ULP CASE c.
membership of the union is composed of RAF,
Arellano
- union must hurdle both substantive and procedural
to strike validly
Issue: WON the employee lost his employment by
mere participation in illegal strike
To constitute ULP
- violation in CBA is not enough it must be flagrant
REN TRANSPORT
- they intended to disaffiliate, important to mention
such fact since there is no question to the
representation status initially
- stop remitting
Issue: WON ren transport committed acts of ULP
- by refusing to remit union dues to smart
- by refusing to recognize them as bargaining union
- the first union was a company run union to disrupt
the bargaining process
DIGITAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS PH INC
v. DIGITEL EMPLOYEES’ UNION (DEU)
Facts: The respondent in this case is the EBA of the
RAF employees of the petitioner who is engaged in
call center servicing.
The parties started negotiating their CBA which
resulted to DL. Hence, the union threatened to go
on strike but the SOLE assumed jurisdiction over
the labor dispute and ordered the parties to
execute a CBA, but no CBA was created.
After 10 years, the petitioner received a letter from
Esplana, the union Pres containing the union’s
CBA proposals and ground rules as well as the
list of officers. However the petitioner is unwilling
to negotiate with the union and demanded the union
to show compliance with the provisions of its
CBL on union membership and election of
officers. Hence, respondent filed a cases for
Preventive Mediation before the NCMB for
petitioner’s violation of the duty to bargain. The
SOLE then assumed jurisdiction. Petitioner then
filed with the DOLE an establishment termination
report stating that it will cease its business
operation. Respondent then filed a NOS for union
busting, illegal lock out, and violation of
assumption order which was ordered by the SOLE.
Hence, petitioner filed with the BLR seeking the
cancellation of the union’s registration for:
a. failure to file the required reports from 1994-2004
b. misrepresentation of its alleged officers
supervisory, and managerial employees
d. substantial number of union members are not
petitioner’s employees
However, it was dismissed. Thereafter, the SOLE
directed the parties to start their CBAN and certified
the issue to the NLRC
NLRC – dismissed the petition for ULP but
declared that the dismissal was illegal
CA – dismissed the petition assailing the order of
the SOLE ordering the petitioner to bargain with the
respondent.
Partially granted the petition challenging the
resolution of the NLRC
The MR was denied. Hence this petition
Issues:
a. WON the SOLE erred in issuing the assumption
order despite the pendency for cancellation of union
registration
b. WON Digiserv is a legitimate contractor
c. WON there was a valid dismissal
Ruling:
a. No. The court ruled that the pendency of a
petition for cancellation of union registration does
not preclude CB. Citing the case of National Union
of Bank Employees, the court reiterated that if a CE
may still be ordered despite the pendency of a
petition to cancel the union’s registration cert, more
so should the CB.
b. Digiserv is a labor-only contractor which is
prohibited under the LC, it is where the labor
contractor supply workers to an employer who does
not have substantial capital or investment in the
form of tools, equipment, machineries, work
premises, and the workers recruited and placed by
such person are performing activities which are
directly related to the principal business of such
employer.
- in this case, the court did not find that digiserv has
substantial investment and its primary purpose is to
provide manpower services which are directly
related to the business of digital. The court on the
contrary found that some of the dismissed
employees of the petitioner were already working as
Traffic Operator or as CSR. Also digiserv does not
exercise control over the employees.
c. the employees are illegally dismissed since the
requisites of retrenchment are not present which the
petitioner invoke on the allegations that the
employees were dismissed due to business closures.
Although the 1st three elements were satisfied, the
5th and 4th are not because there was no reasonable
criteria employed since all the employees were
dismissed and there is no GF on the part of the
petitioner since the petitioner disregarded the order
of the SOLE and instead close digiserv. BF is
evidenced thru the closure of digiserve when the
assumption order is pending there was also a
creation of a new corp performing similar functions
as digiserv, only shows that the target of the closure
are the union member-employees.
RIVERA v. ESPIRITU
Facts: The petitioners in this case are members of
PALEA, the duly certified bargaining agent of the
RAF ground employees of PAL. PALEA and PAL
entered into an agreement after PAL, the flag
carrier suffered from financial situation because
of the strike made by PAL pilots which is
affiliated with ALPAP (Airline Pilots Assoc of
the Ph). PAL resorted to rehabilitation and adopted
a plan but PALEA went on strike to protest the
retrenchment measures by PAL.
Thereafter, then Pres. Estrada issued an AO No. 16
creating an Inter-Agency Task Forces to address the
problems, it was composed of the DoFinance,
DOLE, Foreign Affairs, Transpo and
Communication, and Tourism together with Sec and
Exchange Commission. The task force is the
mediator.
Subsequently, Lucio Tan PAL’s CEO, submitted
a plan giving 60,000 fully paid shares of stock of
PAL with a par value of P5 to its employees and
allowing 3 members to of PALEA to the PAL
Board of Directors.
Initially, PALEA accepted the offer, but later on
rejected after majority of union members’ dissent.
Hence, PAL informed the task force that it was
shutting down its operation claiming that the
rehabilitation is no longer feasible. PAL then sent
notice of termination to its employees. After
PALEA offered a 10-year moratorium on strikes
and a waiver of some economic benefits which
was rejected by Lucio Tan. It subsequently
presented another offer subject to ratification by the
general membership offering PAL to grant each its
employees 60, 000 shares of stock with par value of
P5 from Tan’s shareholdings and 3 seats in the PAL
BoD and PALEA agrees to suspension of the
PAL-PALEA CBA for a period of 10 years and
to recognize PALEA as the duly certified
bargaining agent of the RAF ground employees
of the company and respect the union shop
provision. This offer was accepted by Tan and was
ratified by 61% of the votes. Hence, petitioners are
before the court seeking to annul the agreement.
Issues: WON the PAL-PALEA agreement
stipulating the suspension of the PAL-PALEA
CBA is unconstitutional and contrary to public
policy
Ruling: No, the petition is dismissed.
a. the court held that the argument of the petitioner
that the 10-year suspension is beyond the max
statutory life of a CBA under Art. 253-A and by
agreeing to such suspension it in turn abandoned the
workers’ constitutional right to bargain for another
CBA at mandated time is w/out merit since PAL-
PALEA agreement was the result of voluntary CBN
which is not in conflict with art. 253-A.
