MANNER OF CONDUCTING STRIKE Even if it were otherwise, however, this Court cannot lend sanction of

its approval to the outright dismissal of all union officers, a move that
SHELL OIL WORKERS' UNION vs. SHELL COMPANY OF THE certainly would have the effect of considerably weakening a labor
PHILIPPINES, LTD., and THE COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS; organization, and thus in effect frustrate the policy of the Industrial
G.R. L-28607 | May 31, 1971 Peace Act to encourage unionization.

"FACTS: To the extent, however, that the serious acts of violence occurring in
Respondent Shell Company of the Philippines dissolved its security the course of the strike could be made the basis for holding
guard section, stationed at its Pandacan Installation, notwithstanding responsible a leader or a member of the Union guilty of their
such security guard section being embraced in, and its continuance commission, what was decided by respondent Court should not be
as such thus assured by an existing collective bargaining contract. disturbed.
This resulted in a strike called by petitioner Shell Oil Workers' Union,
certified a month later on June 27, 1967 by the President to Shell’s contention: It is the contention of Shell Company, sustained by
respondent Court of Industrial Relations. respondent Court, that the dissolution of the security guard section
to be replaced by an outside agency is a management prerogative.
The dispute between the parties was a result of the transfer by the
Company of the eighteen (18) security guards to its other Union’s contention: It argues otherwise, relying on the assurance of
department and the consequent hiring of a private security agency to the continued existence of a security guard section at least during the
undertake the work of said security guards. lifetime of the collective bargaining agreement.

Union’s contention: It filed the petition on July 7, 1967 alleging, HELD: Essentially, the freedom to manage the business remains with
among others, that the eighteen (18) security guards affected are management. More specifically, it cannot be denied the faculty of
part of the bargaining unit and covered by the existing collective promoting efficiency and attaining economy by a study of what units
bargaining contract, and as such, their transfers and eventual are essential for its operation. To it belongs the ultimate
dismissals are illegal being done in violation of the existing contract. determination of whether services should be performed by its
It prayed that said security guards be reinstated with full back wages personnel or contracted to outside agencies.
from the time of their dismissal up to the time of their actual
reinstatement. It is the opinion of the Court, that while management has the final
say on such matter, the labor union is not to be completely left out.
Company’s contention:
• that in contracting out the security service and redeploying What was done by Shell Company in informing the Union as to the
the 18 security guards affected, it was merely performing its step it was intending to take on the proposed dissolution of the
legitimate prerogative to adopt the most efficient and economical security guard section to be replaced by an outside agency is praise-
method of operation; worthy. There should be mutual consultation eventually deference is
• that said guards were transferred to other sections with to be paid to what management decides. Thereby, in the words of
increase, except for four (4) guards, in rates of pay and with transfer Chief Justice Warren, there is likely to be achieved ""peaceful
bonus; accommodation of conflicting interest.""
• the said action was motivated by business consideration in
line with past established practice and made after notice to and In this particular case though, what was stipulated in an existing
discussion with the Union; collective bargaining contract certainly precluded Shell Company
• that the 18 guards concerned were dismissed for wilfully from carrying out what otherwise would have been within its
refusing to obey the transfer order; and prerogative if to do so would be violative thereof.
• that the strike staged by the Union on May 25, 1967 is
illegal. ISSUE #2:
Whether the then existing collective bargaining contract running for
Primarily, Company prayed, among others, for the dismissal of the three years from August 1, 1966 to December 31, 1969 constituted a
Union's petition and the said Union's strike be declared illegal bar to such a decision reached by management (of contracting out
followed by the termination of the employee status of those the security guards). – YES.
responsible and who participated in said illegal strike.""
RULING:
CIR: It declared that no unfair labor practice was committed by Shell The answer must be in the affirmative. As correctly stressed in the
Company in dissolving its security guards from an outside agency, as brief for the petitioner, there was specific coverage concerning the
such a step was well within management prerogative. Hence for it, security guard section in the collective bargaining contract.
the strike was illegal, there being no compliance with the statutory
requisites before an economic strike could be staged. It ruled that its It is found not only in the body thereof but in the two appendices
purpose was not justifiable and that it was moreover carried out with concerning the wage schedules as well as the premium pay and the
violence. night compensation to which the personnel in such section were
entitled.
ISSUE #1:
Whether or not the strike was illegal. – NO. It was thus an assurance of security of tenure, at least, during the
lifetime of the agreement.
RULING:
There was thus a failure on the CIR’s part to accord due weight to the Nor is it a sufficient answer, as set forth in the decision of respondent
terms of an existing collective bargaining agreement. Court, that while such a section would be abolished, the guards
would not be unemployed as they would be transferred to another
The strike cannot be declared illegal, there being a violation of the position with an increase in pay and with a transfer bonus. For what is
collective bargaining agreement by Shell Company. involved is the integrity of the agreement reached, the terms of
which should be binding of both parties. One of them may be
released, but only with the consent of the other. The right to object
belongs to the latter, and if exercised, must be respected. Such a As a matter of fact, this Court has gone even further. It is not even
state of affairs should continue during the existence of the contract. required that there be in fact an unfair labor practice committed by
Only thus may there be compliance with and fulfillment of the the employer. It suffices, if such a belief in good faith is entertained
covenants in a valid subsisting agreement. by labor, as the inducing factor for staging a strike. So it was clearly
stated by the present Chief Justice while still an Associate Justice of
What renders the stand of Shell Company even more vulnerable is this Court:
the fact that as set forth in its brief and as found by respondent Court
as far back as 1964, it had already been studying the matter of ""As a consequence, we hold that the strike in question had been
dissolving the security guard section and contracting out such service called to offset what petitioners were warranted in believing in good
to an outside agency. Apparently, it had reached a decision to that faith to be unfair labor practices on the part of Management, that
effect for implementation the next year. In July 1966, there was a joint petitioners were not bound, therefore, to wait for the expiration of
consultation between it and the Union on the matter. thirty (30) days from notice of strike before staging the same, that
said strike was not, accordingly, illegal and that the strikers had not
Nonetheless on August 26, 1966, a collective bargaining contract was thereby lost their status as employees of respondents herein.""
entered into which, as indicated above, did assure the continued
existence of the security guard section. The Shell Company did not The right to self-organization so sedulously guarded by the Industrial
have to agree to such a stipulation. Or it could have reserved the Peace Act explicitly includes the right ""to engage in concerted
right to effect a dissolution and reassign the guards. It did not do so. activities for the purpose of collective bargaining and to the mutual
Instead, when it decided to take such a step resulting in the strike, it aid or protection.""
would rely primarily on provisions in the collective bargaining
contract couched in general terms, merely declaratory of certain From and after June 17, 1953 then, there cannot be the least doubt
management prerogatives. Considering the circumstances of record, that a strike as form of concerted activity has the stamp of legitimacy.
there can be no justification then for Shell Company's insistence on As a matter of law, even under the regime of compulsory arbitration
pushing through its project of such dissolution without thereby under the Court of Industrial Relations Act, a strike was by no means
incurring a violation of the collective bargaining agreement. a forbidden weapon.

ISSUE #3: When may workers strike?

Whether or the company is guilty of unfair labor practice. – YES. Such is the thought embodied in the opinion of Justice Laurel in Rex
Taxicab Company v. Court of Industrial Relations. Thus:
RULING:
In failing to manifest fealty to what was stipulated in an existing ""In other words, the employee, tenant or laborer is inhibited from
collective bargaining contract, the company was thus guilty of an striking or walking out of his employment only when so enjoined by
unfair labor practice. the Court of Industrial Relations and after a dispute has been
submitted thereto and pending award or decision by the court of
Unfair labor practice is committed by a labor union or its agent by its such dispute. It follows that, as in the present case, the employees or
refusal 'to bargain collectively with the employer'. Collective laborers may strike before being ordered not to do so and before an
bargaining does not end with the execution of an agreement, being a industrial dispute is submitted to the Court of Industrial Relations,
continuous process, the duty to bargain necessarily imposing on the subject to the power of the latter, after hearing when public interest
parties the obligation to live up to the terms of such a collective so requires or when the dispute cannot, in its opinion, be promptly
bargaining agreement if entered into, it is undeniable that non- decided or settled, to order them to return, with the consequence
compliance therewith constitutes an unfair labor practice."" that if the strikers fail to return to work, when so ordered, the court
may authorize the employer to accept other employees or laborers.""
Discussion on the legality of the strike
Former Chief Justice Paras, in a case not too long before enactment
Accordingly, the unfair labor practice strike called by the Union did of the Industrial Peace Act, had occasion to repeat such a view. Thus:
have the impress of validity. Rightly, labor is justified in making use of
such a weapon in its arsenal to counteract what is clearly outlawed by ""As a matter of fact, a strike may not be staged only when, during
the Industrial Peace Act. That would be one way to assure that the the pendency of an industrial dispute, the Court of industrial
objectives of unionization and collective bargaining would not be Relations has issued the proper injunction against the laborers
thwarted. It could, of course, file an unfair labor practice case before (section 19, Commonwealth Act No. 103, as amended). Capital need
the Court of Industrial Relations. It is not precluded, however, from not, however, be apprehensive about the recurrence of strikes in view
relying on its own resources to frustrate such an effort on the part of of the system of compulsory arbitration by the Court of Industrial
employer. So we have consistently held — and for the soundest of Relations.""
reasons.

A strike then, in the apt phrase of Justice J.B.L. Reyes, is ""an

There is this categorial pronouncement from the present Chief institutionalized factor of democratic growth."" This is to foster
Justice: industrial democracy. Implicit in such a concept is the recognition
that concerning the ends which labor considers worthwhile, its wishes
""Again, the legality of the strike follows as a corollary to the finding are ordinarily entitled to respect.
of fact, made in the decision appealed from — which is supported by
substantial evidence — to the effect that the strike had triggered by Necessarily so, the choice as to when such an objective may be
the Company's failure to abide by the terms and conditions of its attained by striking likewise belongs to it. There is the rejection of the
collective bargaining agreement with the Union, by the concept that an outside authority, even if governmental, should make
discrimination, resorted to by the company, with regard to hire and the decisions for it as to ends which are desirable and how they may
tenure of employment, and the dismissal of employees due to union be achieved.
activities, as well as the refusal of the company to bargain collectively
in good faith.""
The assumption is that labor can be trusted to determine for itself
when the right to strike may be availed of in order to attain a Such an approach is reflected in our recent decisions. As was
successful fruition in their disputes with management. realistically observed by the present Chief Justice, it is usually
attended by ""the excitement, the heat and the passion of the direct
As to requirement of filing of notice participants in the labor dispute, at the peak thereof ...."" It is thus
It is true that there is a requirement, in the Act that before the clear that not every form of violence suffices to affix the seal of
employees may do so, they must file with the Conciliation Service of illegality on a strike or to cause the loss of employment by the guilty
the Department of Labor a notice of their intention to strike. Such a party.
requisite, however, as has been repeatedly declared by this Court,
does not have to be complied with in case of unfair labor practice ISSUE #5:
strike, which certainly is entitled to greater judicial protection if the Whether or not the dismissal of the employees as decreed by the CIR
Industrial Peace Act is to be rendered meaningful. What has been was valid. – NO.
said thus far would demonstrate the unwarranted deviation of the
decision now on appeal from what is indicated by the law and RULING:
authoritative decisions. There being a valid unfair labor practice strike, the loss of
employment decreed by CIR on all the Union officers cannot stand.
ISSUE #4: The premise on which such penalty was decreed was the illegality of
Whether or not the violence that attended the strike made it illegal. – the strike. We rule differently. Hence, its imposition is unwarranted. It
NO. is to be made clear, however, that because of the commission of
specific serious acts of violence, the Union's President, Gregorio
What is clearly within the law is the concerted activity of cessation of Bacsa, as well as its Assistant Auditor, Conrado Peña, did incur such a
work in order that a union's economic demands may be granted or penalty.
that an employer cease and desist from an unfair labor practice. That
the law recognizes as a right. There is though a disapproval of the On this point, it may be observed further that even if there was a
utilization of force to attain such an objective. For implicit in the very mistake in good faith by the Union that an unfair labor practice was
concept of a legal order is the maintenance of peaceful ways. committed by the Shell Company when such was not the case, still
the wholesale termination of employee status of all the officers of the
A strike otherwise valid, if violent in character, may be placed beyond Union, decreed by respondent Court, hardly commends itself for
the pale. Care is to be taken, however, especially where an unfair approval. Such a drastic blow to a labor organization, leaving it
labor practice is involved, to avoid stamping it with illegality just leaderless, has serious repercussions. The immediate effect is to
because it is tainted by such acts. To avoid rendering illusory the weaken the Union.
recognition of the right to strike, responsibility in such a case should
be individual and not collective. A different conclusion would be The State is thus under obligation to lend its aid and its succor to the
called for, of course, if the existence of force while the strike lasts is efforts of its labor elements to improve their economic condition. It is
pervasive and widespread, consistently and deliberately resorted to now generally accepted that unionization is a means to such an end.
as a matter of policy. It could be reasonably concluded then that It should be encouraged. Thereby, labor's strength, what there is of it,
even if justified as to ends it becomes illegal because of the means becomes solidified. It can bargain as a collectivity. Management then
employed. will not always have the upper hand nor be in a position to ignore its
just demands.
Respondent Court must have unduly impressed by the evidence
submitted by the Shell Company to the effect that the strike was BATANGAS LAGUNA TAYABAS BUS COMPANY (BTLBCO) v.
marred by acts of force, intimidation and violence on the evening of NLRC, TINIG AT LAKAS NG MANGGAGAWA SA BLTBCO-NAFLU
June 14 and twice in the mornings of June 15 and 16, 1967 in Manila. and its reinstated one hundred ninety (190) members | G.R.
Even on the following day, with police officials stationed at the strike- 101858 | August 21, 1992
bound area, Molotov bombs did explode and the streets were
obstructed with wooden planks containing protruding nails. "FACTS:
Moreover, in the branches of the Shell Company in Iloilo City as well On May 23, 1988, private respondent Tinig at Lakas ng Manggagawa
as in Bacolod, on dates unspecified, physical injuries appeared to sa BLTB Co. NAFLU (TLM-BLTB-NAFLU), an affiliate of the National
have been inflicted on management personnel. Respondent Court in Federation of Labor Unions. (NAFLU), filed a Notice of Strike against
the appealed decision did penalize with loss of employment the ten the Batangas Laguna Tayabas Bus Company on the grounds of unfair
individuals responsible for such acts. Nor is it to be lost sight of that labor practice and violation of the CBA.
before the certification on June 27, 1967, one month had elapsed
during which the Union was on strike. Except on those few days The reaction of BLTBCO was to ask the Secretary of Labor to assume
specified then, the Shell Company could not allege that the strike was jurisdiction over the dispute or to certify it to the National Labor
conducted in a manner other than peaceful. Relations Commission for compulsory arbitration. The petitioner also
moved to dismiss the notice of strike.
Under the circumstances, it would be going too far to consider that it
thereby became illegal. This is not by any means to condone the Efforts at amicable settlement having failed, Acting Labor Secretary C.
utilization of force by labor to attain its objectives. It is only to show Castro certified the dispute to the NLRC on August 29, 1988.
awareness that is labor conflicts, the tension that fills the air as well as
the feeling of frustration and bitterness could break out in sporadic A copy of the certification order was served upon the NAFLU and on
acts of violence. If there be in this case a weighing of interests in the the TLM-BLTBCo-NAFLU. However, it was noted in the notice of order
balance, the ban the law imposes on unfair labor practices by that union secretary Jerry Soriano refused to receive it.
management that could provoke a strike and its requirement that it
be conducted peaceably, it would be, to repeat, unjustified, On August 31, 1988, the officers and members of TLM-BLTBCo-
considering all the facts disclosed, to stamp the strike with illegality. NAFLU went on strike and maintained picket lines blocking the
It is enough that individual liability be incurred by those guilty of premises of BLTBCo's terminals.
such acts of violence that call for loss of employee status.
The NLRC issued an en banc resolution ordering the striking have joined the strike at its inception, We are convinced that they
employees to lift their picket and to remove all obstructions and returned to work on September 19, 1988 or, immediately thereafter.
barricades. All striking employees on payroll as of May 23, 1988, were
required to return to work. BLTBCo was directed to accept them back We are not swayed that these employees have abandoned their job
to work within 5 days under the same terms and conditions just because they reported late or, beyond the period required by the
prevailing before the strike. Commission and by BLTBCo. The circumstances of time and place of
employment and the residences of the employees as well as the lack
On September 15, 1988, the BLTBCo caused the publication of the of individual notice to them are reasons enough to justify their failure
resolution and called on all striking workers to return to work not to beat the deadline.
later than September 18, 1988. It later extended the deadline to
September 19, 1988. True it is, that management of BLTBCo caused the publication of the
Resolution of the Commission of September 5, 1988 in the Manila
Of the some 1,730 BLTBCo employees who went on strike, only 1,116 Bulletin, the Court cannot reasonably expect the complainants, who
reported back for work. 17 others were later re-admitted. are ordinary workers, to be regular readers of such newspaper.
Subsequently, about 614 employees, including those who were Moreover, the publication of the said resolution was only made once.
allegedly dismissed for causes other than the strike, filed individual
complaints for illegal dismissal. Their common ground was that they We accept these factual conclusions as they do not appear to have
were refused admission when they reported back for work. been reached arbitrarily. The mere fact that the majority of the
strikers were able to return to work does not necessarily mean that
Among those who failed to comply with the return-to-work order the rest deliberately defied the return-to-work order or that they had
were the respondent individual union members. been sufficiently notified thereof.

