Case Digest (G.R. No. 164302-03)
Case Digest (G.R. No. 164302-03)
Facts:
Santa Rosa Coca-Cola Plant Employees Union, Donrico v. Sebastian, Eulogio G. Batino, et al., G.R. Nos. 164302-03, January 24, 2007, the Supreme Court Third Division, Callejo, Sr., J., writing for the Court. The petitioners are the Sta. Rosa Coca-Cola Plant Employees Union (the Union) — the certified bargaining representative at Coca‑Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc.'s (the Company) Sta. Rosa plant — together with individual union officers, directors and shop stewards. The Company is the respondent. The dispute arose after a three‑year Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) expired on June 30, 1999 and the parties commenced renegotiations in July 1999, during which the Union sought to allow members of a separate employee grouping (Alyansa ng mga Unyon sa Coca‑Cola) to observe negotiations and insisted on shift‑rate pay for negotiators; the Company resisted, resulting in an impasse.On August 30, 1999 the Union filed a Notice of Strike with the NCMB, initially alleging deadlock on CBA ground rules and unfair labor practice for refusal to bargain; an Amended Notice followed (Sept. 17, 1999). The Union planned a mass protest/mass leave for September 21, 1999; 106 members applied for leave but the Company denied the leaves citing operational disruption. The Union secured a mayoral permit to picket within the plant perimeter; on Sept. 21 union officers and members picketed, wore red tags and slogans (e.g., "YES KAMI SA STRIKE"), and staged a three‑hour mass action at the plant perimeter. Company records showed significant absences (engineering and production personnel) and downtime, producing a one‑line day shift and production shortfall.
The Company filed a Petition to Declare Strike Illegal (Oct. 13, 1999) alleging that the mass action was a strike conducted without compliance with statutory requisites (no strike vote, no cooling‑off, no report to DOLE), violated the CBA grievance machinery, caused damages, and sought declarations of illegality, unfair labor practice, loss of employment of officers and damages. The Labor Arbiter (Nov. 26, 1999) found the Sept. 21 activity to be a strike, ruled it illegal for failure to comply with Articles 263–264 of the Labor Code, and ordered individual respondents who knowingly participated to be declared to have lost employment. The NLRC affirmed on July 31, 2002 (with one treasurer excluded and reinstated). The Union and several individuals petitioned to the Court of Appeals (consolidated CA-G.R. SP Nos. 74174 and 74860); the CA dismissed the petitions for lack of merit and found forum‑shopping in one petition. The Union filed a Rule 45 petition for review on certiorari to the Supreme Court challenging (inter alia) the factual finding that the activity was a strike, the illegality ruling, and the dismissal of union officers and shop stewards.
Issues:
- Was the September 21, 1999 mass action staged by the Union a strike?
- If it was a strike, was that strike legal under the Labor Code?
- If the strike was illegal, may the Union officers and shop stewards be declared to have lost their employment for knowingly participating?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)