Anda di halaman 1dari 8

182 stoppages/boycotts staged by the petitioner.

The two cases were consolidated

and simultaneously tried.
G.R. No. 120482. January 27, 1997.*
Labor Arbiter Ricardo Nora ruled that the evidence of the private respondents
indicated that indeed the petitioner union staged illegal strike for the ff
DEJERO, ANA TERESA DEJERO, and RODELIO RYAN DEJERO, First, the Reformist failed to show and present evidence that the approval of
respondents. majority vote of its members were obtained by secret ballot before the strike;
Second, they failed to show that they submitted the strike vote to the
Department of Labor at least seven (7) days prior to the intended strike; and
DOCTRINE: Third, all members of the Reformist Union struck even before the
certification election, when there was no definitive bargaining unit duly
Labor Law; Compulsory Arbitration; Strikes; When an employer accedes to recognized and while the conciliation process was still on-going and in
the peaceful settlement brokered by the NLRC, agreeing to accept all progress.
employees who had not yet returned to work, it waives the issue of the
illegality of the strike. LA’s Decision: 1. Reformist’s complaint (dismissed); 2. Reformist Union
(illegal); and 3. Declaring all the Officers and Members of the Reformist to
COMPULSORY ARBITRATION - “the process of settlement of labor have lost their employment status for participating in an Illegal Strike.
disputes by a government agency which has the authority to investigate and
to make an award which is binding on all the parties,” and as a mode of On appeal, the NLRC affirmed the Labor Arbiter’s finding that Reformist
arbitration where the parties are “compelled to accept the resolution of their held an illegal strike but allowed reinstatement of the dismissed employees.
dispute through arbitration by a third party.”
Unsatisfied, the petitioners appealed to the SC.

ISSUES: 1.) WON the private respondent can contest the legality of the
FACTS: REFORMIST UNION was organized in May 1989 “by affiliating strike held by the petitioners as the private respondents themselves sought
itself with LakasManggagawasaPilipinas (Lakas).” Lakas filed a notice of compulsory arbitration in order to resolve that very issue.
Strike alleging ULP committed by the private respondents. There were
2.) WON the defiance of the petitioner to the return-to-work order is a reason
attempts for conciliation but parties failed to reach an agreement. R.B. Liner,
to validly dismiss the petitioners-employees.
Inc. petitioned then Secretary Franklin Drilon of the Department of Labor
and Employment (DOLE) to assume jurisdiction over the ongoing dispute or
certify it to the NLRC. The case was dismissed after the Union and the
Compay reached an agreement providing, among other matters, for the
holding of a certification election. 1. NO.
Lakas won in the certificate election, they presented proposal for CBA but The very nature of compulsory arbitration makes the settlement binding upon
BERNITA DEJERO, RODELIO DEJERO refused to bargain. They filed a the private respondents, for compulsory arbitration has been defined both as
case in the NLRC alleging ULP (illegal lockout), this was countered by the “the process of settlement of labor disputes by a government agency which
company saying that the union’s strike was illegal as well as the work has the authority to investigate and to make an award which is binding on all
the parties,” and as a mode of arbitration where the parties are “compelled to It is upon the private respondents to substantiate the aforesaid defiance, as
accept the resolution of their dispute through arbitration by a third the burden of proving just and valid cause for dismissing employees from
party.”Clearly then, the legality of the strike could no longer be reviewed by employment rests on the employer, and the latter’s failure to do so results in a
the Labor Arbiter, much less by the NLRC, as this had already been resolved. finding that the dismissal was unfounded.36 The private respondents fell
It was the sole issue submitted for compulsory arbitration by the private short of discharging this burden. Those who did not report for work after the
respondents, as is obvious from the portion of their letter quoted above. The issuance of the Labor Secretary’s order may not have been informed of such
case certified by the Labor Secretary to the NLRC was dismissed after the order, or they may have been too few so as to conclude that they deliberately
union and the company drew up the agreement mentioned earlier. This defied the order. The private respondents failed to eliminate these
conclusively disposed of the strike issue. probabilities.

