class 6 - case digests.doc

8/10/2019 class 6 - case digests.doc

1/29

#1 Bangalisan vs. CA,31 July 1997

FACTS OF THE CASEPetitioners, except Rodolfo Mariano, were amongthe 800 public school teachers who staged massactions on September 1 to 1!, 1!!0 to dramati"etheir grie#ances concerning the alleged failure of thepublic authorities to implement certain laws andmeasures intended for their material benefit$

%he Secretar& of the 'epartment of (ducation,)ulture and Sports *'()S+ issued a Returnto-or./rder$ Petitioners failed to compl& with said order,thus the Secretar& charged petitioners with gra#emisconduct gross neglect of dut& gross #iolation of)i#il Ser#ice law, rules and regulations andreasonable office regulations refusal to perform

official dut& gross insubordination conductpreudicial to the best interest of the ser#ice andabsence without official lea#e in #iolation of P' 80,otherwise .nown as the )i#il Ser#ice 'ecree of thePhilippines$ %he& were simultaneousl& placed underpre#enti#e suspension$Petitioners failed to gi#e their answer to thecomplaint filed against them despite due notice$%hus, the '()S secretar& found them guilt& of theoffenses and ordered their dismissal from ser#ice$

%he secretar&, acting on petitioners2 motion forreconsideration, modified its ruling$ 3nstead ofdismissal, petitioners would be suspended fromser#ice for nine months without pa&$

Petitioners appealed to the )i#il Ser#ice)ommission$ %he latter reduced the suspensionperiod from nine months to six months withautomatic reinstatement in the ser#ice but withoutpa&ment of bac. wages$

Petitioners appealed the case to )4 but dismissedthe same for lac. of merit$

Petitioners2 main argument is that the& were merel&exercising their constitutional right to peaceabl&assemble and petition the go#ernment for redress ofgrie#ances$

ISSUE-/5 6o#ernment emplo&ees can engage in a stri.e

RUI!"!O. 3t is the settled rule in this urisdiction thatemplo&ees in the public ser#ice ma& not engage instri.es$ -hile the )onstitution recogni"es the rightof go#ernment emplo&ees to organi"e, the& areprohibited from staging stri.es, demonstrations,mass lea#es, wal.outs and other forms of mass

action which will result in temporar& stoppage ordisruption of public ser#ices$ %he right ofgo#ernment emplo&ees to organi"e is limited onl& tothe formation of unions or associations, withoutincluding the right to stri.e$

3t is an undisputed fact that there was a wor.stoppage and that petitioners2 purpose was to reali"etheir demands b& withholding their ser#ices$ %hefact that the con#entional term stri.e was not usedb& the stri.ing emplo&ees to describe their common

course of action is inconse7uential, since thesubstance of the situation, and not its appearance,will be deemed to be controlling$

3t is not the exercise b& the petitioners of theirconstitutional right to peaceabl& assemble that waspunished, but the manner in which the& exercisedsuch right which resulted in the temporar& stoppageor disruption of public ser#ice and classes in #ariouspublic schools in Metro Manila$ or, indeed, thereare efficient but nondisrupti#e a#enues, other than

the mass actions in 7uestion, whereb& petitionerscould petition the go#ernment for redress ofgrie#ances$

3t bears stressing that suspension of public ser#ices,howe#er temporar&, will ine#itabl& derail ser#ices tothe public, which is one of the reasons wh& the rightto stri.e is denied go#ernment emplo&ees$ 3t ma& beconceded that the petitioners had #alid grie#ancesand noble intentions in staging the mass actions,but that will not ustif& their absences to the preudice

of innocent school children$ %heir righteousindignation does not legali"e an illegal wor.stoppage$

4s a general rule, e#en in the absence of expressstatutor& prohibition li.e Memorandum )ircular 5o$9, public emplo&ees are denied the right to stri.e orengage in a wor. stoppage against a publicemplo&er$ %he right of the so#ereign to prohibitstri.es or wor. stoppages b& public emplo&ees was

Class 6 - Digests Labor Relations

1


2/29


3/29

with, although the labor union ma& ta.e a stri.e #oteand report the same within the statutor& coolingoffperiod$

#3 U!IO! OF FII/RO E-/O0EES vs.!RC an' !ESTE /HII//I!ES, I!C.

".R. !%. 912 4&5&6&( 19, 199

FACTS/n @une ==, 1!88, the petitioner Anion ofthe ilipro (mplo&ees, the sole and exclusi#ebargaining agent of all ran.andfile emplo&ees of5estle Philippines, *pri#ate respondent+ filed a5otice of Stri.e at the '/?( raising the issues of):4 deadloc. and unfair labor practice$ Pri#aterespondent assailed the legal personalit& of theproponents of the said notice of stri.e to representthe 5estle emplo&ees, before the 5)M:$ %hisnotwithstanding, the 5)M: proceeded to in#ite the

parties to attend the conciliation meetings and towhich pri#ate respondent failed to attend contendingthat it will deal onl& with a negotiating panel dul&constituted and mandated in accordance with theA( )onstitution and :&laws$ %hereafter, )ompan&terminated from emplo&ment all A( Anion officers,and all the members of the negotiating panel forinstigating and .nowingl& participating in a stri.estaged at the Ma.ati, 4labang, )abu&ao and)aga&an de /ro on September 11, 1!8 without an&notice of stri.e filed and a stri.e #ote obtained for the

purpose$ %he union filed a complaint for illegaldismissal$ ?4 upheld the #alidit& of the dismissal5?R) en banc affirmed$ Subse7uentl&, compan&concluded separate ):4s with the generalmembership of the union at )ebuD'a#ao and)aga&an de /ro units 4ssailing the #alidit& of theseagreements, the union filed a case of A?P againstthe compan& with the 5?R)5)R 4rbitration :ranch(fforts to resol#e the dispute amicabl& were ta.en b&the 5)M: but &ielded negati#e result$ Petitioner fileda motion as.ing the Secretar& of ?abor to assume

urisdiction o#er the dispute of deadloc. in collecti#ebargaining between the parties$ /n /ctober =8,1!88, ?abor Secretar& ran.lin 'rilon certified tothe 5?R) the said dispute between the A( and5estle, Philippines$$ which reads as followsE %he5?R) is further directed to call all the partiesimmediatel& and resol#e the ):4 deadloc. withintwent& *=0+ da&s from submission of the case forresolution$ Second 'i#ision of the 5?R)

promulgated a resolution granting wage increaseand other benefits to 5estle2s emplo&ees, ruling onnoneconomic issues, as well as absol#ing thepri#ate respondent of the Anfair ?abor Practicecharge$ Petitioner finds said resolution to beinade7uate and accordingl&, does not agreetherewith$ 3t filed a motion for reconsideration,

denied$ Fence, this petition$

ISSUE -/5 %F( R(SP/5'(5% 5?R)S(R3/AS?G (RR(' 35 F/?'356 %F4% %F( ):4%/ :( S365(' :G %F( P4R%3(S SF4?? )/H(RS/?(?G %F( :4R6435356 A53% )/5S3S%356 /4?? R(6A?4R R45I45'3?( (MP?/G((S /%F( R(SP/5'(5% )/MP45G 4% M4I4%3,4?4:456 45' )4:AG4/$

HE4 %he )ourt is con#inced that the public

respondent committed no gra#e abuse of discretionin resol#ing onl& the sole issue certified to b& theSecretar& and formulating a ):4 which co#ers thebargaining units consisting of all regular ran.andfileemplo&ees of the respondent compan& at Ma.ati,4labang and )abu&ao onl&$

3n its assailed resolution, public respondent statedE

C4 perusal of the records and proceedings of thiscase re#eals that after the issuance b& theSecretar& of ?abor of his /rder dated =8

/ctober 1!88 certif&ing the dispute to As, theAnion filed an Argent Manifestation see.ing themodification of the certification order to includethe )ebu 'a#ao and )aga&an de /ro di#isions,the emplo&eesDwor.ers therein being allbonafide members of the Anion which is the soleand exclusi#e bargaining representati#e of allthe regular ran.andfile wor.ers of the compan&nationwide$ %heir noninclusion in thecertification order, the union argues, would gi#epremium to the alleged unlawful act of the)ompan& in entering into separate J)ollecti#e:argaining 4greementsJ directl& with the wor.ersthereat$

C3n the same #ein, the union manifested itsintention to file a complaint for A?P against thecompan& and its officers responsible for suchact, which it e#entuall& did$

