Scribd
Upload
593 views3 pages

National Federation of Sugar Workers V Ovejera, G

The National Federation of Sugar Workers filed a petition seeking to annul a decision declaring their strike illegal. The NFSW conducted a strike due to unpaid bonuses and a 13th month pay. The Labor Arbiter declared the strike illegal as the NFSW failed to comply with cooling-off periods and notice requirements. The court dismissed the petition and ruled that while the law requires a 13th month pay for low-income workers, employers who already provide equivalent bonuses are not obligated to provide an additional 13th month payment.

Uploaded by

KRISANTA DE GUZMAN
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
593 views3 pages

National Federation of Sugar Workers V Ovejera, G

The National Federation of Sugar Workers filed a petition seeking to annul a decision declaring their strike illegal. The NFSW conducted a strike due to unpaid bonuses and a 13th month pay. The Labor Arbiter declared the strike illegal as the NFSW failed to comply with cooling-off periods and notice requirements. The court dismissed the petition and ruled that while the law requires a 13th month pay for low-income workers, employers who already provide equivalent bonuses are not obligated to provide an additional 13th month payment.

Uploaded by

KRISANTA DE GUZMAN
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

National Federation of Sugar Workers v Ovejera, G.R No.

59743, May 31, 1982

NATURE OF THE CASE

Petition seeking to annul the decision of Labor Arbiter Ethelwoldo R. Ovejera of the National
Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) for the ongoing strike of the National Federation of Sugar
Workers that was declared illegal.

FACTS

The National Federation of Sugar Workers conducted a strike due to the complaints of salaries,
particularly the bonuses that were not given to them. One of which is the 13th month pay.
According to the NFSW they should be given their 13th month pay on top of their minimum
wage plus Christmas bonus.

The respondent refused to pay.

The NFSW filed a notice to strike to the Ministry of Labor and Employment. After 6 days, they
started the strike.

CAC filed a petition to the Ministry of Labor and Employment claiming that the strike is illegal
because the strike was declared before the expiration of the 15-day cooling-off period for unfair
labor practice (ULP) strikes, and the strike was staged before the lapse of seven days from the
submission to MOLE of the result of the strike-vote.

Labor Arbiter Ovejera declared the NFSW strike illegal.

After the decision was issued, petitioners were harassed and threatened by the respondents. The
petitioner claimed that the Restraining implementation or enforcement of the Decision was
unconstitutional since it violated their fundamental rights.

ISSUES

1. Whether the strike declared by NFSW is illegal

2. Whether under Presidential Decree 851 (13th Month Pay Law), CAC is obliged to give its
workers a 13th month salary in addition to Christmas, milling and amelioration bonuses

RULING

1. NFSW strike is illegal. - The NFSW declared the strike six days after filing a strike notice
which is before the lapse of the mandatory cooling-off period. It also failed to file with the
Ministry of Labor and Employment before launching the strike a report on the strike-vote,
when it should have filed such a report at least seven days before the intended strike."
Under the circumstances, we are perforce constrained to conclude that the strike staged
by petitioner is not in conformity with law.

2. The petition is dismissed for lack of merit. No costs. In view of the rulings made, NFSW
cannot insist on its claim that its members are entitled to a 13th month pay in addition to
the bonuses already paid by CAC.
The evident intention of the law, as revealed by the law itself, was to grant an
additional income in the form of a 13th month pay to employees not already
receiving the same. Otherwise put, the intention was to grant some relief - not to all
workers - but only to the unfortunate ones not actually paid a 13th month salary or
what amounts to it. It would be a double burden on the employer already paying his
employees a 13th month pay or its equivalent.

To require employers already giving their employees a 13th month salary or its
equivalent to give a second 13th month pay would be unfair.

REASONING
ART. 264 provides that;
In cases of bargaining deadlocks, the certified or duly recognized bargaining representative
may file a notice of strike with the Ministry (of Labor and Employment) at least thirty (30)
days before the intended date thereof. In cases of unfair labor practices, the period... of
notice shall be shortened to fifteen (15) days

ART. 265. Prohibited activities. -It shall be unlawful for any labor organization or employer to
declare a strike or lockout without first having bargained collectively in accordance with Title
VII of this Book or without first having filed the notice required in the preceding Article or
without the necessary strike or lockout vote first having been obtained and reported to the
Ministry.

Presidential Decree No. 851 provides that all employers are hereby required to pay all
their employees receiving a basic salary of not more than P1,000 a month, regardless of the
nature of their employment, a 13th month pay not later than December 24 of every year.

However, Employers already paying their employees a 13th month pay or its equivalent are
not included in this decree.

NOTES AND COMMENTS

Section 6 of Article II reads, in the promotion of social justice, the State "shall regulate the acquisition,
ownership, use, enjoyment, and disposition of private property, and equitably diffuse property ownership
and profits." The Constitution also ensures that the worker shall have a just and living wage which should
assure for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity and give him opportunity for a
better life.
“Neither the Supreme Court nor any other court is enjoined to favor labor merely for labor's
sake, even as the judiciary is duty bound never to place labor at a disadvantage, for that would
not be only unconstitutional but inhuman, contrary to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
and unpardonably degrading to the dignity of man who has been precisely created in the image
of God. At bottom the Ideal in social justice is precisely to maintain the forces of all the
economic segments of society in undisturbed and undisturbable equilibrium, as otherwise there
would be no justice for anyone of them at all.”

According to Article II, Sec. 9 of the present Constitution: "The State shall afford protection to labor,
promote full employment and equality in employment, ensure equal work opportunities regardless of
sex, race, or creed, and regulate the relations between workers and employers. The state shall
assure the rights of workers to self-organization, collective bargaining, security of tenure, and just
and humane conditions of work. The State may provide for compulsory arbitration."

You might also like