Philippines Inter-Fashion, Inc.

vs National Labor Relations Commission

In January 1980, the Philippines Inter-Fashion, Inc. decided to retrench 40
employees due to alleged lack of available work for employees. As a result, the
labor union therein, the Philippine Inter-Fashion Workers Union (affiliated with
the National Federation of Labor Unions {NAFLU}), staged a strike.
Philippines Inter-Fashion then filed a case of illegal strike against said employees.
In February 1980, the employees obtained a return to work order from the Minister
of Labor. But instead of being accepted back to work, Philippines Inter-Fashion
locked them out. As a result, the union filed a case of illegal lockout
against Philippines Inter-Fashion.
In October 1980, 150 employees offered to voluntarily leave the strike and return
back to work. They were admitted back by Philippines Inter-Fashion. This leaves 114
employees still on strike.
Consequently, Philippines Inter-Fashion dropped its case of illegal strike against the
150 employees it re-admitted. However, it continued its case against the remaining
114 strikers.
Eventually, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) ruled that Philippines
Inter-Fashion should re-admit the 114 remaining strikers and pay them three-
months worth of backwages. The NLRC ruled that since Philippines Inter-Fashion re-
admitted the 150 striking employees, it had, in effect, condoned the illegal strike
committed by the remaining strikers.
ISSUE: Whether or not the re-admission of some strikers in an illegal strike
operates as a condonation of the illegal strike as a whole.
HELD: No. There is only condonation insofar as the admitted employees are
concerned or in this case, the 150 employees which were re-admitted by Philippines
Inter-Fashion after said employees voluntarily offered to leave the strike.
In this case, it was not disputed that the strike by the union was illegal (not clear in
the facts as to why it was illegal it could be because there was no permit or that
they continued to strike despite the return to work order). The 150 employees
offered to return to work and at the same time withdrew their case of illegal lockout
against their employer. On the other hand, Philippines Inter-Fashion unconditionally
accepted the offer of the employees, hence this operates as a condonation on its
part of the illegal strike done by the said 150 employees.
Such unconditional acceptance by Philippines Inter-Fashion does not include a
condonation of the illegal strike which the remaining 114 employees continued to
take part in at that time.
However, since Philippines Inter-Fashion and the union are in pari delicto (both at
fault), the status quo prior to the illegal strike and illegal lockout must be sustained.
Here, there was also a finding that Philippines Inter-Fashion engaged in illegal
lockout. Hence, the other 114 employees must be reinstated but they are not
entitled to backwages under the general rule that strikers are not entitled to their
salary (save in some instances not present in this case) and under the principle of
no work, no pay.
De Ocampo vs. NLRC
0
G.R. No. 101539
September 4, 1992
Facts: Cecile de Ocampo and the other petitioners are employees of the Baliwag
Mahogany Corporation. They are either officers or members of the Baliwag
Mahogany Corporation Union-CFW, the existing collective bargaining agent of the
rank and file employees in the company.
In 1988, the company and the union entered into a CBA containing, among other
things, provisions on conversion into cash of unused vacation and sick leaves;
grievance machinery procedure; and the right of the company to schedule work on
Sundays and holidays.
In November, 1989, the union made several requests from the company.The
company ruled to allow payment of unused vacation and sick leaves for the period
of 1987-1988 but disallowed cash conversion of the 1988-1989 unused leaves.
The company suspended 20 employees for a period of 3 days because of failure to
render overtime work. On the same day, the union filed a notice of strike on the
grounds of ULP particularly the violation of the CBA provisions on non-payment of
unused leaves and illegal dismissal of seven (7) employees.
Later on, the company issued a notice of termination to three employees or union
members including Cecile de Ocampo allegedly to effect cost reduction and
redundancy. The members of the union conducted a picket at the main gate of the
company. On the same day, the company filed a petition to declare the strike illegal
with prayer for injunction against the union.
During the election of union officers, Cecile de Ocampo was elected as president.
During the conciliation meeting held at NCMB, the issue pertaining to the legality of
the termination of three union members was raised by the union. But both parties
agreed to discuss it separately.
The union requested for the presence of a NCMB representative during a strike vote
held by the union. The strike vote resulted in favor of the strike. The union staged a
strike.
Afterwards, the company filed a petition to assume jurisdiction with the DOLE. The
company also filed an amended petition, praying among other things, that the strike
staged by the union be declared illegal, there being no genuine strikeable issue and
the violation of the no-strike clause of the existing CBA between the parties.
The Secretary of Labor in an order, certified the entire labor dispute to the
respondent Commission for compulsory arbitration and directed all striking workers
including the dismissed employees to return to work and the management to accept
them back.
The sheriff, with the assistance of the policemen removed the barricades and
opened the main gate of the company.
Criminal complaints for illegal assembly, grave threats, and grave coercion
werefiled against the petitioners.
The union, through its President Cecile de Ocampo, requested the Regional Director
of DOLE, to intervene in the existing dispute with management.
The respondent Commission rendered a decision declaring the strikes staged illegal.
Issue: Whether or not there is a legal basis for declaring the loss of employment
status by petitioners on account of the strike in respondent Company.
Held: Yes. The Solicitor General claims that it is undisputed that the union resorted
to illegal acts during the strike arguing that private respondents personnel
manager specifically identified the union officers and members who committed the
prohibited acts and actively participated therein.
Ratio: The law on the matter is Article 264 (a) of the Labor Code, to wit:
Article 264. (a) Prohibited activities. (a)
No strike or lockout shall be declared after assumption of jurisdiction by the
President or the Minister or after certification or submission of the dispute to
compulsory or voluntary arbitration or during the pendency of cases involving the
same grounds for the strike or lockout.
Any worker whose employment has been terminated as a consequence of an
unlawful lockout shall be entitled to reinstatement with full backwages. 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
The Solicitor General maintains that the illegality of the strike likewise stems from
the failure of the petitioners to honor the certification order and heed the return-to-
work order issued by the Secretary of Labor.
Unrebutted evidence shows that the individual petitioners defied the return-to-work
order of the Secretary of Labor. Hence, the termination of theservices of the
individual petitioners is justified on this ground alone.
Dispositive: The petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit and the resolution of the
respondent Commission is hereby AFFIRMED.