NLRC: It dismissed the charge of unfair labor practice and union As the Solicitor General correctly adds, some of them may have left
busting filed by the union against BLTBCo. It ordered BLTBCo to fully Metro Manila and did not have enough time to return during the
implement the provisions of the CBA in the matter of uniform and period given by the petitioner, which was only five days.
safety shoes. It also declared the strike as illegal and declared regular
the employment of casual employees who have already rendered ISSUE #2:
service of at least one year whether continuous or broken. Whether or not the employees could be deemed to have abandoned
their positions. – NO.
Petitioner’s contention: It contends that the 190 union members who
participated in the illegal strike should not have been reinstated The contention of the petitioner that the private respondents
because they defied the return-to-work order of September 6, 1988. abandoned their position is also not acceptable. An employee who
It invokes against the NLRC its own words in its resolution of July 19, forthwith takes steps to protest his lay-off cannot by any logic be
1991, where it said: said to have abandoned his work.

A strike that is undertaken despite the issuance by the Secretary of For abandonment to constitute a valid cause for termination of
Labor of an assumption or certification order becomes a prohibited employment, there must be a deliberate, unjustified refusal of the
activity and thus illegal, pursuant to the second paragraph of Article employee to resume his employment. This refusal must be clearly
264 of the Labor Code as amended (Zamboanga Wood Products, Inc. established. As we stressed in a recent case, mere absence is not
v. NLRC, G.R. 82088, October 13, 1989: 178 SCRA 482). The Union sufficient; it must be accompanied by overt acts unerringly pointing
officers and members, as a result, are deemed to have lost their to the fact that the employee simply does not want to work anymore.
employment status for having knowingly participated in an illegal act.
In this case: The affidavit of Eduardo Azucena, BLTBCo operations
ISSUE #1: manager, besides being hearsay, lacks credibility in light of the
Whether or not the strike was illegal. – NO. subsequent acts of the private respondents in complaining about
their separation.
RULING:
What the petitioner quoted from the NLRC resolution is only half the A worker who joins a strike does so precisely to assert or improve the
picture, however. As the NLRC further explained, it was ""not inclined terms and conditions of his employment. If his purpose is to abandon
to declare a wholesale forfeiture of employment status of all those his work, he would not go to the trouble of joining a strike.
who participated in the strike"" because, first of all, there was
inadequate service of the certification order on the union as of the Contention: Petitioner contends that the NLRC should not have
date the strike was declared and there was no showing that the issued the blanket directive for the ""reinstatement of all striking
striking members had been apprised of such order by the NAFLU. employees of BLTBCo who have not committed illegal acts.""

Secondly, and more importantly, the resolution declared as follows: ISSUE #3:
Whether or not it was improper for the NLRC to issue the blanket
Applying the principle of vicarious liability, only the officers of the directive to reinstate all striking employees of BLTBCo who have not
union deserved to be penalized with the loss of their employment committed illegal acts. – NO.
status. The leaders of the union are the moving force in the
declaration of the strike and the Rank-in-file employees merely RULING:
followed. The key clause here is ""who have not committed illegal acts."" The
directive was not really ""blanket,"" as the petitioner would call it, but
Likewise, viewed in the light of Article 264, paragraph (e), those who indeed selective. The NLRC made this clear in the resolution dated
participated in the commission of illegal acts who stood charged September 16, 1991, thus:
criminally thereof in court must be penalized. BLTBCo will have to
agree with Us that while the general membership of TLM-NAFLU may The loss of employment status of striking union members is limited
to those ""who knowingly participates in the commission of illegal
acts."" (Article 264, Labor Code) Evidence must be presented to On May 27, 1986, the Fil Transit Employees Union filed a notice of
substantiate the commission thereof and not merely an strike with the Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR) because of alleged
unsubstantiated allegation. He who asserts the commission of illegal unfair labor practice of petitioner.
acts, must prove the same, and it is on the basis of substantiated
evidence that this Commission declares the loss of employment Despite several conciliation conferences, the parties failed to reach an
status of specific union members who have committed illegal acts. agreement, so that, on June 17, 1986, the Union went on strike. As a
result, several workers were dismissed.
This Commission's order directing the reinstatement of all striking
The Union filed another notice of strike alleging unfair labor practice,
employees against whom no complaint of illegal acts having been
massive dismissal of union officers and members, coercion of
committed during the strikes, and who were barred from returning to
employees and violation of workers' rights to self-organization.
work and is similarly situated with those who have been directed to
be reinstated, should, as a consequence and on the basis of the Conciliation conferences were again held but, on July 27, 1986, the
reasons discussed in the questioned resolution be reinstated. There is Union again went on strike, lifting their picket only on August 2,
no denial of due process in this direction, for respondent has been 1986.
given the chance to defend its position.
On September 16, 1986, the then Minister of Labor and Employment,
Elaborating on the same issue, the Solicitor General astutely after assuming jurisdiction over the dispute under Article 264(g) and
observes: Article 278(b) of the Labor Code, ordered —

The assailed Resolution does not prevent petitioner from continuing (1) all striking employees including those who were dismissed
with its investigation and come up with evidence against these prior to the June 17, 1986 strike to return to work within forty-eight
workers. But they have to be admitted back to their work first. This is (48) hours from receipt of the order; and
clearly a situation where the social justice provisions of our laws and
(2) petitioner to accept all the returning employees under the
jurisprudence come in aid of labor. Since such investigations might
same terms and conditions prevailing previous to the dispute.
be extended, intentionally or otherwise, the workers are in danger of
losing their livelihood. As compared to the management that is in a On September 22, 1986, petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration
position to wage an extended legal struggle against labor, the latter and later a supplemental motion for reconsideration, contending that
cannot do so. This is where the State intervenes to equalize matters no strike vote had been obtained before the strike was called and the
between labor and management. result of strike vote was not reported to the Ministry of Labor and
Employment. Its motion was, however, not acted upon for the reason
The right to strike is one of the rights recognized and guaranteed by that petitioner had already brought the matter to this Court on
the Constitution as an instrument of labor for its protection against certiorari, resulting in the issuance of a temporary restraining order.
exploitation by management. By virtue of this right, the workers are
able to press their demands for better terms of employment with The petition for certiorari was denied and the temporary restraining
more energy and persuasiveness, poising the threat to strike as their order was lifted by this Court in its resolution dated February 23,
reaction to the employer's intransigence. 1987.

The strike is indeed a powerful weapon of the working class. But On November 24, 1987, the Department of Labor and Employment
precisely because of this, it must be handled carefully, like a sensitive issued a writ of execution, ordering the chief of the execution arm of
explosive, lest it blow up in the workers' own hands. Thus, it must be the NLRC to cause the actual and physical return to work of all
declared only after the most thoughtful consultation among them, striking employees, including those dismissed prior to the June 17,
conducted in the only way allowed, that is, peacefully, and in every 1986 strike under the same terms and conditions prevailing previous
case conformably to reasonable regulation. to the dispute, and to secure certification that the parties have
complied with such return to work order.
Any violation of the legal requirements and strictures, such as a
The Union then filed a motion for the award of backwages in the
defiance of a return-to-work order in industries affected with public
total amount of P1,364,800.00 for the period December 9, 1987 up to
interest, will render the strike illegal, to the detriment of the very
February 9, 1988 and for the issuance of a writ of execution.
workers it is supposed to protect.
On March 23, 1988, the Sheriff reported in his return that only 66
Even war must be lawfully waged. A labor dispute demands no less employees reported back to work and were accepted by petitioner
observance of the rules, for the benefit of all concerned. on condition that they submit certain requirements.

FIRST CITY INTERLINK TRANSPORTATION CO., INC., doing Secretary of Labor: She ruled the strike of the Union legal and
business under the name and style FIL TRANSIT v. SECRETARY awarded backwages and separation pay to the strikers.
ROLDAN-CONFESOR, & NAGKAKAISANG MANGGAGAWA NG
FIL TRANSIT-NATIONAL FEDERATION OF LABOR (NMF-NFL); Contention: Petitioner's main contention is that the strike called by
G.R. 106316 | May 5, 1997 the Union was illegal.

Petitioner contends that the strike staged by the Union was illegal
PARTIES: because no strike vote had been taken before the strike was called.

Petitioner First City Interlink Transportation Co., Inc., is a public utility ISSUE #1:
corporation doing business under the name and style Fil Transit.
Whether the strike was illegal. – YES.
Respondent Nagkakaisang Manggagawa ng Fil Transit-National
RULING:
Federation of Labor (NM-NFL) is a labor union composed of
employees of Fil Transit. Pursuant to Article 263(c)(f) of the Labor Code, the requisites for a
valid strike are as follows:
FACTS:
(1) a notice of strike filed with the Department of Labor at Contention: It is nonetheless contended by the Solicitor General that
least 30 days before the intended date thereof or 15 days in case of ""[a] strike inspired by good faith is not illegal simply because certain
unfair labor practice; requirements were not followed,"" citing the case of Ferrer v. CIR.

(2) strike vote approved by a majority of the total union ISSUE #2:
membership in the bargaining unit concerned, obtained by secret
ballot in a meeting called for that purpose; Whether or not there was good faith on the part of the strikers. – NO.

(3) notice given to the Department of Labor and Employment RULING:

of the results of the voting at least 7 days before the intended strike.
The contention has no merit. In Ferrer, the strikers failed to observe
These requirements are mandatory. the 30-day cooling off period, but this Court found the strike legal
because of the strikers' belief in good faith that the employer
committed unfair labor practice.

Absence of proof that a strike vote had been taken In this case: What is lacking is the strike vote which should have been
reported to the DOLE seven days before staging the strike.
This matter of illegality of the strike was raised by petitioner before
the Secretary of Labor and now in this petition. However, in none of The importance of the strike vote and reporting of the results to the
the numerous pleadings filed by respondent Union before this Court, DOLE cannot be gainsaid as it is the Union itself that the law seeks to
has it been shown that a strike vote had been taken before declaring protect by ensuring that the majority of its members voted in favor of
a strike. the strike.

As between petitioner and respondent Union, the latter is in a better As held in National Federation of Sugar Workers (NFSW) v. Ovejera:
position to present proof of such fact. The Union's failure to do so
raises the strong probability that there was no strike vote taken. The When the law says ""the labor union may strike"" should the dispute
first and only instance it is mentioned that such a vote had been ""domain unsettled until the lapse of the requisite number of days
taken before the strike was called was in the order dated July 23, (cooling-off period) from the mandatory filing of the notice,"" the
1992 of the Secretary of Labor in which she stated: unmistakeable implication is that the union may not strike before the
lapse of the cooling-off period. Similarly, the mandatory character of
. . . the records show that a notice of strike was filed by the union the 7-day strike ban after the report on the strike-vote is manifest in
with the Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR) on May 27, 1986, and after a the provision that ""in any case,"" the union shall furnish the MOLE
failure of several conciliation conferences due to management's with the results of the voting ""at least seven (7) days before the
consistent refusal to appear, the union went on strike on June 17, intended strike, subject to the (prescribed) cooling-off period."" It
1986, after a strike vote was obtained. (Emphasis added) must be stressed that the requirements of cooling-off period and 7-
day strike ban must both be complied with, although the labor union
But the Secretary of Labor did not indicate the basis for her may take a strike vote and report the same within the statutory
statement nor the date the strike vote was allegedly taken. Neither cooling-off period.
did she mention whether her office had been notified of the strike
vote as required by law. Good faith may not be invoked by the Union

For that matter the statement in the same order that a notice of Moreover, petitioner is right that good faith cannot be invoked by
strike had been filed because several conciliation conferences failed the Union in the case.
""due to management's consistent refusal to appear"" is contrary to
evidence in the record. Annexes E and F of the petition show that As the records will bear out, the private respondent had clearly acted
management was duly represented during the conciliation in bad faith when it went on strike.
proceeding prior to the strike on June 17, 1986. Annex G likewise
The June 13, 1986 Minutes of Conciliation Proceedings attached to
shows that at the conciliation conference held on July 17, 1986,
the records of the case, shows that at the time the strike was staged,
management actively participated, contrary to the statement in the
conciliation meetings were going on.
order of the Secretary of Labor that the failure of the second set of
conciliation conferences was due to management's refusal to attend. In fact, said minutes reveal that the parties met in a conciliation
meeting on June 13, 1986 and agreed to meet further on June 17,
Failure to observe strike ban
1986 at 2:00 P.M. Instead of meeting with petitioner on the
Moreover, even assuming that a strike vote had been taken, we agree scheduled conciliation meeting on June 17, 1986 as agreed upon,
with petitioner that the Union nevertheless failed to observe the private respondent went on strike. Certainly, this act of the private
required seven-day strike ban from the date the strike vote should respondent cannot be characterized as having been made in good
have been reported to the DOLE up to the time the Union staged the faith.
strike on June 17, 1986. As petitioner contends:
ISSUE #3:
It must be noted in this regard that as shown in the minutes of
Whether or not petitioner is guilty of unfair labor practice. – NO.
conciliation conferences (Annex ""F""), the parties met in a
conciliation conference on June 13, 1986, four (4) days before the RULING:
June 17, 1986 strike. So even if it is conceded that a strike vote was
taken, there would have been non-compliance with the requisite Indeed, there is no finding in this case that petitioner was guilty of
cooling off period and the 7-day strike ban for the simple reason that the alleged unfair labor practices as charged by the Union.
between June 13, 1986, the day the parties met for conciliation
conference and June 17, 1986, the day of the strike, there were only The award of backwages and separation pay was based solely on the
four (4) days. alleged refusal of petitioner to comply with the Return to Work Order
— an issue which will be discussed in the latter part of this decision.
Hence, the ruling in Ferrer v. CIR — that the strike staged before the
expiration of the 30-day cooling off period is not illegal because of
what the strikers perceived in good faith to be unfair labor practices deemed to have lost their employment status in accordance with Art.
of the employer — does not apply. 264 of the Labor Code.

