G.R. No. 119293 - San Miguel Corporation vs. National Labor Relations Commission

Petitioner San Miguel Corporation (SMC) and respondent Ilaw at Buklod ng Manggagawa (IBM), the exclusive bargaining agent representing SMC’s daily-paid rank and file employees, had entered into a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA).
The CBA contained key provisions including:

A grievance machinery (Article IV) establishing procedures for dispute discussion and resolution.
An arbitration clause (Article V) mandating that all disputes related to wages, hours, conditions of employment, and employer-employee relations be settled by arbitration only after exhausting the grievance procedure.
A no-strike no-lockout agreement (Article VI) whereby the union agreed not to strike or disrupt operations and the company agreed not to lock out employees under specified conditions.

On April 11, 1994, IBM’s vice-president Alfredo Colomeda filed a notice of strike with the National Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB) alleging various labor law violations by SMC including illegal dismissal, illegal transfer, violations of the CBA, contracting out of union jobs, labor-only contracting, harassment of union members and non-recognition of union officers.
The next day, IBM’s president Edilberto Galvez filed another notice of strike asserting similar allegations such as illegal transfer, labor-only contracting, violation of the CBA, and dismissals of union officers and members.
A dispute arose between the Colomeda and Galvez groups regarding the authority to file, leading to a request for consolidation which was met with opposition by the Colomeda group.

After several conciliation meetings, NCMB Director Reynaldo Ubaldo determined that the predominant issues—involving illegal dismissal, labor-only contracting, and internal union disputes—were non-strikeable under the applicable provisions.
On May 2, 1994, NCMB issued separate letter-orders converting the union’s strike notices into cases for preventive mediation, thereby effectively dismissing the strike notices for the four affected corporations expressly noted in the orders.
Despite this conversion, on May 16, 1994, while preventive mediation was in progress, the Colomeda group filed a notice for a strike vote. The NCMB reiterated that no strike could legally be declared during the mediation process, citing precedent from PAL v. Drilon.

On May 23, 1994, the Galvez group filed its second notice of strike with added allegations including discrimination, coercion of employees, illegal lockout, and illegal closure, which were consolidated with the earlier preventive mediation case.
Despite the NCMB’s repeated advisories regarding the absence of a valid strike notice, IBM proceeded with a strike on June 4, 1994, causing significant operational losses to SMC amounting to approximately P29.98 million in daily production loss.
Two days into the strike (June 6, 1994), SMC filed an amended petition for an injunction with the NLRC, seeking a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) to secure free ingress and egress to its plants.

The NLRC, after hearing the matter and conducting an ocular inspection, issued a TRO on June 13, 1994, allowing free plant access while not enjoining the strike itself.
In response to the strike and subsequent cessation of picketing—as a result of a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) signed on June 16, 1994—the union moved to reconsider the TRO.
SMC presented evidence, such as circulated flyers by IBM proclaiming readiness to revive the strike, arguing that the threat of unlawful strike revival persisted.
On November 29, 1994, the NLRC dismissed the petition for an injunction, ruling that there was a lack of factual basis for an injunction as the disputed conditions no longer presented an actual or impending unlawful act.
The NLRC subsequently denied SMC’s motion for reconsideration on February 1, 1995, leading SMC to elevate the case to the higher courts through a petition for certiorari and prohibition.

Whether the NLRC gravely abused its discretion by failing to issue an injunction that enforced the mutual obligations under the CBA, particularly the requirement for dispute resolution through grievance and arbitration proceedings.
Whether the NLRC erred in not acting to restrain the continuation and potential revival of the strike despite clear evidence thereof.

Whether the conversion of the union’s strike notices into cases for preventive mediation by the NCMB, which effectively voided the strike notices, rendered the subsequent strike illegal.
Whether proceeding with a strike, after the conversion order by the NCMB, constitutes a violation of the statutory and contractual provisions regulating strike actions.

Whether the failure of the union to exhaust the grievance and arbitration procedures provided in the CBA before resorting to strike action justifies the issuance of a permanent injunction against the strike.
Whether the union's actions, particularly the filing of invalid strike notices and subsequent unilateral strike, directly violated the mandatory no-strike clause influenced by both the Labor Code and the CBA.

Whether a permanent injunction is the only immediate and effective remedy available to prevent the potential disastrous economic impact on the petitioner.
Whether the evidence, including the circulation of strike-revival flyers, supported the petitioner's claim of an imminent threat warranting injunctive relief.