subject to
Employment shall also conduct a referendum by secret such priorities and reasonable retention limits as
balloting on the reduced offer of the union on or before the Congress may prescribe, taking into account
the 30th day of the lockout. When at least a majority of ecological, developmental, or equity
the board of directors or trustees or the partners considerations, and subject to the payment of just
holding the controlling interest in the case of a compensation. In determining retention limits, the
partnership vote to accept the reduced offer, the State shall respect the right of small landowners.
workers shall immediately return to work and the The State shall further provide incentives for
employer shall thereupon readmit them upon the voluntary land-sharing.
signing of the agreement. (Incorporated by Section 28,
Republic Act No. 6715, March 21, 1989). 2. Nature and Purpose of Picket Line

9.03. PICKETING STA ROSA COCA-COLA PLANT EMPLOYEES


1. Definition- Law Dictionary & Bases UNION (union), ET AL V COCA-COLA
BOTTLERS PHILS INC (company)
ART. 263. Strikes, picketing and lockouts. - (a) It is the 312 SCRA 437
policy of the State to encourage free trade unionism and CALLEJO, SR; January 24, 2007
free collective bargaining.
NATURE
This is a petition for review on certiorari of the Decision of the CA,
(b) Workers shall have the right to engage in concerted which affirmed the ruling of the NLRC and the Labor Arbiter
activities for purposes of collective bargaining or for
their mutual benefit and protection. The right of FACTS
legitimate labor organizations to strike and picket and of - The union is the sole and exclusive bargaining representative
employers to lockout, consistent with the national of the regular paid workers and the manthly paid non-
ccommission earning employees of the comopany. individual
interest, shall continue to be recognized and respected. petitioners are union officers,directors and shop stewards.
However, no labor union may strike and no employer - The union and the company entered into a 3 year CBA. upon
may declare a lockout on grounds involving inter-union the expiration, the union told the company that they wanted to
and intra-union disputes. negotiate the terms. the union insisted that representatives from
Alyansa ng mga Unyon ng Coca Cola be allowed to observe the
CBA meetings. the company refused to allow alyansa to observe
1987 Consti- Art Xiii LABOR and an impasse ensued. union officers, directors and stewards
Section 3. The State shall afford full protection to labor, filed a notice of strrice with NCMB based on deadlock on CBA
local and overseas, organized and unorganized, and unfair labor practice arising from the company's refusal to
and promote full employment and equality of bargain. the grounds were ammended to unfair labor practice for
employment opportunities for all. the company's refusal to bargain in good faith and interference
with the exercise if their right to self-organization.
It shall guarantee the rights of all workers to self- - pending the notice to strike, the union decided to participate in
organization, collective bargaining and negotiations, and a mass action by alyansa in front of the company's premises.
peaceful concerted activities, including the right to operations would come to complete stops for insufficiency of
strike in accordance with law. They shall be entitled to contractual employees who would take over. after the mass
security of tenure, humane conditions of work, and a strike (separate and distinct from the mass action), the company
filed to declare strike illegal, to declare the officers of union and
living wage. They shall also participate in policy and
individual respondents to have lost their employment status, to
decision-making processes affecting their rights and declare the union, its officers and members guilty of unfair labor
benefits as may be provided by law. practice to violation of the CBA, and to award them damages.
The State shall promote the principle of shared - the LA found the strike to be illegal such that the participants
responsibility between workers and employers and the lost their employment status. the CA affirmed the decision.
preferential use of voluntary modes in settling disputes,
ISSUE/S
including conciliation, and shall enforce their mutual 1. WON the mass action wit Alyansa is actually a strike
compliance therewith to foster industrial peace.
The State shall regulate the relations between workers HELD
and employers, recognizing the right of labor to its just 1. YES
share in the fruits of production and the right of Ratio The factual findings and conclusions of tribunals, as long
as based on substantial evidence, are conclusive on the SC.
enterprises to reasonable returns to investments, and to 2
Reasoning The term strike encompasses not only concerted
expansion and growth. work stoppages, but also slowdowns, mass leaves, sit-downs,

AGRARIAN AND NATURAL RESOURCES REFORM 2 Article 212(o) of the Labor Code defines strike as a
Section 4. The State shall, by law, undertake an temporary stoppage of work by the concerted action of
agrarian reform program founded on the right of employees as a result of an industrial or labor dispute.
farmers and regular farmworkers who are landless, to
LABOR LAW 2 A2010 - 286 - Disini
attempts to damage, destroy or sabotage plant equipment and facilities, We do not know how long you intend to stay out, but we cannot
and similar activities. Picketing involves merely the marching to and fro hold your positions open for long. We have continued to operate
at the premises of the employer, usually accompanied by the display of and will continue to do so with or without you.
placards and other signs making known the facts involved in a labor If you are still interested in continuing in the employ of the Group
dispute. That there was a labor dispute between the parties is not an Companies, and if there are no criminal charges pending against
issue. Petitioners notified the respondent of their intention to stage a you, we are giving you until 2 June 1958 to report for work at the
strike, and not merely to picket. home office. If by this date you have not yet reported, we may be
forced to obtain your replacement.
Disposition Petition is denied for lack of merit. CA decision is affirmed. Before, the decisions was yours to make.
So it is now.

