Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
CA,
31 July 1997
FACTS OF THE CASE
Petitioners, except Rodolfo Mariano, were among
the 800 public school teachers who staged mass
actions on September 17 to 19, 1990 to dramatize
their grievances concerning the alleged failure of the
public authorities to implement certain laws and
measures intended for their material benefit.
The Secretary of the Department of Education,
Culture and Sports (DECS) issued a Return-to-Work
Order. Petitioners failed to comply with said order,
thus the Secretary charged petitioners with grave
misconduct; gross neglect of duty; gross violation of
Civil Service law, rules and regulations and
reasonable office regulations; refusal to perform
official duty; gross insubordination; conduct
prejudicial to the best interest of the service; and
absence without official leave in violation of PD 807,
otherwise known as the Civil Service Decree of the
Philippines. They were simultaneously placed under
preventive suspension.
Petitioners failed to give their answer to the
complaint filed against them despite due notice.
Thus, the DECS secretary found them guilty of the
offenses and ordered their dismissal from service.
The secretary, acting on petitioners motion for
reconsideration, modified its ruling. Instead of
dismissal, petitioners would be suspended from
service for nine months without pay.
Petitioners appealed to the Civil Service
Commission. The latter reduced the suspension
period from nine months to six months with
automatic reinstatement in the service but without
payment of back wages.
Petitioners appealed the case to CA but dismissed
the same for lack of merit.
Petitioners main argument is that they were merely
exercising their constitutional right to peaceably
assemble and petition the government for redress of
grievances.
ISSUE
WON Government employees can engage in a strike
Class 6 - Digests
RULING
NO. It is the settled rule in this jurisdiction that
employees in the public service may not engage in
strikes. While the Constitution recognizes the right
of government employees to organize, they are
prohibited from staging strikes, demonstrations,
mass leaves, walk-outs and other forms of mass
action which will result in temporary stoppage or
disruption of public services. The right of
government employees to organize is limited only to
the formation of unions or associations, without
including the right to strike.
It is an undisputed fact that there was a work
stoppage and that petitioners purpose was to realize
their demands by withholding their services. The
fact that the conventional term strike 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 deemed to be controlling.
It is not the exercise by the petitioners of their
constitutional right to peaceably assemble that was
punished, but the manner in which they exercised
such right which resulted in the temporary stoppage
or disruption of public service and classes in various
public schools in Metro Manila. For, indeed, there
are efficient but non-disruptive avenues, other than
the mass actions in question, whereby petitioners
could petition the government for redress of
grievances.
It bears stressing that suspension of public services,
however temporary, will inevitably derail services to
the public, which is one of the reasons why the right
to strike is denied government employees. It may be
conceded that the petitioners had valid grievances
and noble intentions in staging the mass actions,
but that will not justify their absences to the prejudice
of innocent school children. Their righteous
indignation does not legalize an illegal work
stoppage.
As a general rule, even in the absence of express
statutory prohibition like Memorandum Circular No.
6, public employees are denied the right to strike or
engage in a work stoppage against a public
employer. The right of the sovereign to prohibit
strikes or work stoppages by public employees was
Labor Relations
1
Class 6 - Digests
Labor Relations
2
Labor Relations
3
Labor Relations
4
Labor Relations
5
Labor Relations
6
Labor Relations
7
Class 6 - Digests
Labor Relations
8
ISSUE:
WHETHER OR NOT THE NLRC COMMITTED
GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION WHEN IT
UPHELD THE LABOR ARBITERS DECISION THAT
PETITIONERS STAGED AN ILLEGAL STRIKE.
HELD:
The notice of strike filed by the union before the
NCMB on 12 July 1991 contained general
allegations that RBS management committed unfair
labor practices by its gross violation of the economic
provisions in their collective bargaining agreement
and by alleged acts of coercion, union interference
and discrimination which amounted to union
busting. It is the union, therefore, who had the
burden of proof to present substantial evidence to
support these allegations.
