Case Name: Jackbilt Industries, Inc v Jackbilt Employees Workers  Respondent filed complaints for illegal lockout, runaway

Union-NAFLU-KMU shop and damages, unfair labor practice, illegal dismissal

and attorney's fees, and refusal to bargain on behalf of its
G.R. Number: 171618-19
officers and members against petitioner and its corporate
Topic: Strikes, Lockout and Author: Kyra Sy-Santos officers.
Concerted Actions  Petitioner asserted that because respondent conducted a
strike without observing the procedural requirements
Doctrine: The use of unlawful means in the course of a strike
provided in Article 263 of the Labor Code, strike was illegal.
renders such strike illegal. Therefore, pursuant to the principle of
Furthermoresince the NLRC found that respondent
conclusiveness of judgment, the strike was ipso facto illegal. The
obstructed the free ingress to and egress from petitioner's
filing of a petition to declare the strike illegal was thus unnecessary.
premises, petitioner validly dismissed respondent's officers
Facts: and employees for committing illegal acts in the course of a
strike.
 Petitioner Jackbilt Industries, Inc. decided to temporarily
 The labor arbiter dismissed the complaints for illegal lockout
stop its business of producing concrete hollow blocks due to
and unfair labor practice for lack of merit. However,
the Asian economic crisis, compelling most of its employees
because petitioner did not file a petition to declare the
to go on leave for six months.
strike illegal16 before terminating respondent's officers and
 Respondent Jackbilt Employees Workers Union-NAFLU-KMU
employees, it was found guilty of illegal dismissal.
immediately protested the temporary shutdown. Because
its collective bargaining agreement with petitioner was Issue:
expiring during the period of the shutdown, respondent
 W/N the filing of a petition with the labor arbiter to declare
claimed that petitioner halted production to avoid its duty
a strike illegal is a condition sine qua non for the valid
to bargain collectively. The shutdown was allegedly
termination of employees who commit an illegal act in the
motivated by anti-union sentiments.
course of such strike. - No
 Respondent went on strike. Its officers and members
picketed petitioner's main gates and deliberately prevented Held/Ratio:
persons and vehicles from going into and out of the
 Article 264(e) of the Labor Code prohibits any person
compound.
engaged in picketing from obstructing the free ingress to
 The NLRC issued a TRO directing the respondents to refrain
and egress from the employer's premises.
from preventing access to petitioner's property.
 Since respondent was found in the July 17, 1998 decision of
 Reports showed that respondents violated the Order of the
the NLRC to have prevented the free entry into and exit of
NLRC
vehicles from petitioner's compound, respondent's officers
 Petitioner dismissed the concerned officers and members
and employees clearly committed illegal acts in the course
and barred them from entering its premises
 of the March 9, 1998 strike.
 Consequently, the Court upholds the legality of the
dismissal of respondent's officers and employees. Article
264 of the Labor Code further provides that an employer
may terminate employees found to have committed illegal
acts in the course of a strike.28 Petitioner clearly had the
legal right to terminate respondent's officers and
employees.