Contention: Petitioner contends that the strikers, having engaged in INSULAR VS INSULAR
violent, illegal, and criminal acts, have lost their employment status.
"FACTS:
The Labor Code considers the commission of these acts a
""prohibited activity"" and any worker or union officer, who The Insular Life Assurance Co., Ltd., Employees Association - NATU,
knowingly participates in their commission during a strike, may be FGU Insurance Group Workers and Employees Association - NATU,
declared to have lost his employment status. and Insular Life Building Employees Association - NATU (herein
referred to as the Unions), while still members of the Federation of
ISSUE #4: Free Workers (FFW), entered into separate collective bargaining
agreements with the Insular Life Assurance Co., Ltd., and the FGU
Whether or not the strikers have lost their employment status by
Insurance Group (herein referred to as the Companies).
engaging in violent activity. – Only those who engaged in the violent
activities.
Two of the lawyers and officers of the Unions namely Felipe Enaje
and Ramon Garcia, tried to dissuade the Unions from disaffiliating
with the FFW and joining the National Association of Trade Unions
RULING: (NATU), to no avail. Enaje and Garcia soon left the FFW and secured
employment with the Anti-Dummy Board of the Department of
The strike declared by the Union was attended by pervasive and Justice and were thereafter hired by the companies - Garcia as
widespread violence. The acts of violence committed were not mere assistant corporate secretary and legal assistant, and Enaje as
isolated incidents which could normally occur during any strike. personnel manager and chairman of the negotiating panel for the
Companies in the collective bargaining with the Unions.
• The hijacking of Fil-Transit Bus No. 148 at the intersection
of EDSA and Quezon Avenue on Sunday, July 27, 1986, three days
On October 1957, negotiations for the collective bargaining was
before the scheduled conciliation conference, reveals that it was
conducted but resulted to a deadlock. From April 25 to May 6, 1958,
staged in pursuance of a preconceived plan.
the parties negotiated on the labor demands but with no satisfactory
• This was followed by the barricading of the terminal in results due to the stalemate on the matter of salary increases. This
Alabang by means of five buses which had also been hijacked. prompted the Unions to declare a strike in protest against what they
considered the Companies’ unfair labor practices. On May 20, 1958,
• In the days that followed, the strikers persisted in their the Unions went on strike and picketed the offices of the Insular Life
violent acts, (1) the hijacking of 26 more buses which resulted in Building at Plaza Moraga.
injuries to some employees and panic to the commuters; (2) the
puncturing of tires; (3) the cutting of electric wirings, water hoses and On May 21, Jose M. Olbes, the acting manager and president, sent
fan belts; and (4) the alleged theft of expensive equipment such as individual letters to the striking employees urging them to abandon
fuel injections worth P30,000 each. their strike with a promise of free coffee, movies, overtime pay, and
accommodations. He also warned the strikers if they fail to return to
The commission of these illegal acts was neither isolated nor work by a certain date, they might be replaced in their jobs. Further,
accidental but deliberately employed to intimidate and harass the the Companies hired men to break into the picket lines resulting in
employer and the public. The strikers even resorted to the use of violence, and the filing of criminal charges against some union
Molotov bombs which were thrown into the petitioner's compound. officers and members. When eventually, the strikers called off their
strike to return to their jobs, they were subjected to a screening
Responsibility must be individual
process by a management committee, among the members were
However, responsibility for these illegal acts must be on an individual Garcia and Enaje. After screening, eighty-three (83) strikers were
and not collective basis. Therefore, although the strike was illegal rejected due to pending criminal charges, and adamantly refused
because of the commission of illegal acts, only the union officers and readmission of thirty-four (34) officials and members of the Unions
strikers who engaged in violent, illegal and criminal acts against the who were most active in the strike.
employer are deemed to have lost their employment status.
The CIR prosecutor filed a complaint for unfair labor practice against
Union members who were merely instigated to participate in the the Companies, specifically (1) interfering with the members of the
illegal strike should be treated differently. Unions in the exercise of their right to concerted action; and (2)
discriminating against the members of the Unions as regards
SUMMARY: readmission to work after the strike on the basis of their union
membership and degree of participation in the strike. After the trial,
1) The respondent Secretary of Labor erred in declaring the
the Court of Industrial Relations dismissed the Unions’ complaint for
strike legal. There is no evidence to show that a strike vote had in fact
lack of merit.
been taken before a strike was called. Even assuming that a strike
vote had been taken, the strike called by the Union was illegal
ISSUES:
because of nonobservance by the Union of the mandatory seven-day
strike ban counted from the date the strike vote should have been
I. Whether or not the Companies are guilty of unfair labor
reported to the Department of Labor and Employment up to the time
practice when they sent individual letters to the strikers with the
the Union staged the strike on June 17, 1986. In accordance with Art.
promise of additional benefits, and notifying them to either return to
264 of the Labor Code, any union officer who knowingly participated
work, or lose their jobs; and
in the illegal strike is deemed to have lost his employment status.

2) The commission of the illegal acts during the strike II. Whether or not the Companies are guilty of unfair labor
rendered it illegal. However, only officers and leaders of the Union practice for discriminating against the striking members of the
and workers guilty of illegal acts are liable. Such employees are Unions in readmission of employees after the strike.
HELD:

First issue. The Companies contended that by sending those letters, it ISSUE: WON the strike staged by respondents was legal
constituted a legitimate exercise of their freedom of expression. That
contention is untenable. The Companies are guilty of unfair labor
practice when they sent individual letters to the strikers. It is an act of HELD: In cases of bargaining deadlocks, the notice shall, as far as
interference with the right to collective bargaining through dealing practicable, further state the unresolved issues in the bargaining
with the strikers individually instead of through their collective negotiations and be accompanied by the written proposals of the
bargaining representatives. Although the Unions are on strike, the union, the counter-proposals of the employer and the proof of a
employer is still obligated to bargain with the union as the request for conference to settle differences. In cases of unfair labor
employees’ bargaining representative. Further, it is also an act of practices, the notice shall, as far as practicable, state the acts
interference for the employer to send individual letters to the complained of, and efforts taken to resolve the dispute
employees notifying them to return to their jobs, otherwise, they amicably.1avvphi1
would be replaced. Individual solicitation of the employees urging
them to cease union activity or cease striking consists of unfair labor Any notice which does not conform with the requirements of this and
practice. Furthermore, when the Companies offered to “bribe” the the foregoing section shall be deemed as not having been filed and
strikers with “comfortable cots, free coffee, and movies, overtime the party concerned shall be so informed by the regional branch of
work pay” so they would abandon their strike and return to work, it the Board. (emphasis supplied)
was guilty of strike-breaking and/or union busting which constitute
unfair labor practice. In the instant case, the union cannot be faulted for its omission. The
union could not have attached the counter-proposal of the company
Second Issue. Some of the members of the Unions were refused in the notice of strike it submitted to the NCMB as there was no such
readmission because they had pending criminal charges. However, counter-proposal. To recall, the union filed a notice of strike on April
despite the fact they were able to secure clearances, 34 officials and 6, 2001 after several requests to start negotiations proved futile. It
members were still refused readmission on the alleged ground that was only on April 22, 2001, or after two weeks, when the company
they committed acts inimical to the Companies. It should be noted, formally responded to the union by submitting the first part of its
however, that non-strikers who also had criminal charges pending counter-proposal. Worse, it took the company another three weeks
against them in the fiscal’s office, arising from the same incidents to complete it by submitting on May 11, 2001 the second part of its
whence against the criminal charges against the strikers are involved, counter-proposal. This was almost a year after the expiration of the
were readily readmitted and were not required to secure clearances. CBA sought to be renewed.
This is an act of discrimination practiced by the Companies in the
The Implementing Rules use the words “as far as practicable.” In this
process of rehiring and is therefore a violation of Sec. 4(a)(4) of the
case, attaching the counter-proposal of the company to the notice of
Industrial Peace Act.
strike of the union was not practicable. It was absurd to expect the
union to produce the company’s counter-proposal which it did not
The respondent Companies did not merely discriminate against all
have. One cannot give what one does not have. Indeed, compliance
strikers in general since they separated the active rom the less active
with the requirement was impossible because no counter-proposal
unionists on the basis of their militancy, or lack of it, on the picket
existed at the time the union filed a notice of strike. The law does not
lines. Discrimination exists where the record shows that the union
exact compliance with the impossible.
activity of the rehired strikers has been less prominent than that of
the strikers who were denied reinstatement. BISIG VS NLRC

PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES "Facts: The labor conflict between the parties broke out in the open
when the petitioner union struck on April 6, 1992 protesting issues
CLUB FILIPINO VS BAUTISTA ranging from unfair labor practices and union busting allegedly
committed by the private respondent. The union picketed the
"FACTS: Petitioner Club Filipino, Inc. (the company) is a non-stock, premises of the private respondent at Bagumbayan and Longos in
non profit. While, respondents were former officers and members of Quezon City; Angono and Antipolo in Rizal; San Fernando, Pampanga
the Club Filipino Employees Association (the union). and San Pedro, Laguna.

The union filed a notice of strike with the NCMB on the grounds of
On April 8, 1992, it filed with the NLRC a petition for injunction to
bargaining deadlock and failure to bargain. Afterwards, the company
stop the strike which it denounced as illegal:
formally responded to the demands of the union when it submitted
. respondents staged a wild-cat strike, without a valid notice
the first part of its economic counter-proposal then the second part.
of strike, nor observing cooling-off period, and made even during the
Meanwhile, the union conducted a strike vote under the supervision pendency of a preventive mediation proceedings
of the Department of Labor and Employment. . And during the said wild-cat strike, respondents have setup
makeshifts, tents, banners and streamers and other man- made
In response to the company’s counter-proposal, the union sent the obstructions at the main plant and offices of petitioner which
company its improved proposal, but the company refused to improve effectively impeding, as in fact still effectively impeding the ingress
on its offer. This prompted the union to stage a strike on the ground and egress of persons who have lawful business with the petitioner
of a CBA bargaining deadlock. . Respondents have resorted to, unlawful and illegal acts
including among others threats, intimidations and coercions against
The company filed before the National Labor Relations Commission person who have lawful business with the petitioner and the non-
(NLRC) a petition to declare the strike illegal. The company further striking employees who wish to return to work;
prayed that all union officers who participated in the illegal strike be . Without complying with the legal requirements for a valid
considered separated from the service.3 strike, respondents staging of the said “Wild-cat strike”, is by law
considered as illegal or unlawful act which must be enjoined
The labor arbiter4 declared the strike “procedurally [infirm] and
therefore illegal.” NLRC affirmed. However, CA set aside the rulings of
the NLRC and the labor arbiter.
The petition was set for hearing on April 13, 1992 at 3 p.m. The recognized labor leaders like Eulogio Lerum, Jose D. Calderon, Blas D.
union, however, claimed that it was not furnished a copy of the Ople and Jaime S.L. Tadeo. These delegates helped craft into the
petition. Allegedly, the company misrepresented its address to be at 1987 Constitution its Article XIII entitled Social Justice and Human
Rm. 205-6 Herald Bldg., Muralla St., Intramuros, Manila. Rights.

On April 13, 1992, the NLRC heard the evidence of the company For the first time in our constitutional history, the fundamental law of
alone. The ex parte hearing started at 2:30 p.m., where testimonial our land mandated the State to “. . . guarantee the rights of all
and documentary evidence were presented. Some thirty (30) minutes workers to self- organization, collective bargaining and negotiations,
later, an Ocular Inspection Report was submitted by an unnamed and peaceful concerted activities, including the right to strike in
NLRC representative. accordance with law.” This constitutional imprimatur given to the
right to strike constitutes signal victory for labor.
No copy of this Order was furnished the union. The union learned of
the Order only when it was posted on April 15, 1992 at the premises Our Constitutions of 1935 and 1973 did not accord constitutional
of the company. On April 21, 1992, it filed its Opposition/Answer to status to the right to strike. Even the liberal US Federal Constitution
the petition for Injunction. did not elevate the right to strike to a constitutional level. With a
constitutional matrix, enactment of a law implementing the right to
On April 24, 1992, the union also filed its own Petition for Injunction strike was an inevitability. RA 6715 came into being on March 21,
to enjoin the company “from asking the aid of the police and the 1989, an intentional replication of RA 875.
military officer in escorting scabs to enter the struck establishment.”
In light of the genesis of the right to strike, it ought to be obvious
The records show that the case was heard on April 24 and 30, May 4 that the right should be read with a libertarian latitude in favor of
and 5, 1992 by respondent Labor Arbiter Enrilo Penalosa. On April 30, labor.
1992, the company filed a Motion for the Immediate Issuance of
Preliminary Injunction. In the wise words of Father Joaquin G. Bernas, S.J., a distinguished
commissioner of the 1987 Constitutional Commission “x x x the
NLRC: Granted the Company’s Preliminary Injunction. constitutional recognition of the right to strike does serve as a
Hence instant case. reminder that injunctions, should be reduced to the barest
minimum.”
Issue: W/N The issuance of the preliminary injunction was proper.
In the case at bar, the records will show that the respondent NLRC
Held: No. It violated the union’s right to strike and it did not comply failed to comply with the letter and spirit of Article 218 (e), (4) and (5)
with the LC’s requirement for the issuance of an injunction. of the Labor Code in issuing its Order of May 5, 1992. Article 218 (e)
Doctrine: Strike has been considered the most effective weapon of of the Labor Code provides both the procedural and substantive
labor in protecting the rights of employees to improve the terms and requirements which must strictly be complied with before a
conditions of their employment. It may be that in highly developed temporary or permanent injunction can issue in a labor dispute.
countries, the significance of strike as a coercive weapon has shrunk
in view of the preference for more peaceful modes of settling labor In his Comment, the Solicitor General cited various evidence in record
disputes. In underdeveloped countries, however, where the economic showing the failure of public respondents to fulfill the requirements,
crunch continues to enfeeble the already marginalized working class, especially of paragraphs four (4) and five (5) of the above cited law.
the importance of the right to strike remains undiminished as indeed
it has proved many a time as the only coercive weapon that can The Comments of the private and public respondents did not dispute
correct abuses against labor. It remains as the great equalizer. the correctness of these documentary and testimonial evidence.

