PAFLU v CFI of Rizal(Gr L-49580)

FACTS:
CFI of Rizal declared the picket conducted by PAFLU against private
respondents Phil. Blooming Mills, Co, Inc., as an act constituting or eventually
resulting to an illegal strike to the damage and prejudice of private
respondent even though the same case was already then submitted for
resolution to the NLRC.
ISSUE:
WON CFI was correct in declaring petitioners guilty of conducting illegal
strike.
RULING:
We find for the petitioners.
What justifies the interposition of the corrective authority of this Tribunal
even more is the fact that the information is limited to petitioners having
engaged in picketing. It need not be stressed that peaceful picketing is
embraced in freedom of expression. As emphatically declared in Philippine
Commercial & Industrial Bank v. Philnabank Employees' Association: "From
the time of Mortera v. Court of Industrial Relations, a 1947 decision this Court
has been committed to the view that peaceful picketing is part of the
freedom of speech guarantee of the Constitution." Reference was made in
such opinion to Associated Labor Union v. Gomez. In that case, the Court
characterized the orders complained of as being "fatally defective, suffering
as it did from the infirmity that peaceful picketing was enjoined." It is in that
sense that Presidential Decree No. 849 was a step in the right direction for
the status of picketing was again accorded due recognition.
Lapanday Workers Union v NLRC(Gr L-95494-97)
FACTS:
From September 9, 1988 a strike and reduction of work output was
conducted by the Union in its response to the murder of a member of the
Board of Directors of the Union, Danilo Martinez, by a member of the security
force contracted by the Company. The Company filed separate charges of
illegal strike and ULP against both the Union Officers and the members of the
union.
On October 3, 1988, a strike vote was conducted by the Union, and its
affirmative result was reported to the NCMB on October 10. On October 12,
the Union struck. At the same day, Labor Arbiter Villanueva who heard the
case filed by the Company against the Union declared that the previous
strikes were illegal, and that those who participated in the strike, including
Union Officers, to be declared as having lost their employment.

The Union appealed the Villanueva decision to NLRC, while at the same time
filing two cases against the Company, first for allegedly committing ULP and
illegal suspension and the other for committing ULP and illegal dismissal.
Labor Arbiter Sancho, who heard the two cases, declared the Company guilty
of ULP and illegal dismissal, ordering the reinstatement of the said
employees with backwages. Such decision considered the killing of the Union
Officer to justify the strikes conducted the by the Union Members. The
Company appealed the Sancho decision to the NLRC.
The NLRC rendered a conslidated decision, upholding the Villanueva decision,
but only declaring those Union Officers who initiated the strike to have lost
employment, while the rest should be reinstated without backwages.
ISSUE:
WON the strikes conducted by union, especially the one conducted October
12, 1988, are illegal.
RULING:
Paragraphs (c) and (f) of Article 263 of the Labor Code, as amended by E.O.
111, provides:
(c) In cases of bargaining deadlocks, the duly certified or
recognized bargaining agent may file anotice of strike or the
employer may file, notice of lockout with the Ministry at least 30
days before the intended date thereof. In cases of unfair labor
practice, the 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 15daycooling-off period shall not apply and the union may take
action immediately.
xxx xxx xxx
(f) A decision to declare a strike must be approved by a majority
of the total union membership in the bargaining unit concerned,
obtained by secret ballot in meetings or referenda called for that
purpose. A decision to declare a lockout must be approved by a
majority of the board of directors of the corporation or
association or of the partners in a partnership, obtained by
secret ballot in a meeting called for that purpose. The decision
shall be valid for the duration of the dispute based on
substantially the same grounds considered when the strike or
lockout vote was taken. The Ministry may, at its own initiative or
upon the request of any affected party, supervise the conduct of

