Nilo Rodriguez et.al vs.

Philippine Airlines

Facts:

The Airline Pilots Association of the Philippines (ALPAP) filed with the National Conciliation and
Mediation Board (NCMB) a Notice of Strike on the grounds of unfair labor practice and union-busting by
PAL. The Secretary of the Department of Labor and Employment assumed jurisdiction over the Strike
Case, and issued an order prohibiting all actual and impending strikes and lockouts. Despite the
abovementioned orders of the DOLE Secretary, ALPAP filed a second Notice of Strike and staged a strike
on the same day. The DOLE Secretary immediately called PAL and ALPAP for conciliation conferences to
amicably settle the dispute between them. After his efforts failed, the DOLE Secretary issued an order
(Return-to-Work Order) ordering the striking employees to return to work within 24 hours from receipt
of the order and for PAL management to receive them under the same terms and conditions prior to the
strike.

The members of ALPAP reported for work but PAL did not accept them on the ground that the 24-hour
period for the strikers to return set by the DOLE Secretary in his Return-to-Work Order had already
lapsed, resulting in the forfeiture of their employment.

Issue:

Did Philippine Airlines illegally dismissed the petioner-complainats of the case?

Does ALPAP cases constitute res judicata?

Law:

Art. 212- A strike is a temporary stoppage of work by the concerted action of employees as a result of an
industrial or labor dispute.

Case History:

Labor Arbiter declared that the complainants are illegally dismissed.

NLRC reversed the decision of the Labor Arbiter.

Court of Appeals affirm the decision of Labor Arbiter with modifications.

Ruling:

(1)The Court held tha among Rodriguez, et, only Jadie was illegally dismissed by PAL. During the strike,
Jadie was already on maternity leave. Jadie did not join the strike and could not be reasonably expected
to report back for work in compliance with the Return-to-Work Order.

Jadie is further entitled to receive benefits due her even prior to her illegal dismissal. All monetary
awards due Jadie shall earn legal interest of 6% per annum from date of finality of this Decision until fully
paid.
(2) The 1st and 2nd ALPAP cases which became final and executory constitute res judicata on the issue of
who participated in the illegal strike in June 1998 and whose services were validly terminated.

Opinion:

In case of illegal dismissal petitioner-complainant must have the burden of proof to establish that they
were dismissed by the employer without just cause. The case at bar could have a different decision if
petioner-complainant did elaborate and raise the fact at the earliest time posssible that they harp on the
inequality of PAL's termination of it's officers and members considering that they were on leave or were
abroad at the time of the strike. They were even barred from returning to their work which excused
them for not complying immediately with the return to work order. We must take note that it has been
held that a proceeding may not be reopened upon grounds already available to the parties during the
pendency of such proceedings; otherwise, it may give way to vicious and vexatious proceedings. ALPAP
was given all the opportunities to present its evidence and arguments. Thus, It cannot complain that it
was denied due process.

Holy Child Catholic School vs. Sto. Tomas

Facts:

A petition for certification election was filed by private respondent Pinag-Isang Tinig at Lakas ng
Anakpawis – Holy Child Catholic School Teachers and Employees Labor Union . Holy Child Parochial
School raised that members of private respondent do not belong to the same class; it is not only a
mixture of managerial, supervisory, and rank-and-file employee as three are vice-principals, one is a
department head/supervisor, and eleven are coordinators but also a combination of teaching and non-
teaching personnel as twenty-seven are non-teaching personnel. It insisted that, for not being in accord
with the Labor Code, private respondent is an illegitimate labor organization lacking in personality to file
a petition for certification election.

Issue:

Can a petition for certification election is dismissible on the ground that the labor organization’s
membership allegedly consists of supervisory and rank-and-file employees?

Law:

Art. 245. Ineligibility of managerial employees to join any labor organization; right of supervisory
employees. Managerial employees are not eligible to join, assist or form any labor organization.
Supervisory employees shall not be eligible for membership in a labor organization of the rank-and-file
employees but may join, assist or form separate labor organizations of their own .

Case History :

Med Arbiter denied the petition for certification election on the ground that the unit which private
respondent sought to represent is inappropriate.

SOLE ruled against the dismissal of the petition and directed the conduct of two separate certification
elections for the teaching and the non-teaching personnel

CA denied the motion for reconsideration

Ruling:

The Supreme Court disagreed and said that the concepts of a union and of a legitimate labor
organization are different from, but related to, the concept of a bargaining unit. Private respondent,
having been validly issued a certificate of registration, should be considered as having acquired juridical
personality which may not be attacked collaterally.

Opinion :

The implementing rules for application of certification of election must be determined by the courts to
avoid confusion. In the given facts of the case there are two implementing rules that can be applied to
the case at bar the 1989 omnibus rule and the amended 1997 omnibus rule.
The courts should also distinguish the difference between joining a collective bargaining unit and joining
a labor organization. It must implement a clear and evident guidelines to avoid confusion and disputes
when a legitimacy of an organization is being questioned.
Malayang Manggagawa ng Stayfast vs. NLRC

Facts:

Two unions were vying to be the SEBA of Stayfast Phils. Inc. thus a CE was held where NLMS-Olalia won.
This was contested by petitioner MMSP-Independent. While the appeal was pending, both unions filed a
notice to strike. MMSP’s was opposed by the company on the ground that it had no personality to file a
notice of strike. MMSP-Inde-pendent later withdrew its notice of strike but subsequently held a sit-down
strike. Company now questions the le-gality of this. SC dismissed the petition due to technicalities but
held that even assuming that the petition was proper, the sit-down strike held by the petitioner union
was illegal because it in violation of respondent company’s rules, and petitioner’s officers and members
ignored the opportunity given by respondent company for them to ex-plain their misconduct, which
resulted in the termination of their employment.

Issue:

Can minority union file a notice of strike considering it is not the exclusive bargaining agent?

Law:

Article 264(e)Prohibited Acts of strike, such as acts of violence, coercion and intimidation and
obstruction of the free ingress to and egress from respondent company’s premises.

Case History :

Labor Arbiter rendered a Decision which ruled that, while petitioner may file a notice of strike on behalf
of its members, the complain against discrimination and illegal dismissal is dismissed for lack of merit.

NLRC unheld the decision of the Labor Arbiter.

CA affirmed the decision of the Labor arbiter and NLRC.

Ruling:

The Court affirmed the decision of the Labor Arbiter which ruled that, while union may file a notice of
strike on behalf of its members, petitioner failed to cite any instance of discrimination or harassment
when it filed its notice of strike and the incidents mentioned as discriminatory occurred after the filing of
the said notice.

Opinion:

The failure of the case was due to the petitioner's fault of ignoring the oportunity given by their
employer to explain and present evidence that will prove that there is a discrimunation on the part of
the employer which resulted to a sit down strike. However, even if there is a pertinent action on the
part of the employer that discriminate them still it will be unlawful to conduct a strike without the
approval of the authorities in charge. Petitioner failed to cite any instance of discrimination or
harassment when it filed its notice of strike and the incidents mentioned as discriminatory occurred after
the filing of the said notice. Moreover, assuming the strike was legal at the beginning, it became illegal
when petitioner committed acts prohibited under Article 264(e) of the Labor Code, such as acts of
violence, coercion and intimidation and obstruction of the free ingress to and egress from respondent
company’s premises.