Labor 2 D2019 Finals Reviewer (Daway)

Labor Relations Finals Reviewer | !
LABOR RELATIONS
Finals Reviewer
Based on Prof. Daway’s 2016 Outline
VII. Collective Bargaining: General Concepts, Procedure, and Issues................................ 2

VIII. Unfair Labor Practice ........................................................................................................17
IX. Union Concerted Activities ................................................................................................37
X. Employer Lockout.................................................................................................................60
XI. Labor Injunction ...................................................................................................................63
Coverage:
Everything from CBA
Sources:
The Labor Code, Azucena
C2015 Reviewer
C2017 Reviewer
Makers:
Edward Francis Arabe
Jenny Mary Dagun
Daniel Al Delfin
Marlene-Ruth Tongson 
D2019 Arabe, Dagun, Delfin, Tongson

Labor Relations Finals Reviewer | !2
VII. Collective Bargaining: General reasonable returns to investments, and to expansion and
Concepts, Procedure, and Issues growth.
A. General Concept
1. Policy Declaration
2. Definition/Nature and Purposes
Labor Code, Art. 218 (A) (a)
Kiok Loy vs. NLRC
Declaration of Policy. GR No L-54334; Cuevas, J.
A. It is the policy of the State:
Summary:
(a) To promote and emphasize the primacy of free
Union repeatedly tried to engage Sweden Ice Cream
collective bargaining and negotiations, including
company to collectively bargain. Their request was
voluntary arbitration, mediation and conciliation, as
repeatedly left unanswered. Further, during the
modes of settling labor or industrial disputes;
compulsory arbitration before the NLRC, the company
repeatedly sought to postpone and delay the
Labor Code, Art. 218 (B) proceedings. The NLRC found in favor of the union and
held the company guilty for unfair labor practices. The SC
B. To encourage a truly democratic method of regulating affirmed the NLRC in this case, finding that the union
the relations between the employers and employees by validly set in motion the process of collective bargaining
means of agreements freely entered into through and that the company is guilty of committing ULP for
collective bargaining, no court or administrative agency failure to collectively bargain.
or official shall have the power to set or fix wages, rates of
pay, hours of work or other terms and conditions of Doctrine:
employment, except as otherwise provided under this Collective bargaining, which is defined as negotiations
Code. towards a collective agreement, is one of the democratic
frameworks under the New Labor Code, designed to
stabilize the relation between labor and management
IRR, Book V, Rule XVI, Sec. 1
and to create a climate of sound and stable industrial
Policy— It is the policy of the State to promote and peace. It is a mutual responsibility of the employer and the
emphasize the primacy of free and responsible exercise of Union and is characterized as a legal obligation. So much
the right to self-organization and collective bargaining, so that the Labor Code makes it ULP for an employer to
either through single enterprise level negotiations or violate the duty to bargain collectively.
through the creation of a mechanism by which different
employers and recognized or certified labor unions in their
3. Mechanics of Collective Bargaining
establishments bargain collectively.
Kiok Loy vs. NLRC, supra.
1. The mechanics of collective bargaining is set in

1987 Constitution, Art. XIII, Sec. 3
motion only when the jurisdictional preconditions are
The State shall afford full protection to labor, local and present:
overseas, organized and unorganized, and promote full a. P o s s e s s i o n o f t h e s t a t u s o f m a j o r i t y
employment and equality of employment opportunities for representation of the employees in
all. accordance with any of the means of
selection or designation provided for by the
It shall guarantee the rights of all workers to self- Labor Code
organization, collective bargaining and negotiations, and b. Proof of majority representation
peaceful concerted activities, including the right to strike c. Demand to bargain (under Article 251(a))
in accordance with law. They shall be entitled to security 2. A company’s refusal to make a counter proposal in
of tenure, humane conditions of work, and a living wage. relation to the bargaining process is indicative of bad
They shall also participate in policy and decision-making faith – even more so when the union’s request is left
processes affecting their rights and benefits as may be totally unanswered.
provided by law. 3. The aforementioned refusal to collectively bargain is
constitutive of unfair labor practice (under Article
The State shall promote the principle of shared 249(g))
responsibility between workers and employers and the
preferential use of voluntary modes in settling disputes,
B. Bargainable issues
including conciliation, and shall enforce their mutual
compliance therewith to foster industrial peace. Labor Code, Art. 263 (252)
Meaning of Duty to Bargain Collectively. The duty to

The State shall regulate the relations between workers and bargain collectively means the performance of a mutual
employers, recognizing the right of labor to its just share in obligation to meet and convene promptly and
the fruits of production and the right of enterprises to expeditiously in good faith for the purpose of negotiating

an agreement with respect to wages, hours of work and consensual character” to a benefit so that it may not be
all other terms and conditions of employment including terminated or modified at will by either party.
proposals for adjusting any grievances or questions arising
under such agreement and executing a contract
1. Mandatory subjects of CB
incorporating such agreements if requested by either
party but such duty does not compel any party to agree • Employer’s duty to bargain is limited to the mandatory
to a proposal or to make any concession. subjects. As to other matters, he is free to bargain/ not
to bargain.
• There is no duty to agree; either party may bargain to an
Manila Fashions vs. NLRC impasse as long as he bargains in good faith.
G.R. No. 117878; 13 November 1996; Bellosillo, J.
• In order for a matter to be subject to mandatory
FACTS: collective bargaining, it must materially/significantly
Union filed a complaint charging the company of non- affect the terms and conditions of employment.
compliance with a wage increase order. Union and the
company agreed to condone the increase, and this was 2. Permissive subjects of CB
placed in their CBA. Union admitted the existence of the • Anything as long as not contrary to law, morals, etc.
condoning provision but claimed it was invalid as there • A strike/ lockout cannot be used to compel negotiation
was no due consultation with union members. or agreement.
HELD: Samahan ng Manggagawa sa Top Form Manufacturing vs.

The condonation was void for being contrary to the
NLRC
mandate of the aforesaid Wage Orders. Such provision
September 7, 1998 | G.R. No. 113856
does not exempt petitioner from compliance therewith.
FACTS:
A CBA refers to the negotiated contract between a In the negotiations for a new CBA, the union was
legitimate labor organization and the employer persuaded to withdraw its proposal that wage increases
concerning wages, hours of work and all other terms and mandated by the government be automatically
conditions of employment in a bargaining unit, including implemented across-the-board. According to the union, it
mandatory provisions for grievances and arbitration withdrew this because management promised it would
machineries. As in all other contracts, the parties in a CBA implement increases across-the-board, as it had done
may establish such stipulations, clauses, terms and before. However, the company did not do so. Union
conditions as they may deem convenient provided they alleged that the company was guilty of bargaining in bad
are not contrary to law, morals, good customs, public faith.
order or public policy.
HELD:
The Minutes only reflects the proceedings and discussions
Union of Filipro Employees Drug vs. Nestle
undertaken in the process of bargaining. The union may
22 August 2006 | J. Chico-Nazario
not validly claim that the proposal embodied in the
FACTS: Minutes of the negotiation forms part of the CBA that it
Union initiated collective bargaining negotiations. Nestle finally entered into with private respondent. Only
responded, but insisted that the Retirement Plan was a provisions embodied in the CBA should be so interpreted
unilateral grant by the company and not subject to and complied with. Where a proposal raised by a
negotiation. contracting party does not find print in the CBA, it is not a
part thereof and the proponent has no claim whatsoever
HELD: to its implementation.
Retirement plan is valid. There is nothing in either of the
documents that prove that it agreed to treat the
Retirement Plan as a unilateral grant of the company
C. Bargaining Procedure
which is outside the scope of the CBA. Since the
retirement plan has been an integral part of the CBA since IRR, Book V, Rule XVI, Sec. 2
1972, the Union's demand to increase the benefits due the Disclosure of Information—In collective bargaining, the
EEs under said plan is a valid CBA issue. parties shall, at the request of either of them, make
available such up-to-date financial information on the
(C2017 Reviewer): Inclusion in the CBA as part of economic situation of the undertaking, which is normally
economic benefits extended by the company to its submitted to relevant government agencies, as is material
employees to provide them a measure of financial security and necessary for meaningful negotiations. Where the
after they shall have ceased to be employed in the disclosure of some of this information could be prejudicial
company, reward their loyalty, boost their morale and to the undertaking, its communication may be made
efficiency and promote industrial peace, gives “a condition upon a commitment that it would be regarded
as confidential to the extent required. The information to

Labor Code, Art. 273 (260)

be made available may be agreed upon between the
parties to collective bargaining. Grievance Machinery and Voluntary Arbitration.— The
parties to a CBA shall include therein provisions that will
ensure the mutual observance of its terms and conditions.
1. Private Procedure They shall establish a machinery for the adjustment and
Labor Code, Sec. 262 (251) resolution of grievances arising from the interpretation or
Duty to Bargain Collectively in the Absence of CBAs.—In implementation of their CBA and those arising from the
the absence of an agreement or other voluntary interpretation or enforcement of company personnel
arrangement providing for a more expeditious manner of policies.
collective bargaining, it shall be the duty of employer and
the representatives of the employees to bargain All grievances submitted to the grievance machinery
collectively in accordance with the provisions of this Code. which are not settled within seven (7) calendar days from
the date of its submission shall automatically be referred to
voluntary arbitration prescribed in the CBA.
2. Labor Code Procedure For this purpose, parties to a CBA shall name and
Labor Code, Art. 261 (250) designate in advance a Voluntary Arbitrator or panel of
Voluntary Arbitrators, or include in the agreement a
Procedure in Collective Bargaining.— The following procedure for the selection of such Voluntary Arbitrator or
procedures shall be observed in collective bargaining: panel of Voluntary Arbitrators, preferably from the listing of
a) When a party desires to negotiate an agreement, it qualified Voluntary Arbitrators duly accredited by the
shall serve a written notice upon the other party with a Board. In case the parties fail to select a Voluntary
statement of its proposals. The other party shall make Arbitrator or panel of Voluntary Arbitrators, the Board shall
a reply thereto not later than ten (10) calendar days designate the Voluntary Arbitrator or panel of Voluntary
from receipt of such notice; Arbitrators, as may be necessary, pursuant to the selection
b) Should differences arise on the basis of such notice procedure agreed upon in the CBA, which shall act with
and reply, either party may request for a conference the same force and effect as if the Arbitrator or panel of
which shall begin not later than ten (10) calendar Arbitrators has been selected by the parties as described
days from the date of request; above.
c) If the dispute is not settled, the Board shall intervene
upon the request of either or both parties or at its own
initiative and immediately call the parties to Caltex Refinery Employees Assoc. vs. Brillantes
conciliation meetings. The Board shall have the power G.R. No. 123782; Sept. 16, 1997; Panganiban, J.
to issue subpoenas requiring the attendance of the
FACTS:
parties to such meetings. It shall be the duty of the
Anticipating the expiration of their CBA, CREA and Caltex
parties to participate fully and promptly in the
renegotiated. Some issued were left unresolved so several
conciliation meetings the Board may call;
meetings were conducted between them, until they
d) During the conciliation proceedings in the Board, the
reached a deadlock causing CREA to file a notice of
parties are prohibited from doing any act which may
strike. During the strike vote, CREA staged a walk out,
disrupt or impede the early settlement of the disputes;
forcing Caltex to petition SOLE to assume JD. This was
and
granted. CREA, after SOLE’s assumption of JD, went on a
e) The Board shall exert all efforts to settle disputes
strike and picket, in violation of the assumption order.
amicably and encourage the parties to submit their
Because of the strike Caltex dismissed some officers of
case to a voluntary arbitrator.
CREA. They tried to resolve their differences through
conciliation again, but they still didn’t come to an
Labor Code, Art. 262 (251), supra pg. 3 agreement so they stopped negotiation and referred it to
the SOLE who ordered the parties to execute CBA, and
Labor Code, Art. 239 (233) then later decided to shorten the periods to process/
resolve machinery from 45 to 30 days at the first step and
Privileged Communication.— Information and statements from 10 to 7 days at the second step, as well as removing
made at conciliation proceedings shall be treated as the step of establishing a joint council. This later decision
privileged communication and shall not be used as was assailed by CREA imputing GAD on Brillantes.
evidence in the Commission. Conciliators and similar
officials shall not testify in any court or body regarding any HELD:
matters taken up at conciliation proceedings conducted There was no GAD. No particular setup for grievance
by them. machinery is mandated by law. Art. 260 of the LC (now Art.
273), as incorporated by RA 6715, provides for a single
grievance machinery to settle problems arising from
interpretation of implementation of the CBA.
The procedure ordered by Brillantes sufficiently complied
with the minimum requirement of the law. In fact, he went

beyond the minimum by providing for two steps. While it Legitimate labor unions who are members of the same
was contended that he did not act on the dispute by registered federation, national, or industry union are
leaving the number of voluntary arbitrators to the choice exempt from execution of this written agreement.
of the parties, this was seen as affording the parties b) The legitimate labor unions who desire to bargain with
latitude to decide for themselves. multi-employers shall send a written notice to this
effect to each employer concerned. The written
agreement stated in the preceding paragraph, or the
a. Single enterprise bargaining
certificates of registration of the federation, national,
IRR, Book V, Rule XVI, Sec. 3-4 or industry union, shall accompany said notice.
Sec. 3. When Single Enterprise Bargaining Available—Any
voluntarily recognized or certified labor union may Employers who agree to group themselves or use their
demand negotiations with its employer for terms and existing associations to engage in multi-employer
conditions of work covering employees in the bargaining bargaining shall send a written notice to each of their
unit concerned. counterpart legitimate labor unions indicating their
desire to engage in multi-employer bargaining. Said
Sec. 4. Procedure in Single Enterprise Bargaining—A notice shall indicate the following:
recognized or certified labor union that desires to (1) the names of the employers who desire to avail of
negotiate with its employer shall submit such intentions in multi-employer bargaining;
writing to the employer, together with its proposals for (2) their corresponding legitimate labor organizations;
collective bargaining. (3) the fact that each corresponding legitimate union
is any incumbent exclusive bargaining agent;
(4) the duration of the current CBA, if any, entered
b. Multi-employer bargaining into by each employer with the counterpart
IRR, Book V, Rule XVI, Sec. 5 legitimate labor union.
Sec. 5. When Multi-Employer Bargaining Available—A c) Each employer or concerned labor union shall express
legitimate labor union(s) and employers may agree in its willingness or refusal to participate in multi-employer
writing to come together for the purpose of collective bargaining in writing, addressed to its corresponding
bargaining, provided: exclusive bargaining agent or employer. Negotiations
a) only legitimate labor unions who are incumbent may commence only with regard to respective
exclusive bargaining agents may participate and employers and labor unions who consent to
negotiate in multi-employer bargaining; participate in multi-employer bargaining;
b) only employers with counterpart legitimate labor
unions who are incumbent bargaining agents may d) During the course of negotiations, consenting
participate and negotiate in multi-employer employers and the corresponding legitimate labor
bargaining; and unions shall discuss and agree on the following:
c) only those legitimate labor unions who pertain to (1) the manner by which negotiations shall proceed;
employer units who consent to multi-employer (2) the scope and coverage of the negotiations and
bargaining may participate in multi-employer the agreement; and
bargaining. (3) where appropriate, the effect of the negotiations
on current agreements or conditions of
employment among the parties.
IRR, Book V, Rule XVI, Sec. 6
Procedure in Multi-Employer Bargaining— Multi-employer

bargaining may be initiated by the labor unions or by the
employers. 3. Conciliation/preventive mediation
Labor Code, Art. 239 (233), supra pg. 4
a) Legitimate labor unions who desire to negotiate with
their employers collectively shall execute a written Art. 261 (250) (c)(d)(e), supra pg. 3
document among themselves, which shall contain the
following: IRR, Book V, Rule XXII, Sec. 1-2, 9, infra pg. 38
(1) the names of the labor unions who desire to avail
of multi-employer bargaining
(2) each labor union in the employer unit; 4. Duty to bargain
(3) the fact that each of the labor unions are the Labor Code, Art. 261, supra pg. 3
incumbent exclusive bargaining agents for their
respective employer units;
Labor Code, Art. 262, supra pg. 3
(4) the duration of the CBAs, if any, entered into by
each labor union with their respective employers.
Labor Code, Art. 263, supra pg. 2

Labor Code, Art. 264 Tabangao Shell Refinery Employees Assoc. vs. Pilipinas
Shell, infra pg. 30
Duty to Bargain Collectively When There Exists a CBA.—
GR 170007; Apr. 7, 2014; Leonardo-De Castro
When there is a CBA, the duty to bargain collectively shall
also mean that neither party shall terminate nor modify Doctrine: The duty to bargain does not compel any party
such agreement during its lifetime. However, either party to accept a proposal or to make any concession. While
can serve a written notice to terminate or modify the the purpose of collective bargaining is the reaching of an
agreement at least sixty (60) days prior to its expiration agreement between the employer and the employee’s
date. It shall be the duty of both parties to keep the status union resulting in a binding contract between the parties,
quo and to continue in full force and effect the terms and the failure to reach an agreement after negotiations
conditions of the existing agreement during the 60-day continued for a reasonable period does not mean lack of
period and/or until a new agreement is reached by the good faith. The laws invite and contemplate a collective
parties. bargaining contract but do not compel one. For after all,
a CBA, like any contract is a product of mutual consent
and not of compulsion. As such, the duty to bargain does
Labor Code, Art. 251 (c)
not include the obligation to reach an agreement.
Rights of Legitimate Labor Organizations.— LLO shall have
the right:
See: PI Mfg. vs. PI Mfg. Supervisors and Foremen Assoc. |
(c) To be furnished by the employer, upon written request,
2008 / Sandoval-Gutierrez
with its annual audited financial statements, including the
balance sheet and the profit and loss statement, within Summary: RA 6640 increased the statutory minimum wage
thirty (30) calendar days from the date of receipt of the and salary rates of private employees. Meanwhile, the
request, after the union has been duly recognized by the union and the company entered into a new CBA where
employer or certified as the sole and exclusive bargaining supervisors and foremen were given increases. The CBA
representative of the employees in the bargaining unit, or included a provision/quitclaim where the Union absolved
within sixty (60) calendar days before the expiration of the and released the Company for any monetary claim that
existing CBA, or during the CB negotiation. might have existed prior to the signing of the CBA. The
company contended that the union had already waived
the wage distortion brought by RA 6640. SC held that The
Labor Code, Art. 247 (f) [before amendment by RA 9481]
wage distortion was already cured by the new CBA
Grounds for cancellation of union registration.—(Note: wherein salary increases re-established and broadened
before amendment by RA 9481; at present, there is no the gaps. The CBA is more than substantial compliance
counterpart to this provision in the grounds for with the RA. The union cannot invoke the beneficial
cancellation of union registration) provisions of the CBA but disregard the concessions it
The following shall constitute grounds for cancellation of voluntarily extended to the company.
union registration:
(f) Entering into CBAs which provide terms and conditions Doctrine: The duty to bargain requires that the parties deal
of employment below minimum standards established by with each other with open and fair minds. A sincere
law; endeavor to overcome obstacles and difficulties that may
arise, so that employer-employee relations may be
stabilized and industrial strife eliminated, must be
Labor Code, Art. 259 (g), infra pg. 19 apparent. Respondents cannot invoke the beneficial
provisions of the 1987 CBA but disregard the concessions it
ULP of employers.—It shall be unlawful for an employer to
voluntary extended to the COMPANY. The goal of
commit any of the following ULP:
collective bargaining is the making of agreements that will
(g.) To violate the duty to bargain collectively as
stabilize business conditions and fix fair standards of
prescribed by this Code;
working conditions.
Labor Code, Art. 260 (c), infra pg. 20

See: FAMIT vs. CA and MAPUA
ULP of labor organizations.— It shall be ULP for a labor G.R. No. 164060 | June 15, 2007
organization, its officers, agents or representatives:
FACTS: FAMIT and MAPUA agreed to the adoption and
(c) To violate the duty, or refuse to bargain collectively
implementation of the new faculty ranking instrument, with
with the employer, provided it is the representative of the
the reservation that there should be no diminution in rank
employees.
and pay of the faculty members so they entered into a
new CBA. Subsequently, Mapua sought to amend the
CBA after perceiving flaws due to omissions of FAMIT. FAMIT
rejected. Meanwhile, Mapua instituted some changes in
the curriculum and adopted a new formula for
determining the pay rates of the high school faculty. FAMIT

contested this saying that MIT has not been implementing hours of work and all other terms and conditions of
the relevant provisions of their CBA. employment in a bargaining unit. As in all other contracts,
the parties to a CBA may establish such stipulations,
HELD: The proposed amendments were unauthorized clauses, terms and conditions as they may deem
modifications of the CBA. As a general rule, neither party convenient, provided these are not contrary to law,
to a CBA shall terminate or modify the agreement during morals, good customs, public order or public policy. In
its lifetime. labor law the CBA is the law between the parties and they
are obliged to comply with its provisions
DOCTRINE: The duty to bargain collectively shall also mean
that neither party shall terminate nor modify such
agreement during its lifetime. Until a new CBA is executed PAL vs. PALEA
by and between the parties, they are duty-bound to keep G. R. No. 142399l; Mar. 12, 2008; Chico-Nazario
the status quo and to continue in full force and effect the FACTS:
terms and conditions of the existing agreement. PAL and PALEA entered into a CBA. Part of the agreement
required PAL to pay its rank and file employees 13th month
pay and Christmas bonuses. Prior to payment, PAL issued
E. The Collective Bargaining Agreement guidelines. PALEA assailed the implementation of the
guideline on the ground that all employees of PAL, regular
1. Definition/Contents
or non-regular, must be paid their 13th month pay.
IRR, Book V, Rule I, Sec. (j)
Definition of Terms. HELD: For PALEA. It is a well-settled doctrine that the

“CBA” refers to the contract between a legitimate labor benefits of a CBA extend to the laborers and employees in
union and the employer concerning wages, hours of work, the collective bargaining unit, including those who do not
and all other terms and conditions of employment in a belong to the chosen bargaining labor organization.
bargaining unit. Otherwise, it would be a clear case of discrimination.
Hence, to be entitled to the benefits under the CBA, the
employees must be members of the bargaining unit, but
Labor Code, Art. 273 (260), supra pg. 4 not necessarily of the labor organization designated as the
bargaining agent. A bargaining unit has been defined as
Effect of Sub-standard contract a group of employees of a given employer, comprised of
Labor Code, Art. 247 (f) (239), supra pg. 6 all or less than all of the entire body of employees, which
the collective interest of all the employees, consistent with
Lepanto Ceramics Inc. vs. Lepanto Ceramic Employees equity to the employer, indicates to be the best suited to
Assoc. | 2 March 2010 | Carpio, J. serve the reciprocal rights and duties of the parties under
the collective bargaining provisions of the law.
FACTS:
Lepanto gave its employees a P3k Christmas bonus.
Subsequently, on 1999, the union (a CEBA) entered into a
CBA where it included a provision that grants the EEs a 2. Registration
Christmas gift/bonus. Company gave each of the Labor Code, Art. 237 (231)
members of respondent Association Tile Redemption
Registry of unions and file of CBAs.— The Bureau shall keep
Certificates equivalent to P3k. In 2002 however, the
a registry of legitimate labor organizations. The Bureau
company only gave P600 as bonus + a cash advance
shall also maintain a file of all CBAs and other related
equivalent to 1 month of salary. This was objected to by
agreements and records of settlement of labor disputes
the respondents, arguing that it was in violation of the
and copies of orders and decisions of voluntary arbitrators.
CBA.
The file shall be open and accessible to interested parties
under conditions prescribed by the Secretary of Labor and
HELD:
Employment, provided that no specific information
Company is still required to pay union’s Christmas bonus.
submitted in confidence shall be disclosed unless
Generally, a bonus is not a demandable and enforceable
authorized by the Secretary, or when it is at issue in any
obligation. For a bonus to be enforceable, it must have
judicial litigation, or when public interest or national
been promised by the employer and expressly agreed
security so requires.
upon by the parties. Given that the bonus in this case is
integrated in the CBA, it is now a demandable
Within thirty (30) days from the execution of a CBA, the
obligation. By its incorporation in the CBA, the Christmas
parties shall submit copies of the same directly to the
bonus due is more than just an act of generosity but a
Bureau or the Regional Offices of the Department of Labor
contractual obligation.
and Employment for registration, accompanied with
verified proofs of its posting in two conspicuous places in
DOCTRINE:
the place of work and ratification by the majority of all the
CBA refers to a negotiated contract between a legitimate
workers in the bargaining unit. The Bureau or Regional
labor organization and the employer, concerning wages,

Offices shall act upon the application for registration of such unit for the purpose of collective bargaining.
such CBA within five (5) calendar days from receipt However, an individual employee or group of employees
thereof. The Regional Offices shall furnish the Bureau with a shall have the right at any time to present grievances to
copy of the CBA within five (5) days from its submission. their employer.
The Bureau or Regional Office shall assess the employer for
every CBA a registration fee of not less than one thousand Any provision of law to the contrary notwithstanding,
pesos (P1,000.00) or in any other amount as may be workers shall have the right, subject to such rules and
deemed appropriate and necessary by the Secretary of regulations as the Secretary of Labor and Employment
Labor and Employment for the effective and efficient may promulgate, to participate in policy and decision-
administration of the Voluntary Arbitration Program. Any making processes of the establishment where they are
amount collected under this provision shall accrue to the employed insofar as said processes will directly affect their
Special Voluntary Arbitration Fund. rights, benefits and welfare. For this purpose, workers and
employers may form labor-management councils:
The Bureau shall also maintain a file and shall undertake or Provided, That the representatives of the workers in such
assist in the publication of all final decisions, orders and labor-management councils shall be elected by at least
awards of the Secretary of Labor and Employment, the majority of all employees in said establishment. (As
Regional Directors and the Commission. amended by Section 22, Republic Act No. 6715, March 21,
1989)
IRR, Book V, Rule XVII, Sec. 1-3

See again: Mactan Workers Union vs. Aboitiz
Sec. 1. Where to File.— Within thirty (30) days from
G.R. No. L-30241; June 30, 1972; Fernando
execution of a CBA, the parties thereto shall submit two (2)
duly signed copies of the agreement to the Regional Facts: The Company employed members of both unions
Office which issued the certificate of registration/ ALU and MWU. The Company entered into a CBA with ALU
certificate of chartered local of the labor union-party to on profit-sharing bonuses. They agreed that it shall be the
the agreement. Where the certificate of creation of the duty of the ALU to furnish and deliver to the Company the
concerned chartered local was issued by the Bureau, the corresponding receipts duly signed by the laborers and
agreement shall be filed with the Regional Office which employees entitled to receive the profit-sharing bonus.
has jurisdiction over the place where it principally MWU did not receive its share and did not claim it, so the
operates. Multi-employer CBA shall be filed with the money was returned to Cebu Shipyard.
Bureau.
Held: A CBA constitutes the law between the bargaining
Sec. 2. Requirements For Registration.— The parties, so those who are entitled to the benefits under it
application for CBA registration shall be accompanied by can invoke its provisions. However, the benefits of a CBA
the original and two (2) duplicate copies of the following also extend to the laborers and employees not part of the
documents which must be certified under oath by the chosen bargaining labor organization. Otherwise, the
representatives(s) of the employer(s) and labor union(s) purpose of the CBA, which enables labor to secure better
concerned: terms in employment condition and better rates of pay,
(a) the CBA; would be frustrated when non-members are deprived of
(b) a statement that the CBA was posted in at least two advantages they could gain.
(2) conspicuous places in the establishment or
establishments concerned for at least five (5) days
before its ratification; and 4. Minutes of negotiations
(c) a statement that the CBA was ratified by the majority Samahan ng Manggagawa sa Top Form v NLRC, supra p. 2
of the employees in the bargaining unit of the
Held: The Union cannot claim that the proposal, as found
employer or employers concerned. No other
in the minutes of the negotiations, forms part of the CBA.
document shall be required in the registration of CBAs.
The minutes reflect the proceedings and discussions
undertaken in the process of bargaining for worker
Sec. 3. Payment of Registration Fee.— The Certificate of
benefits. At the negotiations, it is natural for both
registration of CBA shall be issued by the Regional Office
management and labor to adopt positions or make
upon payment of the prescribed registration fee.
demands and offer proposals and counter-proposals.
However, nothing is considered final until the parties have
3. Beneficiaries reached an agreement.
Exclusive Bargaining Representation and Workers’ 5. Interpretation, Administration, Enforcement

Participation in Policy and Decision-Making.— The labor Civil Code, Art. 1700
organization designated or selected by the majority of the
The relations between capital and labor are not merely
employees in an appropriate collective bargaining unit
contractual. They are so impressed with public interest that
shall be the exclusive representative of the employees in
labor contracts must yield to the common good.

