98.

Ilaw at Buklod ng Manggagawa v National Labor Relations              SMC ignored the demand of the workers hence the union members
Commission refused to render overtime services until the distortion has been corrected
by SMC.
GR. No. 91980
             The employees’ working hours/schedule are on different time
DOCTRINE: scheme and they have been observing such schedule for the past 5 years and
due to such abandonment of the longstanding schedule of work and
             Among the rights guaranteed to employees by the Labor Code is reversion to the eight-hour shift, substantial losses were incurred by SMC.
that of engaging in concerted activities in order to attain their legitimate The company filed a complaint with arbitration branch of NLRC then
objectives. before the NLRC for the latter to declare the strike illegal with TRO.

             The more common of these concerted activities as far as              The union members contented that their refusal to work beyond 8
employees are concerned are: strikes — the temporary stoppage of work as hours was a legitimate means of compelling SMC to correct distortion and
a result of an industrial or labor dispute; picketing — the marching to and thus legal. The SMC however contended that the coordinated reduction by
fro at the employer's premises, usually accompanied by the display of the Union’s members of the work time in order to compel SMC to yield to
placards and other signs making known the facts involved in a labor the demand was an illegal and unprotected activity.
dispute; and boycotts — the concerted refusal to patronize an employer's
goods or services and to persuade others to a like refusal.              The NLRC granted the temporary restraining order by SMC and
ordered the workers to cease and desist from further committing the acts.
             On the other hand, the counterpart activity that
management may licitly undertake is the lockout — the temporary refusal to ISSUE: Whether or not the strike was legal
furnish work on account of a labor dispute, In this connection, the same
Article 263 provides that the "right of legitimate labor organizations to HELD:
strike and picket and of employer to lockout, consistent with the national
interest, shall continue to be recognized and respected."              Among the rights guaranteed to employees by the Labor Code is
that of engaging in concerted activities in order to attain their legitimate
             The legality of these activities is usually dependent on the objectives.
legality of the purposes sought to be attained and the means employed
therefor.              The more common of these concerted activities as far as
employees are concerned are: strikes — the temporary stoppage of work as
FACTS: a result of an industrial or labor dispute; picketing — the marching to and
fro at the employer's premises, usually accompanied by the display of
             Ilaw at Buklod ng Manggagawa representing 4500 employees of placards and other signs making known the facts involved in a labor
SMC working at various plants, offices and warehouses in NCR presented dispute; and boycotts — the concerted refusal to patronize an employer's
to the company a demand for correction of the significant distortion in the goods or services and to persuade others to a like refusal.
workers’ wages pursuant to the Wage Rationalization Act.
             On the other hand, the counterpart activity that
management may licitly undertake is the lockout — the temporary refusal to
furnish work on account of a labor dispute, In this connection, the same

1
Article 263 provides that the "right of legitimate labor organizations to GR No. 103560 July 6, 1995
strike and picket and of employer to lockout, consistent with the national
interest, shall continue to be recognized and respected."
Doctrine: A union officer who knowingly participates in an illegal strike
             The legality of these activities is usually dependent on the and any worker or union officer who knowingly participates in the
legality of the purposes sought to be attained and the means employed commission of illegal acts during a strike may be declared to have lost their
therefor. employment status. An ordinary striking worker cannot be terminated for
mere participation in an illegal strike. There must be proof that he
             It goes without saying that these joint or coordinated activities may committed illegal acts during a strike. A union officer, on the other hand,
be forbidden or restricted by law or contract. may be terminated from work when he knowingly participates in an illegal
strike, and like other workers, when he commits an illegal act during a
             In the particular instance of "distortions of the wage structure strike. 
within an establishment" resulting from "the application of any prescribed Facts: Petitioner’s employees stopped working and gathered in a mass
wage increase by virtue of a law or wage order," Section 3 of Republic Act action to express their grievances regarding wages, thirteenth month pay
No. 6727 prescribes a specific, detailed and comprehensive procedure for and hazard pay. Said employees were all members of the Macajalar Labor
the correction thereof, thereby implicitly excluding strikes or lockouts or Union — Federation of Free Workers (MLU-FFW) with whom petitioner
other concerted activities as modes of settlement of the issue. had an existing collective bargaining agreement. 

             Moreover, the collective bargaining agreement between the SMC Petitioner was engaged in stevedoring and arrastre services at the port of
and the Union, contains a stipulation that “The UNION agrees that there Cagayan de Oro. The strike paralyzed operations at said port. The strikers
shall be no strikes, walkouts, stoppage or slowdown of work, boycotts, filed individual notices of strike (“Kaugalingon nga Declarasyon sa Pag-
secondary boycotts, refusal to handle any merchandise, picketing, sit-down Welga”) with the then Ministry of Labor and Employment. With the failure
strikes of any kind, sympathetic or general strikes, or any other interference of conciliation conferences between petitioner and the strikers, INPORT
with any of the operations of the COMPANY during the terms of this filed a complaint before the Labor Arbiter for Illegal Strike with prayer for
agreement” a restraining order/preliminary injunction. 

             The Union was thus prohibited to declare and hold a strike or The National Labor Relations Commission issued a temporary restraining
otherwise engage in non-peaceful concerted activities for the settlement of order. Thereafter, majority of the strikers returned to work, leaving herein
its controversy with SMC in respect of wage distortions, or for that matter; private respondents who continued their protest. 
any other issue "involving or relating to wages, hours of work, conditions of For not having complied with the formal requirements in Article 264 of the
employment and/or employer-employee relations." Labor Code,the strike staged by petitioner’s workers on April 30, 1985 was
found by the Labor Arbiter to be illegal. The workers who participated in
             The partial strike or concerted refusal by the Union members to the illegal strike did not, however, lose their employment, since there was
follow the five-year-old work schedule which they had therefore been no evidence that they participated in illegal acts. After noting that petitioner
observing, resorted to as a means of coercing correction of "wage accepted the other striking employees back to work, the Labor Arbiter held
distortions," was therefore forbidden by law and contract and, on this that the private respondents should similarly be allowed to return to work
account, illegal. without having to undergo the required screening to be undertaken by their
union (MLU-FFW). 
99. Gold City Integrated Port Service, Inc (INPORT) vs. NLRC

2
As regards the six private respondents who were union officers, the Labor The individual notices of strike filed by the workers did not conform to the
Arbiter ruled that they could not have possibly been “duped or tricked” into notice required by the law to be filed since they were represented by a union
signing the strike notice for they were active participants in the conciliation (MLU-FFW) which even had an existing collective bargaining agreement
meetings and were thus fully aware of what was going on. Hence, said with INPORT. Neither did the striking workers observe the strike vote by
union officers should be accepted back to work after seeking secret ballot, cooling-off period and reporting requirements. 
reconsideration from herein petitioner. 
In the case at bench, INPORT accepted the majority of the striking workers,
The NLRC affirmed with modification the Arbiter’s decision. It held that including union officers, back to work. Private respondents were left to
the concerted action by the workers was more of a “protest action” than a continue with the strike after they refused to submit to the “screening”
strike. Private respondents, including the six union officers, should also be required by the company.
allowed to work unconditionally to avoid discrimination. However, in view
of the strained relations between the parties, separation pay was awarded in  Under Article 264 of the Labor Code, a worker merely participating in an
lieu of reinstatement.  illegal strike may not be terminated from his employment. It is only when
he commits illegal acts during a strike that he may be declared to have lost
Upon petitioner’s motion for reconsideration, public respondent modified his employment status. Since there appears no proof that these union
the above resolution.  members committed illegal acts during the strike, they cannot be dismissed.
The striking union members among private respondents are thus entitled to
The Commission ruled that since private respondents were not actually reinstatement, there being no just cause for their dismissal. 
terminated from service, there was no basis for reinstatement. However, it
awarded six months’ salary as separation pay or financial assistance in the However, considering that a decade has already lapsed from the time the
nature of “equitable relief.” The award for backwages was also deleted for disputed strike occurred, we find that to award separation pay in lieu of
lack of factual and legal basis. In lieu of backwages, compensation reinstatement would be more practical and appropriate.No backwages will
equivalent to P1,000.00 was given.  be awarded to private respondent-union members as a penalty for their
participation in the illegal strike. Their continued participation in said strike,
Issue: Whether separation pay and backwages be awarded by public even after most of their co-workers had returned to work, can hardly be
respondent NLRC to participants of an illegal strike.  rewarded by such an award. 
Held: Reinstatement and backwages or, if no longer feasible, separation The fate of private respondent-union officers is different. Their insistence
pay, can only be granted if sufficient bases exist under the law, particularly on unconditional reinstatement or separation pay and backwages is
after a showing of illegal dismissal. However, while the union members unwarranted and unjustified. For knowingly participating in an illegal
may thus be entitled under the law to be reinstated or to receive separation strike, the law mandates that a union officer may be terminated from
pay, their expulsion from the union in accordance with the collective employment. 
bargaining agreement renders the same impossible. 
Notwithstanding the fact that INPORT previously accepted other union
Private respondents and their co-workers stopped working and held the officers and that the screening required by it was uncalled for, still it cannot
mass action on April 30, 1985 to press for their wages and other benefits. be gainsaid that it possessed the right and prerogative to terminate the union
What transpired then was clearly a strike, for the cessation of work by officers from service. The law, in using the word may, grants the employer
concerted action resulted from a labor dispute. The complaint before the the option of declaring a union officer who participated in an illegal strike
Labor Arbiter involved the legality of said strike. The Arbiter correctly as having lost his employment. 
ruled that the strike was illegal for failure to comply with the requirements
of Article 264 (now Article 263) paragraphs (c) and (f) of the Labor Code.  Moreover, an illegal strike which, more often than not, brings about
unnecessary economic disruption and chaos in the workplace should not be

3
countenanced by a relaxation of the sanctions prescribed by law. The union Federation (NFL), the mother federation of NAMA-MCCH. NAMA-
officers are, therefore, not entitled to any relief. MCCH asked MCCH to renew their Collective Bargaining  Agreement
(CBA). NFL, however, opposed this move by its local affiliate. Mindful of
the apparent intra-union dispute, MCCH decided to defer the CBA
100. Elizabeth C. Bascon and Noemi V. Cole vs. CA negotiations until there was a determination as to which of said unions had
G.R. No. 144899 the right to negotiate a new CBA. Believing that their union was the
February 5, 2004 certified collective bargaining agent, the members and officers of NAMA-
MCCH staged a series of mass actions inside MCCH’s premises.
DOCTRINE:  The DOLE issued certifications stating that NAMA-MCCH was
not a registered labor organization. This finding, however, did not deter
Not every case of willful disobedience by an employee of a lawful work- NAMA-MCCH from fling a notice of strike. Said notice was, however,
connected order of the employer may be penalized with dismissal.—Not disregarded by the NCMB for want of legal personality of the union. The
every case of willful disobedience by an employee of a lawful work MCCH management received reports that petitioners participated in
connected order of the employer may be penalized with dismissal. There NAMA-MCCH’s mass actions. Consequently, notices were served on all
must be reasonable proportionality between, on the one hand, the willful union members, petitioners included, asking them to explain in writing why
disobedience by the employee and, on the other hand, the penalty imposed they were wearing red and black ribbons and roaming around the hospital
therefor. with placards. 
Petitioner was dismissed from employment because of her
Doctrine of “Strained Relations”; To protect labor’s security of tenure, we participation in the mass action. Bascon and Cole filed a complaint for
emphasize that the doctrine of “strained relations” should be strictly illegal dismissal. They denied having participated in said mass actions or
applied so as not to deprive an illegally dismissed employee of his right to having received the notices (1) enjoining them from wearing armbands and
reinstatement.—In Quijano v. Mercury Drug Corporation, we stated that putting up placards, with warning that disciplinary measure would be
the doctrine of “strained relations” is inapplicable to a situation where the imposed, and (2) informing them of the schedule of hearing. 
employee has no say in the operation of the employer’s business. They admit, however, to wearing armbands for union identity
Petitioners herein are nurse and nursing aide, respectively in MCCH and while nursing patients as per instruction of their union leaders. The Labor
thus, have no prerogative in the operation of the business. As also held in Arbiter found the termination complained to be valid and legal, and
the Mercury Drug case: To protect labor’s security of tenure, we emphasize dismissed the complaint. The Labor Arbiter held that petitioners were justly
that the doctrine of “strained relations” should be strictly applied so as not dismissed because they actually participated in the illegal mass action. It
to deprive an illegally dismissed employee of his right to reinstatement. also concluded that petitioners received the notices of hearing, but
Every labor dispute almost always results in “strained relations,” and the deliberately refused to attend the scheduled investigation. On appeal, the
phrase cannot be given an overarching interpretation, otherwise, an NLRC reversed the ruling of the Labor Arbiter. But the CA reversed the
unjustly dismissed employee can never be reinstated. ruling of the NLRC.
FACTS: ISSUES:
The petitioners were employees of private respondent Hospital and Whether or not petitioners were validly terminated for (1) allegedly
members of the Nagkahiusang Mamumuo sa Metro Cebu Community participating in an illegal strike and/or (2) gross insubordination to the order
Hospital (NAMA-MCCH), a labor union of Metro Cebu Community to stop wearing armbands and putting up placards.
Hospital (MCCH) employees. The instant controversy arose from an intra-
union conflict between the NAMA-MCCH and the National Labor RULING:

4
NO. They were not validly terminated. 101. BIFLEX PHILS. INC. LABOR UNION (NAFLU) Et. al vs.
FILFLEX INDUSTRIAL AND
Neither such wearing of armbands nor said putting up of placards can be MANUFACTURING CORPORATION AND BIFLEX (PHILS.), INC
construed as an illegal act. In fact, per se, they are within the mantle of G.R. No. 155679
constitutional protection under freedom of speech. CARPIO MORALES, J.

