SUMMARY OF PRINCIPLES GOVERNING STRIKES:

1. A strike or lockout is illegal if any of the legal requisite is not complied with.
Procedural requirements are mandatory.
2. A strike or lockout is illegal if it is based on non-strikeable issues
(e.g., inter-union or intra-union disputes or wage distortion)
3. A strike or lockout is illegal if the issues involved are already subject of
compulsory or voluntary arbitration or conciliation or the steps in grievance
machinery are not exhausted.
4. A strike or lockout is illegal if unlawful means were employed or prohibited acts or
practices were committed (e.g., Use of force, violence, threats, coercion, etc.;
Barricades, blockades and obstructions of ingress to [entrance] or egress from [exit]
the company premises).
5. A strike or lockout is illegal if the notice of strike or notice of lockout is already
converted into a preventive mediation case.
6. A strike or lockout is illegal if staged in violation of the “No-Strike, No-
Lockout” clause in the collective bargaining agreement.
7. A strike or lockout is illegal if staged in violation of a temporary restraining
order or an injunction or assumption
or certification order.
8. A strike is illegal if staged by a minority union.
9. A strike or lockout is illegal if conducted for unlawful purpose/s
(e.g.: Strike to compel dismissal of employee or to compel the
employer to recognize the union or the so-called “Union-Recognition
Strike”)
10. The local union and not the federation is liable to pay damages in case of
illegal strike.
CHUAYUCO STEEL MANUFACTURING CORPORATION AND/OR EDWIN CHUA v. BUKLOD NG
MANGGAGAWA SA CHUAYUCO STEEL MANUFACTURING CORPORATION
513 SCRA 621 (2007), SECOND DIVISION, (Carpio Morales, J.)
A union officer who knowingly participates in an illegal strike and a worker who knowingly
participates in the commission of an illegal strike are deemed to have lost their employment
status.

Buklod ng Manggagawa sa Chuayuco Steel Manufacturing Corporation (the union), a legitimate

labor organization, is the recognized bargaining agent of Chuayuco Steel Manufacturing
Corporation (the corporation) of which its co-petitioner Edwin Chua is the President.

In the election of the union officers, Camilo Lenizo (Lenizo) emerged as President. The
corporation however refused to recognize the newly elected officers for the reason that there is
an intra-union conflict between the factions of Lenizo and Romeo Ibanez, the former acting
union president.

The union staged a strike which causes illegal acts that intimidated and harassed the corporation
and non-striking employees. The strikers use physical violence and harass those employees who
are not on their side by shouting and threatening them not to go to work anymore. The Labor
Arbiter declared the strike illegal and thus, some of the members who participated in the mass
action lost their employment status
• ISSUE:

Whether or not some of the employees who participated in the strike should be
reinstated without loss of seniority rights

• HELD:
Article 264 (a) of the Labor Code states that any union officer who knowingly
participates in an illegal strike and any worker or union who knowingly participates
in the commission of illegal acts during a strike may be declared to have lost his
employment status.
Thus, a union officer may be declared to have lost his employment status if he
knowingly participates in an illegal strike and in this case, the strike is declared
illegal by the court because the means employed by the union are illegal.
ARELLANO UNIVERSITY EMPLOYEES AND WORKERS UNION, et al. v. COURT
OF APPEALS, et al. 502 SCRA 219 (2006), THIRD DIVISION (Carpio Morales,J
• An ordinary striking worker may not be declared to have lost his employment status by mere
participation in an illegal strike.

The Arellano University Employees and Workers Union (the Union), the exclusive
bargaining representative of about 380 rank-and-file employees of Arellano
University, Inc. (the University), filed with the National Conciliation and Mediation
Board (NCMB) a Notice of Strike charging the University with Unfair Labor Practice
(ULP). After several controversies and petitions, a strike was staged.

Upon the lifting of the strike, the University filed a Petition to Declare the Strike
Illegal before the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). The NLRC issued a
Resolution holding that the University was not guilty of ULP. Consequently, the strike
was declared illegal. All the employees who participated in the illegal strike were
thereafter declared to have lost their employment status.
• ISSUE:

Whether or not an employee is deemed to have lost his employment by mere

participation in an illegal strike

• HELD:
Under Article 264 of the Labor Code, an ordinary striking worker may not be
declared to have lost his employment status by mere participation in an illegal
strike. There must be proof that he knowingly participated in the commission of
illegal acts during the strike. While the University adduced photographs showing
strikers picketing outside the university premises, it failed to identify who they
were. It thus failed to meet the ―substantiality of evidence test‖ applicable in
dismissal cases.
With respect to the union officers, as already discussed, their mere participation in
the illegal strike warrants their dismissal.
BILFLEX PHIL. INC. LABOR UNION et al. v. FILFLEX INDUSTRIAL
AND MANUFACTURING CORPORATION AND BILFLEX (PHILS.), INC.
511 SCRA 247 (2006), THIRD DIVISION (Carpio Morales, J.)
Any union officer who knowingly participates in an illegal strike and any worker or
union who knowingly participates in the commission of illegal acts during a strike may
be declared to have lost his employment status.