Therefore, such contracts are subject to the special laws terminated and were paid separation pay. They are now
on labor unions, collective bargaining, strikes and lockouts, claiming their retirement benefits despite their receipt of
closed shop, wages, working conditions, hours of labor the separation pay pursuant to their CBA.
and similar subjects.
HELD:
It is a familiar and fundamental doctrine in labor law that
Norkis Free and Independent Workers Union v Norkis the CBA is the law between the parties and they are
Trading Co. obliged to comply with its provisions. A collective
G.R. No. 157098; June 30, 2005; Panganiban bargaining agreement [or CBA] refers to the negotiated
contract between a legitimate labor organization and the
Facts: The RTWPB issued a wage order fixing a new
employer concerning wages, hours of work and all other
minimum wage rate for private sector employees. Based
terms and conditions of employment in a bargaining unit.
on this, Norkis Free and Independent Workers Union
As in all contracts, the parties in a CBA may establish such
wanted an across-the-board increase in wages in
stipulations, clauses, terms and conditions as they may
accordance with the CBA. Company, however, refused to
deem convenient provided these are not contrary to law,
implement the Wage Order, insisting that since it has been
morals, good customs, public order or public policy. Thus,
paying its workers the new minimum wage even before
where the CBA is clear and unambiguous, it becomes the
the issuance of the Wage Order, it cannot be made to
law between the parties and compliance therewith is
comply with said Wage Order.
mandated by the express policy of the law.
Held: For the company. CBA states that in the event that a
Here, their CBA contains specific provisions which
law is enacted increasing minimum wage, an across-the-
effectively bar the availment of retirement benefits once
board increase shall be granted by the Company
the employees have chosen separation pay or vice versa.
according to the provisions of the law. Given the entire
sentence of the CBA provision, it is clear that the CBA does
not support the unyielding view of petitioner that the See: Dole Phils. v Pawis ng Makabayang Obrero
issuance of Wage Order entitles its members to an across- GR No. 146650; Jan. 13, 2003; Corona, J.
the-board increase, absolutely and without any condition.
Stipulations in a contract must be read together, not in Facts: Dole and the Union were in a dispute over the free
isolation from one another. When the terms of its clauses meals provision in their CBA. Pursuant to this provision,
are clear and leave no room for doubt as to the intention some of Dole’s departments reverted to the previous
of the contracting parties, it would not be necessary to practice of granting free meals after exactly three hours of
interpret those terms, whose literal meanings should actual overtime work. The others, however, continued the
prevail. practice of granting free meals only after more than three
hours of overtime work.
Here, Norkis was already paying its employees above the
existing minimum wage, and the wage order was a “floor Held: After having interpreted similar provisions in the
wage” increase. The CBA was no ordinary contract, but 1985-88, 1990-95 and the 1993-1995 amendments to the
one impressed with public interest. Therefore, it was 1990-1995 CBAs, the court ruled that employees are
subject to special orders on wages such as those issued entitled to free meals once they have rendered at least
by the RTWPB. three hours of overtime work, and not after they have
worked more than three hours. The CBA is the norm of
conduct between Dole and PAMAO-NFL and compliance
a. Nature therewith is mandated by the express policy of the law.
Civil Code, Art. 1315
Contracts are perfected by mere consent, and from that See: Pantranco North Express v NLRC
moment the parties are bound not only to the fulfillment of 24 July 1996 | J. Panganiban
what has been expressly stipulated but also to all the
consequences which, according to their nature, may be Facts: 3 employees were retired 25 years’ service before
in keeping with good faith, usage and law. age 60, pursuant to the compulsory retirement provision in
the CBA. They filed complaints for illegal dismissal.
Zuellig Pharma Corp vs. Sibal et al. Held: The CBA provision, allowing compulsory retirement
G.R. No.173587; July 15, 2013; Del Castillo, J. before age 60, but after 25 years of service, is legal and
enforceable. The law leaves to the employer and
FACTS:
employees the fixing of the age of retirement. Early
Zuellig distributes pharmaceutical products manufactured
retirement does not constitute diminution of benefits.
by Syntex. Syntex was later bought by Roche which took
Rather, it constitutes a reward of employment. Retirements
over from Zuellig the distribution of Syntex products.
agreed upon by the employer and the employees in their
Consequently, Zuellig closed its Syntex Division and
CBA are not dismissals. The terms and conditions of a CBA
ter minated the services of respondents due to
constitute the law between the parties, and bind not only
redundancy. The employees in the department were

Labor Relations Finals Reviewer | 1
! 0
the union, but also its members. The parties to a contract

c. Grievance procedure
are bound not only to the fulfillment of what has been
expressly stipulated but also to all the consequences Labor Code, Art. 267 (255), supra p. 8
which according to their nature, may be in keeping with
good faith, usage and law (Art. 1315, CC). Labor Code, Art. 273 (260), supra p. 4
Baron vs. EPE Transport

GR 202645; August 2012; Perlas-Bernabe, J.
b. Liberal Construction/in case of doubt
Labor Code, Art. 4 SUMMARY:
Baron et al. questioned the company’s policy regarding
Construction in favor of labor.— All doubts in the the boundary system bc it was allegedly not in
implementation and interpretation of the provisions of this accordance with the CBA. EPE told them to leave if they
Code, including its implementing rules and regulations, did not agree with it and so Baron et al. filed a complaint
shall be resolved in favor of labor. for violation of the CBA. The employees then questioned
the overcharging of the boundary to which they failed a
complaint for ULP. Subsequently they were no longer
Civil Code, Art. 1700, supra pg. 8
allowed to drive their taxis and prohibited from entering
EPE, so they filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. The LA
Civil Code, Art. 1702 held for EPE and argued that the employees act of
In case of doubt, all labor legislation and all labor invoking the grievance machinery actually proves the
contracts shall be construed in favor of the safety and argument that EPE did not dismiss them. SC disagrees and
decent living for the laborer. says that the invoking of the grievance machinery did not
in any way disprove the dismissal. What was referred to the
machinery was the ULP case which was filed before the
BPI vs. BPI Employees Union-Metro Manila illegal dismissal case, and that the two were not related
G.R. No. 175678 | Aug 22, 2012 | J. Peralta bc they involved two separate issues. Also the LC
specifically provides that any CBA disputes have to be
BPIEU-MM is the SEBA of all the regular R&F employees of referred by the LA to the grievance machinery and as
BPI in Metro Manila. They have an existing CBA. The CBA such, Baron et al could not be faulted in invoking it.
provides for loan benefits and relatively low interest rates.
DOCTRINE:
BPI later issued a "no negative data bank policy" for the It bears to note that Article 223 (c) is explicit that the LA
implementation/availment of the manpower loans which shall refer to the grievance machinery and voluntary
the respondent objected to, thus, resulting into labor- arbitration, as provided in the CBA, those cases that
management dialogues. Unsatisfied with the result of involve the interpretation of said agreements. Further,
those dialogues, respondent brought the matter to the Article 272 provides that all unresolved grievances arising
grievance machinery and afterwards, the issue, not from the interpretation or implementation of the CBA,
having been resolved, the parties raised it to the Voluntary including violations of said agreement, are under the
Arbitrator (VA) which ruled for the union and was affirmed original and exclusive jurisdiction of the voluntary arbitrator
by the CA. W/N No NDB policy is valid and conforms to the or panel of voluntary arbitrators.
CBA?
As such, petitioners cannot be faulted in invoking the
HELD: grievance machinery even after they had been dismissed
Although it can be said that petitioner is authorized to in compliance with the provisions of the CBA, to which
issue rules and regulations pertinent to the availment and they were bound.
administration of the loans under the CBA, the additional
rules and regulations, however, must not impose new
conditions which are not contemplated in the CBA and See: USAEU-FFW v CA
should be within the realm of reasonableness. The "no G.R. No. 169632; March 28, 2006; GARCIA, J.
negative data bank policy" is a new condition which is
never contemplated in the CBA and at some points, Facts: There was a dispute between the Union and the
unreasonable to the employees. Company about the computation of salary increases.
Before preventive mediation proceedings with the NCMB
NCC 1702 provides that, in case of doubt, all labor were completed, the Union filed notice and went on strike
legislation and all labor contracts shall be construed in despite the Company’s insistence that the CBA’s
favor of the safety and decent living of the laborer. Thus, grievance mechanism and voluntary arbitration clauses
SC has ruled that any doubt or ambiguity in the contract should be followed.
between management and the union members should be
resolved in favor of the latter. Held: The CBA’s grievance mechanism and voluntary
arbitration clauses were founded on Arts. 261 and 262 of
the LC and should have been honored by the Union. The

! 1
Labor Code, Art. 278 (263) (h).

parties were directed to voluntary arbitration. The strike
was illegal. Strikes, picketing and lockouts.— x x x
(h) Before or at any stage of the compulsory arbitration
process, the parties may opt to submit their dispute to
voluntary arbitration.
See also: Atlas Farm v NLRC
GR No. 142244; Nov. 18, 2002; Quisumbing, J.
Facts: Peña and Abion were fired by Atlas. They filed

e. Contract infirmity
complaints for illegal dismissal, but the complaints were
Associated Labor Unions v Calleja
dismissed because the grievance machinery in the CBA
GR No. L-77282 | May 5, 1989 | J. Regalado
had not yet been exhausted. Peña and Abion availed of
the grievance process but were unsuccessful, so they re- Facts: The Company recognized ALU as the sole and
filed with the NLRC. Atlas contended that NLRC did not exclusive bargaining agent for its employees, and a CBA
have jurisdiction, because the CBA provided that was executed. SPFL and NAMGAW went on strike because
jurisdiction belongs to the grievance machinery and then of this recognition. BLR Director Calleja ordered
the voluntary arbitrator. certification elections.
Held: The NLRC had jurisdiction. A voluntary arbitrator shall Held: Calleja’s decision correct. The contract-bar rule
only have jurisdiction over termination cases if they arise does not apply in this case because the CBA was full of
from interpretation or implementation of the CBA, and infirmities. (Infirmities: haste on the part of the Company in
interpretation and enforcement of company personnel recognizing union despite being aware that there were
policies, which was not the case with Peña and Abion. other unions existing in the unit, failure to post the same in
at least 2 conspicuous places in the establishment at least
5 days before its ratification; 181 out of 281 workers who
ratified the same now strongly and vehemently deny and/
d. Voluntary arbitration
or repudiate the alleged negotiations and ratification of
the CBA.)
Jurisdiction of Voluntary Arbitrators or panel of Voluntary
Arbitrators.— The Voluntary Arbitrator or panel of Voluntary
Arbitrators shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction to
f. Contract ambiguity
hear and decide all unresolved grievances arising from
Civil Code, Art. 1702, supra pg. 10
the interpretation or implementation of the Collective
Bargaining Agreement and those arising from the
interpretation or enforcement of company personnel Holy Cross of Davao College v Holy Cross Faculty Union
policies referred to in the immediately preceding article. G.R. No. 156098; June 27, 2005; Sandoval-Gutierrez, J.
Accordingly, violations of a Collective Bargaining Facts: Legaspi, a teacher in the College, was selected as
Agreement, except those which are gross in character, a recipient of a scholarship granted by the Japanese
shall no longer be treated as unfair labor practice and government. Pursuant to the provisions of the CBA
shall be resolved as grievances under the Collective between the College and the Union, she requested to be
Bargaining Agreement. For purposes of this article, on study leave with grant-in aid. However, the school
gross violations of Collective Bargaining Agreement shall refused.
mean flagrant and/or malicious refusal to comply with the
economic provisions of such agreement. Held: The CBA as well as the school’s Policy Statement and
Guidelines for Trips Abroad for Professional growth are
The Commission, its Regional Offices and the Regional clear in stating that teaching personnel who are selected
Directors of the Department of Labor and Employment as scholarship recipients are entitled to a leave of
shall not entertain disputes, grievances or matters under absence with a grant-in-aid, provided such grant is to
the exclusive and original jurisdiction of the Voluntary promote their professional growth or to enhance their
Arbitrator or panel of Voluntary Arbitrators and shall studies in institutions of higher learning. The provisions in the
immediately dispose and refer the same to the Grievance CBA as well as in the Policy Statement are clear and need
Machinery or Voluntary Arbitration provided in the no interpretation. Contracts which are not ambiguous are
Collective Bargaining Agreement. to be interpreted according to their literal meaning and
not beyond their obvious intendment. Further, in case
Labor Code, Art. 275 (262) there be any doubt or ambiguity in the CBA, the same
should be resolved in favor of the union members pursuant
Jurisdiction over other labor disputes.— The Voluntary to Article 1702, CC.
Arbitrator or panel of Voluntary Arbitrators, upon
agreement of the parties, shall also hear and decide all
other labor disputes including unfair labor practices and
bargaining deadlocks.

! 2
g. Contract interpretation when the general and specific Labor Code, Art. 268 (256) par. 2
provisions are inconsistent
At the expiration of the freedom period, the employer shall
Visayan Electric Co. EU & Mahilum vs. Visyan Electric Co.
continue to recognize the majority status of the incumbent
GR 205575; July 22, 2015; Perlas-Bernabe, J. bargaining agent where no petition for certification
Prior to the conclusion of the renegotiation of VECO’s and election is filed. (As amended by Section 23, Republic Act
the union’s CBA, the company president filed a complaint No. 6715, March 21, 1989)
against Mahilum and other union members for libel
proceeding from a prior strike the union conducted,
IRR, Book V, Rule XVII, Secs. 7-8
allegedly, for VECO's refusal to comply with the political
and economic provisions of the CBA. Mahilum protested REGISTRATION OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENTS
this insisting that the investigation should follow the Sec. 7. Term of Representation Status; Contract Bar Rule. –
grievance machinery procedure under the CBA. The representation status of the incumbent exclusive
Nevertheless, the company still terminated Mahilum. bargaining agent which is a party to a duly registered
collective bargaining agreement shall be for a term of five
HELD: (5) years from the date of the effectivity of the collective
The union failed to satisfactorily show that the refusal of bargaining agreement. No petition questioning the
VECO to follow the grievance machinery procedure under majority status of the incumbent exclusive bargaining
their CBA in the suspension and termination from agent or petition for certification election filed outside of
employment of the other union officers and members the sixty-day period immediately preceding the expiry
constituted unfair labor practice. date of such five- year term shall be entertained by the
Department.
True, it is a fundamental doctrine in labor law that the CBA
is the law between the parties and they are obliged to The five-year representation status acquired by the
comply with its provisions. If the provisions of the CBA incumbent bargaining agent either through single
seem clear and unambiguous, the literal meaning of their enterprise collective bargaining or multi-employer
stipulations shall control. However, as in this case, when bargaining shall not be affected by a subsequent
general and specific provisions of the CBA are collective bargaining agreement executed between the
inconsistent, the specific provision shall be paramount to same bargaining agent and the employer during the
and govern the general provision. same five-year period.
Sec. 8. Renegotiation of Collective Bargaining

h. Contract duration and renewal
Agreements.— All provisions of a collective bargaining
Labor Code, Art. 264 (253), supra p. 5 agreement, except the representation status of the
incumbent bargaining agent, shall, as a matter of right, be
Labor Code, Art. 265 (253-A) renegotiated not later than three (3) years after its
execution.
Terms of a Collective Bargaining Agreement.— Any
Collective Bargaining Agreement that the parties may
The renegotiated collective bargaining agreement shall
enter into shall, insofar as the representation aspect is
be ratified and registered with the same Regional Office
concerned, be for a term of five (5) years. No petition
where the preceding agreement was registered. The
questioning the majority status of the incumbent
same requirements and procedure in the registration of
bargaining agent shall be entertained and no certification
collective bargaining agreements prescribed in the
election shall be conducted by the Department of Labor
preceding rules shall be applied.
and Employment outside of the sixty-day period
immediately before the date of expiry of such five-year
term of the Collective Bargaining Agreement. All other Meralco v Quisumbing
provisions of the Collective Bargaining Agreement shall be G.R. No. 127598; January 27, 1999
renegotiated not later than three (3) years after its
execution. Any agreement on such other provisions of the Facts: Meralco filed a Motion for Partial Modification of an
Collective Bargaining Agreement entered into within six (6) SC resolution holding that the arbitral award shall retroact
months from the date of expiry of the term of such other to the first day after the 6-month period following the
provisions as fixed in such Collective Bargaining expiration of the last day of the CBA. Meralco contended
Agreement, shall retroact to the day immediately that there is nothing in Article 253-A which states that
following such date. If any such agreement is entered into arbitral awards or renewals of a CBA shall always have
beyond six months, the parties shall agree on the duration retroactive effect. It noted that the Resolution was
of retroactivity thereof. In case of a deadlock in the internally inconsistent, as the reckoning date based on the
renegotiation of the Collective Bargaining Agreement, the body of the decision should be June 1, 1996, but in the
parties may exercise their rights under this Code. (As dispositive, it was December 1, 1995. Also, the Court’s
amended by Section 21, Republic Act No. 6715, March 21, ruling does not take into account the large cost the award
1989) imposed on Meralco (P800M).

! 3
Held: Balancing the contrasting interests of Meralco, being extended, and thus the latter’s petition was filed outside
in the industry imbued with public interest and the policy the 60-days-before- expiration requirement.
of social justice, the arbitral award in this case be made to
retroact to the first day after the 6-month period following Held: The extension of the CBA term has no legal effect on
the expiration of the last day of the CBA: from June 1, 1996 the exclusive bargaining status of FVCLU-PTGWO, which
to May 31, 1998. It maintains the rule in the assailed remained effective only for 5 years ending on the original
resolution pro hac vice. expiry date. While the parties may agree to extend the
CBA’s original 5-year term together with all other CBA
provisions, any such amendment or term in excess of five
Rivera v Espiritu & Laguesma
years will not carry with it a change in the union’s exclusive
GR No. 135547 | Jan. 23, 2002 | J. Quisumbing collective bargaining status. Under Art. 253-A, the
Facts: PAL underwent serious losses. An agreement was exclusive bargaining status cannot go beyond 5 years and
created between PAL and the PAL Employees Association the representation status is a legal matter not for the
(PALEA), with one condition stating that the CBA would be parties to agree upon.
suspended for 10 years. Petitioners filed a petition to annul
the agreement, stating that it violated the CBA limits in 1) Automatic renewal
Article 265 (253-A).
Labor Code, Art. 264 (253), supra p. 5
Held: The SC held that it did not. It was a valid exercise of …It shall be the duty of both parties to keep the status quo
the freedom to contract, which PAL and PALEA entered and to continue in full force and effect the terms and
into voluntarily. Under the principle of inviolability of conditions of the existing agreement during the 60-day
contracts guaranteed by the Constitution, the contract period and/or until a new agreement is reached by the
must be upheld. Article 265 (253-A) has a two-fold parties.
purpose. One is to promote industrial stability and
predictability. The other is to assign specific timetables
wherein negotiations become a matter of right and Labor Code, Art. 268 (256) par. 2, supra p. 11
requirement. Nothing in Article 265 (253-A), prohibits the At the expiration of the freedom period, the employer shall
parties from waiving or suspending the mandatory continue to recognize the majority status of the incumbent
timetables and agreeing on the remedies to enforce the bargaining agent where no petition for certification
same. election is filed. (As amended by Section 23, Republic Act
No. 6715, March 21, 1989)
Union of Filipino Employees v NLRC
Facts: The herein assailed NLRC resolution ordered that the 1.a. Employers right to conduct disciplinary proceedings
new CBA would only be effective upon the promulgation vis-a-vis VA
of the same resolution. Petitioner Union said the new CBA
should have a retroactive effect, beginning from the PICOP Resources, Inc. vs. Tañeca et al.
expiration of the old CBA. G.R. No. 160828 | August 9, 2010
Held: As per Arts. 253 and 253-A, in the absence of Facts: Union members, upon demand by the Union
stipulation for retroactive effect of a new CBA, the parties president, were ter minated for allegedly having
are to keep the status quo (i.e. old CBA) during the 60- campaigned for, supported, and signing the petition for
day period prior to the expiration of the old CBA and/or certification election which was filed by another union
until a new agreement is reached. (FFW) on the ground that it was as an act of disloyalty and
a valid basis for termination for a cause in accordance
with its constitution and by-laws and the Union Security
FVC Labor Union – Phil. Transport & Gen. Workers Org. v Clause of the existing CBA. In terminating the employees,
Sama-samang Nagkakaisang Manggagawa sa FBC the Company cited Art. 253, which provides that "it shall
GR NO. 176249 | 27 Nov 2009 | Brion, J. be the duty of both parties to keep the status quo and to
continue in full force and effect the terms and conditions
Facts: FVCLU-PTGWO signed a 5-year CBA with the of the existing agreement during the 60-day period and/
Company. Before the end of the 5- years, the parties or until a new agreement is reached by the parties” to
renegotiated the CBA and extended the same for another argue that they were bound by the Union Security Clause
4 years. Before the expiration of the original 5 year-term, even after the CBA’s expiration.
SANAMA-SIGLO filed for certification to represent the
employees, as the Labor Code provides a maximum of 5- Held: It is incumbent upon the employer to continue to
year term for representation status, and such can be recognize the majority status of the incumbent bargaining
challenged within 60 days prior to expiration. FVCLU- agent even after the expiration of the freedom only if no
PTGWO wanted SANAMA-SIGLO’s petition for certification petition for certification election was filed. In this case, 4
dismissed, arguing that when the term of the CBA was petitions were already filed. Thus, the Company obligation
extended, their exclusive bargaining status was similarly to recognize the incumbent union does not hold true

! 4
when petitions for certification election were filed. Also, upon the terms in the agreement which brought it into
the last sentence of Art. 253 provides for automatic existence.
renewal of economic provisions only and does not include
the representational aspect of the CBA. An existing CBA
cannot constitute a bar to a filing of a petition for k. Jurisdiction
certification election. When there is a representational Pol. Inst. No. 56; April 6, 1993
issue, the status quo provision in so far as the need to
CLARIFYING THE JURISDICTION BETWEEN VOLUNTARY
await the creation of a new agreement does not apply.
ARBITRATORS AND LABOR ARBITERS OVER TERMINATION
CASES AND PROVIDING GUIDELINES FOR THE REFERRAL OF
See: GMC-Independent Labor Union vs. GMC SAID CASES ORIGINALLY FILED WITH THE NLRC TO THE NCMB
2011 | Perez, J.
In line with the policy of the Labor Code of the Philippines
Before the expiration of the CBA, the Union sent a draft to promote and emphasize the primacy of free collective
CBA proposal and requested counterproposals from GMC. bargaining and negotiations, including voluntary
GMC failed to heed the request. NLRC ordered the arbitration, mediation and conciliation, as modes of
imposition of the draft proposal for the remaining 2 years settling labor of industrial disputes, the following guidelines
duration of the original CBA. are hereby promulgated:
Held: Considering that no new CBA had been, in the
meantime, agreed upon by GMC and the Union, pursuant 1. Termination cases arising in or resulting from the
to Article 253 of the Labor Code, the provisions of the interpretation and implementation of collective
imposed CBA continues to have full force and effect until bar gaining agreements and interpretation and
a new CBA has been entered into by the parties. The law enforcement of company personnel policies which were
does not distinguish between a CBA duly agreed upon by initially processed at the various steps of the plant-level
the parties and an imposed CBA. The draft proposal of the Grievance Procedures under the parties’ collective
CBA that was imposed by the NLRC should be in effect for bargaining agreements fall within the
the remaining years. original and exclusive jurisdiction of the voluntary
arbitrator pursuant to Article 217 (c) and Article 261 of the
Labor Code.
i. CBA and third party liability
Associated Labor Unions v NLRC 2. Said cases, if filed before a Labor Arbiter, shall be
G.R. No. 74841 | December 20, 1991 | DAVIDE, JR., J: dismissed by the Labor Arbiter for lack of jurisdiction and
Facts: MOPI was reorganized as MPI and was acquired by referred to the concerned NCMB Regional Branch for
Caltex. MOPI’s former employees who were appropriate action towards an expeditious selection by
terminated due to MOPI’s closure sued for illegal dismissal the parties of voluntary arbitrator or panel of arbitrators
and ULP. based on the procedures agreed upon in the CBA.
Held: When Caltex acquired MOPI it did not automatically This issuance shall take effect immediately.
become an assignee of the CBA agreed upon by MOPI
and its employees. Labor contracts are not enforceable (SGD.) MA. NIEVES R. CONFESOR, Secretary
against a transferee of an enterprise; labor contracts being
in personam, thus binding only between the parties. 1) Plenary jurisdiction of VA vis-a-vis Labor Arbiters
(Note: Ratio-speedy labor justice)
j. CBA and Disaffiliation/Substitutionary Doctrine
Elisco-Elirol Labor Union v Noriel
G.R. No. L-41955; December 29, 1977 Metro Drug Distribution, Inc v Metro Drug Corp Employees
Association | 2005
Facts: EELU-NAFLU executed a CBA with the Company.
Later, they decided to disaffiliate from NAFLU. After such Facts: The Union filed a complaint for ULP before the
disaffiliation, the Company refused to recognize EELU as a arbitration branch of the NLRC against the Company for
party to the CBA, it not being the “same union” stated in the latter’s alleged violations of CBA economic and
the CBA (EELU-NAFLU). grievance machinery provisions. Metro Drug filed a motion
to dismiss on the sole ground of lack of jurisdiction over the
Held: Unions have the right to disaffiliate themselves from subject matter, contending that the issues raised are
their “mother union” in the common interest of their exclusively cognizable by the voluntary arbitrator (and not
members and still be the same party as stipulated in the the Labor Arbiter).
CBA. The employees and members of the local union did
not form a new union, but merely registered the local Held: Certiorari was not the proper remedy. Metro Drug
union pursuant to their right. Upon joining a national union, should have submitted its position paper as ordered by the
the locals remained the basic units of the association. LA and raise therein the question of supposed lack of
Hence, it is free to renounce affiliation for mutual welfare jurisdiction. In the event of unfavorable judgment, it could

! 5
thereafter raise the case, including the issue of jurisdiction, Accordingly, violations of a Collective Bargaining
via appeal to the NLRC as provided for in the Labor Code Agreement, except those which are gross in character,
on the ground of grave abuse of discretion amounting to shall no longer be treated as unfair labor practice and
lack or excess of jurisdiction. shall be resolved as grievances under the Collective
Bargaining Agreement. For purposes of this article, gross
violations of Collective Bargaining Agreement shall mean
flagrant and/or malicious refusal to comply with the
2) Jurisdiction of Labor Arbiters economic provisions of such agreement. The Commission,
its Regional Offices and the Regional Directors of the
Labor Code, Article 224 (217).
Department of Labor and Employment shall not entertain
Jurisdiction of Labor Arbiters and Commission. disputes, grievances or matters under the exclusive and
(a) Except as otherwise provided under this Code, the original jurisdiction of the Voluntary Arbitrator or panel of
Labor Arbiters shall have original and exclusive Voluntary Arbitrators and shall immediately dispose and
jurisdiction to hear and decide, within thirty (30) refer the same to the Grievance Machinery or Voluntary
calendar days after the submission of the case by the Arbitration provided in the Collective Bargaining
parties for decision without extension, even in the Agreement.
absence of stenographic notes, the following cases
involving all workers, whether agricultural or non-
agricultural:
1. Unfair labor practice cases; Jurisdiction over other labor disputes. – The Voluntary
2. Termination disputes; Arbitrator or panel of Voluntary Arbitrators, upon
3. If accompanied with a claim for reinstatement, agreement of parties, shall also hear and decide all other
those cases that workers may file involving wages, labor disputes including unfair labor practices &
rates of pay, hours of work and other terms and bargaining deadlocks.
conditions of employment;
4. Claims for actual, moral, exemplary and other
forms of damages arising from the employer- T&H Shopfitters Corp v T&H Queen Workers Union | 2014
employee relations;
Facts: Respondents had a formal meeting with their
5. Cases arising from any violation of Article 264
employer T&H Shopfitters to discuss the formation of a
(prohibited activities) of this Code, including
union however, the following day, 17 employees were
questions involving the legality of strikes and
barred from entering the employer’s factory premises.
lockouts; and
DOLE issued a certification in favor of the union. The
6. Except claims for Employees Compensation,
officers and members of the union were discriminated
Social Security, Medicare and maternity benefits,
against with regards to the conditions of employment.
all other claims arising from employer-employee
They were not given regular work assignments instead,
relations, including those of persons in domestic or
subcontractors were hired to perform their functions. They
household service, involving amount exceeding
were assigned as grass cutters on rotation basis. When the
P5, 000.00 regardless of whether accompanied
Company sponsored a trip a day before the certification
with a claim for reinstatement.
election but union officers and members were excluded
from going. During the said trip, the company
(b) The Commission shall have exclusive appellate
campaigned against the union in the certification
jurisdiction over all cases decided by Labor Arbiters.
election. On the day of the certification election, votes for
“no union” prevailed.
(c) C a s e s a r i s i n g f r o m t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o r
implementation of collective bargaining agreements
Jurisdictional issue: Factual findings of quasi–judicial
and those arising from the interpretation or
agencies that had acquired expertise in matters entrusted
enforcement of company personnel policies shall be
to their jurisdiction were accorded not only respect but
disposed of by the Labor Arbiter by referring the same
finality if they were supported by substantial evidence.
to the grievance machinery and voluntary arbitration
NLRC considered the evidence and applied the law in this
as may be provided in said agreements.
case, thus, no grave abuse of discretion could be imputed
on its part.
Labor Code, Article. 274 (261).
Jurisdiction of Voluntary Arbitrators or panel of Voluntary See: Negros Metal Corp v Armelo J. Lamayo | 2010
Arbitrators. – The Voluntary Arbitrator or panel of Voluntary
Facts: Lamayo was terminated after 2 suspensions. He filed
Arbitrators shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction to
a complaint with LA for illegal dismissal. The company
hear and decide all unresolved grievances arising from
argued that LA had no jurisdiction since their CBA provides
the interpretation or implementation of the Collective
that such matter should be first brought to the company’s
Bargaining Agreement and those arising from the
grievance machinery.
interpretation or enforcement of company personnel
policies referred to in the immediately preceding article.

! 6
Held: LA had jurisdiction. Under Art. 217 of Labor Code, LA Commission, under pain of immediate disciplinary
has original and exclusive jurisdiction over termination action, including dismissal or loss of employment status
disputes. On the other hand, under Article 261, a voluntary or payment by the locking-out employer of
arbitrator has original and exclusive jurisdiction over backwages, damages and other affirmative relief,
grievances arising from the interpretation or enforcement even criminal prosecution against either or both of
of company policies. As a general rule then, termination them.
disputes should be brought before a labor arbiter, except
when the parties, under Art. 262, unmistakably express that The foregoing notwithstanding, the President of the
they agree to submit the same to voluntary arbitration. Philippines shall not be precluded from determining
the industries that, in his opinion, are indispensable to
the national interest, and from intervening at any time
and assuming jurisdiction over any such labor dispute
3) Jurisdiction of the Labor Secretary in order to settle or terminate the same.
Strikes, Picketing and Lockouts. – x x x

(g) When, in his opinion, there exists a labor dispute Asia Brewery, Inc v Tunay na Pagkakaisa | 2013
causing or likely to cause a strike or lockout in an
F: TPMA and Asia Brewery had been negotiating for a new
industry indispensable to the national interest, the
CBA but after 18 sessions, they were still unable to reach
SOLE may assume jurisdiction over the dispute and
an agreement. TPMA declared a deadlock and filed a
decide it or certify the same to the Commission for
notice of strike still, they did not reach an agreement. Asia
compulsory arbitration. Such assumption or
Brewery petitioned the SOLE to assume jurisdiction over
certification shall have the effect of automatically
their labor dispute. When SOLE assumed jurisdiction, TPMA
enjoining the intended or impending strike or lockout
filed a petition for certiorari with the CA imputing bad faith
as specified in the assumption or certification order. If
and grave abuse of discretion to the SOLE and praying for
one has already taken place at the time of
the nullification of the order of assumption of jurisdiction
assumption or certification, all striking or locked out
and assailing the arbitral award.
employees shall immediately resume operations and
readmit all workers under the same terms and
H: A collective bargaining dispute such as this one requires
conditions prevailing before the strike or lockout. The
due consideration and proper balancing of the interests of
SOLE or the Commission may seek the assistance of
the parties to the dispute and of those who might be
law enforcement agencies to ensure compliance with
affected by the dispute. To our mind, the best way in
this provision as well as with such orders as he may
approaching this task holistically is to consider the
issue to enforce the same.
available objective facts, including, where applicable,
factors such as the bargaining history of the company, the
In line with the national concern for and the highest
trends and amounts of arbitrated and agreed wage
respect accorded to the right of patients to life and
awards and the company’s previous CBAs and industry
health, strikes and lockouts in hospitals, clinics and
trends in general.
similar medical institutions shall, to every extent
possible, be avoided, and all serious efforts, not only
by labor and management but government as well,
be exhausted to substantially minimize, if not prevent, 4) RTC Jurisdiction
their adverse effects on such life and health, through GR: RTC has no jurisdiction in disputes involving an
the exercise, however legitimate, by labor of its right to
employer-employee relationship (Halaguena v PAL)
strike and by management to lockout. In labor
disputes adversely affecting the continued operation
Exceptions: RTC may have jurisdiction when
of such hospitals, clinics or medical institutions, it shall
be the duty of the striking union or locking-out (1) the principal relief cannot be resolved with only the
employer to provide and maintain an effective application of labor law as it is outside the competence
skeletal workforce of medical and other health and expertise of the LAs and the NLRC OR
personnel, whose movement and services shall be (2) the dispute is not between the Union and the
unhampered and unrestricted, as are necessary to Company, but between specific employees and the
insure the proper and adequate protection of the life Company.
and health of its patients, most especially emergency
cases, for the duration of the strike or lockout. In such Halaguena v PAL | 2009
cases, therefore, the SOLE may immediately assume,
within 24 hours from knowledge of the occurrence of Facts: Several female flight attendants of PAL questioned
such a strike or lockout, jurisdiction over the same or the validity of a provision of the PAL- FASAP CBA providing
certify it to the Commission for compulsory arbitration. for the compulsory retirement of cabin attendants
For this purpose, the contending parties are strictly (females had a younger retirement age). Eventually, they
enjoined to comply with such orders, prohibitions and/ filed a case with the RTC, which issued an order upholding
or injunctions as are issued by the SOLE or the its jurisdiction over the case.