As to the first ground, Article 264 (a) of the Labor Code provides in part DOCTRINE/S:
that: Employees who have no labor dispute with their employer but who, on a
Any union officer who knowingly participates in illegal strike and any day they are scheduled to work, refuse to work and instead join a welga ng
worker or union officer who knowingly participates in the commission of bayan commit an illegal work stoppage.
illegal acts during a strike may be declared to have lost his employment
status . . . Even if the employee’s joining the welga ng bayan were considered merely
as an exercise of their freedom of expression, freedom of assembly, or
Thus, while a union officer can be terminated for mere participation in an freedom to petition the government for redress of grievances, the exercise
illegal strike, an ordinary striking employee, like petitioners herein, must of such rights is not absolute; Where there is no showing that the employees
have participated in the commission of illegal acts during the strike (italics notified their employer of their intention, or that they were allowed by the
supplied). latter, to join the welga ng bayan, their work stoppage is beyond legal
protection.
There must be proof that they committed illegal acts during the strike. But
proof beyond reasonable doubt is not required. Substantial evidence, which The legality of a strike is determined not only by compliance with its legal
may justify the imposition of the penalty of dismissal, may suffice. formalities but also
by the means by which it is carried out.
As regards the appellate court’s finding that petitioners were justly
terminated for gross insubordination or willful disobedience, willful Reinstatement of a striker or retention of his employment, despite his
disobedience of the employer’s lawful orders, as a just cause for dismissal participation in an illegal
of an employee, envisages the concurrence of at least two requisites: (1) the strike, is a management prerogative which the Supreme Court may not
employee’s assailed conduct must have been willful, that is, characterized supplant.
by a wrongful and perverse attitude; and (2) the order violated must have
been reasonable, lawful, made known to the employee and must pertain to FACTS:
the duties which he had been engaged to discharge.
Petitioners Villanueva et.al were officers of the Biflex Union, while
In this case, we find lacking the element of willfulness characterized by a petitioners Dela Torre et.al were officers of the Filflex Union. The 2 unions
perverse mental attitude on the part of petitioners in disobeying their were affiliated with National Federation of Labor Unions (NAFLU), and
employer’s order as to warrant the ultimate penalty of dismissal. Wearing were the respective collective bargaining agents of their corporations.
armbands and putting up placards to express one’s views without violating Biflex and Filfex (Companies) are sister companies engaged in garment
the rights of third parties, are legal per se and even constitutionally business which were situated in one compound (with one entrance) along
protected. Thus, MCCH could have done well to respect petitioners’ right to with another sister company GGC.
freedom of speech instead of threatening them with disciplinary action and
eventually terminating them.

5
October 1990, the labor sector stages a welga ng bayan to protest
accelerating prices of oil. The union, led by their officers staged a work Even if petitioners' joining the welga ng bayan were considered merely as
stoppage for several days. The companies filed a petition to declare the an exercise of
work stoppage as illegal for failure to comply with procedural requirements. their freedom of expression, freedom of assembly or freedom to petition the
government
The companies resumed operations. The union claimed that they were for redress of grievances, the exercise of such rights is not absolute.For the
illegally locked out by the companies and were prevented from reporting for protection of
work. They assert that the companies were "slighted" by the workers' no- other significant state interests such as the "right of enterprises to reasonable
show, and as a punishment, the workers as well as petitioners were barred returns on
from entering the company premises. investments, and to expansion and growth" enshrined in the 1987
Constitution must also
The union (claiming that they filed a notice of strike), put up tents, tables be considered.
and chairs in front of the main gate of the companies’ premises, and explain
that those were for the convenience of the union members who reported There being no showing that petitioners notified respondents of their
every morning to check if the management would allow them to report for intention, or that they
work. were allowed by respondents, to join the welga ng bayan on October 24,
1990, their work
Company: work stoppage was illegal. Work stoppage was illegal since the stoppage is beyond legal protection.
following requirements for the staging of a valid strike were not compiled
with: (1) filing of notice of strike; (2) securing a trike vote, and (3) If there was illegal lockout, why, indeed, did not petitioners file a protest
submission of a report of the strike vote to DOLE. with the management or a complaint therefor against respondents? As the
Labor Arbiter observed, "[t]he inaction of [petitioners] betrays the weakness
Labor Arbiter: The strike was illegal. Declared that the union officers lost of their contention for normally a locked-out union will immediately bring
their employment status. management before the bar of justice." Even assuming arguendo that in
staging the strike, petitioners had complied with legal formalities, the strike
NLRC: Reversed. There was no strike to speak of as no labor or industrial would just the same be illegal, for by blocking the free ingress to and egress
dispute existed between the parties. from the company premises, they violated Article 264(e) of the Labor Code
which provides that "[n]o person engaged in picketing shall ... obstruct the
CA: Reversed. LA is right. There’s no copy of notice of strike. free ingress to or egress from the employer's premises for lawful purposes,
or obstruct public thoroughfares."
ISSUE:
Whether there was indeed an illegal strike. In fine, the legality of a strike is determined not only by compliance with its
legal formalities
RULING: YES. but also by the means by which it is carried out.
Stoppage of work due to welga ng bayan is in the nature of a general strike,
an extended sympathy strike. It affects numerous employers including those
who do not have a dispute with their employees regarding their terms and
conditions of employment. Employees who have no labor dispute with their
employer but who, on a day they are scheduled to work, refuse to work and
instead join a welga ng bayan commit an illegal work stoppage.

6
 Subsequently, the respondent company filed a complaint for illegal strike. 
102. Association of Independent Unions in the Phils. (AIUP) vs. NLRC  The day before, petitioners filed a complaint for unfair labor practice and
G.R. No. 120505, March 25, 1999 illegal lockout* against the respondent company. In a consolidated
PURISIMA, J. Decision, the Labor Arbiter declared as illegal the strike staged by the
petitioners, and dismissed the charge of illegal lockout and unfair labor
A strike is a legitimate weapon in the universal struggle for existence. It is practice.  
considered as the most effective weapon in protecting the rights of the
employees to improve the terms and conditions of their employment.  But to Issue:  Whether or not the strike staged by the petitioners was illegal.
be valid, a strike must be pursued within legal bounds.
Ruling:  Yes.  The NLRC correctly ruled that the strike staged by
Facts:  Joel Densing, Henedino Mirafuentes, Christopher Patentes, and petitioners was in the nature of a union-recognition-strike.  A union-
Andres Tejana, the petitioner herein, were casual employees of respondent recognition-strike, as its legal designation implies, is calculated to compel
CENAPRO Chemicals Corporation.  In the said company, the collective the employer to recognize one's union and not other contending group, as
bargaining representative of all rank and file employees was CENAPRO the employees' bargaining representative to work out a collective bargaining
Employees Association (CCEA), with which respondent company had a agreement despite the striking union's doubtful majority status to merit
collective bargaining agreement (CBA).  Their CBA excluded casual voluntary recognition and lack of formal certification as the exclusive
employees from membership in the incumbent union. representative in the bargaining unit.  It is undisputed that at the time the
petition for certification election was filed by AIUP, the petitioner union,
The casual employees who have rendered at least one to six years of service there was an existing CBA between the respondent company and CCEA,
sought regularization of their employment. When their demand was denied, the incumbent bargaining representative of all rank and file employees. The
they formed themselves into an organization and affiliated with the petition should have not been entertained because of the contract bar rule.
Association of Independent unions in the Philippines (AIUP). Thereafter,
AIUP filed a petition for certification election, which petition was opposed A strike is a legitimate weapon in the universal struggle for existence. It
by the respondent company. The CCEA anchored its opposition on the is considered as the most effective weapon in protecting the rights of
contract bar rule. the employees to improve the terms and conditions of their
employment.  But to be valid, a strike must be pursued within legal
The union filed a notice of strike, minutes of strike vote, and the needed bounds. The right to strike as a means for the attainment of social justice is
documentation, with the Department of Labor and Employment cited as never meant to oppress or destroy the employer. The law provides limits for
grounds the acts of respondent company constituting unfair labor practice, its exercise.  Among such limits are the prohibited activities under Article
more specifically coercion of employees and systematic union busting.  On 264 of the Labor Code, particularly paragraph (e), which states that no
July 23, 1992, the union proceeded to stage a strike, in the course of person engaged in picketing shall: a) commit any act of violence,
which, the union perpetrated illegal acts.  The strikers padlocked the gate coercion, or intimidation or b) obstruct the free ingress to or egress
of the company. The areas fronting the gate of the company were barricaded from the employer's premises for lawful purposes or c) obstruct public
and blocked by union strikers. The strikers also prevented and coerced other thoroughfares.  Even if the strike is valid because its objective or purpose
non-striking employees from reporting for work.  Because of such illegal is lawful, the strike may still be declared invalid where the means employed
activities, the respondent company filed a petition for injunction with the are illegal.
NLRC, which granted a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO), enjoining the
strikers from doing further acts of violence, coercion, or intimidation and It follows therefore that the dismissal of the officers of the striking union
from blocking free ingress and egress to the company premises. was justified and valid. Their dismissal as a consequence of the illegality of
the strike staged by them finds support in Article 264 (a) of the Labor Code,

7
pertinent portion of which provides: " x x Any union officer who knowingly During the grievance proceedings, however, most of the employees were
participates in an illegal strike and any x x union officer who knowingly redeployed, while others accepted early retirement. As a result only 17
participates in the commission of illegal acts during a strike may be employees remained when the parties proceeded to the third level of the
declared to have lost his employment status. grievance procedure. 

*Lockout means temporary refusal of the employer to furnish work as a In a meeting on October 26, 1990, petitioner informed private respondent
result of an industrial or labor dispute. union that if by October 30, 1990, the remaining 17 employees could not
yet be redeployed, their services would be terminated on November 2,
1990. The said meeting adjourned when Mr. Daniel S. L. Borbon II, a
103. SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. NATIONAL representative of the union, declared that there was nothing more to discuss
LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, SECOND DIVISION, AND in view of the deadlock. 
SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION EMPLOYEES UNION (SMCEU)-
PTGWO, respondents.  Private respondent then filed with the National Conciliation and Mediation
G.R. No.  99266. March 2, 1999. Board (NCMB) of DOLE a notice to strike for (a) bargaining deadlock, (b)
JUSTICE PURISIMA union busting, (c) gross violation of the CBA, (d) failure to the union with a
list of vacant positions, and (e) defiance of voluntary arbitration award. 
DOCTRINE:
Petitioner moved to dismiss, but the NCMB failed to act on the motion. 
For failing to exhaust all the steps in the grievance machinery and
arbitration proceedings provided in the Collective Bargaining Agreement, SMC then filed a complaint with the NLRC, which the NLRC dismissed for
the notice of strike should have been dismissed by the NLRC and private lack of merit. 
respondent union ordered to proceed with the grievance and arbitration
proceedings.  ISSUE:

Whether NLRC erred in not compelling arbitration and to enjoin a strike in

San Miguel Corporation (SMC), alleging the need to streamline its HELD:
operations due to financial losses, shut down some of its plants and declared
55 positions as redundant - 17 in Business Logistics Division, 17 in Ayala Yes, the NLRC erred in not compelling arbitration and not enjoining the
Operations Center, 18 in Magnolia Manila Buying Station.  strike. 

The private respondent, Union, filed several grievance cases for the said The grounds for strike and lockout are laid down in Rule XXII, Section I, of
retrenched employees, praying for redeployment of the said employees to the Rules and Regulations Implementing Book V of the Labor Code - to
the other divisions of the company.  wit: a) bargaining deadlock; and, b) ULP. However, violation of the CBA
shall not be considered ULP and shall not be strikeable. 
The grievance proceedings were conducted pursuant to Sections 5 and 8,
Article VIII of the parties’ 1990 CBA.  In this case, the grounds relied upon by the private respondent union are
non- strikeable. The issues which may lend substance to the notice of strike
filed by the private respondent union are: collective bargaining deadlock

8
and petitioner’s alleged violation of the collective bargaining agreement. two or more persons, who, for preventing or putting an end to a lawsuit,
These grounds, however, appear more illusory than real.  adjust their difficulties by mutual consent in the manner which they agree
on, and which everyone of them prefers to the hope of gaining, balanced by
Collective Bargaining Deadlock is defined as “the situation between the
the danger of losing."
labor and the management of the company where there is failure in the
collective bargaining negotiations resulting in a stalemate.”11 This
situation, is non-existent in the present case since there is a Board assigned Facts:
on the third level (Step 3) of the grievance machinery to resolve the
conflicting views of the parties. Instead of asking the Conciliation Board Reformist Union, a labor union staged a strike against R.B. Liner in 1989.
composed of five representatives each from the company and the union, to R.B. Liner petitioned the Secretary of Labor to assume jurisdiction over the
decide the conflict, petitioner declared a deadlock, and thereafter, filed a dispute or certify it to the NLRC. The Secretary certified the case to the
notice of strike. For failing to exhaust all the steps in the grievance NLRC for compulsory arbitration. The certified case was dismissed after
machinery and arbitration proceedings provided in the Collective the union and the company reached an agreement providing, among others,
Bargaining Agreement, the notice of strike should have been dismissed by
for the holding of a certification election. Later, when the union filed a
the NLRC and private respondent union ordered to proceed with the
grievance and arbitration proceedings.  complaint for unfair labor practice against the company, i.e. illegal lockout
that allegedly took place after the strike and the election, R.B. Liner
countered with another case that sought to declare the 1989 strike illegal.
As to the alleged violation of the CBA, the Court held that such a violation
is chargeable against the private respondent union. In abandoning the Issue: WON the company can still contest the legality of the 1989 strike.
grievance proceedings and stubbornly refusing to avail of the remedies
under the CBA, private respondent violated the mandatory provisions of the Held:
collective bargaining agreement.
No, the company can no longer contest the legality of the strike.
104. REFORMIST UNION OF R.B. LINER, INC. v. NLRC
G.R. NO. 120482 January 27, 1997 DAVIDE, JR., J.
The company itself sought compulsory arbitration in order to resolve that
Doctrine: very issue. The dispute or strike was settled when the company and the
union entered into an agreement. By acceding to the peaceful settlement
QUESTION OF LEGALITY WAIVED WHEN PARTIES ENTERED brokered by the NLRC, the company waived the issue of the illegality of
INTO AN AGREEMENT THROUGH COMPULSORY the strike. The very nature of compulsory arbitration makes the settlement
ARBITRATION. — The private respondents can no longer contest the binding upon the company. Compulsory arbitration has been defined both
legality of the strike held by the petitioners as the private respondents as “the process of settlement of labor disputes by a government agency
themselves sought compulsory arbitration in order to resolve that very issue. which has the authority to investigate and to make an award which is
binding on all the parties, and as a mode of arbitration where the parties are
AGREEMENT THEREIN WAS IN THE NATURE OF A “compelled to accept the resolution of their dispute through arbitration by a
COMPROMISE AGREEMENT, HAS THE EFFECT OF RES third party.” Clearly then, the legality of the strike had already been
JUDICATA. — The agreement entered into by the company and the union, resolved. The case certified by the Labor Secretary to the NLRC was
was in the nature of a compromise agreement, i.e., "an agreement between