INSULAR LIFE EMPLOYEES V INSULAR LIFE - Incidentally, all of the more than 120 criminal charges filed
37 SCRA 244 against the members of the Unions, except 3, were dismissed by
the fiscal's office and by the courts.
CASTRO; January 30, 1971 - At any rate, because of the issuance of the writ of preliminary
injunction against them as well as the ultimatum of the
NATURE Companies giving them until June 2, 1958 to return to their jobs
Appeal, by certiorari to review a decision and a resolution en banc of the or else be replaced, the striking employees decided to call off
Court of Industrial Relations dated August 17, 1965 and October 20, their strike and to report back to work on June 2, 1958.
1965, respectively, in Case 1698-ULP. - However, before readmitting the strikers, the Companies
required them not only to secure clearances from the City
FACTS Fiscal's Office of Manila but also to be screened by a
- Because of deadlock and stalemate on CBA, the Unions went on a management committee. The screening committee initially
strike and picketed on the premises of the employer. rejected 83 strikers with pending criminal charges. However, all
- Insular Life, through Olbes, its president, sent to each of the strikers a non-strikers with pending criminal charges which arose from the
letter quoted verbatim as follows: breakthrough incident were readmitted immediately by the
We recognize it is your privilege both to strike and to conduct Companies without being required to secure clearances from the
picketing. fiscal's office. Subsequently, when practically all the strikers had
However, if any of you would like to come back to work voluntarily, secured clearances from the fiscal's office, the Companies
you may: readmitted only some but adamantly refused readmission to 34
1. Advise the nearest police officer or security guard of your intention officials and members of the Unions who were most active in the
to do so. strike, on the ground that they committed "acts inimical to the
2. Take your meals within the office. interest of the respondents," without however stating the specific
3. Make a choice whether to go home at the end of the day or to sleep acts allegedly committed. Among those who were refused
nights at the office where comfortable cots have been prepared. readmission is Florencio Ibarra, president of the FGU Insurance
4. Enjoy free coffee and occasional movies. Group Workers & Employees Association-NATU. Some 24 of the
5. Be paid overtime for work performed in excess of eight hours. above number were ultimately notified months later that they
6. Be sure arrangements will be made for your families. were being dismissed retroactively as of June 2, 1958 and given
The decision to make is yours whether you still believe in the motives of separation pay checks computed under Rep. Act 1787, while
the strike or in the fairness of the Management. others (ten in number) up to now have not been readmitted
although there have been no formal dismissal notices given to
- Unions continued strike with the exception of a few employees. them.
- From the date the strike was called until it was called off, some
management men tried to break thru the Unions' picket lines. Garcia, ISSUE/S
assistant corporate secretary, and Abella, chief of the personnel records 1. WON an employee may be refused readmission because he
section, respectively of the Companies, tried to penetrate the picket lines committed acts inimical to the interest of the respondents when,
in front of the Insular Life Building. Garcia, upon approaching the picket as Union president, he advised the strikers that they could use
line, tossed aside the placard of a picketer, one Paulino Bugay; a fight force and violence to have a successful picket and that picketing
ensued between them, in which both suffered injuries. The Companies was precisely intended to prevent the non-strikers and company
organized three bus-loads of employees, including a photographer, who clients and customers from entering the Companies' buildings.
with respondent Olbes, succeeded in penetrating the picket lines in front
of the Insular Life Building, thus causing injuries to the picketers and HELD
also to the strike-breakers due to the resistance offered by some 1. NO
picketers. Reasoning Even if this were true, the record discloses that the
- Alleging that some non-strikers were injured and with the use of picket line had been generally peaceful, and that incidents
photographs as evidence, the Companies then filed criminal charges happened only when management men made incursions into
against the strikers with the City Fiscal's Office of Manila. During the and tried to break the picket line. At any rate, with or without the
pendency of the said cases in the fiscal's office, the Companies likewise advice of Ibarra, picketing is inherently explosive. For, as pointed
filed a petition for injunction with damages with CFI Manila which, on the out by one author, "The picket line is an explosive front, charged
basis of the pendency of the various criminal cases against striking with the emotions and fierce loyalties of the union-management
members of the Unions, issued an order restraining the strikers, until dispute. It may be marked by colorful name-calling, intimidating
further orders of the said court, from stopping, impeding, obstructing, etc. threats or sporadic fights between the pickets and those who
the free and peaceful use of the Companies' gates, entrance and pass the line." (Mathews, Labor Relations and the Law, p. 752).
driveway and the free movement of persons and vehicles to and from, The picket line being the natural result of the respondents' unfair
labor practice, Ibarra's misconduct is at most a misdemeanor
out and in, of the Companies' building.
which is not a bar to reinstatement.
- Insular Life, again through Olbes, sent individually to the strikers a
letter quoted hereunder in its entirety: Disposition ACCORDINGLY, the decision of the Court of
The first day of the strike was last 21 May 1958. Industrial Relations dated August 17, 1965 is reversed and set
Our position remains unchanged and the strike has made us even more aside, and another is entered, ordering the respondents to
convinced of our decision. reinstate the dismissed members of the petitioning Unions to
their former or comparatively similar positions, with backwages
from June 2, 1958 up to the dates of their actual reinstatements.
LABOR LAW 2 A2010 - 287 - Disini
Costs against the respondents. - The SC however annulled both injunctions for failure of both
Wellington and Galang to file the necessary bonds before
issuance of the two preliminary injunctions as required in Rule 58
Sec 4.
SECURITY BANK EMPLOYEES UNION V SECURITY Disposition Certiorari is GRANTED without prejudice to the right
BANK AND TRUST CO of Wellington and Galang to secure other ones after filing the
MORTERA V CIR necessary bonds.
PAFLU V CLORIBEL
27 SCRA 465
REYES, JBL; March 28, 1969 MORTERA v CIR
(Sarah cAbrera)
NATURE
Petition for certiorari with preliminary injunction to annul