In the Philippine milieu where social justice remains more as a Moreover, the records reveal the continuing misuse of unfair
rhetoric than a reality, labor has vigilantly fought to safeguard the strategies to secure ex parte temporary restraining orders against
sanctity of the right to strike. Its struggle to gain the right to strike striking employees. Petitioner union did not receive any copy of
has not been easy and effortless. private respondent’s petition for injunction in Case No. 000249-92
filed on April 8, 1992. Its address as alleged by the private
Labor’s early exercise of the right to strike collided with the laws on respondent turned out to be “erroneous.” Consequently, the
rebellion and sedition and sent its leaders languishing in prisons. The petitioner was denied the right to attend the hearing held on April
spectre of incarceration did not spur its leaders to sloth; on the 13, 1992 while the private respondent enjoyed a field day presenting
contrary it spiked labor to work for its legitimization. This effort was its evidence ex parte. On the basis of uncontested evidence, the
enhanced by the flowering of liberal ideas in the United States which public respondent, on the same day April 13, 1992, temporarily
inevitably crossed our shores. It was enormously boosted by the enjoined the petitioner from committing certain alleged illegal acts.
American occupation of our country. Again, a copy of the Order was sent to the wrong address of the
petitioner. Knowledge of the Order came to the petitioner only when
Hence, on July 17, 1953, Congress gave statutory recognition to the its striking members read it after it was posted at the struck areas of
right to strike when it enacted RA 875, otherwise known as the the private respondent
Industrial Peace Act. For nearly two (2) decades, labor enjoyed the
right to strike until it was prohibited on September 12, 1972 upon the Nor do we find baseless the allegation by petitioner that the public
declaration of martial law in the country. respondents have neglected to resolve with reasonable dispatch its
own Petition for Injunction with prayer for a temporary restraining
The 14-year battle to end martial rule produced many martyrs and order dated April 25, 1992. The petition invoked Article 264(d) of the
foremost among them were the radicals of the labor movement. It Labor Code to enjoin the private respondent from using the military
was not a mere happenstance, therefore, that after the final battle and police authorities to escort scabs at the struck establishment.
against martial rule was fought at EDSA in 1986, the new government Sadly contrasting is the haste with which public respondents heard
treated labor with a favored eye. Among those chosen by then and acted on a similar petition for injunction filed by the private
President Corazon C. Aquino to draft the 1987 Constitution were respondent. In the case of the private respondent, its prayer for an ex
parte temporary restraining order was heard on April 13, 1992 and it Presiding Judge Roldan and Judge Juan A. Lanting of the same Court
was granted on the same day. Its petition for preliminary injunction of Industrial Relations dissented from the said resolution, saying that
was filed on April 30, 1992, and was granted on May 5, 1992. In the the Supreme Court has held in several cases that a company cannot
case of petitioner, its petition for injunction was filed on April 24, be compelled to readmit laborers who have committed illegal acts
1992, and to date, the records do not reveal whether the public against said company; that the can company in this case has put in
respondent has granted or denied the same. The disparate treatment issue the illegality of the strike staged; that it was premature and
is inexplicable considering that the subject matters of their petition unjust to order the strikers back to work because if after hearing it
are of similar importance to the parties and to the public. was found that the strike was really illegal, then injustice will have
been compelled to re-employ and pay laborers who have been
legitimately discharged; that on the other hand, even if later it is
PHILIPPINE CAN COMPANY V. CIR (EN BANC) found that the strike was legal and that the strikers had been
improperly discharged, no damage will be suffered by them for the
"FACTS: The Philippine Can Company (petitioner) is a domestic
reason that the can company could always be ordered to pay their
company engaged in the manufacture of tin cans for packing biscuits,
back wages.
candies, etc., and for making pails for carrying water and basins for
washing purposes. The Liberal Labor Union (respondent ) is a labor Issue: Whether or not an employer company may be compelled to
organization. readmit strikers back to work, while a case concerning the legality of
the strike is pending before the court.
On March 14, 1949, a number of laborers belonging to said union
and working in petitioner's can factory staged a strike and Ruling: NO.
established a picket line around the company's compound. That
same morning the company posted notices at the gate of the A careful study of the case inclines us to agree with Presiding Judge
company compound notifying the strikers that those who did not Roldan and Judge Lanting in their dissenting opinion.
return to work at one o'clock in the afternoon will be considered
dismissed; in fact those who did not return to work were declared Judge Bautista in his order relied upon Section 19 of Commonwealth
dismissed and dropped from the payroll. Act No. 103 to the effect that in a case submitted to the industrial
court where the laborers have already struck, said laborers may be
Five days later, respondent Liberal Labor Union filed a petition with ordered back to work pending decision of the case, said order to be
the respondent Court of Industrial Relations alleging that from issued only after hearing when public interest so requires, or when
February 26, 1949, the Philippine Can Company had reduced the the court believes that the case cannot be promptly decided. Section
wages of seven laborers, and that after the corresponding 19 may be applied in ordinary case and in the majority of strikes
negotiations had failed, the strike was declared. The Union asked the where for instance, the laborers have asked for an increase in wages
industrial Court after due hearing and consideration to order the or vacation leave, hospital privileges, etc., and where the employer
Philippine Can Company to restore the former rate of wages and to company has rejected the demands. In such cases, no prejudice or
refund all deductions made in their salaries. damage would be caused to the company by the early return of the
laborers pending decision.
Answering said petition of the labor union, the can company specially
denied the allegation to the effect that the company had reduced the Ordinarily, a strike is a coercive measure resorted to by laborers to
wages of its laborers as alleged in the petition, calling said allegation enforce their demands. The idea behind a strike is that a company
as having been falsely made and constituting contempt of court; and engaged in a profitable business cannot afford to have its production
that the wages of the seven laborers involved prior to February 26, or activities interrupted, much less, paralyzed. Any interruption or
1949, are the same as those they had been receiving after said date stoppage of production spells lose, even disaster. The capital
and up to the day of the strike. The can company prayed the invested in machinery, factory and other properties connected with
industrial court to deny the petition of the labor union of March 19, the business would be unproductive during a strike or the stoppage
1949, and to order the lay-off of laborers not necessary in the of the business. On the other hand, the overhead expenses consisting
operation of the can factory by confirming the permanent discharge of salaries of its official, including real taxes and license fees continue.
from its service of the laborers who declared the strike on March 14,
1949, and who did not return to work in the afternoon of that same Knowing this, the strikers by going on strike seek to interrupt and
day. paralyze the business and production of the company. The employer
company is on the defensive. It almost invariably wants the strike
On April 8, 1949, Judge Jose S. Bautista of the Court of Industrial stopped and the strikers back to work so as to resume and continue
Relations issued an order directing the laborers of the labor union to production. Because of this threat or danger of loss to the company,
immediately return to work and the can company to admit them it not frequently gives in to the demands of the strikers, just so it can
under the same conditions which prevailed before the conflict arose. maintain the continuity of its production. Or, if the strikers refuse to
return to work, the employer company seeks permission from the
The can company filed a motion for reconsideration of said order of court to employ other laborers to take their places. In such cases,
April 8, 1949, reiterating its contention that the strike was illegal, and pending determination of the conflict, especially where public
that it was highly unfair and unjust to require the can company to interests so require or when the court cannot promptly decide the
readmit these laborers who had been properly discharged, without case, the strikers are ordered back to work.
giving the can company an opportunity to be heard and prove its
claim. In this case, public interests are hardly affected or involved in the
present strike. The business of the can company is not such that the
Acting upon said petition for reconsideration, Judge Bautista and two public is keenly interested in its continuance. According to the can
other judges of the Court of Industrial Relations in a resolution dated company, it manufactures tin cans for packing biscuits, candies, etc.,
June 10, 1949, denied the same, holding that it was not enough that and pails for carrying water and basins for washing purposes. Many
the can company alleged that the strike was illegal and that it was similar companies have sprung up since 1947, resulting in intense
considered the strikers as dismissed, and that the order directing the and even ruinous competition, thus explaining the downward trend
striker to go back to work will not cause damage or prejudice to the in the business of the can company and its desire to lay off laborers.
can company because said strikers will render service to said After the strike was staged the can company did not employ other
company and produce wealth for it. laborers to take the places of the strikers. It claims that it no longer
needs the services of the strikers. It becomes consequently apparent Peace Act, and that it was the members of the Union who refused to
that the need for ordering the strikers back to work in ordinary cases work under the terms of employment offered to them.
does not obtain or exist in the present case.

What the Court of Industrial Relations should have done as

suggested by Presiding Judge Roldan, was to give priority to this case On September 8, 1957, the parties having agreed upon mutually
so that it could be decided in the shortest time possible. acceptable terms of employment, signed a new collective bargaining
agreement. This notwithstanding the case for unfair Labor Practice
If we now compel the can company to readmit the strikers who later was continued. But, after due trial thereof, the Court of Industrial
on might be declared to have been properly dismissed by their Relations, on March 21, 1958, issued an order dismissing the case.
employer because they not only staged an illegal strike but because Respondent filed a motion for reconsideration of the above-
they tried to prevent other loyal laborers from continuing to work, we mentioned order and on October 29, 1958, the Court en banc issued
will be committing a grave injustice to the employer company a resolution, holding the Company guilty of ULP.
without first giving it a chance to be heard, especially since it has, as
already stated, squarely raised in issue the alleged illegality of the
strike.
An appeal was taken by the Company from the above-mentioned
Where an employer claims that the strike of some of its laborers was resolution, but the Supreme Court dismissed it for lack of merit.
illegal and so it has dismissed said laborers for refusing to return to
More than eight months afterwards, that is, on July 6, 1959, the
work, and raises such illegality squarely in issue in a case pending
Union filed a motion with the Court of Industrial Relations praying
before the Court of Industrial Relations, and further asserts that
that, in view of its resolution finding the Company guilty of unfair
because of the loss in its business, it does not presently need the
labor practice, back wages be awarded to the workers during the
services of said strikers nor of substitutes to take their places in the
period of the lockout.
employer's factory, the Court should first determine whether or not
the strike was legal and whether or not the strikers have been Petitioners appealed by certiorari from the resolution of the
properly and lawfully discharged. For this purpose, the lower court respondent court en banc.
should give priority to the hearing and determination of the case, so
as to avoid committing any possible injustice to the employer. " On March 15, 1961, the Court of Industrial Relations issued the
resolution subject matter of the present appeal, granting the motion
SAN PABLO OIL FACTORY V. CIR and KAPATIRANG filed by the herein respondent, Kapatirang Manggagawa Association
MANGGAGAWA ASSOCIATION (EN BANC) (NLU) dated July 6, 1959, and, as a result, amending its resolution of
October 29, 1958 by granting back wages to the workers involved in
"FACTS:
the case corresponding to the period of their unemployment due to
On February 25, 1957, the Union thru its president, presented to the the discriminatory lockout declared by their employer.
Company a petition for the renewal of the collective bargaining
The decision promulgated by the Supreme Court on November 28,
agreement entered into by and between them on July 6, 1955. The
1962 reversed the appealed resolution, ruling that the resolution of
petition contained twelve new demands.
the court of October 29, 1958, holding herein petitioners guilty of
In spite of a series of negotiations and conferences in the course of unfair labor practice, but without making any pronouncement as to
which proposals and counter-proposals were submitted and backwages, had already become final and executory and that said
discussed, the parties were unable to reach any agreement. court had therefore no authority in law to amend the same in any
Consequently, the Union filed a notice of strike with the Department substantial respect.
of Labor on April 22, 1957, effective May 22, 1957.
ISSUE: Whether or not the motion for backwages, which was filed by
Three days later, the Company, thru its president, likewise filed a the Union before the resolution adjudging the employer guilty of
notice of lockout with the Department of Labor to the effective on unfair labor practice has become final and executory, was timely filed.
May 27, 1957. These notices notwithstanding negotiations between
RULING: YES. It was timely filed.
the parties went on until the afternoon of May 27, 1957 when, upon
closing of working hours, the Company declared a lockout against There is, therefore, no question that on March 21, 1958, after
the members of the Union, of which the latter was notified. appropriate proceedings, the complaint for unfair labor practice
against herein petitioners was dismissed by Judge Tabigne, but that
After the lockout, the negotiations continued, and in the course of
the court en banc, by its resolution of October 29, 1958, reversed the
one of the conferences between the parties, the workers offered to
order of dismissal and held petitioners guilty of unfair labor practice;
return to work but without signing a new contract — unless their
that on July 6, 1959 — more than eight (8) months after the date of
additional demands were granted. The Company insisted, however,
the resolution just mentioned, the Union filed a motion with the
as a condition precedent to their returning to work, that they sign a
court praying that, in view of the finding of unfair labor practice
new contract embracing no more than the provisions of the old
against petitioners, back wages be awarded to the laborers involved
contract.
in the case, corresponding to the duration of the lockout.
On July 26, 1957, the Union filed a complaint with the Court of
In the original decision we held, as already stated, that the motion for
Industrial Relations charging the Company with unfair labor practice
back wages was filed out of time, and, as a result, we reversed the
under Section 5(b) of Republic Act No. 875 and praying that its
appealed resolution. But the Union claims in its motion for
members be allowed to return to work and be paid their work wages
reconsideration that although the resolution appealed from was
from the time they were locked out to the time they will be allowed
dated October 29, 1958, it was only on July 1, 1959 that the parties
to resume their jobs.
received due notice thereof, and that such being the case, its motion
for back wages filed on July 6, 1959, or only five (5) days after notice,
was filed before the resolution of October 29, 1958 could become
The Company’s answer alleged that the lockout was legal, having executory.
been declared in accordance with the provisions of the Industrial
Petitioners expressly admit in their opposition to the motion for ""When in his opinion, there exists a labor dispute causing or likely to
reconsideration that the Union — in fact, even they — were served cause a strike or lockout in an industry indispensable to the national
with notice of the resolution of October 29, 1958 only on July 1, 1959. interest, the Secretary of Labor and Employment may assume
In the face of these facts that now clearly appear on record, the jurisdiction over the dispute and decide it or certify the same to the
conclusion becomes inescapable that the motion for back wages filed Commission for compulsory arbitration . . .""
on July 6, 1959 was timely filed. Consequently, at the time of its filing,
the respondent court still had control and jurisdiction over its The foregoing article clearly does not interfere with the workers’ right
resolution of October 29, 1958 finding herein petitioners guilty of to strike but merely regulates it, when in the exercise of such right,
unfair labor practice. national interests will be affected. The rights granted by the
Constitution are not absolute. They are still subject to control and
The petitioners herein claim that the motion for back wages of July 6, limitation to ensure that they are not exercised arbitrarily. The
1959 was not a motion for reconsideration of the resolution of interests of both the employers and employees are intended to be
October 29, 1959. We find no merit in this contention. The aforesaid protected and not one of them is given undue preference.
resolution was obviously incomplete because the court, having found
the Company guilty of unfair labor practice, should have made an The Labor Code vests upon the Secretary of Labor the discretion to
award of back wages in favor of the laborers who were the victims of determine what industries are indispensable to national interest.
the lockout. In view of this, the Union filed its motion for back wages Thus, upon the determination of the Secretary of Labor that such
which, in legal effect, was one to reconsider, to amend or complete industry is indispensable to the national interest, it will assume
the original resolution. jurisdiction over the labor dispute of said industry. The assumption of
jurisdiction is in the nature of police power measure. This is done for
Existence of a writ of injunction the promotion of the common good considering that a prolonged
strike or lockout can be inimical to the national economy. The
PHILTREAD WORKERS UNION (PTWU) v. SECRETARY NIEVES R. Secretary of Labor acts to maintain industrial peace. Thus, his
CONFESOR, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION certification for compulsory arbitration is not intended to impede the
workers’ right to strike but to obtain a speedy settlement of the
"Facts: dispute.