9
dismissed after the union and the company drew up the agreement. This Whether or not the strike is illegal?
conclusively disposed of the strike issue.
Ruling:
105. MSF TIRE AND RUBBER, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS
G.R. NO. 128632 No, the right to picket as a means of communicating the facts of a labor
dispute is a phase of the freedom of speech guaranteed by the constitution.
Doctrine: If peacefully carried out, it can not be curtailed even in the absence of
employer-employee relationship.
The 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 create The right is, however, not an absolute one. While peaceful picketing is
an impression that a labor dispute with which they have no connection or entitled to protection as an exercise of free speech, we believe the courts are
interest exists between them and the picketing union or constitute an not without power to confine or localize the sphere of communication or the
invasion of their rights. demonstration to the parties to the labor dispute, including those with
related interest, and to insulate establishments or persons with no industrial
Thus, an “innocent bystander,” who seeks to enjoin a labor strike, must connection or having interest totally foreign to the context of the dispute.
satisfy the court that aside from the grounds specified in Rule 58 of the Thus the right may be regulated at the instance of third parties or innocent
Rules of Court, it is entirely different from, without any connection bystanders if it appears that the inevitable result of its exercise is to create
whatsoever to, either party to the dispute and, therefore, its interests are an impression that a labor dispute with which they have no connection or
totally foreign to the context thereof. interest exists between them and the picketing union or constitute an
invasion of their rights. In one case decided by this Court, we upheld a trial
In the case at bar, petitioner cannot be said not to have such connection courts injunction prohibiting the union from blocking the entrance to a feed
to the dispute. mill located within the compound of a flour mill with which the union had a
dispute. Although sustained on a different ground, no connection was found
Facts: between the two mills owned by two different corporations other than their
being situated in the same premises. It is to be noted that in the instances
A labor dispute arose between Philtread Tire and Rubber Corporation cited, peaceful picketing has not been totally banned but merely regulated.
(Philtread) and private respondent, Philtread Tire Workers Union (Union), And in one American case, a picket by a labor union in front of a motion
as a result of which the Union filed on May 27, 1994 a notice of strike in picture theater with which the union had a labor dispute was enjoined by the
the National Conciliation and Mediation Board-National Capital Region court from being extended in front of the main entrance of the building
charging Philtread with unfair labor practices for allegedly engaging in housing the theater wherein other stores operated by third persons were
union-busting for violation of the provisions of the collective bargaining located.[12] (Emphasis added)
agreement. This was followed by picketing and the holding of assemblies
by the Union outside the gate of Philtreads plant at Km. 21, East Service Thus, an innocent bystander, who seeks to enjoin a labor strike, must
Road, South Superhighway, Muntinlupa, Metro Manila. Philtread, on the satisfy the court that aside from the grounds specified in Rule 58 of the
other hand, filed a notice of lock-out on May 30, 1994 which it carried out Rules of Court, it is entirely different from, without any connection
on June 15, 1994. whatsoever to, either party to the dispute and, therefore, its interests are
totally foreign to the context thereof. For instance, in PAFLU v. Cloribel,
Issue: supra, this Court held that Wellington and Galang were entirely separate
entities, different from, and without any connection whatsoever to, the
Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company, against whom the strike was

10
directed, other than the incidental fact that they are the banks landlord and officers and management personnel of Complex were also holding office at
co-lessee housed in the same building, respectively. Similarly, in Liwayway Ionics with Lawrence Qua as the President of both companies. 
Publications, Inc. v. Permanent Concrete Workers Union,[13] this Court
ruled that Liwayway was an innocent bystander and thus entitled to enjoin The Union anchors its position on the fact that Lawrence Qua is both the
the unions strike because Liwayways only connection with the employer president of Complex and Ionics and that both companies have the same set
company was the fact that both were situated in the same premises. of Board of Directors. It claims that business has not ceased at Complex but
was merely transferred to Ionics, a runaway shop. To prove that Ionics was
just a runaway shop, petitioner asserts that out of the 80,000 shares
106. COMPLEX ELECTRONICS EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION v comprising the increased capital stock of Ionics, it was Complex that owns
NLRC  majority of said shares with P1,200,000.00 as its capital subscription and
G.R. No. 121315-6; July 19, 1999  P448,000.00 as its paid up investment, compared toP800,000.00
subscription andP324,560.00 paid-up owing to the other stockholders,
Doctrine:  combined. Thus, according to the Union, there is a clear ground to pierce
1. A "runaway shop" is defined as an industrial plant moved by its owners the veil of corporate fiction. 
from one location to another to escape union labor regulations or state
laws, but the term is also used to describe a plant removed to a new
location in order to discriminate against employees at the old plant Issues:
because of their union activities. 1. Whether or not Ionics is merely a runaway shop
2. The purpose of the notice requirement is to enable the proper 2. Whether or not there was ULP 
authorities to determine after hearing whether such closure is being
done in good faith, i.e., for bona fide business reasons, or whether, to Ruling:
the contrary, the closure is being resorted to as a means of evading 1. The Union’s contentions are untenable. 
compliance with the just obligations of the employer to the employees
affected.  A "runaway shop" is defined as an industrial plant moved by its owners
from one location to another to escape union labor regulations or state laws,
Facts: Due to losses on production of the petitioner, it was constrained to but the term is also used to describe a plant removed to a new location in
cease operations. In the evening of April 6, 1992, the machinery, equipment order to discriminate against employees at the old plant because of their
and materials being used for production at Complex were pulled-out from union activities. It is one wherein the employer moves its business to
the company premises and transferred to the premises of Ionics Circuit, Inc. another location or it temporarily closes its business for anti-union
(Ionics) at Cabuyao, Laguna. The following day, a total closure of company purposes. A "runaway shop" in this sense, is a relocation motivated by anti-
operation was effected at Complex.  union animus rather than for business reasons. In this case, however, Ionics
was not set up merely for the purpose of transferring the business of
A complaint was, thereafter, filed with the Labor Arbitration Branch of the Complex. At the time the labor dispute arose at Complex, Ionics was
NLRC for unfair labor practice, illegal closure/illegal lockout, money already existing as an independent company. As earlier mentioned, it has
claims for vacation leave, sick leave, unpaid wages, 13th month pay, been in existence since July 5, 1984. It cannot, therefore, be said that the
damages and attorney’s fees. The Union alleged that the pull-out of the temporary closure in Complex and its subsequent transfer of business to
machinery, equipment and materials from the company premises, which Ionics was for anti-union purposes. The Union failed to show that the
resulted to the sudden closure of the company was in violation of Section 3 primary reason for the closure of the establishment was due to the union
and 8, Rule XIII, Book V of the Labor Code of the Philippines and the activities of the employees. 
existing CBA. Ionics was impleaded as a party defendant because the

11
The mere fact that one or more corporations are owned or controlled by the
same or single stockholder is not a sufficient ground for disregarding
107. ASSOCIATED LABOR UNIONS (ALU-TUCP) VS.
separate corporate personalities. Mere ownership by a single stockholder or
BORROMEO
by another corporation of all or nearly all of the capital stock of a
corporation is not of itself sufficient ground for disregarding the separate No. L-75736, September 29, 1988
corporate 
SARMIENTO, J.
personality. 
DOCTRINE
1. The purpose of the notice requirement is to enable the proper Strikes; Jurisdiction; Jurisdiction to try and adjudicate labor cases pertains
authorities to determine after hearing whether such closure is being done in exclusively to the proper labor officials of the Department of Labor.—The
good faith, i.e., for bona fide business reasons, or whether, to the contrary, courts of law have no jurisdiction to act on labor cases or various incidents
the closure is being resorted to as a means of evading compliance with the arising therefrom. That is basic and elementary. Jurisdiction to try and
just obligations of the employer to the employees affected. adjudicate such cases pertains exclusively to the proper labor officials of the
Department of Labor.
While the law acknowledges the management prerogative of closing the
business, it does not, however, allow the business establishment to disregard Respondent judge can not enjoin acts carried out as a consequence of the
the requirements of the law. The case of Magnolia Dairy Products v. NLRC strike without unavoidably ruling on the legality of the strike itself.—The
is quite emphatic about this.  respondent judge can not enjoin acts carried out as a consequence of the
strike without unavoidably ruling on the legality of the strike itself. (“The
The law authorizes an employer, like the herein petitioners, to terminate the strike can continue. It does not mean that this Court has ruled on the legality
employment of any employee due to the installation of labor saving devices. or illegality of the said strike.”) To say indeed that the workers had
The installation of these devices is a management prerogative, and the obstructed free passage to the strike-bound firm, is, by necessity, to say that
courts will not interfere with its exercise in the absence of abuse of the strike was illegal, notwithstanding the judge’s own words of caution
discretion, arbitrariness, or maliciousness on the part of management, as in (that he was not ruling on the legality or illegality of the strike).
this case. Nonetheless, this did not excuse petitioner from complying with Jurisdiction is vested by law and not by the demands of emergency.—The
the required written notice to the employee and to the Department of Labor fact that the poultry and piggery maintained by the private respondent
and Employment (DOLE) at least one month before the intended date of required close care and attention does not warrant the respondent judge’s
termination. This procedure enables an employee to contest the reality or assumption of jurisdiction. It did not confer on him the competence he did
good faith character of the asserted ground for the termination of his not have. Jurisdiction is vested by law and not by the demands of
services before the DOLE.  emergency.
The failure of petitioner to serve the written notice to private respondent Respondent Judge committed a grave abuse of discretion.—This is not, of
and to the DOLE, however, does not ipso facto make private respondent’s course, to say that the strike in question was, ergo, legal. As we said,
termination from service illegal so as to entitle her to reinstatement and concerted acts of labor are the domain of the labor officials, not the
payment of backwages. If at all, her termination from service is merely judiciary. Assuming, then, that the private respondent had cause for
defective because it was not tainted with bad faith or arbitrariness and was complaint—and that the strike was illegal or had become illegal as a result
due to a valid cause.  of the strikers’ resort to illegal acts—the courts are not the proper forum for
it. The gross haste, furthermore, with which the challenged TRO was issued
(it was issued on the same day the complaint was filed)—and based on the
bare word alone of Belyca (that the strikers had behaved unlawfully in the

12
course of the strike)—has not eluded this Court. This is a grave abuse of involving unfair labor practice, with the exclusive power to issue a
discretion. Plainly, it denied the workers due process of law. temporary restraining order to enjoin acts in connection therewith.
FACTS The reason for such exclusive jurisdiction is that since picketing and strikes
may be mere incidents or consequences of an unfair labor practice, it is but
As a consequence of a controversy arising from charges of unfair labor
proper that a Writ of Injunction prayed for in connection with that labor
practices against the respondent, Belyca Corporation, the petitioner filed a
dispute originate from the Court having jurisdiction over the main case
notice of strike with the then Ministry of Labor and Employment.
inasmuch as it is that Court that has cognizance of all relevant facts
Thereafter, it filed a complaint for various offenses against the private
(Erlanger & Galinger, Inc. v. Erlanger & Galinger Employees Association-
respondent ranging from unfair labor practice to non-payment of the
NATU, 104 Phil. 21 [1958]).
minimum wages. Then, it struck.
It is clear then that the Court a quo acted without jurisdiction in the case
Subsequently, the private respondent commenced suit for injunction with
before it.
the respondent Regional Trial Court. It alleged that the petitioner had
obstructed free ingress to the firm’s premises, "preventing workers of The respondent judge cannot enjoin acts carried out as a consequence
Belyca farms from entering the business establishments . . . preventing said of the strike without unavoidably ruling on the legality of the strike
workers from giving feeds and/or food to the hogs and fowls which would itself. (“The strike can continue. It does not mean that this Court has ruled
kill all of said hogs and fowls if not attended to this very day.” On the same on the legality or illegality of the said strike.”) To say indeed that the
day, the respondent judge issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) workers had obstructed free passage to the strike-bound firm, is by
"commanding herein defendants [the striking workers], their agents and/or necessity, to say that the strike was illegal, notwithstanding the judge’s own
representatives to allow plaintiff [the private respondent] or workers or words of caution (that he was not ruling on the legality or illegality of the
authorized representatives free passage to and from Belyca Farms to feed strike. For under the Labor Code: 
plaintiff’s hogs and fowls.
(E) No person engaged in picketing shall commit any act of
The petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration (to lift TRO) as well as for violence, coercion, or intimidation or obstruct the free ingress to or
the dismissal of the case on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. The egress from the employer’s premises for lawful purposes, or
respondent judge denied the motion. Then, the TRO was extended upon obstruct public thoroughfares.
filing an urgent motion "for extension of the life of the restraining order
The fact that the poultry and piggery maintained by the private respondent
previously issued to another twenty days" by Belyca Corporation.
required close care and attention does not warrant the respondent judge’s
The petitioner then came to this Court. assumption of jurisdiction. It did not confer on him the competence he did
not have. Jurisdiction is vested by law and not by the demands of
ISSUE: WON the courts of law have jurisdiction to act on labor cases or
emergency. 
various incidents arising therefrom.
This is not, of course, to say that the strike in question was, ergo, legal. As
HELD
we said, concerted acts of labor are the domain of the labor officials, not the
NONE. The courts of law have no jurisdiction to act on labor cases or judiciary. Assuming, then, that the private respondent had cause for
various incidents arising therefrom. Jurisdiction to try and adjudicate complaint—and that the strike was illegal or had become illegal as a result
such cases pertains exclusively to the proper labor officials of the of the strikers’ resort to illegal acts—the courts are not the proper forum for
Department of Labor. it. The gross haste, furthermore, with which the challenged TRO was issued
(it was issued on the same day the complaint was filed)—and based on the
In a long line of decided cases, this Court has also invariably held that the
bare word alone of Belyca (that the strikers had behaved unlawfully in the
Court of Industrial Relations has exclusive jurisdiction over labor disputes

13
course of the strike)—has not eluded this Court. This is a grave abuse of certifying the dispute to the NLRC, the union lifted its strike and, on the day
discretion. Plainly, it denied the workers due process of law. following, the striking employees, including Huyan, reported for work.