FACTS PAFLU V CLORIBEL


- MetroBank located at the ground floor of the Wellington Bldg in 624 27 SCRA 465
Plaza Calderon, Binondo, Manila was picketed by the Philippine REYES, JBL; March 28, 1969
Association of Free Labor Unions (PAFLU). Wellington complained,
however, that the picketers were annoyingly blocking the common NATURE
passageway of the building, the only ingress and egress to the second Petition for certiorari with preliminary injunction to annul
to the sixth floors. The other occupants demanded protection of their
peaceful enjoyment of and free access to and from, the premises leased FACTS
by them. Wellington charged PAFLU of undue interference not only with - MetroBank located at the ground floor of the Wellington Bldg in
its enjoyment of its property and business of leasing and administering 624 Plaza Calderon, Binondo, Manila was picketed by the
the same but also with the businesses of the neutral tenants. Philippine Association of Free Labor Unions (PAFLU). Wellington
- Judge Cloribel of the CFI of Manila issued an injunction against PAFLU. complained, however, that the picketers were annoyingly
PAFLU filed the present petition in the SC, alleging that Judge Cloribel blocking the common passageway of the building, the only
acted without jurisdiction and with grave abuse of discretion in issuing ingress and egress to the second to the sixth floors. The other
the order, in violation of the Industrial Peace Act. Nowhere in the occupants demanded protection of their peaceful enjoyment of
complaint was there an allegation of the unavoidable, substantial, and and free access to and from, the premises leased by them.
irreparable injury to Wellington's property as would justify the issuance Wellington charged PAFLU of undue interference not only with
of the TRO without notice. And neither was there a bond sufficient to its enjoyment of its property and business of leasing and
recompense those enjoined for any loss, expense, or damage caused administering the same but also with the businesses of the
by the improvident or erroneous issuance of the order. The SC granted neutral tenants.
the TRO. - Judge Cloribel of the CFI of Manila issued an injunction against
- PAFLU filed a supplemental petition for certiorari in the SC protesting PAFLU. PAFLU filed the present petition in the SC, alleging that
the issuance in a different case (filed by co-lessee Emmanuel Galang) Judge Cloribel acted without jurisdiction and with grave abuse of
but by the same judge, of another injunction couched in exactly the discretion in issuing the order, in violation of the Industrial Peace
same words. Act. Nowhere in the complaint was there an allegation of the
unavoidable, substantial, and irreparable injury to Wellington's
ISSUE property as would justify the issuance of the TRO without notice.
WON the two cases involve, or grow out of, a labor dispute And neither was there a bond sufficient to recompense those
enjoined for any loss, expense, or damage caused by the
HELD improvident or erroneous issuance of the order. The SC granted
NO. the TRO.
Reasoning There exists no labor dispute between PAFLU and either - PAFLU filed a supplemental petition for certiorari in the SC
Wellington or Galang. The strike and the picket are directed against protesting the issuance in a different case (filed by co-lessee
METROBANK, an entirely different and separate entity without Emmanuel Galang) but by the same judge, of another injunction
connection whatsoever with WeIlington and Galang other than the couched in exactly the same words.
incidental fact that they are the bank's landlord and co-lessee,
respectively. Their relationship is so remote that we fail to discern any ISSUE
indicium of said complainants' interests in the labor dispute between the WON the two cases involve, or grow out of, a labor dispute
union and METROBANK as to make the two cases below fall within the
purview of RA 975 which provides that a labor dispute exists "regardless HELD
of whether the disputants stand in the proximate relation of employer NO.
and employee". The applicable law, therefore, is Rule 58 of the Rules of Reasoning There exists no labor dispute between PAFLU and
Court on injunction. either Wellington or Galang. The strike and the picket are
- [NATURE & PURPOSE OF PICKET LINE] The right to picket as a directed against METROBANK, an entirely different and
means of communicating the facts of a labor dispute is a phase of the separate entity without connection whatsoever with WeIlington