C)onsidering that the Anion had reser#ed theright to prosecute the )ompan& and its officers


3


4/29

responsible for the alleged unlawful execution ofthe ):4 directl& with the union members in)aga&an de /ro and )ebuD'a#ao units, as ithas in fact filed a case which is now pendingwith our 4rbitration :ranch, the issue as towhether such acts constitute A?P is best heardand decided separatel& from the certified case,

not onl& because of the e#identiar& need toresol#e the issue, but also because of the dela&that ma& ensue in the resolution of the presentconflict$

Curthermore, the consolidation of the issue withthe instant case poses complicated 7uestionsregarding #enue and oinder of parties$ -e feelthat each of the issues propounded b& theparties shall be better dealt with separatel&according to its own merits$

C%hus, -e rule to resol#e the sole issue indispute certified to this )ommission, i$e$, thedeadloc. in the collecti#e bargainingnegotiations in )abu&aoD4labang and Ma.atiunits$C *Rollo, pp$ 1>19+

-e agree$ Public respondentJs resolution is properand in full compliance with the order of the Secretar&of ?abor$ %he concomitant dela& that will result inresol#ing petitionerJs motion for the modification ofthe certification order to determine whether toinclude )ebuD'a#ao and )aga&an de /ro 'i#isions

or not will defeat the #er& purpose of the Secretar&of ?aborJs assumption of urisdiction and hissubse7uent certification order for compulsor&arbitration$

T8& assu6$i%n %) u(is'i5$i%n y $8& S&5(&$a(y%) a%( %v&( la%( 'isu$&s 5ausing %( li+&ly $%5aus& a s$(i+& %( l%5+%u$ in an in'us$(yin'is&nsal& $% $8& na$i%nal in$&(&s$ is in $8&na$u(& %) a %li5& %:&( 6&asu(&. I$ 5ann%$ &'&ni&' $8a$ $8& (iva$& (&s%n'&n$ is &ngag&' in

an un'&($a+ing a))&5$&' :i$8 uli5 in$&(&s$&ing %n& %) $8& la(g&s$ 6anu)a5$u(&(s %) )%%'(%'u5$s. T8& 5%6&lling 5%nsi'&(a$i%n %) $8&S&5(&$a(y;s assu6$i%n %) u(is'i5$i%n is $8& )a5$$8a$ a (%l%ng&' s$(i+& %( l%5+%u$ is ini6i5al $%$8& na$i%nal &5%n%6y an' $8us, $8& n&&' $%i6l&6&n$ s%6& 6&asu(&s $% su(&ss any a5$:8i58 :ill 8in'&( $8& 5%6any;s &ss&n$ial(%'u5$i%ns is in'is&nsal& )%( $8& (%6%$i%n%) $8& 5%66%n g%%'. Un'&( $8is si$ua$i%n, $8&

S&5(&$a(y;s 5&($i)i5a$i%n %('&( )%( 5%6uls%(ya(i$(a$i%n :8i58 :as in$&n'&' )%( $8& i66&'ia$&)%(6ula$i%n %) an al(&a'y '&lay&' CBA :as(%&(.

#< Ila: a$ Bu+l%' ng -anggaga:a =IB-> v. !RC,

19 SCRA 2? @ Jun& 7, 1991

FACTS3:M representing >


5/29

%he legislati#e intent that solution of the (%l&6 %):ag& 'is$%($i%ns s8all & s%ug8$ y v%lun$a(yn&g%$ia$i%n %( a(i$(a$i%n, an' n%$ y s$(i+&s,l%5+%u$s, %( %$8&( 5%n5&($&' a5$ivi$i&s %) $8&&6l%y&&s %( 6anag&6&n$, is made clear in therules implementing R4 9= issued b& the Secretar&of ?abor and (mplo&ment pursuant to the authorit&

granted b& Section 1; of the 4ct$ Section 19,)hapter 3 of these implementing rules, afterreiterating the polic& that wage distortions be firstsettled #oluntaril& b& the parties and e#entuall& b&compulsor& arbitration, declares that, Any issueinvolving wage distortion shall not be a ground for astrike/lockout$

Moreo#er, the collecti#e bargaining agreementbetween the SM) and the Anion, rele#ant pro#isionsof which are 7uoted b& the former without the latter2s

demurring to the accurac& of the 7uotation, alsoprescribes a similar eschewal of stri.es or othersimilar or related concerted acti#ities as a mode ofresol#ing disputes or contro#ersies, generall&, saidagreement clearl& stating that settlement of alldisputes, disagreements or contro#ersies of an&.ind should be achie#ed b& the stipulated grie#anceprocedure and ultimatel& b& arbitration$

#2 S-C v !RC-a(58 , 1999

FACTSSan Miguel )orporation *SM)+, which allegedl&needed to streamline its operations due to financiallosses shut down some of its plants and declared


6/29

affected , there is no ground to sustain the notice ofstri.e of the union$

*HEREFORE, the instant petition is hereb&6R45%('$ Petitioner San Miguel )orporation andpri#ate respondent San Miguel )orporation(mplo&ees Anion P%6-/ are hereb& directed to

complete the third le#el *Step ;+ of the 6rie#anceProcedure and proceed with the 4rbitrationproceedings if necessar&$

#? /8il. S$&a6 !aviga$i%nal C%. vs. /-O"O5$%&( 9 19?2

FACTS

PF3?S%(4M is engaged in interislandshipping, PM/6 is a laborunion affiliated with

ederation of ree -or.ers *-+ representing and

which represented some of PF3?S%(4M2s officers$

%he )ebu Seamen2s 4ssociation *)S4+ is another

labor union that represents some of PF3?S%(4M2s

officers$

PM/6 sent PF3?S%(4M a set of demands

with a re7uest for collecti#e bargaining but

PF3?S%(4M re7uired PM/6 to first pro#e its

representation of a maorit& of PF3?S%(4M2s

emplo&ees before its demands will be considered$

PF3?S%(4M started interrogating and in#estigating

its captains, dec. officers, and engineers, to find out

directl& from them if the& had oined PM/6 or

authori"ed PM/6 to represent them$

PM/6 filed a notice of intention to stri.e

stating PF3?S%(4M2s alleged refusal to bargain and

unspecified A?P$

%he )S4 also transmitted its own set of

demands to PF3?S%(4M where the latter

considered its demands$ PF3?S%(4M and )S4

signed a ):4$ /n that same da&, PM/6 declared a

stri.e against PF3?S%(4M

ISSUE-/5 PF3?S%(4M committed A?P$

RA?356E %he acts found b& respondent courtconstituting the foregoing unfair labor practice areE*1+ the interrogation and in#estigation b&PF3?S%(4MJs super#isor& officials of its captains,dec. officers and engineers, to determine whetherthe& had authori"ed PM/6 to act as their bargainingagent *=+ the subection of PM/6 to #ilification and*;+ the participation of PF3?S%(4MJs pier

superintendent in soliciting membership for acompeting union$

PF3?S%(4M admits that it initiated and carried outan in#estigation of its officers as to their membershipin PM/6 and whether the& had gi#en PM/6authorit& to represent them in collecti#e bargaining$%he reason for this, PF3?S%(4M was merel& toascertain for itself the existence of a dut& to bargain

collecti#el& with PM/6, a step allegedl& ustified b&PM/6Js refusal to furnish proof of maorit&representation$ %he asserted reason for thein#estigation cannot be sustained$ %he recorddiscloses that such in#estigation was started b&PF3?S%(4M e#en before it recei#ed PM/6Js repl&stating a refusal to submit proof of maorit&representation$

Specificall&, the in#estigation was put under wa& on@une =!, 1! the same da& PF3?S%(4M sent its

re7uest that PM/6 submit proof of maorit&representation whereas, PF3?S%(4M .new ofPM/6Js refusal to furnish said proof onl& on @ul& 9,1!, when it recei#ed PM/6Js repl& letter$

PM/6Js refusal to submit e#idence showing itrepresented a maorit& had nothing to do withPF3?S%(4MJs decision to carr& out the in#estigation$


6


7/29

4n emplo&er is not denied the pri#ilege ofinterrogating its emplo&ees as to their unionaffiliation, pro#ided the same is for a legitimatepurpose and assurance is gi#en b& the emplo&erthat no reprisals would be ta.en against unionists$5onetheless, an& emplo&er who engages ininterrogation does so with notice that he ris.s a

finding of unfair labor practice if the circumstancesare such that his interrogation restrains or interfereswith emplo&ees in the exercise of their rights to selforgani"ation$