It also noted that the provision has 2 purpose that is:
1. To promote industrial stability and
predictability where the agreement being
assailed is only to promote industrial peace at
PAL during rehabilitation and
2. To assign specific timetable wherein
negotiation become a matter of right and
requirement. There is nothing in art. 253-A
which prohibits parties from waiving or
suspending the mandatory timetable. It also
stated that the right to free CB also includes the
right to suspend it.
b. The contention that the 10-year suspension in
effect installed PALEA as a company union is
w/out merit since company union exists when the
employer acts to initiate, dominate, assist, or
interfere with the formation or administration of any
labor org, including the giving of financial or other
support to it or its organizers which in this case is
not present.
c. Lastly, the contention that the agreement violates
the 5-year representation limit under art. 253-A is
w/out merit since from the same provision, it states
that the representation limit applies only when there
is a CBA in full force and effect which in this case
there is none since it was suspended.
GREPA UNION v. GREPA CORP
Facts: The petitioner in this case has a CBA which
is effective from July 1, 1990-June 30, 1993. When
their CBA was about to expire in a month and a
half, the parties submitted their proposals and
counterproposals for renewal.
However, the negotiations lead to a DL and the
union filing a NOS. The NCMB failed to resolve
the DL.
Hence, the petitioner union led by Domingo and
de la Rosa, the union’s Pres and VP went on a
strike. Thereafter the respondent corp required all
striking employees to explain in writing within 48
hours who no disciplinary action and possible
dismissal may be made against them which
Domingo and dela Rosa complied.
However, the corp is unsatisfied the explanation
hence it notified Domingo and de la Rosa who
were Senior Benefits Clerk and Senior Data
Analyst their termination.
Despite the dismissal, Domingo and de la Rosa
continued with the strike and the NCMB continued
with the conciliation. Thereafter the corp submitted
a draft agreement known as the last and final
offer of the mgmt. proposing employee/members
of the union subject of dismissal notices will be
reinstated under the same terms and conditions
prior to their dismissal, the reinstatement is
conditioned upon Domingo and dela Rosa’s
voluntary resignation upon signing this
agreement.
However, the petitioner assented with the offers
stating that the the union will lift the picket lines at
the premises of the company and will terminate the
strike while the mgmt. will implement the terms and
conditions agreed upon. Thereafter, the parties
entered into a MOA before the NCMB providing
that employees/members will be given amnesty by
the company and be reinstated except for Domingo
and dela Rosa and that Domingo and dela Rosa
reserved their right to question the legality of their
dismissal.
Thereafter Domingo and dela Rosa filed for
illegal dismissal and ULP which the LA sustained
and ordered the corp to reinstate them. This was
rejected by the NLRC, hence a MR where the
NLRC considered the case of Domingo terminated
and denied the MR.
Hence the present petition
Issues: WON dela Rosa was illegally dismissed
since his actual participation in the illegal acts
during the strike invoked by the corp as basis for
his dismissal was not adequately established
Ruling: No, he was not illegally dismissed. The
court dismissed the petition holding that the right to
strike recognized under the constitution is not
absolute since it cannot be used for violence,
coercion, and intimidation during strike and
prohibits free passage to and from the employer’s
premises otherwise any worker or union who
participate in such illegal acts is sanction to losing
his employment status pursuant to Art. 262.
- in this case, the corp was able to submit evidence
of illegal acts thru the affidavits of security guards
which was not refuted by dela Rosa. The affidavit
states that the striking employees are picketing at
the entrance and exit gates, the striking employees
would surround every vehicle including vehicle of
lessees of the corp that would enter the corp
premises, inspect them and ask the driver to open
the trunk of the vehicle in case they were carrying
corps’ business documents and if there were
business documents, the vehicle would be prevented
from entering the corp’s premises, the striking
employees do not allow grepalife and its employees
from entering the corp’s premises, and all persons
entering the premises are frisked which dela Rosa
participated.
- furthermore, dela Rosa was not forced to resign,
contrary to his claims since while from their MOA
the condition from their draft agreement where the
reinstatement of the employees/members are
conditioned upon the voluntary resignation of
Domingo and dela Rosa, the same is not
incorporated with the MOA which later on become
part of their CBA also from their MOA Domingo
and dela Rosa only express their right to question
the legality of their dismissal.
- also since they were dismissed prior to their
voluntary resignation, they have no more
employment to resign from since under the MOA
they are no longer employees of the company.
- it cannot be said also that the company
discriminate when it singled out the top officers of
the union and cannot constitute ULP since not every
unfair decision is ULP. Also it is not discriminatory
since discriminating under the LC is encouraging
membership in any LO or is made on account of the
employee’s having given or being about to give
testimony.
- there can also be no discrimination since the
employees were not similarly situated, union
officers have heavier responsibility and the act of
dela Rosa participating in the prohibited activities
during the strike shows irresponsibility which
justifies his dismissal
TAKATA PH CORP v. BLR
Facts: The petitioner in this case filed a petition for
cancellation of union reg of respondent Samahang
lakas Manggagawa ng Takata (SALAMAT)
alleging that it is guilty of misrepresentation, false
statement and fraud with respect to the number of
those who participated in the organizational meeting
because according to it, contrary to what respondent
shows, the 119 union members, the petitioner
argued that only 68 attended which only comprised
of 17% of the total number of the 396 RAF which in
effect failed to comply with the 20% minimum
membership requirement. The respondent denied
the same. Thereafter, the DOLE RD granted the
petition for cancellation of respondent’s COR.
Hence, respondent filed a Notice and Memorandum
of Appeal and later on also filed an Appeal
Memorandum with Formal Entry of Appearance to
the officer of the DOLE Sec wherein the BLR
reversed the order of the regional director. Hence,
petitioner filed a MR but it was denied and denied
as well before the CA. Hence the present petition.
Issues: WON the application for registration of
SALAMAT was compliant with the law.
WON it is guilty of fraud, misrepresentation, and
falsification and did not possess the required
number of members at the time of filing its
application for registration.
Ruling: No, the petition is denied. The court found
no merit in the argument of the petitioner that there
is misrepresentation. Citing Art. 234 (b) of the LC,
the court noted that there is nothing in such
provision which requires that the attendees in the
organizational meeting must be 20%. Under par. c
of the same provision, it appears that what it
requires is that the names of all its members
comprises at least 20% of all the employees in the
bargaining unit where it seeks to operate. It noted
that the 20% minimum requirement pertains to the
employees’ membership in the union and not to the
list of workers who participated in the
organizational meeting. Hence, the respondent
complied with the 20% minimum membership
requirement since the 20% of 396 is 79. From the
document it submitted entitled Pangalan ng mga
Kasapi ng Unyon, it showed the names of 119
employees as union members which number is way
beyond the 20% requirement. According to the
court, to be a ground for cancellation, fraud and
misrepresentation must be grave and compelling
enough to vitiate the consent of a majority of union
members.