! 7
VIII. Unfair Labor Practice

Held: The RTC has jurisdiction over the case because.
Although the general rule is that the RTC has no jurisdiction A. IN GENERAL
in disputes involving an employer- employee relationship, Why are ULPs punished? (Labor Code, Art. 247)
the resolution of the issue here entails not only the • Violation of constitutional right to self-
application of labor law. Rather, the primary relief sought organization
involves the question of constitutionality and legality under • Inimical to the legitimate interests of both
international law (Convention Eliminating All Forms of labor and management
Discrimination Against Women or CEDAW). The labor • Disrupt industrial peace
relationship here is only incidental or secondary.
• Hinder promotion of healthy and stable labor-
management –relations
5) Proper Balancing of Interests in CB Disputes • Both violations of labor and management’s
Asia Brewery Inc v TPMA | 2013, supra pg. 15 civil rights AND criminal offenses against the
State
1. Definition and Primary Concept

Labor Code, Art. 219
Definitions. – x x x
(k) “Unfair labor practice” means any ULP as expressly
defined by the Code.
Labor Code, Art. 257 (246).
Non-abridgement of Right to Self-Organization. – It shall be

unlawful for any person to restrain, coerce, discriminate
against or unduly interfere with employees and workers in
their exercise of the right to self-organization. Such right
shall include the right to form, join, or assist labor
organizations for the purpose of collective bargaining
through representatives of their own choosing and to
engage in lawful concerted activities for the same
purpose for their mutual aid and protection, subject to the
provisions of Article 264 of this Labor Code. (As amended
by BP Blg 70, May 1, 1980)
Concept of Unfair Labor Practice and Procedure for

Prosecution Thereof. – Unfair labor practices violate the
constitutional right of workers and employees to self-
organization, aare inimical to the legitimate interests of
both labor and management, including their right to
bargain collectively and otherwise deal with each other in
an atmosphere of freedom and mutual respect, disrupt
industrial peace and hinder the promotion of healthy and
stable labor-management relations.
Consequently, unfair labor practices are not only violations

of the civil rights of both labor and management but are
also criminal offenses against the State which shall be
subject to prosecution and punishment as herein
provided.
Subject to the exercise by the President or by the

Secretary of Labor and Employment of the powers vested
in them by Articles 263 and 264 of this Code, the civil
aspects of all cases involving unfair labor practices, which
may include claims for actual, moral, exemplary and other
forms of damages, attorney’s fees and other affirmative

! 8
interest, and not exercised in a malicious,

relief, shall be under the jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiters.
harsh, oppressive, vindictive, or wanton
The Labor Arbiters shall give utmost priority to the hearing
manner. (Azucena)
and resolution of all cases involving unfair labor practices.
They shall resolve such cases within 30 days from the time • The law on ULP is not intended to deprive
they are submitted for decision. employers of their fundamental right to
prescribe rules they honestly believe to be
Recovery of civil liability in the administrative proceedings necessary to the proper operation of their
shall bar recovery under the Civil Code. business
No criminal prosecution under this Title may be instituted Labor Code, Article 278 (263) (g). supra pg. 15
without a final judgment finding that an unfair labor
practice was committed, having been first obtained in the T&H Shopfitters Corp v T&H Queen Workers Union | 2014,
preceding paragraph. During the pendency of such supra pg. 14
administrative proceeding, the running of the period of
prescription of the criminal offense herein penalized shall I: W/N Company is liable for unfair labor practice – YES
be considered interrupted: Provided, however, That the Test whether an employer has interfered with and coerced
final judgment in the administrative proceedings shall not employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization:
be binding in the criminal case nor be considered as whether the employer has engaged in conduct which, it
evidence of guilty but merely as proof of compliance of may reasonably be said, tends to interfere with the free
the requirements therein set forth. (As amended by BP Blg exercise of employees’ rights; and that it is not necessary
70, May 1, 1980 and later further amended by Sec 19, RA that there be direct evidence that any employee was in
6715, March 21, 1989). fact intimidated or coerced by statements of threats of
the employer if there is a reasonable inference that anti-
union conduct of the employer does have an adverse
See again: Minette Baptista et al v Rosario Villanueva | effect on self-organization and collective bargaining.
2013
Facts: Three complaints were filed against petitioners for The various acts of petitioners, taken together, reasonably
alleged violation of the Union’s Constitution and By-laws. support an inference that, indeed, such were all
Petitioners were then expelled from the union. orchestrated to restrict respondents’ free exercise of their
Respondents requested the management to serve the right to self-organization.
petitioners notices of termination from employment in
compliance with the CBA’s union security clause. See: Nelson Culili v Eastern Telecomm Phil Inc | 2011
Petitioners now filed complaints for ULP against
respondents questioning the legality of their expulsion from Facts: Nelson Culili was employed by respondent Eastern
the union and their subsequent termination. Telecomm Phil. Due to business troubles and losses, ETPI
was compelled to implement a Right-Sizing Program which
H: No ULP committed. Workers’ and employers’ consisted of two phases: (1) reduction of ETPI’s workforce
organizations shall have the right to draw up their to only those employees that were necessary and which
constitutions and rules to elect their representatives, to ETPI could sustain; and (2) company-wide reorganization
organize their administration and activities and to which would result in the transfer, merger, absorption or
formulate their programs. The Union’s constitution abolition of certain departments of ETPI. One of the
mandate that before seeking the intervention of the court, positions that were abolished was Culili’s position. Now,
they should avail of all the internal remedies within the Culili is asserting that ETPI is guilty of ULP.
organization first. Petitioners had violated this when they
filed petitions for impeachment before the DOLE without H: There is no showing that ETPI, in implementing its Right-
first exhausting all internal remedies available within their Sizing Program, was motivated by ill will, bad faith or
organization. Such violation, being a ground for expulsion, malice, or that it was aimed at interfering with its
justifies the expulsion of the petitioners. Their dismissal was employees’ right to to self-organization. In fact, ETPI
not a deliberate attempt to curtail or restrict their right to negotiated and consulted with the SEBA before
organize. implementing the program. Culili’s termination being for
an authorized cause and absent bad faith on ETPI’s part in
implementing the Right-Sizing Program, ETPI is not guilty of
ULP.
2. ULP vis-à-vis Management Prerogative; Exception
An act may not be considered a ULP if it’s a valid exercise
of management prerogative. See: San Miguel Corp Employees Union v Hon. Bersamira &
• Management may regulate, according to its SMC | 1990
discretion or judgment, all aspects of F: San Miguel entered into contracts with Lipercon and
employment, as long as it’s exercised in good D’Rite which are independent contractors. It was expressly
faith for the advancement of the employer’s agreed that the workers employed by the contractors

! 9
were to be deemed employees or agents of San Miguel. Union. They alleged that the petitioner had refused to
No employer-employee relation was to established negotiate an agreement with them and had
between San Miguel and the contractors/workers. discriminated against them with regards to their tenure of
Petitioner Union advised San Miguel that some Lipercon employment by dismissing them because of their union
and D’Rite workers had signed up for union membership and union activities, LA found petitioner to be the
and sought the regularization of their employment with employer and is guilty of ULP.
SMC. Union filed a notice of strike for ULP, CBA violations
and union busting, because of their failure to receive H: In applying the four-fold test, it becomes clear that the
favorable response from San Miguel, demanding that the petitioner is NOT the employer of the private respondents.
contractual workers be regularized. San Miguel filed a The contract between the parties had expired. To hold the
complaint for damages before the RTC Court to enjoin the complaining members of the agency as the employees of
Union from representing and/or acting for and in behalf of the petitioner would violate the petitioner’s exclusive
the employees of LIPERCON and/or D'RITE. Union then filed prerogative to determine whether it should enter into a
a motion to dismiss on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. security service contract or not. In view of the finding that
there is no EER between the petitioner and the members
HELD: of the agency, it necessarily follows that petitioner cannot
SC recognizes the proprietary right of San Mig to be guilty of ULP.
determine whether it should contract out the
performance of some of its work to independent
contractors. However, the rights of all workers to self- b. Act must be specifically denied in the law
organization, collective bargaining and negotiations, and Labor Code, Art. 259 (248)
peaceful concerted activities, including the right to strike
Unfair Labor Practices of Employers. – It shall be unlawful
in accordance with law (Section 3, Article XIII, 1987 Const.)
for an employer to commit any of the following unfair
equally call for recognition and protection. Those interests
labor practice:
must be placed in proper perspective and equilibrium.
(a) To interfere with, restrain or coerce employees in the
exercise of their right to self-organization;
3. Requisites
a. Employer-employee Relationship (b) To require as a condition of employment that a person
o Why? ULP is a violation of the right to self- or an employee shall not join a labor organization or
shall withdraw from one to which he belongs;
organize, a right exercisable by employees in
relation to their employer (Azucena) (c) To contract out services or functions being performed
o Art. 246 (non-abridgment of right to self- by union members when such will interfere with,
organization) says “any person,” so ULPs may also restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of their
be committed by the employer’s representative or rights to self-organization;
agent.
(d) To initiate, dominate, assist or otherwise interfere with
Sterling Products Int Inc v Loreta Sol & CIR | 1963 the formation or administration of any labor
organization, including the giving of financial or other
F: Respondent Loreta Sol charged petitioners with having support to it or its organizers or supporters;
committed acts constituting ULP. She was subsequently
dismissed without just cause. Petitioner alleged that (e) To discriminate in regard to wages, hours of work and
complainant is an independent contractor and that she other terms and conditions of employment in order to
was dismissed because her services were no longer encourage or discourage membership in any labor
required. organization. Nothing in this Code or in any other law
H: Although respondent Sol was found to be a regular shall stop the parties from requiring membership in a
employee, she was not connected with any labor union, recognized collective bargaining agent as a
the company cannot be considered as having committed condition for employment, except those employees
acts constituting unfair labor practice as defined in the who are already members of another union at the
Industrial Peace Act, Rep. Act 875. time of the signing of the collective bargaining
agreement. Employees of an appropriate bargaining
See: American President Lines Inc v Hon Clave | 1982 unit who are not members of the recognized
collective bargaining agent may be assessed a
F: Maritime Security Union and petitioner entered into a reasonable fee equivalent to the dues and other fees
contract whereby the former would guard and protect paid by members of the recognized collective
the latter’s vessels. The contract was for a term of 1 year, bargaining agent, if such non-union members accept
which was terminated after it had run such term. A new the benefits under the collective bargaining
contract was executed by petitioner with Philippine Scout agreement: Provided, that the individual authorization
Veterans Security and Investigation Agency. A complaint required under Article 242, paragraph (o) of this Code
against petitioner for ULP was filed by Maritime Security

! 0
shall not apply to the nonmembers of the recognized The provisions of the preceding paragraph
collective bargaining agent; notwithstanding, only the officers, members of governing
boards, representatives or agents or members of labor
(f) To dismiss, discharge or otherwise prejudice or associations or organizations who have actually
discriminate against an employee for having given or participated in, authorized or ratified unfair labor practices
being about to give testimony under this Code; shall be held criminally liable. (As amended by BP Blg 130,
Aug. 21, 1981).
(g) To violate the duty to bargain collectively as
prescribed by this Code;
(h) To pay negotiation or attorney’s fees to the union or its 4. Burden of Proof
officers or agents as part of the settlement of any issue Basically, the burden of proof is on the party which alleges
in collective bargaining or any other dispute; or ULP.
• The union has the burden of proof to present
(i) To violate a collective bargaining agreement. substantial evidence to support its ULP
allegations against management. (Schering
The provisions of the preceding paragraph Employees v. Schering Plough)
notwithstanding, only the officers and agents of
corporations, associations or partnerships who have Schering Employees Labor Union & Lucia Sereneo v
actually participated in, authorized or ratified unfair labor
Schering Plough Corp | 2005
practices shall be held criminally liable. (As amended by
BP Blg 130, Aug. 21, 1981). F: Petitioner was employed by respondent company.
When she was elected president of petitioner union and
started the renegotiation with respondent company on
the CBA, respondents suddenly became dissatisfied with
Unfair Labor Practices of Labor Organizations. – It shall be her sales performance. Petitioner SELU filed a notice of
unfair labor practice for a labor organization, its officers, strike on the grounds of ULP and union busting before the
agents or representatives: NCMB which was denied. Subsequently, respondents
terminated petitioner’s services for loss of trust and
(a) To restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of their confidence.
r i g h t t o s e l f - o r g a n i z a t i o n . H o w e v e r, a l a b o r
organization shall have the right to prescribe its own H: After a review of the records, it was found that she
rules with respect to the acquisition or retention of actually falsified company call cards by altering the dates
membership; of her visits to physicians. She was found guilty of
misappropriation of company funds by falsifying food
(b) To cause or attempt to cause an employer to receipts. She had breached the trust reposed in her by
discriminate against an employee, including respondents. It is the union who had the burden of proof to
discrimination against an employee with respect to present substantial evidence to support its allegations of
whom membership in such organization has been ULP committed by management. It is not enough that the
denied or to terminate an employee on any ground union believed that the employer committed acts of ULP
other than the usual terms and conditions under which when the circumstances clearly negate even a prima
membership or continuation of membership is made facie showing to warrant such a belief.
available to other members;
(c) To violate the duty, or refuse to bargain collectively

5. Construction/Interpretation
with the employer, provided it is the representative of
the employees; In case of doubt, labor laws should be interpreted in favor
of labor and in favor of the safety and decent living for the
(d) To cause or attempt to cause an employer to pay or laborer.
deliver or agree to pay or deliver any money or other
things of value, in the nature of an exaction, for Labor Code, Art. 4
services which are not performed or not to be
Construction in Favor of Labor. – All doubts in the
performed, including the demand for a fee for union
implementation and interpretation of the provisions of this
negotiations;
Code, including its implementing rules and regulations,
shall be resolved in favor of labor.
(e) To ask for or accept negotiation or attorney’s fees
from employers as part of the settlement of any issue
in collective bargaining or any other dispute; NCC, Art. 1700
(f) To violate a collective bargaining agreement. The relations between capital and labor are not merely
contractual. They are so impressed with public interest that

! 1
labor contracts must yield to the common good. protected for they were engaged in concerted activity, in
Therefore, such contracts are subject to the special laws the exercise of their right of self-organization that includes
on labor unions, collective bargaining, strikes and lockouts, concerted activity for mutual aid and protection,
closed shop, wages, working conditions, hours of labor interference with which constitutes ULP under section 4(a)
and similar subjects. (1). The joining in protests or demands, even by a small
group of EEss, if in furtherance of their interests as such, is a
concerted activity protected by the Industrial Peace Act.
NCC, Art. 1702 It is not necessary that union activity be involved or that
In case of doubt, all labor legislation and all labor collective bargaining be contemplated.
contracts shall be construed in favor of the safety and
decent living for the laborer. Concurring Opinion | Fernando, J.
A more diplomatic approach could have been
attempted or at the very least, the procedure indicated
Caltex Filipino Managers and Supervisors Assn v CIR | 1972 for the adjustment of a grievance could have been
followed. No party adopts in its initial stages, a hard-line
F: Petitioner was a labor organization of supervisors in the position from which there can be no retreat. Rs as labor
Company. When petitioner informed the Company of the leaders appeared adamantine in their attitude to
petitioner’s registration, the Company inquired on the terminate the services of the then president of the
position titles of the employees which the Association Republic Savings Bank. Nor did they mince words in
sought to represent. Company initiated certification describing his alleged misdeeds. They were quite certain
proceeding so as to remove any question with regard to that he had offended most grievously. They wanted him
position titles that should be included in the bargaining out. There was no room for discussion. This was not
unit. P then filed a notice to strike due to union busting bargaining as traditionally and commonly understood. The
which was evidenced by discrimination, intimidation and employees did not even follow the procedure set forth for
providing benefits against the presence of a SEBA. Judge adjusting grievances.
Tabigne cautioned the parties to maintain the status quo;
he specifically advised the employees not to go on strike, BUT, under the circumstances, the supervisors union, the
making it clear, however, that in the presence of unfair Republic Savings Bank EEs union, the Republic Savings
labor practices they could go on strike even without any Bank security guards union, and the Republic Savings Bank
notice. supervisors union were left leaderless. The dismissal
Petitioner continued with the strike and even filed another amounted to "interference, restraint or coercion" as
case for ULP against the Company. prohibited in the Industrial Peace Act.
H: Judge “advice” not to strike to the Association during

the hearing does not amount to valid order. To say that it 7. Jurisdiction of Labor Arbiters
was an order would be to concede that the respondent Labor Code, Art. 257 (246), supra pg. 16
court could validly enjoin strike. The return-to-work Labor Code, Art. 224 (217), supra pg. 14
agreement was in the nature of a partial compromise
between the parties and a labor contract. When the Allan Mendoza v Officers of Manila Water Employees
Company unqualifiedly bound itself in the return-to-work Union | 2016
agreement that all employees will be taken back “with
the same employee status,” the Company made manifest Petitioner was a member of MWEU while respondents were
its intention and conformity not to proceed with the case MWEU officers. MWEU informed petitioner that the union
relating to the illegality of the strike incident. was unable to deduct the increased union dues from his
salary because of lack of check-off authorization. When
he still failed to pay, he was charged for violation of the
union’s constitution and by-laws. After the hearing of the
6. Inter-relations of UPL Acts charge against him, the grievance committee
Labor Code, Art. 259-260. supra pg. 18-19 recommended his suspension which was “unanimously
approved” by the union’s Executive Board. He was
Republic Savings Bank v CIR | 1967 suspended for the second time and was subsequently
expelled from the union for his failure to pay union dues.
F: Respondents were employees of Petitioner Republic
He then tried to join another union where he was elected
Savings Bank. The Company discharged the petitioners for
Union President BUT MWEU proposed a CBA containing
having written and published a “patently libelous letter”
provisions disadvantageous to non-MWEU members.
which the respondents had written to the bank president,
Complaint then filed against respondents for ULP.
demanding his designation on the grounds of
discrimination. A complaint was filed in CIR, which
H: Inter-union dispute refers to any conflict between and
subsequently found the company guilty of ULP.
among legitimate labor unions involving representation
questions for purposes of collective bargaining or to any
H: Assuming that Rs acted in their individual capacities
other conflict or dispute between legitimate labor unions.
when they wrote the letter-charge they were nonetheless

! 2
education with emphasis on the policy thrusts of this Code.

Intra-union dispute refers to any conflict between and (As amended by Sec 33, RA 6715, March 21, 1989)
among union members, including grievances arising from
any violation of the rights and conditions of membership,
violation of or disagreement over any provision of the Labor Code, Art. 260 (249) (a), supra pg. 19
union’s constitution and by-laws, or disputes arising from
chartering or affiliation of union. Allan Mendoza v Officers of MWEU | 2016
Re: Interference, Restrain and Coercion

Although some of petitioner’s causes of action constitute
intra-union cases cognizable by the BLR, petitioner’s
Petitioner was illegally suspended for the second time and
charge of ULP falls within the original and exclusive
thereafter unlawfully expelled due to respondents’ failure
jurisdiction of the LA, pursuant to Art 217 (now 224) of the
to act on his written appeals. Board must first act on his
LC.
two appeals before the matter could properly be referred
to the general membership. Because respondents did not
act on his two appeals, petitioner was unceremoniously
B. ACTS VIOLATIVE OF RIGHT TO SELF-ORGANIZATION suspended, disqualified and deprived of his right to run for
the position of MWEU Vice-President, expelled from MWEU,
1. Interference, Restraint and Coercion and forced to joint another union. For these, respondents
are guilty of ULP under Article 249 (a) and (b) – violation of
Aside from the fact that Art. 259 refers to ULPs committed
petitioner’s right to self-organization, unlawful
by employers while Art. 260 refers to ULPs committed by
discrimination, and illegal termination of his union
labor organizations, one notable difference between the 2 membership. Such being the case, it falls within the original
provisions is the word “interfere.” and exclusive jurisdiction of the LA.
• “Interfere” is not included in Art. 260 because
any act of a labor organization amounts to
interference with the right to self-organization. See again: T&H Shopfitters Corp v T&H Queen Workers
(Bar Ops 2007 reviewer) Union | 2014, supra pg. 14
Labor Code, Art. 259 (248) (a), supra pg. 18 See: Prince Transport, Inc & R. Claros v Diosdado Garcia et
al | 2011
F : R e s p o n d e n t s w e r e e m p l o y e e s o f p e t i t i o n e r.
Exclusive Bargaining Representation and Workers’ Respondents used to receive commissions but when they
Participation in Policy and Decision-Making. – The labor were reduced from 8-10% to 7-9&, the respondents held a
organization designated or selected by the majority of the series of meetings to protect their interests. This led
employees in an appropriate collective bargaining unit petitioner to suspect that the respondents are about to
shall be the exclusive representative of the employees in form a union. He made known his objection to the
such unit for the purpose of collective bargaining. formation of such. In order to block the continued
However, an individual employee or group of employees formation of the union, PTI caused the transfer of all union
shall have the right at any time to present grievances to members and sympathizers to one of its sub-companies,
their employer. Lubas Transport (Lubas).
Later, the business of Lubas deteriorated because of the

Labor Code, Art. 292 (277) refusal of PTI to maintain and repair the units being used
therein, which resulted in the virtual stoppage of its
Miscellaneous Provisions. –
operations and respondents' loss of employment.
(g) The Ministry shall help promote and gradually develop,
Respondents now charged petitioners with illegal dismissal,
with the agreement of labor organizations and employers,
ULP and illegal deductions.
labor-management cooperation programs at appropriate
levels of the enterprise based on the shared responsibility
H: Lubas is a mere agent, conduit or adjunct of PTI. A
and mutual respect in order to ensure industrial peace
settled formulation of the doctrine of piercing the
and improvement in productivity working conditions and
corporate veil is that when two business enterprises are
the quality of working life. (Incorporated by BP Blg 130,
owned, conducted and controlled by the same parties,
Aug 21, 1981)
both law and equity will, when necessary to protect the
rights of third parties, disregard the legal fiction that these
(h) In establishments where no legitimate labor
two entities are distinct and treat them as identical or as
organization exists, labor-management committees may
one and the same. Although Lubas is a single
be formed voluntarily by workers and employers for the
proprietorship and not a corporation, petitioners’ attempt
purpose of promoting industrial peace. The DOLE shall
to hide behind the supposed separate and distinct
endeavor to enlighten and educate the workers and
personality of Lubas so as to evade their liabilities is
employers on their rights and responsibilities through labor

! 3
precisely what the doctrine of piercing the veil of been questioning their employees regarding their
corporate entity seeks to prevent and remedy. membership in the union.
Respondents’ transfer of work assignments to Lubas was H: Petitioners are guilty of ULP. CIR had found that
designed by petitioners as a subterfuge to foil the former’s petitioners subjected Nena Micaller and her co-
right to organize themselves into a union. An employer is employees to a series of questioning regarding their
guilty of unfair labor practice if it interferes with, restrains or membership in the union or their union activities which, in
coerces its employees in the exercise of their right to self- contemplation of law, are deemed acts constituting ULP.
organization or if it discriminates in regard to wages, hours
of work and other terms and conditions of employment in In the American case of NLRB v Harris-Woodson Co., it was
order to encourage or discourage membership in any held that questioning of employees concerning union
labor organization. membership and activities and disparaging remarks by
supervisory employees made in such a way as to hamper
the exercise of free choice on the part of the employees,
See also: Park Hotel v Manolo Soriano et al. | 2012 have been uniformly condemned as a violation of the
F: Respondents were hired by Petitioner Park Hotel and Act.
were later transferred to Burgos Corporation, a sister
company of Park Hotel. They were dismissed from work for See: Philippine Steam Navigation Co v Phil Marine Officers
allegedly stealing company properties. Respondents then Guild
filed complaints for illegal dismissal, alleging that the
reason for their dismissal was that they were organizing a F: Respondent PHILMOG is a labor union affiliated with the
union. Federation of Free Workers representing some of
PHILSTEAM’s officers. Cebu Seamen’s Association (CSA) is
H: Article 248 (a) of the Labor Code considers it an unfair another labor union representing some of PHILSTEAM’s
labor practice when an employer interferes, restrains or officers. PHILSTEAM demanded proof that PMOG
coerces employees in the exercise of their right to self- represented the majority of its employees and started its
organization or the right to form an association. In order to own investigation even before PMOG could reply to the
show that the employer committed unfair labor practice demand. PMOG eventually filed a notice of strike alleging
under the Labor Code, substantial evidence is required to ULP on the part of PHILSTEAM.
support the claim. From the evidence presented,
respondents were already transferred to Burgos. Park Hotel H: PHILSTEAM did indeed commit unfair labor practices by
cannot be made liable for illegal dismissal as it no longer interfering with its employees’s exercise of the right to self-
had Soriano in its employ at the time he was dismissed organization. A company subjecting its employees to a
from work. series of questions regarding their membership in the union
or their union activities in such a way as to hamper the
exercise of free choice on their part constituted unfair
labor practice.
a. Interrogation/series of questionings re: Union
Memberships
BLUE FLASH DOCTRINE b. Speech, Espionage, Economic Coercion

An employee is not denied the privilege of (Note: Test in ULP – Totality of conduct doctrine)
interrogating its employees as to their union affiliation,
provided the same is for a legitimate purpose and Speech
assurance is given by the employer that no reprisals would o A company commits ULP when it writes letters to
be taken against unionists. employees containing “bribes” and threats of
dismissal to induce strikers to return to work. Such
• Questioning of employees concerning union letters, when taken together with the other
membership and activities, made in such a circumstances, aren’t protected by the free
way as tohamper the exercise of free choice speech provisions of the Constitution(Insular Life
on the part of the employees, constitutes ULP Assurance Co., Ltd. Employees Association v.
(Scoty’s v. Miller; Philippine Steam Navigation Insular Life Assurance Co., Ltd.).
Co. v. Philippine Marine Officers Guild)
Espionage
Scoty’s Department Store v Micaller | 1956 o A company commits ULP when there is good
ground to believe that a former union member
F: Micaller was employed in Scoty’s Department Store. She was made to spy on union activities and testify
filed ULP charges against her employers after she was
against union members on behalf of the
dismissed allegedly because of her membership in the
company.(Insular Life Assurance Co., Ltd.,
National Labor Union. Prior to her separation, they had

! 4
Employees Association v. Insular Life Assurance

Co., Ltd.) Philippine Blooming Mills Employees Organization v
Economic coercion Philippine Blooming Mills Co
o A company commits ULP when it offers “bribes,”
Facts: PBMEO carried out a mass demonstration at
e.g. bonuses to “loyal” employees and wage
Malacañang in protest against alleged abuses of the
increases to strikers in exchange for returning to
Pasig police department. PBMEO gave the company two
work. days' prior notice. Company insisted that the first shift
workers should not be required to participate in the
The Insular Life Assurance Co Ltd., Employees Association demonstration and that the workers in the second and
v Insular Life Assurance Co. Ltd third shifts should be utilized for the demonstration from 6
A.M. to 2 P.M. CIR ruled that PBMEO guilty of bargaining in
Facts: Unions jointly submitted proposals to modify the
bad faith and its officers were ordered to be dismissed.
renewal of their respective CBAs. Negotiations were
conducted but there was a deadlock. The Unions
Held: The Company is guilty of unfair labor practice as
eventually went on strike. To try and get the employees
defined in the Industrial Peace Act (RA 875). Section 3
back to work, the Companies sent two letters. In the first,
guarantees to the employees the right "to engage in
they “bribed” the workers with promises of free meals,
concert activities for ... mutual aid or protection". Section
comfortable cots, overtime pay, free coffee and
4(a-1) regards as an unfair labor practice for an employer
occasional movies, as well as more benefits for their
interfere with, restrain or coerce employees in the exercise
families while in the second, they subtly threatened the
their rights guaranteed in Section Three. It is not necessary
strikers by saying that they could no longer hold the
that union activity be involved or that collective
strikers’ positions open and by giving an ultimatum. The
bargaining be contemplated as long as the concerted
Companies also attempted to break the picket lines, filed
activity is for the furtherance of their interests. The mass
criminal charges against some strikers, and used two of
demonstration was for their mutual aid and protection
their employees who were the former legal counsels of the
against alleged police abuses. Hence, the company’s
Unions.
action constituted as interference to their right to engage
in concerted activity.
Held: Companies were guilty of violating the employees’
right to organize, form and join labor organizations. They
committed unwarranted acts of interference in trying to
“bribe” the strikers to go back to work, threatening them 2. Non-Union Membership or Withdrawal from Membership
with eventual dismissal, and in utilizing the former legal as a condition of Employment (yellow-dog contract)
counsels of the Unions in negotiations. The letters
containing such bribes and threats, when taken together
“Yellow-dog contract”
with other circumstances, are not covered by the free
• Promise exacted from workers or prospective
speech provisions of the Constitution. Court also said that
employees that they will not belong to nor form a union
the ff. were likewise violative of the right to self-
organization: the offer of a Christmas bonus to all "loyal" during their employment (Azucena)
employees of a company shortly after the making of a
request by the union to bargain; wage increases given for A company commits ULP when it refuses to admit seasonal
the purpose of mollifying employees after the employer workers (whose services it had engaged in previous
has refused to bargain with the union, or for the purpose of seasons) belonging to a particular union, and tells such
inducing striking employees to return to work; the workers that they must leave that union if they want to
employer's promises of benefits in return for the strikers' continue working for the company (Visayan Stevedore
abandonment of their strike in support of their union; and Trans. Co. v. CIR)
the employer's statement, made about 6 weeks after the
strike started, to a group of strikers in a restaurant to the Labor Code, Art. 259 (248)
effect that if the strikers returned to work, they would
receive new benefits in the form of hospitalization, Unfair labor practices of employers. – It shall be unlawful
accident insurance, profit-sharing, and a new building to for an employer to commit any of the following unfair
work in. There was also good ground to believe that a labor practice:
former union member was made to spy on union activities xxx
and testify against union members on behalf of the b. To require as a condition of employment that a person
company. or an employee shall not join a labor organization or shall
withdraw from one to which he belongs;
xxx
c. Concerted Activities
A company commits ULP when it does not permit all of its
employees to join a mass demonstration against alleged Visayan Stevedore Trans. Co. v CIR & UFWA | 1967
police abuses (Philippine Blooming Mills v. Philippine
Facts: VISTRANCO’s workers were supplied by UFWA, a
Blooming Mills Employees Organization) labor organization. The laborers have regularly worked for

! 5
the company during every milling seasons. One day the Technology Solutions, Inc. (I-tech), a corporate arm of
company refused to engage the services of respondents. Digitel. The timing of the creation of I-tech is dubious. It
According to the respondents, it was because of their was incorporated while the labor dispute within Digitel was
union activities, but the Company was arguing that they pending. I-tech’s primary purpose was to provide call
were not its employees but workers whose services were center/customer contact service, the same service
merely supplied to them by UFWA. provided by Digiserv. It conducts its business inside the
Digitel office. The former head of Digiserv is also an officer
Held: Regarding the charge of the ULP against the of I-tech. Thus, when Digiserv was closed down, some of
company, such charge is substantially borne out by the the employees presumably non-union members were
evidence of record, it appearing that the workers which rehired by I-tech.
were not admitted to work were precisely those belonging
to the UFWA and the Branch Manager had told them The closure of Digiserv pending the existence of an
point-blank that severance of their connection with the assumption order coupled with the creation of a new
UFWA was the remedy if they wanted to continue working corporation performing similar functions as Digiserv leaves
with the company. This act done by the company is no iota of doubt that the target of the closure are the
considered ULP. union member-employees. These factual circumstances
prove that Digitel terminated the services of the affected
employees to defeat their security of tenure. The
3. Contracting out to Discourage Unionism termination of service was not a valid retrenchment; it was
Subcontracting is NOT always tantamount to ULP. an illegal dismissal of employees.
• When is it ULP? When it’s motivated by a
desire to prevent employees from
organizing(Azucena)
• When is it NOT ULP? If it’s done for business 4. Company Domination of Union
reasons (e.g. decline in business,inadequacy What’s a “company union”? (Art. 219)
of equipment, need to reduce cost) Any labor organization whose formation, function or
(Azucena) administration has been assisted by any act defined as
ULP by the Labor Code
Labor Code, Art. 259 (248). -
Common manifestations (Azucena, citing Philippine
Unfair labor practices of employers. – It shall be unlawful American Cigar):
for an employer to commit any of the following unfair • Initiation by the employer of the company union
labor practice: idea
xxx o Outright formation of the union by the employer
c. To contract out services or functions being performed o Employee formation of the union upon
by union members when such will interfere with, restrain or
employer’s demand/influence
coerce employees in the exercise of their rights to self-
o Employee formation motivated by management
organization;
xxx • Financial support to union
o Union expenses
o Attorney’s fees
Digital Telecommunications, Phil., Inc. v Digitel Employees • Employer encouragement and assistance
Union | 2012 o Immediately recognizing a union as SEBA without
F: The parties commenced collective bargaining first determining if it represents the majority
negotiations which resulted in a bargaining deadlock. • Supervisory assistance
Despite the SOLE order to execute a CBA, still, the parties o Soliciting membership
failed to come to an agreement. The Union later became o Permitting union activities during working hours
dormant. Ten years thereafter, Digitel received a letter
from the Union President detailing the list of officers, CBA Labor Code, Art. 259 (248).
proposals and ground rules. The company first demanded
that the Union show compliance with the provisions of the Unfair labor practices of employers. – It shall be unlawful
Union’s CBL on union membership and election of officers. for an employer to commit any of the following unfair
Complaint filed against Digitel for violation of the duty to labor practice:
bargain. During the pendency of the controversy, Digitel xxx
(Digiserv) filed with DOLE an Establishment Termination d. To initiate, dominate, assist or otherwise interfere with
Report, stating that it will cease its business operations, the formation or administration of any labor organization,
affecting at least 100 employees, 42 of whom are Union including the giving of financial or other support to it or its
members. organizers or supporters;
xxx
H: Bad faith was manifested by the timing of the closure of
Digiserv and the rehiring of some employees to Interactive

! 6
Labor Code, Art. 219.