%he rule in this urisdiction is that subection b& thecompan& of its emplo&ees to a series of7uestionings regarding their membership in theunion or their union acti#ities, in such a wa& as tohamper the exercise of free choice on their part,constitutes unfair labor practice$ %he respondent

court has found that PF3?S%(4MJs interrogation ofits emplo&ees had in fact interfered with, restrainedand coerced the emplo&ees in the exercise of theirrights to selforgani"ation

#7 /E/SICOA ABOR U!IO!BFUTU/ASOCA CHA/TER !O. 9?, petitioner, #s$

!ATIO!A ABOR REATIO!S CO--ISSIO!A!4 /E/SICOA BOTTI!" CO-/A!0 OF THE

/HII//I!ES, I!C., !A"A /A!T, respondent".R. !%. 23


8/29

persons whose names and positions appear in4nnex C4C which is mentioned in the decision of the(xecuti#e ?abor 4rbiter dated 5o#ember =0, 1!80,under the same terms and conditions of emplo&mentexisting prior to Ma& , 1!80, except for the officersof the A53/5$ 5o costs$

# Tiu an' Hayu8ay v. !RCAugus$ 1, 1997

FACTSR:S *compan&+ had a ):4 with 6M4(A *union+which too. effect on @ul& =, 1!8!$ R:S obser#edthat a huge amount of o#ertime expenses incurredwhich mo#ed the president to form guidelines on thea#ailment of lea#es and rendering of o#ertime wor.$

/n @une 11, 1!!1, R:S furnished 6M4(A a cop& ofthe said guidelines and re7uested the latter tocomment thereon$ %he union did not file an&comment$ R:S then implemented the saidguidelines$ 6M4(A then send a letter to thepresident$ %he union argued that, the union was notconsulted in the formulation of the said guidelineswhich #iolates their ):4, the guidelines wouldrender nugator& the ):4 pro#ision of the samesubect and the diminution of benefits being eno&edb& all emplo&ees with respect to the mid&ear

bonuses *from =1D= months to 11D= monthsconstitutes a withdrawal of an existing compan&polic&+$ R:S management and 6M4(A officials meton ; @ul& 1!!1 and on 10 @ul& 1!!1 to thresh out theissues raised b& 6M4(A in its =9 @une 1!!1letter$ :oth tal.s, howe#er, were short li#ed as theunion refused to hold further tal.s with R:S$ /n 1=@ul& 1!!1, 6M4(A filed a 5otice of Stri.e with the5ational )onciliation and Mediation :oard *5)M:+based on unfair labor practices allegedl& committedb& R:S on grounds of #iolation of existing ):4,

emplo&ees coercion, union interference anddiscrimination$ %he 5)M: set a conciliation meetingon 1! @ul& 1!!1, but as earl& as 19 @ul& 1!!1 theAnion held a stri.e #ote among its members andsubmitted the results thereof to the 5)M: on 18@ul& 1!!1 which showed that maorit& of the unionmembers #oted to go on stri.e$

'uring the conciliation meeting held on 1! @ul&1!!1, R:S, through counsel, informed 6M4(A2sofficers that R:S did not #iolate an& pro#ision in thecollecti#e bargaining agreement since the issuanceof the guidelines was a management prerogati#edul& recogni"ed in their agreement$ 4s regards6M4(A2s charges of coercion, union interference

and discrimination, R:S argued that these allegedunfair labor practices were neither raised b& theunion in its =9 @une 1!!1 letter nor during their ;@ul& and 10 @ul& 1!!1 tal.s$ R:S2 counsel re7uested6M4(A2s officers to name the persons or officers ofR:S in#ol#ed in the alleged unfair labor practicesand to state the specific act or acts complained of sothat R:S management could ade7uatel& refute saidallegations or impose appropriate disciplinar&actions against its erring officers$ 6M4(A2s officers,howe#er, ignored both R:S2 and the labor

conciliator2s re7uests for a bill of particulars$

3n a second conciliation meeting held on =< @ul&1!!1, R:S reiterated its re7uest to 6M4(A2sofficers to furnish R:S the details of the allegedunfair practices committed b& R:S2 officers$ 4gain,the Anion denied R:S2 re7uest and refused to holdan& further tal.s with R:S management$ /n thesame da&, R:S filed a motion to dismiss 6M4(A2snotice of stri.e and forewarned the Anion about theconse7uences of an illegal stri.e$ /n = 4ugust 1!!1,

the union struc.$ /n the same da&, R:S filed acomplaint for illegal stri.e and unfair labor practiceagainst 6M4(A and its fourteen *1>+ officers withthe 5?R)$ Meanwhile, the Secretar& of ?aborimmediatel& assumed urisdiction o#er the case,issued a returntowor. order, and certified the caseto the 5?R) for compulsor& arbitration$ 3n thecertified case, the labor arbiter found no factual andlegal ground to hold R:S guilt& of unfair laborpractices against the Anion$ /n appeal *doc.etedas 5?R)5)R )) 5o 000901+, the 5?R)

affirmed the labor arbiter2s decision in a resolutiondated ;1 @ul& 1!!=$

Meanwhile, the labor arbiter continued to hear theillegal stri.e case filed b& R:S against 6M4(A$ /n18 ebruar& 1!!>, the labor arbiter renderedudgment declaring the stri.e illegal and the unionofficers who .nowingl& participated in the illegalstri.e to ha#e #alidl& lost their emplo&ment status$ 10of them did not appeal$ %iu and Fa&uha& appealed$


8


9/29

ISSUE-F(%F(R /R 5/% %F( 5?R) )/MM3%%('6R4H( 4:AS( / '3S)R(%3/5 -F(5 3%APF(?' %F( ?4:/R 4R:3%(R2S '()3S3/5 %F4%P(%3%3/5(RS S%46(' 45 3??(64? S%R3I($

HE4E

%he notice of stri.e filed b& the union before the5)M: on 1= @ul& 1!!1 contained generalallegations that R:S management committed unfairlabor practices b& its gross #iolation of the economicpro#isions in their collecti#e bargaining agreementand b& alleged acts of coercion, union interferenceand discrimination which amounted to unionbusting$ 3t is the union, therefore, who had theburden of proof to present substantial e#idence tosupport these allegations$

3t is not disputed that prior to 1= @ul& 1!!1, the uniontreated R:S2 issuance of the guidelines on thea#ailment of lea#es and rendering of o#ertimeser#ices as gross #iolations of the existingcollecti#e bargaining agreement$ 3n its tal.s with theunion, R:S painsta.ingl& explained that the saidallegation was unfounded because the issuance ofsaid guidelines was R:S2 managementprerogati#e$ Ap to that point, the union ne#er raisedthe issue of unfair labor practices allegedl&committed b& R:S2 official under 4rticle =>8 of the

?abor )ode$ :ut in its notice of stri.e filed two da&slater, the union raised issues of coercion,discrimination, and union interference for the firsttime$

Significantl&, the union had two *=+ conciliator&meetings arranged b& the 5)M: at which it couldha#e substantiated these additionalallegations$ Fowe#er, the fact that it had submittedthe results of the stri.e #ote e#en ahead of theconciliator& meetings, and continuousl& refused tosubstantiate its allegations in its notice of stri.ethereafter, lends credence to the 5?R)2sobser#ation that these charges were indiscriminatel&hurled against R:S to gi#e a semblance of #alidit& toits notice of stri.e$

%he bottom line is that the union should ha#eimmediatel& resorted to the grie#ance machiner&established in their agreement with R:S$ 3ndisregarding said procedure the union leaders who

.nowingl& participated in the illegal stri.e ha#eacted unreasonabl&, and, as such, the law cannotinterpose its hand to protect them from theconse7uences of their beha#ior$

#9 !ATIO!A U!IO! OF *ORERS I! THEHOTE RESTAURA!T A!4 AIE4 I!4USTRIES

=!U*HRAI!A/IUF> 4USIT HOTE !IOCHA/TER, &$i$i%n&(, vs. THE HO!ORABE

COURT OF A//EAS =F%(6&( Eig8$8 4ivisi%n>,THE !ATIO!A ABOR REATIO!S

CO--ISSIO! =!RC>, /HII//I!E HOTEIERSI!C., %:n&( an' %&(a$%( %) 4USIT HOTE

!IO an'@%( CHI0UI FUJI-OTO, an'ES/ERA!A D. ADE, (&s%n'&n$s.