On May 27, 1994, petitioner Philtread Tire Workers Union (PTWU), IN THIS CASE, It had been determined by the Labor Arbiter that the
filed a notice of strike, on grounds of unfair labor practice, more work slowdowns conducted by the petitioner amounted to illegal
specifically union busting and violation of CBA. On the other hand, strikes. It was shown that every time the respondent company failed
on May 30, 1994, private respondent Philtread Tire and Rubber to accede to the petitioner’s demands, production always declined.
Corporation filed a notice of lockout. It also filed a petition to declare This resulted to the significant drops in the figures of tires made,
illegal the work slowdowns staged by the petitioner Union. Both cured, and warehoused. However, when the demand of the petitioner
cases were then consolidated. Several conciliation meetings were union for the restoration of overtime work was allowed, production
conducted but the parties failed to settle their dispute. improved. The work slowdowns, which were in effect, strikes on
installment basis, were apparently a pattern of manipulating
Then on June 15, 1994, private respondent declared a company wide
production depending on whether the petitioner union’s demands
lockout which continued until August 22, 1994. There were about
were met. These strikes, however, had greatly affected the
eighty union members who were consequently dismissed. This also
respondent company that on November 11, 1994, it had indefinitely
brought about the filing of the union members of a notice to strike in
ceased operations because of tremendous financial losses.
self-defense.
We do not agree with the petitioners that the respondent company is
On August 15, 1994, the National Labor Relations Commission
not indispensable to national interest considering that the tire
declared the slowdowns illegal.
industry has already been liberalized. Philtread supplies 22% of the
On August 31, 1994, private respondent corporation requested the tire products in the country. Moreover, it employs about 700 people.
Secretary of Labor to assume jurisdiction over the labor dispute.
Therfore, the intervention of the Secretary of Labor was necessary to
Hence, on September 8, 1994, Secretary Confesor issued the assailed
settle the labor dispute which had lingered and which had affected
order. He certified the entire labor dispute to the NLRC for
both respondent company and petitioner union. Had it not been so,
compulsory arbitration. He also ordered that any strike or lockout is
the deadlock will remain and the situation will remain uncertain.
strictly enjoined. Further, he ordered that all striking workers, except
Thus, it cannot be deemed that the Secretary of Labor had acted with
those dismissed employees based on the 15 August 1994 decision of
grave abuse of discretion in issuing the assailed order as she had a
the Labor Arbiter and those who have been retrenched by the
well-founded basis in issuing the assailed order.
Company and have received separation pay, are hereby directed to
return-to-work within twenty-four hours upon receipt of their PSBA VS. NORIEL
separation pay. August 15, 1988
Facts:
Petitioners now challenge the order of the public respondent.
Philippine School of Business Administration Employees Union (PSBA
Petitioners contend that Article 263 (g) of the Labor Code violates the
Union) filed a petition for CE. Later, the union filed a notice of strike
workers’ right to strike which is provided for by Section 3, Article XIII
with the BLR alleging union busting, coercion of employees and
of the Constitution. They also argue that the assailed order was
harrassment. Conciliation conferences were held but to no avail and
issued with grave abuse of authority.
the strike pushed through. PSBA then filed a complaint for ULP and
ISSUE: Whether or not Article 263(g) (now, Article 278) of the Labor sought that the strike be declared illegal and prayed for preliminary
Code is unconstitutional. injunction. The PSBA students also filed a civil case before the RTC
seeking to enjoin union from continuing with its picket and from
RULING: NO. It is constitutional. barricading the school's main gate.

Article 263 (g) of the Labor Code does not violate the workers’ The Union here filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that RTC has
constitutional right to strike. The section provides in part: no jurisdiction over labor disputes which is involved in the case.
Then, the secretary of labor assumed jurisdiction over the case. UST filed a motion for reconsideration. Secretary Drilon issued
Strikers returned to work but allegedly were prevented from doing another order modifying his previous order, ordering UST to readmit
so. PSBA sought annulment of the order but Sec Drilon issued a writ all its faculty members under the same terms and conditions
of execution of the said order. Thus respondent filed in the SC a prevailing prior to the present dispute.
motion to implead Drilon as additional respondent and to restrain
enforcement of writ of execution. The NLRC subsequently called the parties to a conference and
subsequently issued a resolution, which in essence amended the
Meanwhile, case filed in RTC was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Secretary of Labor's order as it provided an alternative remedy of
payroll reinstatement.
Issue: Was it proper for the labor secretary to assume jurisdiction
over the dispute? Issues:

Ruling: Yes Did the NLRC have the authority to amend the Labor Secretary's
order?
In the opinion of Acting Secretary Noriel, the labor dispute adversely
affected the national interest, affecting as it did some 9,000 students. Ruling: No
He was authorized by law to assume jurisdiction over the labor
dispute, after finding that it adversely affected the national interest. It was error for the NLRC to order the alternative remedies of payroll
Indeed, this power is expressly granted by Art. 263 (g) of the Labor reinstatement or actual reinstatement.
Code which provides:
Article 263 (g), first paragraph, of the Labor Code, as amended by
""(g) When in his opinion there exists a labor dispute causing or likely Section 27 of Republic Act No. 6715, which provides:
to cause strikes or lockouts adversely affecting the national interest,
(g) When, in his opinion, there exists a labor dispute causing or likely
such as may occur in but not limited to public utilities, companies
to cause a strike or lockout in an industry indispensable to the
engaged in the generation or distribution of energy, banks, hospitals,
national interest, the Secretary of Labor and Employment may
and export-oriented industries, including those within export
assume jurisdiction over the dispute and decide it or certify the same
processing zones, the Minister of Labor and Employment shall
to the Commission for compulsory arbitration. Such assumption or
assume jurisdiction over the dispute and decide it or certify the same
certification shall have the effect of automatically enjoining the
to the Commission for compulsory arbitration.""
intended or impending strike or lockout as specified in the
In this case, due to PSBA's consistent refusal to attend the assumption or certification order. If one has already taken place at
conciliation conferences called after the union struck, the assumption the time of assumption or certification, all striking or locked out
of jurisdiction by the Secretary of Labor and the issuance of a return- employees shall immediately return to work and the employer shall
to-work order had become the only way of breaking the deadlock immediately resume operations and readmit all workers under the
and maintaining the status quo ante pending resolution of the same terms and conditions prevailing before the strike or lockout.
dispute. By assuming jurisdiction over the labor dispute, the Acting The Secretary of Labor and Employment or the Commission may seek
Secretary of Labor merely provided for a formal forum for the parties the assistance of law enforcement agencies to ensure compliance
to ventilate their positions with the end in view of settling the with this provision as well as with such orders as he may issue to
dispute. enforce the same.

Further, there is no doubt that the ongoing labor dispute at the It was in compliance with the above provision that Secretary Drilon
school adversely affects the national interest. The school is a duly issued his July 18, 1989 order to ""readmit all its faculty members
registered educational institution of higher learning with more or less
The NLRC was thus charged with the task of implementing a valid
9,000 students.
return-to-work order of the Secretary of Labor. As the implementing
The ongoing work stoppage at the school unduly prejudices the body, its authority did not include the power to amend the
student and will entail great loss in terms of time, effort and money Secretary's order. Since the Secretary's order specifically provided
to all concerned. More important, it is not amiss to mention that the that the dismissed faculty members shall be readmitted under the
school is engaged in the promotion of the physical, intellectual and same terms and conditions prevailing prior to the present dispute,
emotional well-being of the country's youth. the NLRC should have directed the actual reinstatement of the
concerned faculty members. It therefore erred in granting the
UNIVERSITY OF STO. TOMAS VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS alternative remedy of payroll reinstatement which, as it turned, only
COMMISSION resulted in confusion. The remedy of payroll reinstatement is
OCT 18,1990 nowhere to be found in the orders of the Secretary of Labor and
Facts: hence it should not have been imposed by the public respondent
NLRC. There is no showing that the facts called for this type of
University of Sto. Tomas (UST) terminated the employment of all 16 alternative remedy.
union officers and directors of respondent UST Faculty Union on the
ground that in publishing or causing to be published in Strike the TABANGAO VS PILIPINAS SHELL
libelous and defamatory attacks against the Father Rector, has APRIL 7, 2014
committed the offenses of grave misconduct, serious disrespect to a
superior and conduct unbecoming a faculty member. FACTS:

As a result of the dismissal of said employees, some faculty members As the current collective bargaining agreement (CBA) between the
staged mass leaves of absence and several days thereafter, disrupting union and corporation is coming to an end, the parties started
classes in all levels at the University. The faculty union filed a negotiations for a new CBA. The union proposed a 20% annual
complaint for illegal dismissal and unfair labor practice with the across-the-board salary increase for the next 3 years however, the
DOLE. The labor arbiter certified the matter to the Secretary of Labor company proposed a lump sum of P80,000 yearly for the 3-year
and Employment for a possible suspension of the effects of period to all covered employees. In reply to the union’s request to
termination. Secretary Franklin Drilon subsequently issued an order provide in full details the basis for its counter-proposal, the company
suspending the termination of the 16 employees. explained that it is based on the affordability of the corporation and
the current salary levels in the industry but the union rejected it. After PNOC VS NLRC
another negotiation, the company increased its offer to P88,000 but
again the union requested for justification but the company refused Facts:
to give in insisting that the financial measures were available in the
refinery scorecard in the website and shared network drives. On the
parties’ 41st meeting, the company proposed the declaration of a November 22, 1991, private respondent [Kapisanan ng Malayang
Manggagawa-PNOC Dockyard & Engineering Corporation (KMM-
deadlock and recommended that the help of a third party be sought.
PDEC)], among other unions namely: Bataan Refiners Union of the
The union filed a Notice of Strike in the NCMB, alleging bad faith Philippines (BRUP); PNOC-Energy Development Employees
bargaining on the part of the company. The NCMB immediately Association (PEDEA); PNOC-Coal Corporation Employees Association
summoned the parties for the mandatory conciliation-mediation (PCC-ELU); and PNOC-Shipping & Transport Corp. [Employees
proceedings but the parties failed to reach an amicable settlement. Association] (PSTCEA), filed with the Department of Labor and
Employment (DOLE) a notice of strike against Phil. National Oil
The DOLE-Sec assumed jurisdiction over the dispute of the parties. Company (PNOC) and Monico Jacob as President/Chairman, on
The Secretary ruled that the company is not guilty of bargaining in the ground of discrimination constituting unfair labor practice.
bad faith and also proceeded to decide on the matter of the wage
increase and other economic issues of the new CBA.
The dispute arose from the grant [by] petitioner and PNOC [of] the
The union questioned the Secretary’s assumption of jurisdiction over amount of  P2,500.00 increase in monthly salaries to Managerial,
the labor dispute between the union and the company on the ground Professionals and Technical Employees (MPT) but not to Non-
that the “Secretary erred in assuming jurisdiction over the ‘CBA’ case Managerial, Professional and Technical Employees (NMPT).
when it is not the subject matter of the notice of strike” because the
case was “all about ‘ULP’ in the form of bad faith bargaining.” December 13, 1991, Acting Secretary Nieves Confesor certified the
dispute subject of the notice of strike to the National Labor Relations
For the union, the DOLE-Sec should not have touched the issue of Commission (NLRC) for compulsory arbitration.
the CBA as there was no CBA deadlock at that time, and should have
limited the assumption of jurisdiction to the charge of unfair labor
The parties are ordered to CEASE and DESIST from committing any
practice for bargaining in bad faith
and all acts that might exacerbate the situation.
ISSUE:
The Order however was not served to the respondent unions
Whether or not the Secretary of Labor and Employment’s assumption
President, Felimon Paglinawan, who is authorized to receive notices.
of jurisdiction is limited to the subject of strike. Wilfredo Rojo, the process server of DOLE merely left the Order with
RULING: No. the guard on duty at the gate of the premises which is a distance
away from the union office.
The labor dispute between the union and the company concerned
the unresolved matters between the parties in relation to their Strike Day (made up term HAHAHA)
negotiations for a new CBA.

The power of the DOLE-Sec to assume jurisdiction over this dispute December 18, 1991 (morning), the day when respondent union was
includes and extends to all questions and controversies arising from poised to strike, its officers and members decided to report for work
the said dispute, such as, but not limited to the union’s allegation of but petitioner thru its Operations Manager, Nemesio Guillermo,
bad faith bargaining. padlocked the gate and refused entry to the employees.

It also includes and extends to the various unresolved provisions of Some officers and members of respondent union were able to enter
the new CBA such as compensation, particularly the matter of annual the premises of petitioner and punch-in their timecards; however,
wage increase or yearly lump sum payment in lieu of such wage they were immediately escorted back outside.
increase, whether or not there was deadlock in the negotiations.

As there is already an existing controversy on the matter of wage December 19, 1991, Acting Labor Secretary Nieves Confesor issued a
increase, the DOLE-Sec need not wait for a deadlock in the return to work order within twenty four (24) hours from receipt of this
negotiations to take cognizance of the matter. That is the significance Order and for the Company to accept them under the same terms
of the power of the DOLE-Sec under Article 263(g) of the Labor Code and conditions prevailing prior to the work stoppage.
to assume jurisdiction over a labor dispute causing or likely to cause
a strike or lockout in an industry indispensable to the national Further, the directive to the parties to cease and desist from
interest. committing any and all acts that might aggravate the situation is
hereby reiterated.
Article 263(g) is both an extraordinary and a preemptive power to
address an extraordinary situation – a strike or lockout in an industry
indispensable to the national interest. This grant is not limited to the December 20, 1991, respondent union thru its President, Felimon
grounds cited in the notice of strike or lockout that may have Paglinawan filed before the NLRC Arbitration Branch, Region IV, a
preceded the strike or lockout; nor is it limited to the incidents of the complaint against petitioner for Illegal Lock-out. All members of
strike or lockout that in the meanwhile may have taken place. the private respondent union reported and were accepted back to
work.
As the term “assume jurisdiction” connotes, the intent of the law is to
give the Labor Secretary full authority to resolve all matters within the Subsequently, petitioner filed before the DOLE a petition to declare
dispute that gave rise to or which arose out of the strike or lockout; it the strike illegal with a motion to cite the striking workers in
includes and extends to all questions and controversies arising from contempt for defying the DOLE Orders. Respondent union on the
or related to the dispute, including cases over which the labor arbiter other hand filed a Motion to Dismiss the petition.
has exclusive jurisdiction."
March 3, 1992, Felimon Paglinawan, Leo O. Orrica, Johnny Clariones Even on the assumption that the illegality of the strike is predicated
and Generoso Mercado, Jr., the President, Secretary, Auditor and on its being a violation of the ban or prohibition of strikes in export-
Treasurer of the respondent union, respectively, after due notice and oriented industries, lack of notice to strike, and as a violation of
investigation, were dismissed by petitioner from their employment the no-strike clause of the CBA, still, the automatic finding of the
on the ground, among others of their participation in the work illegality of the strike finds no authoritative support in the light
stoppage on December 18 to 21, 1991. of the attendant circumstances.

