CHAM
Case No. 180 In this case, CA found that petitioners’ actual participation in the illegal
STIRKES, LOCKOUTS, AND CONCERTED ACTIONS
Bascon & Cole v. CA/Metro Cebu Community Hospital
FACTS
1. Petitioners are employees of Metro Cebu and members of its
labor union, Nagkahiusang Mamumuo sa Metro Cebu Community
Hospital (NAMA). Both petitioners were dismissed by the
hospital for allegedly participating in an illegal strike
2. A controversy arose when NAMA-MCCH and the National Labor
Federation, the mother federation of NAMA-MCCH, had a
dispute. NAMA believed that they were the certified collective
bargaining agent.
3. NAMA staged several mass actions against the hospital’s refusal
to negotiate with them. Metro Cebu ordered them to desist,
which they refused. This led to the dismissal of the petitioners
4. Hospital entrance/exits were blocked. Employees and patients,
including emergency cases, were harassed, and they created an
atmosphere of animosity and violence.
5. Pending the dispute, petitioners filed for illegal dismissal, they
denied having participated in said mass action, except for
wearing armbands as instructed by their union leaders
ISSUE
whether or not petitioners were validly terminated for allegedly
participating in an illegal strike and/or gross insubordination to the
order to stop wearing armbands and putting up placards.
RULING/MAIN POINT
No. While a union officer can be terminated for mere participation in an
illegal strike, an ordinary striking employee, like petitioners herein, must
have participated in the commission of illegal acts during the strike.
There must be proof that they committed illegal acts during the strike.
But proof beyond reasonable doubt is not required. Substantial
evidence, which may justify the imposition of the penalty of dismissal,
may suffice.
strike was limited to wearing armbands and putting up placards. There
was no finding that the armbands or the placards contained offensive
words or symbols. Thus, neither such wearing of armbands nor said
putting up of placards can be construed as an illegal act.
Neither is the Court convinced that petitioners’ exercise of the right to
freedom of speech should be taken in conjunction with the illegal acts
committed by other union members during the series of mass actions. It
bears stressing that said illegal acts were committed by other union
members after petitioners were already terminated, not during the time
that the latter wore armbands and put-up placards.
CHAM
Case No. 181
STIRKES, LOCKOUTS, AND CONCERTED ACTIONS
Toyota Motor Phils Corp Workers’ Association v. Toyota Motors
FACTS
The Union filed a petition for certification election among the Toyota
rank and file employees with the NCMB. Upon being certified as its sole
and exclusive bargaining agent, Toyota challenged said order. In the
meantime, the Union submitted its CBA proposals to Toyota but the
latter refused to negotiate in view of its pending appeal. The Union filed
a notice of strike based on Toyota’s refusal to bargain.
STRIKE 1 – February - The Union officers and members failed to render
the required overtime work and instead marched to and staged a picket
in front of the BLR office.
STRIKE 2 – March-April -In reaction to the dismissal under the 1 st
strike, the Union went on strike. They barricaded the gates of Toyota’s
plants and prevented workers who reported for work from entering.
STRIKE 3 – May - Despite the issuance of the DOLE Secretary’s Order of
reinstatement, several payroll-reinstated members of the Union staged a
protest rally in front of Toyota’s plants bearing placards and streamers
in defiance of the said Order.
ISSUES
 (1) Whether or not the mass actions committed by the Union on
different occasions are illegal strikes.
(2) Whether or not petitioners are entitled to separation pay
RULING/MP
(1) YES. As for the February strikes, the Union failed to comply with
the procedural requirements for a valid strike under Article 263 of
the Labor Code:
the cause of dismissal is other than (a) serious misconduct; or (b) acts
that reflect on the moral character of the employee.
In this case, the Court rules that since the dismissal of the employees
was due to their participation in illegal strikes, the same constitutes
serious misconduct. Hence, the award of separation pay to the Union
officials and members cannot be sustained.

(a) Notice of strike filed with the DOLE 30 days before the intended
date of strike, or 15 days in case of unfair labor practice;
(b) Strike vote approved by a majority of the total union
membership in the bargaining unit concerned obtained by secret
ballot in a meeting called for that purpose; and
(c) Notice given to the DOLE of the results of the voting at least
seven days before the intended strike.

These requirements are mandatory and the failure of a union to comply

with them renders the strike illegal.

As for the March-April strikes, the legal requirements were met.

However, the Union barricaded the gates of Toyota’s plants and blocked
the free ingress to and egress from the company premises. Hence, these
strikes were illegal because unlawful means were employed. The
acts of the Union officers and members are in palpable violation of
Article 264.

As for the May strikes, although there was no work disruption in the
Toyota plants, the fact remains that the Union and its members picketed
and performed concerted actions in front of the company premises
despite the DOLE Secretary’s Order that no acts should be undertaken by
them to aggravate the already deteriorated situation. The pickets and
concerted actions outside the plants have a demoralizing and even
chilling effect on the workers inside the plants and can be considered as
veiled threats of possible trouble.

(2) NO. As a general rule, when just causes for terminating the services
of an employee under Article 282 of the Labor Code exist, the employee
is not entitled to separation pay. However, the exception to this is when