!%v&6&( 11,

4)%SEPetitioner =!U*HRAI!A/IUF> is the certifiedbargaining agent of dusit hotel ni..o located inMa.ati cit&$ /n /ctober =>, =000 the& submittedtheir ):4 proposal to the hotel$ %he negotiationsstarted but the& failed to arri#e at mutuall&acceptable terms and conditions =4EA4OC>$

'ecember =0, =001 the& filed a notice to stri.e to the5ational conciliation and mediation board =!C-B>on the ground of the bargaining deadloc.$)onciliation hearings were conducted but wasunsuccessful, /n @anuar& 1>, =00= the& decided towage a stri.e$

/n @anuar& 1 and 18 some members of the unionstarted to ha#e cropped or clean sha#en hair,(#entuall& the hotel pre#ented these wor.ers fromentering the premises claiming that the& #iolated theFotelJs 6rooming Standards$

%he union later on staged a pic.et outside thepremises of the hotel which e#entuall& led to se#erelac. of manpower to the hotel and temporaril&ceasing their operations in ; restaurants$

/n @anuar& =0, =00= the hotel issued notice to theunion pre#enti#el& suspending them and chargingthem with the following offense ==1> vi%la$i%n %) $8&


9


10/29

'u$y $% a(gain in g%%' )ai$8 => ill&gal i5+&$=3> un)ai( la%( (a5$i5& = vi%la$i%n %) $8&H%$&l;s "(%%6ing S$an'a('s =2> ill&gal s$(i+&an' =?> 5%66issi%n %) ill&gal a5$s 'u(ing $8&ill&gal s$(i+&>

%he next da& the union filed a second notice to stri.e

on the ground of A?P and #iolation of article =8*a+$/n @anuar& =9, =00=, the Fotel terminated theser#ices of twent&nine *=!+ Anion officers and sixt&one *91+ members and suspended eight&one *81+emplo&ees for ;0 da&s, fort&eight *>8+ emplo&eesfor 1< da&s, four *>+ emplo&ees for 10 da&s, andthree *;+ emplo&ees for fi#e da&s$

on @anuar& ;1, =00=, the Anion filed its third 5oticeof Stri.e this time on the ground of unfair laborpractice and unionbusting$

%he case was later on compulsor& arbitrated to the5?R) which e#entuall& decided that the Fotel andthe Anion to execute a ):4 within ;0 da&s from thereceipt of the decision$ %he 5?R) also held that the@anuar& 18, =00= concerted action was an illegalstri.e in which illegal acts were committed b& theAnion and that the stri.e #iolated the C5o Stri.e, 5o?oc.outC pro#ision of the ):4, which thereb&caused the dismissal of =! Anion officers and 91Anion members$ %he 5?R) ordered the Fotel to

grant the 91 dismissed Anion members financialassistance in the amount of K monthJs pa& for e#er&&ear of ser#ice or their retirement benefits undertheir retirement plan whiche#er was higher$

Apon appeal the )4 promulgated its @anuar& 1!,=00> 'ecision in )46$R$ SP 5o$ 9


11/29

illegal since, as shown b& the pictures=1 presentedb& the Fotel, the Anion officers and membersformed human barricades and obstructed thedri#ewa& of the Fotel$

#1 "(an' B%ul&va(' H%$&l vs. "O*HRAI!July 1, 3

Fa5$s6enuine ?abor /rgani"ation of -or.ers in Fotel,Restaurant and 4llied 3ndustries Silahis3nternational Fotel )hapter and the petitioner 6rand:oule#ard Fotel executed a )ollecti#e :argaining4greement *):4+ co#ering the period from @ul& 10,

1!8< up to @ul& !, 1!88$ %he petitioner thereafterdismissed some of its emplo&ees and suspendedothers who were members of the respondent union$/n Ma& =9, 1!8, the respondent union filed anotice of STRIEwith the 'epartment of ?abor and(mplo&ment, 5ational )apital Region *'/?(5)R+,based on the following grounds of illegal suspension,#iolation of ):4, and harassment$

%he 4cting Secretar& of ?abor and (mplo&mentissued a s$a$us u% an$& &llu6 order certif&ing

the labor dispute to the 5ational ?abor Relations)ommission *5?R)+ for compulsor& arbitrationpursuant to 4rticle ?3=g> %) $8& a%( C%'& andfurther 'i(&5$ing $8& &6l%y&&s $% (&$u(n $% :%(+:i$8in )%($y&ig8$ 8%u(s )(%6 (&5&i$ %) $8& %('&(,an' )%( $8& &$i$i%n&( $% a55&$ all (&$u(ning&6l%y&&s un'&( $8& sa6& $&(6s an' 5%n'i$i%ns(&vailing (i%( $% $8& la%( 'isu$&$ %herespondent union complied with the order of theS/?($ %he respondent union filed another notice ofstri.e against the petitioner on account of alleged

#iolations of the ):4 and the illegal dismissal of nineemplo&ees$

%he S/?( issued another status quo ante bellumorder certif&ing the case to the 5?R) for compulsor&arbitration, directing the nine emplo&ees to return towor. and enoining both parties from engaging inan& stri.e or loc.out that would exacerbate the

situation$ %he parties were also directed to sign a):4 within fifteen da&s from notice of the said order$%he petitioner placed the respondent union2s'irector for 6rie#ances 4polonio :ondoc, @r$ underpre#enti#e suspension$ %he respondent union filed amanifestation and motion pra&ing that the petitionerbe held in contempt for #iolating the Ma& =;, 1!!0

/rder of the S/?($

Michael -ilson, the petitioner2s general manager,wrote the S/?( informing him of the petitioner2sdecision to retrench se#enteen less senioremplo&ees on a staggered basis, spread o#er aperiod of sixt& da&s, to lessen the dail& financiallosses being incurred b& the petitioner$

%he next da&, the respondent union, through itspresident, informed the '/?(5)R that the union

will conduct a stri.e #ote referendum on /ctober =;and =>, 1!!0$

%he petitioner wrote the S/?( of its decision toimplement its retrenchment program to stem its hugelosses$ /n 5o#ember ,

1!!0$ %he remaining emplo&ees were also informedthat it will close in six months$ /n 5o#ember 1>,1!!0, the petitioner terminated the emplo&ment ofIristoffer So, effecti#e 'ecember 1>, 1!!0$

By :ay %) (i%s$&, the respondent union filed on5o#ember 19, 1!!0 another notice of stri.e becauseof what it percei#ed as the petitioner2s continuingunfair labor practices *A?P+$ /n the same da&, atabout 1=E00 noon, the officers of the respondent


11


12/29

union and some members staged a pic.et in thepremises of the hotel, obstructing the free ingressand egress thereto$ 4t ;E00 p$m$, the policeoperati#es of the -estern Police 'istrict arri#ed anddispersed the pic.et line$

On !%v&6&( , 199, the S/?( issued an order

certif&ing the labor dispute to the 5?R) forconsolidation with the pre#iousl& certified case$ %heS/?( issued a returntowor. order, excluding thosewho were retrenched, and enoined all parties fromcommitting an& act that would aggra#ate the alread&tense situation$ %he S/?( further stated that the#alidit& and propriet& of the retrenchment program ofthe petitioner should be #entilated before andresol#ed b& the 5?R)$ %he S/?( denied therespondent union2s motion to reconsider$%he petitioner filed a complaint with the Regional

4rbitration /ffice of the 5?R) for illegal stri.eagainst the union, its members and officers$ %hepetitioner alleged inter alia that the union membersand officers staged a stri.e on 5o#ember 19, 1!!0which lasted until 5o#ember =!, 1!!0 withoutcompl&ing with the re7uirements pro#ided under4rticles =9; and =9> of the ?abor )ode$

%he ?abor 4rbiter, although s&mpathetic with therespondent union, held $8a$ )%( $8& la$$&(Gs )ailu(&$% 5%6ly :i$8 $8& (&ui(&6&n$s lai' '%:n in

A($i5l&s ?3 an' ?< %) $8& a%( C%'&, the stri.ethat was staged on !%v&6&( 1?, 199 u $%!%v&6&( 9, 199was illegal$

%he respondent union and the indi#idualrespondents therein interposed an appeal from thedecision of the ?abor 4rbiter to the 5?R)$ T8&(&s%n'&n$ uni%n %in$&' %u$ in i$s a&al $8a$ i$8a' 5%6li&' :i$8 $8& (&ui(&6&n$s lai' '%:n inA($i5l&s ?3 an' ?< %) $8& a%( C%'& becauseits 5o#ember 19, 1!!0 notice of stri.e was a mere

reiteration of its September =, 1!!0 notice of stri.e,which, in turn, complied with all the re7uirements ofthe aforementioned articles$

