Case Summary (G.R. No. 200487)
Background and Summary of Facts
Bigg's, Inc. employed several workers represented by the Bigg's Employees Union, with Boncacas as president. A labor dispute arose after two strikes staged by union members—one on February 16, 1996, characterized by a "sit-down strike," and another on March 5, 1996, involving alleged violence and obstruction. Bigg's management contended that the strikes were illegal due to non-compliance with procedural requirements such as proper notice and strike votes. In response, Bigg's placed striking union members under preventive suspension, requiring explanations, and eventually terminated their employment on February 19, 1996 for participation in the strikes. The union accused Bigg's of unfair labor practices, including interference with union activities and dismissal due to union membership.
Procedural History Before Labor Tribunals
The union filed a complaint for unfair labor practices, illegal dismissal, and damages, which was consolidated with Bigg's complaint for illegal strike. The Labor Arbiter (LA) ruled the February 16 strike illegal for failure to observe procedural requirements—notice of strike, strike vote, and cooling-off period—and held the March 5 strike illegal due to violent and obstructive acts by union members. The LA found the dismissal of union officers valid for their knowing participation in illegal strikes, but ordered reinstatement of rank-and-file union members who did not participate in illegal acts. On appeal, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) initially reversed the LA decision, ruling the first strike legal due to unfair labor practices by Bigg's, but on motion for reconsideration, the NLRC reinstated the LA's findings that both strikes were illegal and upheld the validity of union officers' dismissal.
Court of Appeals Decision
The CA partially granted the union's appeal, overturning the NLRC's findings regarding the February 16 strike by holding that Bigg's failed to prove a sit-down strike occurred, citing lack of corroborative evidence beyond one corporate officer’s testimony. The CA recognized unfair labor practices by Bigg's for barring union members’ entry and threatening dismissal based on union membership, effectively considering the union as having been "busted," thus excusing compliance with usual strike procedural requirements. However, the CA affirmed the illegality of the March 5 strike for violence and obstruction, including blocking delivery vans and using stones to prevent passage. The CA upheld dismissal of certain union officers for illegal acts while exonerating Boncacas from participation in those acts. The CA ordered reinstatement with backwages of certain union members, and excluded others based on alleged settlements or failure to be named petitioners.
Issues on Review
- Whether the strikes of February 16 and March 5, 1996 were illegal.
- Whether the dismissal of union officers and members was valid.
- Proper award of damages and identification of entitled parties.
Supreme Court's Review and Ruling
The Court acknowledged conflicting findings and undertook fact review. It emphasized that a valid strike under the Labor Code and its implementing rules must comply with procedural prerequisites: filing notice of strike, observing the cooling-off period (15 days for unfair labor practice strikes), conducting a majority strike vote with proper notice to the NCMB, and reporting results at least seven days before the strike. Exceptions to the cooling-off period include cases of union busting involving dismissal of union officers threatening union existence.
First Strike (February 16, 1996):
The Court ruled the February 16 strike illegal for failure to file the required Notice of Strike prior to the strike and failure to observe the cooling-off period. Bigg's presented substantial and corroborative evidence from multiple witnesses attesting to the sit-down strike where employees refused to work and remained idle, confirming illegality. The union’s post-strike filing of the Notice of Strike did not satisfy legal requirements. Furthermore, the union failed to prove unfair labor practices or union busting necessary to exempt compliance with the cooling-off period.
Second Strike (March 5, 1996):
Despite procedural compliance, the Court upheld the illegality of the March 5 strike due to violent and aggressive acts of union members, including forming barricades, throwing stones at delivery vehicles, obstructing ingress and egress, and intimidating customers. These acts violated Article 279 of the Labor Code prohibiting violence and obstruction during picketing. The CA’s findings on these matters were affirmed.
Dismissal of Union Officers and Members:
The dismissals of union officers—including Boncacas—were held valid because union officers who knowingly participate in illegal strikes may be validly terminated regardless of participation in illegal acts during the strike. For rank-and-file members, dismissal must be supported by proof of knowing participation in illegal acts during the strike. Boncacas’ dismissal was valid because he was proven to have organized both illegal strikes. Other union members who did not commit illegal acts during the strikes were ordered reinstated.
Proper Parties and Awards
The Court directed inclusion of certain union members (Menandro Ramos, Sheila Raymundo, and Gregorio Come) who were entitled to reinstatement but omitted from dispositive rulings without explanation, in line with the Labor Arbiter’s original decision, except for those who did not participate in the petition. The Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' ruling that
...continue reading
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 200487)
Parties and Nature of the Case
- Bigg’s, Inc. (Bigg’s), a restaurant chain based in Naga City, Camarines Sur, employed Jay Boncacas and other union members who were represented by their union president Boncacas.
- Bigg’s was represented by its personnel officer Arlene Acabado and general manager Teresita Arejola during the filing of petitions.
- The case arose from conflicts between Bigg’s management and the Bigg’s Employees Union, which had a Certificate of Registration from DOLE dated January 30, 1996.
- The disputes involved allegations of illegal strikes, unfair labor practices, illegal dismissal, and union busting.
Summary of the Controversy
- Bigg’s claimed the union members staged an illegal sit-down strike on February 16, 1996, without complying with procedural requirements such as Notice of Strike to the National Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB) or conducting a strike vote.
- Bigg’s issued preventive suspensions and eventual termination letters to the striking union members.
- The union members countered that Bigg’s interfered with union activities, threatened employees to withdraw union membership, dismissed employees because of union membership, and barred union officers from entering company premises on February 16, 1996.
- Both parties filed complaints before the NCMB alleging unfair labor practices, illegal strike, and illegal dismissal, which were consolidated for mediation but failed, leading to another strike on March 5, 1996.
Incidents of the March 5, 1996 Strike
- Bigg’s alleged that the strike on March 5, 1996 was disruptive and violent, with union members blocking ingress and egress, throwing stones at delivery vans causing injury and damage, and using megaphones to dissuade customers from entering Bigg’s Diner.
- The strike was later stopped after agreeing to compulsory arbitration.
Labor Tribunals’ Findings
- Labor Arbiter (LA) Rolando L. Bobis found:
- Some union members had executed settlements with Bigg’s; contractual employees with expired contracts were removed as parties.
- The February 16, 1996 strike was illegal due to the union’s failure to comply with procedural strike requirements (Notice of Strike, strike vote, and the cooling-off period).
- The March 5, 1996 strike was also illegal for acts of violence, aggression, and obstruction.
- Valid dismissal of union officers Boncacas, Liria, San Juan, and Arines who were found to have instigated and participated in illegal strikes.
- No proof that other union members knowingly participated in illegal acts, thus ordering their reinstatement with backwages.
- Denial of union members’ claims of unfair labor practices and union busting due to lack of substantial evidence.
- The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) initially reversed the LA, ruling the February strike valid based on unfair labor practices and ordering reinstatement with damages.
- Upon reconsideration, the NLRC reinstated the LA’s decision, declaring both strikes illegal and dismissals valid, due to lack of union certification, failure to adhere to strike protocols, and substantial evidence of violence and obstruction in the March strike.
Court of Appeals (CA) Decisions
- The CA partially granted the union’s appeal, ruling:
- Bigg’s failed to present substantial evidence proving the sit-down strike on February 16, 1996. Only a single Bigg’s representative testified, unsupported by corroborative evidence.
- Union members demonstrated evidence of unfair lab