Facts:

The case involves A. Soriano Aviation (petitioner) and the Employees Association of A. Soriano Aviation, represented by Julius S. Vargas and other union members (respondents). The events leading to the case began on May 22, 1997, when the petitioner, engaged in providing transportation services to Amanpulo and El Nido resorts in Palawan, entered into a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) with the respondent Union, which was effective from January 1, 1997, to December 31, 1999. This CBA included a "No-Strike, No-Lockout" clause. On May 1, 12, and June 12, 1997, during peak season and legal holidays, eight mechanics from the Union refused to work overtime, which the petitioner interpreted as a concerted action violating the CBA. Consequently, the petitioner suspended the workers for 30 days and filed a complaint for illegal strike against them, which was later dismissed to allow for settlement negotiations.

When these negotiations failed, the Union filed a Notice ...

Facts:

Background and Contractual Framework

• A. Soriano Aviation, engaged in transporting guests to Amanpulo and El Nido resorts, entered into a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) with the Employees Association of A. Soriano Aviation effective January 1, 1997 until December 31, 1999.
• The CBA included a “No-Strike, No-Lockout” clause binding both the company and its unionized employees.

The Onset of the Labor Dispute

• On May 1, May 12, and June 12, 1997—dates coinciding with legal holidays and during the company’s peak season—eight mechanics, who were also union members, refused to render overtime work.
• The refusal was treated by the company as a concerted breach of the “No-Strike, No-Lockout” clause, leading to a 30‑day suspension of the workers.
• A complaint for illegal strike was filed by the company on July 31, 1997 (NLRC Case No. 07‑05409‑97), which was later dismissed temporarily to facilitate settlement negotiations.

Escalation of the Dispute and the Union’s Strike

• Following unsuccessful settlement attempts, the union filed a Notice of Strike on October 3, 1997, alleging numerous improprieties by the company such as:
• Union busting
• Illegal dismissal of its union officer
• Illegal suspension of the mechanics
• Violation of existing memoranda of agreement
• Coercion of employees and intimidation regarding union affiliation
• Discrimination, harassment, and contractual labor issues
• Constructive dismissal of the union president
• As no amicable resolution was reached, the union initiated a strike on October 22, 1997.

Subsequent Legal and Administrative Proceedings

• The company, citing its right under its reservation in the earlier NLRC complaint, filed a Motion to Re-Open its case which was granted already by Labor Arbiter Manuel P. Asuncion on October 21, 1997.
• On September 28, 1998, Labor Arbiter Asuncion ruled that the initial refusal to work on three consecutive holidays was a form of protest—not a valid exercise of a strike—and declared the strike illegal due to non-compliance with procedural requirements.
• The NLRC subsequently dismissed the union’s appeals on September 14, 1999, a decision later upheld by a resolution dated November 11, 1999.
• During the so‑called “second strike” (commencing earlier and extending over almost eight months), additional acts of violence and intimidation were reported, prompting another complaint by the company on June 16, 1998.

Specific Acts and Episodes During the Strike

• A detailed chronology of the union members’ conduct includes:
• Repeated instances of name‑calling, vulgar language, and harassment against company officers and non‑striking employees on various dates (from October 29, 1997 to January 15, 1998).
• Acts of physical intimidation such as splashing water, throwing coins, and even the use of a baseball bat in certain episodes.
• The erection of placards, banners, and streamers with incendiary, insulting, and accusatory messages aimed at the company, alleging criminal negligence and other misconduct.
• Despite the intermittent nature (nine non‑consecutive reporting days) of these violent episodes, the cumulative effect was deemed by the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC to constitute a pattern of illegal conduct during the strike.

Procedural and Appellate Developments

• The Labor Arbiter ruled that the “second strike” was illegal based on the use of violent and unlawful tactics.
• The NLRC affirmed the ruling by holding that even if the strike might have been legal at its onset, subsequent violent acts rendered it illegal.
• The Court of Appeals, in its Decision dated April 16, 2004, reversed the NLRC’s determination, differentiating the level of violence committed from that in other cases where similar acts resulted in the loss of employment.
• The petitioner, contending that the conduct of the strikers was grave, widespread, and detrimental to its business relationships and goodwill, elevated the dispute to the Supreme Court.

Contentions of the Parties

• Petitioner’s Argument:
• The union’s action was illegal as it arose from a non‑strikeable issue (the implementation of a new work‐shift schedule imposed by management).
• The illegal acts committed during the strike, including union busting, harassment, and violent conduct, substantiate the claim for termination of the strikers’ employment.
• The damage incurred included severe repercussions in business relationships, loss of contracts, and overall deterioration of the company’s reputation.
• Union’s Position:
• The union maintained that the strike was instigated in good faith in response to alleged unfair labor practices by the company, including the suspension of workers and dismissal of union officers.
• Initially, under certain interpretations, the union contended that if the protest was for an unfair labor practice, the “No-Strike, No-Lockout” clause might not apply.

Issue:

Legality of the Strike

• Whether the strike, particularly its “second phase,” is illegal due to:
• Violation of the “No-Strike, No-Lockout” clause in the CBA.
• The commission of violent and unlawful acts during the strike.

Determination of Employment Status

• Whether individual respondents (both ordinary union members and union officers) should be deemed to have lost their employment status as a consequence of their participation in the illegal strike.
• The need to individually assess the participation and commission of illegal acts, especially considering the differing standards for ordinary workers versus union officers.

Constitutional and Statutory Framework

• The extent to which the right to strike, though constitutionally protected, is circumscribed by the limits imposed on the means employed in the execution of the strike.
• Whether acts that do not meet the threshold of continuous or pervasive violence over the entire strike period can still render the strike illegal.

Application of Labor Jurisprudence

• Whether precedents such as Sukhothai Cuisine and decisions on prohibited activities under Article 264 of the Labor Code support the imposition of penalties (including termination) on individuals who engaged in illegal conduct during the strike.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)