Case Summary (G.R. No. 156635)
Prohibited Acts During Picketing
Record evidence—including affidavits, photographs, video footage, and witness testimony—established that picketers obstructed HSBC’s entry and exit points, employed intimidation and physical force, and prevented executives from leaving the premises. Such obstruction and coercion violated Article 264(e), further invalidating the strike regardless of its end purpose.
Good Faith Claim Negated by Procedural Violations
Although petitioners argued they sincerely believed the JEP constituted an unfair labor practice (ULP), their disregard of mandatory procedural requirements negated any claim of good faith. Compliance with notice, voting, and reporting rules is indispensable for a lawful strike.
Individual Liability for Officers and Members
Under Article 264(a), union officers who knowingly participate in an illegal strike lose employment status upon proof of their overt participation. Officers Dela Chica, Militante, Atanacio, and Rivera were properly held liable for leading or joining the strike. Mario T. Fermin, however, was on medical leave and not shown to have actively participated; his termination was invalid. Rank-and-file members may be dismissed only if they knowingly commit illegal acts during the strike. HSBC failed to prove such acts for the 18 identified members, rendering their dismissals unlawful.
Failure to Observe Due Process in Terminations
HSBC’s “return-to-work” and “termination” notices lacked detailed grounds, specific factual allegations, and opportunity for a meaningful written defense, falling short of the twin-notice requirement under Article 277(b). The lack of a valid first notice and subsequent hearing constituted a denial of procedural due process.
Remedies and Awards
- Officers and employees terminated without substantive and procedural due process are e
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 156635)
Antecedents and Facts
- The Union was the certified bargaining agent of HSBC rank-and-file employees under a CBA effective April 1, 1990–March 31, 1993 (economic) and April 1, 1990–March 31, 1995 (representational).
- January 18, 1993: HSBC implemented a Job Evaluation Program (JEP) retroactive to January 1, 1993, altering grade levels and salary scales.
- January 20, 1993: Union demanded suspension of the JEP as an unfair labor practice (ULP).
- January 22, 1993: Union served notice of concerted action; picketing began with black bands; protest lasted 11 months despite ongoing CBA renegotiations.
- March 19, 1993: HSBC suspended CBA negotiations; filed ULP complaint in NLRC; case remanded by Court in G.R. No. 125038.
- December 19, 1993: Union conducted strike vote by open ballot; majority favored strike.
- December 22, 1993: Union walked out; picketers obstructed bank ingress/egress; HSBC filed habeas corpus, ULP complaint to declare strike illegal, and petition for injunctive relief.
- HSBC issued return-to-work notices on December 22; only 25 employees returned; HSBC terminated petitioners December 27, 1993.
- Striking employees continued picketing and related activities.
Procedural History
- August 2, 1998 (Labor Arbiter): Declared strike illegal for non-compliance with Art. 263; ruled all participants lost employment; awarded P45,000 damages.
- NLRC (Date unspecified): Modified LA decision; held 18 non-officer members were unlawfully dismissed for lack of due process; awarded P5,000 indemnity and separation pay (½ month salary per year) to each of the 18.
- December 9, 2002: NLRC denied motion for reconsideration.
- January 31, 2002 (CA): Dismissed Union’s petition; affirmed NLRC with modification—awarded full backwages and separation pay (½ month salary per year) to the 18.
- Petition for review on certiorari filed with the Supreme Court.
Issues
- Whether the December 22, 1993 strike complied with the procedural requirements and was lawful.
- Whether petitioners were validly dismissed and what reliefs they are entitled to.