%he 5?R) ratiocinated that the compliance b&therein respondents of the re7uirements laid down in4rticles =9; and =9> of the ?abor )ode respectingthe September =, 1!!0 n%$i5& %) s$(i+& )il&' y$8& uni%n 5ann%$ & 5a((i&' %v&( $% $8&!%v&6&( 1?, 199 n%$i5& %) s$(i+&. Resultantl&,

for failure of the union to compl& with theaforementioned re7uirements for its 5o#ember 19,1!!0 notice of stri.e, the stri.e staged on 5o#ember19 up to 5o#ember =!, 1!!0 was ill&gal$'issatisfied, the respondents filed a petition forcertiorari under Rule 9< before this )ourt doc.etedas 6$R$ 5o$ 1$ (dna 'acana&, another officer

of the union, filed a similar petition before this )ourt$

ISSUE-hether or not the stri.e staged b& the respondentunion on 5o#ember 19 up to =!, 1!!0 is legal$

-hether or not the dismissals of the pri#aterespondent2s officers of the respondent union as aconse7uence of the stri.e on 5o#ember 19 to =!,1!!0 are #alid$HE4

%he re7uisites for a #alid stri.e are as followsE *a+ anotice of stri.e filed with the '/?( thirt& da&s beforethe intended date thereof or fifteen da&s in case ofA?P *b+ stri.e #ote appro#ed b& a maorit& of thetotal union membership in the bargaining unitconcerned obtained b& secret ballot in a meetingcalled for that purpose *c+ notice gi#en to the '/?(of the results of the #oting at least se#en da&s beforethe intended stri.e$N;O %he re7uisite se#enda&period is intended to gi#e the '/?( an opportunit&to #erif& whether the proected stri.e reall& carries

the appro#al of the maorit& of the union members$%he notice of stri.e and the coolingoff period wereintended to pro#ide an opportunit& for mediation andconciliation$ %he re7uirements are mandator& andfailure of a union to compl& therewith renders thestri.e illegal$N;8O 4 stri.e simultaneousl& with orimmediatel& after a notice of stri.e will render there7uisite periods nugator&$

Moreo#er, a stri.e that is underta.en, despite theissuance b& the S/?( of an assumption or

certification order, becomes a prohibited acti#it& and,thus, illegal pursuant to 4rticle =9> of the ?abor)ode of the Philippines, as amended$

3n this case, $8& (&s%n'&n$ uni%n )il&' i$s n%$i5&%) s$(i+& :i$8 $8& 4OE %n !%v&6&( 1?, 199an' %n $8& sa6& 'ay, s$ag&' a i5+&$ %n $8&(&6is&s %) $8& 8%$&l, in vi%la$i%n %) $8& la:$Police operati#es of the -estern Police 'istrict hadto disperse the pic.eters and ta.e into custod&


12


13/29

Anion President Rogelio Soluta and the otherofficers of respondent union, Fenr& :aba& and'ennis )osico$ T8& (&s%n'&n$s 5ann%$ a(gu&$8a$ sin5& $8& n%$i5& %) s$(i+& %n !%v&6&( 1?,199 :&(& )%( $8& sa6& g(%un's as $8%s&5%n$ain&' in $8&i( n%$i5& %) s$(i+& %n S&$&6&(7, 199 :8i58 5%6li&' :i$8 $8& (&ui(&6&n$s

%) $8& la: %n $8& 5%%ling%)) &(i%', s$(i+& an,s$(i+& v%$& an' s$(i+& v%$& (&%($, $8& s$(i+&s$ag&' y $8&6 %n !%v&6&( 1?, 199 :asla:)ul. %he matters contained in the notice of stri.eof September =, 1!!0 had alread& been ta.encogni"ance of b& the S/?( when he issued on/ctober ;1, 1!!0 a status quo ante bellum orderenoining the respondent union from intending orstaging a stri.e$ 'espite the S/?( order, therespondent union ne#ertheless staged a stri.e on5o#ember 19, 1!!0 simultaneousl& with its notice of

stri.e, thus #iolating 4rticle =9>*a+ of the ?abor )odeof the Philippines$

*8il& i$ 6ay & $(u& $8a$ $8& &$i$i%n&( i$s&l)a((&' $8& %))i5&(s %) $8& (&s%n'&n$ uni%n )(%6:%(+ing an' 8a' $&(6ina$&' $8& &6l%y6&n$ %)(is$%))&( S%, and sent out circulars of its decisionto retrench its emplo&ees effecti#e 'ecember 19,1!!0, the same were not #alid ustifications for therespondents to do awa& with the statutor&procedural re7uirements for a lawful stri.e$ 3t

behoo#ed the respondents to a#ail themsel#es of theremedies under the ):4 or file an illegal dismissalcase in the office of the ?abor 4rbiter against thepetitioner or b& agreement of the parties, submit thecase to the grie#ance machiner& of the ):4 so thatthe matter ma& be subected to #oluntar& arbitrar&proceedings instead of resorting to an immediatestri.e$ T8&(& :as n% i66&'ia$& an' i6&(a$iv&n&&' )%( $8& (&s%n'&n$s $% s$ag& a s$(i+& %n $8&v&(y 'ay $8a$ $8& n%$i5& %) s$(i+& %n !%v&6&(1?, 199 :as )il&' &5aus& $8& (&$(&n586&n$

&nvisag&' y $8& &$i$i%n&( 8a' y&$ $% $a+& &))&5$%n 4&5&6&( 1


14/29

emplo&ees should immediatel& return to wor.$ %his

means that a return to wor. order is immediatel&

effecti#e and executor, notwithstanding the filing of a

motion of reconsideration, it must be strictl&

complied with e#en during the pendenc& of an&

petition 7uestioning its #alidit&$ 4fter all, the

assumption and certification order issued in theexercise of the secretar&2s compulsi#e power of

arbitration and until set aside, must therefore be

complied immediatel&$

%he college correspondingl& had e#er& right toterminate the ser#ices of thos who chose todisregard the return to wor. order issued b& thesecretar& of labor in order to protect the interest ofthe students who form part of the &outh of the land$

#1 TEEFU!E! SE-ICO!4UCTORS EESU!IO! D. SEC. OF ABOR

TE-IC TEEFU!E! -ICROEECTRO!ICSI!C. D. SEC. OF ABOR

FACTS%wo petitions comprise this case$ %he first is theAnion2s petition 7uestioning the exclusion of unionofficers, among others, in the order of the Sec$ of?abor directing the compan& to accept bac. allstri.ing wor.ers, and the second is filed b& )ompan&see.ing to set aside the writ of execution issued toimplement the order$%he Anion and the )ompan& reached a deadloc. intheir negotiations for a new ):4$ Fence the Anionstruc.$ Sec$ :rillantes, the Sec$ of ?abor, inter#enedand assumed urisdiction$ Fe ordered the stri.ers toreturn to wor. but the stri.ers failed to return$Pending resolution of the issue in#ol#ing the legalit&of the stri.e, Sec$ :rillantes directed the )ompan& toaccept bac. all stri.ing wor.ers, except the Anion/fficers, shop stewards, and all those with pending

criminal charges, whose termination shall be amongthe issues to be heard b& 4tt&$ 6enilo$

ISSUEwhether or not the exclusion of the Sec$ of?abor in the order of the Sec$ of ?abor directing thecompan& to accept bac. all stri.ing wor.ers iscorrect

AR"U-E!TS

3n these twin petitions, the A53/5 argues that theexclusion of union officers, shop stewards and thosewith pending criminal charges from the directi#e tothe )/MP45G to accept bac. the stri.ing wor.ers istantamount to illegal dismissal since the wor.ers arein effect being terminated without due process oflaw$ %he )/MP45G on the other hand maintains

that the dismissal of those who failed to compl& withthe assumption and returntowor. orders is #alidand in accordance with urisprudence

HE45o$ 3t ma& be true that the wor.ers struc.after the Secretar& of ?abor and (mplo&ment hadassumed urisdiction o#er the case and that the&ma& ha#e failed to immediatel& return to wor. e#enafter the issuance of a returntowor. order, ma.ingtheir continued stri.e illegal$ or, a returntowor.order is immediatel& effecti#e and executor&

notwithstanding the filing of a motion forreconsideration$ :ut, the liabilit& of each of the unionofficers and the wor.ers, if an&, has &et to bedetermined$ %hus, did all or some of the A53/5leaders .nowingl& participate in the illegal stri.e 'idan& or all of the members of the A53/5 who thenhad pending criminal charges .nowingl& participatein the commission, if an&, of illegal acts during thestri.e %he records do not bear the answers to these7uestions, but not expectedl& so, for 4tt&$ 6enilo ofthe '/?( has &et to hear and recei#e e#idence on

the matter, and to submit a report andrecommendation thereon$%hus to exclude union officers, shop stewards andthose with pending criminal charges in the directi#eto the )/MP45G to accept bac. the stri.ing wor.erswithout first determining whether the& .nowingl&committed illegal acts would be tantamount todismissal without due process of law$ %he )ourttherefore holds that the Fonorable Secretar& of?abor gra#el& abused his discretion in excludingunion officers, shop stewards and those with

pending criminal charges in the order to the)/MP45G to accept bac. the stri.ing wor.erspending resolution of the issue in#ol#ing the legalit&of the stri.e$

#13 Univ&(si$y %) San Agus$in E6l%y&&s Uni%nFF* vs. CA @ -a(58 , ?


