188. PHIMCO INDUSTRIES INC. v.

PHIMCO INDUSTRIES LABOR ASSOCIATION (PILA)

August 11, 2010 | Brion, J. | JF
Concerted Activities

DOCTRINE: A picket line which effectively blocks the free ingress to and egress from the company’s premises constitutes
an illegal strike under LC 264(e), as it is attended with intimidation.

CASE SUMMARY: The union conducted a strike, and the SC held it was an illegal strike because of the doctrine above.
Although it was claimed to be a “peaceful moving picket line” which complied with procedural requirements of a strikes,
the evidence showed that the picketers effectively blocked the ingress and egress of employees to the company. It was
attended with intimidation because it was conducted with such an intimidating atmosphere that workers could not dare
cross the picket line to enter the premises of the company, thus violating LC 264(e)

FACTS:
• CBA was about to expire on Dec. 31, 1994, so PHIMCO and PILA negotiated for its renewal.
o Ended in a deadlock on economic issues (salary increases and benefits)
• PILA filed with the National Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB) a Notice of Strike on the ground of the
bargaining deadlock.
o 7 days later, the union conducted a strike vote
o A majority of the union members voted for a strike, and PILA filed the strike vote results with the NCMB.
o PILA staged a strike 35 days later
• PHIMCO then filed with the NLRC a petition for preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order (TRO)
o To enjoin the strikers from preventing the ingress and egress of non-striking employees into and
from the company premises through force, intimidation and coercion.
o NLRC then issued an ex-parte TRO
• PHIMCO sent a letter to 36 union members, directing them to explain within 24 hours why they should not be
dismissed for the illegal acts they committed during the strike.
o They were then dismissed 3 days later
• PILA filed a complaint for unfair labor practice and illegal dismissal with the NLRC.
o Acting Labor Secretary Brillantes assumed jurisdiction over the labor dispute
§ Ordered all the striking employees to return to work within 24 hours from receipt of the order.
§ PILA ended its strike.
• PHIMCO filed a Petition to Declare the Strike Illegal with the NLRC, with a prayer for the dismissal of PILA officers
and members who participated in the illegal strike.
o PHIMCO claimed that the strikers prevented ingress to and egress from the PHIMCO compound, thereby
paralyzing PHIMCO’s operations.
o PILA countered that they complied with all the legal requirements for the staging of the strike
§ They put up no barricade, and conducted their strike peacefully, in an orderly and lawful manner,
without incident.
• Labor Arbiter: illegal strike
o PILA committed prohibited acts during the strike by blocking the ingress to and egress from PHIMCO’s
premises and preventing the non-striking employees from reporting for work.
o Strikers should allow the free passage to the entrance and exit points of the company premises.
o PILA officers and members have thus lost their employment status.
• NLRC: no illegal strike
o Relied on PILA’s evidence showing that the union conducted a peaceful moving picket.
o Not an illegal blockade and did not obstruct the points of entry to and exit from the company’s premises;
• CA: no illegal strike
o Picket was peaceful and no substantial evidence that the picket constituted an illegal blockade or that it
obstructed the points of entry to and exit from the company premises

ISSUE: W/N there was an illegal strike - YES

RULING:
On the procedural requirements of a strike:
• Procedural requirements for a valid strike (LC 263):
o (a) a notice of strike be filed with the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) 30 days before the
intended date thereof, or 15 days in case of unfair labor practice;
o (b) a strike vote be approved by a majority of the total union membership in the bargaining unit
concerned, obtained by secret ballot in a meeting called for that purpose; and

 o (c) a notice be given to the DOLE of the results of the voting at least seven days before the intended
strike.
• Failure to comply with these requirements renders the strike illegal.
• ITCAB, PILA fully satisfied the procedural requirements
o A strike notice was filed on March 9, 1995;
o A strike vote was reached on March 16, 1995;
o Notification of the strike vote was filed with the DOLE on March 17, 1995;
o And the actual strike was launched only on April 25, 1995.

On illegal activities conducted during the strike:

• ALTHOUGH the union complied with the procedural requirements, they violated Article 264(e) of the Labor Code
o The picketing effectively blocked the free ingress to and egress from PHIMCO’s premises, thus
preventing non-striking employees and company vehicles from entering the PHIMCO compound.
o Based on evidence presented:
§ Evidence of company:
• Pictures taken showing that the picketers blocked ingress and egress
• Affidavits of employees who were prevented from entering and exiting the premises
• Testimonies
§ Evidence presented by union:
• Affidavits that strike was conducted peacefully and legally
• Certification of police commander, parish priest, and barangay captain that the strike was
peaceful
o Based on totality of evidence, SC ruled that the picket line blocked ingress and egress
§ It was maintained so close to the company gates that it virtually constituted an obstruction,
especially when the strikers joined hands
• Aggravated by the placement of benches, with strikers standing on top, directly in front of
the open wing of the company gates, clearly obstructing the entry and exit points of the
company compound.
• Even caused buildup of traffic in the immediate vicinity
§ Although it was a MOVING picket, it only went around in CIRCLES very close to the gates
• Strikers were in a hand-to-shoulder formation without a break in their ranks, thus
preventing non-striking workers and vehicles from coming in and getting out.
• Was, in effect, a human blockade
§ In violation of Art. 264(e)
• Intimidation was used
o The manner in which the respondent union officers and members conducted the
picket in the present case had created such an intimidating atmosphere that
non-striking employees and even company vehicles did not dare cross the
picket line, even with police intervention
§ THUS, it is an ILLEGAL STRIKE under LC 264(e)
o Does not matter if the picketing was peaceful or moving
§ As long as it prevented ingress and egress
• Difference between strike and picketing:
o While a strike focuses on stoppage of work, picketing focuses on publicizing the labor dispute and its
incidents to inform the public of what is happening in the company struck against.
o A picket simply means to march to and from the employer’s premises, usually accompanied by the
display of placards and other signs making known the facts involved in a labor dispute.
o It is a strike activity separate and different from the actual stoppage of work.
o Protected picketing does not extend to blocking ingress to and egress from the company premises.
• Union officers and members are liable under Art. 264(a)
o This provision imposes the penalty of dismissal on "any union officer who knowingly participates in an
illegal strike."
o LC grants the employer the option of declaring a union officer who participated in an illegal strike as
having lost his employment.
o PHIMCO was able to individually identify 37 union members who actively participated
§ For participating in illegally blocking ingress to and egress from company premises, these union
members stand to be dismissed for their illegal acts in the conduct of the union’s strike.

DISPOSITION: Petition granted