The Labor Code provides that the decision in compulsory arbitration WHEREFORE, the instant petition is GRANTED. The assailed decision of
proceedings “shall be final and executory ten (10) calendar days after receipt the National Labor Relations Commission in NLRC NCR CA No. 004115-
thereof by the parties.” The parties were informed of the dismissal of the case 92, as well as that of the Labor Arbiter in the consolidated cases of NLRC
in a letter dated 14 February 1990, and while nothing in the record indicates NCR Case Nos. 0003-01392-90 and 00-04-02088-90 are SET ASIDE.
when the said letter was received by the parties, it is reasonable to infer that Petitionersemployees are hereby awarded full back wages and separation pay
more than ten days elapsed—hence, the NLRC decision had already become to be determined by the Labor Arbiter as prescribed above within thirty (30)
final and executory—before the private respondents filed their complaint days from notice of this judgment.
with the Labor Arbiter on 13 July 1990. A final judgment is no longer
susceptible to change, revision, amendment, or reversal. Neither the Labor
Arbiter nor the NLRC, therefore, could review the same issue passed upon in Note: An ordinary striking worker cannot be terminated for mere
NLRC. The agreement entered into by the company and the union, moreover, participation in an illegal strike. There must be proof that he committed
was in the nature of a compromise agreement While we do not abandon the illegal acts during a strike. (Gold City Integrated Port Service, Inc. vs.
rule that “unfair labor practice acts are beyond and outside the sphere of National Labor Relations Commission, 245 SCRA 627 [1995])
compromises,” the agreement herein was voluntarily entered into and
represents a reasonable settlement, thus binds the parties.

Art. 227. Compromise agreements.—Any compromise settlement

including those involving labor standard laws, voluntarily agreed
upon by the parties with the assistance of the Bureau or the
regional office of the Department of Labor, shall be final and
binding upon the parties. The National Labor Relations
Commission or any court shall not assume jurisdiction over
issues involved therein except in case of non-compliance thereof
or if there is prima facie evidence that the settlement was
obtained through fraud, misrepresentation or coercion.