secret balloting. In every case, the union or the employer shall

furnish the Ministry the results of the votingat least seven (7)
days before the intended strike or lockout subject to the coolingoff period herein provided.
Article 264 of the same Code reads:
Art. 264. Prohibited activities. (a) 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 filed the notice required in the preceding
Article or without the necessary strike or lockout vote first
having been obtained and reported to the Ministry.
xxx xxx xxx
. . . . Any 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 status: Provided that mere
participation of a worker in a lawful strike shall not constitute
sufficient ground for termination of his employment, even if a
replacement had been hired by the employer during such lawful
strike. (emphasis ours).
Applying the law to the case at bar, we rule that strike conducted by the
union on October 12, 1988 is plainly illegal as it was held within th seven (7)
day waiting period provided for by paragraph (f), Article 263 of the Labor
Code, as amended. The haste in holding the strike prevented the
Department of Labor and Employment from verifying whether it carried the
approval of the majority of the union members. It set to naught an important
policy consideration of our law on strike. Considering this finding, we need
not exhaustively rule on the legality of the work stoppage conducted by the
union and some of their members on September 9 and 23, 1988. Suffice to
state, that the ruling of the public respondent on the matter is supported by
substantial evidence.
We affirm the decision of the public respondent limiting the penalty of
dismissal only to the leaders of the illegal strike. especially the officers of the
union who served as its major players. They cannot claim good faith to
exculpate themselves. They admitted knowledge of the law on strike,
including its procedure. They cannot violate the law which ironically was cast
to promote their interest.
We, likewise, agree with the public respondent that the union members who
were merely instigated to participate in the illegal strike should be treated
differently from their leaders. Part of our benign consideration for labor is the
policy of reinstating rank-and-file workers who were merely misled in
supporting illegal strikes. Nonetheless, these reinstated workers shall not be

entitled to backwages as they should not be compensated for services

skipped during the illegal strike.
Peoples Industrial and Commercial Workers and Employees
Organization v Peoples Industrial and Commercial Corporation and
CIR(Gr 37687)
FACTS:
Federation of Tenants and Laborers Organizations(FTLO) had an existing 1years CBA with the Company Philippine Industrial and Commercial
Corporation (PINCOCO), wherein its Union Security Clause states that
membership in the union shall be a prerequisite for continued employment.
On October 18, 1964 an election of Union Officers was conducted wherein
Ernesto Pagayatan was elected as chapter president. On January 10, 1965,
without giving any reason, Pagayatan with 51 other members executed a
Certification changing their name from FTLO (Rizal Chapter)to People's
Industrial and Commercial Employees and Workers Organization(PICEWO)
and affliated itself with the Federation of Free Workers. PIWECO was granted
a certification of registration by the Department of Labor.
On March 23, 1965, Pagayatan, in his capacity as president of FLTO(RC),
notified PINCOCO that it wishes to terminate FTLO's working agreement.
Later on, PIWECO sent a set of collective bargaining proposals to PINCOCO.
PINCOCO promised to send a formal reply but none was made.
On April 23, 1965 FTLO passed a resolution expelling Pagayatan and two
other from the union on the ground of disloyalty. On April 22, 1965, PIWECO
filed a notice of strike on the ground of the employer's alleged refusal to
bargain. On April 29, 1965, PINCOCO dismissed Pagayatan and his
companions as per demand of the majority of the FTLO directorate for their
violation to the union security clause. PIWECO struck the next day and
following that day, PINCOCO executed a CBA with FTLO.
PINCOCO posted notices for strikers to return to work, but none complied. A
year after, on March 7 and 8, all employees were advised to signify their
ability to work, otherwise they were to be deemed as having abandoned
their work. But it was only on March 31 that PIWECO signified their intention
to return to work on April 4. Thus, upon the said date, they were not allowed
to work.
FLTO filed a case against PIWECO for ULP in staging illegal strike even after
dismissal. Meanwhile, PIWECO filed separate cases against FTLO and
PINCOCO for ULP, alleging the dismissals and discriminations done by
PINCOCO were at the behest of FLTO to encourage membership with the
Federation, and to this effect, violated their right to self-organization.
The Hearing Examiner of the CIR rendered its decision, declared PINCOCO's
conduct was in order as the union security clause of the CBA at the time in