14


15/29

Fa5$s%his is a case between the Ani#ersit& of San 4gustin(mplo&ees Anion- *A53/5+ and %he Ani#ersit&of San 4gustin *A53H+$

Sometime on =000, the parties agreed on a


16/29

Rulings/n the first issue, the S) ruled that 4R%$ =9; of the?abor )ode pro#idesE $C$$Such assumption orcertification *of the S/?(+ shall ha#e the effect ofautomaticall& enoining the intended or impendingstri.e or loc.out as specified in the assumption or

certification order$ 3f one has alread& ta.en place atthe time of assumption or certification, all stri.ing orloc.ed out emplo&ees shall immediatel& return towor. and the emplo&er shall immediatel& resumeoperations and readmit all wor.ers under the sameterms and conditions pre#ailing before the stri.e orloc.out$C %he phrase Cimmediatel& return to wor.Cindicates an almost instantaneous or automaticcompliance for a stri.er to return to wor. once an4@/ has been dul& ser#ed$ %herefore, the act of thestri.ing emplo&ees is #iolati#e of the foregoing

pro#ision$

/n the second issue, the Supreme )ourt ruled thateconomic benefits, which included the issue on theformula in computing the %3P share of theemplo&ees, is one that arises from the interpretationor implementation of the ):4, and these mattersshould be referred to a Holuntar& 4rbitrator, aspro#ided in 4rt$ =91 and =9= of the ?abor )ode$ %hepeculiar facts of the instant case show that theAni#ersit& was depri#ed of a remed& that would ha#e

enoined the Anion stri.e and was left without an&recourse except to in#o.e the urisdiction of theS/?($

# 1< ".R. !%. 23 O5$%&( 3, 191I*A0*A0 /UBICATIO!S, I!C. plaintiffappellee#s$ /ER-A!E!T CO!CRETE *ORERS U!IO!,A))ilia$&' :i$8 $8& !ATIO!A ASSOCIATIO! OF

TRA4E U!IO!S, HER-O"E!ES ATRAO,AUII!O 4ISTOR, BE!JA-I! "UTIERRE,JOSE RA-OS, TIBURCIO -AR4O, ER!ESTO

A-ARIO an' 4O-I!"O EA!O, defendantsappellants$

FACTS

?iwa&wa& Publications, 3nc$ brought an

action in the )3Manila against Permanent)oncrete -or.ers Anion, et al$ for the issuanceof a writ of preliminar& inunction and fordamages it incurred when its emplo&ees were

pre#ented from getting their dail& suppl& ofnewsprint from its bodega

Plaintiff alleged that it is a second sublessee

of a part of the premises of the Permanent)oncrete Products, 3nc$ at 1000 )ordeleriaStreet, Sta$ Mesa, Manila from 'on RamonRoces, a first lessee from the aforesaid compan&$

%he premises of the plaintiff is separated from thecompound of Permanent )oncrete Products, 3nc$b& a concrete and barbed wire fence with its ownentrance and road leading to the national road$%his entrance is separate and distinct from theentrance road of the Permanent )oncreteProducts, 3nc

Plaintiff further alleged that it has a bodega

for its newsprint in the sublet propert& which ituses for its printing and publishing business$ %hedail& suppl& of newsprint needed to feed its

printing plant is ta.en from this bodega$

/n September 10, 1!9>, the emplo&ees of

the Permanent )oncrete Products, 3nc$ declareda stri.e against their compan&$

/ctober ;, 1!9> for un.nown reasons and

without legal ustification, Permanent )oncrete-or.ers Anion and its members pic.eted,stopped and prohibited plaintiffJs truc. fromentering the compound to load newsprint from itsbodega$

%he union members intimidated andthreatened with bodil& harm the emplo&ees whowere in the truc.$

/n /ctober 9, 1!9>, union members

stopped and prohibited the general manager,personnel manager, bodegaincharge and otheremplo&ees of the plaintiff from getting newsprintin their bodega$

Plaintiff made repeated demands to the

defendants not to intimidate and threaten itsemplo&ees with bodil& harm and not to bloc.ade,

pic.et or prohibit plaintiffJs truc. from gettingnewsprint in their bodega$ 'efendants refusedand continued to refuse to gi#e in to the demandsof the plaintiff$

4s a conse7uence, plaintiff rented another

bodega during the time members of thedefendant union pre#ented its emplo&ees fromentering its bodega in the compound ofPermanent )oncrete Products, 3nc$ and thusincurred expenses both in terms of bodega


16


17/29

rentals and in transporting newsprint from the pierto the temporar& bodega$

%he pic.et held b& defendantappellant

union against their emplo&er pre#ented hereinplaintiffappelleeJs truc. from loading andunloading of its products inside the premises ofPermanent )oncrete Products, where the

plaintiffappellee was occup&ing as a sublessee$Fence, the latter sought to enoin the pic.et$

ISSUE

Ma& a pic.et be enoined at the instance of

a third part&HE4

Ges$ Peaceful pic.eting, while being allowed

as a phase of freedom of expression guaranteedb& the )onstitution and could not be curtailede#en in the absence of emplo&eremplo&eerelationship, is not an absolute right$ %he courtsare not without power to locali"e the sphere ofdemonstration, whose interest are foreign to thecontext of the dispute$ %hus the right ma& berecogni"ed at the instance of an Cinnocentb&standerC who is not in#ol#ed in the labordispute if it appears that the result of thepic.eting is create an impression that a labordispute exists between him and the pic.etingunion$

!OTESPic.eting is a form of protest in which people *calledpic.eters+ congregate outside a place of wor. orlocation where an e#ent is ta.ing place$ /ften, this isdone in an attempt to dissuade others from going in*Ccrossing the pic.et lineC+, but it can also be done todraw public attention to a cause$ Pic.eters normall&endea#or to be non#iolent$ 3t can ha#e a number ofaims, but is generall& to put pressure on the part&targeted to meet particular demands andDor cease

operations$ %his pressure is achie#ed b& harmingthe business through loss of customers and negati#epublicit&, or b& discouraging or pre#enting wor.ersandDor customers from entering the site and thereb&pre#enting the business from operating normall&$

Pic.eting is a common tactic used b& trade unionsduring stri.es, who will tr& to pre#ent dissidentmembers of the union, members of other unions and

nonunionised wor.ers from wor.ing$ %hose whocross the pic.et line and wor. despite the stri.e are.nown peorati#el& as scabs$

#12 ".R. !%. 31192 Jun& 2, 1973

/HII//I!E BOO-I!" -IS E-/O0-E!T

OR"A!IATIO!, !ICA!OR TOE!TI!O,FORE!CIO, /A4RI"A!O RUFI!O, ROAS-ARIA!O 4E EO!, ASE!CIO! /ACIE!TE,

BO!IFACIO DACU!A, BE!JA-I! /A"CU an'RO4UFO -U!SO4, petitioners, #s$ /HII//I!E

BOO-I!" -IS CO., I!C. an' COURT OFI!4USTRIA REATIO!S, respondents$

Petitioner Philippine :looming Mills (mplo&ees

/rgani"ation *P:M(/+ is a legitimate labor unioncomposed of the emplo&ees of the respondentPhilippine :looming Mills )o$, 3nc$, andpetitioners 5icanor %olentino, lorencioPadrigano, Rufino Roxas, Mariano de ?eon,4sencion Paciente, :onifacio Hacuna, :enaminPagcu and Rodulfo Munsod are officers andmembers of the petitioner Anion$