2. NO. 183

G.R. No. 119293. June 10, 2003.*

SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR FACTS: Petitioner San Miguel Corporation (SMC) and respondent Ilaw at
RELATIONS COMMISSION, Second Division, ILAW AT BUKLOD Buklod ng Manggagawa (IBM), exclusive bargaining agent of petitioner’s
NG MANGGAGAWA (IBM), respondents. daily-paid rank and file employees, executed a Collective Bargaining
Agreement (CBA) under which they agreed to submit all disputes to
-A strike is considered as the most effective weapon in protecting the rights grievance and arbitration proceedings. The CBA also included a mutually
of the employees to improve the terms and conditions of their employment; enforceable no-strike no-lockout agreement.
One of the procedural requisites that Article 263 of the Labor Code and its
Implementing Rules prescribe is the filing of a valid notice of strike with the IBM, vice-president Alfredo Colomeda, filed with the National Conciliation
NCMB; This requirement has been held to be mandatory and the lack of and Mediation Board (NCMB) a notice of strike against petitioner for
which shall render a strike illegal. allegedly committing: (1) illegal dismissal of union members, (2) illegal
transfer, (3) violation of CBA, (4) contracting out of jobs being performed by
DOCTRINES: union members, (5) labor-only contracting, (6) harassment of union officers
Labor Law; Labor Code; Injunction; No temporary or permanent injunction
and members, (7) non-recognition of duly-elected union officers, and (8)
or restraining order in any case involving or growing out of labor disputes
other acts of unfair labor practice. The next day, IBM filed another notice of
shall be issued by any court or other entity except as otherwise provided in
strike, this time through its president Edilberto Galvez, raising similar
Articles 218 and 264 of the Labor Code —Article 254 of the Labor Code
grounds: (1) illegal transfer, (2) labor-only contracting, (3) violation of CBA,
provides that no temporary or permanent injunction or restraining order in
(4) dismissal of union officers and members, and (5) other acts of unfair
any case involving or growing out of labor disputes shall be issued by any
labor practice.
court or other entity except as otherwise provided in Articles 218 and 264 of The Galvez group subsequently requested the NCMB to consolidate its
the Labor Code. Under the first exception, Article 218 (e) of the Labor Code notice of strike with that of the Colomeda group, to which the latter opposed,
expressly confers upon the NLRC the power to “enjoin or restrain actual and alleging Galvez’s lack of authority in filing the same.
threatened commission of any or all prohibited or unlawful acts, or to require Petitioner thereafter filed a Motion for Severance of Notices of Strike with
the performance of a particular act in any labor dispute which, if not Motion to Dismiss, on the grounds that the notices raised non-strikeable
restrained or performed forthwith, may cause grave or irreparable damage to issues and that they affected four corporations which are separate and distinct
any party or render ineffectual any decision in favor of such party x xx.” The from each other. After several conciliation meetings, NCMB Director
second exception, on the other hand, is when the labor organization or the Reynaldo Ubaldo found that the real issues involved are non-strikeable.
employer engages in any of the “prohibited activities” enumerated in Article Hence, converting their notices of strike into preventive mediation.
While separate preventive mediation conferences were ongoing, the
The coercive measure of injunction may also be used to restrain an actual or Colomeda group filed with the NCMB a notice of holding a strike vote.
threatened unlawful strike; It is the legal duty and obligation of the NLRC to Petitioner opposed by filing a Manifestation and Motion to Declare Notice of
enjoin a partial strike staged in violation of the law.—Pursuant to Article 218 Strike Vote Illegal invoking the case of PAL v. Drilon which held that no
(e) strike could be legally declared during the pendency of preventive mediation.
NCMB Director Ubaldo in response issued another letter to the Colomeda
Strikes held in violation of the terms contained in a collective bargaining
Group reiterating the conversion of the notice of strike into a case of
agreement are illegal especially when they provide for conclusive arbitration