- the argument of the petitioner that the union
members signed the documents w/out adequate
information is negated when the same union
members signed the document entitled ‘sama-
samang pahayag ng pagsapi.”
EMPLOYEES UNION OF BAYER PHILS v.
BAYER PH INC
Facts: The petitioner in this case is the EBA of all
RAF employees of the respondent Bayer.
The parties entered into CBN where petitioner
rejected respondent’s 9.9% wage-increase which
resulted to a DL, the petitioner then stage a strike
which was assumed by the SOLE who issued an
order directing the parties to execute a CBA which
will retroact from Jan. 1, 1997 - Dec. 31, 2001.
The issue arise when respondent Remigio and 27
other union members accepted respondent’s
wage increase proposal w/out authority from
union leaders. Hence, it was questioned by
petitioner.
However, Remigio ask for union member’s
signatures in support of a resolution which
contains the decision to: disaffiliate from FFW,
rename the union as Reformed Employees Union
of Bayer Ph (REUBP), adopt a new CBL, abolish
all existing officer positions and elect a new set, and
authorize REUBP to administer the CBA. This was
signed by 147 out of 257 local union members.
Subsequently, Remigio sent a letter to petitioner,
FFW, and respondent informing them decision of
the union members and another letter informing
them that officers and BoD had been appointed and
requested to remit union dues to REUBP. On the
contrary, petitioner requested respondent to remit
union dues to petitioner. Respondent Bayer in
dilemma placed union dues in a trust account.
Thereafter, petitioner filed for ULP against
respondent which was dismissed by the LA. The
petitioner requested for a grievance conference but
respondent turned over the union dues it placed in
trust account with the amount of P254, 857.15 to
REUBP. Hence, petitioners filed another ULP
complaint which was also dismissed by the LA.
However, respondent Bayer then agreed to sign a
new CBA with REUBP. Thus, petitioner thereafter
filed for the issuance of a restraining order before
the NLRC which was dismissed since the matter
involved an intra-union dispute. It was reversed by
the BLR, but the BLR’s decision came after
respondent signed a new CBA with the REUBP.
NLRC – denied the appeal and the MR
CA – sustained the LA and NLRC ruling
Hence this present petition.
Issues: WON the act of the respondent Bayer in
dealing and negotiating with Remigio’s splinter
group despite its validly existing CBA with
EUBP can be considered ULP
Ruling: Yes. As noted by the court, CBA is entered
into in order to foster stability and mutual
cooperation between labor and capital. Hence, an
employer should not be allowed to rescind
unilaterally its CBA with the duly certified
bargaining agents it had previously contracted with
and decide to bargain with a different group if there
is no legitimate reason for doing so. Also, on the
COR from the DOLE it is specified therein that the
registered CBA is the covenant between parties and
should be complied with. In this case, the
respondent cannot justify GF in their acts since they
knew that the petitioner was recognized by DOLE
SEC as legitimate and from the fact that it continued
to negotiate with the REUBP while intra-union
dispute is pending. The court also noted that when
the employer proceeds to negotiate with a splinter
union despite the existence of valid CBA with the
DCEBA, the employer undoubtedly abandons its
recognition of the DCEBA and terminates the entire
CBA.
- as to the issue whether the issue is an intra-union
dispute, citing the definition of intra-union dispute
which pertains to any conflict between and among
union members, including grievances arising from
any violation of the rights and conditions of
membership, violation of or disagreement over any
provision of the union’s constitution and by-laws, or
disputes arising from chartering or disaffiliation of
the union. This case does not fall within such
concept since the issue in this case pertains only to
the validity of the acts of the mgmt. while there is
still an existing CBA with EUBP. But as to Regimio
and Villareal, it is validly dismissed since it is an
intra-union dispute.
RANCE v. NLRC
Facts: The petitioner in this case were among the
dismissed employees of the PR Polybag
Manufacturing Corp.
Before they were dismissed, the petitioner and the
Corp entered into a CBA which has a Union
Security Clause requiring the members of the union
to remain a member in good standing of the union
otherwise they will be dismissed by the company
for causes such as disloyalty to the union,
commission of acts inimical to the interest of the
union, failure and refusal to pay union dues and
other assessments, conviction for any offenses or
crime and organizing and joining another LO
claiming jurisdiction similar to that of the union.
The petitioners in this case were dismissed for
disloyalty due allegedly joining NAFLU. The Corp
expelled 125 members pursuant to the findings and
recommendations of the panel investigations.
Due to their expulsion, the petitioners filed a case
before the LA and the NLRC
LA & NLRC – found that the CBA union security
clause is valid and the termination of the petitioners
herein justified for committing disloyalty by
affiliating with NAFLU while still being members
of the respondent union.
Hence, the petitioners elevated the case to the SC.
Issues:
a. WON the petitioners committed acts of disloyalty
which justify their expulsion
b. WON the expulsion proceeding conducted by the
union is in accordance with its by laws
Ruling: No. The court held that the mere act of
seeking help from NAFLU did not constitute act
of disloyalty because it was only an act of self-
preservation of workers since from the facts
there were 460 employees who are temporarily
laid off.
These workers did not receive any SP since their
dismissal was due to serious business losses and the
only help given by the company is ½ sack of rice
and 50 pesos weekly and most of them were made
to sign blank papers. While the petitioners
complained with the union for help, the union
ignored them since the union officers are not
affected by the matter as they were not laid off.
Hence, the act of the petitioners for seeking help
from NAFLU is not to be blamed.
- even if the petitioners authorize NAFLU to file the
action for them, the court noted that it would be
pointless since it cannot file an action for members
of another union
b. as to the expulsion proceedings, the court held
that the union did not disprove the fact that the
petitioners did not receive notice of summons from
the union and failed to deny the fact that those who
came were not only threatened with prosecution but
also made to write the answers to questions as
dictated to them by the union and company
representatives.
- even if the petitioner appeared in the supposed
investigation proceedings, it cannot change the fact
that the proceedings violated the rule of justice and
fair play since as found in this case the Chairman of
the BoD and Acting Union Pres are the ones who
initiated the filing of the charge of disloyalty against
petitioners and the panel of investigators created
under the Board’s Resolution was composed of the
Chairman of the Board and 2 members of the board
which is the same board that expelled 125 members.
- the court noted that in the absence of any full
blown investigation of the expelled members of the
union there is no basis for the union’s accusations.
