A SORUANA AVIATION v.

EMPLOYEES
G.R. No. 166879. August 15, 2009
PETITIONER/S: A. Soriano Aviation
RESPONDENT/S: Employees Association of A. Soriano Avviation

FACTS:
 A. Soriano Aviation and the Union entered into a CBA effective from 1 January 1997 to 31 December 1999, which
included a “No-Strike, No-Lockout” clause.
 Eight mechanics who were members of the Union refused to render overtime work on legal holidays and peak
season for the company.
 The company considered this refusal to work as a violation of the “No-Strike, No-Lockout” clause and suspended
the workers for 30 days.
 Consequently, the Union filed for a strike against such action by the company for union busting, illegal dismissal of
a union officer, and discrimination against mechanics.
 Despite conciliation attempts, the Union went on strike on October 22, 1997.
 The company then filed a complaint for illegal strike contending that the newly implemented work-shift was a valid
exercise of management prerogative and the refusal therein to work on three consecutive holidays was a form of
a protest by the Union, hence, deemed a concerted action.
 In the interim on June 16, 1998, a second trike was staged.
 LABOR ARBITER RULING: Rendered a decision stating that the strike was illegal and the action of the
employees violated the “No-Strike, No-Lockout” clause.
 NLRC RULING: affirmed the decision of the LA.
 CA RULING: Reversed the ruling of the NLRC, stating that the acts of violence committed by the union members
were not as serious or pervasive to constitute loss of employment.

ISSUE: Whether the strike staged by the Union is illegal due to the commission of illegal acts and violation of the “No-
Strike, No-Lockout” clause in the CBA. (YES)

RULING:
YES. The strike staged by the Union is illegal due to the commission of illegal acts and violation of the “No-Strike,
No-Lockout” clause in the CBA.

In this case, the first strike, which was prompted by a non-strikeable issue and without complying with procedural
requirements, violated the "No-Strike, No-Lockout" policy. However, the second strike, which complied with procedural
requirements and was grounded on unfair labor practice, was not a violation of the policy.

Well-settled is the rule that even if the strike were to be declared valid because its objective or purpose is lawful, the strike
may still be declared invalid where the means employed are illegal. Among such limits are the prohibited activities under
Article 264 of the Labor Code, particularly paragraph (e), which states that no person engaged in picketing shall:
a) commit any act of violence, coercion, or intimidation or
b) obstruct the free ingress to or egress from the employer's premises for lawful purposes, or
c) obstruct public thoroughfares.

The court found that the Union committed illegal acts during the strike, such as name-calling, harassment, and the display
of placards and banners imputing criminal negligence to the company, such as, "Max, ang sama mo talaga, lumabas ka
dito at pipitpitin ko ang mukha mo!" "Cohen, inutil ka talaga. Nagpahaba ka pa ng balbas para kang tsonggo!" Cohen,
lumabas ka dito at hahalikan kita", "putang-ina ninyo!", "Matanda ka na, balatuba ka pa rin! Max, ang baho ng bunganga
mo, kasing baho ng ugali mo!”, and OFFICIALS BEWARE, NOW A NAME YOU CAN TRASH," "ASAI DETERIORATING
SAFETY RECORD KILLS 2 DEAD + VARIOUS (IN PLANE CRASH) FLIGHT MISHAPS BEWARE," etc.

The court cited Article 264 of the Labor Code, which prohibits acts of violence, coercion, intimidation, obstruction of free
ingress and egress, and obstruction of public thoroughfares during strikes.

The exercise of the right to strike is not absolute and that the means employed in carrying out concerted activities must be
legal. Thus, second strike illegal and stated that individual respondents who knowingly participated in the illegal strike or
committed illegal acts during the strike may be declared to have lost their employment status.
The case must be remanded to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) to determine the Union's status and the
respective liabilities of the individual respondents.