preventive mediation and emphasizing the findings that the grounds raised
center only on an intra-union conflict, which is not strikeable
Galvez group filed its second notice of strike against petitioner, On the same circumstances at the time did not constitute or no longer constituted an
date, the group likewise notified the NCMB of its intention to hold a strike actual or threatened commission of unlawful acts.It likewise denied
vote. petitioner’s motion for reconsideration in its resolution Hence, this petition.
Colomeda group notified the NCMB of the results of their strike vote, which
favored the holding of a strike. In reply, NCMB issued a letter again advising ISSUE: The NLRC gravely abused its discretion when it failed to enforce, by
them that by virtue of the PAL v. Drilon ruling, their notice of strike is injunction, the parties’ reciprocal obligations to submit to arbitration and not
deemed not to have been filed, consequently invalidating any subsequent to strike.WON there is a violation of the no-strike provision in the CBA
strike for lack of compliance with the notice requirement. Despite this and the HELD: YES.
pendency of the preventive mediation proceedings, on June 4, 1994, IBM
went on strike. The strike paralyzed the operations of petitioner, causing it at the time the injunction was being sought, there existed a threat to revive
losses. the unlawful strike as evidenced by the flyers then being circulated by the
IBM-NCR Council which led the union. Article 264(a) of the Labor Code39
Two days after the declaration of strike, or on June 6, 1994, petitioner filed explicitly states that a declaration of strike without firsthaving filed the
with public respondent NLRC an amended Petition for Injunction with required notice is a prohibited activity, which may be prevented through an
Prayer for the Issuance of Temporary Restraining Order, Free Ingress and injunction in accordance with Article 254. Clearly, public respondent should
Egress Order and Deputization Order. NLRC resolved to issue a temporary have granted the injunctive relief to prevent the grave damage brought about
restraining order (TRO) directing free ingress to and egress from petitioner’s by the unlawful strike.
plants, withoutprejudice to the union’s right to peaceful picketing and
continuous hearings on the injunction case. To minimize further damage to Also noteworthy is public respondent’s disregard of petitioner’s argument
itself, petitioner on June 16, 1994, entered into a Memorandum of Agreement pointing out the union’s failure to observe the CBA provisions on grievance
(MOA) with the respondent-union, calling for a lifting of the picket lines and and arbitration.the union therein violated the mandatory provisions of the
resumption of work in exchange of “good faith talks” between the CBA when it filed a notice of strike with-out availing of the remedies
management and the labor management committees. prescribed therein. Such infringement of the aforecited CBA provisions
constitutes further justification for the issuance of an injunction against the
The MOA, signed in the presence of Department of Labor and Employment strike. As we said long ago: “Strikes held in violation of the terms contained
(DOLE) officials, expressly stated that cases filed in relation to their dispute in a collective bargaining agreement are illegal especially when they provide
will continue and will not be affected in any manner whatsoever by the for conclusive arbitration clauses. These agreements must be strictly adhered
agreement. The picket lines ended and work was then resumed. to and respected if their ends have to be achieved.”
Respondent thereafter moved to reconsider the issuance of the TRO, and
sought to dismiss the injunction case in view of the cessation of its picketing
activities as a result of the signed MOA. It argued that the case had become
moot and academic there being no more prohibited activities to restrain, be
they actual or threatened. Petitioner, however, opposed and submitted copies
of flyers being circulated by IBM, as proof of the union’s alleged threat to 184
revive the strike. The NLRC did not rule on the opposition to the TRO and No. L-30658-59. March 31, 1976 * SHELL OIL WORKERS UNION and
allowed it to lapse. NLRC issued the challenged decision, denying the SHELL & AFFILIATES SUPERVISORS’ UNION, petitioners, vs. SHELL
petition for injunction for lack of factual basis. It found that the
RELATIONS, respondents.