It is not disputed that prior to 12 July 1991, the union
treated RBS issuance of the guidelines on the
availment of leaves and rendering of overtime
services as gross violations of the existing
collective bargaining agreement. In its talks with the
union, RBS painstakingly explained that the said
allegation was unfounded because the issuance of
said guidelines was RBS management
prerogative. Up to that point, the union never raised
the issue of unfair labor practices allegedly
committed by RBS official under Article 248 of the
Labor Code. But in its notice of strike filed two days
later, the union raised issues of coercion,
discrimination, and union interference for the first
time.
Significantly, the union had two (2) conciliatory
meetings arranged by the NCMB at which it could
have
substantiated
these
additional
allegations. However, the fact that it had submitted
the results of the strike vote even ahead of the
conciliatory meetings, and continuously refused to
substantiate its allegations in its notice of strike
thereafter, lends credence to the NLRCs
observation that these charges were indiscriminately
hurled against RBS to give a semblance of validity to
its notice of strike.
The bottom
immediately
established
disregarding
Class 6 - Digests
Labor Relations
9
Labor Relations
10
Facts:
Genuine Labor Organization of Workers in Hotel,
Restaurant and Allied Industries Silahis
International Hotel Chapter and the petitioner Grand
Boulevard Hotel executed a Collective Bargaining
Agreement (CBA) covering the period from July 10,
1985 up to July 9, 1988. The petitioner thereafter
dismissed some of its employees and suspended
others who were members of the respondent union.
On May 26, 1987, the respondent union filed a
notice of STRIKE with the Department of Labor and
Employment, National Capital Region (DOLE-NCR),
based on the following grounds of illegal suspension,
violation of CBA, and harassment.
The Acting Secretary of Labor and Employment
issued a status quo ante bellum order certifying
the labor dispute to the National Labor Relations
Commission (NLRC) for compulsory arbitration
pursuant to Article 263(g) of the Labor Code; and
further directing the employees to return to work
within forty-eight hours from receipt of the order,
and for the petitioner to accept all returning
employees under the same terms and conditions
prevailing prior to the labor dispute. The
respondent union complied with the order of the
SOLE. The respondent union filed another notice of
strike against the petitioner on account of alleged
violations of the CBA and the illegal dismissal of nine
employees.
The SOLE issued another status quo ante bellum
order certifying the case to the NLRC for compulsory
arbitration, directing the nine employees to return to
work and enjoining both parties from engaging in
any strike or lockout that would exacerbate the
Class 6 - Digests
Labor Relations
11
Labor Relations
12
Issue:
-
Held
#11 St. Scholasticas College vs. Torres
June 29, 1992
Class 6 - Digests
Labor Relations
13
ARGUMENTS:
Class 6 - Digests
Labor Relations
14
Facts:
This is a case between the University of San Agustin
Employees Union-FFW (UNION) and The University
of San Agustin (UNIV).
Sometime on 2000, the parties agreed on a 5-year
CBA, the economic provisions of which are effective
for 3 years only. After the lapse of 3 years, the
parties negotiated on the economic provisions but
did not agree on the terms during the remaining 2
years of the CBA and beyond.
Since the parties did not agree on the computation
of tuition incremental proceeds (TIP) which shall be
the basis for the increase of salaries, they underwent
a preventive mediation proceedings at the NCMB.
Still unresolved, the Union declared a bargaining
deadlock and thereafter filed a Notice of Strike at the
NCMB, which was expectedly opposed by the Univ
through a Motion to Strike-out Notice of Strike and
Refer the Dispute to Voluntary Arbitration, since the
CBA contained a "no-strike, no-lockout" provision,
and a grievance machinery for settling disputes,
including a voluntary arbitration mechanism should
the grievance machinery fail to settle the dispute.
The NCMB, however, failed to resolved the Univ's
Motion
Thereafter, both parties made a joint request for the
Secretary of Labor and Employment (SOLE) to
assume jurisdiction over the dispute.