recognized collective bargaining agent may be assessed
Definitions. – x x x a reasonable fee equivalent to the dues and other fees
(i) “Company union” means any labor organization whose paid by members of the recognized collective bargaining
formation, function or administration has been assisted by agent, if such non-union members accept the benefits
any act defined as unfair labor practice by this Code. under the collective bargaining agreement: Provided,
that the individual authorization required under Article 242,
paragraph (o) of this Code shall not apply to the
Progressive Development Corporation v CIR & ACGA | nonmembers of the recognized collective bargaining
1977 agent;
Facts: 48 ACEA employees were dismissed. ACEA filed a
complaint in behalf of the employees, asserting that they Labor Code, Article 260 (249).
were dismissed because of their failure to resign from
ACEA and refusal to associate with PEU. They also claim Unfair labor practices of labor organizations. –
that PEU was created by the company merely to stave off It shall be unfair labor practice for a labor organization, its
ACEA’s recognition. officers, agents or representatives: xxx
(b) To cause or attempt to cause an employer to
Held: SC ruled that based on the evidence presented and discriminate against an employee, including discrimination
the actions of PDC, it can be concluded that the against an employee with respect to whom membership
employees were indeed dismissed because of their refusal in such organization has been denied or to terminate an
to resign from ACEA and to affiliate with PEU. It was shown employee on any ground other than the usual terms and
that the company had a hand in the formation of PEU. It conditions under which membership or continuation of
can also be seen that PEU was organized to camouflage membership is made available to other members;
the company’s dislike for ACEA and to stave off their xxx
recognition.
a. Discriminatory discharge
5. Discrimination to Encourage/Discourage Unionism i. The finding of ULP and… do not follow solely by reason of
Discrimination in regard to terms and conditions of dismissal
employment If the main reason for discharging the employee is his
Why discriminate? union activities, then it doesn’t matter if a lawful cause of
• To discourage/encourage membership in a labor discharge is also available (not a defense)(Azucena)
organization
Echo 2000 Commercial Corporation v Obrero Filipino-Echo
Who commits ULP? 2000 Chapter-CLO | 2016
• The employer who discriminates F: Respondents were employees of petitioner company.
• The labor organization which causes or attempts to Echo, in the exercise of its management prerogative,
cause the employer to discriminate decided to reassign the staff after they received
information about shortages in peso value arising from the
Discrimination vs. differentiation/classification movement of products to and from its warehouse.
• There are valid differentiations based on differences in Respondents were transferred which entails no change in
job requirements. It’s not ULP when management ranks, status and salaries. Respondents Cortes and Somido
classifies jobs with varying pay/benefits. (Azucena) declined this offer of promotion as “Delivery Supervisor,”
saying that they were already happy and content with
Labor Code, Art. 259 (248). their current positions. Echo informed respondents of their
new designations and alleged that they did not perform
Unfair labor practices of employers. – the new duties assigned to them. Because of the
It shall be unlawful for an employer to commit any of the respondents’ continued refusal to perform their new
following unfair labor practice: duties, they were terminated.
xxx
e. To discriminate in regard to wages, hours of work and H: The offer of transfer is, in legal contemplation, a
other terms and conditions of employment in order to promotion which the respondents validly refused. Such
encourage or discourage membership in any labor refusal cannot be the basis for the respondents’ dismissal
organization. Nothing in this Code or in any other law shall from service. An employee is not bound to accept a
stop the parties from requiring membership in a promotion, which is in the nature of a gift or reward.
recognized collective bargaining agent as a condition for Refusal to be promoted is a valid exercise of a right, which
employment, except those employees who are already cannot be considered insubordination, or willful
members of another union at the time of the signing of the disobedience of a lawful order hence, it cannot be the
collective bargaining agreement. Employees of an basis of an employee’s dismissal from service.
appropriate bargaining unit who are not members of the

! 7
BUT Echo is not guilty of ULP. The respondents allege that Union shop May be Must Does not
their transfer/promotion was intended to deprive the Union hired even if become become
of leadership and membership. They claim that other not union union member
officers were already dismissed. The foregoing, however, member member after
lacks substantiation. Unfair labor practice is a serious after a reasonable
charge, and the respondents failed to show that the reasonable time
petitioners conclusively interfered with, restrained, or time
coerced employees in the exercise of their right to self-
organization. Maintenance Already a Must Disaffiliates
of union maintain from union
membership member at membership
b. Exception: Valid “discrimination”: union security clause time of
– requisites hiring
Union security clause
• In terminating the employment of an employee by
enforcing the union security clause, the employer General Milling Corp v Ernesto Casio | 2010
needs only to determine and prove that:
o The union security clause is applicable. Facts: Casio et al. were dismissed by GMC pursuant to
o The union is requesting for the enforcement their union’s resolution that they no longer enjoyed good
of the union security provision in the CBA standing within the collective.
o There is sufficient evidence to support the
decision of the union to expel the Held: The SC upheld the validity of the expulsion from the
union and subsequently, from work, pursuant to union
employee from the union (General Milling
security provisions in the CBA. However, GMC did not
Corp. v. Casio)
accord Casio et al. with due process when it effected the
termination.
i. closed shop
No person may be employed in any or certain agreed A closed shop may be defined as an enterprise in which,
departments of the enterprise unless he or she is, by agreement between the employer and his employees
becomes, and, for the duration of the agreement, remains or their representatives, no person may be employed in
a member in good standing of a union entirely comprised any or certain agreed departments of the enterprise
of or of which the employees in interest are a part(General unless he or she is, becomes, and, for the duration of the
Milling Corp. v. Casio) agreement, remains a member in good standing of a
union entirely comprised of or of which the employees in
ii. union shop interest are a part.
All new regular employees are required to join the union
In terminating the employment of an employee by
within a certain period as a condition for their continued
enforcing the union security clause, the employer needs
employment (Alabang Country Club, Inc. v. NLRC)
only to determine and prove that:
(1) the union security clause is applicable;
iii. maintenance of membership
Employees who are union members as of the effective (2) the union is requesting for the enforcement of the
date of the agreement, or who thereafter become union security provision in the CBA; and
members, must maintain union membership as a condition
for continued employment until they are promoted or (3) there is sufficient evidence to support the decision of
transferred out of the bargaining unit or the agreement is the union to expel the employee from the union.
terminated(Alabang Country Club, Inc. v. NLRC)
See: Alabang Country Club, Inc v NLRC | 2008
Summary of Union Security Clauses
Facts: Union officers were found to have malversed the
[Taken from BarOps 2007 Reviewer]
Union funds. The Union invoked the security clause in its
Hiring Continued Ground for CBA and asked the Club to terminate the officers
Employment Termination charged. The Club made its own investigation upon
receipt of the Union’s request that the 3 officers be
Closed shop Must Must be a If not a terminated. The officers were dismissed.
become union union
union member all member at Held: The dismissals were valid. The dismissal of the
member at thoughout anytime employees on the basis of a union security clause
time of embodied in the CBA is recognized and accepted in this
hiring jurisdiction. The terminated employees were also
accorded due process.

! 8
• Quasi-contractual, to prevent non-union

There is union shop when all new regular employees are
members’ unjust enrichment. (Del Pilar Academy,
required to join the union within a certain period as a
condition for their continued employment. et al. v. Del Pilar Academy Employees’ Union)
There is maintenance of membership shop when Del Pilar Academy, et al v Del Pilar Academy Employees
employees who are union members as of the effective Union | 2008
date of the agreement, or who thereafter become
Facts: The union successfully negotiated for additional
members, must maintain union membership as a condition
benefits under the CBA. The union asked Del Pilar that
for continued employment until they are promoted or
agency fees be deducted from the salaries of employees
transferred out of the bargaining unit or the agreement is
(who were not members of the union but benefited under
terminated.
the new CBA). Del Pilar refused. According to it, it was not
authorized by the employees to deduct agency fees from
See again: PICOP Resources, Inc v Taneca] | 2010 their salaries and that said benefits were not due to the
CBA alone but were mandated by law.
Facts: Employees were dismissed for alleged acts of
disloyalty which violates the union security clause in the Held: The agency fees should be deducted from the
CBA. The alleged acts were the signing of the employees salaries of non-members of the union who benefited
of the authorization of petition for certification election. under the CBA. No requirement of written authorization
The employees sued the employer for unfair labor from the non-union employees is necessary if the non-
practice. union employees accepted the benefits resulting from the
CBA. The employee's acceptance of benefits resulting
Held: They were illegally dismissed. The requisites for justifies the deduction of agency fees from his pay and the
terminating the employment of an employee were not union's entitlement thereto. The legal basis of the union's
met. There was not enough evidence to justify the right to agency fees is neither contractual nor statutory,
expulsion of the employees from the union. They merely but quasi-contractual, deriving from the established
signed authorizations and not actual petitions. Also, an principle that non-union employees may not unjustly
existing CBA does not constitute a bar to a petition for enrich themselves by benefiting from employment
certification election. conditions negotiated by the bargaining union.
6. Retaliatory discharge of Retaliation for Testimony

c. Collection of agency fees Against Employer/ Indirect Discrimination
Unfair labor practices of employers. – It shall be unlawful What constitutes retaliation?

for an employer to commit any of the following unfair • To dismiss, discharge or otherwise prejudice or
labor practice: discriminate against an employee for having given or
xxx being about to give testimony under the Labor Code
e. To discriminate in regard to wages, hours of work and • Employer’s motive is immaterial – may or may not
other terms and conditions of employment in order to have been motivated by anti-union attitude
encourage or discourage membership in any labor (Azucena)
organization. Nothing in this Code or in any other law shall • Nature of employee’s testimony is immaterial –
stop the parties from requiring membership in a may or may not pertain to union matter(Azucena)
recognized collective bargaining agent as a condition for
employment, except those employees who are already A company commits ULP when it drops an employee’s
members of another union at the time of the signing of the
grievance case after the employee testifies against the
collective bargaining agreement. Employees of an
company in a certification election hearing. (Itogon-
appropriate bargaining unit who are not members of the
recognized collective bargaining agent may be assessed Suyoc Mines, Inc. v. Baldo)
a reasonable fee equivalent to the dues and other fees
paid by members of the recognized collective bargaining Labor Code, Article 259 (248).
agent, if such non-union members accept the benefits
Unfair labor practices of employers. – It shall be unlawful
under the collective bargaining agreement: Provided,
for an employer to commit any of the following unfair
that the individual authorization required under Article 242,
labor practice:
paragraph (o) of this Code shall not apply to the
xxx
nonmembers of the recognized collective bargaining
(f) To dismiss, discharge or otherwise prejudice or
agent;
discriminate against an employee for having given or
xxx
being about to give testimony under this Code;
xxx
Note: legal basis: quasi-contractual/principle of
unjust enrichment

! 9
Itogon-Suyoc Mines Inc v Jose Baldo | 1964 • If there’s a CBA…

o Neither party shall modify or terminate the
Facts: Baldo was dismissed for no justifiable reason. There
agreement during its lifetime, but can
was ongoing certification election hearing. In exchange
for not testifying in the case, the labor relations officer of serve a written notice to do so at least 60
ISM offered to reinstate him. When he went on and days prior to its expiration date
testified against ISM, his own case before the grievance o Both parties must keep status quo during
committee was dropped. 60-day period prior to its expiration date
and/or until a new agreement is reached
Held: ISM is guilty of unfair labor practice. He didn’t do • If there’s no CBA…
anything grave to warrant dismissal. o Employer and representative of
employees still have duty to bargain
7. Illegal Exaction – Featherbedding collectively
• To cause or attempt to cause an employer to pay
Who commits ULP?
or deliver or agree to pay or deliver any money or
• Employer who violates duty to bargain
other things of value, in the nature of an exaction,
collectively
for services which are not performed or not to be
• Labor organization which violates duty to
performed, including the demand for fee for
union negotiations bargain collectively or refuses to bargain with
• Creating or spreading employment by employer, provided it’s the representative
unnecessarily maintaining or increasing the
number of employees or amount of time used for Labor Code, Article 259 (248).
a job (Azucena) Unfair labor practices of employers. –
It shall be unlawful for an employer to commit any of the
Why is it ULP? following unfair labor practice:
• Economically wasteful and without any legitimate xxx
employee justification (Azucena, citing Cox, Bok, g. To violate the duty to bargain collectively as prescribed
German, Cases and Materials on Labor Law) by this Code;
• In the case of union negotiation fees, the resulting xxx
CBA would probably be a “sweetheart contract”
i.e. one that doesn’t substantially improve Labor Code. Article 260 (249).
employees’
Unfair labor practices of labor organizations. –
Labor Code, Article 260 (249). It shall be unfair labor practice for a labor organization, its
officers, agents or representatives: xxx
Unfair labor practices of labor organizations. – It shall be (c) To violate the duty, or refuse to bargain collectively
unfair labor practice for a labor organization, its officers, with the employer, provided it is the representative of the
agents or representatives: xxx employees
(d) To cause or attempt to cause an employer to pay or xxx
deliver or agree to pay or deliver any money or other
things of value, in the nature of an exaction, for services
which are not performed or not to be performed, Labor Code, Article 261 (250).
including the demand for a fee for union negotiations Procedure in collective bargaining. –
xxx The following procedures shall be observed in collective
bargaining:
c. Acts Violative of Right to Collective Bargaining (a) When a party desires to negotiate an agreement, it
1. Violation of Duty to Bargain shall serve a written notice upon the other party with a
statement of its proposals. The other party shall make
Duty to bargain collectively
a reply thereto not later than 10 calendar days from
• Performance of a mutual obligation to meet and
receipt of such notice;
convene promptly and expeditiously in good faith
for the purpose of negotiating an agreement with (b) Should differences arise on the basis of such notice
respect to terms and conditions of employment, and reply, either party may request for a conference
including proposals for adjusting any grievances which shall begin not later than 10 calendar days from
or questions arising under such agreement, and the date of request.
executing a contract incorporating such
agreements, if requested by either party (c) If the dispute is not settled, the Board shall intervene
• Does NOT compel any party to agree to a upon request of either or both parties or at its own
proposal or to make any concession initiative and immediately call the parties to
conciliation meetings. The Board shall have the power

! 0
2) In case of differences, either party may request for

to issue subpoenas requiring the attendance of the
conference to be held within 10 days from request
parties to such meetings. It shall be the duty of the
3) If dispute not settled, NCMB may intervene and
parties to participate fully and promptly in the
conciliation meetings the Board may call; call for conciliation meetings
4) During conciliation, parties are prohibited from
(d) During the conciliation proceedings in the Board, the doing any act which may disrupt/impede early
parties are prohibited from doing any act which may settlement
disrupt or impede the early settlement of the disputes; 5) NCMB shall exert all efforts to settle all disputes
and (e) The Board shall exert all efforts to settle amicably and encourage parties to submit case
disputes amicably and encourage the parties to to voluntary arbitrator
submit their case to a voluntary arbitrator; and
A company cannot dissolve something provided for in the
(e) The Board shall exert all efforts to settle disputes existing CBA. The duty to bargain is a continuous process
amicably and encourage the parties to submit their which imposes on the parties the obligation to live up to
case to a voluntary arbitrator. (As amended by Sec
the terms of the agreement.(Shell Oil Workers Union v. Shell
20, RA 6715, March 21, 1989).
Co. of the Philippines, Ltd.)
Labor Code, Article 262 (251). During negotiations, management has a right to insist on its
position to the point of stalemate. Reaching an impasse
Duty to Bargain Collectively in the Absence of Collective
Bargaining Agreements. does not evidence bad faith. (Union of Filpro Employees –
In the absence of an agreement or other voluntary DFAI Unions KMU v. Nestle Phils., Inc.)
arrangement providing for a more expeditious manner of
collective bargaining, it shall be the duty of employer and Duty to resume negotiations
the representatives of the employees to bargain • While the law makes it an obligation for the
collectively in accordance with the provisions of this Code. employer and the employees to bargain
collectively with each other, such compulsion
does not include the commitment to
precipitately accept or agree to the
Meaning of Duty to Bargain Collectively. – proposals of the other. All it contemplates is
The duty to bargain collectively means the performance that both parties should approach the
of a mutual obligation to meet and convent promptly and negotiation with an open mind and make
expeditiously in good faith for the purpose of negotiating reasonable effort to reach a common ground
an agreement with respect to wages, hours of work and of agreement(CABEU-NFL v. Central
all other terms and conditions of employment including Azucarera de Bais)
incorporating such agreements in requested by either
Tabangao Shell Refinery Employees Association v Pilipinas
party but such duty does not compel any party to agree
to a proposal or to make any concession. Shell Petroleum Corp | 2014
F: On the parties’ 41st meeting, the company proposed the

Labor Code, Article 264 (253). declaration of a deadlock and recommended that the
help of a third party be sought. Union filed a Notice of
Duty to Bargain Collectively When There Exists a Collective Strike alleging ad faith bargaining on the part of the
Bargaining Agreement. – company. When the parties failed to reach an amicable
When there is a collective bargaining agreement, the duty settlement, SOLE assumed jurisdiction, ruling that the
to bargain collectively shall also mean that neither party company is not guilty of bargaining in bad faith. Union
shall terminate nor modify such agreement during its questioned the SOLE’s assumption of jurisdiction over the
lifetime. However, either party can serve a written notice labor dispute on the ground that the case was about CBA,
to terminate or modify the agreement at least 60 days not the subject matter of the notice of strike because the
prior to its expiration date. It shall be the duty of both case was all about ULP in the form of bad faith bargaining.
parties to keep the status quo and to continue in full force
and effect the terms and conditions of the existing H: The labor dispute between the union and the company
agreement during the 60-day period and/or until a new concerned the unresolved matters between the parties in
agreement is reached by the parties. relation to their negotiations for a new CBA. The power of
the SOLE to assume jurisdiction over this dispute includes
and extends to all questions and controversies arising from
Summary of procedure in collective bargaining (Art. 261) the said dispute, such as, but not limited to the union’s
1) Party #1 serves written notice (with proposals; allegation of bad faith bargaining. It also includes and
Party #2 must reply within 10 days from receipt extends to the various unresolved provisions of the new

! 1
a. Setting a pre-condition to bargaining

CBA such as compensation, particularly the matter of
Union of Filipro Employees – DFAI Unions KMU v Nestle Phil
annual wage increase or yearly lump sum payment in lieu
of such wage increase, whether or not there was Inc. | 2008
deadlock in the negotiations. SOLE need not wait for a Facts: The union initiated the CBA negotiations with Nestle
deadlock in the negotiations to take cognizance of the since their existing CBA was about to expire. Nestle was of
matter. the firm stance that unilateral grants including, but not
limited to retirement plans, are not proper subjects of the
Shell Oil Workers Union v Shell Co of the Phils Ltd. | 1971 negotiations. The union filed two notices of strike - the first
one predicated on an alleged bargaining deadlock while
Facts: Shell wanted to dissolve its security guard section the second one on alleged unfair labor practices on the
and replace it with an outside agency, despite its being part of Nestle. In an earlier decision, the SC held that
embraced in and assured by an existing collective Nestle was not guilty of committing any unfair labor
bargaining contract. As a response, the Union held a practice.
strike. The Company argued that the move to dissolve the
security guard section is within its management Held: Nestle is not guilty of committing any unfair labor
prerogative. CIR decided in favor of the Company, practice. For a charge of unfair labor practice to prosper,
holding that the strike was illegal. it must be shown that Nestle was motivated by “ill will … or
was oppressive to labor …” in disclaiming unilateral grants
Held: Shell is precluded from dissolving the security guard (e.g. retirement plan) as proper subjects in the
section because, even though the same is normally within negotiations. The management had a right to insist on its
its management prerogative, such section is covered and position to exclude the retirement plan issue to the point of
provided for in the existing collective bargaining contract. stalemate. Reaching an impasse does not evidence bad
The company thus violated the collective bargaining faith.
contract when it dissolved the security guard section. The
duty to bargain is a continuous process which imposes on
See again: Insular Life Employees Association v Insular Life
the parties the obligation to live up to the terms of the
agreement. As such, it is undeniable that non- | 1971, supra pg. 23
compliance to the agreement constitutes an unfair labor
practice. Consequently, the strike held by the Union was b. Duty to Resume Negotiations
not illegal because it was only made as a response to the CABEU-NFL v Central Azucarera de Bais, Inc | 2010
company’s commission of an unfair labor practice.
Facts: After CBA negotiations between the union (CABEU-
NFL) and company CAB resulted in a deadlock, the union
See also: De La Salle Univ v De La Salle Univ Employees filed a Notice of Strike with NCMB, which assumed
Association | 2012 jurisdiction and summoned the parties to conciliation
conferences. After receiving the union’s request for further
F: BLR Director ordered the conduct of an election of conciliation conferences, CAB replied that such would
union officers because the present officers were not serve no lawful or practical purpose because the majority
elected by the general membership but were appointed of the R&F employees in the bargaining unit had
by the Executive Board in a hold-over capacity. DLSU said withdrawn their support for the union and organized
that there is a conclusion of fact that there is an absolute themselves into a new union, known as CABELA, which
void in the leadership of respondent. Furthermore, that had already concluded its own CBA with CAB.
normal relations with the union cannot occur until the said
void in the leadership is appropriately filled. Affected by Held: CAB is NOT guilty of ULP by refusing to bargain
the temporary suspension of normal relations is the collectively. There was no showing of ill will/bad faith/
renegotiation of the economic provisions of the 2002-2005 fraud, oppression to labor, or acting in a manner contrary
CBA. No renegotiation can occur given the void in the to morals/good customs/public policy on CAB’s part, nor
leadership. of social humiliation/wounded feelings/grave anxiety on
the union’s part. CAB’s actions were NOT tantamount to
H: The University is guilty of refusal to bargain amounting to anti-unionism, the evil sought to be punished in ULP cases.
ULP. There was a requirement on both parties of the While the law makes it an obligation for the employer and
performance of the mutual obligation to meet and the employees to bargain collectively with each other,
convene promptly and expeditiously in good faith for the such compulsion does not include the commitment to
purpose of negotiating an agreement. The issue of union precipitately accept or agree to the proposals of the
leadership is distinct and separate from the duty to other. All it contemplates is that both parties should
bargain. approach the negotiation with an open mind and make
The alleged void union leadership does not constitute a reasonable effort to reach a common ground of
valid ground to refuse to negotiate because petitioner’s agreement
duty to bargain under the law is due and demandable
under the law.

! 2
2. Negotiation or Attorney’s Fees

i. To violate a collective bargaining agreement
xxx
Unfair labor practices of employers.

following unfair labor practice: Unfair labor practices of labor organizations. –
xxx It shall be unfair labor practice for a labor organization, its
h. To pay negotiation or attorney’s fees to the union or its officers, agents or representatives: xxx
officers or agents as part of the settlement of any issue in (f) To violate a collective bargaining agreement.
collective bargaining or any other dispute; or xxx
xxx
Labor Code, Article 274(261).

Article 260 (249).
Jurisdiction of Voluntary Arbitrators or Panel of Voluntary
Unfair labor practices of labor organizations. – Arbitrators. –
It shall be unfair labor practice for a labor organization, its The Voluntary Arbitrator or panel of Voluntary Arbitrators
officers, agents or representatives: xxx shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and
(e) To ask for or accept negotiation or attorney’s fees from decide all unresolved grievances arising from the
employers as part of the settlement of any issue in interpretation or implementation of the Collective
collective bargaining or any other dispute; Bargaining Agreement and those arising from the
xxx interpretation or enforcement of company personnel
policies referred to in the immediately preceding article.
Accordingly, violations of a Collective Bargaining
3. Gross Violation of Collective Bargaining Agreement
Agreement, except those which are gross in character,
Only GROSS violation of the CBA constitutes ULP. shall no longer be treated as unfair labor practice and
• Under Art. 259 (i) and Art. 260 (f), violation of shall be resolved as grievances under the Collective
the CBA by either the employer or labor Bargaining Agreement. For purposes of this article, gross
organization would constitute ULP. But Art. 274 violations of Collective Bargaining Agreement shall mean
provides that “violations of a CBA, except flagrant and/or malicious refusal to comply with the
those which are gross in character, shall no economic provisions of such agreement.
longer be treated as ULP.”
• To be heard and decided by a Labor Arbiter The Commission, its Regional Offices and the Regional
Directors of the Department of Labor and Employment
What is a gross violation of the CBA? (Art. 274) shall not entertain disputes, grievances or matters under
the exclusive and original jurisdiction of the Voluntary
• Flagrant and/or malicious refusal to comply
Arbitrator or panel of Voluntary Arbitrators and shall
with the economic provisions of the CBA
immediately dispose and refer the same to the Grievance
Machinery or Voluntary Arbitration provided in the
What happens if it’s just a violation of the CBA? (Art. 274) Collective Bargaining Agreement.
• Resolved as grievance under the CBA
• If can’t be resolved through the grievance
machinery, then to be heard and decided by BPI Employees Union-Davao City-FUBU v BPI | 2013
a Voluntary Arbitrator F: BPI Operations Management Corporation (BOMC) was
created pursuant to a Central Bank Circular. A service
If employer acts in good faith, merely acting on the agreement between BPI and BOMC was implemented
request of some workers, then it’s not a gross violation of where BOMC undertook to provide different services and
the CBA. (Arellano University Employees and Workers Union support for banks and other financial institutions. A merger
v. CA) between BPI and Far East Bank and Trust Company took
effect, with BPI as the surviving corporation. Thereafter,
Violation of seniority rule in promotions is a ULP over which other services and bookkeeping functions were handled
the Labor Arbiter has jurisdiction. But violation of grievance by BOMC. Twelve former FEBTC employees were
transferred to BOMC, which was objected to by the Union
procedure in CBA is not ULP because it’s not an economic
contending that the functions belonged to BPI employees,
provision.(San Miguel Foods, Inc. v. SMC Employees Union)
and that the Union was deprived of membership of former
FEBTC personnel who, by virtue of the merger, would have
Labor Code, Article 259 (248). formed part of the bargaining unit represented by the
Unfair labor practices of employers. – Union pursuant to its union shop provision in the CBA.
following unfair labor practice: H: It is to be emphasized that contracting out of services is
xxx not illegal per se. It is an exercise of business judgment or

! 3
was actually discharged for union activity. (Phil. Metal

management prerogative. Absent proof that the
Foundries, Inc. v. CIR)
management acted in a malicious or arbitrary manner,
the Court will not interfere with the exercise of judgment
by an employer. BPI’s actions were authorized by Central Phil Metal Foundries, Inc v CIR | 1979
Bank. Although Court agrees with the Union’s contention Facts: The Union filed a complaint for ULP against
that while Central Bank regulates banking, the Labor Philippine Metal Foundries Inc. for terminating the union
Code and its implementing rules regulate the employment President due to union activities. The company denied the
relationship, the competence in determining which charge, stating it terminated the Union President due to
banking functions may or may not be outsourced lies with repeated absences.
the BSP.
Held: In determining whether a discharge is discriminatory,
San Miguel Foods, Inc v SMC Employees Union | 2007 the true reason for the discharge must be established.
While union activity is no bar to a discharge, the existence
Facts: The union filed a complaint for ULP against SMFI. of a lawful cause for discharge is no defense if the
SMFI contends that the complaint was not a ULP, that the employee was actually discharged for union activity. The
Labor Arbiter had no jurisdiction, and that it should be union President did incur numerous absences. If the
resolved through the grievance machinery provided for in company wanted to terminate his services on the ground
the CBA. of absences, it could have done so as early as March
1963. He was only terminated after he asked the company
Held: The SC ruled that the Union’s charge that SMFI for a grievance conference regarding union problems.
violated the seniority rule in promotions was a ULP over
which the LA has jurisdiction. The question of whether an employee was discharged
because of his union activities is essentially a question of
SMFI committed large scale and wanton unjust fact as to which the findings of the Court of Industrial
discrimination in matters of promotion and committed Relations are conclusive and binding if supported by
gross and blatant violations of the CBA, regarding job substantial evidence considering the record as a whole.
security and the grievance machinery. The alleged ULP This is so because the Industrial Court is governed by the
committed under 248(i), for violation of a CBA, is not a ULP rule of substantial evidence, rather than by the rule of
either because for such ULP there must be 1) gross preponderance of evidence as in any ordinary civil cases.
violation of the CBA and 2) the violation pertains to the Substantial evidence has been defined as such relevant
economic provisions of the CBA. The grievance machinery evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as
provision in the CBA is not an economic provision. adequate to support a conclusion. It means such
evidence which affords a substantial basis from which the
fact in issue can be reasonably inferred.
Arellano University Employees and Workers Union | 2006
Facts: Union accused the University of ULP. Among other 2. Totality of Evidence
accusations, the University allegedly committed “Union
An employer may treat freely with an employee and is not
Busting” by withholding union dues (those penalties that
obliged to support his actions with a reason or purpose.
are supposed to be remitted to the Union from members’
However, where the attendant circumstances taken as a
salaries because of unexcused absences from meetings).
However, due to an intra- union conflict arising from whole raise a suspicion as to the motivation for the
suspicion in relation to auditing, some members requested employer’s action, the failure of the employer to ascribe a
the University to withhold the dues from the Union. valid reason therefor may justify an inference that his
conduct towards the employee was inspired by the
Held: For ULP to exist, there must be a gross violation of the latter’s union membership or activities (Royal
CBA. There is no such gross violation here. University acted Undergarments Corp. of the Phil. v. CIR)
in good faith, merely acting on the request of some
workers. Gross violation of the CBA means flagrant and/or A.k.a. “Totality of conduct” doctrine – the culpability of an
malicious refusal to comply with the economic provisions employer’s remarks is to be evaluated not only on the
thereof. basis of their implications, but against the background of
collateral circumstances (Azucena)
D. Motive, Conduct and Proof Royal Undergarment Corporation of the Phil v CIR | 1990
1. Employer Motive and Proof
Facts: Cruz was the president of the Union. He sent CBA
In determining whether a discharge is discriminatory, the proposals to the company, after which he and his wife
true reason for the discharge must be established. While were fired. After the Union called a strike, they were only
union activity is no bar to a discharge, the existence of a reinstated on the condition that the Union win the consent
lawful cause for discharge is no defense if the employee election for collective bargaining agent, which the union
did. Less than a year later, Cruz was fired a second time

! 4
2. Parties liable for acts

after he was accused of being drunk and threatening the
lives of his co-workers. Cruz claimed he was only trying to
convince them to join a nationwide strike that their a. Employer
federation was calling for. Labor Code, Art. 259 (248) (Last Paragraph)
The provisions of the preceding paragraph

Held: Royal was guilty of unfair labor practice because notwithstanding, only the officers and agents of
Cruz’s two terminations from employment had nothing to corporations, associations or partnerships who have
do with his performance as an employee but his actually participated in, authorized or ratified unfair labor
aggressive promotion and participation in union activities. practices shall be held criminally liable.
An employer may treat freely with an employee and is not
obliged to support his actions with a reason or purpose.
However, where the attendant circumstances, e.g. the b. Labor Organization
history of the employer’s past conduct and like Labor Code, Art. 260 (249) (Last Paragraph)
considerations, coupled with an intimate connection
between the employer’s action and the union affiliations The provisions of the preceding paragraph
or activities of the particular employee taken as a whole notwithstanding, only the officers, members of governing
raise a suspicion as to the motivation for the employer’s boards, representatives or agents or members of labor
action, the failure of the employer to ascribe a valid associations or organizations who have actually
reason therefor may justify an inference that his participated in, authorized or ratified unfair labor practices
unexplained conduct with respect to the particular shall be held criminally liable.
employee was inspired by the latter’s union membership
or activities.
National Labor Union vs. CIR
FACTS: 21 workers from Everlasting entered into a CBA

days after the company was purchased by a new owner,
E. Enforcement, Remedies and Sanctions Ang Wo Long from Estanislao. The new owner dismissed
these workers for no reason so they filed complaint for ULP.
1. Parties against whom ULP is committed CA originally ruled that Ang, the new owner, was liable,
Labor Code, Art. 259 (248), supra pg. 18 but overturned this, thereafter, stating that he was not
even aware of the union and the CBA.
ISSUE: W/N CA was correct in overturning its previous
Labor Code, Art. 219 e, f, g (212) decision thus now absolving Ang Wo Long
Definitions. HELD: NO. Under the facts, it is irrational if not specious to

(e) "Employer" includes any person acting in the interest of assume that Mr. Ang bought a business stock without
an employer, directly or indirectly. The term shall not inquiring into its labor-management situation and that his
include any labor organization or any of its officers or dismissal of all the union members without retaining a few
agents except when acting as employer. experienced workers and their replacement with a
completely new set of employees who were strangers to
(f) "Employee" includes any person in the employ of an the company was anything other than an attempt to rid
employer. The term shall not be limited to the employees the firm of unwanted union activity.
of a particular employer, unless the Code so explicitly
states. It shall include any individual whose work has There was substantial evidence to conclude that Mr. Ang
ceased as a result of or in connection with any current knew of the bargaining negotiations, the CBA and,
labor dispute or because of any ULP if he has not obtained consequently, of unfair labor practice on his part. The
a n y o t h e r s u b s t a n t i a l l y e q u i v a l e n t a n d re g u l a r former owner, Estanislao sold Everlasting Manufacturing to
employment. Ang while CBA negotiations were going on and about to
be concluded. The firm had a recent history of labor
(g) "Labor organization" means any union or association of problems and the bargaining negotiations came about
employees which exists in whole or in part for the purpose only after a strike. The conclusion becomes inescapable
of collective bargaining or of dealing with employers that Ang dismissed the complainants to break the union
concerning terms and conditions of employment. and do away with the existing CBA which it obtained only
after a strike and bargaining negotiations.
The concatenation of circumstances clearly indicates the

participation of the former owner and the new owner in
the ULP. Hence, they should be solidarily liable for the
payment of backwages to the complaining employees.