We rule that the NAWASA case is not in point and, therefore, is inapplicable
Labor law; Overtime pay; In the computation of overtime pay, fringe benefits to the case at bar. The ruling of this Court in the NAWASA case contemplates
that are only occassionally, not regularly, received, and not by all employees, the regularity and continuity of the benefits enjoyed by the employees or
are not to be included. workers (for at least three (3) months) as the condition precedent before such
additional payments or benefits are taken into account. This is evident in the
Same; Same; Where provisions in the collective bargaining agreement is far
aforequoted ruling of this Court in the NAWASA case:
beyond the rate prescribed by law, the said CBA provisions should govern
the parties relationship with regards to computation of the employees’ The ‘regular rate’ of pay on the basis of which overtime must be
overtime pay.— computed must reflect all payments which parties have agreed shall be
received regularly during the work week, exclusive of overtime
payments.” Walling v. Garlock Packing Co., C.C.A.N.Y., 159 F 2d 44
2 cases were filed in the Trial Court, the claims against the employer Shell 45. (Page 289, WORDS And PHRASES, Permanent Edition, Vol. 36A;
the members of the petitioners’ unions were not and are not being paid their Italics supplied); and “As a general rule the words ‘regular rate’ mean
overtime pay due them. respondent Shell Company of the Philippines filed a the hourly rate actually paid for the normal, non-overtime work week,
motion to Dismiss but, the same was later on withdrawn, an Answer was and an employee’s regular compensation is the compensation which
filed instead claiming that the employees who rendered or are rendering regularly and actually reaches him. x x x x x.” (56 C.J.S. 704; Italics
overtime work have been paid and are being paid in accordance with law and supplied).
their collective bargaining agreement. It is also averred in the answer of the
Even in the definition of wage under the Minimum Wage Law, the
respondent company that the NAWASA decision insofar as the computation
words “customarily furnished” are used in referring tothe additional
of overtime pay is concerned is not applicable to the factual situation of the
payments or benefits, thus,— “ ‘Wage’ paid to any employee shall mean
case and that claims for overtime pay filed beyond the three-year period
the remuneration or earnings, however designated, capable of being
allowed by law have already prescribed.
expressed in terms of money, whether fixed or ascertained on a time,
the trial court rendered its decision denying both petitions for lack of basisthe task, piece, commission basis, or other method of calculating the same,
petitioners elevated their cases to the Court of Industrial Relations en banc which is payable by an employer to an employee under a written or
and moved for the reconsideration of the Decision of the trial courtand unwritten contract of employment for work done or to be done or for
reiterated their claim for the recomputation of their overtime pay by taking services rendered or to be rendered, and includes the fair and reasonable
into account the fringe benefits enjoyed and adding the same to the basic rate value, as determined by the Secretary of Labor, of board, lodging, or
before computing the overtime pay. The Court of Industrial Relations en banc other facilities customarily furnished by the employer to the employee.”
rendered its Resolutiondenying the petitioners’ motion for reconsideration. (Sec. 2(g), R.A. No. 602).
Hence this petition for review on certiorari.
the collective bargaining agreement resorted to by the parties being in
accordance with R.A. 875, with its provision on overtime pay far way
beyond the premium rate provided for in Sections 4 and 5 of Commonwealth
ISSUE: WON the ruling in NAWASA is Applicable in this case
Act 444, the same should govern their relationship. Since this is their contract
entered into by them pursuant to bargaining negotiations under existing laws,
they are bound to respect it. It is the duty of this Court to see to it that
contracts between parties, not tainted with infirmity or irregularity or
illegality, be strictly complied with by the parties themselves. This is the only
way by which unity and order can be properly attained in our society.