In its position paper and memorandum before the NLRC, the union averred
108. Panay Electric Company Inc. vs. NLRC  that the real reason for ordering the transfer of Huyan was to penalize him
G.R. No. 102672 October 4, 1995 for his union activities, particularly for being the suspected "Mao," author
of the column "Red Corner," in the Union's New Digest which featured an
Doctrine: item on alleged wrongdoings by top company officials at the power plant.
The State guarantees the right of all workers to self-organization, collective
bargaining and negotiations, as well as peaceful concerted activities, Petitioner company, in turn, maintained hat in declaring a strike, the Union,
including the right to strike, in accordance with law. The right to strike, including its officers and members, committed a serious breach of the "no
however, is not absolute. It has heretofore been held that a "no strike, no strike, no lock out clause," of the Collective Bargaining Agreement
lock-out" provision in the Collective Bargaining Agreement ("CBA") is a ("CBA"); and that during the strike, illegal acts were committed by the
valid stipulation although the clause may be invoked by an employer only union officers and members.
when the strike is economic in nature or one which is conducted to force
wage or other concessions from the employer that are not mandated to be Issue:
granted by the law itself. Whether or not the strike conducted by the Union from January 22 to 25,
1991 to be illegal as the same was staged in violation of the no strike, no
Facts: lock-out clause in the Collective Bargaining Agreement.
On 30 October 1990, petitioner Panay Electric Company, Inc., posted in its
premises a notice announcing the need for a "Report Clerk" who could Held:
assume the responsibility of gathering accounting and computer data at its The State guarantees the right of all workers to self-organization, collective
power plant. When nobody applied for the position, the EDP/Personnel bargaining and negotiations, as well as peaceful concerted activities,
Manager recommended Enrique Huyan who was at the time an including the right to strike, in accordance with law. The right to strike,
Administrative Personnel Assistant at the head office. Huyan was then also however, is not absolute.
a Vice President of respondent union. The recommendation was approved
by the company's President and General Manager. It has heretofore been held that a "no strike, no lock-out" provision in the
Collective Bargaining Agreement ("CBA") is a valid stipulation although
In a letter, dated 09 November 1990, Enrique Huyan informed petitioner the clause may be invoked by an employer only when the strike is economic
that he was not interested in accepting the new position for he sees it as a in nature or one which is conducted to force wage or other concessions from
demotion on his part. Eventually, on 03 December 1990, Huyan was given a the employer that are not mandated to be granted by the law itself.
"notice of dismissal" for gross insubordination. Respondent union, on 20
December 1990, filed a notice of strike. It would be inapplicable to prevent a strike which is grounded on unfair
labor practice. In this situation, it is not essential that the unfair labor
On 02 January 1990, a strike vote was taken where 113 out of 149 union practice act has, in fact, been committed; it suffices that the striking workers
members voted; the result showed 108 "yes" votes, 1 "no" vote, and 4 are shown to have acted honestly on an impression that the company has
abstentions. On 22 January 1991, the union went on strike. Forthwith, the committed such unfair labor practice and the surrounding circumstances
company filed a petition to declare the strike illegal. On 25 January 1991, could warrant such a belief in good faith.
upon receipt of an order from the Secretary of Labor and Employment

14
109. LIWAYWAY PUBLICATIONS, INC., plaintiff-appellee vs. On October 6, 1964, union members stopped and prohibited the general
PERMANENT CONCRETE WORKERS UNION, Affiliated with the manager, personnel manager, bodega-in-charge and other employees of the
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF TRDE UNIONS, HERMOGENES plaintiff from getting newsprint in their bodega. 
ATRAZO, AQUIILNO DISTOR, BENJAMIN GUTIERREZ, JOSE
RAMOS, TIBURCIO MARDO, ERNESTO ALMARIO and Plaintiff made repeated demands to the defendants not to intimidate and
DOMINGO LEANO, defendants-appellants.  threaten its employees with bodily harm and not to blockade, picket or
G.R. No. L-25003. October 23, 1981.*  prohibit plaintiff’s truck from getting newsprint in their bodega. Defendants
GUERRERO, J.:  refused and continued to refuse to give in to the demands of the plaintiff. 

DOCTRINES: As a consequence thereof, plaintiff rented another bodega during the time
A picketing labor union has no right to prevent employees of another members of the defendant union prevented its employees from entering its
company from getting in and out of its rented premises, otherwise it will be bodega in the compound of Permanent Concrete Products, Inc. and thus
held liable for damages for its acts against an innocent by- stander.  incurred expenses both in terms of bodega rentals and in transporting
The lessor of property is not the proper party in acts of mere trespass newsprint from the pier to the temporary bodega. 
committed by third persons as the lessor in such a case is not liable to
answer for damages to the lessee.  ISSUE: Whether the appellee is a third party or an “innocent by-stander”
whose right has been invaded and, therefore, entitled to protection by the
FACTS: regular courts
Plaintiff alleged that it is a second sublessee of a part of the premises of the
Permanent Concrete Products, Inc. at 1000 Cordeleria Street, Sta. Mesa, RULING:
Manila from Don Ramon Roces, a first lessee from the aforesaid company. In PAFLU v. Judge Cloribel, Justice JBL Reyes said:
The premises of the plaintiff is separated from the compound of Permanent “The right to picket as a means of communicating the facts of a
Concrete Products, Inc. by a concrete and barbed wire fence with its own labor dispute is a phrase of the freedom of speech guaranteed by
entrance and road leading to the national road. This entrance is separate and the constitution. If peacefully carried out, it cannot be curtailed
distinct from the entrance road of the Permanent Concrete Products, Inc.1  even in the absence of employer-employee relationship. 
Plaintiff further alleged that it has a bodega for its newsprint in the sublet The right is, however, not an absolute one. While peaceful
property which it uses for its printing and publishing business. The daily picketing is entitled to protection as an exercise of free speech,
supply of newsprint needed to feed its printing plant is taken from this we believe that courts are not without power to confine or
bodega.  localize the sphere of communication or the demonstration to
the parties to the labor dispute, including those with related
On September 10, 1964, the employees of the Permanent Concrete interest, and to insulate establishments or persons with no
Products, Inc. who are representatives and members of the defendant union industrial connection or having interest totally foreign to the
declared a strike against their company.  context of the dispute. Thus, the right may be regulated at the
instance of third parties or ‘innocent bystanders’ if it appears
On October 3, 1964 for unknown reasons and without legal justification, that the inevitable result of its exercise is to create an
Permanent Concrete Workers Union and its members picketed, stopped and impression that a labor dispute with which they have no
prohibited plaintiff’s truck from entering the compound to load newsprint connection or interest exists between them and the picketing
from its bodega. The union members intimidated and threatened with bodily union or constitute an invasion of their rights. In one case
harm the employees who were in the truck.  decided by this Court, we upheld a trial court’s injunction
prohibiting the union from blocking the entrance to a feed mill

15
 located within the compound of a flour mill with which the union
had a dispute. Although sustained on a different ground, no It must be stressed that the requirements of cooling-off period and 7-day
connection was found other than their being situated in the same strike ban must both be complied with although the labor union may take a
premises. It is to be noted that in the instances cited, peaceful strike vote and report the same within the statutory cooling-off period 
picketing has not been totally banned but merely regulated. And in
one American case, a picket by a labor union in front of a motion Union members who were merely instigated to participate in the illegal
picture theater with which the union had a labor dispute was strike would be treated differently. Responsibility for the illegal acts must
enjoined by the court from being extended in front of the main be on an individual and not collective basis. Therefore, although the strike
entrance of the building housing the theater wherein other stores was illegal because of the commission of illegal acts, only the union officers
operated by third persons were located.”  and strikers who engaged in violent and illegal acts against the employer are
deemed to have lost their employment status. 
We find and hold that there is no connection between the appellee
Liwayway Publications, Inc. and the striking Union, nor with the company Unjustified refusal of the striking employees to return to work and comply
against whom the strikers staged the strike, and neither are the acts of the with the employer’s requirement to undergo a medical examination was
driver of the appellee, its general manager, personnel manager, the man in- considered a waiver of their right to reinstatement. 
charge of the bodega and other employees of the appellee in reaching the
bodega to obtain newsprint therefrom to feed and supply its publishing FACTS:
business interwoven with the labor dispute between the striking Union and
the Permanent Concrete Products company. If there is a connection between Petitioner First City Interlink Transportation Co., Inc., is a public utility
appellee publishing company and the Permanent Concrete Products corporation doing business under the name and style Fil Transit.
company; it is that both are situated in the same premises, which can hardly Respondent Nagkakaisang Manggagawa ng Fil Transit-National Federation
be considered as interwoven with the labor dispute pending in the Court of of Labor (NM-NFL) is a labor union composed of employees of Fil
Industrial Relations between the strikers and their employer.  Transit. 

The union filed a notice of strike with the Bureau of Labor Relations for
  ULP against petitioner. The parties failed to reach an agreement so that the
  union went on strike. Consequently, several workers were dismissed. The
110. FIRST CITY INTERLINK TRANSPORTATION Co., Inc. vs. union filed another notice of strike alleging ULP, massive dismissal of
ROLDAN-CONFESOR  union officers and members, coercion of employees and violation of
G.R. No. 106316, May 05, 1997, Mendoza, J. workers' rights to self-organization. Conciliation conferences were held but
the union again went on strike on July 27, 1986, lifting their picket only on
DOCTRINE:  August 2, 1986. 
Requisites for a valid strike.—Pursuant to Art. 263(c)(f) of the Labor Code,
the requisites for a valid strike are as follows: (1) a notice of strike filed The Minister of Labor and Employment (MOLE) ordered reinstatement of
with the Department of Labor at least 30 days before the intended date dismissed employees and those who went on strike to return to work. Also,
thereof or 15 days in case of unfair labor practice; (2) strike vote approved the Union filed a motion for awarding of backwages. Further, the Sheriff
by a majority of the total union membership in the bargaining unit reported that only 66 employees were accepted by petitioner conditioned on
concerned, obtained by secret ballot in a meeting called for that purpose; (3) the submission of certain requirements. The Secretary of Labor ruled for the
notice given to the Department of Labor and Employment of the results of legality of the strike and awarded backwages and separation pay to the
the voting at least 7 days before the intended strike.  strikers. 

16
 COMMISSION AND LAPANDAY AGRICULTURAL &
However, petitioner contends that the strike was illegal. Petitioner also DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, respondents.
alleged that no strike vote was obtained, the result thereof was not reported G.R. Nos. 95494-97. September 7, 1995
to the MOLE, the strikers engaged in violent, illegal and criminal acts, and
it complied with the return to work order. 