freedom of speech guaranteed by the constitution. If peacefully carried and Galang other than the incidental fact that they are the bank's
out, it cannot be curtailed even in the absence of employer-employee landlord and co-lessee, respectively. Their relationship is so
relationship. The right is, however, not absolute. While peaceful remote that we fail to discern any indicium of said complainants'
picketing is entitled to protection as an exercise of free speech, courts interests in the labor dispute between the union and
are not without power to confine or localize the sphere of communication METROBANK as to make the two cases below fall within the
or the demonstration to the parties to the labor dispute, including those purview of RA 975 which provides that a labor dispute exists
with related interest, and to insulate establishments or persons with no "regardless of whether the disputants stand in the proximate
industrial connection or having interest totally foreign to the context of relation of employer and employee". The applicable law,
the dispute. Thus the right may be regulated at the instance of third therefore, is Rule 58 of the Rules of Court on injunction.
parties or "innocent bystanders" if it appears that the inevitable result of - [NATURE & PURPOSE OF PICKET LINE] The right to picket
its exercise is to create an impression that a labor dispute with which as a means of communicating the facts of a labor dispute is a
they have no connection or interest exists between them and the phase of the freedom of speech guaranteed by the constitution.
picketing union or constitute an invasion of their rights. If peacefully carried out, it cannot be curtailed even in the
LABOR LAW 2 A2010 - 288 - Disini
absence of employer-employee relationship. The right is, however, not
absolute. While peaceful picketing is entitled to protection as an exercise DE LEON, LVN PICTURES, SAMPAGUITA
of free speech, courts are not without power to confine or localize the
sphere of communication or the demonstration to the parties to the labor PICTURES, LEBRAN PICTURES, PREMIER
dispute, including those with related interest, and to insulate PICTURES V. NATIONAL LABOR UNION,
establishments or persons with no industrial connection or having LERUM, HERNANDEZ, BARTOLOME, CABRERA,
interest totally foreign to the context of the dispute. Thus the right may RAMOS, ET AL.
be regulated at the instance of third parties or "innocent bystanders" if it
appears that the inevitable result of its exercise is to create an 100 PHIL 789
impression that a labor dispute with which they have no connection or PADILLA; Jan 30, 1957
interest exists between them and the picketing union or constitute an
invasion of their rights. NATURE
- The SC however annulled both injunctions for failure of both Wellington Appeal from judgment of CFI
and Galang to file the necessary bonds before issuance of the two
preliminary injunctions as required in Rule 58 Sec 4. FACTS
Disposition Certiorari is GRANTED without prejudice to the right of - Plaintiffs sought to recover damages and injunctive relief.
Wellington and Galang to secure other ones after filing the necessary - Defendants have been picketing Dalisay Theater, owned by De
bonds. Leon, operated by co-plaintiffs.
- Purpose is to secure reinstatement to jobs when theater was
run by Filipino Theatrical Enterprises, then a lessee of parcel of
De Leons land.
3. Picketing and Libel Laws - Placards:
- Do not patronize the Dalisay Theater
- Dalisay Theater is unfair to labor.
RPC. - Have mercy on the picketeers.
Art. 353. Definition of libel. A libel is public - Sympathize with us.
and malicious imputation of a crime, or of a - Due to picketing, box office totaled P1,250 when a premier of
vice or defect, real or imaginary, or any act, film such as Dimas could have earned P2,500 gross receipt.
omission, condition, status, or circumstance
ISSUE
tending to cause the dishonor, discredit, or WON strike is illegal
contempt of a natural or juridical person, or to
blacken the memory of one who is dead. HELD
NO
- Walking back and forth, displaying placards, do not disturb
public peace.
- There was no existence of a relationship of employers and
PHIL. COMMERCIAL & INDUSTRIAL BANK V employees between plaintiffs and defendants, although purpose
of picket is to reinstate defendants. PICKETING PEACEFULLY
PHILNABANK EMPLOYEES ASSOC. CARRIED OUT IS NOT ILLEGAL EVEN IN THE ABSENCE OF
105 SCRA 314 EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP FOR PEACEFUL
FERNANDO; July 2, 1981 PICKETING IS PART OF THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH.