March 9, 1992, the dismissed union officers filed before the NLRC a In Cebu Portland Cement Co. vs. Cement Workers Union, a strike
complaint for illegal dismissal. The cases were consolidated and in staged by the workers, inspired by good faith, does not automatically
[the herein challenged] Decision dated August 12, 1993, public make the same illegal. In Ferrer vs. Court of Industrial Relations, the
respondent ordered the reinstatement of the dismissed officers of belief of the strikers that the management was committing unfair
private respondent union. labor practice was properly considered in declaring an otherwise
premature strike, not unlawful, and in affirming the order of the Labor
The NLRC modified its earlier disposition and ordered herein Court for the reinstatement without backwages of said employees.
petitioner to pay its separated employees severance benefit
equivalent to two months for every year of service in accordance with The NLRC noted further that the strike was peaceful and orderly,
the companys established business practice. unmarred by any form of violence or untoward incident.

Issue 1: WON KMM-PDEC and its officers are guilty of illegal strike? As to the alleged transgression by respondent unions of Section
NO. 4, Rule XIII of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code,
we agree with Respondent Commission that there actually was
Ruling: The Strike Was Legal. substantial compliance thereof.

In resolving that the strike was legal, the labor tribunal Sec. 4.  Contents of notice.  - The notice shall state, among others,
took note of the following facts: the names and addresses of the employer and the union involved,
the nature of the industry to which the employer belongs, the
number of union members and of the workers in the bargaining
(1) the notice of strike was filed only after the union
unit, and such other relevant data as may facilitate the settlement
members lost hope for the redress of their grievance arising from
of the dispute, such as a brief statement or enumeration of all
their exclusion from the P2,500 salary increase;
pending labor disputes involving the same parties.

(2) the union members honestly believed that they were

In cases of bargaining deadlocks, the notice shall, as far as
discriminated against, since the company practice in the past was to
practicable, further state the unresolved issues in the bargaining
grant salary increases to all employees regardless of whether they
negotiations and be accompanied by the written proposals of the
were MPTs (managerial, professional, and technical employees) or
union, the counter-proposals of the employer and the proof of a
NMPTs (non-managerial, professional, and technical employees);
request for conference to settle the differences. In cases of unfair
labor practices, the notice shall, as far as practicable, state the acts
(3) such discriminatory grant appeared to be an unfair complained of and the efforts taken to resolve the dispute amicably.
labor practice intended to discourage union membership, since MPTs
were non-union members; and
Any notice which does not conform with the requirements of this
and the foregoing sections shall be deemed as not having been
(4) the labor unions complied with the legal requirements filed and the party concerned shall be so informed by the regional
before going on strike, such as the members strike vote by secret branch of the Board.
ballot, the submission of the results thereof to the National
Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB), the filing of a notice to
Petitioner argues that the notice of strike was invalid, since
strike and the observance of the 15-day cooling-off period.
Respondent Commission opined that the unions had a reason to
regard the salary discrimination, believed to discourage membership (1) it erroneously named PNOC as the employer, which is actually a
in the labor organization, as an unfair labor practice prohibited by corporate entity separate and distinct from petitioner;
Article 248 (e) of the Labor Code.
(2) it did not indicate the specific acts which respondent union
Thus, although rejecting that PNOC and its subsidiaries were guilty of considered as unfair labor practices; and
discrimination, the NLRC reiterated the policy enunciated in several
labor cases that a strike does not automatically carry the stigma (3) there was no reasonable attempt or effort on the part of
of illegality even if no unfair labor practice were committed by respondent union to amicably settle the alleged labor dispute.
the employer. It suffices if such a belief in good faith is entertained
by labor as the inducing factor for staging a strike. 13 Indeed, the
The respondent union merely committed an honest mistake,
presumption of legality prevails even if the allegation of unfair labor
because it appears on record that PNOC has the same set of
practice is subsequently found to be untrue, 14 provided that the
corporate officers as petitioner; and matters as to wages and other
union and its members believed in good faith in the truth of such
official policies all emanated from PNOC, the mother company. The
averment.
unrebutted testimony of Leo O. Orrica further attests to the fact that
the employees concerned repeatedly brought to the attention of the
As to the alleged violation of the strike prohibition in their CBA , management the discriminatory grant of salary increase, but the
the NLRC held that there should be no automatic verdict of illegality latter failed to address the grievance of the NMPTs or to satisfactorily
on the strike conducted. explain such grant to MPTs only, except to say that it was
managements prerogative.
Under the circumstances, there was sufficient indication of the nature CBA, among others, cited in their similarly worded notices of
and cause of the labor dispute subject of the notice of strike -- unfair investigation that eventually led to their dismissals.
labor practice in the form of discrimination. The unions merely filled
out the standard form furnished for the purpose by the Department Furthermore, such investigations conducted by petitioner were in
of Labor and Employment, and they were indeed not expected to flagrant disregard of the authority and jurisdiction of Respondent
write in detail the history of their dispute. By supplying the Commission and in defiance of the Memorandum of
information required in the DOLE form and submitting the other Agreement24 with the striking unions, executed upon the order of
explicitly required documents, respondent unions have substantially then acting Labor Secretary Nieves R. Confesor. The issues relating to
complied with the law. the strike and lockout were already submitted before the NLRC
through the corresponding complaints filed by petitioner itself and
A well-recognized norm in labor law is that technical rules of private respondents. By filing a formal complaint for illegal strike, it
procedure are not to be strictly interpreted and applied in a manner behooved petitioner to desist from undertaking its own investigation
that would defeat substantial justice or be unduly detrimental to the on the same matter, concluding upon the illegality of the union
work force. Rules may be relaxed in order to give full meaning to the activity and dismissing outright the union officers involved. The latter
constitutional mandate of affording full protection to labor. 18 As objected, in fact, to the conduct of such investigations precisely due
provided in Article 4 of the Labor Code, all doubts in the to the pendency before the NLRC of an action based on the same
implementation and interpretation of this Code, including its grounds. Instead, petitioner preempted the NLRC from ascertaining
implementing rules and regulations shall be rendered in favor of the merits of the complaints.
labor.
Moreover, the Memorandum of Agreement, other than enjoining the
On the labor secretarys certification of the dispute to the NLRC striking workers to return to work, likewise ordered the management
for compulsory arbitration. Basic is the rule that no order, decision to accept them under the same terms and conditions prevailing prior
or resolution -- not even one that is immediately executory -- is to the work stoppage, and ruled that the matter of staggered wage
binding and automatically executory unless and until the proper and holiday pay deductions for the strike period be discussed in the
parties are duly notified thereof. The Labor Code specifically enjoins labor-management committee (LMC). In glaring defiance, petitioner
that decisions, orders or awards of the labor secretary, the regional arbitrarily undertook to change the work schedule of some
director, the NLRC or the labor arbiter are to [be] separately employees on the very day they resumed work, aside from
furnish[ed] immediately [to] the counsels of record and the parties x x deducting in full the wages and holiday pays of the striking
x.21 This means that in labor cases, both the party and its counsel employees pertaining to the strike period, even before the LMC could
must be duly served their separate copies of the order, decision or convene.
resolution; unlike in ordinary judicial proceedings where notice to
counsel is deemed notice to the party. The actions of petitioner are clearly tainted with abuse of power and
with illegality. While we recognize the prerogative of management to
Private respondents precisely impugn the validity of the service of the regulate all aspects of employment, the power to discipline and
DOLE certification order dated December 13, 1991. They maintain terminate an employees services may not be exercised in a despotic
that said order was not validly served on them, since their supposed or whimsical manner as to erode or render meaningless the
copy was left only with a security guard at the gate of the office constitutional guarantees of security of tenure and due process.
premises of the union. Allegedly, no effort was made to serve the
same to an authorized person inside their office. The service of the ASIAN TRANSMISSION, CORPORATION (ATC), vs. THE
order upon counsel for the umbrella union FUEL-GAS should not NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (NLRC)
be deemed a valid service upon Respondent KMM-PDEC, which
had its own counsel of record, Atty. Tomas Caspe, who appeared "Facts (2nd Petition). Three criminal complaints filed against the
before the NCMB petitioning workers in the municipal trial court of Calamba, Laguna,
two by the personnel administrative officer of the ATC and the third
All in all, we find that the conclusions of Respondent NLRC on the by the Philippine Constabulary. The first two complaints, filed on July
legality of the strike are in accordance with law and jurisprudence. 11 and July 15, 1986, were for ""Violation of Article 265, par. 1, in
Petitioner has failed to show grave abuse of discretion amounting to relation to Article 273 of the Labor Code of the Philippines."" 11 The
lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of the NLRC. third, filed on July 17, 1986, was for coercion.