*sorry di ko alam kung bakit walang Strike dito? di ko alam kung tama din
ba dinigest ko. :(


No. L-56856. October 23, 1984. * HENRY BACUS, MAXIMO DANGGA,

GACANG, and CALIXTO COYNO, petitioners, vs. HON. BLAS F. OPLE,
Minister of Labor and Employment and FINDLAY MILLAR TIMBER
COMPANY, respondents.


Labor Law; Mere finding of illegality of strike should not be followed by

wholesale dismissal of strikers from employment.—A mere finding of the
illegality of a strike should not be automatically followed by wholesale Company of the Phils., Ltd., supra, that if the existence of force (acts of
dismissal of the strikers from their employment. What is more, the finding of violence) while the strike lasts is not pervasive and widespread, nor
the illegality of the strike by respondent Minister of Labor and Employment consistently and deliberately resorted to as a matter of policy, responsibility
is predicated on the evidence ascertained through an irregular procedure for serious acts of violence should be individual and not collective, We deem
conducted under the semblance of summary methods and speedy disposition it proper under the circumstances that the charges of serious acts of violence
of labor disputes involving striking employees. imputed against the herein petitioners (10 workers) must be heard anew
affording the petitioners all the opportunity to air their side in accordance
Labor Law; Violation of ban on strikes against export industries, lack of
with the requirements of due process of law. Pending further proceedings
strike notice, and violation of CBA no-strike clause do not make a strike per
and/or hearing of the serious acts of violence imputed against the petitioners,
se illegal.—Even on the assumption that the illegality of the strike is
the Company should reinstate them to their former positions without loss of
predicated on its being a violation of the ban or prohibition of strikes in
seniority rights and other privileges.
export-oriented industries, lack of notice-to-strike, and as a violation of the
no-strike clause of the CBA, still, the automatic finding of the illegality of FACTS: Findlay Millar Timber Company hereinafter referred to as the
the strike finds no authoritative support in the light of the attendant Company, a domestic corporation duly organized and existing under
circumstances. As this Court held in Cebu Portland Cement Co. vs. Cement Philippine Laws with principal office at Kolambugan, Lanao del Norte, is
Workers Union, a strike staged by the workers, inspired by good faith, does engaged in logging and manufacture of plywood, veneer and other lumber
not automatically make the same illegal. In Ferrer vs. Court of Industrial products. The company employs approximately 2,000 employees, 3 more or
Relations, the belief of the strikers that the management was committing less, among whom are the herein petitioners.
unfair labor practice was properly considered in declaring an otherwise
A strike was staged by the workers of Private respondent, FIndlay Miller
premature strike, not unlawful, and in affirming the order of the Labor Court
Timber Company. 1,400 employees, more or less, of the Company staged a
for the reinstatement without backwages of said employees.
mass walk-out, allegedly without anybody leading them as it was a
Same; In the case at bar, the strike was caused by workers’ impatience for simultaneous, immediate and unanimous group action and decision, to
non-payment of salaries.—In the instant case, it is not disputed that, indeed, protest the non-payment of their salaries and wages from January 1, 1979 to
the Company did not pay the salaries of the workers for one and a half February 15, 1979 and the Company’s non-compliance since 1974 with the
months, more or less. Such act of the Company broke the patience of the Presidential Decrees on cost-of-living allowance, non-payment of unused
workers and those who depended on them for support and daily subsistence. vacation and sick leaves, and non-payment of the 13th month pay for 1977
On the other hand, the act of the workers in demanding a valid grievance for and 1978.
the payment of their salaries is inspired by their honest belief that the
It was declared illegal and a clearance to terminate the employment of the 10
Company was committing acts inimical to their interests relative to wages
petitioners were granted by then Deputy Minister of Labor and Employment,
which, basically, is a violation of the CBA existing between the parties.
Amado G. Inciong, acting by authority of the Minister of Labor and
Same; Even if strike were illegal, it need not result in dismissal of Employment.
employees.—Even if declared illegal, need not have been attended with such
Upon appeal respondent Minister of Labor and Employment, Blas F. Ople
a drastic consequence as termination of employment relationship. This is so
which denied the motion for reconsideration of the said decision.
because, according to the Court, of the security of tenure provision under the
Constitution. Same; Charges of strike violence should be heard anew.—In As prayed for, this Court issued a temporary restraining order 2 enjoining the
view however of the pronouncement in Shell Oil Workers’ Union vs. Shell enforcement of the questioned decision
ISSUE: WON the Decision of Minister of labor and employment Inciong grant of power to use summary procedures should heighten a concern for due
was rendered with grave abuse of discretion or without or in excess of its process, for judicial perspective in administrative decision-making, and foR
jurisdiction because the basis upon which the questioned decision stand, as maintaining the vision which led to the creation of the administrative office.
disclosed in petitioners’ version of the incident, is tainted with procedural
infirmity which was in violation of the constitutional guarantee of due
process of law as would render the questioned decision null and void.


A mere finding of the illegality of a strike should not be automatically

followed by wholesale dismissal of the strikers from their employment. What
is more, the finding of the illegality of the strike by respondent Minister of
Labor and Employment is predicated on the evidence ascertained through an
irregular procedure conducted under the semblance of summary methods and
speedy disposition of labor disputes involving striking employees.

The relative freedom of the labor arbiter from the rigidities of procedure
cannot be invoked to evade what was clearly emphasized in the landmark
case of Ang Tibay vs. Court of Industrial Relations that all administrative
bodies cannot ignore or disregard the fundamental and essential requirements
of due process.
As clearly pointed out in Free Employees and Workers Association (FEWA)
vs. Court of Industrial Relations, 16 this Court, speaking thru Justice J.B.L.
Reyes, stated, thus: “That the Court of Industrial Relations is only quasi-
judicial in character, and not bound by strict rules of evidence, does not mean
that it can dispense with any and all rules, even the most substantial, and
those shown by experience to be essential in arriving at the truth, x x x for
the more liberal the practice in admitting testimony, the more imperative the
obligation to preserve the essential rules of evidence by which rights are
asserted or defended.” The principle of due process furnishes a standard to
which governmental action should conform in order to impress it with the
stamp of validity. Fidelity to such standard must of necessity be the
overriding concern of government agencies exercising quasi-judicial
functions. Although a speedy administration of action implies a speedy trial,
speed is not the chief objective of a trial. Respect for the rights of all parties
and the requirements of procedural due process equally apply in proceedings
before administrative agencies with quasi-judicial powers. For, the statutory