- the court therefore found that the union and the
company connives and therefore guilty of ULP
MANILA MANDARIN EMPLOYEES UNION
v. NLRC
Facts: The petitioner union and the Hotel have
CBA providing a closed shop agreement
particularly dismissing employees who fails to
maintain membership in good standing, for non-
payment of union dues and other assessment, for
organizing, joining or forming another LO. The PR
Beloncio is an assistant head waitress at Manila
Mandarin Hotel’s Coffee Shop. She was expelled
from the petitioner union for acts allegedly inimical
to the interests of the union particularly her remark
to a waitress who was a union steward saying “wala
akong tiwala sa union ninyo.” Hence, the union
demanded the company to dismiss Beloncio from
employment pursuant to their closed shop provision
in their CBA which the company heeded by placing
Beloncio on forced leave. But 2 days before
Beloncio’s forced leave, she filed a complaint for
ULPand illegal dismissal before the NLRC
Arbitration Branch while the union filed a motion to
dismiss but it was denied.
LA - held that the union was guilty of ULP
Union then appealed to the NLRC
NLRC – modified the LA decision and denied the
MR
Hence this petition.
Issues:
a. WON petitioner union is guilty of ULP by reason
of the arbitrary use of the union security clause in
the CBA
b. WON the dispute involved intra-union conflicts
and therefore the NLRC has no jurisdiction
Ruling:
a. Petitioner is guilty of ULP. As found from the
facts, the union security clause only pertains to
losing membership by non-payment of dues or
when a members organizes, joins, or forms another
LO.
- there is also no error in the decision ordering the
reinstatement of Beloncio and directing the union to
pay the wages and fringe benefits which she failed
to receive because of her forced leave. According to
the court, if it not for union’s insistence on the
company to dismiss Beloncio that it filed a NoS, the
company would not be compelled to place Beloncio
on forced leave.
- furthermore, pursuant to their CBA the company is
free from liabilities that may arise should the
employee question the dismissal.
- The court also noted that while the closed shop is a
valid form of union security, this does not mean
restriction of the right of freedom of assoc
guaranteed by the constitution since such is also
governed by law and principle of fair play and
justice which cannot be used by the union against an
employer and their members.
- in this case, the court recognized Beloncio’s effort
in doing her work for the best interests of the
employer, all its employees, and the general public.
b. the dispute does not involve intra-union but
involves an interpretation of the CBA and WON
there was an illegal dismissal.
INTERPHIL LAB EMPLOYEES UNION-FFW
v. INTERPHIL LAB INC
Facts: The petitioner here is the SEBA of the RAF
employees of the respondent while the respondent is
a company engaged in the business of
manufacturing and packaging pharmaceutical
products.
The parties in this case had a CBA effective from
Aug. 1, 1990 to July 31, 1993.
Before the CBA expires, Ocampo and Clemente the
union pres and union director approached Salazar,
the VP of HR Dept to ask about the company’s
position with regard to the duration of the CBA.
However, Salazar responded that it could be
addressed during the formal negotiations.
Thereafter, Salazar was once again approached by
Ocampo and Clemente regarding the same matter
and Salazar responded in the same manner as the
first one. Hence, Ocampo requested for a meeting to
discuss the duration and effectivity of the CBA
which Salazar heeded and where the union asked to
make the new CBA effective for 2 years starting
Aug. 1, 1993. However, according to Salazar it is
still premature to discuss the matter.
Hence, the RAF employees refused to follow their
regular 2 shift work schedule from 6:00am-
6:00pm and from 6:00pm-6:00am. The
employees also started working at 2:00pm and
2:00am.
Hence, Salazar for a meeting where the union
director Gonzales said that they would only return
to their normal work schedule if the company agree
to their demands with regard to the duration of the
CBA which Salazar replied the same answer he has.
The union then continued the OT boycott and
the employees engage in a work slowdown
campaign during the time they were working
which delayed the production.
Thereafter, petitioner submitted its CBA proposal
likewise the company submitted its counter
proposal. The company then filed with the NLRC a
petition to declare illegal petitioner union’s OT
boycott and work slowdown which amounted to
illegal strike and asked from NCMB an aid for their
CBN. Petitioner on the contrary filed for ULP. The
labor dispute was assumed by the SOLE and
ordered the striking employees to return to work
and the company to accept the workers.
LA Caday – submitted his recommendation to the
then SOLE which was approved and adopted in his
order which declare the OT boycott and work
slowdown as illegal strike and declaring
Nestor Ocampo President
Carmelo Santos Vice-President
Marites Montejo Treasurer/Board Member
Rico Gonzales Auditor
Rod Abuan Director
Segundino Flores Director
Hernando Clemente Director
who spearheaded and led the overtime boycott and
work slowdown, to have lost their employment
status.
And find the company guilty of ULP for violating
the existing CBA
MR was filed but it was denied. It was elevated to
the CA but the petition is dismissed. Hence this
petition.
Issues: WON the respondent engaged in OT
boycott and work slowdown from April 16, 1993
until March 7, 1994.
Ruling: Yes and the petition is denied. It was clear
from the facts that the OT boycott and work
slowdown committed by the petitioners amounted
to illegal strike since from the facts employees
refused to follow their regular 2 shift work schedule
from 6:00am-6:00pm and from 6:00pm-6:00am.
The employees also started working at 2:00pm and
2:00am.The union then continued the OT boycott
and the employees engage in a work slowdown
campaign during the time they were working which
delayed the production when Salazar reply the same
that the matter is still premature.
- it was further supported by the testimony of
Salumbides, a union member telling that the union
released a memo directing the employees of the
company to make up alibis to not work OT and also
that the union told him to not work OT and when he
refused to do so by working OT, he was surrounded
by the union officers questioning him about his OT.
- the denial of the respondent that their work
slowdown did not affect the performance and work
efficiency is w/out merit since the work efficiency
from 1993 which the union used to compare the
work efficiency when the boycott and work
slowdown happens was negated by Montejo who is
a quality control analyst, saying that she was not the
one who prepared the productivity report since she
was on union leave.
- Hence, the respondents' unjustified unilateral
alteration of the 24-hour work schedule thru their
concerted activities of "overtime boycott" and
"work slowdown" from April 16, 1993 up to March
7, 1994,
to force the petitioner company to accede to their
unreasonable demands, can be classified as a strike
on an installment basis, as correctly called by
petitioner company
NATIONAL UNION OF WORKERS IN THE
HOTEL RESTAURANT AND ALLIED
INDUSTRIES (NUWHRAIN-APL-IUF) v. CA
(DUSIT HOTEL)
Facts: the petitioner in this case is the CBA of the
RA employees of PR Dusit Hotel which is a 5 star
Hotel in Makati City. The issue arose when the
parties failed to reach an agreement as to their new
CBA. The union then filed a NOS on the ground of
BDL. However, conciliations failed.