FACTS
- Philippine Commercial and Industrial Bank filed an action for libel
against the Philippine National Bank Employees Association as a result
of placards and signboards along the PNB building, containing the CRUZ V CINEMA STAGE
following: "PCIB BAD ACCOUNTS TRANSFERRED TO PNB-NIDC?"
- Lower court dismissed the complaint (edel cruz)

ISSUE
WON the said placards were libelous

HELD 5. Curtailment
NO.
- There was a labor controversy resulting in a strike, fortunately lasting FREE TELEPHONE WORKERS UNION V PHILIPPINE LONG
only for one day. The labor union made use of its constitutional right to DISTANCE TELEPHONE COMPANY and COURT OF
picket. Peaceful picketing is part of the freedom of speech guarantee of INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS
the Constitution. 113 SCRA 662
- Labor disputes give rise to strong emotional response. It is a fact of MAKASIAR; April 27, 1982
industrial life, both in the Philippines as in the United States, that in the
continuing confrontation between labor and management, it is far from FACTS
likely that the language employed would be both courteous and polite. On November 1, 1964, petitioner declared a strike against
- In no uncertain terms, it made clear that the judiciary, in deciding suits respondent company to break an impasse over negotiations on a
for libel, must ascertain whether or not the alleged offending words may 20-point economic demand, among which was a demand for
be embraced by the guarantees of free speech and free press. wage increase covering a period of three years - 1964 to 1967.
On November 3, 1964, the President of the Philippines, upon
Disposition Appealed decision is affirmed. authority of Section 10 of Republic Act No. 875 [Industrial Peace
Act], certified the labor dispute as one clearly affecting an
industry indispensable to the national interest, to the Court of
4. Employer- Employee Relationship Industrial Relations, hereinafter referred to as respondent CIR.
LABOR LAW 2 A2010 - 289 - Disini
On November 9, 1964, the respondent CIR, after hearing, issued a July 9, 1965, petitioner moved to dismiss the aforesaid
partial decision. From the above November 9, 1964 partial decision, respondent company's urgent motion.
petitioner interposed an appeal with the Supreme Court mainly on the
sufficiency of the amount granted as increase. The Supreme Court On July 16, 1965, after due hearing, the trial judge of respondent
affirmed, on July 31, 1970, the November 9, 1964 decision of the CIR issued an order denying petitioner's June 3, 1965 motion to
respondent CIR and held that the sixteen centavo [P0.16] increase per dismiss respondent company's June 2, 1965 petition for the
hour per employee effective for a period of one [1] year from November issuance of writ of preliminary injunction.
9, 1964, was supported by substantial evidence.
On July 17, 1965, petitioner, without first returning to work as
above directed, filed with the respondent CIR its motion for
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:
[a] directed petitioner union, its officers, agents and/or
assigns and sympathizers:
Consequently, petitioner presented on May 6, 1965 to respondent (1) to call-off the strike declared on July 7, 1965; and
company a demand for an automatic P0.25 per hour wage increase for (2) to lift the picket lines established in and around the
all rank-and-file employees receiving above P0.75 per hour on account premises of respondent company's various offices and
of the implementation of the new statutory minimum wage of P6.00 a installations.
day. On May 17,1965, when Case No. 51-IPA, was still pending [b] enjoined the persons manning the picket lines in these
decision, petitioner again filed a notice of strike with the Department of
places from impeding and interfering with the
Labor for refusal of respondent company to negotiate on its demand for
implementation of said order as well as from interfering in
wage adjustment under Republic Act No. 4180, which allegedly any manner with the operations of respondent;
constitutes unfair labor practice.
[c] directed the striking employees to return to work within
On June 2, 1965, respondent company, sensing that petitioner would
three [3] days from receipt of a copy of the order by
really go on strike, filed with respondent CIR a petition for the issuance petitioner; and
of writ of preliminary injunction as an incident of pending Case No. 51-
[d] authorized respondent company to replace any and an
IPA. Respondent company prayed therein of the respondent CIR to
of such striking employees, who fail to return to work within
enjoin petitioner from striking as petitioner and respondent company had the said period of three [3] days, provided that employees
previously agreed on March 3, 1965 to submit all further disputes to the
who shall have been replaced may be reinstated by the
respondent CIR and that a strike under the situation would violate
Court after due hearing and after establishing good and
respondent CIR's November 9, 1964 order. valid grounds for their failure to return to work as directed in
the order.
On June 3, 1965, petitioner filed a motion to dismiss the aforesaid
petition of June 2, 1965 on the ground that respondent CIR has no ISSUE
jurisdiction to consider it. On July 6, 1965, the respondent CIR acting in
WON respondent CIR's order of July 16, 1965 violates the
Case No. 51-IPA [2] confirmed the action of the Hearing Examiner
constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech because it called
therein and issued a temporary restraining order enjoining petitioner for the lifting of peaceful picket lines.
from declaring a strike or any specie thereof during the pendency of the
