Solid Bank Corp. Ernesto U. Gamier, et al.

and Solid Bank

Corp., et al. Vs. Solid Bank Union and its Dismissed
Officers and Members, et al.

G.R. # 159460 & G.R. # 159461. NOVEMBER 15, 2010

• What is a strike? Illegal strike vs right to a peaceful

assembly and right of freedom of speech.
Article 212 of the Labor Code, as amended, defines strike as any
temporary stoppage of work by the concerted action of employees as a
result of an industrial or labor dispute. A labor dispute includes any
controversy or matter concerning terms and conditions of employment
or the association or representation of persons in negotiating, fixing,
maintaining, changing or arranging the terms and conditions of
employment, regardless of whether or not the disputants stand in the
proximate relation of employers and employees. The term “strike”
shall comprise not only concerted work stoppages, but also slowdowns,
mass leaves, sitdowns, attempts to damage, destroy or sabotage plant
equipment and facilities and similar activities. Thus, the fact that the
conventional term “strike” was not used by the striking employees to
describe their common course of action is inconsequential, since the
substance of the situation, and not its appearance, will be deemed to
be controlling.

DOCTRINES

• The Court has consistently ruled that once the Secretary of Labor
assumes jurisdiction over a labor dispute, such jurisdiction should not
be interfered with by the application of the coercive processes of a
strike or lockout. A strike that is undertaken despite the issuance by
the Secretary of Labor of an assumption order and/or certification is a
prohibited activity and thus illegal. Article 264 (a) of the Labor Code, as
amended, also considers it a prohibited activity to declare a strike
“during the pendency of cases involving the same grounds for the
same strike.”

• Any worker whose employment has been terminated as a consequence

of an unlawful lockout shall be entitled to reinstatement with full back
wages. 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: Provided,
That mere participation of a worker in a lawful strike shall not
constitute sufficient ground for termination of his employment,
even if a replacement had been hired by the employer during such
lawful strike.

• G & S Transport Corporation v. Infante--

 It can now therefore be concluded that the acts of
respondents do not merit their dismissal from employment
because it has not been substantially proven that they
committed any illegal act while participating in the illegal strike.
xxx

x x xx

With respect to backwages, the principle of a “fair day’s

wage for a fair day’s labor” remains as the basic factor in
determining the award thereof. If there is no work
performed by the employee there can be no wage or pay
unless, of course, the laborer was able, willing and ready
to work but was illegally locked out, suspended or
dismissed or otherwise illegally prevented from working . While
it was found that respondents expressed their intention to report
back to work, the latter exception cannot apply in this case. In
Philippine Marine Officers’ Guild v. Compañia Maritima, as
affirmed in Philippine Diamond Hotel and Resort v. Manila
Diamond Hotel Employees Union, the Court stressed that for
this exception to apply, it is required that the strike be
legal, a situation that does not obtain in the case at bar

Sps. Alfredo and Encarnacion Ching Vs. Family Savings

Bank and Sheriff of Manila / Alfredo Ching Vs. Family
Savings Bank and the Sheriff of Manila

G.R. # 157835 & G.R. # 188480. NOVEMBER 15, 2010

• It is settled that execution is enforced by the fact of levy and

sale. The result of such execution was that title over the subject
property was vested immediately in the purchaser subject only to the
Spouses Ching’s right to redeem the property within the period
provided for by law. The right acquired by the purchaser at an
execution sale is inchoate and does not become absolute until
after the expiration of the redemption period without the right
of redemption having been exercised. But inchoate though it
be, it is, like any other right, entitled to protection and must
be respected until extinguished by redemption. Since, the
Spouses Ching failed to redeem the subject property within the period
allowed by law, they have been divested of their rights over the
property.

• In Paredes v. Court of Appeals, citing Rodil v. Benedicto,

categorically held that the right of the applicant or a subsequent
purchaser to request for the issuance of a writ of possession of the
land never prescribes. A writ of possession is employed to enforce a
judgment to recover the possession of land. It commands the sheriff to
enter the land and give possession of it to the person entitled under
the judgment

DOCTRINE OF RES JUDICATA

 • The doctrine of res judicata is a rule which pervades every well-regulated
system of jurisprudence and is founded upon two grounds embodied in
various maxims of the common law, namely: (1) public policy and necessity,
which makes it to the interest of the State that there should be an end to
litigation - republicae ut sit litium, and (2) the hardship on the individual that
he should be vexed twice for the same cause - nemo debet bis vexari et
eadem causa. A contrary doctrine would certainly subject the public peace
and quiet to the will and neglect of individuals and prefer the gratification of
the litigious disposition on the part of suitors to the preservation of the public
tranquility and happiness

ROMEO ILISAN PIABOL Vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

G.R. # 179487. NOVEMBER 15, 2010

PARAFFIN TESTS RENDERED INCONCLUSIVE BY THE COURT

• Indeed, paraffin tests, in general, have been rendered inconclusive by this
Court. Scientific experts concur in the view that the paraffin test has proved
extremely unreliable. It can only establish the presence or absence of nitrates
or nitrites on the hand; still, the test alone cannot determine whether the
source of the nitrates or nitrites was the discharge of a firearm. The presence
of nitrates should be taken only as an indication of a possibility or even of a
probability but not of infallibility that a person has fired a gun. Conversely,
the absence of gunpowder nitrates on petitioner’s hands, the day after the
incident, does not conclusively establish that he did not fire a gun; neither
are the negative results yielded by the paraffin test an insurmountable proof
of his innocence.

MA. IMELDA PINEDAA – NG vs PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

G.R. # 189533. November 15, 2010

• Probable cause has been defined as the existence of such facts and
circumstances as would lead a person of ordinary caution and prudence to
entertain an honest and strong suspicion that the person charged is guilty of
the crime subject of the investigation. Being based merely on opinion and
reasonable belief, it does not import absolute certainty. Probable cause need
not be based on clear and convincing evidence of guilt, as the investigating
officer acts upon reasonable belief. Probable cause implies probability of guilt
and requires more than bare suspicion, but less than evidence which would
justify a conviction.

• The general rule is that this Court does not review factual findings of the trial
court, which include the determination of probable cause for the issuance of
a warrant of arrest. It is only in exceptional cases where this Court sets aside
the conclusions of the prosecutor and the trial court judge on the existence of
probable cause, such as cases when the Court finds it necessary in order to
prevent the misuse of the strong arm of the law or to protect the orderly
administration of justice. The facts obtaining in this case do not warrant the
application of the exception.
ALFREDO YAESO vs LEGAL RESEARCHER/OFFICER-in-
CHARGE Reynaldo R. Enolpe

G.R. # 189533. November 15, 2010