Case Digest (G.R. No. 114521)
Facts:
CCBPI Postmix Workers Union v. National Labor Relations Commission and Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils., Inc., G.R. Nos. 114521 and 123491, August 23, 1999, Supreme Court First Division, Quisumbing, J., writing for the Court. The parties are the CCBPI Postmix Workers Union (petitioner in G.R. No. 114521; respondent in G.R. No. 123491) and Coca‑Cola Bottlers Phils., Inc. (CCBPI) (petitioner in G.R. No. 123491); the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) is the public respondent. The cases were consolidated and brought to the Court by petitions for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.Chronology: the Union was the certified bargaining agent for CCBPI Postmix employees and the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) was due to expire June 30, 1986. Negotiations failed; the Union filed a Notice of Strike with DOLE on March 9, 1987, held a strike vote on April 14, 1987 (44 votes cast; 40 in favor), and commenced a strike on April 20, 1987. CCBPI filed a Petition to Declare the Strike Illegal alleging noncompliance with the mandatory seven-day strike‑vote reporting period under Article 264(f) of the Labor Code and bad faith.
Proceedings: the Labor Arbiter (Cresencio J. Ramos) on December 14, 1989 dismissed the company’s petition, finding the Union had substantially complied with the seven‑day rule. On appeal the NLRC First Division (Resolution dated December 28, 1993) reversed, held the strike illegal for failure to observe the seven‑day rule, and declared union officers to have lost employment status; CCBPI thereupon dismissed eight employees believed to be officers. The Union filed certiorari with the Supreme Court (G.R. No. 114521, filed April 7, 1994) and submitted a BLR certification (April 18, 1994) contending the dismissed persons were not officers during the strike.
Separately, the Union filed a complaint for illegal dismissal (filed April 8, 1994) against CCBPI for five terminated employees (Martin Gumarang, Luisito A. Piedad, Edmar L. Basco, Victoriano P. Jumalon, Juanito F. Dayao). The Labor Arbiter (Geobel A. Bartolome) on October 5, 1994 dismissed the complaint, ruling termination lawful because the terminated were union officers implicated in the illegal strike. On appeal the NLRC (Third Division) initially remanded (August 25, 1995) for factual determination of who actually participated in the April 20, 1987 strike, but on December 12, 1995 reversed and ordered reinstatement with backwages of the five employees, finding they were not officers during the strike. CCBPI then filed certiorari with the Supreme Court (G.R. No. 123491, filed February 5, 1996) seeking reversal of the NLRC’s December 12, 1995 decision.
Before the Court were therefore (a) the Union’s challenge to the NLRC’s December 28, 1993 Resolution declaring the strike ille...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was the strike declared by the Union on April 20, 1987 illegal for failure to comply with the mandatory seven‑day strike‑vote reporting period under Article 264(f) of the Labor Code?
- Were the five terminated employees union officers at the time of the April 20, 1987 strike?
- If they were not officers, were the employees legally dismissed for merely partici...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)