issue of jurisdiction.
HELD
On July 7, 1965, petitioner filed with the respondent CIR a motion for
reconsideration of the aforesaid order, alleging substantially the same
NO. Indeed, it is now well-settled that peaceful picketing cannot
grounds contained in its June 3, 1965 motion to dismiss. On the same
be restrained because the same is part of the freedom of speech
day, petitioner declared a strike. According to petitioner, the strike was
(PCIB v. PNBEA 105 SCRA 314, 318 [1981]; Associated Labor
precipitated by the [1] summary dismissal of two of its members without
Union vs. Gomez, 96 SCRA 551 [1980]; Mortera v. CIR, 79 Phil.
a prior investigation at which it should be represented; and [2]
345 [1947]; PAFLU vs. Barot, 99 Phil. 1008 [1956]; De Leon vs.
respondent company's continued refusal to negotiate on its demand for
NLU 100 Phil. 789 [1957]). But petitioner fails to realize that the
wage re-adjustment. On July 8, 1965, respondent company filed with the
questioned July 16, 1965 order of the Court of Industrial
respondent C I R an urgent motion to declare the July 7, 1965 strike of
Relations did not refer to peaceful picketing. For the order partly
petitioner illegal, the same being violative of the no-strike order of July 6,
reads, thus:
1965 and the court's partial decision of November 9, 1964, and praying
that the strikers be ordered to return to work or else forfeit their jobs.
Respondent company further prayed therein that petitioner and its Pursuant to the Partial Decision in relation to Section 19 of C. A.
officers and agents and/or sympathizers be directed to lift and remove 103, as amended, the petitioner union, its officers, agents and/or
the pickets posted in the different premises of the company and that the assigns and sympathizers are hereby directed to call off the
strike of the petitioner be declared illegal and the officers of the strike declared on July 7, 1965, and to lift the picket lines
petitioner be held in contempt of court and, therefore, to have lost their established in and around the premises of respondent
status as employees effective July 7. 1965, the date of the strike. On company's various offices and installations in Manila, Quezon
LABOR LAW 2 A2010 - 290 - Disini
City, Pasay City, Caloocan City, Dagupan City, Baguio City, San Pablo WON wholesale condemnation of peaceful picketing is bereft of
City, Iloilo City, Bacolod City, Cebu City, Zamboanga City, Makati, Rizal, support in law
Mandaluyong, Rizal, San Juan, Rizal, San Fernando, Pampanga,
Mabalacat, Pampanga, Lucena, Quezon and Baler, Quezon. The HELD
persons manning the picket lines in these places are hereby enjoined -YES. Wholesale condemnation of peaceful picketing is
from impeding and interfering with the implementation of this Order as likewise clearly bereft of support in law. As pointed out in a
well as from interfering in any manner with the operations of respondent.. very recent decision decided this year, Phil. Assn. of Free Labor
Unions (PAFLU) v. CFI of Rizal: "It need not be stressed that
In Mortera, supra, where the therein questioned order partly declared peaceful picketing is embraced in freedom of expression. As
that "picketing under any guise and form is hereby prohibited," this Court emphatically declared in Philippine Commercial & Industrial Bank
ruled that the "order of the Court of Industrial Relations prohibiting v. Philnabank Employees' Association: 'From the time of Mortera
picketing must be understood to refer only to illegal picketing, that is, v. Court of Industrial Relations, a 1947 decision this Court has
picketing through the use of illegal means. Peaceful picketing cannot be been committed to the view that peaceful picketing is part of the
prohibited. It is part of the freedom of speech guaranteed by the freedom of speech guarantee of the Constitution.' Reference
Constitution. Therefore, the order of the Court of Industrial Relations was made in such opinion to Associated Labor Union v. Gomez.
must be understood to refer only to illegal picketing, that is, picketing In that case, the Court characterized the orders complained of as
through the use of illegal means" [p. 351]. In this case, the questioned being 'fatally defective, suffering as it did from the infirmity that
order should also be taken as limited to the lifting of the picket lines peaceful picketing was enjoined.' It is in that sense that
which constituted illegal picketing especially so because it expressly Presidential Decree No. 849 was a step in the right direction for
stated that the petitioner union and its officers, agents or sympathizers the status of picketing was again accorded due recognition."
"are hereby directed to call-off the strike declared on July 7, 1965, and to In the answer, reference was made to the alleged commission of
lift the picket lines established in and around the premises of respondent acts of violence against non-striking employees and even
company's various offices and installations. The persons manning the against the eighty-year old "sickly and paralytic President" of
picket lines in these places are hereby enjoined from impeding and respondent. It is to be understood, of course, that the peaceful
interfering with implementation of this Order as well as from interfering in picketing authorized cannot certainly countenance acts of
any manner with the operations of respondent." illegality. The interim Batasang Pambansa has spoken on the
subject thus: "(e) No person engaged in picketing shall commit
any act of violence, coercion or intimidation or obstruct the free
ingress to or egress from the employer's premises for lawful
Dispositive Resolution affirmed
purposes, or obstruct public thoroughfares."