Hence, the union conducted a strike vote, majority
of the votes agreed to stage a strike.
Thereafter, the union members went to work with
cropped and shaved hair heads. Hence, they
were prevented by the mgmt. to enter the hotel
for violating the Hotel’s Grooming Standards.
The union then picketed outside the hotel
premises. Due to these happenings, the hotel
temporarily ceased its operation due to lack of
manpower. The hotel then issued notices to the
union members suspending them and charging them
for violating the duty to bargain in GF, illegal
picket, ULP, violation of Hotel’s Grooming
Standards, illegal strike, and commission of illegal
acts during the illegal strike. Hence, the union filed
another NOS on the ground of ULP this time
particularly illegal lockout. Though the union
explained with regard to their charges, they
continued picketing inside the hotel compound.
Hence, the hotel:
Terminated – 29 union officers and 61 members
Suspended – 81 employees (30 days), 48 employees
(15 days), 4 employees (10 days), 3 employees (5
days)
The union then declared a strike on that same day
and picketed the premises of the hotel which
blocked the ingress and egress of the hotel premises.
The union filed another nos. Hence, the SOLE
assumed jurisdiction and issued an order giving the
option to the hotel to merely reinstate the dismissed
or suspended workers where the hotel, in line with
the order, issued a memo directing the employees to
return to work but not the others as they will be
under payroll reinstatement.
The NLRC then issued its decision ordering the
hotel and the union to execute a CBA within 30
days from the receipt of the decision and held that
the concerted action was an illegal strike.
The MR was denied
CA – dismissed the petition of the union and affirm
the NLRC decision
MR was denied. Hence, this petition.
Issues:
a. WON the union acts of reporting of work with
their bald or cropped hair style and picketing the
hotel premises illegal
b. WON the union conducted an illegal strike
Ruling: The union is liable for conducting an
illegal strike.
In deciding, the court laid down the categories of
illegal strike:
1. [when it] is contrary to a specific prohibition of
law, such as strike by employees performing
governmental functions; or
2. [when it] violates a specific requirement of law[,
such as Article 263 of the Labor Code on the
requisites of a valid strike]; or
3. [when it] is declared for an unlawful purpose,
such as inducing the employer to commit an unfair
labor practice against non-union employees; or
4. [when it] employs unlawful means in the pursuit
of its objective, such as a widespread terrorism of
non-strikers [for example, prohibited acts under Art.
264(e) of the Labor Code]; or
5. [when it] is declared in violation of an existing
injunction[, such as injunction, prohibition, or order
issued by the DOLE Secretary and the NLRC under
Art. 263 of the Labor Code]; or
6. [when it] is contrary to an existing agreement,
such as a no-strike clause or conclusive arbitration
clause
Reasons why union is liable for conducting illegal
strike.
1. the union’s violation of the Hotel’s Grooming
Standards was a concerted action which according
to the court was done to place the mgmt. on its heels
and force it to agree with the union’s proposal. It
also embarrass the hotel. Their act of coming to
work with their shaved and cropped inflict serious
damage to the hotel’s finances and reputation as it
resulted to the disruption of the hotel’s operations.
2. the union’s concerted action violated their CBA
relating to No Strike, No Lockout.
3. the act of union going to work with shaved and
cropped hair also violated the LC’s provision of
prohibiting any action which will disrupt the early
settlement of the labor dispute which are under
conciliation. Due to this, the hotel’s operation was
disrupted and they violated their duty to bargain
collectively in GF.
4. The union failed to comply with the 30 day
cooling off period and the 7 day strike ban before
conducting the strike on Jan.18, 2002 since the
union filed its NOS only on Dec. 20, 2001 where
the cooling off period should be until Jan. 19, 2002.
It also conducted its strike vote only on Jan. 14,
2002 and submitted only to the NCMB on Jan. 18,
2002, hence the 7 day strike ban should have
prevented them from holding a strike until Jan. 25,
2002.
5. the union also committed illegal acts in its strike
since from the pictures the hotel showed, the union
formed a human barricades and blocked the
driveway of the hotel.
As to their liability, the court followed the mandate
of the LC where the union officers may be validly
terminated for participating in an illegal strike while
union members have to committed and participate
in illegal acts for them to be terminated.
The court ruled that while the hotel was able to
prove that the strikers blocked the ingress and
egress of the hotel, it also failed to point out the
participation of each union members in the
commission of illegal acts.
RAMIREZ v. POLYSON INDUSTRIES
Facts: The petitioners in this case are employees of
respondent Polyson engaged in the business of
manufacturing plastic bags for supermarket, dept
store, etc.
They are also officers of Obrero Pilipino, which is
the union of employees of Polyson.
The issue arose when respondent refuse to
recognize when Obrero asked respondent to
voluntarily recognized it as EBA of the RAF
employees of Polyson. Hence, Obrero threatened
Polyson that it will show its collective strength in
the coming days.
Subsequently, when a client rushed an order from
Polyson, ordering 100,000 pieces of plastic bags,
Polyson informed the operators of the cutting
section that they would be needing more workers
to work OT. However, when the supervisor
approached them they told that they have other
commitments after their shift. But there are 5
operators who shows their willingness to work OT
but 3 of them did not work OT. When asked by the
mgmt. they said that they were not allowed by the
petitioners to OT which was affirmed after an
investigation has been conducted that the petitioners
pressured them to not work OT. They were
terminated by the mgmt. after evaluation on the
ground that they initiated an illegal concerted
activity. Hence petitioners filed a NOS before the
NCMB while the DOLE sec certified the labor
dispute to the NLRC which hold that the petitioners
were illegally dismissed and ordered reinstatement.
After the MR, NLRC reconsidered and reversed its
ruling, this time they were legally dismissed since
they are guilty of threatening their co-employees.
CA – denied petitioner’s petition and affirmed the
NLRC resolution.
Hence this petition.
Issues: WON petitioners are guilty of illegal
concerted activity
Ruling: yes. The argument that they are not guilty
since the illegal concerted activity must be carefully
planned and a considerable number of participants
to insure that the desired result is attained is w/out
merit since the court noted that the law does not
require that a slowdown be carefully planned
and participated by a large number of workers.
Since the essence of strike is for the workers not to
quit their work but reduce the rate of work to
restrict delay the production.