DOCTRINE: 
ISSUE: Whether or not the strike was illegal.
LABOR AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION; LABOR RELATIONS;
HELD: Yes.  STRIKE; CONCEPT — A strike is "any temporary stoppage of work by
the concerted action of employees as a result of an industrial or labor
It was not shown in the pleadings that a strike vote was obtained before the dispute." It is the most preeminent of the economic weapons of workers
declaration of strike. The statement in the same order of the Labor Secretary which they unsheathe to force management to agree to an equitable sharing
that a notice of strike had been filed because several conciliation of the joint product of labor and capital. Undeniably, strikes exert some
conferences failed due to management's consistent refusal to appear is disquieting effects not only on the relationship between labor and
contrary to evidence because management was duly represented during the management but also on the general peace and progress of society. Our laws
conciliation proceedings prior to the strike.  thus regulate their exercise within reasons by balancing the interests of
labor and management together with the overarching public interest.
Even assuming that a strike vote had been taken, the strike called by the
Union was illegal because of non-observance by the Union of the DEEMED ILLEGAL IF CONDUCTED WITHIN THE SEVEN (7)
mandatory seven-day strike ban counted from the date the strike vote should DAY WAITING PERIOD; CASE AT BAR. — Applying the law to the
have been reported to the Department of Labor and Employment up to the case at bar, we rule that strike conducted by the union on October 12, 1988
time the Union staged the first strike on June 17, 1986.  is plainly illegal as it was held within the seven (7)-day waiting period
provided for by paragraph (f), Article 263 of the Labor Code, as amended.
The union was in bad faith when it conducted the strike because instead of The haste in holding the strike prevented the Department of Labor and
attending the   conciliation meetings with petitioner, it went on strike. The Employment from verifying whether it carried the approval of the majority
strike was attended by pervasive and widespread violence such as the of the union members. It set to naught an important policy consideration of
hijacking of Fil-Transit buses, barricading  of the terminal in Alabang, our law on strike. Considering this finding, we need not exhaustively rule
puncturing of tires, cutting of electric wirings, water hoses and fan belts, use on the legality of the work stoppage conducted by the union and some of
of Molotov bombs, and theft of expensive equipment such as fuel their members on September 9 and 23, 1988. Suffice to state, that the ruling
injections.  of the public respondent on the matter is supported by substantial evidence.

The commission of these illegal acts was neither isolated nor accidental but FACTS:
deliberately employed to intimidate and harass the employer and the public. Lapanday Agricultural and Development Corporation (LADECO) and
However, only the union officers and strikers who engaged in violent, Cadeco Argo Development Phils Inc. are sister companies engaged in the
illegal and criminal acts against the employer are deemed to have lost their production of bananas. Their agricultural establishments are located in
employment status in accordance with Art. 264 of the Labor Code. Davao City. They agreed to a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA)
covering the period from December 5, 1985 to November 30, 1988 with
111. TITLE: LAPANDAY WORKERS UNION, petitioners, vs. Lapanday Workers’ Union (Union). Said union  is the duly certified
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS

17
bargaining agent of the rank and file employees and is affiliated with the and those in favor of the strike won overwhelming support from the
KMU-ANGLO. workers. The result of the strike vote was then submitted to the NCMB on
October 10, 1988. Two days later, or on October 12, 1988, the Union
Before the expiration of the CBA, the management policies were initiated struck.
by the sister companies  which changed the relationship of the parties:
The gunman was later identified as Eledio Samson, an alleged member of
Sister companies contracted with Philippine Eagle Protectors and Security the new security forces of sister companies. This incident resulted to most
Agency, Inc., to provide security services. But there was an allegation that of the members of the Union refused to report for work they did not comply
guards intimidated and harassed the union members. with the “quota system” adopted by the management to bolster production
output there were allegations that the Union instructed the workers to
Seminars on Human Development and Industrial Relations (HDIR) for their reduce their production to thirty per cent (30%) Tomas Basco and 25 other
managerial and supervisory employees and the rank-and-file were workers, filed a complaint for unfair labor practice and illegal suspension
conducted which the Union claimed that the ANGLO (Alliance of against LADECO. Another complaint for unfair labor practice and illegal
Nationalist and Genuine Labor Organization) was considered belonging to dismissal was filed by the Union, together with Arquilao Bacolod and 58
other outlawed labor organizations such as the National Democratic Front other complainants. These cases were heard by Labor Arbiter Newton
or other leftist groups. A  labor-management meeting was held on August 2, Sancho.
1988 where the labor group  represented by its President Arquilao Bacolod, With the case filed by the sister companies, Labor Arbiter Antonio
and its legal counsel raised unfair labor practices such as coercion of Villanueva ruled that the Union staged an illegal strike and declared the
employees,  intimidation of the union members and union busting. They employees listed as respondents in the complaint to have lost their
agreed to allow its members to attend the seminar for the rank-and-file employment status with Lapanday Agricultural and Development
employees.  But,  the Union directed its members not to attend the seminars Corporation and Cadeco Agro Development Philippines, Inc.; and ordered
and picketed the premises of the Philippine Eagle Protectors to show their respondents (petitioners in this case) to desist from further committing an
displeasure on the hiring of the guards. illegal strike.

The Union filed on August 25, 1988, a Notice of Strike with the National Petitioners appealed the Villanueva decision to public respondent NLRC.
Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB) accusing the company of the
same issues raised during the August 2, 1988 labor-management meeting. A Before the NLRC could resolve the appeal on the Villanueva decision, 
conciliation conference was called for where it was agreed that union Labor Arbiter Sancho rendered a decision in the two (2) cases filed by the
officers would attend the HDIR seminar deleting the discussion on KMU- Union against private respondents LADECO and CADECO declaring
ANGLO and guidelines governing the guards would be established. LADECO and CADECO guilty of unfair labor practices and illegal
dismissal and ordered the reinstatement of the dismissed employees of
On September 8, 1988, Danilo Martinez, a member of the Board of private respondents, with backwages and other benefits. It considered the
Directors of the Sister companies charged the Union with economic refusal of the workers to report for work on September 9, 1988, justified by
sabotage through slowdown to which they filed charges against the Union the circumstance then prevailing which is the killing of Danilo Martinez on
and its members for illegal strike, unfair labor practice and damages, with September 8,1988.
prayer for injunction.
NLRC upheld the decision of Labor Arbiter Villanueva. The Union filed its
City Mayor Rodrigo Duterte intervened but the dialogues proved fruitless as MR but to no avail. Hence, this petition claiming that NLRC gravely abused
sister companies refused to withdraw the cases earlier filed with the Union. its discretion in: a) declaring that their activities, from September 9, 1988 to
Thereafter, a strike vote was conducted among the members of the Union

18
October 12, 1988, were strike activities; and b) declaring that the strike considered when the strike or lockout vote was taken. The Ministry may, at
staged on October 12, 1988 was illegal. its own initiative or upon the request of any affected party, supervise the
conduct of secret balloting. In every case, the union or the employer shall
ISSUE:  furnish the Ministry the results of the votingat least seven (7) days before
Whether strike staged on October  12, 1988 illegal the intended strike or lockout subject to the cooling-off period herein
provided.
HELD:  
Yes, as it was held within the seven (7) day waiting period provided for by Article 264 of the same Code reads:
paragraph (f), Article 263 of the Labor Code, as amended. The haste in
holding the strike prevented the Department of Labor and Employment Art. 264. Prohibited activities. — (a) No labor organization or employer
from verifying whether it carried the approval of the majority of the union shall declare a strike or lockout without first having bargained collectively
members.  Hence, there was no grave abuse of discretion committed. in accordance with Title VII of this Book or without first having filed the
notice required in the preceding Article or without the necessary strike or
RATIO: The applicable laws are Articles 263 and 264 of the Labor Code, as lockout vote first having been obtained and reported to the Ministry.
amended by E.O. No. 111, dated December 24, 1986. 
xxx xxx xxx
Paragraphs (c) and (f) of Article 263 of the Labor Code, as amended by
E.O. 111, provides: . . . . Any union officer who knowingly participates in an illegal strike and
any worker or union officer who knowingly participates in the commission
(c) In cases of bargaining deadlocks, the duly certified or recognized of illegal acts during a strike may be declared to have lost his employment
bargaining agent may file anotice of strike or the employer may file, notice status: Provided that mere participation of a worker in a lawful strike shall
of lockout with the Ministry at least 30 days before the intended date not constitute sufficient ground for termination of his employment, even if a
thereof. In cases of unfair labor practice, the notice shall be 15 days and in replacement had been hired by the employer during such lawful strike.
the absence of a duly certified or recognized bargaining agent, the notice of (emphasis ours).
strike may be filed by any legitimate labor organization in behalf of its
members. However, in case of dismissal from employment of union officers 112. Samahan ng Manggagawa sa Moldex Products vs NLRC
duly elected in accordance with the union constitution and by-laws, which GR 119467, February 1, 2000
may constitute union busting where the existence of the union is threatened, PURISIMA, J.
the 15-daycooling-off period shall not apply and the union may take action
immediately. Doctrine:

xxx xxx xxx A strike staged without the submission of the results of the strike-vote is
illegal pursuant to Article 264 of the Labor Code.
(f) A decision to declare a strike must be approved by a majority of the total
union membership in the bargaining unit concerned, obtained by secret Facts:
ballot in meetings or referenda called for that purpose. A decision to declare
a lockout must be approved by a majority of the board of directors of the In the earlier part of 1993, petitioners and private respondents negotiated for
corporation or association or of the partners in a partnership, obtained by the renewal of their Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA). However due
secret ballot in a meeting called for that purpose. The decision shall be valid to some economic differences, the negotiations ended in a deadlock.
for the duration of the dispute based on substantially the same grounds

19
Petitioners filed a notice of strike with the NCMB. They also conducted a confirm that the strike was illegal for failure to submit the strike vote to the
strike vote among its members and the results of the voting were thereafter NCMB and due to the acts of violence, threats and coercion committed
conveyed to the Alliance of Nationalist and Genuine Labor Organization during the strike. The requirements of procedural due process were
(ANGLO) for submission to NCMB, but for some reasons, the same was complied with as both parties were allowed to present their witnesses and
not made. evidence, although petitioner opted instead to file a memorandum.

Petitioners went on a strike without the report of the strike vote submitted to Anent the Solicitor General's stance that the strike conducted by petitioners
NCMB. Respondents filed a Petition to Declared Strike Illegal and was illegal, the records of the case and the proceedings before Labor Arbiter
Authorize Dismissal of the Officers and Other Employees for the Illegal Madriaga confirm the same. Aside from not submitting the result of the
Acts with the NLRC. The respondents alleged that the strike conducted was strike-vote to the NCMB, petitioners also committed acts of violence,
attended with acts of violence, threats, and coercion. It further alleged that threats, coercion and intimidation during the strike.
petitioners barricaded the three gates of Moldex.
It bears stressing that factual findings of labor officials are conclusive and
Efforts were made to reach an amicable settlement but it failed. Trial ensued binding on the Supreme Court when supported by substantial evidence.
and the Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of the respondents. The LA held that After going over the records on hand, the Court discerns no ground for
the strike committed was illegal and declared that the union officers as well disturbing the above-quoted findings of Labor Arbiter Madriaga as the same
as those individual member unions who committed prohibited acts in the are basically supported by substantial evidence and his conclusion accords
course of the strike to have validly forfeited their employment status. with law.

Issue:
113. NATIONAL FEDERATION OF SUGAR WORKERS V.
Whether or not the strike was illegal. OVEJERA

Ruling: In requiring a strike notice and a cooling-off period, the avowed intent of
the law is to provide an opportunity for mediation and conciliation. It thus
The strike was illegal. directs the MOLE "to exert all efforts at mediation and conciliation to effect
a voluntary settlement" during the cooling-off period. It would indeed be
Art. 264 of the Labor Code provides in part that no strike shall be conducted self-defeating for the law to imperatively require the filing on a strike notice
without having first filed a notice of strike, or without the necessary strike and strike-vote report without at the same time making the prescribed
or lockout vote first having been obtained and reported to the Ministry. waiting periods mandatory.

In this case, the result of the strike vote was not submitted to the NCMB FACTS: NFSW has been the bargaining agent of Central
making the strike staged illegal. Also, they committed acts of violence, Azucarera (CAC) rank and file employees and has concluded with CAC a
threats, coercion and intimidation during the strike. The employment of the collective bargaining agreement. The parties agreed to maintain the present
members and of the officers who committed prohibited acts in the course of practice on the grant of Christmas bonus, milling bonus and amelioration
the strike were declared forfeited. bonus.

The Court is of the opinion that the NLRC committed grave abuse of NFSW struck allegedly to compel the payment of 13th month pay
discretion in remanding the case as the facts are already clear and complete. in addition to the Christmas, milling, and amelioration bonuses being
The records of the case and the proceedings before the Labor Arbiter enjoyed by CAC workers. To settle the strike, a compromise agreement was

