Magdala Multipurpose & Livelihood Cooperative and Sanlor Motors Corp. vs. Kilusang Manggagawa etc et.al. (G.R.

191138-39/ October 19, 2011/ Velasco) WHAT IS THE EFFECT OF UNION NON-REGISTRATION IN THE CONDUCT OF A STRIKE? This is a case about 121 respondent employees who joined KMLMS, which filed a notice of strike on March 5, 2002 and conducted its strike-vote on April 8, 2002. However, KMLMS only acquired legal personality when its registration as an independent labor organization was granted on April 9, 2002. On May 6, 2002, KMLMS now a legitimate labor organizationstaged a strike where several prohibited and illegal acts were committed by its participating members. Evidece showed the participating union members and officers committing acts of (1) interference ; and (2) coercion and intimidation. Petitioners filed before the NLRC a petition to declare the strike of May 6, 2002 illegal and that their employees who participated in the illegal strike be declared to have lost their employment status. Petitiners claimed that the additional 73 similarly erring members should also be declared to have lost their employment status. Held: The strike is illegal because the filing of the notice of strike and the conduct of the strike vote by the KMLMS did not comply with the mandatory requirements of Art 263 and the implementing rules. Substantial evidence also shows that when the May 6, 2002 strike was staged, the strikers committed acts prohibited by Art 264, which distinguishes the consequences of an illegal strike between union officers and mere members. For union officers, knowingly participating in an illegal strike is already a valid ground for termination of employment. But for union members, their employment may be terminated only if they committed prohibited and illegal acts aside from knowingly participating therein. Hence, the employment of the 14 union officers is validly terminated even if they may not have committed prohibited and illegal acts. With respect to the union members, although the NLRC and CA found that notall of the photographs in evidence sufficiently show the strikers committing illegal acts, sevidence shows the 73 likewise committed those acts as shown in photographs, etc. There was therefore a patent misapprehension of facts by the LA and NLRC. Several questions regarding the decision: 1. Why did court not inquire into unfair labor practice alleged before looking into the legality of the strike? 2. If an employer can commit ULP even before a union is registered per Art. 248, then what is the speedy remedy of unorganized employees besides forming a union which could possibly take months? 3. Subsequent case of ABARIA vs. NLRC (decided December 17, 2011) states that: gAs borne by the records, NAMA-MCCH-NFL was not a duly registered or an independently registered union at the time it filed the notice of strike on March 13, 1996 and when it conducted the strike vote on April 2, 1996. It could not then legally represent the union members. Consequently, the mandatory notice of strike and the conduct of the strike vote report were ineffective for having been filed and conducted by NAMA-MCCH-NFL which has no legal personality as a legitimate labor organization, in violation of Art. 263 (c), (d) and (f) of the Labor Code and Rule XXII, Book V of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor CodeWith respect to the dismissed union members, although MCCHI submitted photographs taken at the picket line, it did not individually name those striking employees and specify the illegal act committed by each of them. As to the affidavits executed by non-striking employees, they identified mostly union officers as the persons who blocked the hospital entrance, harassed hospital employees and patients whose vehicles were prevented from entering the premises. Only some of these witnesses actually named a few union members who committed similar acts of harassment and coercion. Consequently, we find no error committed by the CA in CA-G.R. SP No. 66540 when it modified the decision of the NLRC and ruled that the dismissal of union members who merely participated in the illegal strike was illegal. On the other hand, in CA-G.R. SP No. 84998, the CA did not err in ruling that the dismissal of Yballe, et al. was illegal; however, it also ordered their reinstatement with full back wages.

4.Why did the court bend over backwards to dismiss the other union members from work, when all the lower courts held that there was no sufficient evidence to show the 73 members committed illegal acts?