- the court noted that there is no fundamental
difference when it comes to number of workers
involved in the concerted activity since the act is the
same as well as the purpose whether one or more
than one have ceased to work. Hence, petitioners
are guilty of illegal concerted activity when they
engaged in slowdown by inducing their co-workers
to quit their scheduled OT work which was
accomplished when it resulted in the delay in the
output of Polyson.
NARANJO v. BIOMEDICA HEALTH CARE
INC
Facts: Petitioners in this case are former employees
of the espondent herein engaged in the distribution
of medical equipment and Motol is their Pres.
The petitioners worked as liaison officer, service
engineer, administration clerk, sales rep, and
accounting clerk. On Motol’s bday, petitioners were
all absent with different reasons.
De Guzman – loose bowel movements
Pimentel – ophthalmology check up
Bardaje – migraine
Cruz – not feeling well
Naranjo – had to attend a meeting at his child’s
school
However, it also appears that they are also the
employees who filed a complaint against
respondent. Thereafter, pursuant to the text message
they receive, petitioner reported for work but they
were barred from entering the company premises
and respondent issued a notice of preventive
suspension and notice to explain, it accused the
petitioners of conducting an illegal strike. Only
Angeles and Casimiro explained. Petitioners then
filed a complaint with the NLRC while respondent
terminated the petitioners by virtue of the notice of
termination it served.
LA (NLRC) – dismissed the complaint for illegal
dismissal finding petitioners to have engaged in a
mass leave analogous to a strike.
NLRC – petitioner appealed. It declared the
petitioners illegally dismissed
Respondent MR was denied.
CA – annulled the NLRC decision and reinstated
the LA decision denying petitioners MR.
Hence this appeal.
Issues:
a. WON the petitioners staged a mass leave
b. WON petitioners go on a strike
Ruling:
a. No. Defining mass leave, the court defined it as a
simultaneous availment of authorized absence or
vacation from duty or employment usually with
pay. In this case, the respondent did not submit a
copy of the CBA or company memo with regard
to authorized sick or vacation leave which the
petitioner can avail. Due to absence of such
document, the court held that the leaves of the
petitioners were authorized and valid pursuant
with the company or CBA rules.
- also the argument of the respondent that the leave
is an illegal strike is w/out merit since it was not
proved. According to the court, the individual
absences cannot be regarded as illegal mass
action since mass leave involves a large number
of people. In this case, only 5 petitioners were
absent
b. Petitioners did not go on strike contrary to the
claim of the respondent since the petitioner went on
leave for different reasons which are proved since
petitioners were on different places to attend their
affairs. Claim of illegal strike was also negated by
the act of the petitioners in reporting for work when
they received a text message from respondent but
they were barred. According to the court, it shows
GF on the part of the petitioners.
- Also the respondent’s claim that the alleged mass
leave paralyzed the company operation is not
proved.
LAPANDAY WORKERS UNION
v. NLRC
Facts: The petitioner in this case is the union of the
PR and the other petitioners are workers of the PR.
The PR is engaged in the production of bananas in
Davao City and are sister companies while the
union is the DCEBA of the RAF employees of the
PR who is affiliated with KMU-ANGLO. The
parties had a CBA for a period from Dec. 5, 1985-
Nov. 30, 1988. However, the issue arose when
before the expiration of their CBA, PR started
mgmt. policies such as contracting security
guards for security services in their premises
which the union called as goons and special
forces of the PR, and the conduct of seminar on
Human Dev and Industrial Relations which will be
attended by the managerial, supervisory, and RAF
employees which the union claimed that the module
on the Ph Political Spectrum joined ANGLO with
other outlawed labor org.
During the labor-mgmt. meeting the issues were
addressed where the union agreed to attend the
seminar but on the contrary, it directed its members
not to attend and picketed the premises of the PH
Eagle Protectors where the PR contracted its
security guards. Thereafter petitioner filed a NOS
with the NCMB where an agreement is reached
directing the union to attend the seminar which the
union did.
However, the union continued with its activities
when Martinez, a member of the union’s BoD
was killed allegedly by a member of the security
forces of PR.
Hence, the members of the union refused to
report for work and did not comply with the
quota system and instructed the workers to
reduce the production to 30%.
PR then filed for illegal strike and ULP. But the
petitioners continued not to report for work and
instead went to the PR office in Lanang carrying
placards and poster calling the mgmt. to remove the
security guards.
The Mayor Duterte intervened but the settlement
still failed. Thereafter, a strike was conducted which
was supported by the majority of the workers. It
was submitted to the NCMB
LA – held that the strike was illegal
MR was denied. Hence this petition.
Issues: WON the strike is illegal.
Ruling: yes. In deciding the case, the court cited
Art. 263 and 264 of the LC wherein Art. 263
provides the limitation to the right of strike
providing the procedures to be followed before
staging a strike (filing of NOS, taking of strike vote,
reporting of the strike vote result to the DOLE).
- in this case the court declared the strike illegal for
reason that petitioner held the strike within the 7
da waiting period under Art. 263 of the LC.
Which waiting period is to afford the DOLE an
opportunity to verify whether the projected strike
carries the permission of the majority of the union
members. Because of the strike held within the 7
day waiting period the DOLE was not able to verify
whether the strike is approved by the majority of the
union members.
SAMAHANG MANGGAGAWA SA SULPICIO
LINES v. SULPICIO LINES INC
Facts: the parties in this case had a CBA for a
period of 5 years from Oct. 17, 1990-Oct. 16, 1995.
The parties started negotiating their economic
provisions after 3 years which led to DL. Hence
petitioner filed before the NCMP a NOS due to
CBDL. The labor dispute was assumed by the
SOLE. Thereafter, petitioner filed again a NOS for
the alleged ULP of the respondent amounting to
union busting. The petitioner then conducted a
strike vote and subsequently did not report for
work and gathered in front of Pier 12, North
Harbor Manila. The SOLE then directed them to
return to work and certified the case to NLRC.
NLRC – respondent filed a complaint for illegal
strike where the NLRC declared illegal and the
option for the mgmt. to terminate the petitioners.
MR was denied
SC – referred the petition to the CA which affirmed
the NLRC resolution MR was denied
Hence this petition.
Issues: won the strike staged by petitioner’s officers
ad members is illegal.
Ruling: yes. Citing Art. 263 and 264 of the LC. The
court held that the petitioners did not observe the 7
day strike ban and failed to submit the result of the
strike vote to the DOLE at least 7 days before the
strike. The failure to comply with the req under the
LC rendered the strike illegal.
- as to the contention that they acted in GF, the
court held that even if they acted in GF, if there is
no NOS and strike votes was not conducted, the
strike is illegal.