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 strike,
against whom the strike was staged. Appellant union filed a
the picketing staged should also be simultaneously lifted, the obstruction
motion to dismiss and motion to dissolve the writ on the ground
of ingress and egress removed and the makeshifts taken out. In other
that only the Court of Industrial Relations and not the Court of
words, the injunction of the illegal strike and the incidents thereto is self-
First Instance has exclusive jurisdiction over the labor dispute;
executing and it behooves upon the party concerned to seek, if
that the appellee has no cause of action against the striking
necessary, the assistance of the law enforcers to enforce the same." Its
union but against the lessor; and that plaintiff-appellee is not the
last paragraph reads: "The other matters in the aforequoted dispositive
real party in interest but Permanent Concrete Products, Inc. The
portion of our decision, that of termination of the employment status of
lower court denied the motion for lack of labor dispute between
union officers and the award of damages, are also final and executory,
the plaintiff and defendant of which the Court of Industrial
unless appealed to the Commission within the reglementary period."
Relations may take cognizance and rendered a decision
-the labor union filed petition before the Supreme Court
declaring the writ permanent and ordering the payment of
damages, attorney's fees and costs.
ISSUE
LABOR LAW 2 A2010 - 291 - Disini
ISSUE -The Secretary of Labor assumed jurisdiction over the labor
WON this case involves or has arisen out of a labor dispute. If it does, dispute and certified it for compulsory arbitration.
then with certainty, Section 9 of Republic Act 875, the "Industrial Peace -During the pendency of the labor dispute, Philtread entered into
Act," would apply. If it does not, then the Rules of Court will govern the a Memorandum of Agreement with Siam Tyre Public Company
issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction because it will not partake Limited (Siam Tyre) whereby its plant and equipment would be
the nature of a labor injunction which the lower court has no jurisdiction sold to a new company, herein petitioner, 80% of which would be
to issue. owned by Siam Tyre and 20% by Philtread, while the land on
which the plant was located would be sold to another company,
HELD 60% of which would be owned by Philtread and 40% by Siam
NO. The business of the appellee is exclusively the publication of the Tyre.
magazines Bannawag, Bisaya, Hiligaynon and Liwayway weekly -Petitioner then asked respondent Union to desist from picketing
magazines which has absolutely no relation or connection whatsoever outside its plant.
with the cause of the strike of the union against their company, much -As the respondent Union refused petitioners request, petitioner
less with the terms, conditions or demands of the strikers. The appellee filed a complaint for injunction with damages before the Regional
is a third party or an "innocent by-stander" whose right has been Trial Court of Makati.
invaded and, therefore, entitled to protection by the regular courts. -Respondent Union moved to dismiss the complaint alleging lack
-The right to picket as a means of communicating the facts of a labor of jurisdiction on the part of the trial court.
dispute is a phase of the freedom of speech guaranteed by the -The trial court denied petitioners application for injunction and
constitution. If peacefully carried out, it cannot be curtailed even in the dismissed the complaint.
absence of employer-employee relationship.The right is, however, not -However, on petitioners motion, the trial court reconsidered its
an absolute one. While peaceful picketing is entitled to protection as an order and granted an injunction.
exercise of free speech, we believe that courts are not without power to -The respondent Union filed a petition for certiorari and
confine or localize the sphere of communication or the demonstration to prohibition before the CA.
the parties to the labor dispute, including those with related interest, and -CA ruled in favor of respondent Union, hence, petitioner filed
to insulate establishments or persons with no industrial connection or this petition asserting that its status as an innocent bystander
having interest totally foreign to the context of the dispute. Thus, the entitled it to a writ of injunction.
right may be regulated at the instance of third parties or `innocent
bystanders' if it appears that the inevitable result of its exercise is to ISSUE
create an impression that a labor dispute with which they have no WON petitioner has shown a clear legal right to the issuance of a
connection or interest exists between them and the picketing union or writ of injunction under the innocent bystander rule
constitute an invasion of their rights. In one case decided by this Court,
we upheld a trial court's injunction prohibiting the union from blocking theHELD
entrance to a feed mill located within the compound of a flour mill with No.
which the union had a dispute. Although sustained on a different ground, -In Philippine Association of Free Labor Unions (PAFLU) v.
no connection was found other than their being situated in the same Cloribel, this Court, through Justice J.B.L. Reyes, stated the
