Biflex Phils. Inc. Labor Union (NAFLU) v. Filflex G.R. No.

155679
Industrial (2006)
19 December 2006 CARPIOMORALES, J.:
TOPIC IN SYLLABUS: Strikes, Lockouts, and Pickets
SUMMARY: Members of the SEBA of Biflex and Filflex participated in a welga ng bayan being
waged by the labor sector because of rising crude oil prices they engaged in work stoppage for
several days. Consequently, the two companies filed a petition to declare the work stoppage
illegal, for non-compliance with the procedural requirements of a valid strike. In the meantime,
the striking employees obstructed the free ingress to and egress from the shared company
premises blocking customers, goods, as well as non-striking employees. The LA declared that
the employees had engaged in an illegal strike this led to the dismissal of the officers of the
two unions. This ruling was reversed by the NLRC, but was then reinstated by the CA. The SC
dismissed the petition for review on certiorari filed by the unions and the dismissed
union officers.

[DOCTRINE] Stoppage of work due to welga ng bayan is in the nature of a general strike, an
extended sympathy strike. It affects numerous employers including those who do not have a
dispute with their employees regarding their terms and conditions of employment. Employees
who have no labor dispute with their employer but who, on a day they are scheduled to work,
refuse to work and instead join a welga ng bayan commit an illegal work stoppage.

Blocking of the free ingress to and egress from the company premises constitutes an illegal
strike. The legality of a strike is determined not only by compliance with its legal formalities but
also by the means by which it is carried out.

The law grants the employer the option of declaring a union officer who participated in an illegal
strike as having lost his employment. Reinstatement of a striker or retention of his employment,
despite his participation in an illegal strike is a management prerogative. (Gold City Integrated
Port Service, Inc. v. NLRC)

FACTS:
Biflex Phils. Inc. Labor Union (BiUnion) and Filflex Industrial and Manufacturing Labor Union
(FilUnion) were the SEBA of the employees of Biflex and Fitflex, respectively the
sister companies were engaged in the garment business and shared one compound with
another sister company; Villanueva, et al. were officers of BiUnion while dela Torre, et al.
were officers of FilUnion.
24 Oct 1990: the labor sector staged a welga ng bayan (accelerating oil prices) let by
their respective officers, the unions staged a work stoppage that lasted for several
days.
31 Oct 1990: the companies filed a petition to declare the work stoppage ILLEGAL
o The companies contended that the unions failed to comply with procedural
requirements, specifically:
Filing of notice of strike;
Securing a strike vote;
Submission of a report of the strike vote to the DOLE.
o Contention of the union: they had been illegally locked out by the
companies. (See: 13 Nov 1990)
According to the union, they had filed a notice of strike on 31 Oct 1990.
The welga ng bayan rendered it difficult to get a ride.
Also, there had been apprehension that violence would erupt between those
participating in the welga and the authorities.
13 Nov 1990: the companies resumed their operations workers were barred from
entering the company premises.

DODOT CASE #154

 o On the other hand, unions put up tents, tables, and chairs in front of the
main gate of the companies premises.
15 Dec 1992, LA: ILLEGAL STRIKE declared that some union officers had consequently
lost their employment status.
o The companies then terminated the employment of the employees
(petitioners).
NLRC: REVERSED the ruling of the LA.
o Held that there was no strike to speak of no labor or industrial dispute existed
between the companies and their unions.
o Ordered the reinstatement of the dismissed employees.
28 May 2002, CA: reversed the NLRC and REINSTATED the ruling of the LA.
o Discredit the assertion of illegal lockout: failed to file even a letter of protest or
complaint with management; failed to comply with the legal requirements of
a valid strike.
No copy of the alleged notice of strike filed was ever produced before the LA.

ISSUES:
1. Was an illegal strike carried out?

HELD: (Petition DENIED)

1. YES. Not only was there non-compliance with the legal formalities of a valid strike,
the striking employees also blocked the ingress and egress of the company
premises.
SEE: Summary/Doctrine
General strike vis--vis freedom of expression, of assembly, to petition the govt for
redress of grievances.
o The exercise of such rights is not absolute protection of other significant state
interests, such as the right of enterprises to reasonable returns on investments, and
to expansion and growth must also be considered.
o Else, it would give imprimatur to workers joining demonstrations/rallies even before
affording the employer an opportunity to make the necessary arrangements to
counteract the implications of the work stoppage on the business in ignorance of
the principle of shared responsibility between workers and employers (industrial
peace).
The work stoppage was beyond legal protection
o No showing that either
the unions notified the companies, OR
that they were allowed by the companies to join the welga ng bayan.
o Even assuming that the legal formalities were complied with, STILL an illegal strike:
the employees blocked the free ingress to and egress from the company
premises, in contravention of Art. 264(e), LC the employees were observed
to have physically blocked and prevented the entry of customers, supplies, and
other employees (who were not on strike).

On illegal lockout: NO illegal lockout.

o SC noted that the unions failed to file a protest with management, nor did they
lodge a complaint against the companies.

DODOT CASE #154