Biflex Philippines Inc. Labor Union and Filflex Industrial and Manufacturing Labor Union
are the respective collective bargaining agents of the employees of the sister companies
Biflex and Filflex which are engaged in the garment business. They are situated in one big
compound and they have a common entrance.

On October 24, 1990, the labor sector staged a welga ng bayan to protest against oil price
hike; the unions staged a work stoppage which lasted for several days, prompting the
companies to file a petition to declare the work stoppage illegal for failure to comply with
procedural requirements.

The Labor Arbiter held that the strike is illegal and declared the officers of the union to
have lost their employment status.
• ISSUE:
Whether or not the staged strike is illegal and a ground for the lost of employment status of the
union officers

• HELD:
Article 264 (a) of the Labor Code states that any union officer who knowingly participates in an
illegal strike and any worker or union who knowingly participates in the commission of illegal acts
during a strike may be declared to have lost his employment status.

Thus, a union officer may be declared to have lost his employment status if he knowingly
participates in an illegal strike and in this case, the strike is declared illegal by the court because
the means employed by the union are illegal.

Here, the unions blocked the egress and ingress of the company premises thus, a violation of
Article 264 (e) of the Labor Code which would affect the strike as illegal even if assuming
arguendo that the unions had complied with legal formalities and thus, the termination of the
employees was valid.

The court said that the legality of a strike is determined not only by compliance with its legal
formalities but also by means by which it is carried out.
Art. 270. REGULATION OF FOREIGN ASSISTANCE.
a. No foreign individual, organization or entity may
give any donations, grants or other forms of
assistance, in cash or in kind, directly or indirectly,
to any labor organization, group of workers or any
auxiliary thereof, such as cooperatives, credit
unions and institutions engaged in research,
education or communication, in relation to trade
union activities, without prior permission by the
Secretary of Labor.
• “Trade union activities” shall mean:

• organization, formation and administration of labor organization;

• negotiation and administration of collective bargaining agreements;

• all forms of concerted union action;

• organizing, managing, or assisting union conventions, meetings, rallies, referenda,

teach-ins, seminars, conferences and institutes;

• any form of participation or involvement in representation proceedings, representation

elections, consent elections, union elections; and

• other activities or actions analogous to the foregoing.

b. This prohibition shall equally apply to foreign donations,
grants or other forms of assistance, in cash or in kind, given
directly or indirectly to any employer or employer’s
organization to support any activity or activities affecting trade
unions.

c. The Secretary of Labor shall promulgate rules and

regulations to regulate and control the giving and receiving of
such donations, grants, or other forms of assistance, including
the mandatory reporting of the amounts of the donations or
grants, the specific recipients thereof, the projects or activities
proposed to be supported, and their duration.
Art. 271. APPLICABILITY TO FARM TENANTS AND RURAL WORKERS.
The provisions of this Title pertaining to foreign
organizations and activities shall be deemed
applicable likewise to all organizations of farm
tenants, rural workers, and the like: Provided,
That in appropriate cases, the Secretary of
Agrarian Reform shall exercise the powers and
responsibilities vested by this Title in the
Secretary of Labor
Art. 272. PENALTIES.
• Any person violating any of the provisions of Article 264 of this Code shall be
punished by a fine of not less than one thousand pesos (P1,000.00) nor more
than ten thousand pesos (P10,000.00) and/or imprisonment for not less than
three months nor more than three (3) years, or both such fine and
imprisonment, at the discretion of the court. Prosecution under this provision
shall preclude prosecution for the same act under the Revised Penal Code, and
vice versa.

• Upon the recommendation of the Minister of Labor and Employment and the
Minister of National Defense, foreigners who violate the provisions of this Title
shall be subject to immediate and summary deportation by the Commission
on Immigration and Deportation and shall be permanently barred from re-
entering the country without the special permission of the President of the
Philippines. (As amended by Section 16, Batas Pambansa Bilang 130 and
Section 7, Batas Pambansa Bilang 227)