Petitioners claim that the& decided to stage a

mass demonstration at MalacaQang in protestagainst alleged abuses of the Pasig police, to beparticipated in b& the wor.ers in the first shift*from 9 4$M$ to = P$M$+ as well as those in theregular second and third shifts *from 4$M$ to >P$M$ and from 8 4$M$ to < P$M$, respecti#el&+ andthat the& informed the respondent )ompan& oftheir proposed demonstration$

4 meeting was called b& the )ompan& at the

)ompan&Js canteen$

%he )ompan& as.ed the union panel to confirm

or den& said proected mass demonstration at

MalacaQang$ P:M(/ thru :enamin Pagcu whoacted as spo.esman of the union panel,confirmed the planned demonstration and statedthat the demonstration or rall& cannot becancelled because it has alread& been agreedupon in the meeting$ Pagcu explained further thatthe demonstration has nothing to do with the)ompan& because the union has no 7uarrel ordispute with Management$


17


18/29

%he Management, thru 4tt&$ )$S$ de ?eon,

)ompan& personnel manager, informed P:M(/that the demonstration is an inalienable right ofthe union guaranteed b& the )onstitution butemphasi"ed, howe#er, that an& demonstration forthat matter should not undul& preudice thenormal operation of the )ompan&$ or which

reason, the )ompan& warned the P:M(/representati#es that wor.ers who belong to thefirst and regular shifts, who without pre#iouslea#e of absence appro#ed b& the )ompan&,particularl&, the officers present who are theorgani"ers of the demonstration, who shall fail toreport for wor. shall be dismissed, because suchfailure is a #iolation of the existing ):4particularl& 4rticle LL3HE 5/ ?/)I/A% B 5/S%R3I(J and, therefore, would be amounting toan illegal stri.e$

:ecause the petitioners and their members

numbering about >00 proceeded with thedemonstration despite the pleas of therespondent )ompan& that the first shift wor.ersshould not be re7uired to participate in thedemonstration and that the wor.ers in the secondand third shifts should be utili"ed for thedemonstration, respondent )ompan& chargedpetitioners and other emplo&ees who composedthe first shift, with a C#iolation of Section >*a+9 in

relation to Sections 1; and 1>, as well as Section1


19/29

%here was a lac. of human understanding or

compassion on the part of the firm in reectingthe re7uest of the Anion for excuse from wor.for the da& shifts in order to carr& out its massdemonstration$ 4nd to regard as a ground fordismissal the mass demonstration held againstthe Pasig police, not against the compan&, is

gross #indicti#eness on the part of the emplo&er,which is as unchristian as it is unconstitutional$

%he respondent compan& is the one guilt& of

unfair labor practice$ :ecause the refusal on thepart of the respondent firm to permit all itsemplo&ees and wor.ers to oin the massdemonstration against alleged police abusesand the subse7uent separation of the eight *8+petitioners from the ser#ice constituted anunconstitutional restraint on the freedom of

expression, freedom of assembl& and freedompetition for redress of grie#ances, therespondent firm committed an unfair laborpractice defined in Section >*a1+ in relation toSection ; of Republic 4ct 5o$ 8*a1+regards as an unfair labor practice for anemplo&er interfere with, restrain or coerce

emplo&ees in the exercise their rightsguaranteed in Section %hree$C

4part from #iolating the constitutional

guarantees of free speech and assembl& as wellas the right to petition for redress of grie#ancesof the emplo&ees, the dismissal of the eight *8+leaders of the wor.ers for proceeding with thedemonstration and conse7uentl& being absentfrom wor., constitutes a denial of social usticeli.ewise assured b& the fundamental law to

these lowl& emplo&ees$ Section < of 4rticle 33 ofthe )onstitution imposes upon the State Cthepromotion of social ustice to insure the wellbeing and economic securit& of all of thepeople,C which guarantee is emphasi"ed b& theother directi#e in Section 9 of 4rticle L3H of the)onstitution that Cthe State shall affordprotection to labor $$$C$

%he dismissal or termination of the emplo&ment

of the petitioning eight *8+ leaders of the Anion isharsh for a oneda& absence from wor.$ %heappropriate penalt& B if it deser#es an& penalt&at all B should ha#e been simpl& to charge saidoneda& absence against their #acation or sic.lea#e$ :ut to dismiss the eight *8+ leaders of the

petitioner Anion is a most cruel penalt&, since asaforestated the Anion leaders depend on theirwages for their dail& sustenance as well as thatof their respecti#e families aside from the factthat it is a lethal blow to unionism, while at thesame time strengthening the oppressi#e hand ofthe pett& t&rants in the localities$

Management has shown not onl& lac. of good

will or good intention, but a complete lac. ofs&mpathetic understanding of the plight of its

laborers who claim that the& are being subectedto indignities b& the local police$ 3t was moreexpedient for the firm to conser#e its income orprofits than to assist its emplo&ees in their fightfor their freedoms and securit& against allegedpett& t&rannies of local police officers$

%he primac& of human rights B freedom of

expression, of peaceful assembl& and of petitionfor redress of grie#ances B o#er propert& rightsshould be sustained$

%he rights of free expression, free assembl&

and petition, are not onl& ci#il rights but alsopolitical rights essential to manJs eno&mentof his life, to his happiness and to his fulland complete fulfillment$ %hru thesefreedoms the citi"ens can participate notmerel& in the periodic establishment of thego#ernment through their suffrage but alsoin the administration of public affairs as wellas in the discipline of abusi#e public officers$

%he citi"en is accorded these rights so thathe can appeal to the appropriatego#ernmental officers or agencies forredress and protection as well as for theimposition of the lawful sanctions on erringpublic officers and emplo&ees$

-hile the :ill of Rights also protects

propert& rights, the primac& of human rights


19


20/29

o#er propert& rights is recogni"ed$ :ecausethese freedoms are Cdelicate and#ulnerable, as well as supremel& precious inour societ&C and the Cthreat of sanctionsma& deter their exercise almost as potentl&as the actual application of sanctions,C the&Cneed breathing space to sur#i#e,C

permitting go#ernment regulation onl& Cwithnarrow specificit&$C

#1? "O4 CIT0 I!TE"RATE4 /ORT SERDICE,I!C. =I!/ORT> v. !ATIO!A ABOR

REATIO!S CO--ISSIO!".R. !%. 132?, ? July 1992

Fa5$s

PetitionerJs emplo&ees stopped wor.ing and

gathered in a mass action to express theirgrie#ances regarding wages, thirteenth monthpa& and ha"ard pa&$ Said emplo&ees were allmembers of the Macaalar ?abor Anion Bederation of ree -or.ers *M?A-+ withwhom petitioner had an existing collecti#ebargaining agreement$

Petitioner was engaged in ste#edoring and

arrastre ser#ices at the port of )aga&an de /ro$%he stri.e paral&"ed operations at said port$

/n the same morning, the stri.ers filed indi#idual

notices of stri.e *CIaugalingon nga 'eclaras&onsa Pag-elgaC+ with the then Ministr& of ?aborand (mplo&ment$

-ith the failure of conciliation conferences

between petitioner and the stri.ers, 35P/R% fileda complaint before the ?abor 4rbiter for 3llegalStri.e with pra&er for a restrainingorderDpreliminar& inunction$

5ational ?abor Relations )ommission issued a

temporar& restraining order$ %hereafter, maorit&

of the stri.ers returned to wor., lea#ing hereinpri#ate respondents who continued their protest$

)ounsel for pri#ate respondents filed a

manifestation that petitioner re7uired priorscreening conducted b& the M?A- before theremaining stri.ers could be accepted bac. towor.$

Meanwhile, counsel for the Macaalar ?abor

Anion *M?A-+ filed a CMotion to 'rop Most of

the Part& Respondents rom the 4bo#e (ntitled)ase$C %he =8 emplo&ees on whose behalf themotion was filed, claimed that the& were duped ortric.ed into signing the indi#idual notices of stri.e$4fter disco#ering this deception and #erif&ing thatthe stri.e was staged b& a minorit& of the unionofficers and members and without the appro#al

of, or consultation with, maorit& of the unionmembers, the& immediatel& withdrew their noticeof stri.e and returned to wor.$

