CASE DIGEST

LAPANDAY v NLRC
Labor 2

Court Supreme Court 2nd Div

Citation G.R. No. 95494-97
Date September 7, 1995
Plaintiff-Petitioners LAPANDAY WORKERS UNION, ARQUILAO BACOLOD, JOSE ERAD, FERNANDO
HERNANDO, EDDIE ESTRELLA, CIRILO DAYAG, EDUARDO POQUITA, CARLITO
PEPITO, RENE ARAO, JUANITO GAHUM, EMILIANO MAGNO, PERLITO
LISONDRA, GREGORIO ALBARAN, ABRAHAM BAYLON, DIONESIO
TRUCIO, TOMAS BASCO AND ROSARIO SINDAY,
Defendant-Respondents NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION AND LAPANDAY AGRICULTURAL
& DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Ponente Puno, J
Relevant topic c) Rationale for Regulation by Law
Prepared by DG 2

CASE SUMMARY:

Recit ready summary (short lang)

FACTS:

The case involves private respondents, sister companies engaged in banana production in Davao City. The petitioner
is the Lapanday Workers Union (Union), the certified bargaining agent for the rank and file employees of the private
respondents. Prior to the expiration of their collective bargaining agreement (CBA), issues arose related to the hiring of
security guards and a seminar on Human Development and Industrial Relations (HDIR). The Union accused the security
guards of intimidation and objected to the module on the Philippine political spectrum in the HDIR seminar. These
matters were discussed in a labor-management meeting, but the Union later directed its members not to attend the
seminars and picketed the premises of the security agency.

The Labor Arbiter (LA) found the union's strike to be illegal. The LA also declared LADECO and CADECO guilty of unfair
labor practices and illegal dismissal, ordering the reinstatement of dismissed employees with back wages and benefits.
The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) upheld the decision, deeming the strike illegal and resulting in the
loss of employment for union officers. However, rank-and-file employees involved in the strike were ordered to be
reinstated without back wages, considering the time they were out of work as a penalty. The complaint for unfair labor
practices, illegal suspension, and illegal dismissal was dismissed for lack of merit.

ISSUE – HELD – RATIO:

ISSUE #1 HELD
WON the Union staged an illegal strike.

RATIO:

• The strike conducted by the union on October 12, 1988, was declared illegal because it took place within the
seven-day waiting period required by paragraph (f), Article 263 of the Labor Code.
• ITCAB, The swift execution of the strike prevented the Department of Labor and Employment from verifying if
it had the approval of the majority of union members, disregarding an important policy of strike regulations.
The legality of previous work stoppages on September 9 and 23, 1988, was not extensively addressed.
However, the decision by the public respondent was supported by substantial evidence. The leaders of the
illegal strike, particularly the union officers who played significant roles, were subjected to dismissal. They
could not claim good faith as they admitted knowledge of strike laws and procedures but still violated them.
Union members who were influenced to join the illegal strike were treated differently. Rank-and-file workers,
upon reinstatement, were not entitled to back wages for the period they were out of work during the strike.

DISCUSSION ON STRIKE:
• Paragraphs (c) and (f) of Article 263 of the Labor Code, as amended, outline the procedural requirements for
declaring a strike. These include filing a notice of strike or lockout, obtaining approval from the majority of
union members or the board of directors, and reporting the strike vote results to the Ministry of Labor.
• The law prohibits the declaration of a strike or lockout without collective bargaining, the necessary
notice, or the required vote. Union officers participating in an illegal strike and workers engaging in illegal
acts during a strike may lose their employment status.

1
CASE DIGEST
LAPANDAY v NLRC
Labor 2

• Strikes are temporary work stoppages initiated by employees to address labor disputes, and their exercise is
regulated to balance the interests of labor, management, and the public. The procedural steps mentioned aim
to ensure a fair and orderly process for conducting strikes.
RATIONALE:
• The seven-day waiting period before conducting a strike allows the Department of Labor and Employment to
verify if the majority of union members support the strike.
• This waiting period ensures that the decision to strike is based on rationality rather than emotionalism and
represents the legitimate interests of the union.
• Strikes are a powerful tool for labor to negotiate fair treatment and defend against unfair labor
practices by management.
• The decision to strike should be made through a rational and consensus-based process, free from the
influence of a few individuals and focused on the overall welfare of the union and the public.
• While the majority's decision is not infallible, it serves as a safeguard against hasty and erroneous actions.

RULING:
IN VIEW WHEREOF, the petition is dismissed for failure to show grave abuse of discretion on the part of the public
respondent. Costs against the petitioners.

RELEVANCE TO THE TOPIC:

XX