G.R. No. L-46753-54 - Solis vs. Court of Appeals

National Federation of Sugar Workers (NFSW) acts as the bargaining agent for over 1,200 rank-and-file employees at Central Azucarera de la Carlota (CAC).
A collective bargaining agreement (CBA) was executed between NFSW and CAC effective from February 16, 1981 to February 15, 1984.
Under Art. VII, Sec. 5 of the CBA, it was agreed that the existing practice on the grant of Christmas, milling, and amelioration bonuses would be maintained. The Christmas and milling bonuses were equivalent to 1‑½ months’ salary.

On November 28, 1981, NFSW led a strike alleging nonpayment of the 13th month pay in addition to the guaranteed bonuses.
A compromise agreement was reached on November 30, 1981 between NFSW and CAC, wherein both parties agreed to abide by the future definitive decision of the Supreme Court regarding the payment of a 13th month pay separate and distinct from the already given bonuses.
This settlement was contextualized by the pending Supreme Court decision in the Marcopper case (G.R. No. 51254) which had implications on the interpretation of the 13th month pay law.

After the final and executory judgment of the Marcopper case, CAC refused to pay the 13th month pay apart from the bonuses.
On January 22, 1982, NFSW filed a strike notice with the Ministry of Labor and Employment (MOLE) regional office in Bacolod City, citing non-payment of the disputed 13th month pay, and subsequently initiated the strike on January 28, 1982.
A strike-vote report was filed by NFSW on January 29, 1982.
On February 8, 1982, CAC sought relief by filing a petition with the Regional Arbitration Branch No. VI-A, MOLE, requesting the declaration of the strike as illegal primarily for alleged violation of the mandatory cooling-off period and the 7‑day waiting period as prescribed by law.

After hearings and submission of position papers, Labor Arbiter Ethelwoldo R. Ovejera declared the January 28, 1982 strike illegal in his decision dated February 20, 1982.

The decision ordered CAC to resume operations immediately.
It required CAC to reinstate the striking employees (subject to preventive suspension conditions) and to pay salaries during the suspension.
It also directed NFSW and its sympathizers to desist from any acts that would impair CAC's operations.

On February 26, 1982, bypassing the NLRC, NFSW filed a Petition for Prohibition seeking:

A preliminary injunction to restrain the enforcement of the February 20, 1982 decision.
A declaration that the decision was null and void based on the alleged violation of fundamental rights.

The pending Marcopper decision (G.R. No. 51254) and its implications on the interpretation of PD 851 (the 13th Month Pay Law) played a significant background role.
The decision in question involved detailed analyses of:

Mandatory waiting periods (cooling-off period and 7-day strike ban) under Articles 264 and 265 of the Labor Code.
The administrative interpretation of what constitutes “its equivalent” in the context of PD 851, particularly whether bonuses already paid under the CBA amount to a 13th month pay.

Several concurring and dissenting opinions discussed the broader implications of interpreting the labor and social justice provisions in relation to strike legality and the statutory obligations of the employer.

Whether the strike declared by NFSW is illegal due to its failure to comply with the mandatory cooling-off period prescribed under Article 264(c) of the Labor Code.
Whether the failure to file the strike-vote report “at least seven (7) days before the intended strike” invalidated the strike, in light of the statutory requirement of a 7‑day waiting period.

Whether CAC is legally obliged under PD 851 to grant a separate 13th month pay in addition to the Christmas, milling, and amelioration bonuses.
The extent to which the language and the administrative interpretation of “its equivalent” (as stated in the Rules Implementing PD 851) should be accepted as binding, particularly given the compensation already provided under the CBA.