On September 18, 2003, he SOLE assumed
jurisdiction, and with such assumption of jurisdiction,
any strike or lockout was strictly enjoined.
The day after the SOLE assumed jurisdiction, and
on the same day that the Assumption of Jurisdiction
Order (AJO) was supposedly served to both parties,
the Union staged a strike. Union members refused to
receive a copy of the AJO assailing that only the
Union President is authorized to receive the same.
The Union filed a Petition Declare Illegal Strike and
Loss of Employment Status of the striking
employees, which Petition was filed at the NLRC.
Such Petition was later on consolidated with the
case pending before the SOLE, at the request of the
Univ.
The SOLE rendered a Decision resolving the various
economic issues over which the parties had a
Class 6 - Digests
Labor Relations
15
Rulings:
On the first issue, the SC ruled that ART. 263 of the
Labor Code provides: ."..Such assumption or
certification (of the SOLE) shall have the effect of
automatically enjoining the intended or impending
strike or lockout as specified in the assumption or
certification order. If one has already taken place at
the time of assumption or certification, all striking or
locked out employees shall immediately return to
work and the employer shall immediately resume
operations and readmit all workers under the same
terms and conditions prevailing before the strike or
lockout." The phrase "immediately return to work"
indicates an almost instantaneous or automatic
compliance for a striker to return to work once an
AJO has been duly served. Therefore, the act of the
striking employees is violative of the foregoing
provision.
On the second issue, the Supreme Court ruled that
economic benefits, which included the issue on the
formula in computing the TIP share of the
employees, is one that arises from the interpretation
or implementation of the CBA, and these matters
should be referred to a Voluntary Arbitrator, as
provided in Art. 261 and 262 of the Labor Code. The
peculiar facts of the instant case show that the
University was deprived of a remedy that would have
enjoined the Union strike and was left without any
recourse except to invoke the jurisdiction of the
SOLE.
# 14 G.R. No. L-25003 October 23, 1981
LIWAYWAY PUBLICATIONS, INC. plaintiff-appellee
vs. PERMANENT CONCRETE WORKERS UNION,
Affiliated with the NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
TRADE UNIONS, HERMOGENES ATRAZO,
AQUILINO DISTOR, BENJAMIN GUTIERREZ,
JOSE RAMOS, TIBURCIO MARDO, ERNESTO
ALMARIO and DOMINGO LEANO, defendantsappellants.
FACTS:
Labor Relations
16
Labor Relations
17
Labor Relations
18
Labor Relations
19
Facts
Petitioner's employees stopped working and
gathered in a mass action to express their
grievances regarding wages, thirteenth month
pay and hazard pay. Said employees were all
members of the Macajalar Labor Union
Federation of Free Workers (MLU-FFW) with
whom petitioner had an existing collective
bargaining agreement.
Petitioner was engaged in stevedoring and
arrastre services at the port of Cagayan de Oro.
The strike paralyzed operations at said port.
On the same morning, the strikers filed individual
notices of strike ("Kaugalingon nga Declarasyon
sa Pag-Welga") with the then Ministry of Labor
and Employment.
With the failure of conciliation conferences
between petitioner and the strikers, INPORT filed
a complaint before the Labor Arbiter for Illegal
Strike with prayer for a restraining
order/preliminary injunction.
National Labor Relations Commission issued a
temporary restraining order. Thereafter, majority
of the strikers returned to work, leaving herein
private respondents who continued their protest.
Counsel for private respondents filed a
manifestation that petitioner required prior
screening conducted by the MLU-FFW before the
remaining strikers could be accepted back to
work.
Meanwhile, counsel for the Macajalar Labor
Union (MLU-FFW) filed a "Motion to Drop Most of
Class 6 - Digests
Labor Relations
20
Labor Relations
21
Labor Relations
22
Labor Relations
23
Labor Relations
24
Labor Relations
25
Labor Relations
26
Class 6 - Digests
Labor Relations
27
Class 6 - Digests
Labor Relations
28
Class 6 - Digests
Labor Relations
29