! 5
3. Prosecution and Prescriptive Period

suspension and termination orders, the petitioners were in
the middle of a certification election preliminary to a labor
a. Civil Aspect management conference. The respondent deserves our
Labor Code, Art. 258 (247) (Pars. 2-4) strongest condemnation for ignoring the petitioners'
(Par. 2) Consequently, unfair labor practices are not only request for permission for some time out to attend the
violations of the civil rights of both labor and management hearing. It is not only an act of arrogance, but a brazen
but are also criminal offenses against the State which shall interference as well with the employees’ right to self-
be subject to prosecution and punishment as herein organization, contrary to the prohibition of the Labor Code
provided. Subject to the exercise by the President or by against unfair labor practices.
the Secretary of Labor and Employment of the powers
vested in them by Articles 263 and 264 of this Code, the The Court rejects the claims of an alleged waiver by the
civil aspects of all cases involving unfair labor practices, petitioners of their economic demands, in the light of an
which may include claims for actual, moral, exemplary alleged order issued by Labor Arbiter Aquino in
and other forms of damages, attorney’s fees and other connection with another case(s) involving the same
affirmative relief, shall be under the jurisdiction of the parties.
Labor Arbiters.
DOCTRINE: Unfair Labor Practices cases are not, in view of
(Par. 3) The Labor Arbiters shall give utmost priority to the the public interest involved, subject to compromises.
hearing and resolution of all cases involving unfair labor
practices. They shall resolve such cases within thirty (30)
calendar days from the time they are submitted for 5. Remedies and Sanctions
decision.
a. Civil Remedies
(Par. 4) Recovery of civil liability in the administrative
proceedings shall bar recovery under the Civil Code. Labor Code, Art. 258 (247) (2nd to 3rd Paragraph)
Consequently, unfair labor practices are not only violations

b. Criminal Aspect of the civil rights of both labor and management but are
also criminal offenses against the State which shall be
Labor Code, Art. 258 (247) (Last Paragraph)
subject to prosecution and punishment as herein
(Par. 5) No criminal prosecution under this Title may be provided.
instituted without a final judgment finding that an unfair
labor practice was committed, having been first obtained Subject to the exercise by the President or by the
in the preceding paragraph. During the pendency of such Secretary of Labor and Employment of the powers vested
administrative proceeding, the running of the period of in them by Articles 263 and 264 of this Code, the civil
prescription of the criminal offense herein penalized shall aspects of all cases involving unfair labor practices, which
be considered interrupted: Provided, however, that the may include claims for actual, moral, exemplary and other
final judgment in the administrative proceedings shall not forms of damages, attorney’s fees and other affirmative
be binding in the criminal case nor be considered as relief, shall be under the jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiters.
evidence of guilt but merely as proof of compliance of the The Labor Arbiters shall give utmost priority to the hearing
requirements therein set forth. and resolution of all cases involving unfair labor practices.
They shall resolve such cases within thirty (30) calendar
days from the time they are submitted for decision.
4. Compromise
CCLC E. G. Gochanco Workers Union vs. NLRC Appeal. Decisions, awards, or orders of the Labor Arbiter
FACTS: Union requested permission for certain members are final and executory unless appealed to the
and officers to attend the hearing for a Petition for Commission by any or both parties within ten (10)
Certification Election. Respondent preventively suspended calendar days from receipt of such decisions, awards, or
the employees who attended and ultimately terminated orders. Such appeal may be entertained only on any of
their contracts due to “abandonment of work”. There was the following grounds:
an alleged order by LA Aquino, which dismissed cases due
to Waiver of Claims, Rights or Interests in a separate case (a)If there is prima facie evidence of abuse of discretion
involving the same parties. on the part of the Labor Arbiter;
ISSUE: WON petitioners waived their economic demands, (b)If the decision, order or award was secured through
as alleged by private respondent, by way of compromise fraud or coercion, including graft and corruption;
HELD: NO. Respondent company is guilty of ULP. It is no (c)If made purely on questions of law; and
coincidence that at the time the respondent issued its

! 6
(d)If serious errors in the findings of facts are raised which labor practice was committed, having been first obtained
would cause grave or irreparable damage or injury to in the preceding paragraph. During the pendency of such
the appellant. administrative proceeding, the running of the period of
prescription of the criminal offense herein penalized shall
In case of a judgment involving a monetary award, an be considered interrupted: Provided, however, that the
appeal by the employer may be perfected only upon the final judgment in the administrative proceedings shall not
posting of a cash or surety bond issued by a reputable be binding in the criminal case nor be considered as
bonding company duly accredited by the Commission in evidence of guilt but merely as proof of compliance of the
the amount equivalent to the monetary award in the requirements therein set forth.
judgment appealed from.
In any event, the decision of the Labor Arbiter reinstating a Labor Code, Art. 303 (288).
dismissed or separated employee, insofar as the Penalties. Except as otherwise provided in this Code, or
reinstatement aspect is concerned, shall immediately be unless the acts complained of hinge on a question of
executory, even pending appeal. The employee shall interpretation or implementation of ambiguous provisions
either be admitted back to work under the same terms of an existing collective bargaining agreement, any
and conditions prevailing prior to his dismissal or separation violation of the provisions of this Code declared to be
or, at the option of the employer, merely reinstated in the unlawful or penal in nature shall be punished with a fine of
payroll. The posting of a bond by the employer shall not not less than One Thousand Pesos (P1,000.00) nor more
stay the execution for reinstatement provided herein. than Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00) or imprisonment of
not less than three months nor more than three years, or
To discourage frivolous or dilatory appeals, the both such fine and imprisonment at the discretion of the
Commission or the Labor Arbiter shall impose reasonable court.
penalty, including fines or censures, upon the erring
parties. In addition to such penalty, any alien found guilty shall be
summarily deported upon completion of service of
In all cases, the appellant shall furnish a copy of the sentence.
memorandum of appeal to the other party who shall file
an answer not later than ten (10) calendar days from Any provision of law to the contrary notwithstanding, any
receipt thereof. criminal offense punished in this Code, shall be under the
concurrent jurisdiction of the Municipal or City Courts and
The Commission shall decide all cases within twenty (20) the Courts of First Instance. (As amended by Section 3,
calendar days from receipt of the answer of the appellee. Batas Pambansa Bilang 70)
The decision of the Commission shall be final and
executory after ten (10) calendar days from receipt
thereof by the parties. Labor Code, Art. 304 (289).
Any law enforcement agency may be deputized by the Who are liable when committed by other than natural
Secretary of Labor and Employment or the Commission in person. If the offense is committed by a corporation, trust,
the enforcement of decisions, awards or orders. firm, partnership, association or any other entity, the
penalty shall be imposed upon the guilty officer or officers
of such corporation, trust, firm, partnership, association or
Labor Code, Art. 294 (279) entity.
Security of tenure. In cases of regular employment, the

employer shall not terminate the services of an employee Labor Code, Art. 290.
except for a just cause or when authorized by this Title. An
employee who is unjustly dismissed from work shall be Offenses. Offenses penalized under this Code and the
entitled to reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and rules and regulations issued pursuant thereto shall
other privileges and to his full backwages, inclusive of prescribe in three (3) years.
allowances, and to his other benefits or their monetary
equivalent computed from the time his compensation was All unfair labor practice arising from Book V shall be filed
withheld from him up to the time of his actual with the appropriate agency within one (1) year from
reinstatement. accrual of such unfair labor practice; otherwise, they shall
be forever barred.
Quadra vs. CA
b. Penal Remedies
Art. 258 (247) (Last Paragraph) FACTS: PCSO filed an administrative charge against
Quadra for neglect of duty and conduct prejudicial to the
(Par. 5) No criminal prosecution under this Title may be
service. CSC recommended his dismissal. PCSO dismissed
instituted without a final judgment finding that an unfair
Quadra the day after. Quadra filed a petition for

! 7
damages before the CIR. CIR awarded moral and IX. Union Concerted Activities
exemplary damages. The Supreme Court found that
Quadra was illegally dismissed for being active in union A. Basis of Right to Engage in Concerted Activities
activities.
1. Constitution
HELD: Quadra’s dismissal constituted ULP. It was done to 1987 Constitution, Art. XIII, Sec. 3
interfere with, restrain or coerce employees in the exercise
of their right to self-organization. Moreover, the petition for The State shall afford full protection to labor, local and
damages filed before the CIR was proper because at the overseas, organized and unorganized, and promote full
time of filing, the Court in a previous case already upheld employment & equality of employment opportunities for
the jurisdiction of CIR over claims for damages incidental all. It shall guarantee the rights of all workers to self-
to employee’s illegal dismissal. organization, collective bargaining and negotiations, and
peaceful concerted activities, including the right to strike
DOCTRINE: It is proper to award moral and exemplary in accordance with law. They shall be entitled to security
damages to illegally dismissed employees as their dismissal of tenure, humane conditions of work, and a living wage.
was tainted with ULP. The filing of a petition for damages They shall also participate in policy and decision-making
before CIR did not constitute splitting of cause of action. processes affecting their rights and benefits as may be
provided by law
The State shall promote the principle of shared

6. Effect of Closure vis-a-vis ULP responsibility between workers and employers and the
preferential use of voluntary modes in settling disputes,
SEE: Polymer Rubber Coporation vs. Bayolo Salamuding including conciliation, and shall enforce their mutual
compliance therewith to foster industrial peace.
FACTS: Petitioners are contesting the computation of
monetary awards given to respondents as it included the The State shall regulate the relations between workers and
period after the cessation of company operations. employers, recognizing the right of labor to its just share in
the fruits of production and the right of enterprises to
HELD: Court held that computation must be based on the reasonable returns to investments, and to expansion and
number of days when Polymer was in actual operations. It growth.
cannot be held liable to pay separation pay beyond such
closure of business because even if the illegally dismissed
employees would be reinstated, they could not possibly Bisig ng Manggagawa sa Concrete Aggregates Inc. vs.
work beyond the time of the cessation of its operations. NLRC & Concrete Aggregates Corp.
DOCTRINE: Even an employer who is found guilty of ULP in FACTS: Union held a strike. The company filed a petition for
dismissing his employee may not be ordered so to pay injunction to enjoin the union from striking, which
backwages beyond the date of closure of business where NLRC granted.
such closure was due to legitimate business reasons and
not merely an attempt to defeat the order or HELD: Article 218 (e) of the Labor Code provides both the
reinstatement. procedural and substantive requirements which must
strictly be complied with before a temporary or
permanent injunction can issue in a labor dispute. NLRC
failed to fulfill the requirements, especially of pars. (4) and
(5) of the law.
DOCTRINE: The restoration of the right to strike is the most

valuable gain of labor after the EDSA revolution. It is the
employees’ sole weapon which can effectively protect
their basic rights especially in a society where the levers of
powers are nearly monopolized by the propertied few or
their franchisees. In recognition of its importance, our
Constitution has accorded the right to strike a distinct
status while our laws have assured that its rightful exercise
will not be negated by the issuance of unnecessary
injunctions.

! 8
2. Statutory
Section 3. Issuance of subpoena. - The Board shall have
the power to require the appearance of any parties at
Labor Code, Art. 218-A (a), (b), (c) (211 a, b, c).
conciliation meetings.
It is the policy of the State:
Section 4. Compromise Agreements. – Any compromise
a. To promote and emphasize the primacy of free settlement, including those involving labor standard laws,
collective bargaining and negotiations, including voluntarily agreed upon by the parties with the assistance
voluntary arbitration, mediation and conciliation, as of the Board and its regional branches shall be final and
modes of settling labor or industrial disputes; binding upon the parties. The National Labor Relations
Commission or any court shall not assume jurisdiction over
b. To promote free trade unionism as an instrument for issues involved therein except in case of non-compliance
the enhancement of democracy and the promotion thereof or if there is prima facie evidence that the
of social justice and development; settlement was obtained through fraud, misrepresentation,
or coercion. Upon motion of any interested party, the
c. To foster the free and voluntary organization of a Labor Arbiter in the region where the agreement was
strong and united labor movement; reached may issue a writ of execution requiring a sheriff of
the Commission or the courts to enforce the terms of the
agreement.
Labor Code, Art. 278 (263) (a), (b).
Section 5. Grounds for strike or lockout. - A strike or lockout
Strikes, picketing and lockouts.
may be declared in cases of bargaining deadlocks and
ULPs. Violations of CBAs, except flagrant and/or malicious
a. It is the policy of the State to encourage free trade
refusal to comply with its economic provisions, shall not be
unionism and free collective bargaining.
considered ULP and shall not be strikeable. No strike or
lockout may be declared on grounds involving inter- union
b. Workers shall have the right to engage in concerted
and intraunion disputes or without first having filed a notice
activities for purposes of collective bargaining or for their
of strike or lockout or without the necessary strike or
mutual benefit and protection. The right of legitimate
lockout vote having been obtained and reported to the
labor organizations to strike and picket and of employers
Board. Neither will a strike be declared after assumption of
to lockout, consistent with the national interest, shall
jurisdiction by the Secretary or after certification of
continue to be recognized and respected. However, no
submission of the dispute to compulsory or voluntary
labor union may strike and no employer may declare a
arbitration or during the pendency of cases involving the
lockout on grounds involving inter-union and intra-union
same grounds or the strike or lockout.
disputes.
Section 6. Who may declare a strike or lockout. - Any
(NOTE: This is supposed to be discussed in another section
certified or duly recognized bargaining representative
(page 28) but Ma’am discussed the concept of strikes/
may declare a strike in cases of bargaining deadlocks and
lockouts here.)
ULPs. The employer may declare a lockout in the same
cases. In the absence of a certified or duly recognized
IRR, Book V, Rule XXII, as amended by DOLE DO No. 40- bargaining representative, any legitimate labor
H-13 organization in the establishment may declare a strike but
only on grounds of ULPs.
Conciliation, Strikes And Lockouts
Section 7. Notice of strike or lockout. – In bargaining
Section 1. Conciliation of labor-management disputes. - deadlocks, a notice of strike or lockout shall be filed with
The board may, upon request of either of both parties or the regional branch of the Board at least thirty (30) days
upon its own initiative, provide conciliation-mediation before the intended date thereof, a copy of said notice
services to labor disputes other than notices of strikes or having been served on the other party concerned. In
lockouts. Conciliation cases which are not subjects of cases of ULP, the period of notice shall be fifteen (15) days.
notices of strike or lockout shall be docketed as preventive However, in case of ULP involving the dismissal from
mediation cases. employment of any union officer duly elected in
accordance with the union constitution and by-laws
Section 2. Privileged communication. – Information and which may constitute unionbusting where the existence of
statements given in confidence at conciliation the union is threatened, the fifteen-day cooling-off period
proceedings shall be treated as privileged shall not apply and the union may take action
communications. Conciliators and similar officials shall not immediately after the strike vote is conducted and the
testify in any court or body regarding any matter taken up results thereof submitted to the appropriate regional
at conciliation proceedings conducted by them. branch of the Board.
Section 8. Contents of notice. - The notice shall state,

among others, the names and addresses of the employer

! 9
and the union involved, the nature of the industry to which number of days from the filing of the notice of strike or
the employer belongs, the number of union members and lockout and of the results of the election required in the
of the workers in the bargaining unit, and such other preceding section, the labor union may strike or the
relevant data as may facilitate the settlement of the employer may lock out its workers. The regional branch of
dispute, such as a brief statement or enumeration of all the Board shall continue mediating and conciliating.
pending labor disputes involving the same parties.
Section 12. Improved offer balloting. - In case of a strike,
In cases of bargaining deadlocks, the notice shall, as far the regional branch of the Board shall, at its own initiative
as practicable, further state the unresolved issues in the or upon the request of any affected party, conduct a
bargaining negotiations and be accompanied by the referendum by secret balloting on the improved offer of
written proposals of the union, the counterproposals of the the employer on or before the 30th day of strike. When at
employer and the proof of a request for conference to least a majority of the union members vote to accept the
settle the differences. In cases of ULPs, the notice shall, as improved offer, the striking workers shall immediately return
far as practicable, state the acts complained of and the to work and the employer shall thereupon re-admit them
efforts taken to resolve the dispute amicably. upon the signing of the agreement.
In case a notice does not conform with the requirements In case of a lockout, the regional branch of the Board shall
of this and the foregoing section/s, the regional branch of also conduct a referendum by secret balloting on the
the Board shall inform the concerned party of such fact. reduced offer of the union on or before the 30th day of the
lockout. When at least a majority of the board of directors
Section 9. Action on Notice. - Upon receipt of the notice, or trustees or the partners holding the controlling interest in
the regional branch of the Board shall exert all efforts at the case of partnership vote to accept the reduced offer,
mediation and conciliation to enable the parties to settle the workers shall immediately return to work and the
the dispute amicably. The regional branch of the Board employer shall thereupon readmit them upon the signing
may, upon agreement of the parties, treat a notice as a of the agreement.
preventive mediation case. It shall also encourage the
parties to submit the dispute to voluntary arbitration. Section 13. Peaceful picketing. - Workers shall have the
right to peaceful picketing. No person engaged in
During the proceedings, the parties shall not do any act picketing shall commit any act of violence, coercion or
which may disrupt or impede the early settlement of the intimidation or obstruct the free ingress to or egress from
dispute. They are obliged, as part of their duty to bargain the employer's premises for lawful purposes, or obstruct
collectively in good faith and to participate fully and public thoroughfares. force, violence, coercion, threats or
promptly in the conciliation meetings called by the intimidation, any peaceful picketing by workers during any
regional branch of the Board. labor controversy or in the exercise of the right to self
organization or collective bargaining or shall aid or abet
A notice, upon agreement of the parties, may be referred such obstruction or interference. No employer shall use or
to alternative modes of dispute resolution, including employ any person to commit such acts nor shall any
voluntary arbitration. person be employed for such purpose.
Section 10. Strike or lockout vote. - A decision to declare a Section 14. Injunctions. - No court or entity shall enjoin any
strike must be approved by a majority of the total union picketing, strike or lockout, except as provided in Articles
membership in the bargaining unit concerned obtained 218 and 263 of the Labor Code.
by secret ballot in meetings or referenda called for the
purpose. A decision to declare a lockout must be The Commission shall have the power to issue temporary
approved by a majority of the Board of Directors of the restraining orders in such cases but only after due notice
employer, corporation or association or the partners in a and hearing and in accordance with its rules. The
partnership obtained by a secret ballot in a meeting reception of evidence for the application of a writ of
called for the purpose. injunction may be delegated by the Commission to any
Labor Arbiter who shall submit his recommendations to the
The regional branch of the Board may, at its own initiative Commission for its consideration and resolution.
or upon request of any affected party, supervise the
conduct of the secret balloting. In every case, the union or Any ex parte restraining order issued by the Commission, or
the employer shall furnish the regional branch of the Board its chairman or Vice-Chairman where the Commission is
and the notice of meetings referred to in the preceding not in session and as prescribed by its rules, shall be valid
paragraph at least twenty-four (24) hours before such for a period not exceeding twenty (20) days.
meetings as well as the results of the voting at least seven
(7) days before the intended strike or lockout, subject to Section 15. Assumption by the Secretary of Labor and
the cooling-off period provided in this Rule. Employment. — When a labor dispute causes or is likely to
cause a strike or lockout in an industry indispensable to the
Section 11. Declaration of strike or lockout. - Should the national interest, the Secretary of Labor and Employment
dispute remain unsettled after the lapse of the requisite may assume jurisdiction over the dispute and decide it or

! 0
certify the same to the National Labor Relations Voluntary Arbitrator or Panel of Voluntary Arbitrators, as the
Commission for compulsory arbitration, provided, that any case may be.
of the following conditions is present:
The decision of the Secretary of Labor and Employment,
1. Both parties have requested the Secretary of Labor the NLRC or voluntary arbitrator or panel of voluntary
and Employment to assume jurisdiction over the labor arbitrators shall be rendered within thirty (30) calendar
dispute; or days from submission of the case for resolution and shall
be final and executory ten (10) calendar days after
2. After a conference called by the Office of the receipt thereof by the parties.
Secretary of Labor and Employment on the propriety
of its issuance, motu proprio or upon a request or Section 19. Prohibitions on Law Enforcement Agencies or
petition by either parties to the labor dispute. Public Officials/Employees, Armed Persons, Private Security
Guards and Similar Personnel in The Private Security
Such assumption shall have the effect of automatically Agency, Exception. — No public official or employee,
enjoining an impending strike or lockout. If a strike/lockout including officers and personnel of the Armed Forces of
has already taken place at the time of assumption, all the Philippines or the Philippine National Police, or armed
sriking or locked out employees and other employees person, private security guards and similar personnel in the
subject of the notice of strike shall immediately return to private security agency shall bring in, introduce or escort in
work and the employer shall immediately resume any manner, any individual who seeks to replace strikers in
operations and readmit all employees under the same entering or leaving the premises of a strike area, or work in
terms and conditions prevailing before the strike or place of the strikers.
lockout.
The police force shall keep out of the picket lines unless
Notwithstanding the foregoing, parties to the case may actual violence or other criminal acts occur therein.
agree at any time to submit the dispute to the Secretary of
Labor or his duly authorized representative as Voluntary But any public officer, the Secretary of Labor and
Arbitrator or to a duly accredited Voluntary Arbitrator or to Employment or the NLRC may seek the assistance of law
a panel of Voluntary Arbitrators. enforcement agencies to maintain peace and order,
protect life and property, and/or enforce the law and
Section 16. Industries Indispensable to the National legal order pursuant to the providions or the joint DOLE-
Intersest. – For the guidance of the workers and employers DILG-PEZA guidelines in the conduct of PNP personnel,
in the filing of petition for assumption of jurisdiction, the economic zone police and security guards, company
following industries/services are hereby recognized as security guards and similar personnel during labor disputes.
deemed indispensable to the national interest:
Section 20. Criminal Prosecution. — The regular courts shall
a) Hospital sector; have jurisdiction over any criminal action under Article 272
b) Electric power industry; of the Labor Code, as amended, but subject to the
c) Water supply services, to exclude small water required clearance from the DOLE on cases arising out of
supply services such as bottling and refilling or related to a labor dispute pursuant to the Ministry of
stations; Justice
d) Air traffic control; and
e) Such other industries as may be recommended by
the National Tripartite Industrial Peace Council Ilaw at Buklod ng Manggagawa (IBM) vs. NLRC
(TIPC). FACTS: IBM wanted SMC to implement a wage increase
pursuant to the Wage Rationalization Act. SMC only gave
Section 17. Requirement for Minimum Operational Service. P7 across the board increase out of the P15 demand. In
— In labor disputes adversely affecting the continued retaliation, the workers of SMC followed an 8-hour shifting
operation of hospitals, clinics, or medical institutions, it shall which led to substantial losses to SMC. SMC sought to
be the duty of the striking union tor locking-out employer declare the strike illegal.
to provide and maintain an effective skeletal workforce of
medical and other health personnel, whose movement HELD: The strike was illegal. In the instance of "distortions of
and services shall be unhampered and unrestricted, as are the wage structure within an establishment" resulting from
necessary to ensure the proper and adequate protection "the application of any prescribed wage increase by
of the life and health of its patients, most especially virtue of a law or wage order," Section 3 of RA 6727
emergency cases, for the duration of the strike or lockout. prescribes a specific, detailed and comprehensive
procedure for the correction thereof, thereby implicitly
Section 18. Decision of the Assumed Labor Dispute; Finality. excluding strikes or lockouts or other concerted activities
— Within five (5) days from the issuance of the assumption as a modes of settlement of the issue.
or certification order, a preliminary conference or hearing
shall immediately be conducted by the Office of the Moreover, the CBA between the SMC and the Union also
Secretary of Labor and Employment, the NLRC, or prescribes a similar avoidance of strikes or other similar or

! 1
IRR, Book V, Rule I, Sec. 1 (uu).

related concerted activities as a mode of resolving
disputes or controversies, generally, said agreement “Strike” means any temporary stoppage of work by the
stating that settlement of "all disputes, disagreements or concerted action of employees as a result of an industrial
controversies of any kind" should be achieved by the or labor dispute.
stipulated grievance procedure and ultimately by
arbitration.
Alex Naranjo plus 4 others vs. Biomedica Health Care, Inc.
DOCTRINE: Concerted activities may be forbidden or & Carina Motol
restricted by law or contract.
FACTS: Five employees of Biomedica were absent one day
(happened to be Biomedica President’s birthday).
Biomedica terminated them for gross misconduct and
3. Limitations holding an illegal strike.
BLT Bus Co. vs. NLRC Tinig at Lakas ng Manggagawa sa HELD: SC held that it was not a strike, but an individual
BLTB-NAFLU and its reinstated 190 members availment of leave benefits. Their absences are presumed
FACTS: 190 union members were allegedly refused to be for valid causes, in good faith, and in the exercise of
admission when they tried to report back to work after their right to avail themselves of CBA or company benefits.
they participated in an allegedly illegal strike conducted The 5 workers went on leave for various reasons and were
by their union for alleged ULP and violation of CBA in different places to attend to their personal needs or
provisions. NLRC dismissed the complaint for ULP and affairs. They did not go to the company premises to
o rd e re d f o r t h e u n i o n o f f i c i a l s ’ a n d m e m b e r s ’ petition Biomedica for their grievance. Thus, there was NO
reinstatement. SC affirmed. INTENT TO STRIKE.
HELD: Employees should be reinstated. An employee who DOCTRINE: Petitioners did not stage a mass leave. The term
forthwith takes steps to protest his lay-off cannot by any "Mass Leave" has been left undefined by the Labor Code.
logic be said to have abandoned his work. For Plainly, the legislature intended that the terms ordinary
abandonment to constitute a valid cause for termination sense be used. "Mass" is defined as "participated in,
of employment, there must be a deliberate, unjustified attended by, or affecting a large number of individuals;
refusal of the employee to resume his employment. A having a large-scale character." While the term "Leave" is
worker who joins a strike does so precisely to assert or defined as "an authorized absence or vacation from duty
improve the terms and conditions of his employment. If his or employment usually with pay." Thus, the phrase "mass
purpose is to abandon his work, he would not go to the leave" may refer to a simultaneous availment of
trouble of joining a strike. authorized leave benefits by a large number of employees
in a company. It is undeniable that going on leave or
DOCTRINE: The strike is indeed a powerful weapon of the absenting ones self from work for personal reasons when
working class. But precisely because of this, it must be they have leave benefits available is an employees right.
handled carefully, like a sensitive explosive, lest it blow up
in the workers' own hands. Thus, it must be declared only Petitioners did not go on strike. Art. 212(o) of the Labor
after the most thoughtful consultation among them, Code defines a strike as "any temporary stoppage of work
conducted in the only way allowed, that is, peacefully, by the concerted action of employees as a result of any
and in every case conformably to reasonable regulation. industrial or labor dispute." "Concerted" is defined as
Any violation of the legal requirements and strictures, such "mutually contrived or planned" or "performed in unison." In
as a defiance of a return to work order in industries the case at bar, the 5 petitioners went on leave for various
affected with public interest, will render the strike illegal, to reasons.Petitioners were in different places on November
the detriment of the very workers it is supposed to protect. 7, 2006 to attend to their personal needs or affairs. They
did not go to the company premises to petition Biomedica
for their grievance. This shows that there was NO intent to
go on strike.
B. Strike
1. Definition Pilipino Telephone Corporation vs. PILTEA

Labor Code, Art. 219 (o) (212o).
FACTS: CBA negotiations between PILTEA and the
“Strike” means any temporary stoppage of work by the Company failed so DOLE Secretary assumed jurisdiction.
concerted action of employees as a result of an industrial PILTEA staged a strike which was held to be illegal
or labor dispute. (Defiance of the assumption order, Noncompliance with
the procedural requirements for the conduct of a strike).
HELD: The strike was illegal. Union officers punishable with

dismissal.

! 2
3. Rationale for Regulation by Law

DOCTRINE: Procedural requirements for a valid strike are
mandatory in nature. Failure to comply therewith renders
the strike illegal. Strike, as the most preeminent economic Lapanday Workers Union, Bacolod plus 15 others vs. NLRC
weapon of the workers to force management to agree to FACTS: A member of the Board of Directors of the Union,
an equitable sharing of the joint product of labor and was gunned down in his house. The gunman was later
capital, exert some disquieting effects not only on the identified as an alleged member of the new security
relationship between labor and management, but also on forces of the company. The day after the killing, most of
the general peace and progress of society and economic the members of the Union refused to report for work. They
well-being of the State. This weapon is so critical that the returned to work the following day but they did not
law imposes the supreme penalty of dismissal on union comply with the "quota system" adopted by the
officers who irresponsibly participate in an illegal strike and management to bolster production output. Allegedly, the
union members who commit unlawful acts during a strike. Union instructed the workers to reduce their production to
thirty per cent (30%). Companies charged the Union with
See: Bukluran ng Manggagawa sa Clothmen Knitting Corp. economic sabotage through slowdown.
- Solidarity of Union, Tamaroy plus 11 others vs. CA
HELD: The strike was plainly illegal as it was held within 7-
FACTS: CK issued Memoranda informing its Dyeing and day waiting period. The haste in holding the strike
Finishing Division employees of a temporary shutdown of prevented the DOLE from verifying whether it carried the
operations and advising them to go on vacation leave. A approval of the majority of the union members. It set to
service truck was stopped by employees led by the union naught an important policy consideration of our law on
president. The union members began picketing outside strike.
the CK compound, demanding 13th month pay and
resumption of work. DOCTRINE: Strikes exert some disquieting effects not only
on the relationship between labor and management but
HELD: Strike is illegal for non-compliance with mandatory also on the general peace and progress of society. Our
requirements for a valid strike. laws thus regulate their exercise within reasons by
DOCTRINE: A strike is any temporary stoppage of work by balancing the interests of labor and management
the concerted action of employees as a result of an together with the overarching public interest.
industrial or labor dispute, while a labor dispute includes
any controversy or matter concerning terms or conditions
of employment or the association or representation of
persons in negotiating, fixing, maintaining, changing or 4. Scope of the term “Strike”
arranging the terms and conditions of employment,
regardless of whether the disputants stand in the See again: Sta. Rosa Coca Cola Plant Employees Union vs.
proximate relation of employer and employee. CCBP
FACTS: The Union informed the Company of its desire to

For a strike to be valid, the following requirements must be
renegotiate CBA terms but the Company wasn’t
complied with: (a) a notice of strike must be filed; (b) a
amenable. The Union filed a “Notice of Strike” and filed
strike-vote must be taken; and (c) the results of the strike-
applications for LOA (which the Company denied). The
vote must be reported to the DOLE. These are
Office of the Mayor issued a permit to the Union, allowing
MANDATORY, and noncompliance makes the strike illegal.
it to conduct a mass protest within the perimeter of the
Plant for 3 hrs. All of the 14 personnel of the Engineering
Section of the Company did not report for work, and 71
2. Nature and Purpose production personnel were also absent. The Company
filed a “Petition to Declare Strike Illegal”. The Union filed an
See again: BLTB Bus. Co. vs. NLRC Answer with a Motion to Dismiss/Suspend proceedings
alleging the mass action conducted by its officers and
DOCTRINE: The right to strike is one of the rights recognized members was not a strike but just a valid exercise of their
and guaranteed by the Constitution as an instrument of right to picket.
labor for its protection against exploitation by
management. By virtue of this right, the workers are able HELD: The basic elements of a strike are present in this
to press their demands for better terms of employment case: 106 members of the Union, whose respective
with more energy and persuasiveness, poising the threat to applications for LOA were disapproved, opted not to
strike as their reaction to the employer's intransigence. report for work on said date, and gathered in front of the
company premises to hold a mass protest action.
Petitioners deliberately absented themselves and instead
wore red ribbons, carried placards with slogans. Thus,
petitioners engaged in a concerted activity that affected
the company’s operations. The mass concerted activity
constituted a strike.