- as to the argument that it is mere absenteeism, the
court hold otherwise since citing the definition of
strike, any stoppage of work by the concerted action
of employees as a result of an industrial or labor
dispute. The court noted that strike is not only
concerted work stoppages, but also slowdowns,
mass leaves, sit downs, attempts to damage, destroy
or sabotage plant equipment and facilities. These
are all present in this case since 167 union officers
and members participated and they gathered in front
of the respondent’s office to participate in a strike
voting.
- furthermore, the petitioner failed to prove that the
respondent committed ULP
BIFLEX PH INC LABOR UNION (NAFLU)
Facts: petitioners in this case were officers of
Biflex Ph Inc Labor Union and the other petitioners
were officers of Fiflex Industrial and Manufacturing
Labor Union who are both affiliated with NAFLU
and are both CBAgents of the employees of
corporations since Biflex Ph Inc and Fiflex
Industrial and Manufacturing Corp are sister
companies engaged in garment business, both
situated in one big compound having a common
entrance. Petitioners staged a work stoppage after a
labor sector staged a welga ng bayan to protest the
accelerating prices of oil.
Because of this, the respondent filed a petition to
declare the work stoppage illegal for failure to
comply with the procedural requirements.
Thereafter when the respondent resumed operation,
the petitioner claimed that they were illegally
locked out by respondent saying that because of the
welga ng bayan, it is difficult for them to get a ride
and the violence might occur in the welga which
would prevent from reporting for work. Thereafter
the petitioners who filed a NOS put up tents, tables,
and chairs, in front of the main gate of respondent’s
premises and explained that it is only for
convenience for the union to check if the mgmt. will
allow them to report for work. On the contrary,
respondent argue that the work stoppage is illegal
because the petitioners failed to comply with the
requirements of a valid strike i.e., filing of NOS,
securing a strike vote, and submission of a report of
the strike vote to the DOLE.
LA – held that the strike was illegal and declared
that the officers of the union shall be dismissed
from work.
NLRC – reversed the LA ruling holding that there
was no strike to begin with since there is no labor or
industrial dispute between the parties.
CA – reversed the NLRC ruling and reinstated the
LA ruling.
Hence this petition.
Issues: won petitioner is guilty of holding an illegal
strike
Ruling: yes. The court held that employees commit
an illegal work stoppage when they refuse to work
and join welga ng bayan, when they have no dispute
with the mgmt. and they are scheduled to work.
- noting the constitutional right of the mgmt. to
reasonable returns on investments and to expansion
and growth, the court noted that such must be
considered. Hence, the right of the petitioners in
joining the welga which is their exercise of freedom
of expression or freedom of assembly is not
absolute since it must not oppressed the capital to
promote the interests of the labor.
- since the petitioner did not notify respondent of
their intention to join the wlega ng bayan, the work
stoppage is illegal and therefore cannot be
protected.
- as to the issued whether there was illegal lockout,
the court questioned the petitioners on why they did
not protest with the mgmt..
- also according to the court, even if they complied
with the legal formalities in staging a strike, it
would still be illegal since they physically block and
prevent the ingress and egress from the company
premises which is prohibited under Art. 246 of the
LC which provides that no person engaged in
picketing shall obstruct the free ingress to or egress
from the employer’s premises for lawful purposes,
or obstruct public thoroughfares.
- the court also noted that the legality of the strike is
not only determined by compliance with the
requirements but also the means employed.
GRAND BOULEVARD HOTEL v. GENUINE
LABOR ORG OF WORKERS IN HOTEL,
RESTAURANT AND ALLIED INDUSTRIES
(GLOWHRAIN)
Facts: Parties in this case had a CBA covering the
period from July 10, 1985-July 9, 1988. However,
the petitioner then dismissed some of its employees
which prompted the respondent to file a NOS on the
ground of illegal dismissal, illegal suspension, CBA
violations, and harrassments. The Acting SOLE
then certified the case to the NLRC and directed the
respondents to return to work and for the mgmt. to
accept the workers. Respondent union complied but
filed another NOS. Hence, it was again certified to
the NLRC and directing them to return to work and
enjoin from engaging in any strike or lockout.
Thereafter, the parties entered into a CBA for a
period of July 10, 1988-July 9, 1991. The union
pres then wrote to the petitioner for violating the
CBA. Hence pettieioner placed the respondent
union director for grievance under preventive
suspension while th respondent filed a manifestation
and motion against petitioner for violating the order
of SOLE. Thereafter, the respondent filed another
NOS this time it’s based on violations of CBA,
coercion of employees, harassment, arbitrary
transfer of employees and illegal termination and
suspension of employees. Thereafter, the petitioner
informed the SOLE of its decision to retrench some
of its employees to lessen the financial losses it
incurred. While the union informed the DOLE that
it will conduct a strike vote and thereafter informed
the DOLE of the result. SOLE then again issued an
order enjoining the parties from engaging in any
strike or lockout. After informing SOLE of its
decision to retrench it gave notice to its employees
of its retrenchment on the basis of last in, first out.
This prompted the union to filed another NOS
thinking it continue committing ULP and thereafter
picket the premises of the hotel and blocked the
ingress and egress of the hotel. SOLE issued
another return to work and enjoining them. Hence,
petitioner filed a complaint for illegal strike alleging
that the req for legal strike is not complied.
LA – ruled in favor of the petitioner declaring the
strike illegal for failure to comply with the legal req
The petitioner then barred respondents from
entering the hotel. Union filed an appeal with the
NLRC but it affirmed the decision of the LA. The
case reached this court which annulled the res of the
NLRC. The petition then was remanded to the CA.
CA – strike is legal and the dismissal is unjustified.
MR was denied. Hence this petition.
Issues: WON the strike staged by the respondent is
illegal
Ruling: yes. The court held that the respondent
cannot claim GF when it disregarded the decision of
the SOLE for enjoining them to engage in a strike.
It also failed to prove that the petitioner committed
ULP. Laying down the req for a valid strike
provided.36
a. a notice of strike fled with the DOLE thirty days
before the intended date thereof or fifteen days in
case of ULP
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
c. notice given to the DOLE of the results of the
voting at least seven days before the intended strike.
- the court noted that a strike that has been
undertaken despite the issuance of the SOLE of an
assumption and an order prohibiting the same, is
illegal. In this case, the court noted the fact that the
respondent union proceed with its strike despite the
order of the sole.