%he petitioner 35P/R%, not ha#ing interposed

an& obection, the ?abor 4rbiter granted theirpra&er to be excluded as respondents in thecomplaint for illegal stri.e$ Moreo#er, petitionerJscomplaint was directed against the ;1respondents who did not return to wor. andcontinued with the stri.e$

or not ha#ing complied with the formal

re7uirements in 4rticle =9> of the ?abor )ode,the stri.e staged b& petitionerJs wor.ers wasfound b& the ?abor 4rbiter to be illegal$ %hewor.ers who participated in the illegal stri.e didnot, howe#er, lose their emplo&ment, since therewas no e#idence that the& participated in illegalacts$ 4fter noting that petitioner accepted theother stri.ing emplo&ees bac. to wor., the ?abor4rbiter held that the pri#ate respondents shouldsimilarl& be allowed to return to wor. withoutha#ing to undergo the re7uired screening to be

underta.en b& their union *M?A-+$ 4s regards the six pri#ate respondents who were

union officers, the ?abor 4rbiter ruled that the&could not ha#e possibl& been Cduped or tric.edCinto signing the stri.e notice for the& were acti#eparticipants in the conciliation meetings and werethus full& aware of what was going on$ Fence,said union officers should be accepted bac. towor. after see.ing reconsideration from hereinpetitioner$

5?R) affirmed with modification the 4rbiterJs

decision$ 3t held that the concerted action b& thewor.ers was more of a Cprotest actionC than astri.e$ Pri#ate respondents, including the sixunion officers, should also be allowed to wor.unconditionall& to a#oid discrimination$ Fowe#er,in #iew of the strained relations between theparties, separation pa& was awarded in lieu ofreinstatement$


20


21/29

Apon petitionerJs motion for reconsideration,

5?R) modified its pre#ious resolution$ %he)ommission ruled that since pri#ate respondentswere not actuall& terminated from ser#ice, therewas no basis for reinstatement$ Fowe#er, itawarded six monthsJ salar& as separation pa& orfinancial assistance in the nature of Ce7uitable

relief$C %he award for bac.wages was alsodeleted for lac. of factual and legal basis$ 3n lieuof bac.wages, compensation e7ui#alent toP1,000$00 was gi#en$

Issu&-hether or not the stri.e was illegal$ 0&s

H&l'@Ruling4 stri.e, considered as the most effecti#e weapon oflabor,is defined as an& temporar& stoppage of wor.b& the concerted action of emplo&ees as a result of

an industrial or labor dispute$ 4 labor disputeincludes an& contro#ers& or matter concerning termsor conditions of emplo&ment or the association orrepresentation of persons in negotiating, fixing,maintaining, changing or arranging the terms andconditions of emplo&ment, regardless of whether ornot the disputants stand in the proximate relation ofemplo&ers and emplo&ees$

Pri#ate respondents and their cowor.ers stoppedwor.ing and held the mass action on 4pril ;0, 1!8 *now 4rticle =9;+paragraphs *c+ and *f+ of the ?abor )ode$

%he indi#idual notices of stri.e filed b& the wor.ersdid not conform to the notice re7uired b& the law tobe filed since the& were represented b& a union*M?A-+ which e#en had an existing collecti#ebargaining agreement with 35P/R%$

5either did the stri.ing wor.ers obser#e the stri.e#ote b& secret ballot, coolingoff period and reportingre7uirements$

4s we stated in the case of National Federation ofSugar orkers v! "ve#era, the language of the lawlea#es no room for doubt that the coolingoff periodand the se#enda& stri.e ban after the stri.e#otereport were intended to be mandator&$

4rticle =9< of the ?abor )ode reads, inter aliaE

*i+t SF4?? be unlawful for an& labor organi"ation$ $ $ to declare a stri.e $ $ $ without first ha#ingfiled the notice re7uired in the preceding 4rticleor without the necessar& stri.e #ote first ha#ingbeen obtained and reported to the Ministr&$

3n explaining the abo#e pro#ision, we saidE

3n re7uiring a stri.e notice and a coolingoff

period, the a#owed intent of the law is to pro#idean opportunit& for mediation and conciliation$ 3tthus directs the M/?( to exert all efforts atmediation and conciliation to effect a #oluntar&settlementJ during the coolingoff period$ $ $ $

xxx xxx xxx

%he coolingoff period and the da& stri.e banafter the filing of a stri.e#ote report, asprescribed in 4rt$ =9> of the ?abor )ode, are

reasonable restrictions and their imposition isessential to attain the legitimate polic& obecti#esembodied in the law$ -e hold that the&constitute a #alid exercise of the police power ofthe state$

rom the foregoing, it is patent that the stri.e wasillegal for failure to compl& with the re7uirements ofthe law$

%he effects of such illegal stri.es, outlined in 4rticle

=9< *now 4rticle =9>+ of the ?abor )ode, ma.e adistinction between wor.ers and union officers whoparticipate therein$

4 union officer who .nowingl& participates in anillegal stri.e and an& wor.er or union officer who.nowingl& participates in the commission of illegalacts during a stri.e ma& be declared to ha#e losttheir emplo&ment status$ 4n ordinar& stri.ingwor.er cannot be terminated for mere participation in


21


22/29

an illegal stri.e$ %here must be proof that hecommitted illegal acts during a stri.e$ 4 union officer,on the other hand, ma& be terminated from wor.when he .nowingl& participates in an illegal stri.e,and li.e other wor.ers, when he commits an illegalact during a stri.e$

3n the case at bench, 35P/R% accepted the maorit&of the stri.ing wor.ers, including union officers, bac.to wor.$ Pri#ate respondents were left to continuewith the stri.e after the& refused to submit to theCscreeningC re7uired b& the compan&$

#17 /8il. -a(in& Ra'i% O))i5&(s Ass%. vs. CIRO5$%&( 31, 1927

FACTS

3n this case, PF3?M4R/4 *petitioners+ presented a

list of demands to the 4ssociation de 5a#ieros, the

Philippine Shipowners2 4ssociation and the ?u"on

Ste#edoring )ompan&,the most important of which

areE *1+ the standardi"ation and increase of salaries

*=+ sic. and #acation lea#e *;+ hospitali"ation and

sic. lea#e and *>+ a closed shop agreement$

4s none of the companies were willing to consider

its demands the Philmaroa ga#e notice of itsintention to stri.e to the different shipping companies

and to the )hief, )onciliation Ser#ice 'i#ision,

'epartment of ?abor$

%he )hief of the )onciliation Ser#ice called the

parties for conference$ 4t this conference the

4ssociation de 5a#ieros and the Philippine

Shipowners2 4ssociation ga#e the information that

the& had no authorit& or power to bargain collecti#el&

and suggested that the members of the saidassociation be notified, so the union sent notices to

the different member companies*respondents+$

%he respondent companies answered, 7uestioning

the authorit& of the Philmaroa to act as

representati#e of the radio operators and demanding

that the list of the members emplo&ed who belong to

the Philmaroa be furnished them$ :ut the Philmaroa

refused to do so for fear of reprisal$ %he )ompanies

also a#erred that some of them had gi#en salaries

o#er and abo#e that demanded in the

standardi"ation, some ha#e gi#en sic. and #acation

lea#e and hospitali"ation, etc$

%he companies were gi#en six da&s of grace withinwhich to act upon or answer the demands made b&

the Philmaroa$ )oncilliation efforts failed to effect a

settlement and the 9 da& period expired thus,

Philmaroa declared a stri.e$

%he President of the Philippines certified the case to

the )ourt of 3ndustrial Relations$ %he )3R allowed

the stri.ers to go bac. to their respecti#e positions,

but without bac.pa&$ %he& denied standardi"ation,

#acation lea#e and closed shop agreement, butgranting sic. lea#e, free hospitali"ation with pa&$

ISSUE

-/5 petitioners should be entitled to reinstatement

with bac.wages$

HE4

S) upheld reinstatement but reected the claim for

bac. wages$ %he stri.e was b& all means a #oluntar&

act on the part of the stri.ers$ %he stri.e was used

as an economic weapon to compel the grant of the

conditions of emplo&ment but it was not caused b&

an& illegal or unfair labor practice on the part of the

respondent companiesD emplo&ers at all$

%here is no reason for granting bac.pa& as the& had#oluntaril& absented themsel#es from wor. and therehad been no unfair labor practice on the part of therespondent companies$ %he grant of bac.pa& is

go#erned b& the principle fair da&2s wage for a fairda&2s labor$

#1 C(%6:&ll C%66&(5ial E6l%y&&s an'a%(&(s Uni%n vs. CIR @ S&$&6&( 3, 19?

class 6 - case digests.doc

Documents