Case Summary (G.R. No. 155109)
Applicable Law
The primary legal framework guiding this case includes the 1987 Philippine Constitution, the Labor Code of the Philippines, specifically Articles 223 and 264, and the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) between the Company and the Union. The CBA includes a no-strike clause, which is central to the legality of the strike in question.
Facts of the Case
The labor dispute commenced when the Union, following a deadlock in the negotiation of their CBA's economic provisions, conducted a strike after ensuring adherence to legal procedures, including a strike vote that indicated overwhelming support from its members. The Company sought to impede the strike by filing a petition for a temporary restraining order (TRO) with the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), successfully obtaining a writ of preliminary injunction against the Union. Challenges surrounding the legality of the strike and the status of Union members significantly shaped the arbitration process, leading to various appeal mechanisms following the initial rulings of the Labor Arbiter.
Jurisdiction of the NLRC
The question of the NLRC's jurisdiction over the individual Union members arose. The Court established that jurisdiction was acquired through proper service of summons, despite claims from the Union that summons were improper. Evidence indicated that many Union members were served summons but declined to acknowledge them. Their subsequent voluntary appearance during litigation affirmed the NLRC's jurisdiction over them.
Legality of the Strike
The Court determined that the strike conducted by the Union was illegal due to its violation of the no-strike provision in the CBA. Even if formal procedural requirements for a strike were met, holding a strike contrary to existing agreements renders it unlawful. The Court affirmed that both workers and employers are entitled to mutually agree on terms that favor compliance with voluntary arbitration rather than strikes, reinforcing the need for industrial peace.
Termination of Union Officers and Members
Following the declaration of the strike's illegality, the Union officers were deemed subject to termination due to their roles in the strike. The differentiating standard under Article 264 of the Labor Code was highlighted – while rank-and-file Union members cannot be terminated merely for participation in an illegal strike, those who performed illegal acts during the strike may be dismissed. The evidence presented, including testimony and photographic documentation, substantiated claims of misconduct by certain Union members during the strike.
Entitlement to Backwages and Reinstatement
The contention arose as to whether the terminated Union members were entitled to backwages and reinstatement given the lack of action on their motion for reinstatement after their initial reinstatement order was reversed. The Court noted that the failure to reinstate the Union members as mandated by the Labor Arbiter’s decision created liability for accrued backwages, recognizing the implications of Article 223 of the Labor Code concerning reinstatement despite appeals.
Separat
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 155109)
Case Overview
- This case involves the consequences of an illegally staged strike on the employment status of union officers and members, as well as the right of reinstated union members to return to work while the company appeals the reinstatement order.
- The case is primarily between C. Alcantara & Sons, Inc. (the Company) and the Nagkahiusang Mamumuo sa Alsons-SPFL (the Union), representing the Company’s rank and file employees.
Background of the Parties
- C. Alcantara & Sons, Inc.: A domestic corporation engaged in plywood manufacture and processing.
- Nagkahiusang Mamumuo sa Alsons-SPFL: The exclusive bargaining agent for the Company’s rank and file employees.
- The Company and the Union entered into a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) that included a no strike and no lockout clause.
Events Leading to the Strike
- Negotiations on economic provisions of the CBA ended in a deadlock, prompting the Union to file a notice of strike.
- Following failed conciliation efforts by the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE), the Union conducted a strike vote, which resulted in overwhelming member support.
- The Union subsequently reported the strike vote to the DOLE and, after observing the mandatory cooling-off period, proceeded to strike.
Legal Actions Taken
- During the strike, the Company sought a preliminary injunction from the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) to prevent strikers from intimidating non-striking employees.
- The NLRC issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) and subsequently a writ of preliminary injunction, which the Union found challenging to comply with.
- The Union filed a petition with the Court of Appeals questioning the preliminary injunction, but the appeal was dismis