In all three complaints, the defendants were charged with staging an

illegal strike, barricading the gates of the ATC plant and preventing
the workers through intimidation, harassment and force from
Issue 2: WON the termination of the union officers was legal and for reporting for work.
just cause? NO
Acting on Criminal Case No. 15984, Judge Orlando Tuico issued a
warrant of arrest against the petitioners and committed 72 of them
Ruling: Having ruled that the strike staged by respondent unions was to jail although he later ordered the release of 61 of them to the
legal, the subsequent dismissals of their officers due to their staging custody of the municipal mayor of Calamba, Laguna.
of said strike cannot be countenanced.
The petitioners had earlier moved for the lifting of the warrant of
The NLRC correctly observed that, although petitioner averred that arrest and the referral of the coercion charge to the NLRC and, later,
the dismissals of individual respondents were due to infractions of for the dismissal of Criminal Cases Nos. 15973 and 15981 on the
company rules and regulations, the alleged infractions actually arose ground that they came under the primary jurisdiction of the NLRC.
from their participation in the strike. This is crystal clear from the As the judge had not ruled on these motions, the petitioners came to
charges leveled against the union officers, such as active participation this Court in this petition for certiorari and prohibition.
in the illegal work stoppage, disruption of company operations
resulting [in] losses, violation of the NO STRIKE clause of the existing
August 12, 1986, we issued a temporary restraining order to prevent work orders, directing them to submit their written explanation why
Judge Tuico from enforcing the warrant of arrest and further they should not be disciplined or dismissed from employment. Not
proceeding with the case. one reportedly submitted an explanation. Still, a number of UNION
members continued refusing to return to work.
Issue 2: WON pending such determination, the criminal prosecution
of certain persons involved in the said strike may be validly 1 October 1995 the UNION members were placed under preventive
restrained. suspension and asked to appear in the administrative hearing that
was conducted.
Ruling: We hold that while as a general rule the prosecution of
criminal offenses is not subject to injunction, the exception must 2 October 1995 letters of termination for cause were personally
apply in the case at bar. delivered to UNION members who failed to report for work
notwithstanding the assumption and return-to-work orders.
The suspension of proceedings in the criminal complaints filed before
the municipal court of Calamba, Laguna, is justified on the ground of 29 October 1995 Acting Secretary Brillantes issued an Order to
prematurity as there is no question that the acts complained of are immediately call the parties and hear and receive evidence on the
connected with the compulsory arbitration proceedings still pending matter of illegal strike, including the reciprocal demands of the
in the NLRC. parties for damages arising therefrom, and to submit the appropriate
report and recommendations on the case. Pending resolution of the
The first two complaints, as expressly captioned, are for ""violation of issue involving the legality of the strike, the Company is hereby
Art. 265, par. 2, in relation to Art. 273, of the Labor Code of the directed to accept back all striking workers, except the Union Officers,
Philippines,"" and the third complaint relates to the alleged acts of shop stewards, and all those with pending criminal charges, whose
coercion committed by the defendants in blocking access to the termination shall be among the issues to be heard by Atty. Genilo.
premises of the ATC. Two of the criminal complaints were filed by the
personnel administrative officer of the ATC although he vigorously if 24 November 1995 Acting Secretary issued an order modifying in
not convincingly insists that he was acting in his personal capacity. part his 27 October 1995 Order, but affirmed that portion which
excluded the union officers, shop stewards and those with pending
The three criminal cases should be suspended until the completion of criminal charges, from the order to accept back all striking workers
the compulsory arbitration proceedings in the NLRC, conformably to pending the resolution of the issue involving the legality of the strike.
the policy embodied in Circular No. 15, series of 1982, and Circular
No. 9, series of 1986, issued by the Ministry of Justice in connection 5 December 1995, the UNION, aggrieved by the Order of 27 October
with the implementation of B.P. Blg. 227. 21 These circulars, briefly 1995 instituted a petition for certiorari before this Court questioning
stated, require fiscals and other government prosecutors to first the order excluding all union officers, shop stewards and all those
secure the clearance of the Ministry of Labor and/or the Office of the with pending criminal charges.
President ""before taking cognizance of complaints for preliminary
investigation and the filing in court of the corresponding Some 1,500 striking workers many of whom had been charged before
informations of cases arising out of or related to a labor dispute,"" the Office of the Prosecutor after 27 October 1995 have yet to be
including ""allegations of violence, coercion, physical injuries, assault reinstated.
upon a person in authority and other similar acts of intimidation
7 December 1995 Acting Secretary Brillantes issued a clarificatory
obstructing the free ingress to and egress from a factory or place of
order whereby rule that the phrase those with pending criminal
operation of the machines of such factory, or the employer's
charges shall only cover those workers with pending criminal charges
premises."" It does not appear from the record that such clearance
at the time of the issuance of the Order dated 27 October 1995.
was obtained, conformably to the procedure laid down ""to attain the
industrial peace which is the primordial objectives of this law,"" Pending resolution of the petition filed by the UNION before this
before the three criminal cases were filed. Court, Secretary of Labor and Employment Leonardo A. Quisumbing
issued a Writ of Execution.
TELEFUNKEN v. SECRETARY OF LABOR
The COMPANY filed a Motion to Quash, Recall or Suspend the Writ
"25 August 1995 the dispute between the parties started when the
of Execution.
COMPANY and the UNION reached a deadlock in their negotiations
for a new collective bargaining agreement. 17 October 1996 the motion was denied for lack of merit and an alias
writ of execution was issued directing the reinstatement of the
28 august 1995 the UNION filed a Notice of Strike.
strikers in the payroll if actual and physical reinstatement was not
8 September 1995, upon petition of the COMPANY, then Acting possible.
Secretary of Labor and Employment Jose S. Brillantes, after
23 October 1996 the COMPANY filed a motion for reconsideration
ascertaining that the labor dispute involved a matter of national
which on 21 November 1996 was denied.
interest, intervened and assumed jurisdiction over the dispute.
9 December 1996 the COMPANY, not satisfied with the rulings of the
14 September 1995 the UNION struck.
Secretary of Labor and Employment, petitioned this Court for a writ
16 September 1995, Acting Secretary Brillantes ordered the striking of certiorari.
workers to return to work within twenty-four (24) hours. But the
Union’s Contention: the exclusion of union officers, shop stewards
striking UNION members failed to return to work; instead, they
and those with pending criminal charges from the directive to the
continued with their pickets.
COMPANY to accept back the striking workers is tantamount to
23 September 1995 violence erupted in the picket lines. The service illegal dismissal since the workers are in effect being terminated
bus ferrying non-striking workers was stoned causing injuries to its without due process of law. The COMPANY on the other hand
passengers. Thereafter complaints for threats, defamation, illegal maintains that the dismissal of those who failed to comply with the
detention and physical injuries were filed against the strikers. assumption and return-to-work orders is valid and in accordance
with jurisprudence.
26 September 1995 the COMPANY sent show cause memoranda to
the UNION members who joined the strike and defied the return-to
Company’s Contention: the Secretary of Labor and Employment Before the expiration of the CBA between International
should have refrained from issuing a writ of execution mandating the Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (hereafter, Company) and the Associated Labor
immediate reinstatement of some 1,500 dismissed striking workers Union (Union, for brevity), the Union submitted to the Company its
since the exclusion of union officers, shop stewards and those with economic and political demands. These were not met by the
pending criminal charges from the directive to the COMPANY to Company, hence a deadlock ensued, triggering a strike.
accept back the striking workers is still pending before this Court.
Also, the COMPANY claims that the Secretary of Labor gravely Subsequently, 3 other labor cases were filed before the NLRC:
abused his discretion when he ruled that complaints lodged with the
1. a petition for injunction and damages with TRO filed by the
police authorities before 27 October 1995 and subsequently filed
Company against the Union for picketing the Company’s
with the provincial prosecutor after 27 October 1995 are not within
establishment without the required majority of the employees
the ambit of the phrase with pending criminal charges.
approval
Issue: WON Secretary of Labor and Employment gravely abused his
2. a petition to declare the strike illegal filed by the Company.
discretion in a writ of execution pending resolution of a related
petition for certiorari before this Court. 3. a complaint for unfair labor practice filed by the Union against the
Company and the Workers Alliance of Trade Unions (WATU) for
Ruling: We likewise do not find any merit in the Company's
coddling the respondent WATU as a separate bargaining agent of the
contention that when the Union filed a Petition for Certiorari with the
sales workers and undue interference by the Company
Supreme Court (docketed as G.R. No. 122743), with a prayer that the
Company be directed to accept back all striking workers without any Meanwhile, considering that the Company belongs to an industry
exception, it has effectively raised the matter to the Supreme Court. indispensable to national interest, it being engaged in the
manufacture of pharmaceuticals with around 600 workers, then
We must emphasize that the issue involved in the certiorari case now
Acting Sec. of Labor Castro issued an order assuming jurisdiction.
pending before the Supreme Court is the legality of the exclusion of
Thereafter, the Union filed a motion to consolidate three NLRC.
the Union officers, shop stewards and those against whom criminal
charges were filed on October 27, 1995, vis-a-vis, this Office's return- Petitioner Company submits that the exclusive jurisdiction to hear
to-work order. On the other hand, the pending issue before this and decide the three NLRC cases aboves pecified is vested in the
Office is the propriety of the issuance of a Writ of Execution to labor arbiter.
enforce the twin orders dated October 27, 1995 and November 24,
1995 which have long become final and executory. ISSUE: Whether or not the Secretary has the power to assume
jurisdiction over a labor dispute and its incidental controversies?
We need not remind the Company that the decision of this Office is
final and executory ten (10) calendar days after receipt thereof by the RULING: YES
parties. Thus, in clear and categorical language, Art. 263 (1) of the
Labor code, as amended, provides: There are three governing labor law provisions which are
determinative of the present issue of jurisdiction:
Art. 263 (1) The Secretary of Labor and Employment, the Commission
or the Voluntary Arbitrator shall decide or resolve the dispute, as the 1. Article 217(a) (1) and (5) of the Labor Code
case may be. The decision of the President, the Secretary of Labor
2. Article 263(g) of the Labor Code which declares:
and Employment, the Commission or the Voluntary Arbitrator shall
be final and executory ten (10) calendar days after receipt thereof by 3. Section 6, Rule V of the Revised Rules of the NLRC
the parties.
The Secretary was explicitly granted by Article 263(g) of the Labor
In the case at bar, the Supreme Court did not issue any Temporary Code the authority to assume jurisdiction over a labor dispute
Restraining Order. There is therefore no legal impediment to the causing or likely to cause a strike or lockout in an industry
enforcement of the Writ of Execution and Alias Writ of Execution indispensable to the national interest, and decide the same
previously issued by this Office. accordingly. Necessarily, this authority to assume jurisdiction over the
said labor dispute must include and extend to all questions and
In the case of Santiago v. Vasquez, The original and special civil
controversies arising therefrom, including cases over which the labor
action filed with this Court is, for all intents and purposes, an
arbiter has exclusive jurisdiction.
invocation for the exercise of its supervisory powers over the lower
courts. It does not have the effect of divesting the inferior courts of In this case, By virtue of Article 263(g) of the Labor Code, the
jurisdiction validly acquired over the case pending before them. It is Secretary has been conferred jurisdiction over cases which would
elementary that the mere pendency of a special civil action for otherwise be under the original and exclusive jurisdiction of labor
certiorari, commenced in relation to a case pending before a lower arbiters.
court, does not even interrupt the course of the latter when there is
no writ of injunction restraining it. There was an existing labor dispute as a result of a deadlock in the
negotiation for a CBA and the consequent strike, over which the
The inevitable conclusion is that for as long as no writ of injunction or Secretary assumed jurisdiction pursuant to Article 263(g) of the Labor
restraining order is issued in the special civil action for certiorari, no Code. The three NLRC cases were just offshoots of the stalemate in
impediments exists and there is nothing to prevent the lower court the negotiations and the strike.
from exercising its jurisdiction and proceeding with the case pending
before it. And, even if such injunctive writ or order is issued, the lower We, therefore, uphold the Secretary’s order to consolidate the NLRC
court nevertheless continues to retain its jurisdiction over the cases with the labor dispute pending before him and his subsequent
principal action. assumption of jurisdiction over the said NLRC cases for him to be
able to competently and efficiently dispose of the dispute in its
INTERNATIONAL V. SEC., JAN 1992 totality.
"FACTS: To uphold the Company’s arguments that the NLRC cases are alien
and totally separate and distinct from the deadlock in the negotiation
of the collective bargaining agreement is to sanction split jurisdiction their fate ""as this was a matter which they had been previously
which is obnoxious to the orderly administration of justice. advised would be inevitable.""

METROLAB V. CONFESOR, FEB. 28, 1996 Thus, as correctly ordered by the Sec.:

"FACTS: Private respondent Metro Drug Corporation Employees Any act committed during the pendency of the dispute that tends to
Association- Federation of Free Workers (hereinafter referred to as give rise to further contentious issues or increase the tensions
the Union) is a labor organization representing the rank and file between the parties should be considered an act of exacerbation
employees of petitioner Metrolab Industries, Inc. (hereinafter referred
to as Metrolab/MII) and also of Metro Drug, Inc. This unilateral action of management is a blatant violation of the
injunction of this Office against committing acts which would
On 31 December 1990, CBA between Metrolab and the Union exacerbate the dispute. Unless such act is enjoined the Union will be
expired. The negotiations for a new CBA, however, ended in a compelled to resort to its legal right to mass actions and concerted
deadlock. activities to protest and stop the said management action. This mass
layoff is clearly one which would result in a very serious labor dispute
Consequently, the Union filed a notice of strike. unless this Office swiftly intervenes.

To contain the escalating dispute, the then Secretary of Labor and CALTEX V. BRILLANTES, SEPT. 16, 1997
Employment, Torres, issued an assumption order.
FACTS:
Thereafter, Sec resolved all the disputed items in the CBA and
ordered the parties involved to execute a new CBA. Anticipating the expiration of their CBA, petitioner CREA and private
respondent CALTEX negotiated the terms and conditions of
While dispute was unresolved, Metrolab laid off 94 of its rank and file employment to be contained in a new CBA.
employees and thereafter 73 employees.
Because the parties failed to reach any significant progress in these
Acting Labor Secretary Nieves Confesor issued a resolution declaring meetings, petitioner declared a deadlock. CREA filed a notice of
the layoff as illegal for the failure of the latter to comply with the strike.
injunction against committing any act which may exacerbate the
dispute. CALTEX then filed with DOLE a petition for assumption of jurisdiction
in accordance with Article 263 (g) of the Labor Code.
Metrolab argues that the Labor Secretary’s order enjoining the
parties from committing any act that might exacerbate the dispute is Public respondent Sec assumed jurisdiction over the entire labor
overly broad, sweeping and vague and should not be used to curtail dispute enjoining strike or lockout. “The parties are further directed
the employer’s right to manage his business and ensure its viability. to cease and desist from committing any and all acts which might
exacerbate the situation.”
ISSUE: whether or not public respondent Labor Secretary committed
grave abuse of discretion. In defiance of the Order CREA began a strike and set up a picket in
the premises of CALTEX.
RULING: NO
Because of the strike, CALTEX terminated the employment of some
This Court recognizes the exercise of management prerogatives and officers of petitioner union.
often declines to interfere with the legitimate business decisions of
the employer. However, this privilege is not absolute but subject to Again, the parties tried to resolve their differences through
limitations imposed by law. conciliation. The parties decided to refer the problem to the secretary
of labor and employment, to which issued an order: The proceedings
The case at bench constitutes one of the exceptions. The Secretary of concerning the legal issues involving the legality of strike and the
Labor is expressly given the power under the Labor Code (Art 263g) termination of the Union officers will be commenced by the Office of
to assume jurisdiction labor disputes involving industries and resolve the Secretary after the resolution of the CBA issues.
labor disputes involving industries indispensable to national interest.
CALTEX contends: that leaving to the parties the decision on the
In this case, That Metrolab’s business is of national interest is not union security clause issue is contrary to the whole idea of
disputed. Metrolab is one of the leading manufacturers and suppliers assumption of jurisdiction.
of medical and pharmaceutical products to the country.
CALTEX argues that in spite of the provisions on the union security
Metrolab’s management prerogatives, therefore, are not being clause, it may expel a member only on any of three grounds: non-
unjustly curtailed but duly balanced with and tempered by the payment of dues, subversion, or conviction for a crime involving
limitations set by law, taking into account its special character and moral turpitude. If the employees act does not constitute any of
the particular circumstances in the case at bench. these three grounds, the member would continue to be employed by
CREA. Thus, the disagreement.
One of the substantive evils which Article 263 (g) of the Labor Code
seeks to curb is the exacerbation of a labor dispute to the further ISSUE: W/N the secretary of labor should be indicted for grave abuse
detriment of the national interest. When a labor dispute has in fact of discretion amounting to want or excess of jurisdiction.
occurred and a general injunction has been issued restraining the
commission of disruptive acts, management prerogatives must RULING:
always be exercised consistently with the statutory objective.
Other than his failure to rule on the issue of union security, the
Metrolab insists that the subject layoffs did not exacerbate their secretary of labor cannot be indicted for grave abuse of discretion
dispute with the Union since no untoward incident occurred after the amounting to want or excess of jurisdiction.
layoffs were implemented. There were no work disruptions or
stoppages and no mass actions were threatened or undertaken. First, the factual findings of quasi-judicial agencies (such as DOLE),
Instead, petitioner asserts, the affected employees calmly accepted when supported by substantial evidence, are binding on this Court
and entitled to great respect, considering the expertise of these with the National Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB) on June
agencies in their respective fields. 3, 2009 on the ground of unfair labor practice, among others. On
June 11, 2009, SACORU conducted a strike vote where a majority
It is well-established that findings of these administrative agencies decided on conducting a strike.
are generally accorded not only respect but even finality.
On June 23, 2009, the then Secretary of the Department of Labor and
ON THE ISSUE OF UNION SECURITY: SC agreed with Caltex, there was Employment (DOLE) Marianito D. Roque, assumed jurisdiction over
grave abuse of discretion on not settling the issues once and for all. the labor dispute by certifying for compulsory arbitration the issues
raised in the notice of strike. Meanwhile, pending hearing of the
The disagreement between Caltex and Crea on the union security
certified case, SACORU filed a motion for execution praying that the
clause should have been definitively resolved by public respondent.
dismissal of the union members not be pushed through because it
The labor secretary should take cognizance of an issue which is not would violate the order of the DOLE Secretary not to commit any act
merely incidental to but essentially involved in the labor dispute that would exacerbate the situation. However, the resolution was
itself, or which is otherwise submitted to him for resolution. ordered deferred and suspended; instead, the issue was treated as an
item to be resolved jointly with the main labor dispute.
In this case, the parties have submitted the issue of the union security
clause for public respondents disposition. But the secretary of labor CCBPI, for its part, argued that the new business scheme is basically a
has given no valid reason for avoiding the said issue; he merely management prerogative designed to improve the system of selling
points out that this issue is a procedural matter. and distributing products. They also contended that there was a need
to improve its distribution system if it wanted to remain viable and
In this security clause lies the strength of the union during the competitive in the business.
enforcement of the CBA. It is this clause that provides labor with
substantial power in collective bargaining. The NLRC dismissed the complaint for unfair labor practice and
declared as valid the dismissal of the employees due to redundancy.
The secretary of labor assumed jurisdiction over this labor dispute in Likewise, the Union’s Motion for Writ of Execution is Denied for lack
an industry indispensable to national interest, precisely to settle once of merit. SACORU filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the
and for all the disputes over which he has jurisdiction at his level. In Rules of Court before the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals,
not performing his duty, the secretary of labor committed a grave however dismissed the petition and found that the NLRC did not
abuse of discretion. commit grave abuse of discretion. SACORU moved for
reconsideration of the Court of Appeals Decision but this was denied.
HOWEVER, OTHER THAN HIS FAILURE TO RULE ON THE ISSUE OF Hence, this petition.
UNION SECURITY, THE SECRETARY OF LABOR CANNOT BE INDICTED
FOR GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO WANT OR Issue: Whether or not CCBPI should have enjoined the effectivity of
EXCESS OF JURISDICTION. the termination of the employment of the 27 affected union
members when the DOLE Secretary assumed jurisdiction over their
Basically, there is grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of labor dispute. – YES.
jurisdiction where the respondent board, tribunal or officer exercising
judicial functions exercised its judgment in a capricious, whimsical, (According to the Supreme Court, the issue is: Whether or not the
arbitrary or despotic manner. status quo to be maintained after the DOLE Secretary assumed
jurisdiction means that the effectivity of the termination of
But unless grave abuse of discretion is cogently shown, this Court will employment of the 27 employees should have been enjoined – YES.)
refrain from using its extraordinary power of certiorari to strike down
decisions and orders of quasi-judicial officers specially tasked by law Ruling: The Supreme Court rules in favor of SACORU. Pertinent to the
to settle administrative questions and disputes. This is particularly resolution, of this issue is Article 263(g) of the Labor Code, which
true in the resolution of controversies in collective bargaining provides the conditions for, and the effects of, the DOLE Secretary’s
agreements where the question is rarely one of legal right or wrong assumption of jurisdiction over a dispute. The powers given to the
nay, of black and white but one of wisdom, cogency and compromise DOLE Secretary under Article 263 (g) is an exercise of police power
as to what is possible, fair and reasonable under the circumstances. with the aim of promoting public good. In fact, the scope of the
powers is limited to an industry indispensable to the national interest
SAN FERNANDO COCA-COLA RANK-AND-FILE UNION (SACORU) as determined by the DOLE Secretary. Industries that are
V. COCA-COLA BOTTLERS PHILIPPINES INC. indispensable to the national interest are those essential industries
such as the generation or distribution of energy, or those undertaken
Facts: On May 29, 2009, Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines Inc., (CCBPI)
by banks, hospitals, and export-oriented industries. And following
issued notices of termination to 27 rank-and-file, regular employees
Article 263 (g), the effects of the assumption of jurisdiction are the
and members of the San Fernando Rank-and-File Union (SACORU),
following:
collectively referred to as “union members”, on the ground of
redundancy due to the ceding out of two selling and distribution (a) The enjoining of an impending strike or lockout or its
systems, the Conventional Route System (CRS) and Mini Bodega lifting, and
System (MB) to Market Execution Partners (MEPS), better known as
“Dealership System”. The termination of employment was made (b) An order for the workers to return to work immediately
effective on June 20, 2009, but the union members were no longer and for the employer to readmit all workers under the same terms
required to report for work as they were put on leave of absence with and conditions prevailing before the strike or lockout, or the return-
pay until the effectivity date of their termination. The union members to-work order.
were also granted individual separation packages, which 22 of them
accepted, but under protest. Of important consideration in this case is the return-to-work order,
which the Court characterized in Manggagawa ng Komunikasyo sa
To SACORU, the systems adopted and implemented by CCPBPI Pilipinas v. Philippine Long Distance Telephone Co., Inc., as
would result in the diminution of the union membership amounting “interlocutory in nature, and is merely meant to maintain status quo
to union busting and to a violation of the Collective Bargaining while the main issue is being threshed out in the proper forum.” The
Agreement (CBA) provision against contracting out of services or status quo is simply the status of the employment of the employees
outsourcing of regular positions; hence, they filed a Notice of Strike the day before the occurrence of the strike or lockout.
Based on the foregoing, from the date the DOLE Secretary assumes A Motion for Partial Reconsideration was filed by the private
jurisdiction over a dispute until its resolution, the parties have the respondent with the Office of the Secretary. It alleged that the Order
obligation to maintain the status quo while the main issue is being was issued by the Secretary with grave abuse of discretion. It
threshed out in the proper forum – which could be with the DOLE contended that the petitioner should have been ordered to admit all
Secretary or with the NLRC. This is to avoid any disruption to the workers under the same terms and conditions prevailing before the
economy and to the industry of the employer – as this is the strike. Those who were dismissed pursuant to the petitioner’s
potential effect of a strike or lockout in an industry indispensable to redundancy program should not have been excluded. In doing so,
the national interest – while the DOLE Secretary or the NLRC is the Secretary, in consequence, prejudiced the case and effectively
resolving the dispute. declared the dismissal as valid.

