Labor | Strike - Procedural Requirements - Effort to bargain

Mac 1
Club Filipino, Inc. vs. Bautista et al.
G.R. No. 168406 | July 13, 2009 | CORONA, J.

CASE SUMMARY
The CBA between Club Filipino, Inc. and Club Filipino Employees Association expired, in line
with this, the Union repeatedly tried to negotiate with the company, but the company refuses
to do so, causing them to file a Notice of Strike, however, in their notice, they failed to attach
the requisite counter-proposal of the company because it was only subsequently filed. LA and
NLRC held that their strike was illegal because this procedural requisite was not complied
with. This was later reversed by both CA and SC, holding that the use of the phrase as far as
practicable in the IRR means that the procedural requisite it can be done away with if it is
impracticable such as when compliance is impossible as in this case.

DOCTRINE
Indeed, compliance with the requirement was impossible because no counter-
proposal existed at the time the union filed a notice of strike. The law does not
exact compliance with the impossible. Nemo tenetur ad impossibile.

FACTS
Club Filipino, Inc. is a non-stock, non profit corporation duly formed, organized and
existing under Philippine laws, with petitioner Atty. Roberto F. de Leon as its president.
Respondents Saulog, Calida, Arinto, and de Guzman were former officers and members
of the Club Filipino Employees Association (the union).
Company and Union had a CBA which expired on May 31, 2000.
o Prior to its expiration and within the freedom period, Union made several
demands for negotiation but the company replied that it could not muster a
quorum, thus no CBA negotiations could be held.
In 2000, the union submitted its formal CBA proposal to the companys negotiating
panel and repeatedly asked for the start of negotiations. No negotiations took place for
various reasons proffered by the company, among them the illness of the chairman of
the management panel.
To compel the company to negotiate, the respondents, as officers of the union, filed a
request for preventive mediation with the NCMB, but the same did not bring the
management to negotiation table.
On April 5, 2001, Union and the management met but the negotiation was declared to
be on deadlock.
The following day, the Union filed a Notice to Strike with the NCMB on the grounds of
bargaining deadlock and failure to bargain.
On April 22, 2001, the company formally responded to the demands of the union when
it submitted the first part of its economic counter-proposal; the second part was
submitted on May 11, 2001.
Meanwhile, on May 4, 2001, the union conducted a strike vote under the supervision of
the DOLE.
In response to the Companys counter-proposal, the union sent the company its
improved proposal, but the company refused to improve on its offer. Thus, the Union
staged a strike on May 26, 2001 on the ground of bargaining deadlock.
On May 31, 2001, the company filed before the NLRC a petition to declare the strike
illegal and to declare the striking officers severed from the service.
LA: strike was procedurally infirm.
o union failed to attach its written CBA proposal and the companys counter-
proposal to the notice of strike and to provide proof of a request for a conference
to settle the dispute.
 o Strike was illegal; all the officers of the union were deemed terminated from
service but entitled to separation pay equivalent to that granted to employees
affected by the retrenchment program which the company had earlier launched.
NLRC: affirmed
CA: Reversed.
o LA and NLRC took a selective view of the attendant facts of the case and in
negating thereby the effects of the notice of strike the union filed.
Hence, this petition for review on certiorari

ISSUE
1. WON the strike was legal? YES
1. WON the respondents employment is automatically severed in view of the illegal
strike? NO

RATIO
1. WON the strike was legal? YES. The union cannot be faulted for its non-
attachment of the counter-proposal because at the time they filed a notice to
strike, there was no counter-proposal yet.
a. It is undisputed that the notice of strike was filed by the union without attaching
the counter-proposal of the company. This, according to petitioners and the labor
arbiter, made the ensuing strike of respondents illegal because the notice of
strike of the union was defective.
i. However, the union cannot be faulted for its omission. The union could not
have attached the counter-proposal of the company in the notice of strike
it submitted to the NCMB as there was no such counter-proposal. To recall,
the union filed a notice of strike on April 6, 2001 after several requests to
start negotiations proved futile. It was only on April 22, 2001, or after two
weeks, when the company formally responded to the union by submitting
the first part of its counter-proposal. Worse, it took the company another
three weeks to complete it by submitting on May 11, 2001 the second
part of its counter-proposal. This was almost a year after the expiration of
the CBA sought to be renewed.
a. The IRR, Rule XXII, Sec. 41 used the phrase as far as practicable.
Here, attaching the counter-proposal of the company to the notice of
strike of the union was not practicable. It was absurd to expect the union to
produce the companys counter-proposal which it did not have. One cannot give
what one does not have. Indeed, compliance with the requirement was
impossible because no counter-proposal existed at the time the union
filed a notice of strike. The law does not exact compliance with the
impossible. Nemo tenetur ad impossibile.

1 In cases of bargaining deadlocks, the notice shall, as far as practicable, further state the unresolved
issues in the bargaining negotiations and be accompanied by the written proposals of the union, the
counter-proposals of the employer and the proof of a request for conference to settle differences. In cases
of unfair labor practices, the notice shall, as far as practicable, state the acts complained of, and efforts
taken to resolve the dispute amicably.
Any notice which does not conform with the requirements of this and the foregoing section shall be deemed
as not having been filed and the party concerned shall be so informed by the regional branch of the Board.
(emphasis supplied)
 Labor | Strike - Procedural Requirements - Effort to bargain
Mac 3
2. WON the respondents employment is automatically severed in view of the
illegal strike? NO. In the first place, there was no illegal strike. Moreover, it
is hornbook doctrine that a mere finding of the illegality of the strike should
not be automatically followed by the wholesale dismissal of the strikers from
employment.
a. The law is clear, Any union officer who knowingly participates in an illegal
strike and any worker or union officer who knowingly participates in the
commission of illegal acts during a strike may be declared to have lost his
employment status.
i. Note that the verb participates is preceded by the adverb knowingly. This
reflects the intent of the legislature to require knowledge as a condition
sine qua non before a union officer can be dismissed from employment for
participating in an illegal strike.
ii. The provision is worded in such a way as to make it very difficult for
employers to circumvent the law by arbitrarily dismissing employees in
the guise of exercising management prerogative. This is but one aspect of
the States constitutional and statutory mandate to protect the rights of
employees to self-organization.
b. Nowhere in the ruling of the labor arbiter can we find any discussion of how
respondents, as union officers, knowingly participated in the alleged illegal strike.
Thus, even assuming arguendo that the strike was illegal, their automatic
dismissal had no basis.

DECISION
Petition denied