G.R. No.

120505 March 25, 1999

ASSOCIATION OF INDEPENDENT UNIONS IN THE
PHILIPPINES
(AIUP),
JOEL
DENSING,
HENEDINO
MIRAFUENTES, CHRISTOPHER PATENTES, AND ANDRES
TEJANA, petitioners, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
COMMISSION
(NLRC),
CENAPRO
CHEMICAL
CORPORATION and/or GO SING CHAN in his capacity as
Managing Director, respondents.
Facts:
Densing, et al were casual EEs of CENAPRO Chemicals
(CENAPRO). In CENAPRO, the CBA representative of all rankand-file EEs was CENAPRO Employees Association (CCEA),
with which CENAPRO had a CBA. This CBA excluded casual EEs
from membership in the union.
The casual EEs who have rendered at least 1-6 years of
service sought regularization of their employment with
CENAPRO. When this was denied, they formed themselves into
an organization and affiliated with AIUP. Afterwards, AIUP filed
a petition for certification election, which was opposed by
CENAPRO and CCEA, on the basis of the contract bar rule.
On May 4 and July 3, 1990, the AIUP-sponsored union (Union)
filed a notice of strike and other necessary documentation
with the DOLE, citing as grounds the acts of CENAPRO as
constituting ULP, specifically the coercion of EEs and
systematic union-busting. The Union proceeded to stage a
strike on July 23, 1990, in the course of which, the Union
perpetrated illegal acts such as padlocking the company
gates, as well as preventing/coercing other non-striking EEs
from reporting for work. Because of the illegal acts, CENAPRO
filed a petition for injunction with the NLRC, which then
granted a TRO to enjoin the Union from conducting further
illegal acts. On July 24, 1990, the Union filed a complaint for
ULP and illegal lockout and in response, CENAPRO filed an
illegal strike complaint the day after.
The LA consolidated the complaints and decided that the
strike conducted by the Union was illegal, and dismissed the

charge for illegal lockout and ULP. 5 Union officers were

declared to have lost their employment status, while 15 union
members were not reinstated because of execution of
quitclaims in favor of CENAPRO. 6 workers, some of which
composed the group of Densing et al, were ordered reinstated,
but on a later order, 2 EEs were excluded from reinstatement
and backwage payment.
Both parties appealed to the LA decision, and pending
resolution of the appeals, AIUP moved for execution of the LAs
decision regarding reinstatement of some of its members. This
was granted by an issued order, with CENAPRO later moving
that they pay separation pay on the premise of strained
relations between the parties. This opposition was overruled
by the LA, which issued a 2 nd writ of execution directing actual,
if not payroll, reinstatement.
Upon appeal to the NLRC, the Commission affirmed the LA in
toto and reiterated the LAs Order for reinstatement of the
Densing group. Upon an MR from CENAPRO, the NLRC later
modified its decision, ordering payment of separation pay (1
mo/year of service) without backwages. Meanwhile, Densing
was declared to have lost his employment status. Therefore,
AIUP filed a petition for review on certiorari to reinstate the LA
decision ordering reinstatement and payment of backwages.
Issues
WON the AIUP-sponsored Union committed an illegal strike.
YES.
However, petition is granted. NLRC decision set aside, LA
decision ordering separation pay and full backwages
reinstated.
Held:
The Court first pointed out that the complaints of the Densing
group on the grounds of ULP were adjudged as baseless by the
LA, and approved by the SC, as the acts of harassment and
insults were found to actually be scolding for little mistakes
and memoranda for tardiness. Furthermore, it was found that

the allegations of overworking were actually uncorroborated

by testimony as the petitioners were not able to enumerate
when and how they were made to overwork.
The Court also affirmed the NLRC ruling that the strike staged
by the AIUP was in the nature of a union-recognition strike,
defined as a calculated move to compel the employer to
recognize one's union, and not the other contending group, as
the employees' bargaining representative to work out a
collective bargaining agreement despite the striking union's
doubtful majority status to merit voluntary recognition and
lack of formal certification as the exclusive representative in
the bargaining unit.
It was noted that when the petition for certification election
was filed by AUIP, there was an existing CBA between the
respondent company and CCEA, the incumbent CBA
representative of all rank-and-file EEs. The argument that the
petition should have not been entertained because of the
contract bar rule. When a CBA has been duly registered in
accordance with Article 231 of the Labor Code, a petition for
certification election or motion for intervention may be
entertained only within sixty (60) days prior to the expiry
date of the said agreement. Outside the period, as in the
present case, the petition for certification election or motion
for intervention cannot be allowed. Therefore, there was no
clear act of union busting found.
From the evidence at hand, the Court found that the strike was
indeed illegal, since:
1. The strikers did commit illegal acts such as barricading
to prevent passage of CENAPROs truck, as well as

padlocking the gate and preventing ingress and egress

of workers,
2. The strikers violated the TRO.
The Court noted that:
A strike is a legitimate weapon in the universal struggle for existence. It is
considered as the most effective weapon in protecting the rights of
the employees to improve the terms and conditions of their
employment. But to be valid, a strike must be pursued within legal bounds.
The right to strike as a means for the attainment of social justice is never
meant to oppress or destroy the employer. The law provides limits for its
exercise. Among such limits are the prohibited activities under Article 264 of
the Labor Code, particularly paragraph (e), which states that no person
engaged in picketing shall:
a) Commit any act of violence, coercion, or intimidation or
b) Obstruct the free ingress to or egress from the employer's premises for
lawful purposes or
c) Obstruct public thoroughfares.
Even if the strike is valid because its objective or purpose is lawful, the strike
may still be declared invalid where the means employed are illegal.

It follows, therefore, that the dismissal of the union officers

was justified and valid, as their dismissal was a consequence
of the illegality of the strike staged by them. The Court also
found that there was no lockout, as the workers themselves
did stop working because of the strike.
Finally, on the matter of the fate of the 4 workers, the Court
found that they are indeed entitled to reinstatement, as it was
found that the erring strikers were not duly identified by the
testimony. For the severest administrative penalty of dismissal
to attach, the erring strikers must be duly identified. Simply
referring to them as "strikers", "AIU strikers" "complainants in
this case" is not enough to justify their dismissal.