Since the union voted for the conduct of a strike on June 11, 2009, The petitioner filed an Opposition to the “Motion for Partial
when the DOLE Secretary issued the return-to-work order dated June Reconsideration”. It asserted that Article 263 (g) of the Labor Code
23, 2009, this means that the status quo was the employment status refers to a discretionary power on the part of the Secretary, and thus
of the employees on June 10, 2009. This status quo should have been recognizes that the Secretary has broad powers and wide discretion
maintained until the NLRC resolved the dispute in its Resolution to do as may be necessary to resolve the labor dispute.
dated March 16, 2010, where the NLRC ruled that the CCBPI did not
commit unfair labor practice and that the redundancy program was Issue: Whether or not the subject orders of the Secretary of the
valid. This Resolution then took the place of the return-to-work order Department of Labor and Employment excluding from the return-to-
of the DOLE Secretary and CCBPI no longer had the duty to maintain work order the workers dismissed due to the redundancy program of
the status quo after March 16, 2010." petitioner are valid. – NO.

PLDT V. MANGGAGAWA NG KOMUNIKASYON SA PILIPINAS Ruling: When the Secretary exercises the powers granted by Article
263(g) of the Labor Code, he is indeed, granted great breadth of
"Facts: Petitioner Philippine Long Distance Telephone Co., Inc. (PLDT) discretion. However, the application of this power is not without
is a domestic corporation engaged in the telecommunications limitation, lest the Secretary would be above the law. Discretion is
business. Private respondent Manggagawa ng Komunikasyon sa defined as the act or the liberty to decide, according to the principles
Pilipinas (MKP) is a labor union of rank and file employees in PLDT. of justice and one’s ideas of what is right and proper under the
circumstances, without wilfullness or favor. Where anything is left to
The members of respondent union learned that a redundancy any person to be done according to his discretion, the law intends it
program would be implemented by the petitioner. Thereupon it filed must be done with a sound discretion, and according to law. The
a Notice of Strike with the National Conciliation and Mediation Board discretion conferred upon officers by law is not a capricious or
(NCMB) on November 04, 2002. On November 11, 2002, another arbitrary discretion, but an impartial discretion guided and controlled
Notice of Strike was filed by the private respondent, which contained in its exercise by fixed legal principles. It is not a mental discretion to
the following: be exercised ex gratia, but a legal discretion to be exercised in
conformity with the spirit of law, and in a manner to subserve and
1. PLDT’s alleged restructuring of its GMM Operation Services
not to impede or defeat the ends of substantial justice. From the
effective December 31, 2002 and its closure of traffic operations at
foregoing, it is quite apparent that no matter how broad the exercise
the Batangas, Calamba, Davao, Iloilo, Lucena, Malolos and Tarlac
of discretion is, the same must be within the confines of law. Thus,
Regional Operator Services effective December 31, 2002. These twin
the wide latitude of discretion given by the Secretary under Art.
moves unjustly imperil the job security of 503 of MKP’s members and
263(g) shall and must be within the sphere of law.
will substantially decimate the parties’ bargaining unit. And in the
light of PLDT’s previous commitment before this Honorable Office Our ruling in the case of Phimco Industries, Inc. v. Brillantes was most
that it will provide MKP its comprehensive plan/s with respect to appropriately and auspiciously alluded to by the private respondent.
personnel downsizing/reorganization and closure of exchanges and In this case we held:
of its more recent declaration that the Davao operator services will
not be closed, these moves are treacherous and are thus violative of . . . . This is precisely why the law sets and defines the standard: even
PLDT’s duty to bargain collectively with MKP in good faith. That these in the exercise of his power of compulsory arbitration under Article
moves were effected with PLDT paying only lip service to its duties 263(g) of the Labor Code, the Secretary must follow the law. For
under Art. III, Section 9 of the parties’ CBA signifies PLDT’s gross “when an overzealous official by-passes the law on the pretext of
violation of said CBA. retaining a laudable objective, the intendment or purpose of the law
will lose its meaning as the law itself is disregarded.”
A number of conciliation meeting conducted by the NCMB, National
Capital Region, were held between the parties. However, these efforts As Article 263(g) is clear and unequivocal in stating that ALL striking
proved futile. On December 23, 2002, the private respondent staged or locked out employees shall immediately return to work and the
a strike. On December 31, 2002, three hundred eighty three (383) employer shall immediately resume operations and readmit ALL
union members were terminated from service pursuant to PLDT’s workers under the same terms and conditions prevailing before the
redundancy program. strike or lockout, then the unmistakable mandate must be followed
by the Secretary.
On January 02, 2003, the Secretary Particia Sto. Tomas issued an
Order. Portions of the Order are reproduced hereunder: Time and again, this Court has held that when an official bypasses the
law on the asserted ground of attaining a laudable objective, the
“Accordingly, the strike staged by the Union is hereby enjoined. All same will not be maintained if the intendment or purpose of the law
striking workers are hereby directed to return to work within twenty would be defeated.
four (24) hours from receipt of this Order, except those who were
terminated due to redundancy. The employer is hereby enjoined to On last piece. Records would show that the strike occurred on
accept the striking workers under the same terms and conditions December 23, 2002. Article 263(g) directs that the employer must
prevailing prior to the strike. The parties are likewise directed to readmit all workers under the same terms and conditions prevailing
cease and desist from committing any act that might worsen the before the strike. Since the strike was held on the aforementioned
situation.”
date, then the condition prevailing before it, which was the condition just posted copies of the said Order at several conspicuous places
present on December 22, 2002, must be maintained." within the premises of the hospital.

CAPITOL VS TRAJANO Claiming that they had no knowledge that the Secretary of Labor
JUNE 30, 2005 already assumed jurisdiction over the pending labor dispute as they
"Capitol Medical Center, Inc., petitioner, is a hospital with address at were not able to receive a copy of the Assumption of Jurisdiction
Panay Avenue corner Scout Magbanua Street, Quezon City. Upon the Order, striking employees continued holding a strike until 12
other hand, Capitol Medical Center Employees Association-Alliance September 1996.
of Filipino Workers, respondent, is a duly registered labor union
acting as the certified collective bargaining agent of the rank-and-file ISSUE:
employees of petitioner hospital.
Whether the service of the Assumption of Jurisdiction Order was
On October 2, 1997, respondent union, through its president Jaime validly effected by the process server so as to bind the respondent
N. Ibabao, sent petitioner a letter requesting a negotiation of their union and hold them liable for the acts committed subsequent to the
Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA). issuance of the said Order. NO

In its reply dated October 10, 1997, petitioner, challenging the RULING:
union’s legitimacy, refused to bargain with respondent.
The manner of service made by the process server was invalid and
Subsequently or on October 15, 1997, petitioner filed with the Bureau irregular. Respondent union could not therefore be adjudged to have
of Labor Relations (BLR), Department of Labor and Employment, a defied the said Order since it was not properly apprised thereof.
petition for cancellation of respondent’s certificate of registration, Accordingly, the strike conducted by the respondent union was valid
docketed as NCR-OD-9710-006-IRD. under the circumstances.

For its part, on October 29, 1997, respondent filed with the National It can be inferred from the certification/proof of service of the
Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB), National Capital Region, a process server that the process server resorted to posting the Order
notice of strike, docketed as NCMB-NCR-NS-10-453-97. Respondent when personal service was rendered impossible since the striking
alleged that petitioner’s refusal to bargain constitutes unfair labor employees were not present at the strike area.
practice. Despite several conferences and efforts of the designated
This mode of service, however, is not sanctioned by either the NLRC
conciliator-mediator, the parties failed to reach an amicable
Revised Rules of Procedure or the Revised Rules of Court.
settlement.
An Order issued by the Secretary of Labor assuming jurisdiction over
On November 28, 1997, respondent staged a strike.
the labor dispute is not a final judgment for it does not dispose of
On December 4, 1997, former Labor Secretary Leonardo A. the labor dispute with finality. Consequently, the rule on service of
Quisumbing, now Associate Justice of this Court, issued an Order summons and orders, and not the proviso on service of decisions and
assuming jurisdiction over the labor dispute and ordering all striking final awards, governs the service of the Assumption of Jurisdiction
workers to return to work and the management to resume normal Order.
operations.
Under the NLRC Revised Rules of Procedure, service of copies of
ISSUE: Whether the primary assumption of jurisdiction may be orders should be made by the process server either personally or
exercised by the Secretary of Labor even without the necessity of through registered mail.
prior notice or hearing given to any of the parties disputants. YES.
However, due to the urgent nature of the Assumption of Jurisdiction
RULING: In Magnolia Poultry Employees Union vs. Sanchez, we held Order and the public policy underlying the injunction carried by the
that the discretion to assume jurisdiction may be exercised by the issuance of the said Order, service of copies of the same should be
Secretary of Labor and Employment without the necessity of prior made in the most expeditious and effective manner, without any
notice or hearing given to any of the parties. delay, ensuring its immediate receipt by the intended parties as may
be warranted under the circumstances. Accordingly, in this case,
The rationale for his primary assumption of jurisdiction can justifiably personal service is the proper mode of serving the Assumption of
rest on his own consideration of the exigency of the situation in Jurisdiction Order.
relation to the national interests.
Let it be recalled that the process server merely posted copies of the
FEU NRMF VS FEU NRMF EMPLOYEES Assumption of Jurisdiction Order in conspicuous places in the
hospital. Such posting is not prescribed by the rules, nor is it even
"Petitioner FEU-NRMF, on 29 August 1996, filed a Petition for the referred to when the said rules enumerated the different modes of
Assumption of Jurisdiction or for Certification of Labor Dispute with effecting substituted service, in case personal service is impossible by
the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), underscoring the the absence of the party concerned.
fact that it is a medical institution engaged in the business of
providing health care for its patients. Clearly, personal service effectively ensures that the notice desired
under the constitutional requirement of due process is accomplished.
Acting on the petition, the Secretary of Labor, on 5 September 1996, If, however, efforts to find the party concerned personally would
granted the petition and thus issued an Order assuming jurisdiction make prompt service impossible, service may be completed by
over the labor dispute, thereby prohibiting any strike or lockout substituted service, that is, by leaving a copy, between the hours of
whether actual or impending, and enjoining the parties from eight in the morning and six in the evening, at the party’s or counsel’s
committing any acts which may exacerbate the situation. residence, if known, with a person of sufficient age and discretion
then residing therein.
On 6 September 1996, Francisco Escuadra, the NLRC process server,
certified that, on 5 September 1996 at around 4:00 P.M., he Substituted service derogates the regular method of personal service.
attempted to serve a copy of the Assumption of Jurisdiction Order to It is therefore required that statutory restrictions for effecting
the union officers but since no one was around at the strike area, he substituted service must be strictly, faithfully and fully observed.
Failure to comply with this rule renders absolutely void the
substituted service along with the proceedings taken thereafter. The
underlying principle of this rigid requirement is that the person, to
whom the orders, notices or summons are addressed, is made to
answer for the consequences of the suit even though notice of such
action is made, not upon the party concerned, but upon another
whom the law could only presume would notify such party of the
pending proceedings.

Applying this principle in the case at bar, presumption of receipt of

the copies of the Assumption of Jurisdiction Order could not be
lightly inferred from the circumstances considering that defiance of
the assumption and return-to-work orders of the Secretary of Labor
after he has assumed jurisdiction is a valid ground for the loss of
employment status of any striking union officer or member.

Prescinding from the above, as the strike conducted by the

respondent union is valid and legal, there is therefore no cogent
reason to dismiss the union officers."