G.R. No. 153664 - Grand Boulevard Hotel vs. Genuine Labor Organization of Workers in Hotel

Case Summary (G.R. No. 153664)

Factual Background

The parties had an ongoing collective-bargaining relationship evidenced by CBAs covering July 10, 1985–July 9, 1988 and July 10, 1988–July 9, 1991. Tensions escalated after petitioner dismissed and suspended several union members. The union filed multiple notices of strike, and DOLE issued several status quo ante bellum orders certifying disputes to the NLRC for compulsory arbitration and directing return-to-work under the same terms and conditions. While some notices were filed earlier, the pivotal series of events began in October and November 1990 when petitioner announced a retrenchment program and issued circulars decreasing plantilla, terminated employees effective December dates, and barred some from working. The union conducted a strike vote and staged a picket on November 16, 1990. Management responded with letters terminating officers and members for participating in the strike and for alleged violations of company rules.

Procedural History

The union’s strike notices and management’s retrenchment and dismissals generated multiple DOLE certification orders and administrative proceedings. Petitioner filed a complaint for illegal strike at the NLRC. The Labor Arbiter found the union guilty of staging an illegal strike and ordered loss of employment of the union officers. That decision was appealed to the NLRC, which affirmed the Labor Arbiter on September 30, 1993. The parties pursued parallel judicial remedies. Earlier, in G.R. No. 104513, this Court annulled an NLRC resolution dated March 11, 1992. Later, the petitioner filed certiorari petitions under Rule 65 docketed as G.R. Nos. 153664 and 153665, which were remanded to the CA pursuant to this Court’s ruling in St. Martin Funeral Homes v. NLRC. The Court of Appeals granted the petitions in CA-G.R. SP Nos. 53284 & 53285 on January 9, 2002, ruling the strike legal and ordering reinstatement or separation pay, backwages, and substantial damages. The petitioner sought review before the Supreme Court, which issued the present decision on July 18, 2003.

The Parties’ Contentions

The petitioner argued that the CA erred in finding petitioner guilty of unfair labor practice and in ruling the November 16–29, 1990 strike legal. Petitioner maintained that the strike violated mandatory procedural requirements in Article 263 and Article 264, and that the CA’s factual findings lacked support. The respondents contended that the strike was lawful. They asserted that the union had complied with the statutory notice, vote, and reporting requirements by virtue of an earlier September 27, 1990 notice and that the November strike was a reiteration justified by petitioner’s unfair labor practices and oppressive retrenchment. Respondents further raised procedural defenses against the petition, including alleged defect in the petitioner’s certificate against forum shopping and alleged insufficiency of appended records.

Labor Arbiter and NLRC Findings

The Labor Arbiter found that the union did not comply with the mandatory requirements of Articles 263 and 264 and therefore declared the November 16–29, 1990 strike illegal. The Arbiter held that admissions of participation supported the legality of dismissals for cause. The NLRC affirmed the Labor Arbiter, reasoning that compliance with the September 27, 1990 notice could not be carried over to validate the November 16, 1990 notice and that the SOLE’s certification order enjoining strikes rendered any subsequent strike illegal. The NLRC nevertheless urged humanitarian financial assistance, but declined to convert the relief into a mandatory award because of precedents that circumscribed grants to strikers found to have participated in illegal strikes.

Court of Appeals Decision

The Court of Appeals reversed the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC. The CA concluded that under the prevailing circumstances the strike was legal and that the dismissals that followed were unjustified. The CA relied on the union’s belief in good faith that petitioner was committing ULP, on the sequence of certification orders and retrenchment announcements, and on authorities recognizing that continuing or repeated unfair acts by management may justify strike action. The CA ordered reinstatement, or in lieu thereof separation pay and backwages to be computed by the Labor Arbiter, and directed immediate payment of disturbance compensation, moral damages, and exemplary damages under the precedent of Serrano v. NLRC.

