Bigg’s Inc.
- Petitioner February of 1996, union members were
Jay Boncacas, Thelma Divina, Allan Dy, Charvie
Neo, Richard Sabater, Araceli Enriques, Ma.
Rebessa San Jose, Alfredo Odiamar JR., Michael
Mapa, Dante Bayta, Glen Rebusi, Rachelle Mea,
Albert Tinasa, Wilhelmn Jardinero, Jun Labadan
and Pura Sabater - Respondents
● The employer of the respondents is Bigg’s
Inc.
● Boncacas - union president
● Arlene Acabado and Teresita Arejola -
representative of Bigg’s. (Personnel officer
and general manager during that time of
filing of the petitions)
● Bigg’s operates a chain of restaurants with
the principal place in Naga City, Camarines
Sur. Employees formed a labor union named
Bigg’s Employees Union which was issued a
Certificate of Registration by DOLE on
January 30, 1996.
● The conflict between Bigg’s management
and the union members
● February 16, 1996, Bigg’s alleged that 50
union members staged an illegal “sit-down
strike” in Bigg’s Restaurant.
● Sit-down strike - may mga employees daw
na nasa premises pero nagrefuse mag-work
kasi nga may strike.
● Union did not comply with the requirements
of sending Notice of Strike to the National
Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB).
● Biggs issued a memorandum to the striking
union members that will undergo preventive
suspension and required them to explain
their action within 24 hours from notice. The
union did not comply with the company’s
order, thus, they were sent employment
termination letters on February 19, 1996.
UNION SIDE
● The union members accuse Bigg’s
interfering with union activities. In late
asked to withdraw from their membership
under threat of losing their employment.
● In the same month, employees named
Mariano Aycardo and Marilyn Jana were
dismissed from service purposely due to
their union membership.
● February 16, 1996 - the union president
Boncacas and other union members were
prevented from entering the premises of
Bigg’s. On the same day, they filed a Notice
of Strike with the NCMB. Tried to return to
work on February 17, 1996, but they were
informed of their respective memoranda.
● The union members filed a complaint
about unfair labor practices, illegal
dismissal, and damages.
● Bigg’s also filed a complaint about illegal
strike
● The union conducted another strike on
March 5, 1996.
● The strike was later stopped when both
parties agreed to compulsory arbitration.
FINDINGS
● Labor Arbiter Rolando L. Bobis issued a
Joint Decision dated January 31, 2000
● Union members who were contractual
employees
● LA was in favor of Bigg’s for the illegal
strike.
● The following officers, the President
(Boncacas), the vice president (Liria), the
treasurer (San Juan), and the secretary
(Arines) have decided that their issue of
illegal dismissal was valid. Because
according to LA, it was proven that they
participated in the said illegal strikes. While
the other members, who are not proven
that they participated in the said illegal
strike, should reinstate their following
positions.
● For the allegation of unfair labor practice,
and union-busting, the LA held that the
union members were unable to prove the
same with substantial evidence.
● On appeal, the NLRC reversed the LA
decision. In its decision, dated, April 30,
2002, the NLRC ruled that the strike on
February 16, 1996, was valid because it was
grounded on unfair labor practices
committed by Biggs. The union members
were not bound to wait for 15 days from
the filing of the Notice of Strike before
staging the same. The NLRC also ruled that
there was no evidence that the union
members displayed violence, coercion, or
prevented the free ingress to and egress
from Bigg’s premises during the March 5,
1996 strike.
● Motion for reconsideration, the NLRC
reversed its own ruling and reinstated the
LA Decision. The NLRC declared that there
were material points missing.
● The ruling of the Court of Appeals - the CA
clarified that a strike need not always be
declared by the duly representative
bargaining representative.
● Some of the members were barred from
entering to premises, in that case, it was
really an unfair labor practice.
● Under the implementing rules of the Labor
Code recognize the power of a legitimate
labor organization to conduct a strike in the
absence of a certified recognized bargaining
representative, if and only if the provided
reason is unfair labor practice.
● The CA found that Biggs was guilty of anti-
unionism by preventing Boncacas and other
union members from entering the premises
and firing other union members on the
same day when they opted to retain union
membership.
Requirements of a Valid Strike
Article 278 of the Labor Code
c) in cases of bargaining deadlocks, the duly
certified bargaining agent may file a notice of
strike or the employer may file a notice of
lockout with the Ministry at least 30 days
before the intended date thereof. For unfair
labor practice, the period of notice shall be 15
days and in the absence of a duly bargaining
agent, the notice of strike may be filed by any
legitimate labor organization on behalf of its
members. In case of dismissal from
employment of union officers duly elected in
accordance with the union constitution and by-
laws, the 15-day cooling-off period shall not
apply.
e) during the cooling-off period, the duty of the
Ministry is to exert all efforts at mediation and
conciliation to effect a voluntary settlement.
f) a decision to declare a strike must be
approved by a majority of the total union
membership in the bargaining unit concerned,
obtained by secret ballot in meetings called for
a purpose.
- The Court affirmed that the strike that
happened last February 16, 1996, was
illegal, for the failure of the union to
comply with the pre-requisites for a
valid strike.
- The cooling-off period is mandatory,
especially to allow both parties to
negotiate and seek a peaceful
settlement or to avoid the strike.
- The union was failed to prove that there
was union-busting to exempt
compliance with the cooling-off period.
- The union did not present any
substantial evidence that Bigg’s
management was actually dismissing or
threatening with dismissal for their
union membership.
 - The strike on March 5, 1996, was also
illegal because Article 279 (e) of the
Labor Code provides: No person
engaged in picketing shall commit any
act of violence, coercion or intimidation
or obstruct the free ingress to or egress
from the employer’s premises for lawful
purposes, or obstruct public
thoroughfares. (Nakahanap sila ng
video footage with regards to this
matter)
- Both petitions were partially granted.
- Declare the strike of February 16, 1996,
illegal;
- Grant separation pay
- Revisions of names for awardees, and
employees who will restrain their
position.

- The court reverse the CA’s findings that

the union president Boncaca’s dismissal
was invalid as he did not commit illegal
acts on March 5, 1996. It was explained
that even if Boncacas’ not knowingly
participate but was the one who
principally organized the two illegal
strikes. Because according to Article
279, if the union officers were found
out participating in an illegal strike, it is
their valid ground to terminate their
employment. Therefore, the dismissal
of the union officers was valid.
However, as to the union members who
did not participate in any prohibited
activities during the strikes, their
dismissal was invalid.

- The Court also mentioned that if they

cannot trust anymore the employees
who can imply a strike, separation pay
is the best option than reinstatement.

- Only Shiela Raymundo and Memandro

Ramos joined the instant petition for
reinstatement with back-wages,
therefore they should receive the
award.

FINAL RULING