! 3
the commission of illegal acts, they should not be

DOCTRINE: The fact that the conventional term ‘strike’ was dismissed.
not used by the striking employees to describe their
common course of action is inconsequential, since the DOCTRINE: A strike is “any temporary stoppage of work by
substance of the situation, and not its appearance, will be the concerted action of employees as a result of an
deemed to be controlling.” The term “strike” encompasses industrial or labor dispute.” A valid strike presupposes the
not only concerted work stoppages, but also slowdowns, existence of a labor dispute.
mass leaves, sit-downs, attempts to damage, destroy or
sabotage plant equipment and facilities, and similar
activities. Picketing involves merely the marching to and 6. Types and Conversion
fro at the premises of the employer, usually accompanied
by the display of placards and other signs making known Master Iron Labor Union, Wilfredo Abulencia plus 29 others
the facts involved in a labor dispute. vs. NLRC & Master Iron Works and Construction Co.
FACTS: MILU staged a strike against Master alleging that

the latter violated the provisions of the CBA
5. Effect on Work Relationship (subcontracting, disregard of grievance procedure,
among others). The LA and the NLRC held that the strike
Chuayuco Steel vs. Buklod ng Manggagawa was illegal because it is an economic strike and hence, a
violation of the no strike no lockout provision in the CBA.
FACTS: Labor organization held a strike for refusal of
company to recognize the newly elected officers from the HELD: The strike is not an economic strike and hence, not a
recently concluded special elections. The and LA, NLRC violation of the no-strike clause. Not illegal.
and CA were unanimous in finding the strike staged by the
respondent illegal because of the commission of violent DOCTRINE: An economic strike is one which is to force
acts and barricading. wage or other concessions from the employer which he is
not required by law to grant. Withdrawal of the complaint
HELD: Even if the purpose of the strike staged was valid, for ULP does not convert the other grievances into
the means employed were illegal. Thus, a union officer economic demands.
may be declared to have lost his employment status if he
knowingly participates in the commission of illegal acts
during the strike. Nevertheless, responsibility for these illegal a. Unfair Labor Practice
acts must be on an individual and not collective basis.
Labor Code, Art. 278 (c) (263c) Strikes, picketing and
DOCTRINE: A union officer may be declared to have lost lockouts.
his employment status if he knowingly participates in the
c. In case of bargaining deadlocks, the duly certified or
commission of illegal acts during the strike.
recognized bargaining agent may file a notice of strike or
the employer may file a notice of lockout with the Ministry
G&S Transport Corp. vs. Tito Infante at least 30 day before the intended date thereof. In cases
of unfair labor practice, the period of notice shall be 15
FACTS: Tito Infante et. al. were drivers of G&S Transport. days and in the absence of a duly certified or recognized
G&S Transport claimed to have received a letter bargaining agent, the notice of strike may be filed by any
memorandum from the Union demanding the dismissal of legitimate labor organization in behalf of its members.
2 employees on the ground that they were guilty of However, in case of dismissal from employment of union
committing acts of disloyalty by filing a petition calling for officers duly elected in accordance with the union
a local election. These 2 employees were dismissed. The constitution and by-laws, which may constitute union
drivers learned of this incident and stopped driving their busting, where the existence of the union is threatened,
taxicabs in sympathy for their dismissed colleagues. the 15-day cooling-off period shall not apply and the
Although G&S ordered the drivers to return to work, some union may take action immediately.
drivers refused to do so, prompting G&S to file an action
against the latter for illegal strike. The drivers then filed a
case for illegal dismissal against G&S. See again: Shell Oil Workers Union vs. Shell Co. of the
Philippines
HELD: A valid strike presupposes the existence of a labor
dispute. In this case, there was no labor dispute. Thus, they DOCTRINE: Not every form of violence suffices to affix the
committed an illegal strike in the form of a sitdown strike. seal of illegality on a strike or to cause the loss of
Unlike union officers, mere participation of members in an employment by the guilty party. It is enough that individual
illegal strike isn’t a sufficient ground for termination of liability be incurred by those guilty of such acts of violence
services. To warrant dismissal, the members must have that call for loss of employee status.
committed illegal acts, and since there was no proof of

! 4
b. Bargaining Deadlock a. Allowable Strikes/Strikeable Grounds

Labor Code, Art. 278 (c)
Consolidated Labor Association of the Phil. vs. Marsman
In case of bargaining deadlocks, the duly certified or
and Co.
recognized bargaining agent may file a notice of strike or
FACTS: Union staged a strike after a bargaining deadlock the employer may file a notice of lockout with the Ministry
with the company. They returned to work after the at least 30 day before the intended date thereof. In cases
company promised to discuss their demands. However, 69 of unfair labor practice, the period of notice shall be 15
union officers and members were not admitted thus they days and in the absence of a duly certified or recognized
resumed the strike. Despite repeated requests for bargaining agent, the notice of strike may be filed by any
reinstatement, Company still refused, thus union filed a legitimate labor organization in behalf of its members.
case of ULP. However, in case of dismissal from employment of union
officers duly elected in accordance with the union
HELD: The initial economic strike was converted into a ULP constitution and by-laws, which may constitute union
strike upon the refusal of the company to reinstate the 69 busting, where the existence of the union is threatened,
employees. the 15-day cooling-off period shall not apply and the
union may take action immediately.
DOCTRINE: The strike changed its character from the time
the Company refused to reinstate complainants because
i. Bargaining Deadlock
of their union activities after it had offered to admit all the
strikers and in fact did readmit the others. It was then ii. ULP
converted into an unfair labor practice strike. a. Union Busting
b. Prohibited Strikes
c. Non-Conversion- Strike to Lockout Labor Code, Art. 278 (b)
Sukhothai Cuisine and Restaurant v CA
Workers shall have the right to engage in concerted
Facts: Members of the Union filed a Notice of Strike and activities for purposes of collective bargaining or for their
conducted a Strike vote. The Union and the company mutual benefit and protection. The right of legitimate
eventually entered into a Submission agreement, agreeing labor organizations to strike and picket and of employers
to submit the ULP issue for voluntary arbitration. During the to lockout, consistent with the national interest, shall
pendency of the arbitration, the company dismissed two continue to be recognized and respected. However, no
union members, which triggered a strike. labor union may strike and no employer may declare a
lockout on grounds involving inter-union and intra-union
Held: Strike was illegal. No strike or lockout can be made disputes.
during the pendency of the case/s. Voluntary arbitration
was entered into precisely to discuss the ULP issue. There
can be no good faith here as the Union was fully aware of Labor Code, Art. 278 (g)
the proceedings.
When, in his opinion, there exists a labor dispute causing or
likely to cause a strike or lockout in an industry
indispensable to the national interest, the Secretary of
7. Grounds Labor and Employment may assume jurisdiction over the
IRR, Book V, Rule XXII, Sec. 5 dispute and decide it or certify the same to the
Commission for compulsory arbitration. Such assumption or
Grounds for strike or lockout. - A strike or lockout may be certification shall have the effect of automatically
declared in cases of bargaining deadlocks and unfair enjoining the intended or impending strike or lockout as
labor practices. Violations of collective bargaining specified in the assumption or certification order. If one has
agreements, except flagrant and/or malicious refusal to already taken place at the time of assumption or
comply with its economic provisions, shall not be certification, all striking or locked out employees shall
considered unfair labor practice and shall not be immediately return-to-work and the employer shall
strikeable. No strike or lockout may be declared on immediately resume operations and readmit all workers
grounds involving inter union and intra-union disputes OR under the same terms and conditions prevailing before
without first having filed a notice of strike or lockout or the strike or lockout. The Secretary of Labor and
without the necessary strike or lockout vote having been Employment or the Commission may seek the assistance
obtained and reported to the Board. Neither will a strike of law enforcement agencies to ensure compliance with
be declared after assumption of jurisdiction by the this provision as well as with such orders as he may issue to
Secretary or after certification or submission of the dispute enforce the same.
to compulsory or voluntary arbitration or during the
pendency of cases involving the same grounds for the
strike or lockout Labor Code, Art. 279 (a)
Prohibited Activities - No labor organization or employer

shall declare a strike or lockout without first having

! 5
bargained collectively in accordance with Title VII of this prerogative to terminate their employment or reinstate
Book or without first having filed the notice required in the them after the illegal strike ceases.
preceding Article or without the necessary strike or lockout
vote first having been obtained and reported to the
ii. Assumption of SOLE
Ministry.
UIC v SOLE
No strike or lockout shall be declared after assumption of Facts: UIC and union were in a bargaining deadlock due
jurisdiction by the President or the Minister or after to computation of incremental increase in the salary of
certification or submission of the dispute to compulsory or teachers. The SOLE assumed jurisdiction and ordered the
voluntary arbitration or during the pendency of cases creation of a tripartite committee in order to properly
involving the same grounds for the strike or lockout. compute the proper amounts of increase during the
effectivity of the CBA. UIC in now assailing the SOLE’s
Any worker whose employment has been terminated as a exercise of power saying it acted without jurisdiction
consequence of any unlawful lockout shall be entitled to because the determination of the increases should be
reinstatement with full backwages. Any union officer who done by the committee in the CBA
knowingly participates in an illegal strike and any worker or
union officer who knowingly participates in the commission Held: The powers of the Secretary in "national interest"
of illegal acts during a strike may be declared to have lost cases are not set by metes and bounds. The SOLE’s power
his employment status: Provided, That mere participation extends to all questions and controversies arising
of a worker in a lawful strike shall not constitute sufficient therefrom. The power is plenary and discretionary in nature
ground for termination of his employment, even if a to enable him to effectively and efficiently dispose of the
replacement had been hired by the employer during such primary dispute. The committee provided in the CBA
lawful strike. cannot be given authority because the CBA was not yet
signed
Improved offer balloting. In an effort to settle a strike, the

Department of Labor and Employment shall conduct a Ilaw at Buklod ng Manggagawa (IBM) v NLRC
referendum by secret ballot on the improved offer of the Facts: Employees alleged wage distortion and demanded
employer on or before the 30th day of the strike. When at that the Company (SMC) make the necessary
least a majority of the union members vote to accept the adjustments. When the Company allegedly did nothing,
improved offer the striking workers shall immediately return they stopped working overtime. Note that overtime was
to work and the employer shall thereupon readmit them included in their regular work schedule.
upon the signing of the agreement.
Held: The employees’ refusal to adhere to the usual work
In case of a lockout, the Department of Labor and schedule is illegal, prohibited by both law and contract.
Employment shall also conduct a referendum by secret Although engaging in concerted activities is a right
balloting on the reduced offer of the union on or before granted to both employees and employers, there are
the 30th day of the lockout. When at least a majority of limitations to the exercise of this right. It is prohibited by law
the board of directors or trustees or the partners holding since Sec. 3 of RA 6727 provides for a specific procedure
the controlling interest in the case of a partnership vote to to correct wage distortions. It is also prohibited by
accept the reduced offer, the workers shall immediately contract, as their CBA clearly proscribed strikes or similar
return to work and the employer shall thereupon readmit concerted activities as a mode of resolving disputes
them upon the signing of the agreement. (instead the issue should only go through the prescribed
grievance procedure).
i. Absence of Labor Dispute
Biflex Philippines Inc Labor Union (NAFLU) v Filfex Industrial iii. Certification order/ compulsory arbitration
Facts: Petitioner Unions joined the labor sector’s welga ng Labor Code, 278 (g), supra pg. 43
bayan without filing a notice of strike. Respondent-
employers terminated union officers pursuant to the labor Union of Filipro Employees v Nestle Phils Inc
arbiter’s decision. Unions claimed that after joining the
Facts: There were 3 labor cases wherein the union
welga, employers locked them out as punishment.
members staged illegal strikes. During such strikes, the
Minister of Labor and Employment assumed jurisdiction
Held: Joining welga ng bayan is considered an illegal
over the case and issued resolutions to enjoin the workers
strike. The mandatory requirements for a strike haven’t
to return to work immediately, but the workers disobeyed
been complied with.There was no evidence to prove the
such order.
alleged lockout. Thus, under Art. 264(a), union officers MAY
be dismissed. This means that management has the
Held: Art. 263 and 264 are still in effect because no laws
have been passed expressly repealing them. Art. 264(g)

! 6
viii. Wage distortion

provides for assumption and certification orders which are
RA 6727 Sec. 3 – See: Labor Code Articles 99, 120-129
executory in character and are to be strictly complied
with even during the pendency of any petition questioning Labor Code
their validity. Regardless of the validity of their claims, the Art. 99. Regional Minimum Wages. — The minimum wage
striking workers must cease and desist from any and all rates for agricultural and non-agricultural employees and
acts that tend to, or undermine this authority of the workers in each and every region of the country shall be
Secretary of Labor. An assumption and/or certification those prescribed by the Regional Tripartite Wages and
order of the Secretary of Labor automatically results in a Productivity Boards.
return-to-work of all striking workers, whether or not a
corresponding order has been issued by the Secretary of Art. 120. Creation of the National Wages and Productivity
Labor. Commission. — There is hereby created a National Wages
and Productivity Commission, hereinafter referred to as the
iv. Submission agreement/voluntary arbitration Commission, which shall be attached to the Department
of Labor and Employment (DOLE) for policy and program
coordination.
v. Pendency of some issues in other cases
Art. 121. Powers and Functions of the Commission. — The
vi. Intra-union/inter-union dispute – Commission shall have the following powers and functions:
• book v, rule I, (a) To act as the national consultative and advisory body
o (x) "Certification Election" means the to the President of the Philippines and Congress on
process of determining, through secret matters relating to wages, incomes and productivity;
ballot, the sole and exclusive bargaining (b) To formulate policies and guidelines on wages,
agent of the employees in an appropriate incomes and productivity improvement at the
bargaining unit, for purposes of collective enterprise, industry and national levels;
bargaining. (c) To prescribe rules and guidelines for the determination
o (bb) "Organized Establishment" refers to a of appropriate minimum wage and productivity
measures at the regional, provincial or industry levels;
firm or company where there is a
(d) To review regional wage levels set by the Regional
recognized or certified exclusive
Tripartite Wages and Productivity Boards to determine
bargaining agent if these are in accordance with prescribed guidelines
• DO 40-i-15 rule xi section 1. Coverage – inter/intra- and national development plans;
union disputes shall include: (e) To undertake studies, researches and surveys
o h. validity/invalidity of SEBA certification necessary for the attainment of its functions and
objectives, and to collect and compile data and
Malayang Samahan ng Manggagawa sa M. Greenfield v periodically disseminate information on wages and
Ramos productivity and other related information, including,
but not limited to, employment, cost-of-living, labor
Facts: The local union tried to disaffiliate. Pursuant to the costs, investments and returns;
CBA’s union security clause, the mother federation forced (f) To review plans and programs of the Regional
Greenfield to dismiss the local union’s officers from Tripartite Wages and Productivity Boards to determine
employment. The local union claimed ULP and went on whether these are consistent with national
strike despite a “no strike, no lockout clause” in the CBA. development plans;
(g) To exercise technical and administrative supervision
Held: Not an illegal strike even though there was a “no over the Regional Tripartite Wages and Productivity
strike, no lockout clause” in the CBA. Such clause can only Boards;
be used against strikes undertaken as economic leverage, (h) To call, from time to time, a national tripartite
and not in cases of ULP (whether or not such ULP is later on conference of representatives of government, workers
proven). and employers for the consideration of measures to
promote wage rationalization and productivity; and
vii. No strike/No lockout clause in CBA (i) To exercise such powers and functions as may be
necessary to implement this Act.
Panay Electric Co v NLRC
Facts: The Union went on strike, protesting the dismissal of The Commission shall be composed of the Secretary of
its VP. The Company argued that such strike was illegal for Labor and Employment as ex-officio chairman, the
violation of the “no strike, no lock-out” clause in the CBA. Director-General of the National Economic and
Development Authority (NEDA) as ex-officio vice-
Held: Although a no strike clause in a CBA is valid, it is only chairman, and two (2) members each from workers and
applicable to economic strikes. Strikes conducted by employers sectors who shall be appointed by the
reason of ULP are still valid. President of the Philippines upon recommendation of the
Secretary of Labor and Employment to be made on the
basis of the list of nominees submitted by the workers and

! 7
employers sectors, respectively, and who shall serve for a Each Regional Board shall be composed of the Regional
term of five (5) years. The Executive Director of the Director of the Department of Labor and Employment as
Commission shall also be a member of the Commission. chairman, the Regional Directors of the National
The Commission shall be assisted by a Secretariat to be Economic and Development Authority and the
headed by an Executive Director and two (2) Deputy Department of Trade and Industry as vice-chairmen and
Directors, who shall be appointed by the President of the two (2) members each from workers and employers
Philippines, upon the recommendation of the Secretary of sectors who shall be appointed by the President of the
Labor and Employment. Philippines, upon the recommendation of the Secretary of
Labor and Employment, to be made on the basis of the list
The Executive Director shall have the same rank, salary, of nominees submitted by the workers and employers
benefits and other emoluments as that of a Department sectors, respectively, and who shall serve for a term of five
Assistant Secretary, while the Deputy Directors shall have (5) years.
the same rank, salary, benefits and other emoluments as
that of a Bureau Director. The members of the Commission Each Regional Board to be headed by its chairman shall
representing labor and management shall have the same be assisted by a Secretariat.
rank, emoluments, allowances and other benefits as those
prescribed by law for labor and management Art. 123. Wage Order. — Whenever conditions in the region
representatives in the Employees' Compensation so warrant, the Regional Board shall investigate and study
Commission. all pertinent facts; and based on the standards and
criteria herein prescribed, shall proceed to determine
Art. 122. Creation of Regional Tripartite Wages and whether a Wage Order should be issued. Any such Wage
Productivity Boards. — There is hereby created Regional Order shall take effect after fifteen (15) days from its
Tripartite Wages and Productivity Boards, hereinafter complete publication in at least one (1) newspaper of
referred to as Regional Boards, in all regions, including general circulation in the region.
autonomous regions as may be established by law. The
Commission shall determine the offices/headquarters of In the performance of its wage determining functions, the
the respective Regional Boards. Regional Board shall conduct public hearings/
The Regional Boards shall have the following powers and consultations, giving notices to employees' and employers'
functions in their respective territorial jurisdiction: groups, provincial, city and municipal officials and other
(a) To develop plans, programs and projects relative to interested parties.
wages, incomes and productivity improvement for
their respective regions; Any party aggrieved by the Wage Order issued by the
(b) To determine and fix minimum wage rates applicable Regional Board may appeal such order to the Commission
in their region, provinces or industries therein and to within ten (10) calendar days from the publication of such
issue the corresponding wage orders, subject to order. It shall be mandatory for the Commission to decide
guidelines issued by the Commission; such appeal within sixty (60) calendar days from the filing
(c) To undertake studies, researches and surveys thereof.
necessary for the attainment of their functions,
objectives and programs, and to collect and compile The filing of the appeal does not stay the order unless the
data on wages, incomes, productivity and other person appealing such order shall file with the Commission
related information and periodically disseminate the an undertaking with a surety or sureties satisfactory to the
same; Commission for the payment to the employees affected
(d) To coordinate with the other Regional Boards as may by the order of the corresponding increase, in the event
be necessary to attain the policy and intention of this such order is affirmed.
Code;
(e) To receive, process and act on applications for Art. 124. Standards/Criteria for Minimum Wage Fixing. —
exemption from prescribed wage rates as may be The regional minimum wages to be established by the
provided by law or any Wage Order; and Regional Board shall be as nearly adequate as is
(f) To exercise such other powers and functions as may economically feasible to maintain the minimum standards
be necessary to carry out their mandate under this of living necessary for the health, efficiency and general
Code. well-being of the employees within the framework of the
national economic and social development program. In
Implementation of the plans, programs and projects of the the determination of such regional minimum wages, the
Regional Boards referred to in the second paragraph, Regional Board shall, among other relevant factors,
letter (a) of this Article, shall be through the respective consider the following:
regional offices of the Department of Labor and (a) The demand for living wages;
Employment within their territorial jurisdiction; Provided, (b) Wage adjustment vis-a-vis the consumer price index;
however, That the Regional Boards shall have technical (c) The cost of living and changes or increases therein;
supervision over the regional office of the Department of (d) The needs of workers and their families;
Labor and Employment with respect to the (e) The need to induce industries to invest in the
implementation of said plans, programs and projects. countryside;

! 8
(f) Improvements in standards of living; elimination or severe contraction of intentional

(g) The prevailing wage levels; quantitative differences in wage or salary rates between
(h) Fair return of the capital invested and capacity to pay and among employee groups in an establishment as to
of employers; effectively obliterate the distinctions embodied in such
(i) Effects on employment generation and family wage structure based on skills, length of service, or other
income; and logical bases of differentiation.
(j) The equitable distribution of income and wealth along
the imperatives of economic and social development. All workers paid by result, including those who are paid on
piecework, takay, pakyaw or task basis, shall receive not
The wages prescribed in accordance with the provisions of less than the prescribed wage rates per eight (8) hours
this Title shall be the standard prevailing minimum wages in work a day, or a proportion thereof for working less than
every region. These wages shall include wages varying eight (8) hours.
within industries, provinces or localities if in the judgment of
the Regional Board conditions make such local All recognized learnership and apprenticeship agreements
differentiation proper and necessary to effectuate the shall be considered automatically modified insofar as their
purpose of this Title. wage clauses are concerned to reflect the prescribed
wage rates.
Any person, company, corporation, partnership or any
other entity engaged in business shall file and register Art. 126. Prohibition Against Injunction. — No preliminary or
annually with the appropriate Regional Board, Commission permanent injunction or temporary restraining order may
and the National Statistics Office an itemized listing of their be issued by any court, tribunal or other entity against any
labor component, specifying the names of their workers proceedings before the Commission or the Regional
and employees below the managerial level, including Boards.
learners, apprentices and disabled/handicapped workers
who were hired under the terms prescribed in the Art. 127. Non-diminution of Benefits. — No Wage Order
employment contracts, and their corresponding salaries issued by any Regional Board shall provide for wage rates
and wages. lower than the statutory minimum wage rates prescribed
by Congress."
Where the application of any prescribed wage increase
by virtue of law or Wage order issued by any Regional
Board results in distortions of the wage structure within an See again: Ilaw Buklod ng Manggagawa vs. NLRC, supra
establishment, the employer and the union shall negotiate pg. 39, 44
to correct the distortions. Any dispute arising from wage
distortions shall be resolved through the grievance 8. Striking Party
procedure under their collective bargaining agreement IRR, Book V, Rule XXII, Sec. 6, supra pg. 38
and, if it remains unresolved, through voluntary arbitration.
Unless otherwise agreed by the parties in writing, such 9. Procedural Requirements –
dispute shall be decided by the voluntary arbitrator or
panel of voluntary arbitrators within ten (10) calendar days Book V, Rule XXII, Sec. 5, supra pg. 43
from the time said dispute was referred to voluntary
arbitration.
a. Effort to Bargain –
Labor Code, Art. 279 (a)
In cases where there are no collective agreements or
recognized labor unions, the employers and workers shall No labor organization or employer shall declare a strike or
endeavor to correct such distortions. Any dispute arising lockout without first having bargained collectively in
therefrom shall be settled through the National accordance with Title VII of this Book or without first having
Conciliation and Mediation Board and, if it remains filed the notice required in the preceding Article or without
unresolved after ten (10) calendar days of conciliation, the necessary strike or lockout vote first having been
shall be referred to the appropriate branch of the National obtained and reported to the Ministry.
Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). It shall be mandatory
for the NLRC to conduct continuous hearings and decide
the dispute within twenty (20) calendar days from the time Labor Code, Art. 261
said dispute is submitted for compulsory arbitration.
Procedure in collective bargaining. The following
procedures shall be observed in collective bargaining:
The pendency of a dispute arising from a wage distortion
a. When a party desires to negotiate an agreement,
shall not in any way delay the applicability of any increase
it shall serve a written notice upon the other party
in prescribed wage rates pursuant to the provisions of law
with a statement of its proposals. The other party
or Wage Order.
shall make a reply thereto not later than ten (10)
calendar days from receipt of such notice;
As used herein, a wage distortion shall mean a situation
b. Should differences arise on the basis of such
where an increase in prescribed wage rates results in the
notice and reply, either party may request for a

! 9
Labor Code, Art. 278 (c)(d)(e)

conference which shall begin not later than ten
(10) calendar days from the date of request. (c) In case of bargaining deadlocks, the duly certified or
c. If the dispute is not settled, the Board shall recognized bargaining agent may file a notice of strike or
intervene upon request of either or both parties or the employer may file a notice of lockout with the Ministry
at its own initiative and immediately call the at least 30 day before the intended date thereof. In cases
parties to conciliation meetings. The Board shall of unfair labor practice, the period of notice shall be 15
have the power to issue subpoenas requiring the days and in the absence of a duly certified or recognized
attendance of the parties to such meetings. It bargaining agent, the notice of strike may be filed by any
shall be the duty of the parties to participate fully legitimate labor organization in behalf of its members.
and promptly in the conciliation meetings the However, in case of dismissal from employment of union
Board may call; officers duly elected in accordance with the union
d. During the conciliation proceedings in the Board, constitution and by-laws, which may constitute union
the parties are prohibited from doing any act busting, where the existence of the union is threatened,
which may disrupt or impede the early settlement the 15-day cooling-off period shall not apply and the
of the disputes; and union may take action immediately.
e. The Board shall exert all efforts to settle disputes
amicably and encourage the parties to submit (d) The notice must be in accordance with such
their case to a voluntary arbitrator. implementing rules and regulations as the Minister of Labor
and Employment may promulgate.
Labor Code, Art. 262 (e) During the cooling-off period, it shall be the duty of the
Duty to bargain collectively in the absence of collective Ministry to exert all efforts at mediation and conciliation to
bargaining agreements. In the absence of an agreement effect a voluntary settlement. Should the dispute remain
or other voluntary arrangement providing for a more unsettled until the lapse of the requisite number of days
expeditious manner of collective bargaining, it shall be the from the mandatory filing of the notice, the labor union
duty of employer and the representatives of the may strike or the employer may declare a lockout.
employees to bargain collectively in accordance with the
provisions of this Code.
(a) – No labor organization or employer shall declare a

Labor Code, Art. 263 strike or lockout without first having bargained
Meaning of duty to bargain collectively. The duty to collectively in accordance with Title VII of this Book or
bargain collectively means the performance of a mutual without first having filed the notice required in the
obligation to meet and convene promptly and preceding Article or without the necessary strike or
expeditiously in good faith for the purpose of negotiating lockout vote first having been obtained and reported
an agreement with respect to wages, hours of work and to the Ministry.
all other terms and conditions of employment including
IRR, Book V, Rule XXII, Sec. 7
incorporating such agreements if requested by either Notice of strike or lockout. - In bargaining deadlocks, a
party but such duty does not compel any party to agree notice of strike or lockout shall be filed with the regional
to a proposal or to make any concession. branch of the Board at least thirty (30) days before the
intended date thereof, a copy of said notice having been
served on the other party concerned. In cases of unfair
labor practice, the period of notice shall be fifteen (15)
1. Employer’s counter-proposal days. However, in case of unfair labor practice involving
Club Filipino v. Bautista the dismissal from employment of any union officer duly
Facts: The Company claimed that the Union’s strike was elected in accordance with the union constitution and
illegal on the ground that the Union failed to attach the by-laws which may constitute union-busting where the
company’s counter-proposal to the notice of strike, as existence of the union is threatened, the fifteen-day
required under Art. 264(a). cooling-off period shall not apply and the union may take
Held: Requirement does not apply. Art. 264(a) is qualified action immediately after the strike vote is conducted and
by the phrase “as far as practicable”. Here, it was not only the results thereof submitted to the appropriate regional
impracticable but actually impossible for the Union to branch of the Board.
have attached the counter-proposal to its notice of strike
as the Company had yet to furnish the same. c. Observance of cooling-off period
Labor Code, 278 (c)(e), supra pg. 48
b. Filing of notice of intention -

! 0
d. Vote
Rather than a finding of good faith, there was a finding of
arrogance, pride,and cynicism.
(f) - A decision to declare a strike must be approved by a
majority of the total union membership in the bargaining
ii) Guidelines and balancing of interest
unit concerned, obtained by secret ballot in meetings or
Stamford Mark Corp v Julian
referenda called for that purpose. A decision to declare a
lockout must be approved by a majority of the board of Facts: Upon receiving a letter that the employees had
directors of the corporation or association or of the formed a union, the management of the companies
partners in a partnership, obtained by secret ballot in a began dismissing employees. Employees went on strike.
meeting called for that purpose. The decision shall be Held: Illegal strike. There was no showing that the Union
valid for the duration of the dispute based on substantially was a legitimate labor organization entitled to file a notice
the same grounds considered when the strike or lockout of strike. Furthermore, the requirements prescribed in Art.
vote was taken. The Ministry may, at its own initiative or 263(c)-(f) were not complied with. Although the right to
upon the request of any affected party, supervise the strike is embedded in the Constitution, the Law regulates
conduct of the secret balloting. In every case, the union or the exercise of the said right by providing procedural steps
the employer shall furnish the Ministry the results of the before a strike may be conducted. Failure to follow the
voting at least seven days before the intended strike or mandated steps will render the strike illegal
lockout, subject to the cooling-off period herein provided. Shell Oil Workers Union v Shell Co of Phils
Facts: Union staged a strike because the security guard
section was dissolved contrary to their CBA.
Labor Code, Art. 279 (a), supra pg. 48
Held: Strike was valid. The determination of the legality or
Pilipino Telephone Corp v PILTEA illegality of a strike, particularly in this enlightened era of
Facts: The Union filed two notices of strike. After the filing of progressive thinking on labor- management relations is
the first, the Secretary of Labor issued an assumption order something that cannot be achieved by mere straight-
and directed both parties not to do anything that would jacketed legalistic argumentation and rationalization; the
exacerbate the situation. Despite the order, the Union filed process is broader and deeper than that, for to do justice
a second notice and went on strike. in deciding such an issue, it is imperative that utmost
Held: The strike was illegal for non-compliance with consideration should be given to the particular
procedural requirements and defiance of the Secretary’s circumstances of each case, with a view to having the
order. The Union did not comply with the mandatory most comprehensive understanding of the motivations of
requirements as set forth in Art. 263 in that they did not the parties, in the light of human needs on the part of
observe (1) the required strike-vote before the labor, and in the perspective of the orderly and
commencement of the strike and (2) the mandatory economical conduct of business and industry, on the part
cooling-off period between notice and actual strike. As to of management
the cooling-off period, there was no union busting that
took place, which would have warranted its iii) Defenses – good faith
nonobservance
National Union of Workers Hotels, Restaurant and Allied
Industries v NLRC
See again: Sukhothai v. CA, supra pg. 43
Facts: The “rebel union” filed a notice of strike on the basis
of ULP. NCMB dismissed the notice because the issue was
10. Test of legality a non-strikeable, being an intra-union dispute.
a. legal strikes Meanwhile, the Hotel dismissed one of their officers, which
led to a wildcat strike.
i) Purpose and Means Test
Reliance Surety and Insurance Co v NLRC Held: Illegal strike. Even when the employer did not
commit ULP, a strike is still legal provided that the strikers
Facts: The Company changed seating arrangement of
believed in good faith that ULP acts existed. This belief
employees. Employees (union members) protested and
must be warranted by the circumstances. Such is not the
refusing to comply. They were suspended and after
case here. The dismissal of one of their officers was not a
investigation, dismissed. The Union held a strike. Note that
sufficient ground to justify the strike. For one, there were
the Union failed to observe procedural requirements
alternative remedies, such as questioning the dismissal’s
(notice, 2/3 strike vote by secret ballot, and submission of
legality
the strike vote to the DOLE seven days prior to the strike)
and some strikers harassed non-strikers and committed
acts of violence.
Held: The strike was illegal. In jurisprudence, good faith is a

valid defense against claims of illegality of a strike, but
here union officers clearly staged the strike in bad faith.