effect required membership in the union for continued employment. It also

declared the strike staged by PIWECO illegal for in was done to force its
recognition.
ISSUES:
WON the strike was illegal for being only to force recognition.
WON strikers should be reinstated with backwages
RULING:
Striking in good Faith
We do not agree with the finding of the Hearing Officer that the strike was
staged to force recognition. The chain of events which preceded the strike
belie this conclusion. On April 5, 1965, Ernesto Pagayatan, the president of
PICEWO sent to the management a set of proposals for a collective
bargaining agreement. The management on April 13, 1965 replied that the
formal reply to the proposals cannot be made within the reglementary period
because they will submit the said proposals to their legal counsel for further
study and instead their reply would be made on April 19, 1965. No reply was
made on that date. On April 29, 1965, individual petitioners were dismissed.
A strike was staged the next day. One day after the petitioners struck, a new
collective bargaining agreement was signed by the respondent company and
the FTLO.
The respondent company knew that a new union was formed composed of
about 85% of the total number of its employees. It was furnished a copy of
the certification that the majority of the FTLO members are forming a new
union called PICEWO. The set of bargaining proposals were in the name of
the new union. While a company cannot be forced to sit down and bargain
collectively with the new union since it had no notice of the union's official
capacity to act as the bargaining agent, the respondent company cannot
deny that it had factual knowledge of the existence of a majority union. It
could have asked for further proof that the new union was indeed the
certified bargaining agent. It did not. Instead, it dismissed individual
petitioners and signed a new CBA the day after the expiration of the old CBA,
on the pretext that FTLO was presumed to be the certified bargaining agent.
Such pretext does not seem justified nor reasonable in the face of the
established fact that a new union enjoyed a majority status within the
company.
On the belief that the respondent company refused to bargain collectively
with PICEWO, individual petitioners together with the other members staged
a strike. We have in several cases ruled that a strike may be considered legal
when the union believed that the respondent company committed unfair
labor acts and the circumstances warranted such belief in good faith
although subsequently such allegation of unfair labor practices are found out
as not true.

The Ferrer 4 ruling was also upheld in Shell Oil Workers Union vs. Shell
Company of the Phil. Ltd. 5 where We stated that "(i)t is not even required
that there be in fact an unfair labor practice committed by the employer. It
suffices, if such a belief in good faith is entertained by labor as the inducing
factor for staging a strike.
Federation versus Union
In Liberty Cotton Mills Workers Union vs. Liberty Cotton Mills, 2 We held that
the validity of the dismissals pursuant to the security clause of the CBA
hinges on the validity of the disaffiliation of the local union from the
federation. It was further held in this case that PAFLU (the federation) had
the status of an agent while the local union remained the basic unit of
association free to serve the common interest of all its members including
the freedom to disaffiliate when the circumstances warrant such an act.
The right of the local members to withdraw from the federation and to form a
new local depends upon the provisions of the union's constitution, by- laws
and charter. In the absence of enforceable provisions in the federation's
constitution preventing disaffiliation of a local union, a local may sever its
relationship with its parent.
There is no merit to the contention of the respondent federation that the act
of disaffiliation is disloyalty to the union. The federation and the union are
two different entities and it was the federation which actively initiated the
dismissal of the individual petitioners. A local union does not owe its
existence to the federation to which it is affiliated. It is a separate and
distinct voluntary association owing its creation and continued existence to
the will of its members. The very essence of self-organization is for the
workers to form a group for the effective enhancement and protection of
their common interests.
Backwages for illegal dismissal
We adopt the Pepito ruling and We hold that the petitioners in the case at bar
are entitled not only to reinstatement but also to three years backwages
without deduction and qualification. This is justified and proper since the
strike was proved and We held the same to be not illegal but was induced in
the honest belief that management had committed unfair labor practices
and, therefore, the cause of their dismissal from employment was nonexistent. It is clear that management gave cause or reason to induce the
staging of the strike by improperly refusing to recognize the new union
formed by petitioners. It has been twelve (12) years since petitioners were
dismissed from their employment and in their destitute and deplorable
condition, to them the benign provisions of the New Constitution for the
protection of labor, assuring the rights of workers to self- organization,
collective bargaining and security of tenure would be useless and
meaningless. Labor, being the weaker in economic power and resources than
capital, deserve protection that is actually substantial and material.