Title
Supreme Court
Philippine Diamond Hotel and Resort, Inc. vs. Manila Diamond Hotel Employees Union
Case
G.R. No. 158075
Decision Date
Jun 30, 2006
A union staged an illegal strike after failing to secure certification as the exclusive bargaining agent; officers lost employment status, while non-participating members were reinstated without backwages.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 203060)

Background of Certification Election

On November 11, 1996, the union filed a Petition for Certification Election with DOLE–NCR. DOLE–NCR denied it for non-compliance with procedural requirements and for fragmenting petitioner’s workforce.

Cash Remittance Dispute

On June 2, 1997, cashier Francis Mendoza failed to remit ₱71,692.50. Mendoza implicated union president Kimpo, who claimed ignorance of remittance procedures. Mendoza was suspended; Kimpo reassigned.

Refusal to Bargain and Strike Call

Union notified the hotel of its Notice to Bargain a CBA “for its members only.” Hotel refused recognition without DOLE certification. Union then called a strike vote and filed a Notice of Strike on September 29, 1997, alleging unfair labor practices.

Picketing and Physical Obstruction

Beginning November 29, 1997, the union and allied NUWHRAIN picketed, obstructing ingress and egress, holding noise barrages, threatening guests, exploding firecrackers. Supervisors Agustin, Junio, and de Leon joined and were later dismissed.

DOLE and NLRC Proceedings

– December 1, 1997: Hotel secured an injunction before NLRC; NLRC issued TRO on December 8, 1997 directing strikers to cease obstruction.
– December 1997–January 1998: NCMB and DOLE efforts at conciliation and compulsory arbitration failed.
– April 15, 1998: DOLE Secretary certified dispute to NLRC and ordered reinstatement of strikers.
– April 30, 1998: Acting DOLE Secretary modified order, requiring only reinstatement to payroll and consolidation of cases.

NLRC and Court of Appeals Decisions

– November 19, 1999 NLRC: Declared strike illegal; union officers and members lost employment status; dismissed all related complaints.
– November 21, 2002 CA: Affirmed illegality and officers’ loss of status; reversed loss of status for union members; ordered their reinstatement with backwages.

Strike Illegality Under the Constitution and Labor Code

Section 3, Article XIII of the 1987 Constitution guarantees the right to strike “in accordance with law.” Article 264 of the Labor Code prohibits strike during pending ULP cases and acts of violence or obstruction. Photos and ocular reports showed blockade of entrances, noise barrage, threats, and violence—acts rendering the strike illegal.

Lack of Exclusive Bargaining Representation

Article 255 limits collective bargaining to the majority-designated labor organization. The union, not being certified, could not lawfully demand a CBA even “for its members,” lest it fragment the workforce and weaken collective strength.

Commission of Illegal Acts by Strikers

Under Article 264(e), picketing that obstructs ingress/egress or uses coercion is illegal. The union’s tactics—blockades, placards, threats, firecrackers—constituted obstruction and intimidation.

Employment Status Consequences

Article 264(a)(3) provides that any union officer who knowingly participates in an illegal strike, and any worker who commits illegal acts during a strike, loses employment status. Ordinary strikers lose status only upon proof of specific illegal acts.

Backwages Policy

    ...continue reading

    Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
    Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.