premises. It is to be noted that in the instances cited, peaceful picketing innocent bystander rule as follows: The right to picket as a
has not been totally banned but merely regulated. And in one American means of communicating the facts of a labor dispute is a phase
case, a picket by a labor union in front of a motion picture theater with of the freedom of speech guaranteed by the constitution. If
which the union had a labor dispute was enjoined by the court from peacefully carried out, it can not be curtailed even in the absence
being extended in front of the main entrance of the building housing the of employer-employee relationship.
theater wherein other stores operated by third persons were located. -The right is, however, not an absolute one. While peaceful
-On appeal, the Supreme Court in upholding the jurisdiction of the lower picketing is entitled to protection as an exercise of free
court to issue the writ of preliminary injunction, ruled that: (a) there is no
speech, we believe the courts are not without power to
connection between the appellee, the appellant union and the confine or localize the sphere of communication or the
Permanent Concrete Products, Inc. and the fact, that the latter and demonstration to the parties to the labor dispute, including
appellee are situated in the same premises, can hardly be those with related interest, and to insulate establishments
considered as interwoven with the labor dispute pending with the or persons with no industrial connection or having interest
Court of Industrial Relations; and (b) the acts of the striking union totally foreign to the context of the dispute.
are mere acts of trespass for which the lessee shall have a direct -Thus the right may be regulated at the instance of third
action against the trespasser. parties or innocent bystanders if it appears that the
inevitable result of its exercise is to create an impression
Disposition Decision appealed from, affirmed in toto. that a labor dispute with which they have no connection or
interest exists between them and the picketing union or
constitute an invasion of their rights.
MSF TIRE AND RUBBER, INC. V CA (PHILTREAD -Thus, an innocent bystander, who seeks to enjoin a labor
strike, must satisfy the court that aside from the grounds
TIRE WORKERS UNION) specified in Rule 58 of the Rules of Court, it is entirely different
311 SCRA 784 from, without any connection whatsoever to, either party to the
MENDOZA; August 5, 1999 dispute and, therefore, its interests are totally foreign to the
context thereof.
-In the case at bar, petitioner cannot be said not to have such
NATURE connection to the dispute.
Petiton for review on certiorari of a decision of the CA -As correctly observed by the appellate court: we find that the
negotiation, contract of sale, and the post transaction between
FACTS
Philtread, as vendor, and Siam Tyre, as vendee, reveals a legal
-A labor dispute arose between Philtread Tire and Rubber Corporation
relation between them which, in the interest of petitioner, we
(Philtread) and private respondent, Philtread Tire Workers Union (Union)
cannot ignore. To be sure, the transaction between Philtread
-Union filed a notice of strike in the National Conciliation and Mediation
and Siam Tyre, was not a simple sale whereby Philtread ceased
Board charging Philtread with unfair labor practices for allegedly
to have any proprietary rights over its sold assets. On the
engaging in union-busting for violation of the provisions of the collective
contrary, Philtread remains as 20% owner of private respondent
bargaining agreement.
and 60% owner of Sucat Land Corporation which was likewise
-Thereafter, they picketed and assembled outside the gate of Philtreads
incorporated in accordance with the terms of the Memorandum
plant.
of Agreement with Siam Tyre, and which now owns the land
-Philtread, on the other hand, filed a notice of lockout.
LABOR LAW 2 A2010 - 292 - Disini
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 respondents personality is so closely linked to Philtread as
to bar its entitlement to an injunctive writ.

Disposition
Petition is denied.

7. Prohibited Activities Peaceful Picketing

ART. 264. Prohibited activities. xxx-


(b) No person shall obstruct, impede, or interfere with,
by force, violence, coercion, threats or intimidation, any
peaceful picketing by employees during any labor
controversy or in the exercise of the right to self-
organization or collective bargaining, or shall aid or abet
such obstruction or interference.

9.04 ROLE OF PEACE OFFICERS


DURING STRIKES AND PICKETING
1. Escorting

ART. 264. Prohibited activities. xxx-


(d) No public official or employee, including
officers and personnel of the New Armed
Forces of the Philippines or the Integrated
National Police, or armed person, shall bring
in, introduce or escort in any manner, any
individual who seeks to replace strikers in
entering or leaving the premises of a strike
area, or work in place of the strikers. The
police force shall keep out of the picket lines
unless actual violence or other criminal acts
occur therein: Provided, That nothing herein
shall be interpreted to prevent any public
officer from taking any measure necessary to
maintain peace and order, protect life and
property, and/or enforce the law and legal
order.

2. Arrest and Detention of Law Violators

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.