PH DIAMOND HOTEL AND RESORT INC
(MANILA DIAMOND HOTEL) v. MANILA
DIAMOND HOTEL EMPLOYEES UNION
Facts: Petitioner in this case is the employer of the
respondent union. The union filed for PCE before
the DOLE to be the EBR of its members but it was
denied by the DOLE for failure to comply with the
legal requirements. Thereafter, Mendoza, a Hotel’s
outlet cashier failed to remit tot the hotel the amount
of P71, 692.50 but he explained that it was Kimpo
who dropped his remittances which Kimpo denied.
Mendoza was then suspended for 1 week and re-
assigned to the Hotel’s Cost Control Department.
Thereafter, the union notified petitioner its intent to
negotiated for a CBA but the Hotel respond in the
negative saying that it is not certified by DOLE as
EBA. But the union clarified that it is for its
members only and declared that it would engage in
concerted activities if the hotel refused. Thereafter,
the union went on strike and called for a strike vote.
It filed a NOS with the NCMB for ULP for the
refusal to bargain. Thereafter, Kimpo filed a
complaint for ULP against petitioner and
subsequently demanded for consent election which
the hotel did not refused and it was set to be held on
Jan 1998. But in Nov. 1997, the union went on
strike where the NUWHRAIN joined to support the
union. Petitioner then filed a petition for injunction
before the NLRC whose representative reported that
strikers block the ingress and egress of the hotel.
Thus, the NLRC issued a TRO. The parties
conciliation meetings failed. Hence petitioner filed a
petition to declare the strike illegal.
NLRC – declared the strike illegal and hold that the
union officers are deemed dismissed
CA – affirmed the decision of the NLRC declaring
the strike illegal but reinstating the union members.
Issues: WON the CA erred in ordering the
reinstatement of the respondents whose employment
status were previously declared to have been lost
despite declaring that the strike it held was illegal

Ruling: No. The court affirmed the decision of the
CA in holding that the union officers should be
dismissed for staging and participating in the illegal
strike pursuant to Art. 264 of the LC but the court
also noted that an ordinary striking worker cannot
be dismissed for mere participation in illegal strike
since a proof is needed that he committed illegal
acts during strike.
- as to the issue of bargaining for the union’s
members only, the court held that the union is
misplaced when it relied on the rights of LLO since
according to the court, not every LLO possess such
rights. Hence, the court, in affirming the decision of
the CA and NLRC noted that to bargain on behalf
of its members only would only divide the
employees since other workers who are not
members would be at a disadvantage, allowing them
means employees who are non-union members will
be impaired since they will not be able to negotiate
the terms and conditions of their work.
- furthermore, there is no ULP for failure to bargain
collectively since the union herein is not a DCBA of
the petitioner to whom the petitioner shall only
negotiate.
MSF TIRE AND RUBBER INC v. CA
Facts: Philtread was charged by its union, PR in
this case for ULP for alleged union busting and
violation of the provisions of CBA which was
followed by picketing and holding of assemblies
outside the gate of Philtread plants. Pursuant to the
MOA of Philtread and Siam Tyre (a subsidiary of
Siam Cement), Philtread sold its plant and
equipment to the petitioner herein where 805 of
which would be owned by Siam Tyre and 20% by
philtread, and the land which philtread plant is
located is sold to Sucat Land Corp where 60% of it
would be to Philtread and 40% to Siam Tyre. Union
knew such fact. Hence, petitioner asked the union to
desist from picketing outside the plant which the
union refused. Hence petitioner filed a complaint
for injunction against the union while union move
to dismiss the complaint alleging that petitioner
being a mere alter ego of Philtread is not an
innocent bystander.
RTC – denied petitioner’s application for injunction
but was later on granted after reconsidering.
CA – granted the union’s petition.
Hence this petition
Issues:
a. WON petitioner is a mere innocent bystander to
the labor dispute between Philtread and the union
b. WON petitioner has a clear legal right to the
issuance of injunction under the innocent bystander
rule
Ruling: No, petitioner is not a mere innocent
bystander. According to the court in order for an
innocent bystander to enjoin a labor strike, it must
satisfy the court that its interest is foreign to the
strike and w/out any connection to either party to
the dispute which in this case is not present since
citing the findings of CA, the negotiation, contract
of sale and the post transaction between philtread as
vendor and Siam Tire as vendee shows the legal
relation between them, it was further supported by
the fact that the petitioner uses the same plant or
factory, same working conditions, machinery, tools,
and equipment and manufacture the same product, it
shows that the petitioner’s personality is closely
linked to Philtread which negates its claim that it is
a mere innocent bystander and therefore not entitled
to injunctive writ.
INTERNATIONAL PHARMACEUTICALS
INC v. SEC OF LABOR
Facts: the parties in this case had a CBA which
prior to its expiration, the union submitted its
economic and political demands to the petitioner
which the company did not meet hence resulted to a
DL. The union then filed a NOS before the RO of
the NCMB however the conciliation failed and the
company’s operation is completely paralyzed. Three
other cases were filed
1. petitioner filed a petition for injunction against
the union for picketing the company’s establishment
and allegedly for not having acquired majority of
the employees approval to strike in violation of the
CBA
2. Union filed for uLPagainst the petitioner for its
refusal to include the sales worker in the BU which
result to a DL in CBN
3. petitioner filed a petition to declare the strike
illegal for non-compliance with the req of LC and
totally blocking the ingress and egress of the
company’s premises.
Then Sec of Labor assumed jurisdiction over the
case since the petitioner is involved in the
manufacture of drugs and pharmaceuticals
employing around 600 workers.
Thereafter, the union filed seeking to consolidate
the 3 NLRC cases which was granted by the SOLE
The petitioner is before the court contending that
the exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide the 3
NLRC cases is vested in the LA and argued that the
SOLE assumed jurisdiction only in cases of DL in
negotiation of CBA

Issues: WON the Sec of DOLE has the power to

assume jurisdiction over a labor dispute and its
incidental controversies, including ULP cases,
causing or likely to cause a strike a lockout in an
industry indispensable to the national interest.

Ruling: yes, the SOLE has jurisdiction to such.

Citing Art. 263 of the LC, the court held that the LC
explicitly grants the authority to assume jurisdiction
over a labor dispute causing or likely to cause a
strike or lockout in an industry indispensable to
national interest and decide the same to the SOLE
which must extend to questions and controversies
arising there including cases where the LA has
exclusive jurisdiction. The court also held that the
NLRC cases were just the outcomes of the CBN DL
and the strike.
- furthermore the court noted that Art. 217 of the LC
which also grants such jurisdiction to the sole is not
w/out exceptions. Hence reading it together with
Art. 263, it vests to both the SOLE and the shared
jurisdiction subject to conditions.