20
concluded between CAC and NFSW, where the parties agreed to abide by
the final decision of the Supreme Court in any case involving the 13th month If only the filing of the strike notice and the strike-vote report
pay law if it is clearly held that the employer is liable to pay a 13th month would be deemed mandatory, but not the waiting periods so specifically and
pay separate and distinct from the bonuses already given. emphatically prescribed by law, the purposes for which the filing of the
strike notice and strike-vote report is required would not be achieved, as
NFSW filed a motion to strike after the refusal of the CAC to when a strike is declared immediately after a strike notice is served, or
attend to its demand. CAC then filed a petition to declare the strike illegal when — as in the instant case — the strike-vote report is filed with MOLE
because the strike was declared before the expiration of the 15-day cooling after the strike had actually commenced Such interpretation of the law
period for unfair labor practice strike and the strike was staged before the ought not and cannot be countenanced. It would indeed be self-defeating for
lapse of 7 days from the submission to MOLE of the result of the strike the law to imperatively require the filing on a strike notice and strike-vote
vote. report without at the same time making the prescribed waiting periods
mandatory.
ISSUE: Whether the strike declared by NFSW is illegal, the
resolution of which mainly depends on the mandatory or discretionary In requiring a strike notice and a cooling-off period, the avowed
character of the cooling-off period and the 7-day strike ban report to MOLE intent of the law is to provide an opportunity for mediation and conciliation.
of the result of a strike-vote. It thus directs the MOLE "to exert all efforts at mediation and conciliation
to effect a voluntary settlement" during the cooling-off period . As applied
RULING: The cooling off-period and the 7-day strike ban after the to the CAC-NFSW dispute regarding the 13th month pay, MOLE
strike-vote report were mandatory. NFSW strike is illegal. intervention could have possibly induced CAC to provisionally give the
13th month pay in order to avert great business loss arising from the project
 The NFSW declared the strike six (6) days after filing a strike strike, without prejudice to the subsequent resolution of the legal dispute by
notice, i.e., before the lapse of the mandatory cooling-off period. It also competent authorities; or mediation/conciliation could have convinced
failed to file with the MOLE before launching the strike a report on the NFSW to at least postpone the intended strike so as to avoid great waste and
strike-vote, when it should have filed such report "at least seven (7) days loss to the sugar central, the sugar planters and the sugar workers
before the intended strike." Under the circumstances, we are perforce themselves, if the strike would coincide with the mining season.
constrained to conclude that the strike staged by petitioner is not in
conformity with law.
114. PHILTREAD WORKERS UNION (PTWU), vs. SECRETARY
When the law says "the labor union may strike" should the dispute NIEVES R. CONFESOR.
"remain unsettled until the lapse of the requisite number of days (cooling-
off period) from the filing of the notice," the unmistakable implication is G.R. No. 117169. March 12, 1997.*
that the union may not strike before the lapse of the cooling-off period.
Similarly, the mandatory character of the 7-day strike ban after the report on DOCTRINE:
the strike-vote is manifest in the provision that "in every case," the union Article 263 (g) of the Labor Code does not violate the workers’
shall furnish the MOLE with the results of the voting "at least seven (7) constitutional right to strike. The section provides in part, viz.: “When in his
days before the intended strike, subject to the (prescribed) cooling-off opinion, there exists a labor dispute causing or likely to cause a strike or
period." It must be stressed that the requirements of cooling-off period and lockout in an industry indispensable to the national interest, the Secretary of
7-day strike ban must both be complied with, although the labor union may Labor and Employment may assume jurisdiction over the dispute and
take a strike vote and report the same within the statutory cooling-off decide it or certify the same to the Commission for compulsory arbitration. .
period. . .” The foregoing article clearly does not interfere with the workers’ right to

21
strike but merely regulates it, when in the exercise of such right, national employees are intended to be protected and not one of them is given undue
interests will be affected. The rights granted by the Constitution are not preference.
absolute. They are still subject to control and limitation to ensure that they
are not exercised arbitrarily. The interests of both the employers and The Labor Code vests upon the Secretary of Labor the discretion to
employees are intended to be protected and not one of them is given undue determine what industries are indispensable to national interest. Thus, upon
preference. the determination of the Secretary of Labor that such industry is
indispensable to the national interest, it will assume jurisdiction over the
FACTS: labor dispute of said industry. The assumption of jurisdiction is in the nature
On May 27, 1994, petitioner Philtread Tire Workers Union (PTWU), filed a of police power measure. This is done for the promotion of the common
notice of strike, on grounds of unfair labor practice, more specifically union good considering that a prolonged strike or lockout can be inimical to the
busting and violation of CBA. Three days after, private respondent Philtreat national economy. The Secretary of Labor acts to
Tire and Rubber Corporation filed a notice of lockout, It also filed a petition maintain industrial peace. Thus, his certification for compulsory arbitration
to declare illegal the work slowdowns staged by the petitioner Union. Both is not intended to impede the workers’ right to strike but to obtain a speedy
cases were then consolidated. Several conciliation meetings were conducted settlement of the dispute.
but the parties failed to settle their dispute.
(2) We do not agree with the petitioners that the respondent company is not
Then on June 15, 1994, private respondent declared a company wide indispensable to national interest considering that the tire industry has
lockout which continued until August 22, 1994. There were about eighty already been liberalized. Philtread supplies 22% of the tire products in the
(80) union members who were consequently dismissed. This also brought country. Moreover, it employs about 700 people.
about the filing of the union members of a notice to strike in self-defense
As observed by the Secretary of Labor, viz.: “The Company is one of the
NLRC- The slowdowns engaged in by respondents are declared illegal and tire manufacturers in the country employing more or less 700 workers. Any
by engaging in such illegal activities, respondents whose names appear in work disruption thereat, as a result of a labor dispute will certainly
the petition are deemed to have lost their employment with petitioner. prejudice the employment and livelihood of its workers and their
dependents. Furthermore, the labor dispute may lead to the possible
On August 31, 1994, private respondent corporation requested the Secretary closure of the Company and loss of employment to hundreds of its workers.
of Labor to assume jurisdiction over the labor dispute. Hence, on September This will definitely aggravate the already worsening unemployment
8, 1994, Secretary Confesor issued the assailed order. situation in the country and discourage foreign and domestic investors from
further investing in the country. There is no doubt, therefore, that the labor
ISSUE: (1) Whether or not the decision ordered by Sec. Confesor violated dispute in the Country is imbued with national interest.
the workers’ right to strike which is provided for by Section 3, Article XIII
of the Constitution. The intervention of the Secretary of Labor was therefore necessary to settle
(2) Whether or not this case in imbued with national interest the labor dispute which had lingered and which had affected both
respondent company and petitioner union. Had it not been so, the deadlock
RULING: will remain and the situation will remain uncertain.
The foregoing article clearly does not interfere with the workers’ right to
strike but merely regulates it, when in the exercise of such right, national Thus, it cannot be deemed that the Secretary of Labor had acted with grave
interests will be affected. The rights granted by the Constitution are not abuse of discretion in issuing the assailed order as she had a well-founded
absolute. They are still subject to control and limitation to ensure that they basis in issuing the assailed order. The abuse of discretion must be so patent
are not exercised arbitrarily. The interests of both the employers and and gross as to amount to an evasion of positive duty or to a virtual refusal

22
to perform a duty enjoined by law, or to act at all in contemplation of law, UNIVERSITY, submitted its collective bargaining proposals to the latter.
as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner by However, one item was left unresolved and this was the inclusion or
reason of passion or personal hostility. exclusion of the following positions in the scope of the bargaining unit: a.
Secretaries b. Registrars c. Accounting Personnel d. Guidance Counselors.
Considering the foregoing premises, we find no merit in the instant petition.
ACCORDINGLY, the assailed order of the Secretary of Labor dated This matter was submitted for voluntary arbitration. On November 8, 1994,
September 8, 1992 is hereby AFFIRMED. the panel of voluntary arbitrators rendered a decision, the Panel hereby
resolves to exclude the above-mentioned secretaries, registrars, chief of the
115. UNIVERSITY OF IMMACULATE CONCEPCION, INC. vs. accounting department, cashiers and guidance counselors from the coverage
THE HONORABLE SECRETARY OF LABOR, G.R. No. 151379. of the bargaining unit. The accounting clerks and the accounting staff
January 14, 2005. member are hereby ordered included in the bargaining unit.”

DOCTRINE: The UNION moved for the reconsideration of the above decision pending
While the Court recognizes the exercise of management prerogatives and the resolution of its motion (which was denied by panel of voluntary
often declines to interfere with the legitimate business decisions of the arbitrators), on Dec 9, 1994, it filed a notice of strike with the National
employer, this privilege is not absolute but subject to exceptions, such as Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB) on the grounds of bargaining
when the Secretary of Labor assumes jurisdiction over labor disputes deadlock and unfair labor practice. During the thirty (30) day cooling-off
involving industries indispensable to the national interest.—This Court period, two union members were dismissed by petitioner. Consequently, the
finds no merit in the UNIVERSITY’s contention. In Metrolab Industries, UNION went on strike . On January 23, 1995, the then Secretary of Labor,
Inc. v. Roldan-Confesor, this Court declared that it recognizes the exercise Ma. Nieves R. Confesor, issued an Order assuming jurisdiction over the
of management prerogatives and it often declines to interfere with the labor dispute.
legitimate business decisions of the employer. This is in keeping with the
general principle embodied in Article XIII, Section 3 of the Constitution, Thereafter, the UNIVERSITY gave the respondents two choices: to resign
which is further echoed in Article 211 of the Labor Code. However, as from the UNION and remain employed as confidential employees or resign
expressed in PAL v. National Labor Relations Commission, this privilege is from their confidential positions and remain members of the UNION. The
not absolute, but subject UNIVERSITY relayed to these employees that they could not remain as
to exceptions. One of these exceptions is when the Secretary of Labor confidential employees and at the same time as members or officers of the
assumes jurisdiction over labor disputes involving industries indispensable Union. However, the individual respondents remained steadfast in their
to the national interest under Article 263(g) of the Labor Code claim that they could still retain their confidential positions while being
members or officers of the Union. Hence, UNIVERSITY sent notices of
When the Secretary of Labor ordered the UNIVERSITY to suspend the termination to the individual respondents. On March
effect of the termination of the individual respondents, the Secretary did not 10, 1995, the UNION filed another notice of strike, this time citing as a
exceed her jurisdiction, nor did the Secretary gravely abuse the same. It reason the
must be pointed out that one of the substantive evils which Article 263(g) of UNIVERSITY’s termination of the individual respondents.
the Labor Code seeks to curb is the exacerbation of a labor dispute to the
further detriment of the national interest. ISSUE: Whether or not the Secretary cannot take cognizance of an issue
involving
FACTS: employees who are not part of the bargaining unit.
The UNION, as the certified bargaining agent of all rank and file employees
of the Ruling:

23
While the Court recognizes the exercise of management prerogatives and (116) TRANS-ASIA SHIPPING LINES, INC.-UNLICENSED CREWS
often declines to interfere with the legitimate business decisions of the EMPLOYEES UNION-ASSOCIATED LABOR UNIONS (TASLI-
employer, this privilege is not absolute but subject to exceptions, such as ALU) VS. COURT OF APPEALS
when the Secretary of Labor assumes jurisdiction over labor disputes G.R. No. 145428. July 7, 2004.
involving industries indispensable to the national interest.—This Court CALLEJO, SR., J.
finds no merit in the UNIVERSITY’s contention. In Metrolab Industries,
Inc. v. Roldan-Confesor, this Court declared that it recognizes DOCTRINES: When the Secretary of Labor assumes jurisdiction over a
the exercise of management prerogatives and it often declines to interfere labor dispute in an industry indispensable to national interest or certifies
with the legitimate business decisions of the employer. This is in keeping the same to the NLRC for compulsory arbitration, such assumption or
with the general principle embodied in Article XIII, Section 3 of the certification shall have the effect of automatically enjoining the intended or
Constitution, which is further echoed in Article 211 of the Labor Code. impending strike or lockout. Moreover, if one had already taken place, all
However, as expressed inPAL v. National Labor Relations Commission, striking workers shall immediately return to work and the employer shall
this privilege is not absolute, but subject to exceptions. One of these immediately resume operations and readmit all workers under the same
exceptions is when the Secretary of Labor assumes terms and conditions prevailing before the strike or lockout.
jurisdiction over labor disputes involving industries indispensable to the
national interest under Article 263(g) of the Labor Code Article 263 [g] constitutes a limitation or exception to the management
prerogative of hiring, firing, transfer, demotion and promotion of
When the Secretary of Labor ordered the UNIVERSITY to suspend the employees.  And to the extent that Article 263 [g] calls for the admission of
effect of the termination of the individual respondents, the Secretary did not all workers under the same terms and conditions prevailing before the
exceed her jurisdiction, nor did the Secretary gravely abuse the same. It strike, the employer is restricted from exercising its generally unbounded
must be pointed out that one of the substantive evils which Article 263(g) of right to transfer or reassign its employees.
the Labor Code seeks to curb is the exacerbation of a labor dispute to the
further detriment of the national interest. It is well to remind both parties FACTS: On July 6 and 7, 1999, Petitioners-Unions filed separate notices of
herein that the main reason or rationale for the exercise of the Secretary of strike with the NCMB-RB VII against the respondent on the ground of
Labor and Employment’s power under Article 263(g) of the Labor Code, as ULP. Then Secretary of Labor Bienvenido E. Laguesma intervened and
amended, is the maintenance and upholding of the status quo while the issued an Order dated July 20, 1999 certifying the labor dispute to the
dispute is being adjudicated. NLRC for compulsory arbitration and enjoining any strike or lock-out.
Despite the aforesaid order, the petitioners went on strike on July 23
Indeed, it is clear that the act of the UNIVERSITY of dismissing the paralyzing the respondents operations. 
individual respondents from their employment became the impetus for the
UNION to declare a second notice of strike. It is not a question anymore of The SOLE was thus constrained to issue the Order dated July 23, 1999
whether or not the terminated employees, the individual respondents herein, directing all striking workers to return to work within twelve (12) hours
are part of the bargaining unit. Any act committed during the pendency of from receipt of this Order and for the Company to accept them back under
the dispute that tends to give rise to further contentious issues or increase the same terms and conditions prevailing before the strike. On even date,
the tensions between the parties should be considered an act of exacerbation twenty-one (21) of the striking workers, including the individual petitioners,
and should not be allowed were dismissed from employment by the respondent for alleged violation of
the cease-and-desist directive contained in the Order of July 20, 1999 by
waging an illegal strike. 

