Case Digest (G.R. No. 88710-13)
Facts:
Union of Filipro Employees (UFE) et al. v. Nestle Philippines, Inc., National Labor Relations Commission, Hon. Eduardo G. Magno, Hon. Zosimo T. Vasallo and Hon. Evangeline S. Lubaton, G.R. Nos. 88710-13, December 19, 1990, First Division, Medialdea, J., writing for the Court.Petitioners are the Union of Filipro Employees (UFE) together with numerous union officers and members; respondents are Nestle Philippines, Inc. (formerly Filipro), the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), and several Labor Arbiters (Magno, Vasallo and Lubaton) who rendered adverse decisions below. UFE sought to overturn the NLRC en banc affirmance of three Labor Arbiter decisions that declared various strikes and walkouts illegal and found the union guilty of unfair labor practice, with many individual officers and members held to have lost their employment.
Chronologically: UFE filed a notice of strike on November 14, 1985 (BLR-NS-11-344-85) and later a complaint for unfair labor practices (December 4, 1985). Then Labor Minister Blas Ople assumed jurisdiction on December 11, 1985 pursuant to Art. 263(g) of the Labor Code and enjoined strikes; he issued a return-to-work directive on January 30, 1986 and denied reconsideration on February 4, 1986. Despite these orders the union continued strike activities. Minister Augusto Sanchez later issued resolutions/orders (March 13 and March 17, 1986) directing return-to-work and prescribing special assistance; the union returned to work in March 1986. On April 23 and June 6, 1986, Minister Sanchez disposed of the related ULP charge and modified relief to be given to employees.
Several labor arbiters thereafter heard petitions arising from separate walkouts, sitdown strikes and alleged illegal strikes at Nestle’s plants (Makati, Alabang, Cabuyao, Cagayan de Oro). On November 13, 1987 Labor Arbiter Eduardo G. Magno declared the strike illegal, found the union guilty of unfair labor practice and ordered numerous union officers and members to have lost their employment status, reinstating some others without backwages. Executive Labor Arbiter Zosimo Vasallo (Nov. 24, 1987) and Labor Arbiter Evangeline Lubaton (Jan. 12, 1988) rendered similar findings in related cases, declaring strikes illegal, dismissing ULP complaints or upholding terminations.
The three labor-arbiter decisions were consolidated and elevated to the NLRC en banc, which on November 2, 1988 affirmed the labor arbiters’ judgments in large part, and on March 7, 1989 rectified one paragraph to order the reinstatement of additional individuals. UFE filed a voluminous petition in the Supreme Court urging, among other contentions, that Arts. 263 and 264 of the Labor Code are obsolete under the 1987 Constitution, that strike legality was rendered moot by management’s accepta...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the NLRC commit grave abuse of discretion in affirming the Labor Arbiters’ declarations that the strikes and walkouts were illegal and in affirming the consequent loss of employment of numerous union officers and members?
- Are Articles 263 and 264 of the Labor Code (as amended) still valid and enforceable under the 1987 Constitution?
- Was the question of the strikes’ legality rendered moot or academic by Nestle’s acceptance of returning workers pursuant to ministerial return-to-work orders?
- Were the strikes illegal because of violation of CBA no-strike/no-lockout provisions, failure to comply with statutorily required notice, cooling-off and strike-vote procedures, and by commission of ...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)