Issues Presented to the Supreme Court

The Court identified two principal clusters of issues: procedural questions concerning the sufficiency of the petitioner’s corporate authorization and attachments under Rule 45, and substantive questions whether the November 16–29, 1990 strike was legal and whether the ensuing dismissals of union officers were valid. The Court treated the procedural objections and rejected them, finding the board resolution sufficiently broad to authorize filing and holding that Rule 45 did not require copies of all pleadings appended to the petition.

Supreme Court Ruling

The Supreme Court granted the petition. It reversed and set aside the Court of Appeals decision and reinstated the Labor Arbiter’s decision declaring the strike illegal and upholding the dismissals. The Court ordered costs against the respondents. The majority held that the CA committed grave abuse in ruling the strike lawful.

Legal Basis and Reasoning

The Court reaffirmed that the requisites for a valid strike under Article 263 are mandatory: the notice of strike, the strike vote approved by a majority of the union membership obtained by secret ballot, and notice to the DOLE of the voting results at least seven days before the intended strike. The Court emphasized the purpose of the seven-day period and the cooling-off requirements as affording DOLE the opportunity to verify the vote and to mediate. The Court reiterated the settled rule under Article 264 that a strike undertaken despite an assumption or certification order of the Secretary of Labor is prohibited and illegal. The Court applied its precedents, including Union of Filipino Employees v. Nestle Philippines, Inc., and returned to

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 153664)

Parties and Procedural Posture

Grand Boulevard Hotel (formerly Silahis International Hotel, Inc.) was the petitioner before the Court and the employer at the center of the labor disputes.
Genuine Labor Organization of Workers in Hotel, Restaurant and Allied Industries (GLOWHRAIN) was the respondent union that filed notices of strike and whose officers and members were dismissed by the petitioner.
Private respondent Edna B. Dacanay was one of the union officers who separately filed a petition consolidated with the main petition.
The case reached the Supreme Court by petitions for certiorari under Rule 45, Rules of Court and was remanded to the Court of Appeals pursuant to this Court’s prior ruling before final resolution.
The Supreme Court reviewed the Court of Appeals decision that had reversed the NLRC and Labor Arbiter and granted reinstatement and monetary relief to the union officers.

Key Factual Allegations

The parties executed a Collective Bargaining Agreement covering July 10, 1985 to July 9, 1988 and subsequently another CBA covering July 10, 1988 to July 9, 1991.
The petitioner dismissed and suspended several union members and officers and the union filed notices of strike on September 27, 1990 and November 16, 1990 alleging CBA violations, illegal dismissal, suspension, harassment and coercion.
The Secretary of Labor and Employment (SOLE) issued status quo ante bellum and certification orders that twice certified disputes to the NLRC for compulsory arbitration and enjoined strikes and lockouts.
The petitioner announced a retrenchment program and terminated batches of employees effective December 1990, and the petitioner later accused union officers of participating in an illegal strike and dismissed them effective November 17, 1990.
The union staged pickets beginning November 16, 1990 that were dispersed by police and several union officers were detained.

Prior Proceedings

The union’s November 16–29, 1990 strike was declared illegal by Labor Arbiter Cornelio L. Linsangan on February 12, 1992, and the Labor Arbiter found the union officers to have forfeited employment.
The NLRC affirmed the Labor Arbiter’s decision on September 30, 1993 and denied the union’s motion for reconsideration on November 16, 1994.
The union officers filed petitions for certiorari with this Court which were remanded to the Court of Appeals and docketed as CA-G.R. SP Nos. 53284 and 53285.
The Court of Appeals on January 9, 2002 reversed the NLRC and Labor Arbiter, declared the strike legal, and ordered reinstatement or separation pay and various damages to the dismissed officers.
The petitioner filed for review in this Court contesting the CA’s factual and legal conclusions; the petitions were consolidated.

Issues Presented

Whether the certificate of non-forum shopping and the Board resolution authorizing the filing were defective so as to deny due course to the petition.
Whether the petition was insufficient in form for failure to attach relevant pleadings required by Section 4, Rule 45, Rules of Court.
Whether the November 16–29, 1990 strike was legal in view of prior certification and return-to-