24
The bone of contention between the parties hinged on the proper be above the law. Discretion is defined as the act or the liberty to decide,
interpretation of the phrase for the company to accept them back under the according to the principles of justice and one’s ideas of what is right and
same terms and conditions prevailing before the strike. The terminated proper under the circumstances, without wilfullness or favor. Where
workers asserted that said phrase must be construed to mean that they be anything is left to any person to be done according to his discretion, the law
reinstated to their former assignments. The respondent posited that it refers intends it must be done with a sound discretion, and according to law. The
only to their salary grades, rank and seniority, but cannot encompass the discretion conferred upon officers by law is not a capricious or arbitrary
usurpation of managements prerogative to determine where its employees discretion, but an impartial discretion guided and controlled in its exercise
are to be assigned nor to determine their job assignments. by fixed legal principles. It is not a mental discretion to be exercised ex
gratia, but a legal discretion to be exercised in conformity with the spirit of
ISSUE/S: Whether or not the striking employees may be reinstated in their the law, and in a manner to subserve and not to impede or defeat the ends of
former assignments by virtue of the phrase "for the company to accept them substantial justice. From the foregoing, it is quite apparent that no matter
back under the same terms and conditions prevailing before the strike" in how broad the exercise of discretion is, the same must be within the
the Order issued by the SOLE? confines of law. Thus, the wide latitude of discretion given the Secretary
under Art. 263(g) shall and must be within the sphere of law. 
RULING: YES. The respondent cannot rightfully exercise its
management’s prerogative to determine where its employees are to be Time and again, this Court has held that when an official bypasses the law
assigned or to determine their job assignments in view of the explicit on the asserted ground of attaining a laudable objective, the same will not
directive contained in the Orders of the SOLE to accept the striking workers be maintained if the intendment or purpose of the law would be defeated. 
back under the same terms and conditions prevailing prior to the strike. 
FACTS:
The order simply means that the employees should be returned to their ship Petitioner Philippine Long Distance Telephone Co., Inc. (PLDT) is a
assignments as before they staged their strike. To reiterate, Article 263(g) of domestic
the Labor Code constitutes an exception to the management prerogative of corporation engaged in the telecommunications business. Private
hiring, firing, transfer, demotion and promotion of employees. And to the respondent Manggagawa ng Komunikasyon sa Pilipinas (MKP) is a labor
extent that Article 263(g) calls for the admission of all workers under the union of rank and fileemployees in PLDT.
same terms and conditions prevailing before the strike, the respondent is
restricted from exercising its generally unbounded right to transfer or The members of respondent union learned that a redundancy program
reassign its employees. The respondent is mandated, under the said order, to would be implemented by the petitioner. Thereupon it filed a Notice of
issue embarkation orders to the employees to enable them to report to their Strike with the National Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB) on 04
ship assignments in compliance with the Order of the Secretary of Labor. November 2002. The Notice
fundamentally contained the following:
Wherefore, petition granted. 
UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES, to wit:
117. PLDT vs. Manggagawa ng Komunikasyong ng Pilipinas 1. PLDT’s abolition of the Provisioning Support Division, in violation of
GR No. 162783 the duty to
bargain collectively with MKP in good faith.
DOCTRINES: 2. PLDT’s unreasonable refusal to honor its commitment before this
When the Secretary exercises the powers granted by Article 263(g) of the Honorable
Labor Code, he is, indeed, granted great breadth of discretion. However, the Office that it will provide MKP its comprehensive plan/s with respect to
application of this power is not without limitation, lest the Secretary would personnel

25
downsizing/reorganization and closure of exchanges. Such refusal violates The parties are likewise directed to cease and desist from committing any
its duty to act that might worsen the situation. xxx
bargain collectively with MKP in good faith.
3. PLDT’s continued hiring of “contractual”, “temporary”, “project” and ISSUE:
“casual” Whether the subject orders of the Secretary of the DOLE excluding from
employees for regular jobs performed by union members, resulting in the the return-to-work order the workers dismissed due to the redundancy
decimation of program of petitioner, are valid or not.
the union membership and in the denial of the right to self-organization to
the concerned RULING:
employees. Assumption of jurisdiction over a labor dispute, or as in this case the
4. PLDT’s gross violation of the legal and CBA provisions on overtime certification of the same to the NLRC for compulsory arbitration, always
work and co-exists with an order for workers to return to work immediately and for
compensation. employers to readmit all workers under the same terms and conditions
5. PLDT’s gross violation of the CBA provisions on promotions and job prevailing before the strike or lockout.
grade re-
evaluation or reclassification. Time and again, this Court has held that when an official bypasses the law
on the asserted ground of attaining a laudable objective, the same will not
On 11 November 2002, another Notice of Strike was filed by the private be maintained if the
respondent, which contained the following: UNFAIR LABOR intendment or purpose of the law would be defeated.
PRACTICES, to wit: PLDT’s alleged restructuring of its GMM Operation
Services. One last piece. Records would show that the strike occurred on 23
December 2002. Article 263(g) directs that the employer must readmit all
A number of conciliation meetings, conducted by the NCMB, National workers under the same terms and conditions prevailing before the strike.
Capital Region, were held between the parties. However, these efforts Since the strike was held on the
proved futile. aforementioned date, then the condition prevailing before it, which was the
condition present on 22 December 2002, must be maintained.
On 23 December 2002, the private respondent staged a strike. On 31
December 2002, three hundred eighty three (383) union members were Undoubtedly, on 22 December 2002, the members of the private respondent
terminated from service pursuant to PLDT’s redundancy program. who were dismissed due to alleged redundancy were still employed by the
petitioner and
On 02 January 2003, the Secretary, Patricia Sto. Tomas, issued an Order[4] holding their respective positions. This is the status quo that must be
in NCMB- NCR-NS-11-405-02 and NCMB-NCR-NS-11-412-02. Portions maintained.
of the Order are reproduced 118. St. Scholastica VS. Torres
hereunder: 210 SCRA 565 (GR No. 100158 [1992])
xxx Accordingly, the strike staged by the Union is hereby enjoined. All
striking workers are hereby directed to return to work within twenty four Doctrine: In the case at bar if a strike has already taken place at the time of
(24) hours from receipt of this Order, except those who were terminated due assumption, all striking employees shall immediately return to work. This
to redundancy. The employer is hereby enjoined to accept the striking means that a return-to-work order is immediately effective and executory
workers under the same terms and conditions prevailing prior to the strike. notwithstanding the filing of a motion for reconsideration. It must be strictly
complied with even during the pendency of any petition questioning its

26
validity. Thus, Any worker or union officer who knowingly participates in a ● Whether striking union members terminated for abandonment of
strike defying a return-to-work order may, consequently, "be declared to work after failing to comply with return-to-work orders of the
have lost his employment status.”  Secretary of Labor and Employment (SECRETARY, for brevity)
should by law be reinstated
From the moment a worker defies a return-to-work order, he is deemed to
have abandoned his job.  It is already in itself knowingly participating in an ● Whether the Sec. of Labor has jurisdiction over the labor dispute. 
illegal act. Respondent SECRETARY gravely abused his discretion when
he ordered the reinstatement of striking union members who refused to Held: 
report back to work after he issued two (2) return-to-work orders, which in
itself is knowingly participating in an illegal act.  1. No, Article 263 (g) Art. 263. Strikes, picketing, and lockouts. „-  . . . (g)
Facts: Petitioner St. Scholastica's College (college) and and private When, in his opinion, there exists a labor dispute causing or likely to cause
respondent Samahan ng Manggagawang Pang-Edukasyon sa Sta. a strike or lockout in an industry indispensable to the national interest, the
Eskolastika-NAFTEU (Union) initiated negotiations for a first-ever Secretary of Labor and Employment may assume jurisdiction over the
collective bargaining agreement. A deadlock in the negotiations prompted dispute and decide it or certify the same to the Commission for compulsory
the UNION to file a notice of strike with the DOLE  arbitration. 

The UNION declared a strike which paralyzed the operations of the Such assumption or certification shall have the effect of automatically
COLLEGE. Affecting as it did the interest of the students, public enjoining the intended or impending strike or lockout as specified in the
respondent SECRETARY immediately assumed jurisdiction over the labor assumption or certification order. 
dispute and issued on the same day, a return – to – work order. Instead of
returning to work, the Union filed a motion for reconsideration of the return If one has already taken place at the time of assumption or certification, all
– to – work questioning the assumption of jurisdiction by the Sec. of Labor striking or locked out employees shall immediately return to work and the
over the labor dispute.  employer shall immediately resume operations and readmit all workers
under the same terms and conditions prevailing before the strike or
The parties held conciliation meetings before the National Conciliation and lockout. 
Mediation Board where the UNION pruned down its demands to three (3): The Secretary of Labor and Employment or the Commission may seek the
assistance of law enforcement agencies to ensure compliance with this
● that striking employees be reinstated under the same terms and provision as well as with such orders as he may issue to enforce the same 
conditions before the strike; 
2. Article 264 Prohibited activities. (a) No labor organization or employer
● that no retaliatory or disciplinary action be taken against them; shall declare a strike or lockout:
and,  1.  Without first having bargained collectively in accordance with Title VII
of this Book or
● that CBA negotiations be continued.  2. Without first having filed the notice required in the preceding Article or 
3. Without the necessary strike or lockout vote first having been obtained
However, these efforts proved futile as the COLLEGE remained steadfast in and reported to the Ministry.
its position that any return-to-work offer should be unconditional.
No strike or lockout shall be declared: 
Issue:  1. after assumption of jurisdiction by the President or the Minister or 
2. after certification or submission of the dispute to compulsory or
voluntary arbitration or 

27
3. during the pendency of cases involving the same grounds for the strike or The Secretary of Labor is vested with jurisdiction over the labor dispute. 
lockout
The Secretary of Labor and Employment in assumption and/or certification
Any worker whose employment has been terminated as consequence of an cases is limited to the issues that are involved in the disputes or to those that
unlawful lockout shall be entitled to reinstatement with full back wages.  are submitted to him for resolution. The seeming difference is, however,
reconcilable. Since the matter on the legality or illegality of the strike was
Any union officer who knowingly participates in an illegal strike and any never submitted to him for resolution, he was thus found to have exceeded
worker or union officer who knowingly participates in the commission of his jurisdiction when he restrained the employer from taking disciplinary
illegal acts during a strike may be declared to have lost his employment action against employees who staged an illegal strike.
status: Provided, That mere participation of a worker in a lawful strike
shall not constitute sufficient ground for termination of his employment, Before the Secretary of Labor and Employment may take cognizance of an
even if a replacement had been hired by the employer during such lawful issue which is merely incidental to the labor dispute, therefore, the same
strike must be involved in the labor disputed itself, or otherwise submitted to him
for resolution. If it was not, and he nevertheless acted on it, that assumption
3. Section 6, Rule IX, of the New Rules of Procedure of the NLRC  - Non- of jurisdiction is tantamount to a grave abuse of discretion
compliance with the certification order of the Secretary of Labor and
Employment or a return to work order of the Commission shall be The submission of an incidental issue of a labor dispute, in assumption
considered an illegal act committed in the course of the strike or lockout and/or certification cases, to the Secretary of Labor and Employment for his
and shall authorize the Secretary of Labor and Employment or the resolution is thus one of the instances referred to whereby the latter may
Commission, as the case may be, to enforce the same under pain or loss of exercise concurrent jurisdiction together with the Labor Arbiters.
employment status or entitlement to full employment benefits from the
locking-out employer or backwages, damages and/or other positive and/or
In the instant petition, the COLLEGE in its Manifestation, asked the
affirmative reliefs, even to criminal prosecution against the liable parties
"Secretary of Labor to take the appropriate steps under the said
circumstances." It likewise prayed in its position paper that respondent
3. In the case at bar if a strike has already taken place at the time of
SECRETARY uphold its termination of the striking employees. Upon the
assumption, all striking employees shall immediately return to work. This
other hand, the UNION questioned the termination of its officers and
means that a return-to-work order is immediately effective and executory
members before respondent SECRETARY by moving for the enforcement
notwithstanding the filing of a motion for reconsideration. It must be strictly
of the return-to-work orders. There is no dispute then that the issue on the
complied with even during the pendency of any petition questioning its
legality of the termination of striking employees was properly submitted to
validity. Thus, Any worker or union officer who knowingly participates in a
respondent SECRETARY for resolution.
strike defying a return-to-work order may, consequently, "be declared to
have lost his employment status.” 
Such an interpretation will be in consonance with the intention of our labor
From the moment a worker defies a return-to-work order, he is deemed to authorities to provide workers immediate access to their rights and benefits
have abandoned his job.  It is already in itself knowingly participating in an without being inconvenienced by the arbitration and litigation process that
illegal act. Respondent SECRETARY gravely abused his discretion when prove to be not only nerve-wracking, but financially burdensome in the long
he ordered the reinstatement of striking union members who refused to run. Social justice legislation, to be truly meaningful and rewarding to our
report back to work after he issued two (2) return-to-work orders, which in workers, must not be hampered in its application by long-winded arbitration
itself is knowingly participating in an illegal act.  and litigation. Rights must be asserted and benefits received with the least
  inconvenience. For, labor laws are meant to promote, not defeat, social