! 1
b. Illegal Strikes A. Soriano Aviation v Employees Association of A. Soriano

Aviation
i) Basis of illegality
Facts: Following the suspension of eight mechanics, the
Union went on strike against the Company. Over a period
(b) – Workers shall have the right to engage in concerted of 9 non-consecutive days across 8 months, strikers
activities for purposes of collective bargaining or for their shouted insults using a megaphone, threw water at a
mutual benefit and protection. The right of legitimate personnel manager, shoutedat the COO, a manager,
labor organizations to strike and picket and of employers non-striking employees, and officers, threw gravel and
to lockout, consistent with the national interest, shall sand at the car of the company’s lead man, etc.
continue to be recognized and respected. However, no Held: It was an illegal strike. In accordance with Art. 264,
labor union may strike and no employer may declare a even an the otherwise legal strike may be rendered illegal
lockout on grounds involving inter-union and intra-union if the means employed were illegal. Even if the acts were
disputes. committed on non-consecutive days, the acts were still
pervasive. Art. 264 doesn’t require that violence must be
(c) – In case of bargaining deadlocks, the duly certified or continuous or that they should exist for the entire duration
recognized bargaining agent may file a notice of strike or of the strike.
the employer may file a notice of lockout with the Ministry
at least 30 day before the intended date thereof. In cases
ii) Various categories of illegal strikes
of unfair labor practice, the period of notice shall be 15
Toyota v NLRC <- pa-edit yung pinaka maiksi
days and in the absence of a duly certified or recognized
bargaining agent, the notice of strike may be filed by any Facts: Toyota employees held a strike which led to the
legitimate labor organization in behalf of its members. company terminating 227 employees. This led ot another
However, in case of dismissal from employment of union strike that involved blocking entry and exit to the facilities
officers duly elected in accordance with the union causing Toyota great loss in profits. SOLE assumed
constitution and by-laws, which may constitute union jurisdiction and issued return to work order. Employees still
busting, where the existence of the union is threatened, continued the strike
the 15-day cooling-off period shall not apply and the
union may take action immediately. Held: The strikes were illegal because they did not go
through the proper proceeding in the labor code
The following are the categories of illegal strikes
Labor Code, Art. 279 (a)
1. When it is contrary to a specific prohibition of law, such
No labor organization or employer shall declare a strike or as strike by employees performing governmental
lockout without first having bargained collectively in functions; or
accordance with Title VII of this Book or without first having 2. When it violates a specific requirement of law, [such as
filed the notice required in the preceding Article or without Article 263 of the Labor Code on the requisites of a
the necessary strike or lockout vote first having been valid strike]; or
obtained and reported to the Ministry. 3. When it is declared for an unlawful purpose, such as
inducing the employer to commit an unfair labor
practice against non-union employees; or
Labor Code, Art. 280 4. When it employs unlawful means in the pursuit of its
objective, such as a widespread terrorism of non-
Improved offer balloting. In an effort to settle a strike, the
strikers [for example, prohibited acts under Art. 264(e)
Department of Labor and Employment shall conduct a
of the Labor Code]; or
referendum by secret ballot on the improved offer of the
5. When it is declared in violation of an existing injunction,
employer on or before the 30th day of the strike. When at
[such as injunction, prohibition, or order issued by the
least a majority of the union members vote to accept the
DOLE Secretary and the NLRC under Art. 263 of the
improved offer the striking workers shall immediately return
Labor Code]; or
to work and the employer shall thereupon readmit them
6. When it is contrary to an existing agreement, such as a
upon the signing of the agreement.
no-strike clause or conclusive arbitration clause.
In case of a lockout, the Department of Labor and
Employment shall also conduct a referendum by secret iii) Illegal acts/prohibited activities
balloting on the reduced offer of the union on or before Labor Code, Art. 279 –
the 30th day of the lockout. When at least a majority of
the board of directors or trustees or the partners holding Prohibited activities.
the controlling interest in the case of a partnership vote to a. No labor organization or employer shall declare a
accept the reduced offer, the workers shall immediately strike or lockout without first having bargained
return to work and the employer shall thereupon readmit collectively in accordance with Title VII of this
them upon the signing of the agreement. Book or without first having filed the notice
required in the preceding Article or without the

! 2
necessary strike or lockout vote first having been entrances. Secretary issued another return- to-work order,
obtained and reported to the Ministry. complete with police assistance. Union agreed to go back
b. No strike or lockout shall be declared after to work, but company stopped 21 employees (union
assumption of jurisdiction by the President or the officers) from entering the premises, and placed them on
Minister or after certification or submission of the preventive suspension and 1st notice with chance to
dispute to compulsory or voluntary arbitration or explain. Employees went to Secretary for relief, and the
during the pendency of cases involving the same latter ordered the company to reinstate them. Company
grounds for the strike or lockout. reinstated them only in payroll and issued another 1st
c. Any worker whose employment has been notice with chance to explain, based on different
terminated as a consequence of any unlawful grounds. Employees offered explanation but were
lockout shall be entitled to reinstatement with full terminated anyway. CA affirmed Secretary’s award of
backwages. Any union officer who knowingly daily wage increase for the new CBA, but resolved the
participates in an illegal strike and any worker or issue of illegal dismissal itself, holding that only 1 dismissal
union officer who knowingly participates in the was supported by substantial evidence.
commission of illegal acts during a strike may be Held: 5 of 6 employees were legally dismissed. It is the
declared to have lost his employment status: company’s prerogative to dismiss employees on legal
Provided, That mere participation of a worker in a grounds, and the violation of the Secretary’s return-to-
lawful strike shall not constitute sufficient ground work order, as well as the prevention of other workers from
for termination of his employment, even if a returning to work, was a legal ground for dismissal. Under
replacement had been hired by the employer the law, the Secretary’s assumption of jurisdiction over a
during such lawful strike. labor dispute (or its certification to the NLRC for
d. No person shall obstruct, impede, or interfere with, compulsory arbitration) shall have the effect of
by force, violence, coercion, threats or automatically enjoining the intended or impending strike
intimidation, any peaceful picketing by or lockout, and all striking or locked out employees shall
employees during any labor controversy or in the immediately return to work, and the employer shall
exercise of the right to self-organization or immediately resume operations and readmit all workers
collective bargaining, or shall aid or abet such under the same terms and conditions before the strike or
obstruction or interference. lockout. The union defied the Secretary’s return-to-work
e. No employer shall use or employ any strike- order, which made the strike illegal and thus a valid
breaker, nor shall any person be employed as a ground for dismissal under Art. 264 of the Labor Code. The
strike-breaker. union officers were liable not only for defying the
f. No public official or employee, including officers Secretary, but also for leading, instigating, and
and personnel of the New Armed Forces of the participating in a work slowdown during the CBA
Philippines or the Integrated National Police, or negotiations without complying with the mandatory legal
armed person, shall bring in, introduce or escort in requirements of a strike notice and strike vote
any manner, any individual who seeks to replace
strikers in entering or leaving the premises of a
strike area, or work in place of the strikers. The iv) Effect of union non-registation
police force shall keep out of the picket lines Magdala Multipurpose & Livelihood Coop v Kilusang
unless actual violence or other criminal acts occur Manggagawa
therein: Provided, That nothing herein shall be
Facts: KMLMS filed a notice of strike and conducted its
interpreted to prevent any public officer from
strike vote before its registration as an independent labor
taking any measure necessary to maintain peace
organization was granted by the DOLE.
and order, protect life and property, and/or
enforce the law and legal order. (As amended by
Held: The strike is illegal. When KMLMS filed their notice of
Executive Order No. 111, December 24, 1986)
strike, it had not yet acquired legal personality and, thus,
g. No person engaged in picketing shall commit any
could not legally represent the eventual union and its
act of violence, coercion or intimidation or
members. Also, when KMLMS conducted the strike-vote,
obstruct the free ingress to or egress from the
there was still no union to speak of. It only acquired legal
employer’s premises for lawful purposes, or
personality as an independent legitimate labor
obstruct public thoroughfares. (As amended by
organization the day after it conducted its strike-vote.
Batas Pambansa Bilang 227, June 1, 1982)
Consequently, the mandatory notice of strike and the
conduct of the strike-vote report were ineffective. The
Bagong Pagkakaisa ng Manggagawa ng Triumph v. DOLE, law, in providing who may declare a strike or lockout,
supra pg. refers to a “duly certified or recognized bargaining agent”
and (Art. 263 of the Labor Code) and “legitimate labor
Facts: Long dispute between the Union and the company organization”(Rule XXII, Book V of the Omnibus Rules
over the increase in daily wage proposals for the new Implementing the Labor Code).
CBA. Secretary of Labor assumed jurisdiction and issued
return-to-work order. Union stopped some employees
from going back to work by blocking the company

! 3
See again: Abaria v Metro Cebu Comm. Hospital vi) Liability of participating members/officers of the union -
individual
Facts: Petitioner union held a strike due to the hospital’s
Labor Code, Art. 279(a), supra.
unwillingness to collectively bargain with them. The union
was a chartered local of NFL. Before it had validly
disassociated, it held a strike which was disavowed by NFL. Prohibited acts under Art. 279 (a), last paragraph
Held: The strike is illegal because an unregistered union May be deemed terminated if
does not have the personality to avail itself of the rights committed:
under the labor code. The union could not validly
represent its members because of its lack of personality. Union Officer knowing participation in the illegal
strike
v) Effect of illegality Union Member knowingly participated in the

Labor Code, Art. 279 (a) - commission of illegal acts during the
strike.
No labor organization or employer shall declare a strike or
lockout without first having bargained collectively in
accordance with Title VII of this Book or without first having HSBC Employees Union vs. NLRC & HSBC
filed the notice required in the preceding Article or without GR No.156635; Jan. 11, 2016; Bersamin, J.
the necessary strike or lockout vote first having been
FACTS:
obtained and reported to the Ministry.
HSBCEU had a CBA with HSBC. During its effectivity, HSBC
implemented a JEP which the union considered as ULP.
Phimco Industries Inc v Phimco Industries Labor During the dispute, union members walked out of the
Association company premises, blocked entry and exit from the
company causing HSBC to file a petition for habeas
Facts: PILA staged a strike and picketed outside of corpus on behalf of its officials and employees prevented
PHIMCO premises. PHIMCO dismissed the union officers from leaving the premises. HSBC later filed a complaint to
and participating employees. Strike was also declared declare the strike illegal. LA declared the strike illegal and
illegal by the NLRC. deemed the officers and member of the union who
participated in the strike to have lost their employment
Held: Strike was valid, but the means employed rendered status. NLRC modified this ruling insofar as 18 of the
it illegal. Although the requirements for a valid strike were dismissed employees were not officers of the union nor
complied with, the picketers prevented the ingress and have been pinpointed as to have committed illegal acts
egress of PHIMCO managers and non-participating during the strike. CA affirmed. Hence, this petition for
employees from the company premises. The picketing also certiorari raising the issue that the CA erred in holding that
created an intimidating atmosphere. Thus the strike was all employees (save for the 18) were validly dismissed.
held illegal. IN this case, the 10 union officers stand to be
dismissed as participating union officers because they HELD:
knowingly participated in an illegal strike. In Samahang 7. On the legality of the strike.
Manggagawa sa Sulpicio Lines, Inc.-NAFLU v Sulpicio The strike was illegal for failure to comply with the
Lines, Inc., the Court explained that the effect of illegal procedural requirements, i.e. (1) notice of strike; (2) strike
strikes (as outlined in Art. 264) differs between workers and vote approved by majority of total union membership
union officers who participate in them. An ordinary striking obtained through secret balloting; (3) notice of the results
worker cannot be terminated for mere participation; there of voting; and (4) observance of the cooling off period.
must be proof that he committed illegal acts, he must be
identified based on substantial evidence, and liability is to Moreover, contrary to the claim of the union members that
be determined on an individual basis. A union officer, on they did not commit any acts of violence nor block the
the other hand, may be terminated upon proof that he entry and exit points of the company, factual
knowingly participated in an illegal strike, whether or not circumstances show otherwise. The picket conducted was
he commits illegal acts. In the case at bar, the a non-moving, stationary one - nothing less but a
participating union officers may be validly dismissed barricade. This office is more than convinced that the
because they knowingly participated in an illegal strike, respondents, at least on that day, have demonstrated an
while 37 participating union members may also be validly abnormally high degree of hatred and anger at the Bank
dismissed for illegally blocking ingress to and egress from and its officers (including the Bank's chief executive officer
company premises during the illegal strike, as they were who fell to the ground as a result of the pushing and
individually identified through affidavits of other PHIMCO shoving) leading them to do anything to carry out their
employees. resolve not to let anymore inside the Bank.
Good faith did not avail because of the

See again: Sukhothai vs. CA, supra pg. 43
patent violation of Article 263 (now 278) of the Labor
Code. For their claim to be upheld, it was not enough for

! 4
them to believe that their employer was guilty of ULP, for worker cannot be dismissed for such mere participation in
they must also sufficiently show that the strike was the illegal strike.
undertaken with a modicum of obeisance to the
restrictions on their exercise of the right to strike prior to The law makes a distinction between union members and
and during its execution as prescribed by the law. union officers. A worker merely participating in an illegal
strike may not be terminated from employment. It is only
2. [Main] On the issue of liability when he commits illegal acts during a strike that he may
The GR is that the mere finding of the illegality of the strike be declared to have lost employment status. In contrast, a
does not justify the wholesale termination of the strikers union officer may be terminated from employment for
from their employment. To avoid rendering the recognition knowingly participating in an illegal strike or participates in
of the workers' right to strike illusory, the responsibility for the commission of illegal acts during a strike. The law
the illegal strike is individual instead of collective. (See: Art. grants the employer the option of declaring a union
279 (a), last paragraph) There is a need to distinguish officer who participated in an illegal strike as having lost
between officers and the members of the union who his employment. It possesses the right and prerogative to
participate in an illegal strike. (See: table above). terminate the union officers from service.
In this case, the dismissal of one employee who was on

leave before and during the strike for health reasons was See: Fadriquelan vs. Monterey Foods Corp.
held illegal, him not having participated in the commission G.R. No. 178409; June 8, 2011; Abad, J.
of illegal acts during the strike, although with full moral FACTS:
support for the strike. The burden of proving the overt Bukluran ng Manggagawa sa Monterey-IBM had a CBA
participation in the illegal strike solely belong to HSBC with Monterey Foods which expired. There was a
which they failed to discharge. bargaining deadlock during its renegotiation causing the
union to file for a notice of strike. SOLE assumed JD upon
As to the dismissal of Union officers, SC held that it was motion of the company and put the parties on a status
validly done. The Union officers instigated and knowingly quo. Union filed a second notice of strike on the alleged
participated in the strike. Their responsibility as the officers commission of the company of ULP. Company sent the
of the Union who led the illegal strike was greater than the union officers notices (1) charging them with intentional
responsibility of the members simply because the former acts of slowdown, and (2) termination for having violated
had the duty to guide their members to obey and respect the assumption order.
the law. When said officers urged and made their
members violate the law, their dismissal became an On motion of the company, SOLE included the second
appropriate penalty for their unlawful act. notice of strike in his assumption order, but on the same
day, the union filed a third notice of strike alleging union
Unlike Union's officers, the ordinary striking members could busting and illegal dismissal of union officers. SOLE upheld
not be terminated for merely taking part in the illegal the dismissal of the union officers. CA modified this insofar
strike. Regardless of whether the strike was illegal or not, as 10 union officers are concerned.
the dismissal of the members could be upheld only upon
proof that they had committed illegal acts during the The union filed a petition before the SC raising the issue of
strike. They must be specifically identified because the the legality of the dismissal of its union officers.
liability for the prohibited acts was determined on an
individual basis. For that purpose, substantial evidence HELD:
available under the attendant circumstances justifying the In this case, there was a slowdown strike which, unlike
penalty of dismissal sufficed. other strikes, does not require the employees to walk out of
their jobs to hurt the company. They need only to stop
VCMC vs. Yballe et al. work or reduce the rate of their work while generally
G.R. No. 196156; January 15, 2014; Villarama, Jr. remaining in their assigned post. CA held that after the AJ
of the SOLE, union held a slowdown strike.
FACTS:
Emma, Nelia, Eleuteria, and Evelyn all worked for VCMC A distinction exists, however, between the ordinary workers
(previously MCCHI) as staff nurses or midwives. They were liability for illegal strike and that of the union officers who
all dismissed for having allegedly participated in the illegal participated in it. The ordinary worker cannot be
concerted activities of their unregistered union, NAMA. terminated for merely participating in the strike. There must
They petitioned the Court raising the issue of the legality of be proof that he committed illegal acts during its conduct.
their dismissal there being no iota of proof that they On the other hand, a union officer can be terminated
participated in the illegal acts committed by NAMA. upon mere proof that he knowingly participated in the
illegal strike.
HELD:
Their dismissal was illegal because they were merely union Nevertheless, the participating union officers still have to
members whose participation was only limited to wearing be properly identified. Here, some union officers were
of armbands, as found by the CA. An ordinary striking

! 5
terminated based merely on their positions in the union, various offenses. Union, on the other hand, filed a second
and thus their dismissal was illegal. notice of strike for ULP, but still continuing their picket.
Their employments were later terminated by the hotel.

See: Escario et al. vs. NLRC Union filed third notice of strike. SOLE assumed JD and
G.R. No. 160302; September 27, 2010; Bersamin certified case to NLRC for compulsory arbitration under
FACTS: Art. 278 (g), and gave the Hotel the discretion to opt for
Escario et al. (about 200) were employees of PINA and actual reinstatement or payroll reinstatement. Hotel issued
were members of Malayang Samahan ng mga memo ordering return to work.
Manggagawa sa Balanced Foods (Union). During the
course of their employment, their Union conducted a walk Union raised the issue of W/N the SOLE has discretion to
out to support one of their union officers who was charged impose payroll reinstatement when he assumes jurisdiction
with oral defamation by company Personnel Manager. This over labor disputes.
allegedly resulted in a settlement but PINA still preventively
suspended and later terminated their employment. HELD:
SC cited UIC vs. SOLE in holding that the GR is that the
PINA filed for a complaint for ULP alleging illegal walkout, SOLE should impose actual reinstatement in accordance
and that all union officers save one had lost their with the intent and spirit of Art. 278 (g) of the Labor Code.
employment. Union, on the other hand, filed a notice of However, the case of Manila Diamond Hotel vs. CA
strike alleging union busting. Strike was held the same day. provided for an exception, that is payroll reinstatement in
LA ruled for PINA. NLRC and CA affirmed. case actual reinstatement is impracticable.
HELD: On the consequences of an illegal strike, the Here, the actual reinstatement of employees who shaved
provision distinguishes between a union officer and a their heads or cropped their hair is impracticable
union member participating in an illegal strike. A union because this was exactly the reason they were prevented
officer who knowingly participates in an illegal strike is from working in the first place. Further, as with most labor
deemed to have lost his employment status, but a union disputes which have resulted in strikes, there is mutual
member who is merely instigated or induced to antagonism, enmity, and animosity between the union
participate in the illegal strike is more benignly treated. and the management. Payroll reinstatement, most
Part of the explanation for the benign consideration for the especially in this case, would have been the only avenue
union member is the policy of reinstating rank-and-file where further incidents and damages could be avoided.
workers who are misled into supporting illegal strikes, Public officials entrusted with specific jurisdictions enjoy
absent any finding that such workers committed illegal great confidence from the Court. The Secretary surely
acts during the period of the illegal strikes. meant only to ensure industrial peace as she assumed
jurisdiction over the labor dispute. In this case, SC was not
ready to substitute its own findings in the absence of a
clear showing of grave abuse of discretion on her part.
vii. Effect of Assumption/Certification Order
See again: Tabangao Shell Refinery Employees Union vs.
vii.1. Breadth of Power and jurisdiction of Secretary in AJ
Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corp.
cases
Holding: SOLE may assume jurisdiction over a labor dispute
NUWHRAIN-APL-IUF Dusit Hotel Nikko Chapter vs. CA, causing or likely to cause a strike or lockout in an industry
NLRC, Phil. Hoteliers indispensable to the national interest, and decide the
G.R. No. 166295; November 11, 2008; Velasco, Jr same accordingly. And, as a matter of necessity, it
includes questions incidental to the labor dispute; that is,
FACTS: issues that are necessarily involved in the dispute itself, and
Male union members in this case went to work with their not just to that ascribed in the Notice of Strike or otherwise
head bald or hairs cropped, contrary to the Hotel submitted to him for resolution. The power of the Secretary
Grooming Standards, after the conciliation proceedings of Labor and Employment to assume jurisdiction over this
that was conducted proved unsuccessful. Because of this, dispute includes and extends to all questions and
the hotel prevented these workers from entering the controversies arising from the said dispute, such as, but not
premises. limited to the union’s allegation of bad faith bargaining. As
there is already an existing controversy on the matter of
To retaliate, the Union staged a picket outside the Hotel wage increase, the Secretary of Labor and Employment
premises. Other workers were also prevented from need not wait for a deadlock in the negotiations to take
entering the premises causing them to join the picket. cognizance of the matter.
Hotel subsequently issued notices to Union members, Doctrine: Such assumption or certification shall have the
preventively suspending them and charging them with the effect of automatically enjoining the intended or
impending strike or lockout as specified in the assumption

! 6
or certification order. If one has already taken place at the representation of persons in negotiating, fixing,
time of assumption or certification, all striking or locked maintaining, changing or arranging the terms and
out employees shall immediately return to work and the conditions of employment, regardless of whether or not
employer shall immediately resume operations and the disputants stand in the proximate relation of employers
readmit all workers under the same terms and conditions and employees. The term strike shall comprise not only
prevailing before the strike or lockout. The Secretary of concerted work stoppages, but also slowdowns, mass
Labor and Employment or the Commission may seek the leaves, sitdowns, attempts to damage, destroy or
assistance of law enforcement agencies to ensure the sabotage plant equipment and facilities and similar
compliance with this provision as well as with such orders activities. Thus, the fact that the conventional term strike
as he may issue to enforce the same. was not used by the striking employees to describe their
common course of action is inconsequential, since the
substance of the situation, and not its appearance, will be
See again: Bagong Pagkakaisa ng Manggagawa sa deemed to be controlling.
Triumph Internation vs. SOLE
Doctrine: Labor Secretary's assumption of jurisdiction over Here, considering that the mass actions stemmed from a
the dispute or its certification to the National Labor bargaining deadlock and an order of assumption of
Relations Commission for compulsory arbitration shall have jurisdiction had already been issued by the SOLE to avert
the effect of automatically enjoining the intended or an impending strike, there is no doubt that the concerted
impending strike or lockout and all striking or locked out work abandonment/boycott was the result of a labor
employees shall immediately return to work and the dispute.
employer shall immediately resume operations and
readmit all workers under the same terms and conditions
before the strike or lockout. 11. In case of Illegal Strike, Illegal Lockout/In pari delicto
doctrine - Status Quo Ante
viii. Mass Leave Automotive Engine Rebuilders, Inc. vs. Progresibong Unyon
Solidbank Corp. vs. EU Gamier ng mga Manggagawa sa AER et al.
FACTS: FACTS:
Solidbank and respondent Solidbank Employees Union AER and Unyon filed cases against each other having
(Union) were set to renegotiate the economic provisions of different versions of the story.
their CBA. The union filed a notice of strike seeing that
coming up with an agreement was unlikely. During the AER: 18 employees, acting collectively and in concert,
negotiations, union stages a series of mass actions causing suddenly and without reason staged a walkout and
SOLE to assume JD, and later decided their dispute. Union assembled illegally in the company premises. Instead of
was dissatisfied so it decided to protest by holding a rally in hearing their plea to return to work, the employees
front of the Office of the SOLE. Following this, employed violence and urged others to stop their work
overwhelming majority of employees joined the mass causing AER to dismiss them from service.
leave and protest action at the DOLE Office, while the
bank’s provincial branches in Cebu, Iloilo, Bacolod and UNION: The dispute started when the AER forced all of its
Naga followed suit and boycotted regular work. This employees to submit their urine samples for drug testing a
paralyzed the operations of the bank. day after it filed a PCE, and threatened those who refused
with dismissal. 7 workers tested positive for illegal drugs, all
After 3 days of mass action, the Bank issued a memo of which were suspended for violating the Employee’s
declaring that it was prepared to take back employees handbook. AER only allowed 2 to report back to work,
who will report for work provided these employees were/ while the other 5 were required to first submit the required
are not part of those who led or instigated or coerced medical certificate attesting to their fitness to work. While
their co-employees into participating in this illegal act. Of the employees were in the process of securing such, they
712 employees, 513 returned to work, while 199 were were shocked to receive a letter from AER charging them
dismissed for failure to return to work. with insubordination and absence without leave. Despite
their written explanation, AER refused to reinstate them.
LA found that their dismissal was illegal and unjustified.
NLRC reversed. CA reinstated LA decision. HELD:
AER was guilty of illegal lockout and that the Unyon was
HELD: guilty of illegal concerted activities. Since both parties
“Strike” is defined in the Labor Code as any temporary were guilty of ULP, they were in pari delicto. The situation
stoppage of work by the concerted action of employees warrants the restoration of the status quo ante, bringing the
as a result of an industrial or labor dispute. “Labor dispute” parties back to their respective positions before the illegal
includes any controversy or matter concerning terms and strike and illegal lockout through the reinstatement of the
conditions of employment or the association or employees (Philippines Inter-Fashion, Inc. v NLRC). But

! 7
while they are entitled to reinstatement, the employees majority of the union members vote to accept the
are not entitled to backwages, as these are only ordered improved offer, the striking members shall immediately
under exceptional circumstances (e.g. employer is guilty return to work and the employer shall thereupon readmit
of oppression and union-busting activities, and strikers them upon signing of the agreement.
ordered reinstated are denied such reinstatement). Since
the strike was illegal, the principle of “no work, no pay” is In case of a lockout, the regional branch of the Board shall
applicable. also conduct a referendum by secret balloting on the
reduced offer of the union on or before the 30th day of
the lockout. When at least a majority of board of directors
or trustees or the partners holding the controlling interest in
the case of partnership vote to accept the reduced offer,
12. Employment of Strike Breakers or Scabs the workers shall immediately return to work and the
Labor Code, Art. 279 (264) (c) employer shall readmit them upon signing of the
agreement.
Prohibited Activities. x x x
(c) No employer shall use or employ any strike-breaker,
nor shall any person be employed as a strike-breaker.
C. Slowdown as Concerted Activity
Labor Code, Art. 219 (212) (r) See Again: Ilaw at Buklod ng Manggagawa vs. NLRC
Definition of Terms. x x x A slowdown is an inherently illegal activity, essentially

(r) "Strike-breaker" means any person who obstructs, illegal even in the absence of a no-strike clause in a
impedes, or interferes with by force, violence, collective bargaining contract, or statute or rule. A
coercion, threats, or intimidation any peaceful slowdown is a "strike on the installment plan;" a willful
picketing affecting wages, hours or conditions of work reduction in the rate of work by concerted action of
or in the exercise of the right of self-organization or workers for the purpose of restricting the output of the
collective bargaining. employer, in relation to a labor dispute; as an activity by
which workers, without a complete stoppage of work,
retard production or their performance of duties and
functions to compel management to grant their demands.
13. Improved Balloting and Strikes

D. Sit-down Strike
Improved offer balloting. - In an effort to settle a strike, the See: Malayang Manggagawa sa Stayfast Phils. Inc. vs.
Department of Labor and Employment shall conduct a NLRC
referendum by secret ballot on the improved offer of the
employer on or before the 30th day of the strike. When at FACTS:
least a majority of the union members vote to accept the Two unions were vying to be the SEBA of Stayfast Phils. Inc.
improved offer the striking workers shall immediately return thus a CE was held where NLMS-Olalia won. This was
to work and the employer shall thereupon readmit them contested by petitioner MMSP-Independent. While the
upon the signing of the agreement. appeal was pending, both unions filed a notice to strike.
MMSP’s was opposed by the company on the ground that
In case of a lockout, the Department of Labor and it had no personality to file a notice of strike. MMSP-
Employment shall also conduct a referendum by secret Independent later withdrew its notice of strike but
balloting on the reduced offer of the union on or before subsequently held a sit-down strike. Company now
the 30th day of the lockout. When at least a majority of questions the legality of this.
the board of directors or trustees or the partners holding
the controlling interest in the case of a partnership vote to HELD: SC dismissed the petition due to technicalities but
accept the reduced offer, the workers shall immediately held that even assuming that the petition was proper, the
return to work and the employer shall thereupon readmit sit-down strike held by the petitioner union was illegal
them upon the signing of the agreement. (Incorporated because it in violation of respondent company’s rules, and
by Section 28, Republic Act No. 6715, March 21, 1989). petitioner’s officers and members ignored the opportunity
given by respondent company for them to explain their
misconduct, which resulted in the termination of their
IRR, Book V, Rule XXII, Sec. 12 employment.
Improved Offer Balloting. - In case of a strike, the regional

branch of the Board shall, at its own initiative, or upon
request of any affected party, conduct a referendum by
secret balloting on the improved offer of the employer on
or before the 30th day of the strike. When at least a

! 8
E. Sympathy Strike
however much it is to be regretted, must have been in the
contemplation of the Congress when it provided in Sec. 13
Punongbayan & Araullo et al. vs. Lepon of Act 29 USCA Sec. 163, that nothing therein should be
Punongbayan and Araullo is an accounting firm which construed so
hired Roberto Ponce Lepon as an auditor. Later, SGV as to interfere with or impede or diminish in any way the
commenced negotiation for merging with P&A. However, right to strike. If this were not so, the rights afforded to
this did not push through. P&A later found out that Lepon employees by the Act would indeed be illusory. It was
met with its clients urging them to engage in the service of accordingly recently held that it was not intended by the
a competitor firm instead and that he also tried to pirate Act that minor disorders of this nature would deprive a
P&A’s entire staff in its Cebu and Davao Offices. Lepon striker of the possibility of reinstatement.
was suspended and later dismissed from service due to
loss of trust and confidence. See Again: Sta. Rosa Coca-cola Plant EU vs. CCBP
Lepon filed a complaint for illegal suspension and illegal Picketing involves merely the marching to and fro at the
dismissal. This was dismissed by the LA, as affirmed by the premises of the employer, usually accompanied by the
NLRC. CA, however, reversed. display of placards and other signs making known the
facts involved in a labor dispute. As applied to a labor
HELD: dispute, to picket means the stationing of one or more
He was validly dismissed for loss of trust and confidence. persons to observe and attempt to observe. The purpose
by enjoining P&A's staff to engage in a sympathy strike of pickets is said to be a means of peaceable persuasion.
during his preventive suspension. He did so by enjoining
the staff of the P&A Cebu City Office to sympathize with
him by not reporting to work so as to paralyze the
operations of P&A's Cebu City Office. 3. Picketing and Libel Laws
Philippine Commercial and Industrial Bank vs. Philnabank

Employees
F. Picketing
FACTS:
IRR, Book V, Rule XXII, Sec. 13 PCIB, hurt and affected by a placard alluding to it during
a strike of PNB’s employees against PNB, filed a libel suit
Peaceful Picketing. - Workers shall have the right to against the said employees.
peaceful picketing. No person engaged shall commit any
act of violence, coercion, or intimidation or obstruct the HELD:
free ingress to or egress from the employers premises for The court found no libelous statement, underscoring that it
lawful purposes or obstruct public thoroughfares. can hardly be expected that the “inaccuracies and
imprecision” in language arising from strikes and other
No person shall obstruct, impede or interfere with, by labor disputes (which elicit strong emotional response from
force, violence or coercion, threats or intimidation, any both labor and management) will be courteous and
peaceful picketing by workers during any labor polite. In deciding suits for libel, the judiciary must
controversy or the exercise of the right to self-organization ascertain whether or not the alleged offending words may
or collective bargaining or shall aid and abet such be embraced by the guarantees of free speech and free
obstruction or interference. No employer shall use or press (U.S. v. Bustos). From the time of Mortrera v. CIR
employ any person to commit such acts nor shall any (1947),the SC has been committed to the view that
person be employed for such purpose. peaceful picketing is part of the freedom of speech
guarantee of the Constitution. The labor union made use
of its constitutional right to picket.
1. Definition
2. Nature and Purpose

See again: Insular Life Assurance Co. Employees Assoc. vs. 4. Curtailment
Insular Life Assurance Nagkahiusang Manggagawa ng Cuizon Hotel vs. Libron
It must be conceded that some disorder is unfortunately FACTS:

quite usual in any extensive or long drawn out strike. A The Labor Arbiter issued an order ruling that since a strike
strike is essentially a battle waged with economic had been declared illegal, sanctions would likewise be
weapons. Engaged in it are human beings whose feelings imposed on immediate incidents thereto, such as
are stirred to the depths. Rising passions call forth hot picketing. In other words, once strikers are permanently
words. Hot words lead to blows on the picket line. The enjoined from staging the illegal strike, the picketing
transformation from economic to physical combat by staged should also be simultaneously lifted.
those engaged in the contest is difficult to prevent even
when cool heads direct the fight. Violence of this nature, HELD:

! 9
The SC did not agree. Citing PCIB v. Philnabank, the court cases involving the same grounds for the strike or
reiterated that from the time of Mortrera v. CIR (1947), it lockout.
has been committed to the view that peaceful picketing is
part of the freedom of speech guarantee of the Any worker whose employment has been terminated
Constitution. Thus, picketing cannot be prohibited as long as a consequence of any unlawful lockout shall be
as it is done peacefully. However, peaceful picketing entitled to reinstatement with full backwages. Any
cannot countenance acts of illegality. union officer who knowingly participates in an illegal
strike and any worker or union officer who knowingly
participates in the commission of illegal acts during a
strike may be declared to have lost his employment
5. Regulations/Restrictions, Innocent Third Party Rule and status: Provided, That mere participation of a worker in
Liabilities a lawful strike shall not constitute sufficient ground for
Liwayway Publishing Co. Inc vs. Permanent Concrete termination of his employment, even if a replacement
Workers Union had been hired by the employer during such lawful
strike.
FACTS:
Liwayway Publications’ office is in the same premises as
(b) No person shall obstruct, impede, or interfere with, by
that of Permanent Concrete Products’. One day,
force, violence, coercion, threats or intimidation, any
Permanent Concrete Workers Union staged a strike against
peaceful picketing by employees during any labor
the company. They later blocked the entrance to
controversy or in the exercise of the right to self-
Liwayway’s bodega, hindering the publication from
organization or collective bargaining, or shall aid or
access to their newsprint. Liwayway asked for a writ of
abet such obstruction or interference.
preliminary injunction against the strikers from the CFI,
which was granted. The Union questioned the CFI’s power
(c) No employer shall use or employ any strike-breaker,
to issue the writ.
nor shall any person be employed as a strike-breaker.
HELD: The union’s right to strike, although guaranteed by
(d) No public official or employee, including officers and
the Constitution, may be regulated if the rights of third
personnel of the New Armed Forces of the Philippines
parties or “innocent bystanders” are affected (Phil.
or the Integrated National Police, or armed person,
Association of Free Labor Unions (PAFLU) vs. Judge
shall bring in, introduce or escort in any manner, any
Gaudencio Cloribel et al.) Liwayway, not being a party to
individual who seeks to replace strikers in entering or
the labor dispute, was an innocent bystander. (Liwayway is
leaving the premises of a strike area, or work in place
not in any way related to the striking union, except for the
of the strikers. The police force shall keep out of the
fact that it was the sublessee of a bodega in the
picket lines unless actual violence or other criminal
company’s compound. Liwayway’s business is exclusively
acts occur therein: Provided, That nothing herein shall
the publication of weekly magazines, which has absolutely
be interpreted to prevent any public officer from
no relation or connection whatsoever with the cause of
taking any measure necessary to maintain peace and
the strike of the union against their company, much less
order, protect life and property, and/or enforce the
with the terms, conditions or demands of the strikers.) As
law and legal order. (As amended by Executive Order
such, the CFI could validly issue a writ of preliminary
No. 111, December 24, 1986).
injunction against the union to protect Liwayway’s
interests.
(e) No person engaged in picketing shall commit any act
of violence, coercion or intimidation or obstruct the
free ingress to or egress from the employer’s premises
6. Prohibited Activities for lawful purposes, or obstruct public thoroughfares.
Labor Code, Art. 279 (264) As amended by Batas Pambansa Bilang 227, June 1,
1982).
Prohibited Activities.
(a) No labor organization or employer shall declare a
strike or lockout without first having bargained IRR, Book V, Rule XXII, Sec. 13, supra pg. 57
collectively in accordance with Title VII of this Book or
without first having filed the notice required in the
preceding Article or without the necessary strike or G. Role of Peace Officers During Strikes and Picketing
lockout vote first having been obtained and reported
to the Ministry. 1. Escorting
Labor Code, Art. 279 (264) (d)
No strike or lockout shall be declared after assumption
of jurisdiction by the President or the Minister or after Prohibited Activities. x x x
certification or submission of the dispute to compulsory (d) No public official or employee, including officers and
or voluntary arbitration or during the pendency of personnel of the New Armed Forces of the Philippines
or the Integrated National Police, or armed person,

! 0
shall bring in, introduce or escort in any manner, any X. Employer Lockout
individual who seeks to replace strikers in entering or
leaving the premises of a strike area, or work in place A. Basis and Definition
of the strikers. The police force shall keep out of the Labor Code, Art. 278 (263) (b)
picket lines unless actual violence or other criminal
Strikes, Picketing, and Lockouts. x x x
acts occur therein: Provided, That nothing herein shall
(b) Workers shall have the right to engage in concerted
be interpreted to prevent any public officer from
activities for purposes of collective bargaining or for
taking any measure necessary to maintain peace and
their mutual benefit and protection. The right of
order, protect life and property, and/or enforce the
legitimate labor organizations to strike and picket and
law and legal order. (As amended by Executive Order
of employers to lockout, consistent with the national
No. 111, December 24, 1986).
interest, shall continue to be recognized and
respected. However, no labor union may strike and no
employer may declare a lockout on grounds involving
2. Arrest and Detention of Law Violators inter-union and intra-union disputes.
Requirement for arrest and detention. - Except on grounds Labor Code, Art. 219 (p)
of national security and public peace or in case of
Definition of Terms. x x x
commission of a crime, no union members or union
(p) "Lockout" means any temporary refusal of an
organizers may be arrested or detained for union activities
employer to furnish work as a result of an industrial or
without previous consultations with the Secretary of Labor.
labor dispute.
IRR, Book V, Rule I, Sec. 1 (gg)
Definition of Terms. -
(a) “Lockout” refers to the temporary refusal of an
employer to furnish work as a result of a labor or industrial
dispute
B. Effect on Work Relationship

Labor Code, Art. 219 (p), supra
C. Ground for Lockout

Labor Code, Art. 278 (263) (c)
Strikes, picketing, and lockouts. x x x

(c) In case of bargaining deadlocks, the duly certified or
recognized bargaining agent may file a notice of
strike or the employer may file a notice of lockout with
the Ministry at least 30 days before the intended date
thereof. In cases of unfair labor practice, the period of
notice shall be 15 days and in the absence of a duly
certified or recognized bargaining agent, the notice
of strike may be filed by any legitimate labor
organization in behalf of its members. However, in
case of dismissal from employment of union officers
duly elected in accordance with the union
constitution and by-laws, which may constitute union
busting, where the existence of the union is
threatened, the 15-day cooling-off period shall not
apply and the union may take action immediately.
(As amended by Executive Order No. 111, December
24, 1986).

! 1
D. Prohibited Lockout
For this purpose, the contending parties are strictly
Labor Code, Art. 278 (263) (b) (g)
enjoined to comply with such orders, prohibitions and/
Strikes, Picketing, and Lockouts. x x x or injunctions as are issued by the Secretary ofLabor
(b) Workers shall have the right to engage in concerted and Employment or the Commission, under pain of
activities for purposes of collective bargaining or for immediate disciplinary action, including dismissal or
their mutual benefit and protection. The right of loss of employment status or payment by the locking-
legitimate labor organizations to strike and picket and out employer of backwages, damages and other
of employers to lockout, consistent with the national affirmative relief, even criminal prosecution against
interest, shall continue to be recognized and either or both of them.
respected. However, no labor union may strike and no
employer may declare a lockout on grounds involving The foregoing notwithstanding, the President of the
inter-union and intra-union disputes. Philippines shall not be precluded from determining
the industries that, in his opinion, are indispensable to
xxx the national interest, and from intervening at any time
and assuming jurisdiction over any such labor dispute
(g) When, in his opinion, there exists a labor dispute in order to settle or terminate the same.
causing or likely to cause a strike or lockout in an
industry indispensable to the national interest, the
Labor Code, Art. 279 (264) (a), supra pg. 58
Secretary of Labor and Employment may assume
jurisdiction over the dispute and decide it or certify the
same to the Commission for compulsory arbitration.
Such assumption or certification shall have the effect E. Procedural Requirements
of automatically enjoining the intended or impending Labor Code, Art. 279 (264) (a)(c)(d)(e), supra pg. 58
strike or lockout as specified in the assumption or
certification order. If one has already taken place at Labor Code, Art. 278 (263) (e)
the time of assumption or certification, all striking or
locked out employees shall immediately return-to- Strikes, Picketing, and Lockouts. x x x
work and the employer shall immediately resume (e) During the cooling-off period, it shall be the duty of the
operations and readmit all workers under the same Ministry to exert all efforts at mediation and
terms and conditions prevailing before the strike or conciliation to effect a voluntary settlement. Should
lockout. The Secretary of Labor and Employment or the dispute remain unsettled until the lapse of the
the Commission may seek the assistance of law requisite number of days from the mandatory filing of
enforcement agencies to ensure compliance with this the notice, the labor union may strike or the employer
provision as well as with such orders as he may issue to may declare a lockout.
enforce the same.
IRR, Book V, Rule XXII, Sec. 5
In line with the national concern for and the highest
respect accorded to the right of patients to life and Grounds for strike or lockout. - A strike
health, strikes and lockouts in hospitals, clinics and or lockout may be declared in cases of bargaining
similar medical institutions shall, to every extent deadlocks and ULPs. Violations of CBAs, except flagrant
possible, be avoided, and all serious efforts, not only and/or malicious refusal to comply with its economic
by labor and management but government as well, provisions, shall not be considered ULP and shall not be
be exhausted to substantially minimize, if not prevent, strikeable. No strike or lockout may be declared on
their adverse effects on such life and health, through grounds involving inter-union and intra-union disputes or
the exercise, however legitimate, by labor of its right to without first having filed a notice of strike or lockout or
strike and by management to lockout. In labor without the necessary strike or lockout vote having been
disputes adversely affecting the continued operation obtained and reported to the Board. Neither will a strike
of such hospitals, clinics or medical institutions, it shall be declared after assumption of jurisdiction by the
be the duty of the striking union or locking-out Secretary or after certification of submission of the dispute
employer to provide and maintain an effective to compulsory or voluntary arbitration or during the
skeletal workforce of medical and other health pendency of cases involving the same grounds or the
personnel, whose movement and services shall be strike or lockout. (As amended by DO 40_A-03 [Italized
unhampered and unrestricted, as are necessary to word "or" added].)
insure the proper and adequate protection of the life
and health of its patients, most especially emergency
cases, for the duration of the strike or lockout. In such IRR, Book V, Rule XXII, Sec. 6
cases, therefore, the Secretary of Labor and Who may declare a strike or lockout. - Any certified or
Employment may immediately assume, within twenty duly recognized bargaining representative may declare a
four (24) hours from knowledge of the occurrence of strike in cases of bargaining deadlocks and ULPs. The
such a strike or lockout, jurisdiction over the same or employer may declare a lockout in the same cases. In the
certify it to the Commission for compulsory arbitration. absence of a certified or duly recognized bargaining

! 2
representative, any legitimate labor organization in the promptly in the conciliation meetings called by the
establishment may declare a strike but only on grounds of regional branch of the Board.
ULPs.
A notice, upon agreement of the parties, may be referred
to alternative modes of dispute resolution, including
IRR, Book V, Rule XXII, Sec. 7 voluntary arbitration.
Notice of strike or lockout. - In bargaining deadlocks, a
notice of strike or lockout shall be filed with the regional IRR, Book V, Rule XXII, Sec. 10
branch of the Board at least thirty (30) days before the
intended date thereof, a copy of said notice having been Strike or lockout vote. - A decision to declare a strike must
served on the other party concerned. In cases of ULP, the be approved by a majority of the total union membership
period of notice shall be fifteen (15) days. However, in in the bargaining unit concerned obtained by secret
case of ULP involving the dismissal from employment of ballot in meetings or referenda called for the purpose. A
any union officer duly elected in accordance with the decision to declare a lockout must be approved by a
union constitution and by-laws which may constitute union majority of the Board of Directors of the employer,
busting where the existence of the union is threatened, the corporation or association or the partners in a partnership
fifteen-day cooling-off period shall not apply and the obtained by a secret ballot in a meeting called for the
union may take action immediately after the strike vote is purpose.
conducted and the results thereof submitted to the
appropriate regional branch of the Board. The regional branch of the Board may, at its own initiative
or upon request of any affected party, supervise the
conduct of the secret balloting. In every case, the union or
IRR, Book V, Rule XXII, Sec. 8 the employer shall furnish the regional branch of the Board
Contents of notice. - The notice shall state, among others, and the notice of meetings referred to in the preceding
the names and addresses of the employer and the union paragraph at least twenty-four (24) hours before such
involved, the nature of the industry to which the employer meetings as well as the results of the voting at least seven
belongs, the number of union members and of the workers (7) days before the intended strike or lockout, subject to
in the bargaining unit, and such other relevant data as the cooling-off period provided in this Rule
may facilitate the settlement of the dispute, such as a brief
statement or enumeration of all pending labor disputes IRR, Book V, Rule XXII, Sec. 11
involving the same parties.
Declaration of strike or lockout. - Should the dispute
In cases of bargaining deadlocks, the notice shall, as far remain unsettled after the lapse of the requisite number of
as practicable, further state the unresolved issues in the days from the filing of the notice of strike or lockout and of
bargaining negotiations and be accompanied by the the results of the election required in the preceding
written proposals of the union, the counterproposals of the section, the labor union may strike or the employer may
employer and the proof of a request for conference to lock out its workers. The regional branch of the Board shall
settle the differences. In cases of ULPs, the notice shall, as continue mediating and conciliating.
far as practicable, state the acts complained of and the
efforts taken to resolve the dispute amicably.
In case a notice does not conform with the requirements F. Effect of Illegal Lockout
of this and the foregoing section/s, the regional branch of Labor Code, Art. 279 (264) (a) par. 3, 1st sent.
the Board shall inform the concerned party of such fact.
x x x Any worker whose employment has been terminated
as a consequence of any unlawful lockout shall be
IRR, Book V, Rule XXII, Sec. 9 entitled to reinstatement with full backwages.
Action on Notice. - Upon receipt of the notice, the

regional branch of the Board shall exert all efforts at
mediation and conciliation to enable the parties to settle
the dispute amicably. The regional branch of the Board
may, upon agreement of the parties, treat a notice as a
preventive mediation case. It shall also encourage the
parties to submit the dispute to voluntary arbitration.
During the proceedings, the parties shall not do any act

which may disrupt or impede the early settlement of the
dispute. They are obliged, as part of their duty to bargain
collectively in good faith and to participate fully and

! 3
XI. Labor Injunction (1) That prohibited or unlawful acts have been
threatened and will be committed and will be
A. Definition and Nature continued unless restrained, but no injunction or
Philippine Airlines, Inc. vs. NLRC temporary restraining order shall be issued on
account of any threat, prohibited or unlawful act,
FACTS: 2 PAL flight stewards were dismissed for their
except against the person or persons, association
alleged involvement in currency smuggling. They filed with
or organization making the threat or committing
the NLRC a petition for injunction, praying that a TRO be
the prohibited or unlawful act or actually
issued prohibiting PAL from effecting the dismissal them or
authorizing or ratifying the same after actual
to reinstate them temporarily while a hearing on the
knowledge thereof;
propriety of the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction
is being undertaken.
(2) That substantial and irreparable injury to
complainant’s property will follow;
HELD: The petition for injunction filed before the NLRC was,
in reality, an action for illegal dismissal. As such, the
(3) That as to each item of relief to be granted,
petition should have been filed with the Labor Arbiter, who
greater injury will be inflicted upon complainant
has original and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide
by the denial of relief than will be inflicted upon
such cases. Injunction is a preservative remedy for the
defendants by the granting of relief;
protection of one’s substantive rights or interest. It is not a
cause of action in itself, but a mere provisional remedy
(4) That complainant has no adequate remedy at
adjunct to a main suit- a special equitable relief granted
law; and
only in cases where there is no plain, adequate and
complete remedy at law. In labor cases, Art. 218
(5) That the public officers charged with the duty to
empowers the NLRC to enjoin or restrain any actual or
protect complainant’s property are unable or
threatened commission of any or all prohibited or unlawful
unwilling to furnish adequate protection.
acts or to require the performance of a particular act
which, if not restrained or performed, may cause grave or
Such hearing shall be held after due and personal
irreparable damage to any party or render ineffectual any
notice thereof has been served, in such manner as the
decision in favor of such party.
Commission shall direct, to all known persons against
whom relief is sought, and also to the Chief Executive
and other public officials of the province or city within
B. General Rule—Prohibition which the unlawful acts have been threatened or
Labor Code, Art. 266 (254) committed, charged with the duty to protect
complainant’s property: Provided, however, that if a
Injunction Prohibited. - No temporary or permanent complainant shall also allege that, unless a temporary
injunction or restraining order in any case involving or restraining order shall be issued without notice, a
growing out of labor disputes shall be issued by any court substantial and irreparable injury to complainant’s
or other entity, except as otherwise provided in Articles 218 property will be unavoidable, such a temporary
and 264 of this Code. (As amended by Batas Pambansa restraining order may be issued upon testimony under
Bilang 227, June 1, 1982). oath, sufficient, if sustained, to justify the Commission in
issuing a temporary injunction upon hearing after
notice. Such a temporary restraining order shall be
Labor Code, Art. 225 (218) (e) effective for no longer than twenty (20) days and shall
Powers of the Commission. x x x become void at the expiration of said twenty (20)
(e) To enjoin or restrain any actual or threatened days. No such temporary restraining order or
commission of any or all prohibited or unlawful acts or temporary injunction shall be issued except on
to require the performance of a particular act in any condition that complainant shall first file an
labor dispute which, if not restrained or performed undertaking with adequate security in an amount to
forthwith, may cause grave or irreparable damage to be fixed by the Commission sufficient to recompense
any party or render ineffectual any decision in favor of those enjoined for any loss, expense or damage
such party: Provided, That no temporary or permanent caused by the improvident or erroneous issuance of
injunction in any case involving or growing out of such order or injunction, including all reasonable costs,
alabor dispute as defined in this Code shall be issued together with a reasonable attorney’s fee, and
except after hearing the testimony of witnesses, with expense of defense against the order or against the
opportunity for cross-examination, in support of the granting of any injunctive relief sought in the same
allegations of a complaint made under oath, and proceeding and subsequently denied by the
testimony in opposition thereto, if offered, and only Commission.
after a finding of fact by the Commission, to the
effect: T h e u n d e r t a k i n g h e re i n m e n t i o n e d s h a l l b e
understood to constitute an agreement entered into
by the complainant and the surety upon which an

! 4
order may be rendered in the same suit or proceeding or the employer engages in any of the "prohibited
against said complainant and surety, upon a hearing activities”, respectively.
to assess damages, of which hearing, complainant
and surety shall have reasonable notice, the said Here, the petition for injunction should have been granted
complainant and surety submitting themselves to the because of the illegality of the strike.
jurisdiction of the Commission for that purpose. But
nothing herein contained shall deprive any party
See again: Caltex Filipino Managers and Supervisors
having a claim or cause of action under or upon such
undertaking from electing to pursue his ordinary Assoc. vs. CIR
remedy by suit at law or in equity: Provided, further, CIR cannot validly enjoin strikes. The CIR is virtually
That the reception of evidence for the application of prohibited from issuing injunctive relief arising from labor
a writ of injunction may be delegated by the disputes (in order to give labor a comparable bargaining
Commission to any of its Labor Arbiters who shall power with capital). The exception is when a labor dispute
conduct such hearings in such places as he may arises in an industry indispensable to the national interest
determine to be accessible to the parties and their and such dispute is certified by the President to the CIR
witnesses and shall submit thereafter his (pursuant to Sec. 9(d) of RA875 and Social Security
recommendation to the Commission. (As amended by Employees Assoc. v Hon. Soriano). However, in this
Section 10, Republic Act No. 6715, March 21, 1989). exception, the purpose of the injunction is not to enjoin the
strike itself, but only unlawful activities.
C. Exceptions—When Allowed
IRR, Book V, Rule XXII, Sec. 14 Labor Code, Art. 266 (254), supra pg. 62
Injunctions. - No court or entity shall enjoin any picketing,
strike or lockout, except as provided in Articles 218 and 263 Labor Code, Art. 279 (264), supra pg. 58
of the Labor Code.
See again: IBM vs. NLRC
The Commission shall have the power to issue temporary
Article 264 (now 270) lists down specific “prohibited
restraining orders in such cases but only after due notice
activities" which may be forbidden or stopped by a
and hearing and in accordance with its rules. The
restraining order or injunction. Article 218 (now 224) inter
reception of evidence for the application of a writ of
alia enumerates the powers of the NLRC and lays down
injunction may be delegated by the Commission to any
then conditions under which a restraining order or
Labor Arbiter who shall submit his recommendations to the
preliminary injunction may issue, and the procedure to be
Commission for its consideration and resolution.
followed in issuing the same. As a rule such restraining
orders or injunctions do not issue ex parte, but only after
Any ex parte restraining order issued by the Commission, or
compliance with the requisites in the pertinent articles (see
its chairman or Vice-Chairman where the Commission is
outline above). However, a TRO may be issued ex parte in
not in session and as prescribed by its rules, shall be valid
certain situations (see outline; more detailed explanation
for a period not exceeding twenty (20) days.
infra).
San Miguel Corp vs. NLRC
FACTS:
The Union filed 2 separate notices of strike. The NCMB D. Issuing Agency
found that they were based on non-strikeable issues, and
converted the notices into preventive mediation. 1. NLRC; Labor Arbiter
Nonetheless, the Union went on strike. SMC filed a petition Labor Code, Art. 225 (218) (e), supra pg. 62
for injunction with prayer for the issuance of TRO. SMC &
the Union agreed to lift the picket lines in exchange of National Mines & Allied Workers Union vs. Vera
good faith talks. The Union later distributed flyers declaring
G.R. No. L-44230; November 19, 1984; Cuevas
that they could strike at anytime. The NLRC let the TRO it
granted lapse. It denied the petition for injunction. FACTS:
Union obtained a judgment against the Philippine Iron
HELD: Mines for an ULP suit, and thereafter secured a writ of
GR is that no temporary or permanent injunction or execution. When its properties were levied, the sheriffs
restraining order in any case involving or growing out of scheduled the sale thereof at a public auction.
labor disputes shall be issued by any court or other entity
except as otherwise provided in Articles 225 (e) (previously It appears, however, that the said properties have already
218) and 279 (264) of the Labor Code, i.e. to restrain the been foreclosed by the Manila Banking Corporation and
threat of an unlawful strike, and hen the labor organization Philippine Commercial and Industrial Bank prior to the

! 5
rendition of the ULP judgment. They claimed that the Nestlé's demand for payment of the private respondents'
properties about to be sold were no longer owned by amortizations on their car loans, or, in the alternative, the
Philippine Iron Mines, as they were bought by the bank in return of the cars to the company, is not a labor, but a
the auction sale. The said bank sought an Injunction civil, dispute. It involves debtor-creditor relations, rather
against the union to enjoin the projected auction sale of than employee-employer relations. Hence, the NLRC
the said properties with the CFI. Union filed an MTD gravely abused its discretion and exceeded its jurisdiction
claiming that the CFI had no jurisdiction to issue the by issuing the writ of injunction to stop the company from
injunction to stop the execution of a judgment issued by enforcing the civil obligation of the private respondents
the NLRC. CFI ruled thatit had JD. W/N CFI has JD? under the car loan agreements
HELD:
As judgment creditors, the union’s interest in the properties
levied upon and the bank’s claims of ownership over the 2. Procedural Requirements and Rules for Issuance of
same create a purely civil controversy between them. The Labor Injunctions
issue involved is exclusively one of property ownership Labor Code, Art. 225 (218) (e), supra pg. 62
which cannot legally and reasonably be categorized as
involving or growing out of a ‘labor dispute’ just because Bisig ng Manggagawa sa Concrete vs. NLRC
one party’s interest happened to be based on a judgment G.R. No. 105090; September 16, 1993; Puno
in a labor proceeding.
FACTS:
The injunction suit does not arise from a labor dispute. The The Union held a strike. The Company filed a petition for
banks are not parties to the NLRC case. The present case injunction, but the Union was not furnished a copy. The
does not question either the fact or validity of the NLRC NLRC issued a TRO to enjoin the strike, and the Union was
proceedings nor the decision rendered therein along with again not furnished a copy of the decision. Union filed for
the writ of execution. What is sought to be tried in the petition for injunction to enjoin the company from asking
present case is whether the NLRC decision and the writ of the aid of police/military, while the company filed for
execution shall be permitted to be satisfied against the immediate issuance of preliminary injunction, alleging that
properties of the bank and not of the judgment debtor the Union was still striking. The NLRC issued the preliminary
named in the NLRC case and writ of execution. Such is injunction in favor of the company.
within the jurisdiction of CFI.
HELD:
Simply because a writ of execution was issued by the The NLRC failed to comply with the letter and spirit of Art.
NLRC does not authorize the sheriff implementing the 218 in issuing its order granting the company’s motion for
same to levy anybody’s property. Well-settled is the rule preliminary injunction. Art. 218 provides the procedural
that the power of a court to execute its judgment extends and substantive requirements which must strictly be
only over properties unquestionably belonging to the complied with before any injunction can issue. The Union
judgment debtor. was denied the right to attend the hearing because they
did not receive any copy of the company’s petition for
injunction. The issuance of an ex parte TRO in a labor
Nestle Phils., Inc. vs. NLRC dispute should be characterized by care and caution, for
G.R. No. 85197; March 18, 1991; Griño-Aquino the law requires that it be clearly justified by considerations
of extreme necessity. Imprudently issued TROs can unduly
FACTS:
tilt the balance of labor warfare in favor of capital.
Nuñez et al. were employed by Nestle Phils. as sales reps or
medical reps. By reason of their nature of their work, they
were each allowed to avail of the company's car loan See again: IBM vs. NLRC
policy. When Nuñez et al. were dismissed from service for
having participated in an illegal strike, and their As a rule such restraining orders or injunctions do not issue
complaints for illegal dismissal were dismissed by the LA, ex parte, but only after compliance with the following
Nestle demanded that they settle the remaining balance requisites, to wit:
of their car loan or to return the cars to the company. They a) a hearing held after due and personal notice thereof
refused to do either so the company filed a civil suit to has been served, in such manner as the Commission
recover possession of the cars in the RTC. Nuñez et al. shall direct, to all known persons against whom relief is
sought TRO with the NLRC to stop the company from sought, and also to the Chief Executive and other
cancelling their car loans and collecting their monthly public officials of the province or city within which the
amortizations pending the final resolution of their appeals unlawful acts have been threatened or committed
in the illegal dismissal case. NLRC granted. charged with the duty to protect complainant's
property
HELD: b) reception at the hearing of "testimony of witnesses,
The power of the NLRC to issue writs of injunction is found in with opportunity for cross-examination, in support of
Article 225 (e) (218e) of the Labor Code. As the statute the allegations of a complaint made under oath," as
provides, it may only be exercised in a labor dispute. Here, well as "testimony in opposition thereto, if offered

! 6
c) a finding of fact by the Commission, to the effect: petition for injunction with prayer for issuance of TRO
(1) That prohibited or unlawful acts have been alleging that the PCIBEU-Comelec was not validly
threatened and will be committed and will be or constituted. Med-Arbiter granted the petition. However,
temporary restraining order shall be issued on only the elections in Metro Manila was suspended, and the
account of any threat, prohibited or unlawful act, elections in provincial branches continued. After the lapse
except against the person or persons, association of the 20-day period, elections were held in Metro Manila
or organization making the threat or committing and the results were consolidated with the provincial
the prohibited or unlawful act or actually elections. PFR contested the results.
authorizing or ratifying the same after actual
knowledge thereof; HELD:
(2) That substantial and irreparable injury to The TRO should not have been granted at all. Injunctions
complainant's property will follow; or restraining orders are frowned upon as a matter of labor
(3) That as to each item of relief to be granted, relations policy. The right must be clear, the injury
greater injury will be inflicted upon complainant impending or threatened, so as to be averted only by the
by the denial of relief than will be inflicted upon protecting preventive process of injunction. The issuance
defendants by the granting of relief; of a TRO is addressed to the sound discretion of the Med-
(4) That complainant has no adequate remedy at Arbiter, and should be exercised based upon the grounds
law; and and in the manner provided by law, i.e. instances where
(5) That the public officers charged with the duty to the complainant will suffer “grave or irreparable
protect complainant's property are unable or damages”. Such is not the case here, wherein the act
unwilling to furnish adequate protection. complained of may not be said to cause “grave or
irreparable damage” to the complainant. Also, there was
However, a TRO may be issued ex parte under the another [administrative] remedy available (protest).
following conditions:
a) the complainant shall also allege that, unless a
temporary restraining order shall be issued without ~END~
notice, a substantial and irreparable injury to
complainant's property will be unavoidable;
b) there is testimony under oath, sufficient, if sustained, to
justify the Commission in issuing a temporary injunction
upon hearing after notice;
c) the complainant shall first file an undertaking with
adequate security in an amount to be fixed by the
Commission sufficient to recompense those enjoined
for any loss, expense or damage caused by the
improvident or erroneous issuance of such order or
injunction, including all reasonable costs, together
with a reasonable attorney's fee, and expense of
defense against the order or against the granting of
any injunctive relief sought in the same proceeding
and subsequently denied by the Commission; and
d) the TRO shall be effective for no longer than 20 days
and shall become void at the expiration of said 20
days.
The reception of evidence "for the application of a writ of

injunction may be delegated by the Commission to any of
its Labor Arbiters who shall conduct such hearings in such
places as he may determine to be accessible to the
parties and their witnesses and shall submit thereafter his
recommendation to the Commission.
3. Temporary Restraining Order

Labor Code, Art. 225 (218) (e), supra pg. 62
Dinio vs. Laguesma

G.R. No. 108475; June 9, 1997; Kapunan
FACTS:
The election of officers of the Union was scheduled. One
of the parties, PFR, headed by Dinio, filed with the BLR a

Labor 2 D2019 Finals Reviewer (Daway)

Uploaded by

Document Informationclick to expand document information

Copyright:

Available Formats

Labor 2 D2019 Finals Reviewer (Daway)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Labor 2 D2019 Finals Reviewer (Daway)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Labor Relations Finals Reviewer | !

VII. Collective Bargaining: General Concepts, Procedure, and Issues................................ 2

D2019 Arabe, Dagun, Delfin, Tongson

1. The mechanics of collective bargaining is set in

Meaning of Duty to Bargain Collectively. The duty to

D2019 Arabe, Dagun, Delfin, Tongson

HELD: Samahan ng Manggagawa sa Top Form Manufacturing vs.

D2019 Arabe, Dagun, Delfin, Tongson

Labor Code, Art. 273 (260)

D2019 Arabe, Dagun, Delfin, Tongson

Procedure in Multi-Employer Bargaining— Multi-employer

D2019 Arabe, Dagun, Delfin, Tongson

Labor Code, Art. 260 (c), infra pg. 20

D2019 Arabe, Dagun, Delfin, Tongson

Definition of Terms. HELD: For PALEA. It is a well-settled doctrine that the

D2019 Arabe, Dagun, Delfin, Tongson

IRR, Book V, Rule XVII, Sec. 1-3

Exclusive Bargaining Representation and Workers’ 5. Interpretation, Administration, Enforcement

D2019 Arabe, Dagun, Delfin, Tongson

D2019 Arabe, Dagun, Delfin, Tongson

the union, but also its members. The parties to a contract

Baron vs. EPE Transport

D2019 Arabe, Dagun, Delfin, Tongson

Labor Code, Art. 278 (263) (h).

Facts: Peña and Abion were fired by Atlas. They filed

D2019 Arabe, Dagun, Delfin, Tongson

Sec. 8. Renegotiation of Collective Bargaining

D2019 Arabe, Dagun, Delfin, Tongson

D2019 Arabe, Dagun, Delfin, Tongson

D2019 Arabe, Dagun, Delfin, Tongson

D2019 Arabe, Dagun, Delfin, Tongson

Strikes, Picketing and Lockouts. – x x x

D2019 Arabe, Dagun, Delfin, Tongson

VIII. Unfair Labor Practice

1. Definition and Primary Concept

Labor Code, Art. 257 (246).

Non-abridgement of Right to Self-Organization. – It shall be

Labor Code, Art. 258 (247)

Concept of Unfair Labor Practice and Procedure for

Consequently, unfair labor practices are not only violations

Subject to the exercise by the President or by the

D2019 Arabe, Dagun, Delfin, Tongson

interest, and not exercised in a malicious,

D2019 Arabe, Dagun, Delfin, Tongson

D2019 Arabe, Dagun, Delfin, Tongson

(c) To violate the duty, or refuse to bargain collectively

D2019 Arabe, Dagun, Delfin, Tongson

H: Judge “advice” not to strike to the Association during

D2019 Arabe, Dagun, Delfin, Tongson

education with emphasis on the policy thrusts of this Code.

Re: Interference, Restrain and Coercion

Later, the business of Lubas deteriorated because of the

D2019 Arabe, Dagun, Delfin, Tongson

BLUE FLASH DOCTRINE b. Speech, Espionage, Economic Coercion

D2019 Arabe, Dagun, Delfin, Tongson

Employees Association v. Insular Life Assurance

D2019 Arabe, Dagun, Delfin, Tongson

D2019 Arabe, Dagun, Delfin, Tongson