28
justice. After all, Art. 4 of the Labor Code does state that all doubts in the case. The Secretary granted the motion and ordered the consolidation of the
implementation and interpretation of its provisions, including its three NLRC cases. 
implementing rules and regulations, shall be resolved in favor of labor.
The Company's subsequent motion for reconsideration of the order
119. INTERNATIONAL PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., v. consolidating the cases was denied by the Secretary. Petitioner Company
SECRETARY OF LABOR and ASSOCIATED LABOR UNION now assails the orders of the Secretary and alleging grave abuse of
(ALU)  discretion on the part of the public respondent in the issuance thereof. The
G.R. Nos. 92981-83, January 9, 1992 Union, as the bargaining agent of the rank and file workers of the Company,
REGALADO, J.: was impleaded as the private respondent. Petitioner Company submits that
the exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide the 3 NLRC cases is vested in
DOCTRINE: In the present case, the Secretary was explicitly granted by the labor arbiter as provided in paragraph (a) (1) and (5) of Article 217 of
Article 263 (g) of the Labor Code the authority to assume jurisdiction over the Labor Code. 
a labor dispute causing or likely to cause a strike or lockout in an industry
indispensable to the national interest, and decide the same accordingly. ISSUE: Does the Secretary of the DOLE have the power to assume
Necessarily, this authority to assume jurisdiction over the said labor jurisdiction over a labor dispute and its incidental controversies, including
dispute must include and extend to all questions and controversies arising unfair labor practice cases, causing or likely to cause a strike or lockout in
therefrom, including cases over which the labor arbiter has exclusive an industry indispensable to the national interest?
jurisdiction. To be able to completely dispose of a labor dispute, all its
incidents would have to be taken into consideration. RULING: Yes. In the present case, the Secretary was explicitly granted by
Article 263 (g) of the Labor Code the authority to assume jurisdiction over a
FACTS: Prior to the expiration of the collective bargaining agreement labor dispute causing or likely to cause a strike or lockout in an industry
between International Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Company) and the Associated indispensable to the national interest, and decide the same accordingly.
Labor Union (Union), the latter submitted to the Company its economic and Necessarily, this authority to assume jurisdiction over the said labor dispute
political demands. These were not met by the Company, hence a deadlock must include and extend to all questions and controversies arising
ensued. The Union filed a Notice of Strike with the National Conciliation therefrom, including cases over which the labor arbiter has exclusive
and Mediation Board, Department of Labor and Employment. After all jurisdiction. The issuance of the assailed orders is within the province of the
conciliation efforts had failed, the Union went on strike and the Company's Secretary as authorized by Article 263 (g) of the Labor Code and Article
operations were completely paralyzed. Subsequently, 3 other labor cases 217 (a) (1) and (5) of the same Code, taken conjointly and rationally
involving the same parties were filed with the National Labor Relations construed to subserve the objective of the jurisdiction vested in the
Commission (NLRC). Meanwhile, considering that the Company belongs to Secretary.
an industry indispensable to national interest, it being engaged in the
manufacture of drugs and pharmaceuticals and employing around 600 There was an existing labor dispute as a result of a deadlock in the
workers, then Acting Secretary of Labor, Ricardo C. Castro, invoking negotiation for a collective bargaining agreement and the consequent strike,
Article 263 (g) of the Labor Code, issued an order dated assuming over which the Secretary assumed jurisdiction pursuant to Article 263 (g) of
jurisdiction over the Notice of Strike case and directing the parties to return the Labor Code. The three NLRC cases were just offshoots of the stalemate
to the status quo before the work stoppage. in the negotiations and the strike. We, therefore, uphold the Secretary's
order to consolidate the NLRC cases with the labor dispute pending before
The Union filed a motion in the case over which jurisdiction had been him and his subsequent assumption of jurisdiction over the said NLRC
assumed by the Secretary of Labor and Employment (Secretary), seeking cases for him to be able to competently and efficiently dispose of the
the consolidation of the three NLRC cases with the first Notice of Strike dispute in its totality.

29
 petition questioning their validity—UFE completely misses the underlying
Petitioner's thesis that Section 6, Rule V of the Revised Rules of the NLRC principle embodied in Art. 264(g) on the settlement of labor disputes and
is null and void has no merit. The aforesaid rule has been promulgated to this is, that assumption and certification orders are executory in character
implement and enforce Article 263 (g) of the Labor Code. The rule is in and are to be strictly complied with by the parties even during the pendency
harmony with the objectives sought to be achieved by Article 263 (g) of the of any petition questioning their validity. This extraordinary authority given
Labor Code, particularly the Secretary's assumption of jurisdiction over a to the Secretary of Labor is aimed at arriving at a peaceful and speedy
labor dispute and his subsequent disposition of the same in the most solution to labor disputes, without jeopardizing national interests.
expeditious and conscientious manner. To be able to completely dispose of Regardless therefore of their motives, or the validity of their claims, the
a labor dispute, all its incidents would have to be taken into consideration. striking workers must cease and/or desist from any and all acts that tend to,
Clearly, the purpose of the questioned regulation is to carry into effect the or undermine this authority of the Secretary of Labor, once an assumption
broad provisions of Article 263 (g) of the Labor Code. and/or certification order is issued. They cannot, for instance, ignore return-
to-work orders, citing unfair labor practices on the part of the company, to
Besides, to uphold petitioner Company's arguments that the NLRC cases are justify their actions. 
alien and totally separate and distinct from the deadlock in the negotiation
of the collective bargaining agreement is to sanction split jurisdiction which A strike undertaken despite the issuance by the Secretary of Labor of an
is obnoxious to the orderly administration of justice. assumption or certification order becomes a prohibited activity, and thus,
illegal. —A strike that is undertaken despite the issuance by the Secretary
Moreover, the rule is that all doubts in the interpretation and of Labor of an assumption or certification order becomes a prohibited
implementation of labor laws should be resolved in favor of labor. In activity and thus illegal, pursuant to the second paragraph of Art. 264 of the
upholding the assailed orders of the Secretary, the Court is only giving Labor Code as amended (Zamboanga Wood Products, Inc. v. NLRC, G.R.
meaning to this rule. The Court should help labor authorities provide 82088, October 13, 1989; 178 SCRA 482). The Union officers and
workers immediate access to their rights and benefits, without being members, as a result, are deemed to have lost their employment status for
hampered by arbitration or litigation processes that prove to be not only having knowingly participated in an illegal act.
nerve-wracking, but financially burdensome in the long run. Administrative
rules of procedure should be construed liberally in order to promote their FACTS: 
object and assist the parties, especially the workingman, in obtaining just,
speedy, and inexpensive determination of their respective claims and Premised on several grounds, including a complaint for ULP and violation
defenses. By virtue of the assailed orders. The Union and its members are of the Labor Code on Holiday Pay, and non-implementation of CBA
relieved of the burden of litigating their interrelated cases in different provisions; petition for administration of the existing CBAs in various
tribunals. plants against TUPAS and WATU; and having participated in Welga ng
Bayan, among others, the petitioner union, upon the instigation of its
  officers, staged several strikes. Nestle then filed petitions to declare the
120. UNION OF FILIPRO EMPLOYEES, et. al. VS. NESTLE PHILS, strikes illegal. Notwithstanding the assumption of jurisdiction by the
INC., NLRC, et. al. Minister of Labor, and the issuance of return-to-work orders, the union
GR Nos. 88710-13. December 19, 1990. MEDIALDEA, J.  continued with the strike even without the requisite notice of strike and
strike vote. Nestle then sent individual letters of termination dismissing
DOCTRINE: them from the service effective immediately for knowingly instigating and
participating in the illegal strike. UFE filed a complaint for Illegal
Assumption and certification orders are executory in character and are to Dismissal, ULP and damages which was dismissed by the Labor Arbiter. 
be strictly complied with by the parties even during the pendency of any

30
On the interim, the Labor Arbiters in the three actions filed against the company operations while retaining the positions they refuse
union declared that the strikes were illegal and ordered that the union to discharge or allow the management to fill. Worse, they will
officers are deemed to have lost their employment status. On appeal, the also claim payment for work not done, on the ground that
NLRC affirmed the unanimous decisions of the three labor arbiters which they are still legally employed although actually engaged in
declared the strikes illegal. activities inimical to their employer's interest.

UFE seeks to absolve itself by pointing out qualifying factors such as "This is like eating one's cake and having it too, and at the
motives, good faith, absence of findings on specific participation and/or expense of the management. Such an unfair situation surely
liability, and limiting the no-strike provision to economic strikes. was not contemplated by our labor laws and cannot be
justified under the social justice policy, which is a policy of
ISSUE:  fairness to both labor and management. Neither can this
unseemly arrangement be sustained under the due process
Whether or not the ground for the strike is valid.  – NO. clause as the order, if thus interpreted, would be plainly
oppressive and arbitrary.”

HELD:  The Supreme Court also pointed out that an assumption and/or certification
order of the Secretary of Labor automatically results in a return-to-work of
The assumption and certification orders are executory in character and are all striking workers, whether or not a corresponding order has been issued
to be strictly complied with by the parties even during the pendency of any by the Secretary of Labor. Thus, the striking workers erred when they
petition questioning their validity. This extraordinary authority given to the continued with their strike alleging absence of a return-to-work order.
Secretary of Labor is aimed at arriving at a peaceful and speedy solution to Article 264(g) is clear. Once an assumption/certification order is issued,
labor disputes, without jeopardizing national interests. strikes are enjoined, or if one has already taken place, all strikers shall
immediately return to work. A strike that is undertaken despite the issuance
Regardless of their motives, or the validity of their claims, the striking by the Secretary of Labor of an assumption or certification order becomes a
workers must cease and/or desist from any and all acts that tend to, or prohibited activity and thus illegal, pursuant to the second paragraph of Art.
undermine this authority of the Secretary of Labor, once an assumption 264 of the Labor Code as amended (Zamboanga Wood Products, Inc. v.
and/or certification order is issued. They cannot, for instance, ignore return- NLRC, G.R. 82088, October 13, 1989; 178 SCRA 482). The Union officers
to-work orders, citing ULP on the part of the company, to justify their and members, as a result, are deemed to have lost their employment status
actions. Thus, the NLRC, in its decision, re-emphasized the nature of a for having knowingly participated in an illegal act.
return-to-work order within the context of Art. 264(g) as amended by BP
Nos. 130 and 227: The NLRC reasoned in its decision, among others, that the strike was staged
in violation of the existing CBA provisions on "No Strike/No Lockout
"One other point that must be underscored is that the return-to Clause" stating that a strike, which is in violation of the terms of the
work order is issued pending the determination of the legality collective bargaining statement, is illegal, especially when such terms
or illegality of the strike. It is not correct to say that it may be provide for conclusive arbitration clause. The main purpose of such an
enforced only if the strike is legal and may be disregarded if agreement is to prevent a strike and it must, therefore, be adhered to strictly
the strike is illegal, for the purpose precisely is to maintain and respected if their ends are to be achieved. Also, instead of exhausting
the status quo while the determination is being made. all the steps provided for in the grievance machinery provided for in the
Otherwise, the workers who contend that their strike is legal CBA to resolve the dispute amicably and harmoniously within the plant
can refuse to return to their work and cause a standstill on the level, UFE went on strike.

31
 The certified case was dismissed after the union and the company reached
Thus, the NLRC correctly upheld the illegality of the strikes and the an agreement, among other matters, for the holding of a certification
corresponding dismissal of the individual complainants because of their election. A certification election was held were Lakas won as the collective
brazen disregard of successive lawful orders of then Labor Ministers, and bargaining agent of the rank-and-file employees. Lakas presented a
cavalier treatment of the provisions of the Labor Code and the return-to- proposal for CBA to some incorporators but they refused to bargain. RB
work orders of the Minister of Labor and Employment, or Articles 264 and Liner buses were converted to Sultran Lines, one became MCL and another
265. became SST Liner. Petitioners filed with the NLRC charging the private
respondents with unfair labor practice, illegal lock-out. The private
121. REFORMIST UNION OF R.B. LINER INC., HEVER DETROS respondent countered with the NLRC which sought to declare as illegal the
ET AL. VS NLRC, R.B. LINER INC union’s strike as well as other work stoppages/boycotts staged by the
petitioner. LA ruled in favor of private respondents. NLRC affirmed the
DOCTRINE/S:  decision of LA. 
Compulsory Arbitration; Strikes; When an employer accedes to the
peaceful settlement brokered by the NLRC, agreeing to accept all ISSUE:  Whether the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in
employees who had not yet returned to work, it waives the issue of the affirming the LA’s decision in this case. 
illegality of the strike. 
 Compromise Agreements; While the Supreme Court is not abandoning the RULING: Yes.
rule that “unfair labor practice acts are beyond and outside the sphere of
compromises,” the agreement in the instant case was voluntarily entered
into and represents a reasonable settlement, thus binding upon the parties.  Private respondents can no longer contest the legality of the strike held by
the petitioner, as the private respondents themselves sought compulsory
arbitration in order to resolve that very issue. The dispute or strike was
settled when the company and the union entered into an agreement. The
private respondents agreed to accept all employees who, by then, had not
FACTS:  yet returned to work. By acceding to the peaceful settlement brooked by the
NLRC, the private respondents waived the issue of the illegality of the
Petitioner with Hever Detros as its president, is composed of drivers, strike. 
conductors, and mechanics of private respondent RB Liner, Inc. Private
respondents are all incorporators of RB Liner. Petitioner was organized by The very nature of the compulsory arbitration makes the settlement binding
affiliating itself with Lakas Manggagawa sa Pilipinas. Lakas filed a notice upon the private respondents. Compulsory arbitration has been defined both
of strike because of alleged acts of unfair labor practice committed by as the process of settlement of labor disputes by a government agency
private respondents. Despite conciliation hearings, the parties failed to reach which has the authority to investigate and to make an award which is
an agreement. Later, another act of unfair labor practice allegedly binding on all the parties. And as mode of arbitration where the parties are
committed impelled the union with the authorization of Lakas, to go on compelled to accept the resolution of their dispute through arbitration by a
strike even as conciliation proceedings continued. RB liner petitioned the third party. Clearly then, the legality of strike could no longer be reviewed
Secretary Franklin Drilon of DOLE to assume jurisdiction over the ongoing by the LA, much less by the NLRC as this had already been resolved. 
dispute or certify it to the NLRC. The Secretary determined that the
ongoing work stoppage in the company adversely affects an industry The case certified by the Labor Secretary to the NLRC was dismissed after
indispensable to the national interest. Thus he certified the dispute to the the union and the company drew up the agreement mentioned earlier. This
NLRC for compulsory arbitration and issued a return-to-work order.  conclusively disposed of the strike issue. 9Thus, in the agreement, each

32
party made concessions in favor of the other to avoid a protracted litigation.
While we do not abandon the rule that “unfair labor practice acts are beyond
and outside the sphere of compromises,” the agreement herein was
voluntarily entered into and represents a reasonable settlement, thus it binds
the parties 

33